Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-00-1

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Marine Sanctuaries Division

February 2000

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

Area to be Avoided

Education and Monitoring Program
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Sanctuary Division (MSD)

administers the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Its mission is to identify, designate, protect

and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and

qualities of nationally significant coastal and marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ

widely in their natural and historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging

in size from less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts,

kelp forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, segments

of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine sanctuary has a

tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, monitoring and enforcement

programs vary accordingly. The integration of these programs is fundamental to marine protected

area management. The Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this

integration by providing a forum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently

facing the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Topics of published reports vary substantially and

may include descriptions of educational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and

results of scientific research and monitoring projects. The series will facilitate integration of

natural sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate.
Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-00-1

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided (ATBA)

Education and Monitoring Program

Report by

George Galasso, Assistant Sanctuary Manager

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

U. S. Department of Commerce

William M. Daley, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Under Secretary

Silver Spring, Maryland National Ocean Service

February 2000 Nancy Foster, Assistant Administrator
DISCLAIMER

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the National Marine

Sanctuary Program or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, nor does the

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for

use.

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the National Marine Sanctuaries

Program web site at www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov. Hard copies may be available from the

following address:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Marine Sanctuaries Division

SSMC4, N/ORM62

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

SUGGESTED CITATION

Galasso, George. 2000. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided

(ATBA) Education and Monitoring Program. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-00-

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine

Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, MD. 35 pp.

KEYWORDS

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Area to be Avoided, Vessel Traffic Routing, Vessel

Traffic Management, GIS, Education, Monitoring, Voluntary Compliance, Marine Zoning
i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals and organizations have been involved in the adoption of the Area to

be Avoided (ATBA) and in the subsequent development of the programs described in this

paper. The following individuals are especially deserving of recognition.

CAPT Larry Simoneaux, NOAA Corps and Lindy Johnson, Office of General

Counsel are largely responsible for the current ATBA. The former for developing the ATBA

proposal and the latter for seeing it through adoption by the International Maritime

Organization.

Former Sanctuary Superintendent Todd Jacobs, provided the support and guidance

necessary to establish the education and monitoring programs. Mark Jacobsen from

NOAA’s Special Projects Office assisted the Sanctuary in demonstrating the utility of the

Canadian Coast Guard’s archived radar data. Scott McCreery from Genwest, Inc. developed

the tools used in the monitoring effort. LCDR Rick Fletcher, NOAA Corps oversaw

improvements in monitoring methodologies and assisted in processing data. Lilli Ferguson

consulted with numerous government and industry representatives during the early

development of our education strategy and was responsible for the development of the

ATBA flyer.

Many individuals from the maritime industry have been very helpful in making the

voluntary ATBA a success. Harry Hutchins, (Puget Sound Steamship Operators

Association), and Gerald McMahon, (American Waterways Organization), have been

particularly helpful.

Throughout the process of reviewing various maritime and environmental safety

initiatives, both prior to Sanctuary designation and since, the U. S. Coast Guard has been an

invaluable partner. Margie Hegy, Stan Norman and Gary Greene assisted in the development

and adoption of the ATBA. Coast Guard Captains of the Port – CAPT Rich Softye,

CAPT Chip Boothe and CAPT Mike Moore have been generous with their time and

attention in addressing Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary’s concerns. Our outreach

efforts would not be possible without the support of the Marine Safety Office Puget Sound.

Larry Pokeda and his staff from the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communications

and Traffic Services (MCTS) have been very generous in providing the support necessary for

our monitoring efforts. Larry’s advice in developing both the education and monitoring

efforts have been invaluable.

Finally, I’d like to recognize the diligence of U.S. and Canadian vessel traffic operators

and of the professional mariners who transit the Sanctuary. It is their day-to-day dedication

to maritime and environmental safety that offers the greatest protection to Olympic Coast

National Marine Sanctuary.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables............................................................................................................................... iv

Background................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 1

The Need for an ATBA off the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.............................. 5

Education Program....................................................................................................................... 8

Monitoring Program..................................................................................................................... 10

Targeted Outreach........................................................................................................................ 15

ATBA Analysis........................................................................................................................... 16

Other Applications...................................................................................................................... 26

Recommendations for the Future................................................................................................. 27

Summary...................................................................................................................................... 33

References.................................................................................................................................... 34
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Map of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and Area to be Avoided.......... 6

2 ATBA Education Flyer.................................................................................................... 9

3 Screen shot of LANPARTM log file and an example......................................................... 12

of a shapefile created by the Shiptracker Extension

4 ArcviewTM screen shot - Vessel track monthly summary and ATBA query.................. 13

5 ArcviewTM screen shot - Tank Vessels within ATBA..................................................... 15

6 ArcviewTM screen shot - Individual Vessel Plots............................................................. 16

7 Areal coverage of OCNMS vessel traffic analysis segments........................................... 18

8 1998 Summary by class and area..................................................................................... 20

9 ATBA quarterly performance summary; comparison of relative percentages of............ 23

vessels found within the boundaries of OCNMS that are also within the ATBA

10 ATBA quarterly performance summary (corrected)....................................................... 24

11 Summary of tank vessels (total count for covered days) in the ATBA........................... 25

from July 1995 to September 1999

12 CVTS and U. S. Navy Radar Coverage............................................................................ 29

13 1998 Summary of Freighter Class vessel in the ATBA................................................... 31

14 Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Access Route Study ............................................................ 32

proposed changes to the Traffic Separation Scheme and ATBA
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1 Tofino Archived Data...................................................................................................... 10

2 Excerpt from raw data file................................................................................................ 10

3 Excerpt from data conversion output............................................................................... 11

4 Tofino and OCNMS Vessel Classifications..................................................................... 14

5 Vessel Traffic Data Coverage........................................................................................... 17

6 1998 Summary by Class and Area................................................................................... 19

7 Comparison of 3rd Quarter 1995 with 3rd Quarter 1999.................................................. 21
v

BACKGROUND

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431, as amended) gives the

Secretary of Commerce the authority to designate discrete areas of the marine environment as

National Marine Sanctuaries and provides the authority to promulgate regulations to provide

for the conservation and management of these marine areas. The waters of the Outer

Washington Coast were recognized for their high natural resource and human use values and

placed on the National Marine Sanctuary Program Site Evaluation List in 1983. In 1988,

Congress directed NOAA to designate the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Pub.

L. 100-627).

The Sanctuary, designated in May 1994, worked with the U.S. Coast Guard to

request the International Maritime Organization designate an Area to be Avoided (ATBA) on

the Olympic Coast. The IMO defines an ATBA as "a routeing measure comprising an area

within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly hazardous or it is exceptionally

important to avoid casualties and which should be avoided by all ships, or certain classes of

ships" (IMO, 1991). This ATBA was adopted in December 1994 by the Maritime Safety

Committee of the IMO, “in order to reduce the risk of marine casualty and resulting

pollution and damage to the environment of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary”,

(IMO, 1994). The ATBA went into effect in June 1995 and advises operators of vessels

carrying petroleum and/or hazardous materials to maintain a 25-mile buffer from the coast.

Since that time, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) has created an

education and monitoring program with the goal of ensuring the successful implementation of

the ATBA.

The Sanctuary enlisted the aid of the U.S. and Canadian coast guards, and the marine

industry to educate mariners about the ATBA and to use existing radar data to monitor

compliance. Sanctuary monitoring efforts have targeted education on tank vessels observed

transiting the ATBA. OCNMS's monitoring efforts allow quantitative evaluation of this

voluntary measure. Finally, the tools developed to monitor the ATBA are also used for the

more general purpose of monitoring vessel traffic within the Sanctuary.

While the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary does not currently regulate vessel

traffic, such regulations are within the scope of the Sanctuary’s Final Environmental Impact

Statement/Management Plan. Sanctuary staff participate in ongoing maritime and

environmental safety initiatives and continually seek opportunities to mitigate risks from

marine shipping.
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

. . . here there is no place to land on from out of the grey water. For without are sharp crags,

and round them the wave roars surging, and sheer the smooth rock rises, and the sea is deep

thereby, so that in no wise may I find firm foothold and escape my bane, for as I fain would go

ashore, the great wave may haply snatch and dash me on the jagged rock

- and a wretched endeavour that would be.

Homer, The Odyssey

In Homer's Odyssey Odysseus is cast adrift and finds himself at the mercy of the

elements. Over the years many mariners have found the lee shore of the Olympic Coast,

with place names such as Destruction Island and Graveyard of the Giants, their bane. The

adoption of the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) off the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary was conceived as a buffer to allow help to arrive to adrift vessels along this rocky

and environmentally sensitive coast. Despite advances in technology and our best efforts at

preventing maritime accidents there will always be a certain amount of risk involved in marine

shipping. We must be ever vigilant in improving maritime and environmental safety and seek

to avoid that wretched endeavor of a ship breaking up on a lee shore.

A catastrophic discharge of oil or hazardous materials remains one of the greatest

threats facing the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or Sanctuary).

Reducing this threat has been one of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

(NOAA) highest priorities. The Sanctuary, the third largest in the United States, sits at the

entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a major thoroughfare linking the important North

American ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver with trading partners all around the

Pacific Rim. The juxtaposition of such an important international trade route and a national

marine sanctuary requires the balancing of political, social, economic, and natural resource

issues. Therefore, policies that enhance resource protection need not impede commerce.

Vessel and environmental resource management off the Olympic Coast exemplify how

industry and government can work together and how a healthy environment and a healthy

economy can go hand in hand.

Just as marine transportation forms a vital economic link for Pacific Rim trade, the

Sanctuary forms a vital link among resource management agencies, enforcement organizations

and the maritime transportation industry. The Sanctuary was designated in May 1994.

NOAA worked with the U.S. Coast Guard to propose that the International Maritime

Organization approve and adopt an ATBA off the Olympic Coast. This ATBA, which went

into effect in June 1995, advises operators of vessels carrying petroleum and hazardous

materials1 to maintain a 25-mile buffer from the coast. This distance narrows as the vessel

 

1

 The U.S. Coast Guard has interpreted "hazardous materials" for the purposes of this designation, as those

cargoes covered under 46 CFR 30.25 Commodities Regulated; 46 CFR 151, Table 151.05 Bulk Liquid
2

traffic lanes converge at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is important to note that

the boundaries of the ATBA and of the Sanctuary are not contiguous. National Marine

Sanctuaries are not exclusionary areas (e.g., commercial fishing and shipping occur within

OCNMS).

Since the ATBA was adopted OCNMS has ensured that information on the ATBA

was placed on the appropriate nautical charts and publications. In addition, Sanctuary staff

worked closely with industry and government agencies to develop an education strategy.

This effort resulted in the development of an ATBA flyer distributed in 1996 by the

Washington State Office of Marine Safety, the Puget Sound Steamship Operators

Association, the Marine Exchange of Puget Sound, the Canadian Coast Guard, 13th Coast

Guard District’s Marine Safety Office Puget Sound (MSO) and Vessel Traffic Service Puget

Sound (VTS). A copy of this flyer is also now part of the Coast Guard’s Vessel Traffic

Service’s Users Manual.

To test a belief that voluntary ATBA provisions were widely accepted by the marine

industry, the Sanctuary designed a vessel traffic-monitoring program using Canadian Coast

Guard radar data. Since February 1998 OCNMS and MSO Puget Sound have reviewed a

total of 267 plots of tank vessels in the ATBA. Where it was believed that additional

education was warranted, these plots were forwarded to owner/operators along with

correspondence requesting the owner/operator’s voluntary support of the ATBA. This

correspondence is sent out under the joint signature of the Captain of the Port and the

Sanctuary Superintendent. Response from the marine industry to the program has been very

favorable. In many cases vessel operators have responded back clarifying that the transits in

question were made under ballast, and as such, the recommendations of the ATBA did not

apply. In other cases, vessel operators recognized that their vessels had transited the ATBA

laden with petroleum or hazardous materials and stated that it was, or would now be, their

company's policy to follow the recommendations of the IMO regarding the ATBA. Many of

those responding commented on how the correspondence was useful in educating their crews.

To analyze the effectiveness of the ATBA, as well as other vessel traffic patterns in

the Sanctuary, data were processed and summarized by quarter from July 1995 through

September 1999. The data were analyzed by quarter within three areas: Total (the entire area

of radar coverage), OCNMS (the Sanctuary boundary), and the ATBA. The data illustrate

differences in where vessels transit, according to vessel type (e.g., fishing vessels, freighters,

government/miscellaneous, tank vessels, and tugs/barges). The distribution of vessels in the

study area is influenced by vessel routing measures, great circle routes to Asia, coastal

shipping routes, military operating areas, and fishing grounds.

Performance indicators have been established and are being tracked. These indicators

approximate compliance rates and track the relative effectiveness of the ATBA initiative. An

 

Hazardous Materials Carried in Barges; 46 CFR 153, Table 1 Vessels Carrying Bulk Liquids, Liquefied Gas, or

Compressed Gas Hazardous Materials.
3

approximation of compliance is necessary because the data set does not include 100 percent

of all transits, and information on cargo is incomplete. Three performance indicators were

selected. The first performance indicator monitors all vessels transiting the ATBA, as a

percentage of those vessels transiting within the Sanctuary. This indicator (Vessels in

OCNMS also in the ATBA) can be used to determine if, over time, the relative number of

vessels transiting the ATBA is changing. The second two performance indicators divide all

vessels into two general categories, with non-tank vessels being an approximate measure of

vessels for which the ATBA does not apply and tank vessels being an approximate measure

of vessels that should stay outside the ATBA. Additional performance measures attempted

to allow for the fact that inbound petroleum barges rarely carry product (e.g., these barges are

included in the non-tank category).

From July 1995 through September 1999, the number of vessels transiting the ATBA

decreased, both in absolute numbers and reflected as a percentage of vessels within the

boundaries of the Sanctuary, also in the ATBA. In the third quarter of 1995 there were 643

transits in the ATBA; of these 86 were tank vessels. In the same period of 1999 there were

511 transits in the ATBA, of which 18 were tank vessels. Representing total vessel transits

in the ATBA, as a percentage of those in OCNMS, the values dropped from 27.1 percent to

20.5 percent within the same period. For tank vessels, the values dropped from 22.6 percent

to 4.6 percent in the same period.

Further evaluation of tank vessels within the ATBA illustrates the relative decreases

in the different classes of tank vessels in the OCNMS ATBA since it went into effect in

1995. The most dramatic decreases are in the coastal and ocean going tanker, and barge

categories. From July 1995 to September 1999, the monthly total of these vessels in the

ATBA in these three categories changed dramatically: coastal and ocean going tankers went

from 18 to 1 vessel; tugs with oil and gas barges went from 42 to 12 vessels; and tugs with

chemical barges went from 19 to 1 vessel.

While this positive trend is very encouraging, the future effectiveness of the ATBA

could be negatively impacted by changes in marine trade (e.g., as new vessels/shipping

companies enter the market, it is possible that they may not be aware of the ATBA or the

sensitive nature of the Sanctuary). Therefore, future improvements in the effectiveness of the

ATBA, or at the very least the maintenance of the current effectiveness, will depend upon

the continued involvement of vessel traffic managers, industry groups, and the mariners

themselves.

In addition to monitoring the effectiveness of the OCNMS ATBA, other uses of these

data and methodologies can be applied to other vessel traffic systems and waterways. The

utility of displaying vessel traffic data on GIS augments the information provided by

experienced operators, vessel masters, and pilots. The ability to analyze spatial and temporal

relationships between various classes of vessels in the waterway allows vessel traffic mangers

to test and quantify the observations of marine experts. The combination of expert opinion,
4

with the ability to quantify patterns and trends, can be a powerful tool in the evaluation of a

waterway and the identification of solutions to user conflicts. These tools along with others,

are currently being employed by policy makers to address maritime and environmental safety

in the Sanctuary and adjacent waterways.

Studies of Washington State’s waterways have determined that the three highest risks

of accidents in the Sanctuary are collision, drift groundings, and powered groundings, in that

order. The most likely cause of these accidents are human and organizational error, followed

by physical environment and conflicting vessel operations (Volpe, 1997). By routing certain

classes of vessels further offshore the ATBA addresses both drift and powered groundings.

While the designation of the ATBA has improved maritime and environmental safety within

the Sanctuary, it is only one means of reducing risk. The Sanctuary has been participating in

other initiatives reviewing additional measures to improve maritime and environmental safety

in the region. The implementation of some of these measures may result in improved ATBA

effectiveness.

The implementation of the OCNMS ATBA Education and Monitoring Program has

been greatly aided by the availability of radar data, and the cooperation of industry and the

U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard. The Sanctuary's efforts to view existing radar data on a GIS

system have allowed performance measures to be selected and tracked. Radar data has been

evaluated and a positive correlation between educational efforts and the effectiveness of the

ATBA has been demonstrated.

OCNMS's monitoring program has had additional benefits beyond our outreach

efforts and the evaluation of ATBA effectiveness. The Sanctuary has been able to contribute

to discussions on maritime and environmental safety in the region by providing a more

rigorous evaluation of vessel traffic patterns than would be otherwise possible. This program

has also demonstrated the value of this type of analysis to vessel traffic managers and to

others interested in improving maritime and environmental safety.
5

THE NEED FOR AN ATBA OFF OCNMS

Throughout the Sanctuary designation process, marine shipping was identified as a

threat to the natural resources of the Olympic Coast, as well as being vital to the economic

health of the region. A number of different alternatives were discussed in public scoping

meetings, through written comments, and in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact

Statements. A proposal developed jointly by NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard to designate

an Area to be Avoided (ATBA) was a direct result of these concerns and discussions. The

process of having the ATBA designated by the International Maritime Organization and the

designation of the Sanctuary were parallel efforts, with the ATBA becoming effective one

year after the Sanctuary.

In July 1991, NOAA released the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/Management Plan (DEIS/MP) for the Sanctuary. The DEIS/MP outlined

NOAA’s proposal for the OCNMS, including proposed regulations. The DEIS/MP section

addressing regulatory alternatives for the operation of commercial vessels included two

alternatives: (1) no regulation and (2) regulation of vessel traffic (NOAA, 1991). NOAA's

preferred alternative was not to regulate vessel traffic, but to work with the Coast Guard to

determine if additional regulations and/or emergency response plans were required.

Staff from NOAA’s Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (now the Marine Sanctuaries

Division) reviewed the issue of vessel traffic in preparation for the release of the OCNMS’s

designation document. Comments on the DEIS/MP were reviewed and used to address the

issue of vessel traffic within the proposed Sanctuary. In the preparation of NOAA’s

position on vessel traffic, NOAA consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard, Washington State’s

Office of Marine Safety, and shipping industry representatives. As a result of these

investigations, NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard developed recommendations to the

International Maritime Organization2 (IMO) to designate an area from the shoreward

boundary of the Sanctuary to 25 nautical miles off the outer coast as an Area to be Avoided

(Figure 1). An Area to be Avoided is defined by the IMO as “A routing measure comprising

an area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly hazardous or it is

exceptionally important to avoid casualties and which should be avoided by all ships, or

certain classes of ships” (IMO, 1991).

As a result of this joint NOAA-Coast Guard effort the preferred alternative in the

OCNMS Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (NOAA, 1993) was to

not regulate vessel traffic. However, vessel traffic was listed under the scope of regulations,

which shows that the issue and alternatives were addressed in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement/Management Plan (FEIS/MP), public hearings were held, and public

comments were solicited.

 

2 The International Maritime Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations that addresses

international shipping issues. It is the only international body that establishes and adopts measures on an

international level concerning ship routing and areas to be avoided.
6

The boundaries and provisions of the ATBA resulted, in part, from a hypothetical

scenario developed as part of the FEIS/MP. This scenario illustrated concerns regarding

threats from oil spills in the Sanctuary. The scenario was developed after consultation with

members of the commercial towing community, local meteorologists and weather forecasters,

members of the United States Coast Guard and the United States Navy, and oil spill

trajectory experts. It graphically depicted that response time is critical in the event of a

maritime emergency.

The scenario narrates the fate of a fictitious tug and petroleum barge on a December

transit from a refinery in Anacortes to a port on the Columbia River. Estimates of times for

arrival of assistance tugs and meteorological conditions were obtained from veteran mariners

and forecasters.

Figure 1. Map of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary and Area to be Avoided

In the scenario the ocean going, twin-screw tug, North Wind (fictitious name) takes in

tow a petroleum barge loaded with 30,000 barrels of Marine fuel oil. The tug and tow are

bound from Anacortes to a port on the Columbia River. Anticipated speed over ground is

eight knots. Estimated time of arrival at the Columbia River bar is approximately 30 hours.
7

While the current weather is moderate, the forecast is calls for an offshore, deepening

low pressure system to move onto northern Vancouver Island during the next 24 to 36 hours.

The captain considers all factors and decides he can clear Cape Flattery and be well

southbound before the system comes ashore. Further, he concludes that conditions at the

mouth of the Columbia River in 30 hours will be moderate enough to safely cross the bar

upon arrival.

Twelve hours after departure from Anacortes, North Wind and its barge round buoy

"J" at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The trip through the Strait has been

uneventful. The weather, however, begins to deteriorate. The barometer is falling. Wave

height increases rapidly with the increasing wind.

To save time and in an attempt to beat the approaching system, North Wind takes up

a southbound course using the published "Towboat-Crabber" traffic lane. This lane is a

north/south route passing approximately seven nautical miles (nm) west of Cape Alava.

Although the North Wind's parent company has established a policy of voluntary

adherence to a trackline 10 to 30 nm offshore when towing a loaded petroleum barge, this

practice is not followed today due to unfavorable weather conditions offshore.

As the North Wind's proceeds southbound the low pressure system is still moving

toward Vancouver Island but is rapidly deepening. As the front passes the seas and winds

continue to build. During a period of exceptionally high sea and swell combinations, the

towline parts. The petroleum barge is now adrift. Recognizing the danger, the captain

notifies the Coast Guard of the situation and begins attempts to recover the barge.

The scenario continues in great detail, but the key points are that the North Wind’s

attempts to retrieve the barge are unsuccessful and that help does not arrive in time to

prevent the barge from grounding and breaking up.

Since the Sanctuary and the ATBA were designated, several tugs have lost their tows

within, or adjacent to the Sanctuary. While none of these incidents resulted in a discharge,

they demonstrate the value in having tugs under tow transiting further off the coast:

• March 28, 1999 - Tug Ralph E Bouchard with a petroleum barge in tow in very heavy

seas, had its tow wire part. The Ralph E Bouchard was able to recover the barge without

any damage to the tug or barge.

• February 17, 1999 - Tug Western Navigator towing a petroleum barge was subject to

heavy seas and wind when the tow wire parted. Tow was reestablished with an Orville

Hook (emergency retrieval system) after two hours.

• November 25, 1998 - Tug Robert L with a petroleum barge in tow was waiting out heavy

weather, off the Columbia River Bar, when its tow wire part. No assistance was
8

available, due to Grays Harbor and Columbia Bar conditions. The Robert L successfully

deployed an Orville Hook and snagged the barge bridle.

• December 14, 1995 – Tug Sea Valiant towing a barge of urea, lost its tow 27 nautical

miles west of Point Grenville. A brake failed, stripping all the tow wire off the tow

machine. After approximately five hours the Sea Valiant was able rig a temporary tow

arrangement.

The lack of dedicated emergency response towing vessels in the Strait of Juan de

Fuca, along the western Washington coast, or in Puget Sound continues to be a major

maritime and environmental safety issue for the region (OMS, 1994; Volpe, 1997; Coast

Guard, 1999a; Coast Guard, 1999b). In response to a call for a dedicated emergency towing

vessel (OMS, 1994), the maritime industry has sponsored an International Tug of

Opportunity System (ITOS). Managed by the Seattle Marine Exchange, ITOS tracks

approximately 100 participating tugs in the region. In the event of an emergency the Seattle

Marine Exchange would assist the Coast Guard in identifying and dispatching the nearest tug

of opportunity to the distressed vessel. The U.S. Coast Guard has recently evaluated the

effectiveness of ITOS and found it to provide an incremental improvement to safety and

environmental protection in Puget Sound area waters. However, in the waters in the western

half of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and offshore approaches (including OCNMS), ITOS is not

as effective. In the ITOS evaluation segment 2, which is contiguous with the northern

portions of the ATBA and OCNMS, the probability of an ITOS tug being available and

willing to assist a given vessel is approximately 13 percent (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999).

EDUCATION PROGRAM

In the time since ATBA designation, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary has

worked to ensure that information about the ATBA was placed on the appropriate nautical

charts and publications, such as the Coast Pilot and the Local Notice to Mariners. In

addition, Sanctuary staff worked closely with industry to educate them about the Sanctuary

and ATBA. In 1996, 28 personal interviews were conducted with representatives from

government regulatory bodies, the shipping industry, academia and nonprofit organizations.

The purpose of the interviews was to help shape the design of an educational piece to be

distributed to the shipping industry and to gather information about available information on

vessel traffic monitoring (Ferguson, 1996).

As a result of these consultations, OCNMS staff decided that a one page, doublesided flyer (Figure 2) would be the most effective way to educate mariners about the ATBA.

Five thousand color flyers were distributed in 1996 by the Washington State Office of

Marine Safety, the Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association, the Marine Exchange of

Puget Sound, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Marine Safety Office Puget Sound, and Vessel

Traffic Service Puget Sound. A copy of this flyer is also now part of the Coast Guard’s

Vessel Traffic Service’s Users Manual (U.S. Coast Guard, 1998). A second phase of the

education program, involving targeted outreach efforts, is described later in the paper.
9

Figure 2. ATBA education flyer
10

MONITORING PROGRAM

At the time the ATBA was designated, there was generally believed to be a high

degree of compliance to IMO adopted ATBAs. However, there was no hard evidence which

supported or contradicted this assumption. To test this assumption, the Sanctuary designed

a vessel traffic-monitoring program which collected information on shipping in the Sanctuary

and the ATBA. The Sanctuary-designed vessel traffic study and monitoring program

provides quantitative data on shipping use in the Sanctuary and within the ATBA.

The monitoring program uses Canadian Coast Guard data from the Tofino Marine

Communications and Traffic System (MCTS) to monitor the vessel traffic patterns in and

adjacent to the Sanctuary and to determine the level of compliance with the ATBA. A radar

station located at Mt. Ozzard, British Columbia, with a range of 50-60 nautical miles; this

area covers a portion of the northern part of the OCNMS and the ATBA. The MCTS

Center in Ucluelet, B.C. has archived vessel information at various intervals (Table 1), noting

the vessel name, class of vessel, latitude and longitude, and other information. This

information is the best source of data for the area.

Table 1. Tofino MCTS Archived Data (position interval and coverage)

Time Period Position Interval Approximate % of days covered

Pre-June 95 (paper copy only) Hourly interval unknown

June 95 - April 97 Hourly interval 78

May 97 - October 98 5-minute interval 94

November 98 - September 99 2-minute interval 90

The Sanctuary contracted with Genwest Systems, Inc. to develop a data conversion

program (LANPARTM) written in Visual Basic, which converts archived Tofino vessel track

data (Table 2) to a database file (Table 3). This dBase III file is then imported into an

ArcViewTM GIS format, using an extension (Shiptracker) also created by Genwest. This

allows the data to be displayed and for spatial analysis to be conducted on the data.

The input file contains ten different record types. LANPARTM reads only the "A",

"F" and "G" records. The "A" record contains the date in a YY-MM-DD format. The "F"

record contains a 3-position vessel ID and the vessel's name assigned to each radar contact by

Tofino MCTS operators. The "G" record contains the vessel's track ID, time, vessel type

and geographic position in DDDMMSS format (Genwest, 1999; McCreery, 1999).

Table 2. Excerpt from raw data file from Tofino MCTS

 012450 F C22 SR BATON ROUGE

 012640 G C19B 490945 1261119

 012640 G C222 483449 1265314

 012640 G C14L 490208 1265018

 012640 G C21C 484212 1251746

 012830 A VTMS LOG TOF TRAFFIC 99-05-01 0020
11

The output format of LANPARTM is dBase III format as required by the Shiptracker

Extension to ArcViewTM developed by Genwest Systems, Inc. for the Sanctuary.

LANPARTM output is in the following format:

VESSELNAME Vessel Name provided by the Tofino Operator

VESSELTYPE Vessel Type expanded from TOFINOCODE

CLASSNAME General Class Name designated by OCNMS

DATE YY-MM-DD provided by the raw Tofino data

TIME HHMMSS provided by the raw Tofino data

LATITUDE Latitude converted to decimal degrees

LONGITIUDE Longitude converted to decimal degrees

TRACKID Tracker ID number, in the range A00 - D99

MAJORCLASS Class of vessel determined by TOFINOCODE

TOFINOCOD Vessel type provided by Tofino System

IN_OUTBND I (inbound) or O (outbound) based on vessel track

COURSEGOOD Course Made Good using first and last points of track

Table 3. Excerpt from data conversion output

VESSEL

NAME

VESSEL

TYPE

CLASS

NAME

DATE TIME LATITUDE LONGITUDE TRACK

ID

MAJOR

CLASS

TOFINO

CODE

IN_OUT

BND

COURSE

GOOD

SR

BATON

ROUGE

Ocean

Going

Tanker

Tank Vessel 99-05-01 012439 48.58027649 -126.88722229 C22 1 2 I 093

General

Cargo

Freighters 99-05-01 012640 49.03555679 -126.83833313 C14 2 L O 280

Tug Misc.

Barge

Tugs/Barges 99-05-01 012640 49.16250229 -126.18861389 C19 3 B I 113

Tug Chip

Barge

Tugs/Barges 99-05-01 012640 48.70333481 -125.29611206 C21 3 C I 111

General

Cargo

Freighters 99-05-01 012840 49.03749847 -126.84611511 C14 2 L O 280

Tug Misc.

Barge

Tugs/Barges 99-05-01 012840 49.15972519 -126.18416595 C19 3 B I 113

Experience has shown inconsistencies with the data related to actions by the

operators and in how the Tofino MCTS tracking software logs radar contacts. Vessel

tracklines are logged in 24-hour segments. Therefore, if a vessel is within MCTS’s radar

coverage past midnight, that vessel’s transit will be split between two files. MCTS operators

occasionally lose radar contact with participating vessels. When this occurs, the vessel’s icon

remains on the system and its last known position continues to be logged. MCTS operators

may also manually move the vessel’s icon along its projected route. This may result in an

inaccurate trackline represented on the GIS plots of the data. When a vessel enters port and

the MCTS operator has reason to believe that the vessel is departing the traffic system for a

short interval (e.g., a fishing vessel temporarily entering Barkley Sound), the vessel’s icon

may be dragged inland. This allows the MCTS operator to quickly reassign the vessel its

previous identification code when it reenters the system. This results in some tracklines
12

appearing to run inland. This also occurs when operators create a vessel record prior to the

vessel's radar blip appearing on the screen, such as when a vessel is outbound from the Strait

of Juan de Fuca, but still under U. S. Coast Guard control.

Figure 3. Screen shot of LANPARTM log file and an example of a shapefile created by the Shiptracker

Extension

In order to address some of these inconsistencies, LANPARTM sorts and filters some

data. Since the data files are logged in discrete days, it is common for a vessel to begin its

transit through the vessel traffic system on one day and to continue to the next. When data is

batch processed, LANPARTM looks at consecutive files, determines if data extends over more

then one input file and moves the data from the subsequent file to the first file. The

LANPARTM software calculates the velocity between each point in the trackline and

eliminates the point if the apparent velocity between points exceeds a threshold velocity.

This velocity is set by the user, with a 50-knot default. Another function removes

consecutive records with the same geographic position. This eliminates data logged to file

when the Tofino tracking software loses the radar blip, but continues to log the last known

position. LANPARTM creates a log file (Figure 3), which documents information related to

the above edits for each data conversion session. For example, the log file for data batch
13

processed for May 1999 includes information on removed positions for each individual

(daily) file and the following summary data:

input moved converted same position velocity error output

Run Totals: 189,617 45,225 189,617 33,084 1,073 155,460

For May 1999, of the 31 files processed, LANPARTM read in 189,617 vessel

positions. Of those 45,225 were moved so that vessel positions from multiple files (vessel

underway for more then a single day) are represented as a single track; 33,084 positions were

removed for having identical positions (radar tracking lost); and 1,073 positions were

removed for velocity errors. The output 155,460 vessel positions represents 1,211 vessel

transits for May 1999.

Figure 4. Vessel tracks are summarized monthly and queried to identify vessel distribution by type within the

Sanctuary's Area to be Avoided.

The Sanctuary receives monthly radar summaries from the Canadian Coast Guard.

Using LANPARTM, these text files are filtered and converted to a dBase III format. Using the

NOAA OCNMS Shiptracker extension, these radar data points are displayed as vessel tracks

in a shapefile (Figure 4). Some manual editing is necessary to remove obviously erroneous

data points (e.g., plots on land). Vessel track data is then summarized monthly and queried
14

to identify vessel distribution, by type, within the Sanctuary’s ATBA. The OCNMS tank

vessel classification (Table 4) includes vessels, which by the nature of their classification may

be carrying cargoes of petroleum product or hazardous materials. Using these classifications,

tank vessels within the ATBA are identified. For example, in May 1999, nine tank vessels

were observed within the ATBA (Figure 5).

Table 4. Tofino and OCNMS Vessel Classifications

OCNMS VESSEL

CLASSIFICATIONS

TOFINO VESSEL

CLASSIFICATIONS

TOFINO CODES

TANK VESSELS COASTAL TANKER 1

OCEAN GOING TANKER 2

VLCC TANKER 3

ULCC TANKER 4

LPG/LNG TANKER 5

CHEMICAL TANKER 6

VEG OIL/MOLASSES TANKER 7

O/B/O 8

TUG OIL/GAS BARGE D

TUG CHEMICAL BARGE J

FREIGHTERS BULK CARRIER K

GENERAL CARGO L

CONTAINER N

COASTAL O

PASSENGER P

REEFER Q

RO-RO R

VEHICLE CARRIER V

TUGS/BARGES TUG LIGHT A

TUG MISC BARGE B

TUG CHIP BARGE C

TUG LOG BARGE E

RAIL BARGE F

LOG TOW G

TUG TARGET TOW X

FISHING VESSELS COMMERCIAL F/V Z

FACTORY F/V M

GOVERNMENT/MISC GOVERNMENT T

SCIENTIFIC/RESEARCH S

WARSHIP W

HYDRO/HOVER ETC H

PRIVATE YACHT Y

OTHERS I
15

Figure 5. Tank Vessels within the Sanctuary's Area to be Avoided are identified.

TARGETED OUTREACH

As a result of OCNMS's monitoring efforts, a compilation of individual plots of tank

vessels in the ATBA is forwarded to the Marine Safety Office Puget Sound (Figure 6). These

individual plots are used in the second phase of our education efforts. The Coast Guard sends

out correspondence under the joint signature of the Captain of the Port and the Sanctuary

Superintendent, which:

• Notifies the vessel owner/operator that their vessel was identified as having transited the

ATBA;

• Notes that the monitoring methodology does not distinguish between vessels which are

laden or transiting without product, and as such we occasionally send out plots of tank

vessels for which the ATBA recommendations do not apply;

• The letter requests feedback on the accuracy of the vessel plots, and;

• Finally, and most significantly, requests the owner/operators' voluntary support of the

ATBA.
16

Figure 6. Individual vessel tracks are created and forwarded to the MSO Puget Sound. The Captain of the Port

sends out educational information to the identified vessel informing them of the Sanctuary and the ATBA and

requesting their cooperation

In February 1998, OCNMS began sending MSO Puget Sound these individual vessel

plots. While the Sanctuary has Tofino MCTS data dating back to June 1995 (the effective

date of the ATBA), the creation of individual plots started with June 1997. Since that time

the Sanctuary and the Coast Guard have reviewed 267 plots of tank vessels in the ATBA and

sent out letters where it was believed that further educational efforts would be of value.

Response from the marine industry to the program has been very favorable. In many cases,

vessel operators have responded back clarifying that the transits in question were made under

ballast and, as such, the recommendations of the ATBA did not apply. In other cases vessel

operators recognized that their vessels had transited the ATBA laden with petroleum or

hazardous materials and stated that it was, or would now be, their company's policy to

follow the recommendations of the IMO regarding the ATBA.

ATBA ANALYSIS

When the ATBA was first established in June 1995, it was generally believed that

such areas enjoyed a high level of compliance. The monitoring program subsequently

developed by the Sanctuary had a dual purpose; first, to test this assumption; and second, to

actively improve the ATBA's effectiveness by providing feedback to vessel traffic managers
17

and industry. Conceptually, the ATBA education and monitoring program could have been

organized in such a manner that the effectiveness of different education efforts could have

been evaluated by tracking of traffic patterns. Ideally, the monitoring system would have

been in place prior to the ATBA effective date, establishing a vessel traffic pattern baseline.

The monitoring program would also have benefited from having information on the cargoes of

vessels, in addition to the vessel type. For instance, a tank vessel may be light and appear to

be subject to the ATBA, while a container ship carrying hazardous cargo would appear not to

be subject to the ATBA. Finally, the effectiveness of the OCNMS/Coast Guard outreach

efforts would be easier to evaluate if the letters to the industry had been more timely. Due to

the lack of personnel resources, and some difficulties with software, some of the plots/letters

were sent out up to a year after the transit occurred. The current goal is to send out

plots/letters within one month of the observed ATBA transit. More timely feedback will

improve the effectiveness of the outreach efforts.

It was OCNMS's original intention to determine and track the rate of compliance to

the IMO voluntary ATBA. Because of limits with the data set, an absolute compliance rate

cannot be determined; however, rigorous performance indicators can be established and

tracked. To analyze the effectiveness of the ATBA, as well as other vessel traffic patterns in

the Sanctuary, monthly summaries used in the ATBA education and monitoring program

(June 1997 to September 1999) were combined into quarterly summaries. In addition, the

preceding two years of data were also processed and summarized by quarter (June 1995 to

May 1997). As previously discussed (Table 1), these data vary in their rate of archived

position information (60-minute to 2-minute intervals) and in the number of days covered.

Because of the variation in the coverage rates of the data set (Table 1 and Table 5), the

following analysis is based on relative comparisons between vessel types and vessel classes

over time and space. The temporal aspect of the analysis is by quarter and the spatial aspect

of the analysis looks at three general areas: Total or CVTS (the entire area of radar coverage),

OCNMS (the Sanctuary boundary) and the ATBA (Figure 7).

Table 5. Percentage of days covered by archived vessel traffic data

1

st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

1995 95% 98%

1996 56% 45% 76% 81%

1997 100% 92% 99% 99%

1998 99% 100% 99% 92%

1999 79% 98% 95%

The "Total" area would include all vessels participating in the Cooperative Vessel

Traffic System (CVTS). Participating vessels are 20 meters or greater, including tugs and

tows. The "OCNMS" area includes the portion of the Sanctuary contiguous with the Tofino

MCTS radar coverage. The southern entrance lane and the inbound lanes of the northern

approach are within OCNMS. While OCNMS summaries will include greater numbers of
18

inbound versus outbound vessels, it was selected as an analysis segment for two reasons: (1)

it allows the analysis of Sanctuary specific traffic management issues and (2) this area

includes the population of vessels which use the southern approach. With the exception of

inbound vessels using the northern approach, these are the vessels which could potentially

transit the ATBA. Querying the "ATBA" area allows analysis of the success of the ATBA

program as well as identifying other vessels transiting closer inshore within the Sanctuary.

Figure 7. Areal coverage of OCNMS vessel traffic analysis segments

A cursory review of the data illustrates differences in where vessels transit according

to vessel type. The distribution of vessels in the study area is influenced by vessel routing

measures (the ATBA and the Traffic Separation Scheme), great circle routes to Asia, coastal

shipping routes, military operating areas, and fishing grounds. Analysis of various vessel

classes can illustrate the relative distribution of vessels. Although not included in this report,

differences in the seasonality of vessel traffic patterns have also been observed. A summary

for 1998 (Table 6 and Figure 8) illustrates some of the following differences:

• a decrease in the relative percentage of tank vessels transiting the OCNMS compared to

those transiting the ATBA

• an increase in the relative percentage of tugs/barges transiting the OCNMS compared to

those transiting the ATBA
19

• a decrease in the relative percentage of freighters transiting the OCNMS compared to

those transiting the ATBA

• a decrease in the relative percentage of fishing vessels within the total radar coverage of

the MCTS radar, compared to those seen within the OCNMS, with a further decrease

within the ATBA

While a thorough spatial and temporal analysis of the CVTS data set could provide

additional details on some of these differences, the analysis concentrates on the behavior of

tank vessels in the ATBA.

Table 6. 1998 Summary, by class, of total vessels participating in the CVTS and subsets within OCNMS and

ATBA

1998 Summary CVTS Total OCNMS ATBA

Fishing Vessel 1905 656 90

Freighters 7553 5534 1075

Govt./Misc. 1730 935 202

Tank Vessel 1967 1515 160

Tugs/Barges 1284 826 669

Total 14439 9466 2196

Performance indicators can approximate the ATBA compliance rate and track the

relative effectiveness of the ATBA initiative. An estimate of compliance is necessary

because the data set does not include 100 percent of all transits and information on cargo is

incomplete. Figure 9 illustrates the following three performance indicators:

1. ATBA vessels: The percentage of all vessels within the boundary of the Sanctuary

(within CVTS radar coverage) which are also within the ATBA

2. ATBA non-tank vessels : A subset of performance indicator “1” which includes

freighters, tugs/barges, fishing vessels and government/misc. (Table 4)

3. ATBA tank vessels: A subset of performance indicator “1” which includes tank vessels

(Table 4)

The first performance indicator can be used to determine if, over time, fewer vessels

are transiting within the ATBA. The second two performance indicators divide all vessels

into very general categories, with non-tank vessels being a measure of vessels for which the

ATBA does not apply and tank vessels being a measure of vessels that should stay outside

the ATBA.

Through correspondence with industry we now have a better understanding of the

nature of some parts of the trade (e.g., some tank vessels identified transiting the ATBA were

not carrying product). It is our understanding that inbound petroleum barges rarely carry

product (McMahon, 1999), and we are no longer sending correspondence to these vessels.
20

1998 CVTS Summary

Percentages of vessels by class

participating in the CVTS and

under the radar coverage of the

Tofino MCTS

1998 OCNMS Summary

Percentages of vessels by class within

the Sanctuary

Subset of CVTS vessels, includes the

southern lanes and the inbound northern

lanes

1998 ATBA Summary

Percentages of vessels by class

within the ATBA

Subset of OCNMS vessels

Figure 8. 1998 Summary, by class, and by area: CVTS, OCNMS and ATBA

Fishing Vessel

13%

Freighters

52%

Govt./Misc.

12%

Tank Vessel

14%

Tugs/Barges

9%

Fishing Vessel

7%

Freighters

58%

Govt./Misc.

10%

Tank Vessel

16%

Tugs/Barges

9%

Fishing Vessel

4%

Freighters

50%

Govt./Misc.

9%

Tank Vessel

7%

Tugs/Barges

30%
21

Figure 10 reflects these findings, by placing inbound oil barges in the non-tank

column, resulting in two additional performance indicators:

4. ATBA non-tank vessels in -corrected

5. ATBA tank vessels in -corrected

Figure 9 illustrates changes in vessel traffic patterns in the Sanctuary for the period

from July 1995 through September 1999. During this period, the number of vessels transiting

the ATBA has decreased; this is true for both absolute numbers and reflected as a percentage

of vessels within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, also in the ATBA. In the third quarter of

1995, there were 643 transits in the ATBA, of these 86 were tank vessels. In 1999, for the

same period there were 511 transits in the ATBA, of which 18 were tank vessels (Table 7).

Representing total vessel transits in the ATBA, as a percentage of those in OCNMS, the

values dropped from 27.1 percent to 20.5 percent for the same period. For tank vessels, the

values dropped from 22.6 percent to 4.6 percent in the same period.

Table 7. Comparison of third quarter 1995 with third quarter 1999

3

rd Quarter 1995 - # transits 3rd Vessel Class Quarter 1999 - # transits

CVTS OCNMS ATBA CVTS OCNMS ATBA

Fishing Vessels 491 112 14 461 115 32

Freighters 1974 1406 323 2051 1523 270

Govt./Misc. 452 298 68 585 303 91

Tank Vessel 482 380 86 502 395 18

Tugs/Barges 279 177 152 300 155 100

Total 3678 2373 643 3397 2491 511

Further evaluation of tank vessels within the ATBA (Figure 11) illustrates the relative

decreases in the different classes of tank vessels in the OCNMS ATBA since it went into

effect in 1995. The most dramatic decreases are in the coastal and ocean going tanker, and

barge categories. From the third quarter in 1995 to the third quarter in 1999 the number of

vessels in the ATBA in these three categories changed significantly:

• coastal & ocean going tankers went from 18 to 1 vessel

• tugs with oil/gas barges went from 42 to 12 vessels (includes inbound and outbound

transits)

• tugs with chemical barges went from 19 to 1 vessel

The effectiveness of the ATBA could be negatively impacted by changes in marine

trade. For example, as the nature of the market changes it is possible to have

owners/operators new to the area that may not be aware of the ATBA or the sensitive nature

of the Sanctuary. Therefore, future improvements in the effectiveness of the ATBA, or at
22

the very least the maintenance of the current effectiveness, will depend upon the continued

involvement in vessel traffic managers, industry groups and the mariners themselves.

The ATBA went into effect in June 1995. Since that time information on the ATBA

has been published in the Local Notice to Mariners, as chart corrections in the Notice to

Mariners, plotted on new chart editions, in the Coast Pilot, and in the VTS user guide (Coast

Guard, 1998). In addition, OCNMS has developed and distributed informational flyers and

has instituted a targeted outreach campaign. While the data displayed in Figure 9 shows a

definite trend, it is difficult to evaluate the relative value of each of these educational efforts.

However, industry compliance to the IMO voluntary ATBA has steadily improved since its

designation. The author believes that the CVTS vessel traffic data, along with industry

correspondence, indicate that the OCNMS ATBA education and monitoring program is

improving the effectiveness of the ATBA. Being able to track compliance is a vital

component of any maritime and environmental safety initiative, either voluntary or

regulatory.
23

Figure 9. ATBA quarterly performance summary, comparison of relative percentages of vessels found within

the boundaries of OCNMS which are also within the ATBA

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

OCNMS vessels in ATBA 27.1% 28.6% 26.7% 27.6% 23.5% 21.5% 22.4% 21.9% 21.9% 20.5% 22.6% 21.5% 26.2% 22.3% 20.6% 21.9% 20.5%

OCNMS non-tank vessels in ATBA 27.9% 27.5% 26.8% 28.6% 23.7% 22.4% 23.5% 23.3% 23.3% 22.3% 25.0% 24.2% 28.5% 24.3% 23.6% 24.1% 23.5%

OCNMS tank vessels in ATBA 22.6% 33.9% 26.0% 22.7% 22.7% 16.8% 17.2% 13.9% 14.0% 10.9% 10.7% 7.2% 12.4% 12.3% 5.1% 7.7% 4.6%

3rd qtr 

95

4th qtr 

95

1st qtr 

96

2nd qtr 

96

3rd qtr 

96

4th qtr 

96

1st qtr 

97

2nd qtr 

97

3rd qtr 

97

4th qtr 

97

1st qtr 

98

2nd qtr 

98

3rd qtr 

98

4th qtr 

98

1st qtr 

99

2nd qtr 

99

3rd qtr 

99
24

Figure 10. ATBA quarterly performance summary (inbound oil/gas barges treated as non-tank vessel);

comparison of relative percentages of vessels found within the boundaries of OCNMS which are

also within the ATBA

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

OCNMS vessels in ATBA 27.1% 28.6% 26.7% 27.6% 23.5% 21.5% 22.4% 21.9% 21.9% 20.5% 22.6% 21.5% 26.2% 22.3% 20.6% 21.9% 20.5%

OCNMS non-tank vessels in ATBA-corrected 28.8% 28.9% 27.8% 29.7% 25.0% 23.0% 24.2% 24.1% 23.9% 22.9% 25.2% 24.4% 29.0% 24.7% 23.3% 23.9% 23.4%

OCNMS tank vessels in ATBA-corrected 17.0% 27.2% 20.9% 15.6% 15.3% 12.9% 13.1% 7.1% 8.5% 5.7% 8.4% 3.1% 5.6% 8.1% 4.4% 5.5% 2.8%

3rd qtr 

95

4th qtr 

95

1st qtr 

96

2nd qtr 

96

3rd qtr 

96

4th qtr 

96

1st qtr 

97

2nd qtr 

97

3rd qtr 

97

4th qtr 

97

1st qtr 

98

2nd qtr 

98

3rd qtr 

98

4th qtr 

98

1st qtr 

99

2nd qtr 

99

3rd qtr 

99
25

Figure 11. Summary of tank vessels (total count for covered days) in the ATBA from July 1995 to September

1999

Percentage of days covered 95% 98% 56% 45% 76% 81% 100% 92% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 92% 79% 98% 95%

Coastal & Ocean Going Tanker 18 17 10 8 9 16 15 4 2 0 6 3 4 4 1 5 1

LPG/LNG Tanker 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Chemical Tanker 5 7 2 2 6 5 4 3 4 2 9 3 2 4 3 3 4

Veg Oil Molasses Tanker 1 7 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0

Tug Oil/Gas Barge 42 79 36 42 38 26 25 31 30 28 14 18 35 26 6 12 12

Tug Chemical Barge 19 36 15 15 15 5 21 9 14 10 11 5 4 7 2 7 1

Total 86 147 65 67 70 54 67 48 50 41 40 29 47 44 13 27 18

3rd Qtr 

95

4th Qtr 

95

1st Qtr 

96

2nd Qtr 

96

3rd Qtr 

96

4th Qtr 

96

1st Qtr 

97

2nd Qtr 

97

3rd Qtr 

97

4th Qtr 

97

1st Qtr 

98

2nd Qtr 

98

3rd Qtr 

98

4th Qtr 

98

1st Qtr 

99

2nd Qtr 

99

3rd Qtr 

99
26

OTHER APPLICATIONS

In addition to monitoring the effectiveness of the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary ATBA these data have other uses. Lessons from this specific monitoring effort

can be applied to other vessel traffic systems and waterways. This section briefly discusses

other uses of the specific data set used in the OCNMS ATBA program, as well as a more

general discussion on the value of using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in vessel

traffic management.

Vessel traffic operators monitor real-time radar data and advise or, in some cases,

direct vessels within the waterway. These operators have been a valuable source of

information on the behavior of different classes of vessels in different segments of the

waterway. They are familiar with vessel traffic patterns and are able to advise waterway

managers on potential difficulties with the existing waterway. Analyzing vessel traffic data

on GIS complements the expert opinion of experienced operators, vessel masters, and pilots.

The ability to analyze spatial and temporal relationships between various classes of vessels

in the evaluation of the waterway allows vessel traffic mangers to test and quantify the

observations of marine experts. The combination of expert opinion and the ability to

quantify patterns and trends can be a powerful tool in the evaluation of a waterway and the

identification of solutions to user conflicts.

While the Sanctuary originally developed the LANPAR and Shiptracker programs to

utilize CVTS data to monitor traffic in the ATBA, additional uses of this tool quickly

emerged. As an important stakeholder in maritime and environmental safety in the region,

NOAA has often commented to Department of Transportation dockets, which have

requested comment on the need for additional measures in the waterway. Many of our

comments have been based on our analysis of the CVTS data. The ability to graphically

display various vessel traffic patterns has also improved the value of our contributions to the

Department of Transportation's efforts. The following examples of our use of vessel traffic

GIS data are from Sanctuary comments to Dockets3 OST-1997-3286, USCG-1998-4501, and

USCG-1999-4974:

• Graphically displayed vessel traffic patterns and densities in OCNMS;

• for the entire waterway;

• for tug/barge traffic in the vicinity of Duntze Rock;

• illustrated fishing vessels density;

• Provided an independent analysis of tug transits/area estimates in the different ITOS

coverage areas, as reported in the U.S. Coast Guard Addendum Report to Congress on the

International, Private Sector Tug-of-Opportunity System;

• Demonstrated how the CVTS radar data could be used to evaluate ITOS;

 

3

 Comments to these, and other dockets, can be downloaded from http://dms.dot.gov/
27

• Provided analysis of relative usage of north and south vessel traffic lanes, by inbound and

outbound for each individual vessel class.

In addition to the above, the Sanctuary has assisted the U. S. Coast Guard in a Port

Access Routes Study evaluating a possible traffic separation scheme (TSS) realignment. The

OCNMS vessel monitoring system was used to look for high concentrations of commercial

fishing activity, analyze the relative usage of the north and south approaches to the Strait of

Juan de Fuca, and analyze tug traffic at the entrance to the Strait.

The following capabilities, both those of the Sanctuary system as well as potential

enhancements, are offered for consideration as potential improvements to currently existing

vessel traffic systems:

• Existing OCNMS capabilities;

• Determining relative vessel densities by vessel type and class;

• Determining relative usage of different portions of the waterway (TSS, inshore lanes

and environmentally sensitive areas) by vessel type;

• Tracking seasonality of vessel traffic patterns;

• Tracking vessel traffic trends;

• Assisting education and law enforcement activities (e.g., unreported oil slicks).

• Playback capability to evaluate incidents (e.g., close quarters or collision);

• Additional capabilities recommended for future monitoring systems;

• Correlating vessel behavior (presence/absence, speed and routing) related to varying

conditions (high vessel density, visibility, and severe weather);

• Developing additional query capabilities by adding fields to the vessel database (e.g.,

flag of state, cargo status, last port of call, destination, and risk screening information).

Capturing real-time vessel traffic data and making it available for more in-depth

analysis can augment day-to-day vessel traffic management capabilities. Similar vessel traffic

monitoring capabilities could be considered for implementation in waterways that currently

have vessel traffic systems and/or be incorporated into future Automatic Identification

Systems (AIS)4.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

The Volpe Study determined that the three most likely causes of accidents in the

Sanctuary were collision, drift groundings, and powered groundings, in that order (Volpe,

1997). By routing certain classes of vessels further offshore, the OCNMS ATBA addresses

both drift and powered groundings. While the designation of the ATBA has improved

 

4

 Automatic Identification System (AIS) technology allows vessels to broadcast their position, name and other

information to other vessels and shore stations. AIS systems (e.g., ITOS) are being considered and implemented

both regionally and internationally.
28

maritime and environmental safety within the Sanctuary, addressing two classes of accidents

for a limited population of commercial vessels, it is only one means of improving maritime

and environmental safety in OCNMS. The Sanctuary has been participating in other

initiatives reviewing additional measures, which are evaluating additional measures to improve

maritime and environmental safety in the region, including:

• Port Access Routes Study; Strait of Juan de Fuca and Adjacent Waters - F.R. Vol. 64,

No. 72, Thursday, April 15, 1999 (PARS);

• Improvements to Marine Safety in Puget Sound-Area Waters - F.R. Vol. 64, No. 79,

Monday, April 26, 1999 (Tug Cost-Benefit Analysis);

• Navigational Safety Advisory Panel; North Puget Sound Long-term Risk Management

Panel - F.R. Vol. 64, No. 171, Friday, September 3, 1999 (NPSRMP);

• States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk

Management Working Group (Offshore routing working group).

The population of potential measures includes both universal measures, which

improve maritime and environmental safety throughout the nation or the world, and local

measures, which address waterway specific initiatives. While the Sanctuary recognizes the

role of universal measures in protecting OCNMS resources, the Sanctuary's efforts have been

concentrated on site-specific initiatives. In the previously mentioned Coast Guard dockets,

as well as in other forums, the Sanctuary has commented on:

• extending radar coverage on the coast;

• realigning the TSS;

• offshore routing5;

• extending the applicability and boundaries of the ATBA;

• ITOS;

• the potential need for a dedicated emergency towing vessel;

• tug escort requirements.

The first four of these could potentially improve effectiveness of the OCNMS ATBA

education and monitoring program in protecting the resources of the Sanctuary. The last

three are currently being evaluated as part of the previously mentioned cost-benefit analysis

and are not addressed in this paper.

The Sanctuary is an advocate of extending radar coverage within the Sanctuary; this

would allow for better monitoring of vessel traffic within the Sanctuary. Since originally

 

5 The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the U. S. Coast Guard have been engaged in a multi-year

effort addressing maritime and environmental safety in the Sanctuary. The Navigation Subcommittee of the

International Maritime Organization has recently approved the resulting offshore routing proposal, consisting of

recommended tracks off the coast of California. These tracks will recommend that container ships and bulk

product carriers travel in north-south tracks between 13 and 20 nautical miles offshore, and that ships carrying

hazardous materials in bulk travel in north-south tracks between 25 and 30 nm from shore. This proposal is

expected to be adopted by the Maritime Committee in May 2000.
29

suggesting such an approach, OCNMS became aware of an U. S. Navy radar installation on

Mt. Octopus, which could complement the Canadian Coast Guard's radar site on Mt.

Ozzard. The second measure is the realignment of the vessel traffic lanes in the Sanctuary at

the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Sanctuary has recommended that such a

realignment route traffic further offshore, further away from navigation hazards and when

possible, away from concentrations of fishing vessels. The Sanctuary has also recommended,

along with many others, that offshore routing measures should be evaluated. Offshore routes

would consist of recommended tracks where certain classes of vessels should transit. This

differs from an ATBA in that it directs where traffic should transit versus identifying areas

that should be avoided. Comments on the fourth measure, extending the applicability and

boundaries of the ATBA, actually date back to before the ATBA went into effect.

Figure 12 CVTS and U.S. Navy Radar Coverage

In early 1995, the U. S. Coast Guard held a public meeting to discuss if the

applicability of the newly designated ATBA should be expanded to include vessels and

barges other then those carrying cargoes of oil or hazardous materials. This meeting was in

response to concerns raised shortly before the Subcommittee on Safety of Navigation

considered the OCNMS ATBA proposal. The U. S. delegation informed the subcommittee

that the issue of expanding this ATBA to include other categories of commercial vessels

would be considered further at the national level and, if appropriate, an amendment would be

submitted for IMO consideration (F. R. Vol. 60, No. 18, Friday, January 27, 1995). 
30

The Coast Guard received extensive public comment, which addressed a number of

safety and economic concerns. Recommendations for change included a call to expand the

ATBA to all vessels over 500 gross tons, with some calling to exempt non-hazardous barges,

fishing, military, and tour vessels. Those advocating a change to the ATBA were concerned

with the consequences of a spill of large amounts of bunker fuel noting that vessels, for which

the ATBA does not apply, carry large amounts of bunker fuel. Those opposed to changing

the ATBA generally agreed with the provisions of the ATBA as originally designated.

Comments opposing changes to the ATBA included concerns of the economic impact on

vessels transiting between Grays Harbor and Puget Sound and on the fishing industry. A

number of safety concerns were also raised, including the increased probability of meeting

situation, and collisions, along the offshore boundary of the ATBA (F. R. Vol. 60, No. 184,

Friday, September 22, 1995).

NOAA recognized that threats existed from other types of shipping. However, at the

time the ATBA proposal was submitted insufficient data existed for including other types of

vessels. OCNMS supported the ATBA as designated and recommended that no change be

made without further study. Through our vessel monitoring efforts, we now have a better

understanding of which vessels would be impacted by a change to the ATBA. The third pie

chart in Figure 8 illustrates a relative mix of five different vessel classes. The vessels for

which the ATBA does not apply, which have previously been identified as being of the

greatest concern, are large commercial vessels. The vessel class, which most closely

represents this group, is the freighter class (Table 4). In 1998 this class of vessels

represented 50 percent of the vessels transiting through the ATBA. Figure 13 illustrates the

relative mix of the vessels in this Freighter Class, with a few minor exceptions. Of these

vessels bulk carriers are the most prevalent at 47 percent, followed by container ships at 29

percent (Figure 13). The vessels reflected in Figure 13 represent 1,068 transits. Because

some data gaps exist the actual number of transits will be somewhat higher (Table 5).

Future changes to the ATBA are dependent upon the outcomes of the four previously

mentioned initiatives (PARS, tug cost-benefit analysis, NPSRMP, offshore routing working

group). The Port Access Routes Study may realign the current traffic lanes adjacent to the

ATBA. If this occurs the boundaries of the ATBA should be reevaluated. In the current

ATBA configuration (Figure 1) the seaward boundary is contiguous with the inshore

boundary of the southern traffic lanes. If these lanes are moved offshore it will be possible to

modify the ATBA boundaries to increase the distance from navigational hazards, while

allowing room for inshore traffic.6 While the cost-benefit analysis on various tug options

(rescue tug, ITOS, and tug escorts) is not directly related to the ATBA, the outcome of the

study should be evaluated in considering future changes to the ATBA. If the States/British

Columbia Oil Spill Task Force offshore vessel traffic risk management working group can

 

6

 OCNMS has observed some tugs with oil barges transiting southbound in the northbound lanes, along the

seaward boundary of the ATBA.
31

address the issue of offshore routing in, or adjacent to, the Sanctuary, then it may be possible

to readdress the issue of applicability of the ATBA. Finally, the work of the North Puget

Sound Risk Management Panel could result in specific recommendations, which may address

any, or all, of the above issues. The Volpe Study, the recent ITOS analysis, the recently

released cost-benefit analysis, the recommendations of the Port Access Routes Study, the

work of the States/British Columbia offshore routing work group, and this report will all

provide information for the North Puget Sound Risk Management Panel.

Figure 13. 1998 Summary of Freighter Class Vessels in the ATBA7

The following recommendations for the ATBA are sequential8, with each

recommendation predicated upon a specific outcome:

• If the TSS is realigned, then Ë reevaluate the boundaries of the ATBA;

• If offshore routes are recommended, then Ë reevaluate the applicability of the ATBA;

 

7

 To better illustrate the relative mix of vessels, RO-RO vessels were combined with vehicle carriers, coastal

vessels were combined with general cargo and 7 reefer vessels (often associated with commercial fishing) were

excluded.

8

 These recommendations are the author's and have not been approved as an official NOAA position on the

OCNMS ATBA.

Bulk Carrier

47%

General Cargo

14%

Container

29%

Passenger

4%

Vehicle Carrier

6%
32

Figure 14 shows the current Coast Guard Port Access Route Study (PARS)

recommendation for the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This recommendation, if

implemented, would:

• Extend the TSS approximately 10 miles further offshore;

• Center the separation zone on the International boundary;

• Retain multiple approach lanes;

• Configure lanes, where possible, to avoid customary fishing grounds;

• Create a new exit lane for Northerly coastwise traffic;

• Expand the ATBA to the north and west to provide a greater buffer around Duntze Rock

and offshore, while providing a protected route for slower moving vessels;

• Establish IMO “recommended routes” north and south of the TSS to formally recognize

and accommodate the existing traffic patterns (excerpt from CG presentation to the North

Puget Sound Risk Management Panel).

Figure 14. Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Access Route Study – proposed changes to the Traffic Separation

Scheme and ATBA

A similar proposal was included in OCNMS's May 1999, comments to the Port

Access Routes Study Docket. This Sanctuary scenario differed in that it eliminated the

southern approach and included offshore routes. The Coast Guard has been consulting with
33

different groups while developing this proposal and determined that it was desirable to retain

multiple approach lanes to maintain order and predictability for vessels entering or exiting the

Strait. While the Coast Guard recommendations do not address offshore routing, they could

easily be compatible with recommendations from the States/British Columbia Offshore

Routing work group. If offshore routes were proposed, then it would be worthwhile to

consider extending the applicability of the ATBA to large commercial vessels. Industry

would need to be consulted and certain exceptions would need to be allowed for including

government, fishing, and tug/barge vessels. The routing of large commercial vessels, in a

controlled manner, further off the coast will significantly improve maritime and environmental

safety in the Sanctuary. Given the success shown by the current voluntary ATBA, the

author believes that the voluntary nature of any future ATBA should continue.

The TSS realignment, offshore routes, and modifications to the ATBA must all be

approved and adopted by the IMO. These initiatives could be sequential or they could be

submitted as a comprehensive package.

SUMMARY

The implementation of the OCNMS ATBA education and monitoring program has

been greatly aided by the availability of radar data and the cooperation of industry and the

U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards. The Sanctuary's efforts to view existing radar data on a

GIS system have allowed performance measures to be selected and tracked and provides a

means to plot individual vessel tracklines. Plots of tank vessels observed within the ATBA

are forwarded to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. Correspondence, under the joint

signature of the Captain of the Port and the Sanctuary Superintendent, is then sent to the

vessel owner requesting cooperation with the ATBA initiative. Feedback from our ATBA

education and monitoring program has been very favorable. Radar data has been evaluated to

determine if a measurable change in behavior has occurred since the beginning of our efforts.

A positive correlation has been found between educational efforts and the effectiveness of the

ATBA.

OCNMS's monitoring program has had additional benefits beyond our outreach

efforts and the evaluation of ATBA effectiveness. The Sanctuary has been able to contribute

to discussions on maritime and environmental safety in the region by providing a more

rigorous evaluation of vessel traffic patterns than would be otherwise possible. This program

has also demonstrated the value of this type of analysis to vessel traffic managers and to

others interested in improving maritime and environmental safety.

While the ATBA has improved maritime and environmental safety in the Sanctuary,

more can be done. Some of the measures currently being evaluated, if implemented, could

complement the ATBA initiative. OCNMS will continue its education and monitoring

efforts to maintain this successful initiative while continually seeking additional opportunities

for improvements to the waterway.
34

REFERENCES

Ferguson, Lilli. 1996. Vessel Traffic Management and the Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary. Unpublished summary of OCNMS Internship.

Genwest Systems, Inc. 1999. LANPARTM Version 2.0 Documentation.

International Maritime Organization. 1991. Ships' Routeing, Sixth Edition. International

Maritime Organization, London, England.

International Maritime Organization. 1994. Routeing measures other than traffic separation

schemes, SN/Circular 173, 21 December 1994. International Maritime Organization,

London, England.

McCreery, Scott. 1999. Innovative International Protection Efforts in Washington and

British Columbia Waters. #411, Proceedings of the 1999 International Oil Spill Conference.

McMahon, Gerald. 1999. Personal communication concerning the oil barge trade from

Gerald McMahon, American Waterways Operators, Seattle, WA. October 1999.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991. Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1993. Olympic Coast National Marine

Sanctuary Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

U. S. Coast Guard. 1998. Puget Sound VTS User's Manual. U. S. Coast Guard,

Seattle, WA.

U. S. Coast Guard. 1999a. Analysis of the Geographic Coverage provided by the

International Tug of Opportunity System from November 1998 - May 1999.

U. S. Coast Guard. 1999b. Regulatory Assessment: Use of Tugs to Protect against Oil Spills

in the Puget Sound Area. U. S. Coast Guard, Washington DC.

Volpe Center. 1997. Scoping Risk Assessment: Protection against Oil Spills in the Marine

Waters of Northwest Washington State. John Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,

Cambridge, MA.
35

Washington State Office of Marine Safety. 1994. An Oil Spill Prevention Proposal for a

Dedicated Rescue Tug: to protect the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent Pacific Coast.

Washington State Office of Marine Safety, Olympia, WA.