West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project

Final Report July 2002

WEST COAST OFFSHORE VESSEL TRAFFIC RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT

FINAL PROJECT REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS July 2002

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Part I: Introduction and Project Background 6

Part II: What’s At Risk? 12 Environmental Consequences 12 Economic Consequences 14 Social Consequences 15

Part III: Defining the Risk 17 Vessel Types 17 Typical West Coast Vessel Traffic Patterns 17 West Coast Vessel Traffic Volume 21 Existing Vessel Management Measures 22 Ship Drift Analysis: Wind and Ocean Current Data 24 Historic Casualty Data Analysis 30 Assist Vessel Availability 32 Future Projections 36

Part IV: Analysis of the Risk 49 Tug Response Time Modeling 49 Risk Assessment Model Development 50 Risk Scenarios and Results 53

Part V: Development of Findings and Recommendations 55

Part VI: Findings and Recommendations 57 Findings and Recommendations on Collision Hazards 57 Findings and Recommendations on Historic Casualty Factors 57 Findings and Recommendations on Rescue Tug Availability 59 Findings and Recommendations on Distance Offshore 60 Findings and Recommendations on Data Improvements 62 Findings and Recommendations on Implementation Review 62

References 63 WEST COAST OFFSHORE VESSEL TRAFFIC RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT

FINAL PROJECT REPORT and RECOMMENDATIONS July 2002

Appendices

A. Project Workgroup Membership B. Pacific Coast Environmental Sensitivity Maps C. DF Dickens Tables: Spill Costs in the US and Worldwide D. Coastal Vessel Traffic Volume: Tables, Graphs, Charts, and Section Transit Totals E. Tables and Maps of Existing Vessel Management Measures F. Statistical Wind Tables and Vessel Drift Graphs (NOAA) G. Historic Casualty Data Tables/Graphs H. West Coast Tug Inventory (2000/2001) I. Recommended Assist Vessel Equipment and Procedures and Emergency Tow Vessel Capability Matrix J. Tug Response Time Analysis K. Risk Assessment Model L. Risk Scenarios M. Public Comments and Workgroup Responses N. Glossary and Conversion Table

Executive Summary

The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project was co-sponsored by the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force and the US Coast Guard, Pacific Area. Rick Holly of the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response served as the Task Force co- chair. USCG Pacific Area co-chairs included CAPT Ed Page, CAPT Frank Whipple, and CAPT Glenn Anderson.

They co-chaired a workgroup of representatives of the following interests: the oil spill agencies in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California, and the Province of British Columbia; the US Coast Guard Districts 17, 13, and 11; the Canadian Coast Guard, Pacific Region; NOAA (both Hazmat and National Marine Sanctuaries); Environment Canada; the US Navy; the Canadian Maritime Forces; the Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council; the BC Chamber of Shipping; the BC Council of Marine Carriers; the Puget Sound Steamship Operators’ Association; the Puget Sound Marine Exchange; the Portland Merchants Exchange; the Port of Portland; Save Our Shores; the California Coastal Commission; the Western States Petroleum Association; the Council of American Master Mariners; the American Waterways Operators, Pacific Region; Teekay Shipping (for INTERTANKO); and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

The goal of the project was to reduce the risk of collisions or drift groundings caused by vessel traffic transiting 3 to 200 nautical miles off the West Coast between Cook Inlet in the North and San Diego in the South. Vessels of concern included tank, cargo/passenger, and fishing vessels of 300 gross tons or larger. Working together from 1999 to 2002, this Workgroup collected and reviewed data on typical coastwise traffic patterns, traffic volume, existing management measures, weather data and ship drift patterns, historic casualty rates by vessel type, the availability of assist vessels, the environmental sensitivity of the coastlines, socio-economic consequences of a spill, and projections of relevant future initiatives. Using the drift and tug availability data, they modeled likely tug response times under both average and severe weather conditions.

The Workgroup then developed a Relative Ranking/Risk Indexing Worksheet that evaluated nine factors: volume of oil/vessel design; drift rates; areas of higher collision hazards; distance offshore; weather/season; tug availability; coastal route density; historic casualty rates by vessel type; and coastline sensitivity. Using this tool, they developed and ranked a total of fifty-two casualty scenarios in all the West Coast jurisdictions. These were then extrapolated into 1,296 additional scenarios on the West Coast, a modeling process which defined both average and “higher risk” areas from Alaska to California.

Workgroup members then addressed four risk factors most amenable to change; tug availability, collision hazards, historic casualty rates by vessel type, and distance offshore. They developed a set of draft findings and recommendations using the criteria that the findings and recommendations had to be supported by the data, realistic (capable of being implemented), effective, economically feasible, and flexible enough to allow for incorporation of new technology and changes in policy.

From December of 2001 through March of 2002, the Project Co-chairs, the Task Force Executive Coordinator, and Workgroup members presented these draft findings and recommendations to affected stakeholder groups and at public meetings in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. The draft Findings and Recommendations were

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 1 also available on the Task Force website. At a final meeting in April of 2002, Workgroup members agreed to the final Findings and Recommendations found in Part VI of this report. A summary of these Findings and Recommendations follows:

I. Findings and Recommendations regarding Collision Hazards on the West Coast ! Based upon increased traffic density and collision hazards at port entrances, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that Harbor Safety Committees or their equivalents in West Coast ports continuously monitor this risk and evaluate the need for enhanced traffic safety systems at their port entrances.

! Based on their survey of coastal transits for July of 1998 through June of 1999, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that coastwise traffic density is higher along the section of the West Coast between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Los Angeles/Long Beach than either north of the Strait or south of LA/LB. The Workgroup anticipates that the pending AIS carriage requirement, when fully implemented, could significantly reduce any collision hazard in these areas of higher traffic density. They therefore recommend that the maritime and towing industry operating on the West Coast consider implementing compatible Automatic Identification System (AIS) carriage in advance of the required schedule.

! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Workgroup finds that different offshore ballast water exchange standards have been adopted by California, Oregon, Washington, and several Canadian West Coast ports. Although the Project Workgroup did not find that these differing standards imposed an increased risk of collision offshore, they recommend that the US Coast Guard, in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada, and consistent with IMO actions, adopt a single set of preemptive national or regional offshore ballast water exchange standards that would enhance the consistency of navigation for the purpose of ballast water exchange on the West Coast.

II. Findings and Recommendations regarding Historic Casualty Factors ! The Workgroup finds a heavy concentration of reported casualty positions near major ports. This may be attributed to higher traffic density in these areas, as well as to the fact that ships conduct their status review of steering and propulsion systems 12 hours prior to entering US waters. Noting that the USCG Marine Safety Office Puget Sound worked with the Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association to develop a recommended “Standard of Care” for vessels entering port, the Workgroup recommends adoption of a similar Standard of Care by other West Coast US ports and encourages Canadian authorities and industry to examine the applicability in Western Canadian waters as well.

! The Workgroup also finds that cracks and fractures in tank vessel cargo tanks were the most common type of structural failure identified in the casualty data. The Workgroup anticipates that such incident frequency will decrease as new double-hull replacements come on line for the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) fleet. The Workgroup recommends continued vigilant application of the Critical Area Inspection Program (CAIP) by the US Coast Guard as the TAPS fleet ages, and encourages TAPS tanker operators to consider expedited replacement schedules.

! The Workgroup finds that fishing vessels also ranked high in the mechanical/equipment failure category. Based upon the Workgroup’s examination of existing and proposed programs sponsored by both government and the fishing industry to improve safety overall, the Workgroup recommends implementation of the US Coast Guard’s Commercial Fishing

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 2 Vessel Safety Action Plan. The Workgroup also recognizes the State of Washington’s Fishing Vessel Inspection program as a good model for fishing vessel inspections, since it focuses on reducing accidents caused by human error.

III. Findings and Recommendations regarding Rescue Tug Availability on the West Coast ! Based on a 2000-2001 inventory, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that approximately 182 ocean-going tugs operate out of West Coast “home ports. “ Of these, 77 were found to be capable of severe weather rescues. The Project Workgroup further finds that the capability of potential rescue vessels on the West Coast has improved greatly in recent years with the construction and placement of numerous state-of-the-art tugs with greater horsepower, maneuverability and technologically advanced equipment.

! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup conducted an analysis of the response times of these 77 rescue tugs from their home ports under both average and worst case wind conditions, assuming that a disabled vessel is drifting towards shore and no other means is available to stop its drift. This analysis defined response time contours under both average and worst-case wind conditions. Where the tug availability risk factor is high due to a lack of readily available severe weather rescue tugs as identified by our tug homeport analysis, the Workgroup recommends consideration by local jurisdictions of several measures or combinations of measures to reduce that risk, including investment in a dedicated rescue tug, creation of a stand-by tug fund, or adoption of regulations requiring rescue tug contracts held by vessel operators.

! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Workgroup finds that the International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS), which operates in the US/Canadian transboundary waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, and which covers the coastline of British Columbia as well, provides information on the position and basic capabilities of ocean-going tugs. The Workgroup finds that it would be beneficial to enhance tug position and capability information coastwise. The Workgroup recognizes that International Maritime Organization (IMO) mandated AIS carriage, as well as US domestic requirements for AIS carriage, should be in place for tugs no later than 2007, or 2004 as currently proposed by the US. The Workgroup therefore recommends that the US Coast Guard evaluate whether the information to be available through AIS carriage will provide equivalent or better tug position and capability information than that provided by ITOS. If so, the US Coast Guard should take steps to ensure that this information on tug positions is made available to all Captains of the Port on the West Coast. If not, or if the carriage requirements are not implemented by 2007 at the latest – optimally by 2004 – we recommend that the US Coast Guard consider placing transponders on ocean-going tugs not already carrying them, and adding signal receiving stations as needed to establish a coastwise network for information on ocean-going tug locations.

IV. Findings and Recommendations regarding the Distance Offshore Risk Factor ! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that the risk of a grounding/collision generally increases the closer a vessel transits to shore. Using a relative ranking/risk-indexing model that incorporated nine risk factors the Workgroup mapped areas of higher risk along the West Coast of Canada and the United States. The resulting higher risk areas were generally 25 miles from land along the entire West Coast, except at one point off Southeast Alaska where it extended to 50 nm, off Northwest BC where the area extended to 100 nm offshore, and off Point Arguello in California where it extended to 50 nm offshore. The workgroup finds that vessels transiting within these higher

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 3 risk areas have a greater potential for a grounding due to one or more of the risk criteria than if they transited offshore of these areas.

! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that, where no other management measure such as Areas to Be Avoided (ATBAs), Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs), or recommended tracks already exist, vessels 300 gross tons or larger transiting coastwise anywhere between Cook Inlet and San Diego should voluntarily stay a minimum distance of 25 nautical miles (nm) offshore. Vessels transiting short distances between adjacent ports should seek routing guidance as needed from the local Captain of the Port or VTS authority for that area. Nothing in these voluntary minimum distance offshore recommendations is intended to preclude a vessel master from taking prudent action for the safety of the vessel and its crew.

! For the sake of consistency with existing agreements, the Workgroup further recommends that, where no other management measures such as ATBAs, TSSs, Tanker Exclusion Zones, or recommended tracks already exist, tank ships laden with crude oil or persistent petroleum products and transiting coastwise anywhere between Cook Inlet and San Diego should voluntarily stay a minimum distance of 50 nm offshore. Nothing in these voluntary minimum distance offshore recommendations is intended to preclude a vessel master from taking prudent action for the safety of the vessel and its crew.

! The Workgroup further recommends that these voluntary minimum distances offshore be communicated to mariners by placing the text of these recommendations in the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions for the West Coast, and also by placing notes on the appropriate nautical charts, to be repeated at headlands, which indicate the voluntary minimum distances offshore and refer the mariner to the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions for further details.

! Regarding the areas where the Higher Risk zones go beyond 25 nm, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Workgroup finds that various factors mitigate the risk in these areas. For instance, the coastal transportation trade along British Columbia and SE Alaska is primarily by tug and tows. A number of powerful potential "rescue tugs" are frequently transiting through these areas as a result of this unique trading pattern. These transiting tugs supplement the rescue tugs located in homeports as used in this study. In addition, many of these coastal trading tugs are powerful long distance tugs that report in to Canada's MCTS (VTS) and/or are equipped with transponders that enhance their identification as possible rescue tugs. For the area off Point Arguello, the Workgroup finds that the northbound lanes of the Traffic Separation Scheme to/from Los Angeles/Long Beach captures this traffic.

V. Findings and Recommendations regarding Data Improvements ! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that, due to the configuration of the databases currently in use by US and Canadian federal agencies, information on cause and outcome of casualties is difficult to extract. The Workgroup notes that the US Coast Guard and the Canadian Transportation Safety Board are revising their vessel casualty databases, and recommends that they redesign these systems to allow for improved access to information on both the causes and outcomes of reported incidents. The Workgroup further recommends that the member agencies of the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force implement their agreement to include causal information in their oil spill incident databases and to share that information on a coastwise basis.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 4

! The Workgroup also recommends that the US and Canadian Coast Guards work with the West Coast states and maritime industry to further investigate the causes of past vessel incidents and casualties on the West Coast over a period of not less than five years.

! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that the US and Canadian Coast Guards coordinate with marine exchanges and other appropriate organizations to improve coast-wise data collection procedures covering vessel movements in order to provide more detailed and standardized information regarding vessel types, cargo, routing, and ports of origin. Future implementation of AIS carriage should be evaluated as a potential source of data for this purpose.

VI. Recommendation regarding Implementation Review ! The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force work with the US and Canadian Coast Guards in 2007 to review the status of implementation and efficacy of the final recommendations from this project.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 5 Part I. Introduction and Project Background

The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management (WCOVTRM) Project was initiated by the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force. The Members of the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force are the directors of the state or provincial environmental agencies with oil spill regulatory authority in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. Based on their concerns that the routes used by both tank and non-tank vessels transiting the Pacific Coast could pose a risk to sensitive coastal resources from oil or hazardous cargo spills caused by drift groundings, the Task Force Members approved undertaking what they initially termed a “Vessel Routing” project in their 1994-1999 Strategic Plan, then reaffirmed their commitment to the project each year thereafter. However, between 1994 and 1996, the Task Force delayed forming a project workgroup while it tracked three US Coast Guard studies relevant to this issue. A summary of these studies follows:

1. Evaluation of Oil Tanker Routing per Section 4111(b)(7) of OPA 90, published in 1995, addressed only tanker traffic, not barges and large vessels carrying substantial amounts of bunker fuel, although the Coast Guard acknowledged the risk presented by these sources in the report. Moreover, the study of sensitive resources was limited to the West Coast including Washington, Oregon, and California. While tanker traffic originating in Alaska was included in the analysis, risks to the Alaskan shorelines were not. Furthermore, the study was silent as to the large expanse of Canadian coastline between Alaska and Washington. Study findings related to risks associated with vessel types included the following: • “...oil tankers operate in or near the most sensitive marine resource areas. However, tankers carrying crude oil and petroleum products represent only a small percentage of the deep-draft vessel traffic that poses an oil spill threat to the most sensitive marine resources...In fact, approximately half of the spills in the Pacific EEZ have historically been from vessels other than tankers.” • “Tankers carrying crude oil or petroleum products represent only 18% of the total deep-draft vessel and barge transits that threaten oil spill damage to sensitive marine resources.” • “Non-tank vessels accounted for 53% of oil spills in the Pacific EEZ study area and 19% of total oil spilled there during the past 30 years...” The study concluded that “This report makes no recommendation for designating tanker free zones because tankers are not the sole oil spill threat to the most sensitive marine resources."

2. The San Francisco/Santa Barbara Port Access Route Study evaluated existing vessel routing measures to determine if they are sufficient to address navigational safety issues and environmental concerns. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act requires the US Coast Guard to conduct such a study prior to any proposals to amend existing Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS). The study focused exclusively on the California coast. Findings included: • The southern approach lanes of the TSS off San Francisco should be shifted seven miles seaward; • The existing TSS in the Santa Barbara Channel should be extended from Point Conception to Point Arguello; • A precautionary area should be established at the northwest end of the Santa Barbara Channel TSS; and • The remaining TSS approach lanes, precautionary areas, areas to be avoided, and the shipping safety fairways within the study area should remain as configured. No navigational need for additional offshore routing measures was identified.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 6 3. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and US Coast Guard initiated the California Marine Sanctuary Vessel Traffic Study for Monterey and the three other national marine sanctuaries in California. The study evaluated the need for new vessel routing measures to protect these sanctuaries. The study recommended the following options for consideration: • Continued voluntary compliance with the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) agreement; • Action to seek an IMO designation of an Area To Be Avoided; • Action to direct all vessels with oil or hazardous cargo to avoid sanctuary waters except when entering/leaving port; • Limitations on movements of vessels carrying large quantities of bunker fuel; • Limitations on tank barge movements; and • Amending the San Francisco TSS to avoid the Monterey Bay NMS.

Pursuant to the California Marine Sanctuary Vessel Traffic Study report to Congress, in 1997 the US Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) convened a workgroup of key stakeholders in industry, government, conservation organizations, and the public, in order to review vessel traffic issues relevant to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), which is the Task Force’s California member agency, participated on this workgroup. This workgroup’s goal was to provide a vessel traffic management system that maximized protection of the Sanctuary resources while allowing for the continuation of safe, efficient and environmentally sound transportation. The recommendations of the MBNMS workgroup were developed through a process that evaluated environmental efficacy, socio-economic impacts, and institutional feasibility. These factors were considered as the group considered distances offshore at which vessels should transit in order to allow adequate time for rescue tugs to reach them in the event of a loss of propulsion or steering.

The final strategies which the workgroup recommended to the Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) of the US Coast Guard included the following elements: 1. Recommended distances from shore for Large Cargo Vessels (LCV) and vessels carrying hazardous materials; 2. Formal confirmation of current informal agreements with industry regarding routes for laden tankers (empty tankers will follow the LCV routes because of the bunkers they carry) and tank barges; 3. Adjustments to the San Francisco Bay Traffic Separation Scheme as recommended in the Port Access Routes Study; 4. Monitoring and reporting strategies; 5. Identification of a Rescue Vessel Network; 6. Near-Miss Reporting; and 7. Mariner education.

Their recommendations affecting international shipping were carried to the Navigation Subcommittee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) by the US Coast Guard and NOAA, where they were approved in September of 1999. Full IMO approval was achieved in the spring of 2000. Navigation charts for the area will be revised to show recommended routes for large vessels 300 GT and larger in north-south tracks ranging from 13 to 20 nautical miles (nm) from shore between Big Sur and the San Mateo coastline. Ships carrying hazardous materials should follow north-south tracks between 25 and 30 nm from shore. Member companies of both the American Waterways Operators and the Western States Petroleum Association have indicated

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 7 their intention to continue operations in accordance with voluntary agreements to operate safe distances from shore. 1

Acknowledging the importance of US and Canadian Coast Guard involvement, the Task Force Members signed a Vessel Routing Resolution in 1996/1997 which authorized Task Force representatives to meet with the US Coast Guard Commander of the Pacific Area as well as the Western Regional Director of the Canadian Coast Guard to discuss offshore vessel routing issues and invite them to co-sponsor a vessel routing project workgroup. Task Force representatives subsequently spoke with Rick Bryant, Western Regional Director of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), in June of 1998 regarding the project concept, confirming his interest and support. As a result, representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard have participated on the Workgroup over the course of the project and have provided extensive data in support of the project.

Task Force representatives also met with US Coast Guard (USCG) Vice Admiral Collins, Pacific Area Commander, in December of 1998 and secured his commitment to participate and co- sponsor the project. Admiral Collins noted that such an effort would be consistent with the USCG’s emphasis on waterway safety as outlined in the Maritime Transportation Safety initiative.2 VADM Riutta, who replaced Admiral Collins in 2000, reiterated the USCG Pacific Area’s support of the project. With their approval, CAPT Ed Page initiated the project, and CAPT Frank Whipple of the US Coast Guard Pacific Area Command co-chaired the WCOVTRM Project Workgroup from 1999 to 2001. CAPT Glenn Anderson co-chaired from 2001-2002, and significant project staff support has also been provided by the Pacific Area Command as well as Districts 17, 13, and 11.

The Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), the California member agency of the Task Force, volunteered to provide leadership for this project in 1995; Carl Moore was appointed as the Project Chairman until he left OSPR in 1998 to serve as interim director of the California Department of Boating and Waterways. At that time, Rick Holly of OSPR agreed to assume leadership of the project and served as the Task Force Co-Chair through project completion.

Once the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary traffic management project was completed – as were the three USCG studies which preceded that effort - Rick Holly and the Task Force Executive Coordinator facilitated meetings of representatives of Task Force member agencies with representatives of NOAA, the USCG, and the CCG in February and March of 1999 to discuss the project. They reviewed the existing protection measures on the West Coast, and were briefed on the process and outcomes used in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Vessel Management Project as a possible project model, i.e., evaluating how fast a

1 After consultation with the California Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) and the US Coast Guard in 1992, ten major oil company members of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) reached agreement on the routing of tankers carrying Alaskan North Slope (ANS) crude to California ports, committing their laden tankers to remain at least 50 miles seaward of the California coast while transiting the coastline. This routing has the effect of shifting crude oil tanker traffic away from the West Coast of North America shortly after leaving Prince William Sound, although tankers carrying refined petroleum products along the West Coast are not subject to the WSPA agreement. Tugs towing laden oil barges on the West Coast follow a similar voluntary agreement to stay 25 miles offshore, pursuant to their membership in the American Waterways Operators association.

2 See An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, A Report to Congress, September 1999

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 8 vessel might drift aground from various points offshore and comparing that with the time needed for response by a rescue tug.

They also discussed the possible geographic scope of the project, and agreed to recommend to the Project Workgroup that the project focus only on offshore traffic and not address issues specific to Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs) or internal waters such as Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, or the British Columbia/Alaska Inside Passage. OSPR recommended that San Diego be the southern-most point, while the Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska’s Task Force member agency, recommended that Cook Inlet be the northern-most point.

These project pre-planning participants agreed upon a list of stakeholders to be invited to participate on the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup. Subsequently, representatives from the following organizations were invited to serve as Project Workgroup members (in addition to representatives from the Task Force member agencies, the Canadian Coast Guard, the US Coast Guard, and NOAA): • The Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council • The British Columbia Chamber of Shipping • The Canadian Council of Marine Carriers • The Canadian Maritime Forces • The Institute of Ocean Sciences in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans • The Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association • The Washington Public Ports Association • Ocean Policy Advocates • The Portland Marine Exchange • The Port of Portland • The California Coastal Commission • The Western States Petroleum Association • The Council of American Master Mariners • The US Navy, Pacific Region • The American Waterways Operators, Pacific Region • INTERTANKO • The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association • Save Our Shores in California

For a final list of West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Workgroup members, please refer to Appendix A. 3 Many of these Workgroup members have given extensively of their time in researching and gathering data, as well as participating in meetings and conference calls. In particular, the Workgroup Co-Chairs, the Subcommittee Chairs, and several USCG Pacific Area staff (LCDR Brian Tetreault, LT Patricia Springer, CDR William Uberti, and CDR Stephen Danscuk) have contributed extensively of their valuable time and expertise for this project.

3 A number of organizations either declined active workgroup membership and/or expressed interest in tracking the project so are therefore provided with electronic copies of meeting summary notes. These organizations include: the North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association; the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO); the Chamber of Shipping of America; Transport Canada; US Coast Guard District 14; NOAA Headquarters; and the Waterways Management Directorate of the US Coast Guard.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 9 The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project (WCOVTRM) Workgroup held its first meeting in Seattle on April 27, 1999, hosted by the US Coast Guard 13th District. At this meeting, the Workgroup agreed to the following project goal statement: To develop an offshore vessel traffic scheme for the West Coast that will prevent environmental damage. By use of the term "scheme," the Workgroup was not limiting itself to only routing ecommendations. As the project evolved and all relevant issues and approaches were reviewed, a variety of recommendations to achieve this goal also evolved.

At their first meeting, the Workgroup agreed to the following objectives: • That the geographic range of the project would be from Cook Inlet in the north to San Diego in the south. This area is 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore. Vessel traffic management issues for the Inside Passage of British Columbia and Alaska would not be within the purview of this project, although relevant issues could be addressed as part of the final Project Report, by way of recommendations for further action by appropriate authorities. • That the recommendations should produce a level playing field and result in minimal disruption to the shipping industry; • Pending a final subcommittee report and recommendation, that vessels to be addressed should include: 1. Large Cargo Vessels of 300 gross tons or larger; 2. Vessels carrying chemicals and hazardous material in bulk; and 3. Tankers and tank barges. • That a drift analysis would address both environmental factors and vessel characteristics; and • Pending a final subcommittee report and recommendation, that “assist” or “rescue” vessels are those capable of assisting and stabilizing a drifting vessel, with a subcommittee charged to further refine that definition and bring it back to the full workgroup for adoption. Towing vessels meeting the final agreed-upon definition would then be inventoried.

The Workgroup further agreed to establish subcommittees to develop data and recommendations on the following topics (chairpersons noted in bold): • DRIFT ANALYSIS: CDR Jim Morris, NOAA Hazmat • ASSIST VESSELS: Jerry McMahon, AWO • EVALUATION OF COASTAL TRAFFIC VOLUME: Sven Eklof, US Navy • VESSEL TYPES: Stan Norman, Washington Department of Ecology • IDENTIFY AND MAP EXISTING WEST COAST MEASURES: USCG LCDR Brian Tetreault (replaced by LT Patricia Springer in 6/2000) • TRAFFIC LOCATIONS: This subcommittee was formed somewhat later in the project and was chaired by Rick Holly, OSPR

This meeting launched Phase I of the project, which focused on gathering data on the topics listed above. The reports of these subcommittees and other information gathered by Workgroup members compose Part III of this report, “Defining the Risk.” The subcommittees found that the necessary data were seldom available in exactly the format or content they needed, which indicates that improvements in vessel traffic data collection are needed within the marine transportation system. The problem is also indicative of the need for a regional analysis and overview of issues associated with offshore maritime operations.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 10 Phase I lasted approximately from April of 1999 to December of 2000. The second phase of the project was initiated at the December 2000 meeting of the Project Workgroup as they began the process of data analysis, using a risk assessment model designed by USCG CDR William Uberti and LT Springer, and a Tug Response Time Analysis developed by Rick Holly. The Workgroup also reviewed various risk scenarios developed under USCG leadership for each state as well as the Province of British Columbia, and evaluated rescue tug response times. These risk analysis tools are described in Part IV, “Analysis of the Risk.” The final phase of the Project, the development of findings and recommendations based upon the data and the risk analyses, is described in Part V of this Interim Report.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 11 Part II. What’s At Risk?

Risk equations multiply probability times consequences. As stated by US Coast Guard Vice Admiral Ray Riutta, Commander, Pacific Area, in his keynote address to the 2000 Annual Meeting of the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force, “The probability of a major oil spill is small at any time, but the consequences are enormous if one occurs.” A discussion of the probability analysis follows in Sections III and IV of this report. A brief discussion of the consequences – environmental, economic, and social – is provided in this section.

Environmental Consequences Findings in Section 3, “Sensitive Marine Resources,” of the US Coast Guard study Evaluation of Oil Tanker Routing per Section 4111(b)(7) of OPA 90, published in 1995 (please see description on page 7 above), state that : 1) The shoreline is not the only sensitive marine resource area threatened by potential future oil tanker spills; waters several miles offshore are also sensitive. 4 2) The 10% most sensitive offshore marine resources are located within discrete areas along the Pacific coast, and not all are enclosed within the boundaries of existing national marine sanctuaries (emphasis added). 3) The 10% most sensitive offshore marine resources are located in areas often impossible to avoid while making port calls. (see #6 below) 4) The 20% (including the 10%) most sensitive offshore marine resources merge into a nearly continuous band along the entire Pacific coast (except the waters immediately offshore of Los Angeles/Long Beach) from Canada to Mexico. 5) The 30% (including the 20%) most sensitive offshore marine resources form a continuous band along the entire coast, including the approach waters of Los Angeles/Long Beach. 6) Vessels calling at the largest deep water ports from offshore routes must transit the most sensitive offshore marine resource areas (see #3 above).

It should also be noted that the study for the Volpe Center was done in 1993 before a number of salmon populations on the mainland coasts were listed under the US federal Endangered Species Act as either threatened and endangered species; thus, from a 2001 perspective, that study actually understates the risk. A similar study of sensitive offshore resources off the Alaska and British Columbia coasts was conducted by the same consultants who produced this report for the Volpe National Transportation Center. They determined that concentrations of seabirds, fisheries, and marine mammals can likewise be found along the entire Gulf of Alaska and British Columbia coastlines (see maps in Appendix B).

As explained in the Oil Tanker Routing report, “shoreline resources were not addressed in this study; however for the purposes of trajectory modeling, the entire shoreline of islands and mainland should be considered of high sensitivity to oil spills.” While this statement was addressing only the Pacific Coast south from Canada to Mexico, it would be a safe extrapolation to extend that statement to cover the Pacific Coasts of both Alaska and British Columbia. There are no significant sections of shoreline of the West Coast which do not involve sensitive bird, plant, estuarine, or mammal habitat, or beaches and towns dependent upon tourism, or port entry areas economically sensitive to the need to keep maritime traffic moving.

The Executive Summary of the Evaluation of Oil Tanker Routing captures the key points regarding the nature and location of sensitive marine resources on the US West Coast as follows:

4 (Editor’s Note: This reference to tanker spills must be taken in context of the study’s focus and should not be interpreted to indicate that only tank vessels represent oil spill risks.)

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 12 • “[The study] analyzed both the oil sensitivity of various marine species and their habitats, as well as the population densities and life cycle activities of each species. Results showed that significant areas of offshore waters, as well as the entire shoreline, are sensitive to oil.” • “Offshore areas with the most oil-sensitive resources...lie both inside and outside the boundaries of existing national marine sanctuaries...” • “By including...[the top] 30% of all [sensitive area] indices, a contiguous zone is formed along the entire Pacific coast which extends out to 25 nautical miles, and to 50 nautical miles in the vicinity of the approaches to San Francisco Bay.” • “A restricted zone (entry denied to vessels with large quantities of oil as cargo or as bunker fuel) would afford a level of protection to the most sensitive marine resources. Such restricted zones would extend outward from the protected areas to provide a specified amount of time to intercept and remove most or all of a spill before it drifts into the protected area...it seems that boundaries should generally follow a response-time contour (e.g.,3 days) for the most sensitive areas selected for protection.”

The entire shoreline, as well as a contiguous zone which extends at least out to 25 nautical miles, is sensitive to oil spills. Moreover, not all of the most sensitive areas are included in designated protection areas such as national marine sanctuaries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) researchers, working with colleagues in state and federal governments, have produced Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) maps of US shorelines.5 ESI maps include three kinds of information, delineated on maps by color-coding, symbols, or other markings: • Shoreline Rankings: Shorelines are ranked according to their sensitivity, the natural persistence of oil, and the ease of cleanup. • Biological Resources: The biological resources denoted on ESI maps include oil- sensitive animals and habitats that either (a) are used by oil-sensitive animals or (b) are themselves sensitive to spilled oil (coral reefs are an example of a sensitive habitat). • Human-Use Resources: Human-use resources denoted on ESI maps are those important to humans and sensitive to oiling. They include, for example, heavily-used beaches, parks and marine sanctuaries, water intakes, and cultural and archaeological sites.

The Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO - Victoria) of the Provincial Government is responsible for the biophysical coastal inventory of British Columbia’s 29,000 km (approximately 6,004 miles) of shoreline. This inventory is an ongoing multi-year project which collects and interprets coastal information, which is later used as baseline data for coastal planning and management in British Columbia.6 The coastal resources inventory consists of : • A biophysical inventory of coastlines using a combination of helicopter video and field sampling; • The acquisition of biological and human use information, which includes fisheries, marine flora and fauna, and human use themes (i.e. ferry routes and anchorages); and

5 NOAA’s ESI maps can be accessed at the following website: http://response.restoration.noaa.gov 6 For Information on British Columbia's Coastal Inventory program, check http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/eeeb/osris/osris.html For Information on British Columbia's Coastal Inventory program and BC Marine Oil Spill Information System, check http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/eeeb/osris/osris.html

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 13 • The creation of detailed 1:40,000 coastline maps.

Coastal resource information has been gathered and shore oil sensitivity mapping completed within the Vessel Traffic Risk area (either as Coastal Atlas or Geographic Information System (GIS) data) for the following sections of the British Columbia coastline: • West Coast of Vancouver Island (Barkley Sound to Esperanza Inlet) • North West Coast of Vancouver Island (Esperanza Inlet to Mexicana Point) • Mid-Coast (Cape Caution to Princess Royal Island); and • The Queen Charlotte Islands

Within the West Coast Vessel Traffic Risk Study area, the primary British Columbia shorelines of high environmental sensitivity to oiling due to potential for long-term oil retention are the protected bays, sounds and archipelagos along the outer coast. There are species along the entire coast which are designated as threatened or endangered by Canadian authorities. Two national parks include: the Pacific Rim National Park (Broken Islands/Long Beach, West Coast Trail 7and the Gwaii Haana8 and an International Biosphere9, as well as numerous provincial parks (Brooks Peninsula, Cape Scott, Nuchatlitz.) Tourism (beach recreation, camping, kayaking, hiking) and eco-tourism (e.g., marine mammal watching) are major economic opportunities along the West Coast for coastal communities.

Economic Consequences Once oil is spilled, mechanical recovery rates seldom exceed 20%. Although response and cleanup efforts are limited in their efficacy, the costs of such efforts can be quite high.10 According to a study done by DF Dickins Associates for the North Puget Sound Long-Term Oil Spill Risk Management Panel in February, 2000, costs per gallon of US spills reviewed in the study ranged from a low of $119 to a high of $1,486. Since a responsible party is required by US law to pay natural resource damage costs and claims for economic losses associated with the spill, such costs are included in these figures in addition to actual response costs. The Province of British Columbia does not have Natural Resource Damage Assessment policies or processes, but the Canada Shipping Act covers third party damages and costs for reasonable measures of environmental reinstatement.

Dickens notes in the study summary that “The objective of this study was to compile information on selected US and worldwide spill incidents to serve as a guide to the expected range of costs which could result from future spills.” He notes that spills were selected for analysis based on whether they were of persistent oils (crude, bunker, fuel oil), in coastal or estuarine locations, and had shoreline impacts. These criteria are also appropriate for our purposes. He further explains that “the focus was on incidents from 1989 to current. Cost figures are presented in 1997 US dollar equivalents to match the bulk of the original data as compiled in 1998. No effort was made to select case studies with any particular spill size or to concentrate on any particular vessel type.” The vessel types reflected in the Dickens study include tankers, barges, and non- tank vessels, all of which are considered in this Project.

7 (http://parkscan.harbour.com/pacrim/) 8 (South Moresby Queen Charlotte Islands http://parkscan.harbour.com/gwaii/ ) 9 (Clayoquot Sound http://tofino.sd70.bc.ca/cbp/) 10 Editor’s Note: Use of dispersants is generally less costly, but not appropriate in all situations. The use of in-situ burning is also determined by a set of specific circumstances that make it inappropriate for all cleanup situations. No data is readily available regarding the costs of these alternative response techniques compared with mechanical recovery.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 14 Dickens further states that “It should be noted that for many incidents the available cost information is either estimated or incomplete. While the total costs summarized here represent the most accurate data publicly available, the final figures shown may not necessarily represent the full cost to society or to a region. For the more recent spills, litigation may be ongoing with the final settlement costs yet to be determined.” In other words, the cost figures in this study may err on the low side. It is also noteworthy that the cost data from worldwide spill incidents varies considerably from the US data and should be used only for comparison rather than direct application to West Coast scenarios (Appendix C).

Social Consequences The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council published a comprehensive guidebook in May of 1999 titled Coping With Technological Disasters: A User Friendly Guidebook. The Guidebook provides advice and aids for community groups, counselors, families, local governments, local businesses, and volunteers. As noted in the Preface (page vii), “Having experienced the Exxon Valdez disaster first-hand the citizens of RCAC wanted to fill a large gap in technological disaster planning – addressing the human impacts. In addition to drawing upon the personal experiences of RCAC’s members, RCAC consulted experts in the field of socioeconomic and technological disaster research to help in the development of this guidebook.” Research for the Guidebook was conducted by Dr. Steve Picou of the University of South Alabama, working with a research team that included academics from Pennsylvania State University, Yale University, the University of Wisconsin, Mississippi State, and the University of New Orleans.

Relevant excerpts from the foreword of the Guidebook follow: “Technological disasters can disrupt an ecosystem for many years and tend to disrupt the psychological well being of communities for long periods of time. Technological disasters…disrupt communities on multiple levels. The most obvious and tangible disruptions occur when the flow of goods, routine services, and jobs are adversely impacted. [These] can be restored in a fairly reasonable length of time. However there are other often ignored, poorly defined, poorly understood, intangible adverse impacts…..These include negative mental health impacts and chronic long-term psychological and physical impacts. “Long after the initial response has ended and the local government has returned to routine day-to-day operations, adverse psychological impacts associated with the disaster continue to erode the social fabric of the community. …These impacts include disruption of family structure and unity, family violence, depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and psychological impairment. The extent of chronic mental health patterns appears to be correlated to the extent that a community is dependent on its natural resources for survival. As such, Native and non-Native fishing and subsistence-based communities are at higher risk for elevated levels of chronic psychological stress associated with technological disasters.”

In Chapter One of the Guidebook, it is noted that: “Natural disasters create what can be called a therapeutic community where activities are focused…As people pull together to place sandbags on dikes against floods, or help neighbors with homes destroyed in hurricanes, individuals, families, and communities bond for the good of the whole. Technological disasters, conversely, tend to produce a corrosive community characterized by unusually high levels of tension, conflict, ongoing litigation and chronic psychological stress….Fear of continued toxicity in the environment, of enduring threats to physical health, of long-term threats to traditional food

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 15 sources and occupations, all lead to chronic problems difficult to understand, difficult to diagnose, and difficult to treat. “

This discussion of consequences admittedly focuses on the consequences of significant spill events, whether defined by spill volume or the sensitivity of an impacted area. Since the focus of this project is prevention of large vessel groundings and collisions, however, it is presumed that the spills we are working to avoid would be considered significant. As this section has explained, the impacts of such spills can be significant on many levels: both shoreline and offshore natural resources damages, response and cleanup costs, and human community impacts. The “enormous” consequences which VADM Riutta referred to spare neither humans nor natural resources, neither the innocent nor those responsible. In the case of oil spills, the old saying that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” should be revised to “Prevention is the only cure.”

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 16 Part III. Defining the Risk

This section of the Interim Project Report presents information and data collected by the Workgroup regarding vessels of concern, their estimated traffic patterns, the numbers of such vessels transiting along the West Coast, existing vessel traffic management measures, factors which affect vessel drift, historical data on West Coast casualties, assist vessel inventories and availability under severe weather conditions, and projections of future initiatives, both public and private, likely to affect this regional overview of vessel traffic.

Vessel Types The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management (WCOVTRM) Workgroup accepted the final report from the Vessel Types Subcommittee at their November 1999 meeting. The Vessel Type Subcommittee’s final recommendations as to the types of vessels that should fall within the scope of the Workgroup’s final report and recommendations were as follows: 1. Tank ships loaded with petroleum and/or hazardous material; 2. Tank barges loaded with petroleum and/or hazardous material; 3. Other Vessels, including: • Passenger and dry cargo vessels 300 gross tons and larger; • Fishing vessels 300 gross tons and larger in transit and not fishing; • Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)/ Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) tank ships; • Tank ships not loaded with petroleum or hazardous material (tank vessels can also carry tallow, molasses, and grain, for instance); and • Tank ships in ballast.

Typical West Coast Vessel Traffic Patterns One of the objectives of the West Coast Off Shore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project was to determine the routes most frequently used by these types of vessels as they transited the West Coast of the United States and Canada. The area of interest extends to 200 nautical miles seaward, and is bounded to the south by San Diego, California and to the North by the midpoint between Chugach Island and Barren Island (Cook Inlet).

Tank and Non-tank Vessels No one source of comprehensive data on vessel traffic patterns was available, so data were reviewed from previous West Coast vessel traffic studies, and information was also obtained from the United States Coast Guard. Expert opinion data was gathered from pilots, vessel masters and trade associations. In addition, vessel track information was gathered from charts reviewed on vessels during routine inspections by OSPR staff in California. Based on these information sources, the Workgroup drew the following conclusions: • In general, tank ships carrying crude oil which are operated by members of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) are transiting at distances of 50 nautical miles or greater off the West Coast of the United States except when they are entering port or a traffic separation scheme around a port. 11

11 Operation "Crystal Ball" was a US Coast Guard's year-long survey to track the prevailing movement of tankers throughout the 11th Coast Guard District's area of responsibility (mainly California). During the 01 January to 31 December 1994 period, 177 verified tanker sightings were reported. Roughly 80 tankers were sighted within 50 nm of shore over that period. All vessels tracked remained within the operating areas agreed upon by WSPA and those tank ships identified within 50 nm were all determined to be either making a port call, transiting in ballast or carrying products other than oil from Valdez. The primary means of identification of the tankers in this study was by Coast Guard aircraft. The Coast Guard's purpose of the study was to show its ability to use spot-check surveillance from multiple patrol units, to

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 17 • Non-WSPA owned/operated crude oil tankers and refined product tankers (including those operated by WSPA companies) are not subject to this agreement and may transit the coast closer to shore. • In general, US tank ships are complying with the Canadian voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone (TEZ) off the West Coast of British Columbia. (Please reference the TEZ map in Appendix E) • In general, tank barges carrying crude oil and refined petroleum products are traveling 25 nautical miles or further off the West Coast except when entering port or the traffic separation schemes around a port, according to an American Waterways Operators’ informal agreement to do so. • The tracks of dry cargo and bulk carriers vary significantly. They appear to vary from 3-30 nautical miles and further offshore when transiting the West Coast. • A vessel master’s decision to follow a specific track line is generally based upon prudence, weather, vessel traffic and geography. Weather avoidance is a major consideration for all vessels, and vessel tracks may be altered significantly to avoid heavy weather.

An example of one track from San Diego, California to the entrance to Cook Inlet, Alaska is given below. This track was considered the closest a prudent mariner would come to the coast. In general, vessels that are time constrained - particularly between the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and San Francisco/Oakland - will follow the coastal traffic separation schemes and their projected tracks. Vessels traveling from Los Angeles/Long Beach to ports further north will generally choose a more seaward track to avoid coastal recreational craft, Areas To Be Avoided, and Marine Sanctuaries.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Transit Estimate GEOGRAPHIC POSITION DEPARTURE POINTS/ CLOSEST POINT OF GEOGRAPHIC POINTS APPROACH San Diego 32-37'N 117-15'W LA/LB center of TSS 33-20'N 118-03.5'W Pt. Conception 34-20'N 120-31'W 6 miles Pt. Arguello 34-30'N 120-45'W 6 miles Pt. Sur 36-15.5'N 122 W 6 miles Pigeon Point 37-08'N 122-30.5'W 6 miles Due south of arrival buoy San Francisco TSS 37-45'N 122-4.5W North exit, SF TSS 37-56.3'N 123-04'W Pt. Arena 38-54'N 123-50'W 6 miles Cape Mendocino 40-25'N 124-35'W 10 miles Eureka arrival buoy 40-46.5'N 124-16.3'W Cape Blanco 42-50'N 124-46'W 6 miles Columbia River arrival buoy 46-11.5'N 124-11.5'W Coos Bay arrival buoy 43-22'N 124-22.5'W Grays Harbor arrival buoy 46-55'N 124-15.5'W Cape Alava 48-10'N 124-57'W 9 miles Cape Hinchinbrook 60-15'N 146-15'W 10 miles Midpoint between Chugach Island and Barren Island 59-01'N 151-50'W provide a series of snapshots of activity along the coast. This, in turn, allowed the analysis of predominant tank vessel routing along the coast. The study went further by showing accurate vessel identification and port call information for each vessel sighted, adding credibility to the operation's overall success and future enforcement possibilities.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 18 Based on anecdotal information provided primarily by operators of cargo vessels, there appears to be a preferred northern track 25 miles off the West Coast and a preferred southern track 30 miles off. The offshore traffic entering the Straits of Juan de Fuca is generally on a track 20-35 miles offshore when they approach from the south. Vessels transiting north from the Straits usually have a closest point of approach (CPA) of 50 miles from the northern tip of Vancouver Island as they transit north. In a few cases, masters interviewed have opted to transit north and south outside of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Passenger Cruise Vessels Cruise lines usually shift their fleet to the Alaska arena during the spring for the summer operating season, and return to the Caribbean in the fall while weather and visibility are good. Approximately 90% of the cruise ships transit from the Panama Canal to Seattle, WA or Vancouver, BC and commence their summer cruises through the Inside Passage from either Seattle or Vancouver, BC to Alaska. Except during this seasonal shift, cruise line traffic usually does not merge with the coastal traffic that runs between Cook Inlet and ports to the south, although some cruise ships from the Inside Passage may cross the Trans-Alaska Pipeline tanker traffic between Valdez and Seward in the Gulf of Alaska. In addition, some passenger ships do cruise in merging traffic areas off of San Diego and Los Angeles.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 19 Fishing Vessels Seasonal fishing can increase the risk to vessel traffic in specific locations along the coast and at the entrances to some ports. Exact locations of fishing activities vary; weather and season affect when and where large fishing vessels will travel. Generally, there is an increase in fishing vessel traffic during the spring and summer months from Puget Sound to Cook Inlet. The graphic above, developed by the Olympic National Marine Sanctuary staff, charts the density of fishing vessel traffic near the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the US and Canadian ports of Puget Sound.

Most vessels transiting between Asia and the West Coast of the United States travel a “Great Circle Route” that will usually merge with coastal traffic routes on a tangent from the north. There are several areas along the coast where ships on Great Circle Routes join coastal traffic; one such area is along Vancouver Island and another is off San Francisco Bay. Vessels on a Great Circle Route do not usually become a part of the north/south coastal traffic scheme, however, thereby posing a minimal transit risk except in the vicinity of the port they are entering.

Traditional Great Circle Routes12

A master’s route decisions must also consider the locations and activities of military and commercial exercise areas along the coast between San Diego and Cook Inlet. Most of these exercise areas share boundaries with traffic lanes and marine sanctuaries and can extend from

12 Sailing Direction for Northern Pacific Ocean, Pub 152, 3rd edition, 1989

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 20 the shore line to several hundred miles out to sea. Exercise area activities include fleet exercises, missile launches and testing, submarine transits, and air operations. A growing commercial space launch industry is operated out of Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California Coast. Vessels transiting through the military exercise areas usually receive daily activity information from radio broadcasts, or weekly and monthly "Notice to Mariners."

Another activity which is likely to influence the location of coastwise vessel traffic is ballast water exchange. US law establishes a voluntary program with a mandatory reporting requirement for vessels entering the US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to exchange ballast water mid-ocean in order to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species. The Canadian federal government considers ballast water management a port issue, although the Canadian Coast Guard has an offshore advance report requirement to gain information regarding ballast water management followed by each vessel prior to the vessel's arrival at Canadian ports.

The Port of Vancouver, British Columbia has established a mandatory requirement that vessels arriving at that port have exchanged ballast water mid-ocean, with a safety exception. The State of California has passed legislation which requires vessels arriving at its ports from outside the US to conduct a ballast water exchange at least 200 miles offshore; this is having the effect of requiring vessels traveling coastwise from BC ports to California to travel 200 miles offshore or risk a citation. Whereas California law does not impact coastwise traffic from other US states, the State of Washington has passed legislation which does require vessels arriving from outside a region from the Columbia River to 50 degrees north, which is defined as common waters that include BC, to conduct a ballast water exchange at least 50 miles offshore. A bill passed the 2001Oregon Legislature that establishes two types of exchange: coastal and Open Ocean. The bill makes exchange mandatory for ships from outside the EEZ, as is the case in California and Washington. The coastal exchange is also mandatory and applies to ballast water taken on at a port on the west coast of North America if the port is south of 40 N latitude (Point Mendocino) or north of 50 N latitude (Vancouver Island). There is no required distance offshore for coastal exchange, since requiring ships to go offshore 200 miles to get west of the California current was considered impractical and also required ships to cross shipping lanes, which might increase the risk of collision.

Representatives from BC, Washington, Oregon, and California have discussed the inconsistencies in these emerging policies and have agreed to explore opportunities to make these policies more consistent coast wide. Until that is accomplished, however, traffic heading north from California to Washington waters may be traveling at least 50 miles offshore at some point in their transit, while traffic heading south to California from British Columbia may go at least 200 miles offshore at some point for ballast water exchange operations.

West Coast Vessel Traffic Volume The Vessel Traffic Volume Subcommittee collected data on vessels transiting the Pacific North America coastline from San Diego, California to Cook Inlet, Alaska for a one year period from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 in order to compile a “snapshot in time” that would give the Workgroup some idea of the volume of coastal traffic. To avoid duplication, it was important to focus only on arrivals in each port and to determine each vessel’s last port of call. In some cases this information was not available without extensive research. In other cases, the data had not been recorded. The final numbers include 964 arrivals for which no “Last Port of Call “(LPOC) data could be determined, representing 5% of the total.

This traffic volume data indicate that a total of 19,161 “arrivals” were documented for the period of 7/1/98 to 6/30/99; all vessel types as noted on page 17 of this report were included. Since

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 21 some arrivals were the same ship making multiple port calls, the Workgroup extrapolated the total volume of traffic both between and arriving at ports for this representative period, which provides us with an indication of the magnitude of risk, although not the actual number of individual vessels visiting the West Coast over that period. A number of individual vessels would not have met our needs for this project.

The following ports or areas were included for transit information (data sources in italics): • Prince William Sound, AK (Cook Inlet/Kodiak); Data Source: CSX Lines Inc/ Coast Guard VTS • Southeast Alaska; Data Source: Southeast Alaska Pilot Logs • Western British Columbia, Canada; Data Source: MCTS Tofino • Strait of Juan de Fuca; Data Source: VTS Puget Sound and MCTS Tofino • Grays Harbor, WA; Data Source: Coast Guard Notice of Arrival/Pilots Log • Columbia River; Data Source: Coast Guard Advance Notice of Arrival Logs • Coos Bay, OR; Data Source: Port of Coos Bay Arrival Logs • Eureka, CA; Data Source: Westfall Stevedores Company • San Francisco Bay, CA; Data Source: San Francisco Marine Exchange • Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA; Data Source: Los Angeles/Long Beach Marine Exchange • San Diego, CA: Data Source: Monthly Arrival Logs/Port of San Diego Records

Please note that some of these “ports” are actually areas of multiple ports, such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There are a number of ports within that region serving Canada and Puget Sound, but this has no impact on the number of transits along the coast to and from that region.

The Workgroup noted 19,161 West Coast vessel transits during the period from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999. Approximately 20% of these transits were tank ships and barges. The majority of the remainder are large commercial vessels (LCVs) such as container ships and bulk product carriers; 89% were arrivals at the major ports of Prince William Sound, the Juan de Fuca region, the Columbia River, San Francisco Bay, and Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA/LB). Approximately 31% of the vessel arrivals were Trans-Pacific from Hawaii, Asia, Oceania, Europe through the Suez Canal, or the Middle East (see discussion of Great Circle Routes on page 22 above). After deducting the 5% unknown LPOC, that leaves 66%, or 12,646 vessel arrivals in West Coast ports over the one year study period that are known to be coastwise transits.

The Vessel Traffic Volume data are presented in various graphic formats in Appendix D. The first table provides a summary of all data; the following tables break out tank vessels, tank barges, and “other” vessels. Appendix D also includes bar graphs showing port arrivals by vessel type as well as pie charts showing port arrivals by Last Port of Call. A summary of vessel transits by section of the coast, based upon these volume data, is also provided in Appendix D. Existing Vessel Management Measures The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recognizes that various Vessel Traffic Management measures are already in place along the West Coast of North America. The Workgroup reviewed these measures and their impacts on coastwise traffic patterns. Among existing measures are several informal industry "agreements" that establish voluntary precautionary measures. For example, certain commercial vessels transit outside the EEZ off the Alaskan coast, and laden tankers operated by WSPA companies, as well as laden tank barges operated by AWO member companies, observe voluntary agreements to operate 50 and 25 miles offshore, respectively (Please reference footnote #1). It should be noted that,

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 22 as Alaskan oil supplies are reduced, the number of foreign flag tankers, which already outnumber US flag tankers covered under the WSPA agreement, are predicted to increase. Another voluntary measure listed under Reporting/Monitoring Systems in Appendix E is the International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS), which is jointly sponsored and financed by the US and Canadian shipping industry operating in Puget Sound, British Columbia’s Inland Passage, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington State’s Pacific coast, and the mouth of the Columbia River. Position transmitters on participating tugs provide real-time location information, as well as details on the tug’s ownership and specifications. This information, which is received and managed by the Puget Sound Marine Exchange, is shared with the US and Canadian Coast Guards, thus allowing them to assign a tug to a vessel rescue, if that tug is available and appropriate to the situation. ITOS does not provide information regarding the tug’s readiness status. A 1999 US Coast Guard study found that the ITOS system provided an incremental improvement to safety and environmental protection. In the Juan de Fuca waterway system the probability that an ITOS tug would be available ranged from 71% in eastern Puget Sound to 42% in the western straits, with a probability of coverage offshore ranging from 3% to 9%. These figures reflect availability projections based on the presence of a tug; such a tug may or may not be able to drop a tow and attempt a rescue. ITOS is essentially an information system, and one which provides even greater improvement in an area without VTS, such as the Columbia River. ITOS tugs operate from San Diego to Anchorage and the system is capable of monitoring and tracking tugs up to 100 miles off shore. This is especially important in areas outside of the coverage of radar, which describes most of the West Coast of the United States and Canada; however it is uncertain whether the Coast Guards beyond the Straits of Juan de Fuca and the Puget Sound area are utilizing ITOS to its full capability. In general, regulatory management measures focus on major port approach areas and areas with established protection designations such as exclusion zones and marine sanctuaries. While the designation of these areas is regulatory in nature and may require International Maritime Organization (IMO) approval, compliance is usually voluntary. For example, the Olympic Coast Area To Be Avoided (ATBA) was effective in June of 1995. The ATBA extends from the Copalis River, 12 nautical miles North of Grays Harbor, to the entrance lanes of the Strait of Juan de Fuca at a point 25 nm off the coast. It does not exactly match the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary designated area boundary. Tank vessels carrying petroleum products, crude oil or other hazardous materials are advised to stay out of the ATBA. The area is listed in advisory notices to mariners, but compliance is not mandatory. A similar ATBA has been designated for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary in southern California. A voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone (TEZ) was also established along the West Coast of British Columbia to keep laden tankers west of the Zone in order to allow time for a rescue tug to reach a disabled and drifting tanker. The TEZ also reduces the probability of a tanker colliding with fishing vessels in the excluded area.

Canadian officials have recently been studying grounding probabilities associated with the Bowie Seamount, which lies just west of the TEZ border at its northern end, and rises to within approximately 60ft of the sea surface. Tanker companies contacted to date, however, have indicated in writing that their vessels typically stay at least tens of nautical miles from the Bowie Seamount for their most efficient route, and are well aware of the risks posed by Bowie. Although Canadian officials have not pursued modifications to the TEZ, the seamount is being

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 23 extensively studied on an ecological basis, and a planning team is considering whether to recommend designation as a Marine Protected Area. 13

Recognizing the collision risks associated with converging vessel traffic at port entrances, traffic lanes and traffic separation systems have been developed for most for major West Coast ports; in some instances, these TSSs have recently been revised. The US and Canadian Coast Guards cooperated on a Port Access Route Study for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent waters. Their final report issued in January, 2001 makes 28 recommendations for improving navigation safety in those waters. In addition, the US Coast Guard has proposed amendments to the Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for approaches to the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and established a Regulated Navigation Area for San Pedro Bay. Both actions are based upon Port Access Route Studies for the area. The TSSs for San Francisco Bay and the Santa Barbara Channel have also been adjusted pursuant to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary study and recommendations. It is worth noting that many of the existing vessel management measures described above were created individually, only taking into account their local regions. Except for the area of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary vessel routing project, and possibly the Strait of Juan de Fuca area, no "big picture" view was taken of how the various measures worked together. The measures established at each port are designed specifically for that port, however these measures must also be easily understood and complied with by mariners traveling between ports.

Tables listing these measures either as Routing Measures, Reporting/Monitoring Systems, or Exclusion Zones and Protected Areas are available in Appendix E. These tables also provide information regarding the location, applicability, and the authority for these measures. Maps of these management measures are also included in Appendix E.

Ship Drift Analysis In addition to evaluating the types and volume of vessels that transit the West Coast, their normal routes, and existing traffic management measures, the Project Workgroup was also interested in evaluating how fast a disabled vessel would drift ashore, as well as how fast an assist vessel might be available. A discussion of assist vessel availability can be found in the following section; this section focuses on the weather factors which contribute to ship drift rate.

NOAA’s Hazardous Materials Response Division was requested by the States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force to analyze ship drift rates for the West Coast of North America from Alaska to southern California, in order to determine the risk of a disabled vessel coming ashore and grounding. For the purposes of this analysis a series of tables were generated of onshore drift speeds based upon 10 to 15 years of wind records from five different locations along the West Coast. These onshore drift speeds were computed using both mean and maximum onshore wind speeds during those time periods. To adequately consider all types of vessels, the tables compared the effects of varying windages (a ship's draft rate based upon vessel surfaces which function as "sail" areas) ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent. This analysis is based on a 1997 NOAA report on ship drift in the Strait of Juan De Fuca which determined that vessels of varying types, under various loading conditions, drifted within a range of 2% - 10% of wind-speed. (Appendix F).

13 An ecosystem overview report was produced in 1999 outlining physical, biological, cultural, and social characteristics of the Bowie Seamount Area. This report is published online at www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans/Bowie/Splash.htm.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 24 This analysis did not consider the use of computer model simulations. It was determined that modeling would not be viable without knowing all of the specific parameters that would control the drift of a ship. Results could vary greatly depending upon the location of the ship, the atmospheric and oceanographic conditions, the type, condition, and load of the ship, and how the ship was oriented to the wind, waves, and currents. It would not have been practicable to attempt to predict exactly where and when a drifting ship would come ashore for the entire West Coast and under every possible condition. NOAA has eight weather buoys off the West Coast area of concern for this project. The Subcommittee chose to use hourly wind records from the following five wind stations which they considered representative of the predominant weather regimes on the West Coast: Middleton Island (Alaska) January 1985 - December 1995 Buoy 46207 north of Vancouver Island February 1989 - February 1999 Buoy off Columbia River Bar April 1984 - May 1998 Buoy off San Francisco Bay August 1982 - December 1998 Buoy off Pt. Arguello April 1982 - December 1998

The monthly mean wind statistics were computed from hourly data and are shown as statistical wind tables in Appendix F. These wind tables were used to compute the drift tables in the following way: 1. The onshore direction was determined to be perpendicular to the shore ± 22.5°; 2. The mean onshore winds were computed for the data set; 3. The maximum wind was defined as the strongest wind in the onshore direction that occurred at least 0.1% of the time. The results are summarized below. Please note that the wind directions indicate the direction from which the winds are blowing.

Station locations for ship drift study

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 25 Station (Coastal Reference) Onshore Direction Mean Knots/Max Knots Middleton Island (Alaska) SSW- S-SSE 11 40 North of Vancouver Island (Canada) SSW-W-WSW 13 33 Columbia River Mouth (Washington-Oregon) WSW-W-WNW 10 40 Off San Francisco (Northern California) SSW-SW-WSW 8 33 Off Pt. Arguello (Southern California) SW-WSW-W 8 27

When its propulsion or steering fails, a ship will drift due to the combined effects of the wind, waves, current, trim and ballast. Tanker drift data have been studied with theory and models (Holder et al. 1981; Lewison et al. 1981; Smeaton 1981). These models can be quite complicated with a large scatter in predictions based upon variations in ship size, shape, orientation, list, degree of loading, and other parameters. Ship drift factors are also important in coast guard search and rescue operations (USCG 1991), where tables relating drift speed and angles for different vessels and environmental conditions are tabulated.

In addition to theoretical and test tank studies, industry records and questionnaires provide solid empirical information for defining bounds to the problem. For example, Holder et al. (1981) summarized an Oil Companies International Marine Forum study where questionnaires were sent to member companies as well as members of the International Chamber of Shipping. A total of 196 evaluation periods using 47 ships were used in the study. The direction and rate of ship drift could be determined from the questionnaire returns. Then, by subtracting for ocean current vectors, the drift due to wind and wave forces for intervals up to six hours was estimated. The ships were divided into categories by size and load type. Smaller vessels were considered less than 200,000 tons summer dead weight (SDWT). Larger vessels or very large carrying capacity are greater than 200,000 SDWT. The vessels were considered fully loaded or carrying ballast.

The final ship drift tables below were computed by assuming that the ship would drift at a percentage of the wind speed. For example, if the average onshore wind speed is 11 knots and the windage on the ship is 10 percent, then the wind would move the ship toward shore at 10 percent of 11 knots or 1.1 knots. The onshore ship drift tables for the five representative wind stations are presented as follows:

Middleton Island, Alaska (61° 9.5' N, 150° 6.8' W) Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.1 4.0 8% .8 3.2 6% .7 2.4 4% .4 1.6 2% .2 0.8

North of Vancouver Island, Canada (50° 52.0' N, 129° 55.0' W) Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.3 3.3 8% 1.0 2.6 6% .9 2.0 4% .5 1.3 2% .3 0.7

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 26 Columbia River Mouth, Washington-Oregon (46° 7.0' N , 124° 30.0'W) Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% .8 4.0 8% .6 3.2 6% .5 2.4 4% .3 1.6 2% .2 0.8

Off San Francisco, Northern California (37° 45.0' N, 122° 50.0' W) Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.3 3.3 8% 1.0 2.6 6% .9 2.0 4% .5 1.3 2% .3 0.7

Off Pt. Arguello, Southern California (34° 42.0' N , 120 58.0' W) Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.3 2.7 8% 1.0 2.2 6% .9 1.6 4% .5 1.1 2% .3 0.5

The columns in the table represent the percent of drift: 1 Percent of the wind used for computing the speed of drift 2 Speed of drift for the average onshore wind condition 3 Speed of drift for the maximum, or "worst case" onshore wind condition

Please see Appendix F for references, statistical wind data, and plots of the drift speed and wind speed for a loaded VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier), a ballasted VLCC, a loaded small vessel, and a ballasted small vessel. Other Factors Affecting Vessel Drift Ocean currents may also affect drift, although not to the same extent as wind speed. Eastern North Pacific Ocean circulation patterns are summarized below.

Along the west coast of the U.S. and Canada, the large scale circulation starts with the Kuroshio Current off the Japan coast (analogous to the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic), which becomes the Kuroshio Extension and then the West Wind Drift which flows eastward along the subarctic boundary (between 40˚ N and 50˚ N latitude). As the West Wind Drift approaches the North American continent, it splits to form the southward flowing California Current, and the northward flowing Alaska Current. This split occurs off the west coast of Canada at approximately 45˚N in

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 27 winter and 50˚N in summer. Four general zones are described for the coastal circulation in the eastern North Pacific:14 1. Southeastern Alaska 2. Pacific Northwest (PNW) 3. Central Coast (CC) 4. Southern California Bight (SCB)

1. Southeastern Alaska The general circulation in the deep water off the North Pacific slope consists of large eddies and meanders up to 200 miles or more in diameter that have a net drift west to east at an average speed of 0.1 - 0.3 knots. Along the continental slope, the Alaska Current (also known as the Alaska Stream) is a persistent and dominant westward current along the continental slope between the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Aleutians. Off the Canadian and Southeast Alaskan continental slope, the current averages about 0.6 knots. The current narrows and strengthens to about 2 knots west of Kodiak Island.

On the continental shelf currents are forced by regional winds and runoff. During the spring, summer, and fall, the Alaska Coastal Current is the dominant feature. This fresh water current flows along the coast of the Gulf of Alaska in a counterclockwise direction. The current peaks during the fall when runoff is highest. Velocities along the southeast Alaskan shelf average between 0.2 - 0.4 knots. Off the Kenai Peninsula currents average 0.4 - 2 knots. During the winter months when runoff is at a minimum, the coastal current on the shelf is weak or nonexistent.

2. Western Continental United States (Washington, Oregon, California) Circulation along the US West Coast is influenced by local to large scale winds and differences in sea level considered over a large horizontal scale (Baja to Monterey) (Hickey, 2000). Strub et al (1987) analyzed wind and current observations along the entire west coast and formulated three large scale wind and circulation patterns. These three circulation regimes are listed in the table below. Note that these areas are climatological descriptors, with transitions zones between them that may exhibit circulation patterns of either bordering zone. For example, the region between the Pacific Northwest (southern latitude 45˚N) and the California Central Coast (northern latitude 43˚N) may exhibit the circulation of either of the bordering circulation schemes.

Name Latitude Geographical Pacific Northwest (PNW) 45N - 48N North of Yaquina Head, OR to Strait of Juan de Fuca Central Coast (CC) 39N - 43N San Francisco Bay, CA to Cape Blanco, Oregon Southern California Bight 32N - 35N US/Mexican border to San Luis Obispo (SCB) Bay, CA

14 These circulation descriptions are generalizations based on climatology. Large scale phenomena such as El Nino/La Nina, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are not included in this discussion. Local effects near shore may significantly alter the circulation and are also beyond the scope of this discussion.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 28 Annual mean winds along the west coast are northward north of 40˚N and southward south of 40˚N. At 40˚N the seasonal variation in winds is greatest, decreasing farther away from that latitude. Just as warmer weather occurs in San Diego earlier than Seattle, the seasonal changes in circulation along the western continental U.S. begin in the southern areas and progress northward. The transition from winter to spring circulation patterns occurs about 2 months earlier in the SCB than in the PNW (Strub et al, 1987). Recent research suggests that this spring transition occurs at the end of the winter storm season (Chen and Wang, 2000).

a. Pacific Northwest This coastal shelf area exhibits gradual seasonal changes with short term (<1 month) fluctuations; variations in the currents are larger in fall and winter than in summer. The southward flowing California Current extends from the shelf break to the coast (> 500 nm wide) in spring and summer. In fall and winter, the California Current moves offshore, and the northward flowing Davidson Current surfaces and extends from the coast to the mid-shelf. Typical velocities for the California Current are 0.2 - 0.4 knots, generally increasing offshore (Landry and Hickey, 1989). Typical velocities for the Davidson Current are 0.1 - 0.3 knots, stronger in the more southern portions of this zone.

b. Central Coast This coastal shelf area is dominated by large, short period fluctuations. Seasonal changes in wind force are greatest in this region. The southward flowing California current extends to the coast in spring and summer (speeds generally less than < 0.5 knot; however, measurements up to 2 knots have been observed in the core (Lynn and Simpson 1987)), and the northward Davidson Current surfaces in fall and winter and extends from the coast to the mid-shelf (speeds less than 0.2 knots, 50 nm wide, Huyer et al 1991). These patterns are more consistent in the spring and summer; during fall and winter short-term fluctuations can be more pronounced.

c. Southern California Bight The Southern California Bight is a dynamically variable region where colder, fresher subarctic waters from the north meet and mix with warmer, saltier water masses from the south. The California Current flows southward offshore of the shelf-break (0.2 - 0.3 knots), turns shoreward near offshore San Diego and then flows northward along the southern California coastline to become the California Countercurrent. The area where this turn occurs is sometimes called the Southern California Eddy (Hickey, 1992). During spring, the northward flowing California Countercurrent is less frequent. Northward current velocities usually peak (up to 1 knot) in summer and winter when the dominant winds relax or weaken.

The Santa Barbara Channel and adjoining Santa Maria Basin have three basic circulation regimes: Upwelling, Convergence and Relaxation, though these patterns can be distinctly determined only about 60% of the time. For this discussion, "southward" means following the coast with a southern or equator-ward component and "northward" means following the coast with a northward or pole-ward component. As the spring transition begins, the cyclonic (counterclockwise) circulation within the channel strengthens and the coastal southward circulation weakens to form the upwelling circulation pattern. During upwelling along the coast the southward current is generally stronger (0.5 knots) than the northward current (0.2 - 0.6 knots). As the northward current strengthens (0.5 - 0.8 knots) and the southward current slows a little (0.2 - 0.3 knots), the convergence pattern is established. Then when winds and the southward

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 29 current weaken (0.1 - 0.3 knots) in the fall and winter, the relaxation circulation pattern becomes established, with a relatively stronger northward current (0.5 - 1 knots).

Historic Casualty Date Analysis Casualty data collected for this report indicate that there were over 800 marine casualties involving vessels 300 gross tons or larger reported along the West Coast of North America between 1992 - 1999. Ninety-six of these casualties fell within the scope of this report as "offshore" (3-200 nm) casualties that had a potential for a significant oil spill.15 These casualties ranged from mechanical failures to collisions or groundings -- basically, any incident that may have caused an oil spill of 1000 gallons or more. To identify any trends in these casualties, this analysis covers a longer time period (eight years) than the one-year period used for the Vessel Traffic Volume data. An appropriate average is used to determine the historical casualty rate of certain vessels types for the risk assessment tool described in Part IV of this report.

Offshore casualty data were drawn from the following sources: • USCG Marine Safety Information System (MSIS) database for calendar years 1992-1999 (includes maritime casualty statistics for United States Coast Guard Districts: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California). • Rescue Coordination Center (RCC) Victoria's SAR database for calendar years 1994 - 1999.

MSIS data were challenging to interpret, as locations of reported casualties are often estimated or reported incorrectly. There were also duplicate entries made by the different teams involved, i.e., the same incident may have caused several casualties (collision, fire, flooding, etc.) and one incident may involve several vessels, particularly in collisions. However, duplicate cases were eliminated during the research for this report, with the result that the total was reduced to 96 "true and separate" cases. RCC Victoria did not have data available prior to 1994, whereas the MSIS data dated back to 1992. This suggests the possibility that the casualty totals are lower than they might be otherwise.

The Pacific West Coast Vessel Casualty data (Appendix G) are presented as maps showing the ninety-six casualty locations. These maps are followed by tables and graphs which list and summarize the incidents. A heavy concentration of reported casualty positions near major ports can be discerned as one trend. This may be due to higher traffic density in these areas as well as to the fact that ships conduct their status review of steering and propulsion systems 12 hours prior to entering US waters, and thus the incidents are reported/monitored more closely (loss of steering was the most common type of equipment failure). For example, the US/Canadian Cooperative Vessel Traffic Services at the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca requires an advance report on steering and propulsion tests. The USCG Marine Safety Office Puget Sound

15 Some of the criteria in considering which incidents had the potential of an oil spill were: a. Loss of vessel control within 5nm of shoal water. Based on a moderate current of 1 to 2 kts, a vessel 5 nm from shore has significant potential of running aground within a couple of hours of the casualty; most casualties require two or more hours to affect repairs. b. Any structural damage in the area of oil tanks was an indicator of a potential spill. Should the damage not have been identified, the oil discharge may have been significant. c. The 800 vessel casualty entries were scrutinized to ensure that they were truly "offshore.” If they occurred inside bays, straits, inlets, or near harbor entrances, the data were excluded, since this report focuses on transit-routing, not port entries, anchoring difficulties, or narrow channel issues.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 30 has worked with the Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association to develop a recommended “Standard of Care” covering maintenance procedures, preventive measures, and actions in the event of a power loss16. Cracks/fractures in the tank vessel cargo tanks were the most common type of structural failure. Structural stress for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) trade tankers is to be expected since they routinely transit through the harsh environments of Gulf of Alaska. Moreover, TAPS tankers are subject to very stringent inspection and reporting standards, which may skew the reported vessel casualties to include a high number of tanker incidents. Such incident frequency should decrease as new double-hull replacements come on line for the existing TAPS tankers.

The other clear trend which can be drawn from this data is that cargo/freight ships had the highest number of incidents, but this vessel type also represents the greatest number of offshore transits. The resultant overall rate of casualties per transits of 0.054% for cargo/freight ships represents a low average casualty risk. Overall, with the limited amount of information recorded in the available databases, the Workgroup is hesitant to state unilaterally that any trends can be discerned. Nevertheless, it is clear that incidents involving mechanical and equipment failures do occur off the West Coast with enough regularity - an average of 12 times/year - to justify our concern that such incidents could result in drift groundings and the release of oil and other hazardous materials into the environment (Appendix G).

It should be noted that only US and Canadian flag ships are required to report casualties outside of their own territorial waters. As a result, there may have actually been more loss-of- power or steering casualties which occurred within the US and Canadian EEZs affecting foreign flag vessels that were not reported. There is no worldwide vessel casualty database to reference, but one way to evaluate the casualty risk posed by vessels flying flags other than those of the US or Canada is to review information in the US Coast Guard’s 2000 Port State Control report. The report notes that “the total number of vessels visiting US ports rose slightly from 1999 to 2000.” Of the 51,871 port calls made by 7657 individual vessels from 95 different flag states, 11,767 exams were conducted and 193 vessels were detained.

The Port State Control Report concludes that the quality of vessels visiting US port sis improving, however, there are some exceptions. While the International Safety Management (ISM) Code implementation phases have contributed to the overall improvement in shipping, there were notable exceptions that indicated that some managing companies did not take the ISM Code seriously. Only 193 ships were detained in 2000, but the US Coast Guard believes that there are still too many substandard ships visiting our waters. Some of the deficiencies on these detained vessels included 43 cases of propulsion and auxiliary machinery problems, and 7 cases for navigation equipment problems. Table 6 of the Report, “Examinations and Detentions by Port,” has been edited below to show only the West Coast ports:

16 This "Standard of Care/COTP & PSSOA Vessel Power Loss Reduction Initiative” can be accessed at www.uscg.mil/d13/units/msopuget/msops.html.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 31 Port Coast Guard Examinations Detentions District Anchorage, AK 17 158 3 Juneau, AK 17 48 0 Los Angeles, CA 11 929 27 Portland, OR 13 473 8 Puget Sound, WA 13 377 7 San Diego, CA 11 68 0 San Francisco, CA 11 533 5 Valdez, AK 17 2 1

There were 32 detentions in USCG District 11, 15 in District 13, and 4 in District 17, for a total of 51 on the West Coast in 2000.

Assist Vessel Availability The Assist Vessel Subcommittee was charged with finalizing a definition of “assist vessel” and providing an inventory of such vessels on the West Coast. As approved by the project Workgroup at their 11/1/99 meeting, the definition of an “assist “ or “rescue” vessel is “a tug or other vessel capable of assisting and stabilizing a drifting disabled vessel, in order to arrest the drift until such time as a suitable salvage/towing vessel can arrive on scene to provide necessary assistance.“ With this definition in mind, the Subcommittee developed an inventory of 182 ocean-going tugs operating out of “home-ports” on the West Coast. It should be noted that such an inventory is a “snapshot in time," since home-port assignments for tugs can change, but it does indicate the relative distribution of ocean-going tugs on the West Coast. Please reference Appendix H for this inventory. Stan Norman of the Subcommittee then did a comparison of five studies which evaluated the bollard pull needed for open ocean work under worst-case storm event conditions (see ETV Capability Matrix, Appendix I). 17Comparing that information with the information generated by NOAA on worst case wind data for the West Coast, the Assist Vessel Subcommittee developed a "severe weather" rescue tug inventory (see below) as a subset of the West Coast Tug Inventory. The bollard pull specifications are noted in the footnote. The inventory provides information on home-port location, tug name, operator, and bollard pull. Since these are all working tugs, the Subcommittee agreed that only ports with a sufficient population of resident, high-power, ocean-going tugs should be included in the Severe Weather inventory if we are to assume that a rescue tug will be available to respond to a worst case situation most of the time. The Canadian Coast Guard maintains three vessels along the Pacific Coast, and the US Coast Guard maintains vessels off Alaska and the Pacific Northwest during fishing season. However, it should be understood that both Navy and US and Canadian Coast Guard vessel assets are not included, since the movements of such craft may be considered confidential and not considered as available. There are only two designated salvage vessels for the entire the West Coast. The Salvage Chief, operated by Fred Devine Diving and Salvage, is home-ported at Astoria, Oregon. The American Salvor, operated by Crowley Marine Services, is home-ported in Long Beach, California. In addition, Crowley Marine Services maintains “fly-away” salvage equipment packs in San Francisco, Seattle, Anchorage, and Captain’s Bay, Alaska. The US Navy also maintains salvage equipment and vessels which are available to a Federal On-Scene Coordinator in the event of an oil spill or the threat of a spill.

17 Bollard pull is a measure of a tug’s pulling power measured in tons. For example, a tug with a bollard pull of 70 tons is able to exert a force of approximately 140,000 pounds on a vessel being towed.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 32

As new tugs are brought on-line, they are likely to use a Z-drive configuration, which makes them more maneuverable for vessel assists. No other major changes in “tug technology” or availability are anticipated at this time.

The Assist Vessel Subcommittee compiled a one-page summary of the equipment which a rescue vessel would require to provide a hook-up and tow, as well as a summary of the procedures which would most likely be implemented (Appendix I).

Severe Weather Rescue Tug Inventory18

Location Tug Name Bollard Pull Operator (Actual or Est.)19 Prince William Sound Alert 150 Crowley Prince William Sound Attentive 150 Crowley Prince William Sound Aware 150 Crowley Prince William Sound Nanuq 106 Crowley Prince William Sound Sea Venture 120 Crowley Prince William Sound Sea Voyage 120 Crowley Prince William Sound Tan’erliq 106 Crowley

Vancouver BC Rivtow Captain Bob 101 Rivtow Vancouver BC Commodore 90 Seaspan Vancouver BC Regent 90 Seaspan Vancouver BC Discovery 66 Seaspan

Puget Sound Adventurer 75 Crowley Puget Sound Bulwark 75 Crowley Puget Sound Cavalier 75 Crowley Puget Sound Chief 60 Crowley Puget Sound Commander 75 Crowley Puget Sound Guardsman 75 Crowley Puget Sound Guide 60 Crowley Puget Sound Hunter 75 Crowley Puget Sound Invader 75 Crowley Puget Sound Protector 60 Crowley Puget Sound Ranger 75 Crowley Puget Sound Sea Valiant 88 Crowley Puget Sound Sea Valor 88 Crowley Puget Sound Sea Victory 120 Crowley Puget Sound Stalwart 75 Crowley Puget Sound Warrior 75 Crowley Puget Sound Barbara Foss 72 Foss Puget Sound Fairwind 60 Foss Puget Sound Garth Foss 87 Foss

18 General criteria for selection: Cook Inlet to Prince Rupert = 100 tons bollard pull or greater, Prince Rupert to San Francisco = 60 tons bollard pull or greater, San Francisco to San Diego = 40 tons bollard pull or greater. Selected tugs that do not quite meet the bollard pull criteria have been included in Vancouver, the Columbia River, San Francisco and San Diego based on the professional judgement of Subcommittee members. 19 Bollard pull estimates are based on horsepower comparison with tugs of similar horsepower and propulsion system that have verified actual bollard pull. Bollard pull is in direct ahead mode.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 33 Location Tug Name Bollard Pull Operator (Actual or Est.) Puget Sound Jeffrey Foss 72 Foss Puget Sound Lindsey Foss 87 Foss Puget Sound Pacific Falcon 60 Harley Puget Sound Ocean Warrior 60 Sea Coast Puget Sound Alaskan Victory 60 Victory Puget Sound Commander 60 Victory Puget Sound Enforcer 60 Victory Puget Sound Alaska Mariner 60 Western Puget Sound Ocean Ranger 60 Western Puget Sound Pacific Titan 60 Western Puget Sound Western Titan 60 Western

Columbia River Daniel Foss 44 Foss Columbia River Howard Olsen 41 Foss

Coos Bay Natoma 60 Sause Bros. Coos Bay Navajo 60 Sause Bros. Coos Bay Salishan 60 Sause Bros. Coos Bay Titan 60 Sause Bros.

Humboldt Bay Koos King 57 Knutzen Humboldt Bay Koos Humbolt 33 Knutzen

San Francisco Delta Carey 64 Bay Delta San Francisco Delta Deanna 71 Bay Delta San Francisco Delta Linda 71 Bay Delta San Francisco Andrew Foss 50 Foss San Francisco Brynn Foss 39 Foss San Francisco Richard Foss 38 Foss San Francisco Silver Eagle 62 Oscar Niemeth San Francisco S/R California 75 SeaRiver San Francisco S/R Carquinez 66 SeaRiver San Francisco S/R Mare Island 64 SeaRiver

LA/LB Admiral 54 Crowley LA/LB Leader 54 Crowley LA/LB Master 54 Crowley LA/LB Scout 54 Crowley LA/LB Sea Cloud 55 Crowley LA/LB Sea Robin 55 Crowley LA/LB Eddie C 46 Foss LA/LB Peter Foss 44 Foss LA/LB Phillips Foss 63 Foss LA/LB Escort Eagle 60 Millenium LA/LB Millenium Falcon 70 Millenium LA/LB Millenium Maverick 70 Millenium LA/LB Millenium Star 70 Millenium

San Diego Saturn 28 Crowley San Diego Spartan 28 Crowley San Diego Navajo 100 US Navy San Diego Sioux 100 US Navy San Diego USN-6 60 US Navy

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 34 A Severe-Weather Tug Assist Case Study: On February 11th at 1120 hours, the engines failed on the Greek-registered, container vessel M/V Hanjin Elizabeth (approx. 37,000 DWT). The vessel began drifting about 80 nautical miles from Brooks Peninsula on Vancouver Island towards Cape Scott/Scott Islands located at the most northerly end of the island. A crew of 24 were on board.

On February 12th at around 0200 hours, the Liberian-registered, general cargo vessel M/V Caria (approx. 26,000 DWT) also experienced engine failure and began drifting 17 nautical miles from Brooks Peninsula towards the northern end of Vancouver Island. There were 20 crew members on board.

Severe storm to hurricane force winds and seas prevail in the area. The weather conditions - storm to hurricane force winds and 10 meter seas - were unusual, but not unheard of for February. At the onset of both vessel casualties, it was anticipated that they would run aground before the tugs arrived and secured a tow. The major potential polluting substance was the vessels' bunker fuel of diesel and intermediate types. The maximum fuel capacity of the M/V Hanjin Elizabeth is approximately 4,000 tons (27,900 barrels). It was reported to have over 1,915 tons of bunker fuel - mostly a thick, intermediate type oil. The M/V Caria bunker fuel capacity is about 1,700 tons (12,000 barrels). The amount of fuel on board was reported to be approximately 913 tons. The container vessel was known to have some dangerous goods on board, whereas the bulk-cargo vessel was transporting pulp product. The Cape Scott/Scott Island group is a highly significant ecological area with vulnerable populations of seabirds and seals. Cape Scott Provincial Park is at the north end of the island. This park is noted for its wilderness hiking and historical setting.

Ocean-going rescue tugs from the United States and Canada were dispatched by the Canadian Coast Guard's Rescue Co-ordination Center in Victoria and Vessel Traffic Services. CCG also dispatched two of its own vessels. The M/V Hanjin Elizabeth drifted "not under command" for about 100 nautical miles to the north over a 33 hour time period before regaining engine functions. The M/V Hanjin Elizabeth had drifted past and just west of the Triangle and Scott chain of islands before the first tug arrived. These islands extend 28 nautical miles from Cape Scott. The initial rescue tug on-scene - the U.S. "Hunter" - failed to sustain towing. It took only about an hour to fix a towline, but within an hour the towline broke due to storm force winds and seas. Fortunately, when the M/V Hanjin Elizabeth was in tow, it was stabilized long enough to enable a crew to safely repair its engine. Within a couple of hours the vessel was operating under its own power. The US "Hunter" took approximately 20 hours to arrive from its home port of Anacortes. It traveled over 360 nautical miles via the "Inside Passage" between Vancouver Island and the mainland and around Cape Scott in order to avoid storm conditions. The second and larger US tug, the "Sea Victory" from Seattle took 29 hours to arrive on scene. It also took the same Inside Passage route - traveling about 400 nautical miles. The third tug on-scene was the Canadian "Seaspan" from Port Hardy. It took 7 hours to arrive (90 nautical miles). The M/V Hanjin Elizabeth engines regained functions by the time the U.S. "Sea Victory" arrived. The CCG vessel - the "John P. Tully" - could only be on standby for potential crew rescue. The M/V Hanjin Elizabeth reached its intended destination of Seattle under its own power, but escorted by the two tugs. There was no loss of life, cargo, or oil.

The M/V Caria began drifting from a position much closer to Vancouver Island than the M/V Hanjin Elizabeth. The M/V Caria drifted 41 nautical miles over a 19 hour period. It came within 10 nautical miles of both Vancouver Island and Scott Islands before a towline was secured by the Canadian tug "Arctic Hooper". It took the Arctic Hooper eight hours to arrive from Tahsis, on

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 35 the west side of Vancouver Island, approximately 80 nautical miles away. At the time of the tug's arrival, the M/V Caria was rigging its anchor to drop and drag to help avoid grounding. The CCG vessel "Narwhal" was on standby for potential crew rescue. There were difficulties in securing a towline due to severe sea conditions - a very dangerous task for vessel and tug crews. It took over 5 hours to secure a line. Based on drift rate, there was about 2 hours to spare before the M/V Caria could have grounded. The vessel was successfully towed through Scott Channel to a safe refuge in Hardy Bay (Port Hardy - Johnstone Strait) for repairs. There was no loss of life, cargo, or oil.

The total number of tugs dispatched was six, of which only one managed to secure a towline. The rescue tugs were- US "Sea Victory", US "Commander", the US "Barbara Foss", Canadian "Arctic Hooper" and Canadian "Seaspan Queen". The two CCG vessels - the "Narwhal" and "John P. Tully" could only stand by for crew rescue and response monitoring functions. Incident closure was February 13th at 0800 hours when the M/V Hanjin Elizabeth was under command en route to Seattle, and the M/V Caria reached Hardy Bay and moored.20

Future Projections The information in this section describes anticipated traffic monitoring and waterways safety management initiatives. These initiatives are being driven by certain events and issues as outlined in Part A. Part B describes national and international initiatives underway to address these issues. Part C examines oil spill and casualty trends that suggest that these initiatives are achieving their objectives.

A. DRIVERS Traffic Projections: Maritime traffic is predicted to experience a world-wide boom in the next 20 years. Today’s world merchant fleet of over 720 million deadweight tons is expected to grow to over 884 million deadweight tons by 2005. For the United States, ships move 95% of all foreign trade, and 25% of domestic trade. Each year 350 billion tons of cargo and 3.5 billion barrels of oil are shipped via water. This equates to roughly one trillion dollars of freight. Volume is expected to double in 7 to 10 years and triple by the year 2020.

On March 29, 2001, the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released its December 2000 official US Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics.21 Year-to-date figures through December 2000 show an increase in cargo volume of 7% for imports and 3% for exports over the same time period for 1999. The 7% increase equates to 52,985,000 metric tons of cargo.

On the West Coast, we have experienced a growth in tonnage from 60 million tons in 1970 to over 240 million tons in 2000, valued at over 260 billion dollars. This industry generates over 91,000 jobs and over five billion dollars in wages to the economy. West Coast trade represents 7% of our gross domestic product and is the key link to trade with Asian ports. The continued growth in cargo and trade, the increase in the number of merchant and passenger vessels, the construction of larger and faster ships (e.g. "Mega Ships"), and more seamless intermodal links

20 For more information on these incidents, please visit the following website: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/eeeb/ENVSITRP2/SITHOME/SITHOME.HTM

21 US Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics www.marad.dot.gov/Headlines/announcements/2001/apr2.htm

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 36 and systems place greater performance demands on carriers and shippers. Contrast this with a growing concern with the ability of the current maritime infrastructure to meet these changing demands, plus an increasingly sensitive and informed public regarding safety and environmental issues, and we have the potential for serious contention among different stakeholders.

Regarding the movement of bulk oil cargoes on the West Coast, it is anticipated that more crude oil will be imported as the output from Alaskan fields dwindles. On the other hand, exploration and development activities are likely to be permitted in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve area west of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, so there may be little reduction in the long run if new sources come on-line.

In addition, there are two proposals in British Columbia worth noting, although they are both far from certain at this time. One is the possibility of offshore oil and gas development and the other is a proposal for the construction of a 500 million barrel terminal in the Prince Rupert area. The terminal is projected to require once-weekly delivery of oil products by an Ultra-Large Crude Carrier tanker; deliveries from the terminal to coastal communities would then be done by smaller tankers.

Port Security and Crime As commerce becomes more dependent upon maritime trade, vessels will become both tools and targets for crime. This elevated risk is expected to be the catalyst for increased vigilance regarding the safety of our coastal areas, and in turn, drive the funding for offshore vessel traffic monitoring.

On April 27, 1999, President Clinton signed an Executive Memorandum directing the establishment of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in US Seaports. Citing both the importance of seaports to the nation’s commerce as well as the presence of crime and conspiracies that “pose a threat to the people and critical infrastructures of seaport cities,” the President called for “a comprehensive review of the nature and extent of seaport crime and the overall state of security in seaports, as well as the ways in which governments at all levels are responding to the problem.” An Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in US Seaports was created. The Commission produced a report in the spring of 2000,22 which included the following recommendations: • Strengthen interagency, intergovernmental, and public/private sector efforts to address the threats of seaport crime (including terrorism), and to enhance control of imports and exports through seaports; • Strengthen the efforts of the Marine Transportation System (MTS) national organizations to enhance the awareness of state and local governments and private sector interests of the vital role that seaports play in national security that extends beyond their indispensable contribution to the nation’s economy; • Work internationally to strengthen global seaport security by increasing cooperation and information sharing with foreign law enforcement and customs agencies. While these initiatives may appear to focus on port security, vessel security and vessel mobility within ports will receive the primary attention. Obviously if and when a vessel is targeted for crime, it is not just that one vessel that is affected. Negative impacts on the environment and

22 The May 2000 Report of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in US Seaports can be found at: www.uscg.mil/overview/icssrpt.pdf

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 37 the economy will filter through not just the port(s) but the transit zone(s), ecosystems, labor market, and numerous subsequent consequences.

Ensuring robust port and maritime security is a national priority and an intermodal challenge, with impacts in America's heartland communities just as directly as the US seaport cities where cargo and passenger vessels arrive and depart daily. The United States has more than 1,000 harbor channels, 25,000 miles of inland, intracoastal and coastal waterways, serving 361 ports containing more than 3,700 passenger and cargo terminals. Approximately 95 percent of our Nation's international trade moves by water.

While effective homeland security is built upon the principles of awareness, prevention, response, and consequence management, the primary objectives are awareness and prevention, since we hope to avoid any need for future consequence management. Prevention places a premium on awareness, detecting, identifying, and tracking threats to our homeland security. While there are no guarantees, there is good reason to believe that we can improve our national ability to detect potential threats through effective use of information that is, to a great extent, already available. Exploiting available information to separate the good from the bad, and then stop the bad, is the heart of an overall Maritime Homeland Security Strategy. This strategy must facilitate legitimate maritime commerce, which is supposed to double in the next 20 years, while filtering threats by using real time intelligence.

The task of ensuring America's maritime homeland security is enormous. Using all the resources and tools at their disposal, the Coast Guard's five Maritime Homeland Security Goals are to:

• Build Maritime Domain Awareness; • Control the movement of high-interest vessels; • Enhance Coast Guard presence in and around ports for both deterrence and response; • Protect critical infrastructure; and, • Ensure maximum domestic and international outreach.

There are some key principles which should underlie national efforts to build a new baseline of operations for maritime security: • The approach must be comprehensive, reaching both security at port facilities and in the marine environment. It must reach the security of physical assets and the security of maritime and port personnel and passengers. • Due to the widely diverse nature of the maritime system across the country, and the widely divergent nature of operations among ports, local planning and coordination with local and state authorities will be crucial. • Like any transportation network, the maritime transportation system is in a constant state of growth and change. The system created must therefore be one that is capable of evolving over time, and where the expectation of that evolution is clearly established. • And, finally, the system must fully recognize the intermodal nature of marine transportation. Cargo that is unloaded from a ship today in a seaport will move quickly to other modes of transportation. There is no better example than the cargo container - a phenomenon that has been successful precisely because it is fundamentally intermodal - a cargo container arriving at a U.S. seaport today can be virtually anywhere in the heartland of America via truck and/or rail tomorrow. Accordingly, maritime security measures must be fully integrated with security measures being implemented in other modes of transportation. It has been

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 38 estimated that more than 6 million containers enter the country via U.S. ports each year, representing more than 11 million twenty-foot container equivalent units (TEUs) of cargo.

Sustained prosperity clearly depends upon accommodating the global trade that is predicted to double or triple in the next 20 years, so government needs to be attentive to finding ways to minimize the disruptions and delays caused by federal inspections and other requirements. Focusing on port and vessel security improvements, terrorism, and crime prevention while also balancing the impact of security measures on projected increases in trade will be significant challenges in the next few years.

B. INITIATIVES TOWARD SOLUTIONS The Marine Transportation System (MTS) To meet the escalating risks of a major marine casualty and pollution incident, while maintaining economic competitiveness and national security, managers of the marine transportation system must facilitate coordination and partnership among all users and stakeholders. There must be a clear understanding of the projected demands, and regulatory requirements must be harmonized at the federal, state and local levels to help guide and inform the public and private decision-makers.

In September of 1999 a comprehensive US Department of Transportation report to Congress reviewed and assessed the issues and challenges facing the MTS. Coordinating bodies were created, representing both public and private interests, to provide oversight for implementation of the report's recommendations.23

MTS’ goals and plans are being implemented for a wide spectrum of issues ranging from establishing a vessel clearance information exchange and “one-stop shopping” for inspection and reporting requirements, to improving security awareness to safety of vessel operation and minimizing human error. Specifically, MTS’ safety improvement goals are: • Widespread use of safety management systems in design and operations; • Accurate, reliable and real-time information management systems that are tailored to user needs; • Improved management and coordination to promote safe vessel movements and facility siting; • Improved management of operations and communications in congested areas; and • Prevention of maritime accidents associated with human factors.

Much of the success of these initiatives relies on the public's awareness of the economic and environmental stakes involved in the marine transportation system. That increased awareness will foster support for a safer, more efficient, and more competitive MTS infrastructure.

Maritime Domain Awareness Although the events of September 11, 2001 have almost eclipsed the previous focus of Maritime Domain Awareness (illegal narcotics, illegal immigrants, and violations of the Maritime Boundary Line) many of the same resources that are now being mustered to fight the terrorist threat can and likely will be used to counter all maritime threats. Maritime Domain Awareness is, simply

23 September, 1999 An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, Comprehensive US Dept. of Transportation Report to Congress which reviews and assesses the issues and challenges facing the MTS. http://www.dot.gov/mts/docs.htm

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 39 put, possessing comprehensive awareness of our vulnerabilities, threats, and targets of interest on the water.

If the US hopes to prevent even worse events than the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, we must have more knowledge of our vulnerabilities and the threats against us. Therefore, increasing awareness must be a primary concern. Maritime Domain Awareness is a name applied to a more aggressive, more effective means of gathering, using, and sharing information and intelligence than has ever been possible in the past.

It means providing a level of knowledge that is increasingly comprehensive and specific. It means having extensive knowledge of geography, weather, position of friendly and unfriendly forces, trends, key indicators, anomalies, intent, and the activities of all vessels in any area of concern. It means acquiring new data-mining techniques and databases shared across traditional boundaries. It means building on an already-strong cooperative relationship between Canada and the US.

As two nations that depend heavily on the oceans and sea lanes as avenues of prosperity, we know that whatever action we take against further acts of terrorism must protect our ports and waterways and the ships that use them. The US Marine Transportation System (MTS) handles more than 2 billion tons of freight, 3 billion tons of oil, transports more than 134 million passengers by ferry, and entertains more than 7 million cruise ship passengers each year. The biggest challenge facing our MTS is how to ensure that legitimate cargo is not unnecessarily delayed as we and other nations introduce enhanced security measures against very real and potent threats.

Not withstanding the above, trafficking of both illegal narcotics and illegal migrants will remain a major threat in the Pacific as long as the current demand for drugs, and economic disparity between nations, remain unchanged. The drug threat in the Pacific Northwest is also growing. Smuggling of illegal migrants has also proven to be an agile and adaptive form of organized crime that can quickly change methods.

Enforcing the Maritime Boundary Line for fishing is another critical issue. Pacific fish stocks have been dramatically depleted already; without proper enforcement, the Alaskan economy, for example, would be devastated by over-fishing of Bering Sea fish stocks in the US EEZ.

The costs of pollution (e.g., oil and hazardous material wastes, contaminated bilge water, or ballast waters carrying non-indigenous marine species) of our coastal waters are also expected to increase. There is a need for closer monitoring of even routine vessel traffic in response to illegal pumping and dumping. Maritime Domain Awareness will play a major role in understanding the movements of all types of maritime traffic.

Use of Technology and Changes in Design Automated Identification System (AIS) – An Improvement to Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) US Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) currently manage vessel movements within their service areas using Vessel Movement Reporting Systems (VMRS; 33 CFR 161). VMRS requires vessels to provide verbal information via a designated radio frequency in sufficient time to allow vessel traffic planning. In Canada, Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) has been combined with the Coast Guard Radio Service (CGRS) into the newly designated Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS). The VTS portion manages vessel movements within their service area under VTS Regulations made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act (CSA), Part IX, Sections

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 40 562.15 and 562.16, R.S.C. 1985. Under the VTS Regulations, vessels are required to provide verbal information via a designated radio frequency in a timely manner for the good order and predictability of vessel traffic movement, to report at designated Calling-In-Points (CIPs), to obtain a traffic clearance, and to maintain a listening watch on the designated VTS radio frequency. The complete West Coast of Canada is covered by VTS through three established VTS Zones and five combined Radio Safety and VTS MCTS Centers. Shared Boundary waters with the United States between British Columbia and Washington State come under the Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service Agreement (CVTS) and are jointly administered by the Tofino MCTS Center, Victoria MCTS Center and the USCG Puget Sound VTS. The CVTS also administers an offshore VTS reporting and vessel screening system through the CCG MCTS Regional Marine Information Center (RMIC) for all vessels inbound to CVTS waters.

AIS transponders are intended to automatically provide information including the ship’s identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-related information to appropriately equipped shore stations, other ships and aircraft. They also allow equipped vessels to receive such information from similarly equipped ships, as well as to monitor and track ships, through the exchange of data with shore-based facilities. Transmission of the data should be with the minimum involvement of ship's personnel and with a high level of availability. AIS will provide the capability to positively identify and monitor vessel positions and movements for real-time waterways management.

Regulation 19 of Chapter V of the new Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations requires AIS to be fitted aboard all ships of 300 gross tonnage and upwards engaged In international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage and greater not engaged In international voyages, and passenger ships irrespective of size built on or after July 1, 2002. It also applies to ships engaged In international voyages constructed before July 1, 2002, according to the following timetable: • Passenger ships, not later than July 1, 2003; • Tankers, not later than the first survey for safety equipment on or after July 1, 2003; • Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 50,000 gross tonnage and greater, not later than July 1, 2004; • Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 10,000 gross tonnage and greater, but less than 50,000 gross tonnage, not later than July 1, 2005; • Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 3,000 gross tonnage and greater, but less than 10,000 gross tonnage, not later than July 1, 2006. • Ships, other than passenger ships and tankers, of 300 gross tonnage and greater, but less than 3,000 gross tonnage, not later than July 1, 2007; and • Ships not engaged on international voyages constructed before July 1, 2002 will have to fit AISs not later than 1 July 2008. A flag State may exempt ships from carrying AISs when ships will be taken permanently out of service within two years after the implementation date. In all, the revised SOLAS Chapter V on Safety of Navigation has 12 new regulations that reflect changes in technology. In addition, SOLAS Appendices giving an example Record of Equipment for the Passenger Ship Safety Certificate (Form P) and a Record of Equipment for the Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate (Form E) are also revised to take into account the new requirements in Chapter V. 24

24 Maritime Safety Committee – Briefing of 73rd session: 27 November - 6 December 2000,

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 41 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System / Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon Technology such as the Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) and the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) take the “search” out of “Search and Rescue.” Satellites are used to detect and locate aviators, mariners, and land-based users with such devices onboard. GMDSS is oriented towards providing more effective and efficient emergency response communications, and disseminating Maritime Safety Information (MSI) to all ships on the world’s oceans regardless of location or atmosphere conditions. MSI includes navigational warnings, meteorological warnings and forecasts, and other urgent safety related information.

Effective February 1, 1999, both US and non-US flagged vessels must have a current Radiotelephony Certificate, which certifies that the vessel is GMDSS compliant. Exceptions apply to non-US flagged fishing vessels, because SOLAS regulations do not apply to these commercial fishing vessels. US and non-US flagged vessels may have exemptions for GMDSS, EPIRB, or other radio equipment if allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), USCG, or a non-US flag Administration as applicable.

Vessels required to carry GMDSS and/or EPIRB are25: • Small passenger vessels carrying more than 12 passengers on unrestricted international voyages (US flag); • All passenger ships on ocean, coastwise, or international voyages (US flagged passenger vessels on voyages less than 20nm from land or, alternatively, that do not go more than 200 nm between consecutive ports, may receive individual exemptions); • All cargo ships 300 GT and over; • All self-propelled mobile offshore drilling units 300 GT and over; and • Fish tender vessels (US and foreign flag), and fish processing vessels (foreign flag) 300 GT and over.

New Vessel Designs After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congress promulgated the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), which intended to "minimize oil spills through improved tanker design, operational changes, and greater preparedness." Section 4115 of OPA 9026 focuses on ship design, changing the standard from single to double hulls. By 2010, single-hull tankers greater than 5,000 gross tons will be excluded from US waters unless they are equipped with a double bottom or double sides.

New vessel designs combining power and agility are both increasing in number; these new designs both challenge and improve traditional approaches to maintaining navigation safety. For instance, it is not only tractor tugs that now have propulsion capabilities of 360 degrees; Azipod propulsion systems having unlimited 360 degrees are being used on cruise ships, providing better maneuverability and safety.

Cruise lines and container ships are now operating "Mega Ships." Mega cruise ships are 100,000 tons and carry 2,700 passengers. Mega container ships have 6,600 Trailer Equivalent Unit (TEU) capacity, a breadth of 42 meters (approximately 138 feet), which is nearly 10 meters

25 Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended in 1988 and Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, 3-99 Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacon (EPIRB) Equipment Requirements for Commercial Vessels http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g- m/nvic/3_99/n3-99.pdf

26 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and 46 U.S.C. 3703a(c).

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 42 (roughly 33 feet) wider than the maximum allowed for Panama Canal transit. Such increases in size require larger and better trained crews, improved ports and piers, changes in escort requirements, and often, deeper and specially designated port transit zones. 27

Fast ferries are becoming a vital component of the international transportation industry. The construction of high-speed craft, such as ferries, has been a boon for the marine design and construction industry. Currently, it is estimated that North American shipyards hold a 30% market share of the worldwide construction orders for High-Speed-Craft (HSC). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the HSC Code in May 1994 and has been working since to amend the Code to keep pace with HSC's rapid developments.28

IMO's Subcommittee on Ship Design and Equipment is also working on revising the Code of Safety for Wing-in-Ground (WIG) Craft, which is derived from the International Code of Safety for High-speed Craft. Since a WIG craft is essentially a high-speed vessel with features of a dynamically supported craft, the proposed draft Code contains principal provisions of the HSC Code relevant to such craft. At the same time, the WIG craft is a flying craft and therefore appropriate provisions of the International Civil Aviation Organization are also incorporated.

International, Federal, and State Regulatory Initiatives Vessel Response Plans US federally required Vessel Response Plan regulations (33 CFR Part 155) require response plans for certain vessels that carry oil in bulk as cargo, such as tank ships and barges, with additional requirements for certain vessels operating in Prince William Sound, Alaska. These regulations are mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended by OPA 90. The purpose of requiring vessel response plans is to enhance public and private sector planning and response capabilities to minimize the impact of spilled oil.

The regulation specifies the different requirements necessary based on distance from shoreline. For example, the quantity of response resources required on board vessels transiting offshore is less than that of vessels transiting nearshore or inland. Required response times vary as well, depending on whether the vessel is inland, offshore, or in the open ocean. Federal requirements for on-water oil recovery capacity (referred to as "caps") were upgraded with the 2000 Notice of Decision from the US Coast Guard29. Presuming technological and operational advances would be made over time, these caps were increased by 25% on April 5, 2000 and the Coast Guard will consider a 2003 cap for mechanical on-water removal capability and requirements for other removal technologies in a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.30 Other federal and state entities are raising the bar on the daily recovery cap as well. The State of Alaska exceeds the existing Federal cap requirements. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already implemented a 25% increase in the caps for the OPA 90 response plans required under EPA regulations. The California Code of Regulations recently stipulated that the

27 Mega Ships http://web3.asia1.com.sg/timesnet/data/cna/docs/cna1694.html, http://southflorida.bcentral.com/southflorida/stories/2000/10/30/focus2.html 28 American Institute of Marine Underwriters, 29 Federal Register: January 6, 2000 [Vol. 64, No. 4; pg. 710-716] 30 Notice of Decision: Review of Cap Increase, Federal Register January 6, 2000 (Vol. 64, No.4; page 710-716), http://www.uscg.mil/vrp/reg/caps.shtml

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 43 on-water recovery rates should be raised by 25% on July 1, 2001, and raised by another 25% on July 1, 2005. 31 Salvage and Fire Fighting US federal vessel response plan regulations, 33 CFR 155.1050(k), require tank vessel owners and operators to identify and ensure availability of salvage and marine firefighting resources, with personnel and equipment that can be deployed to a port nearest to the vessel’s operating area within 24 hours. 32 However, a public workshop held in August 1997 revealed considerable confusion regarding the correct interpretation of the phrase "equipment and expertise" and considerable debate over the realism of a 24 hour requirement. The 24-hour response time requirement (33 CFR 155.1050(k)(3)) was suspended twice, until February, 2004, in order to allow the Coast Guard time to propose more definitive regulations33.

The US Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the salvage and firefighting requirements for tank ships and tank barges transporting oil in bulk as cargo.34 The revisions clarify the salvage and marine firefighting services that must be identified in a vessel response plan to ensure an effective response to an incident. The proposed rule would also establish specific response time requirements for those salvage and marine firefighting services. Rear Admiral Paul J. Pluta, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection, stressed, “The focus of this proposed rule is on public safety and environmental protection. It is designed to put measures in place that will prevent or significantly reduce the amount of oil spilled due to accidents or fire. This ensures that our marine environment is protected while it continues to provide commercial and recreational value for the many families and businesses that use it each day.” Standards of Training and Certification for Watchstanders (STCW) In 1993, the IMO embarked on a comprehensive revision of STCW regulations to establish the highest practicable standards of competence, in order to address the problem of human error as the major cause of maritime casualties. It was determined that with proper training and enhanced shipboard practices and arrangements, these errors could be largely eliminated. Amendments to the STCW Convention were then made. The most significant amendments concerned: • Enhancement of port state control; • Communication of information through IMO to allow for mutual oversight and consistency in application of standards; • Quality standards governing oversight of training, assessment, and certification procedures; • Increased responsibility of governing parties, including those issuing licenses, and flag states employing foreign nationals, to ensure that seafarers meet objective standards of competence; and • Rest period requirements for watch-keeping personnel.

31 OSPR’s Review of July 1, 2001, 25% Increase to the On-Water Recovery Rates, January 23, 2001,www.dfg.ca.gov/Ospr/regulations 32 U.S. Coast Guard’s Vessel Response Plan and Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans, 33 CFR Part 155, http://www.uscg.mil/vrp/default.htm 33 Federal Register: February 12, 1998, Suspension of Regulation on Salvage and Marine Firefighting Requirements; Vessel Response Plans for Oil 34 The NPRM can be found on the Federal Register, dated May 10th, 2002 (http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html).

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 44

The amendments to the training require that seafarers be provided with “familiarization training” and “basic safety training” that includes basic fire fighting, elementary first aid, personal survival techniques, personal safety, and social responsibility. The amendments also require training on use of Automatic Radar Plotting Aids (ARPA) and Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS) for watch officers. On vessels with these systems, masters and watch officers must also have a thorough understanding of bridge teamwork procedures. In the US, this is understood to be an ability to apply principles of bridge resource management. This renewed focus on the human element should reduce the instances in which human error leads to a maritime casualty or a pollution incident. Mariners must be certified in courses covering these skills and knowledge; the US Coast Guard will audit the courses.35 The 1995 Amendments to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) are being phased in through August of 2002 internationally and February of 2003 for US domestic vessels.

To ensure that the competency objectives of the 1995 amendments are met, parties must implement quality assurance programs, with IMO reviewing each parties’ national program. This represents a fundamental change in thinking for the international community. It will be mandatory that the “pulse” of the new system be checked on a recurring basis to ensure its “good health.” In other words, STCW as amended will require all training and assessment activities to be “continuously monitored through a quality standards system to ensure achievement of defined objectives, including those concerning the qualifications and experience of instructors and assessors.”

International Safety Management (ISM) Code and Port State Control Programs The objective of the ISM Code is to ensure safety at sea, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environment, in particular to the marine environment. The Code requires companies to establish safety objectives, as well as to develop, implement, and maintain a Safety Management System. In a Final Rule published on December 24, 1997, the US Coast Guard implemented the requirements of the ISM code, which applied to both foreign and domestic commercial ships operating in US waters. Compliance with SOLAS, Chapter IX, and the ISM code are mandatory to ships engaged on international voyages regardless of the date of construction, as follows: • Passenger ships, including passenger high-speed craft, as of July 1, 1998; • Oil tankers, chemical tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers and cargo high-speed craft of 500 GT or more, as of July 1, 1998; and • Other cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling units of 500 GT or more, not later than July 1, 2002.

The 1995 Amendments strengthened the Port State Control provisions of the STCW Convention by expanding the legal grounds on which a foreign ship may be detained and allowing port State Control officers to conduct direct assessments of the competence of merchant mariners.36 As part of the ISM/Port State Control program, the US Coast Guard has also implemented an initiative to identify high-quality ships, and provide incentives to encourage

35 USCG’s Interim Rule, effective as of July 28, 1997 for Implementation of the 1996 Amendments to STCW, http://www.uscg.mil/SCTW/m-pers.htm

36 Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular, 3-98, Port State Control Guidelines for the Enforcement of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 45 quality operations. This initiative is called Qualship 21, for Quality Shipping for the 21st Century.37 Thus far, efforts to eliminate substandard shipping have focused on improving methods to identify poor-quality vessels. However, regardless of the score that a vessel receives in the USCG "targeting matrix", all foreign-flagged vessels are examined no less than once each year. This provides few incentives for the well-run, quality ship.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of vessels are operated responsibly, and are typically found with few or no deficiencies. Under the previous Port State policies, these vessels were boarded at similar intervals as vessels that are not operated responsibly. These quality vessels should be recognized and rewarded for their commitment to safety and quality. As of January 1, 2001, the Coast Guard has implemented the Qualship 21 program, where those foreign vessels that "qualify" will be awarded with a certificate for reduced examinations; for example the annual freight exam would be extended to once every two years. Passenger ships would still be examined at the same annual intervals but would get a Qualship certificate.

"Coast Watch" There are many "mystery" spills along the coast that cause oil and tarballs to wash ashore. Environment Canada is currently developing a statistical program on oil signatures that can indicate the exact probability that two samples, identified as a match by chemical analysis, are the same oil. Interest in this new technology has already attracted the attention of countries all over the world, including China and Spain.38 In addition, the US Coast Guard has had the Central Oil Identification Lab (COIL), now known as Marine Safety Laboratory (MSL), working on oil identification for a number of years.

Canada also conducts regular flying patrols, in partnership with the Canadian Coast Guard and the Air Force, to be on the lookout for any spills. In the US, American Waterways Operators (AWO), as well as oil shipping companies, has partnered to be an intelligence resource for the US Coast Guard in reporting any suspicious activity.

NOAA's Coast Watch program makes images available from a variety of sensors and satellites.39 These images help meteorologists predict weather, fishermen locate fish, and scientists track oil spills. The use of this program by mariners, commercial shipping pilots and the general public is growing. On the West Coast, a project particular to Point Reyes - "California's Tarball Incidents" - is under development to address reduction of chronic oil pollution. This project will also rely on regular aircraft surveillance of shipping lanes and satellite coverage/analysis to detect the presence of oil slicks or vessels discharging oil.

West Coast State Initiatives Regarding Emergency Towing and Salvage: The State of California has regulations that require both tank vessels and non-tank vessels to demonstrate emergency towing and salvage capability as part of their oil spill contingency plans. These salvage requirements were effective in 2000 for tank vessels and will be effective in 2002 for non-tank vessels. California regulations require that salvage availability be demonstrated by either in-house capacity or by a signed valid contract with a salvage company capable of providing a professional salvor, firefighting capability, and necessary equipment. Within 12 hours of notification that a vessel is disabled, or before a possible grounding (estimated as a function of worst-case wind drift data) a support vessel capable of stopping the

37 For more information on Qualship 21, go to: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/pscweb/qualship.htm. 38 Environment Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandemar99/article4_e.html 39 NOAA Coast Watch http://coastwatch.noaa.gov/

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 46 vessel’s drift must be on-scene. Within 18 hours of notification, equipment must be on-scene that is necessary to tow an incapacitated vessel to a safe haven. The State of Washington is considering adoption of a similar requirement as it reviews its current contingency plan requirements. Either state will review their salvage regulations following adoption of similar federal salvage regulation, and if such a state rule were found to be redundant or preempted, it would be repealed.

A Dedicated Rescue Tug at Neah Bay The Washington Legislature appropriated $1.65 million during the 2000 legislative session to establish a rescue tug at Neah Bay during the 2000-2001 winter season, near the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, that could assist disabled commercial vessels and prevent major oil spills. The 2000 supplemental budget provision stated: "$1,650,000 of the general fund appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is provided solely to the oil spill administration account to be used for a rescue tug. By December 1, 2000, the department shall report to the appropriate fiscal committees of the legislature on the activities of the dedicated rescue tug. The report shall include information on rescues, assists, or responses performed by the tug. The report shall also indicate the class of vessels involved and the nature of the rescue, assist, or response."

The Department of Ecology's report, Neah Bay Rescue Tug Report to the Washington State Legislature, is available on their web site.40 The report provides a historical perspective, discusses the need for spill prevention, describes tug operations over the last three winter seasons and makes a recommendation for future funding. The report recommends that a dedicated rescue tug be permanently stationed at Neah Bay and supported by federal funding. It further recommends that the Washington Legislature continue state funding through the 2001- 2003 Biennium, or until federal funding is secured. If long-term federal funding is not secured, then the state would proceed with rulemaking to determine whether vessels transiting these waters should have a user-fee-supported rescue tug available.

The 2001 and 2002 Washington Legislatures also appropriated funding for a dedicated Neah Bay rescue tug during subsequent winter seasons. The Department of Ecology prepared a supplemental report in 2002 which is also available at the web site noted in the footnote #40.

Non-Tank Vessel Contingency Planning The Canada Shipping Act requires that all vessels in Canadian waters have contracted spill response coverage with an approved oil spill response organization; in British Columbia this would be Burrard Clean Operations. Such coverage does not include emergency towing or salvage, however. All West Coast states require tank vessels to provide oil spill contingency plans. The states of Washington and Oregon have also required oil spill contingency plan coverage for non-tank vessels since 1991. California adopted similar non-tank regulations in 1999, and Alaska did so in 2001. To the extent that such plans include a salvage regulation like California's, these requirements may reduce the threat of drift groundings from vessels calling on ports or otherwise entering the waters of these jurisdictions. Financial Responsibility Requirements As re-emphasized in the US v. Locke Supreme Court decision in 2000, states are not preempted by federal authority from requiring that vessels operating in state waters be liable for all costs and damages associated with an oil spill. Among the West Coast states, California has set the highest of such financial responsibility requirements. Tankers and large tank barges

40 www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/spills.html.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 47 operating in California waters must provide a certificate of financial responsibility of up to $1 billion. Non-tank vessels must meet a $300 million level. Other West Coast states currently have lower financial responsibility requirements, but are considering raising them in some cases. The State of Oregon’s experience with the M/V New Carissa grounding and oil spill led to consideration of establishing a higher level than its current amount, which is equivalent to that in OPA 90 (the greater of $500,000 or $600/gross ton). Washington’s non-tank vessel financial responsibility level is also the same as that in OPA 90, and was also under reconsideration during the 2001 Washington legislative session, as is its financial responsibility requirement for tank vessels. It is hoped that such requirements would contribute to a general awareness among West Coast vessel operators of the need for precautions to avoid drift groundings and associated oil spills.

C. POSITIVE TRENDS Despite the recent growth in the US maritime trade, and the increasing congestion of our ports, accident rates are going down and the amount of oil released in the marine environment is declining as well. The number of major spills in the US has dropped 50% from pre-1991 levels, and there have been no spills larger than a million gallons off our coasts since that time (in contrast to over a dozen spills of one million gallons or more in the rest of the world). The number of gallons of oil spilled per million of gallons shipped has dropped 64% from the pre- OPA 90 era. In 1999, the volume and number of vessel spill incidents continued the downward trend that began in the early 1980's (with exception of peaks in 1989 and 1990). The United State’s preparedness for oil spills is at an all-time high.

In the US, Eighty-seven percent of all the spills that occurred from 1973 - 1999 were between 1- 100 gallons. There is a general downward trend in the number of spills over 1,000 gallons; 67.1% of the volume of spills by spill size from 1973 - 1999 were as a result of spills greater than 100,000 gallons. However, there have been no oil spills larger than one million gallons by volume between 1991 and 1999. 41 These positive trends may be attributed to several factors: • Vessels are generally safer both in operation and design as higher standards have come into force. The likelihood of these vessels drifting uncontrollably to shore is further reduced; • Technology, including navigation and safety systems, has improved substantially allowing greater margins of safety, which contribute to reduced risk of environmental damage; and • Perhaps most importantly, many in the shipping industry have recognized that environmental responsibility is financially practical, particularly in the face of stiff penalties for non-compliance and stringent liabilities for accidents.

41 Oil Spill Intelligence Report (December 2000) -- International Oil Spill Statistics for 1999 and Cumulative Data and Graphics for Oil Spills 1973-1999 http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g- m/nmc/response/stats/Summary.htm

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 48 Part IV. Analysis of the Risk

TUG RESPONSE TIME MODELING One of two major tasks for this project was to analyze the effects of environmental forces on a vessel that has been disabled and to determine how quickly an assist vessel could reach that disabled vessel at various locations on the West Coast of the United States and British Columbia.

This tug response time analysis does not attempt to measure any probabilities or risk of vessels experiencing a casualty that could result in a drift-grounding. The response model’s operating hypothesis is that a vessel has suffered a non-repairable casualty that will result in a drift- grounding unless outside assistance is provided. The purpose of this analysis was to analyze the ability of assist vessels - from West Coast ports where at least one rescue vessel of sufficient size is available - to reach a vessel in time to stop her drift. The model does not take into account vessels of opportunity such as military, United States Coast Guard vessels on patrol, or other merchant vessels in transit. These vessels of opportunity could further enhance any vessel stabilization capability.

The first step in this modeling process was to use the information provided by NOAA that determined maximum and mean wind conditions on the West Coast (Appendix J). Wind conditions were divided into five geographic regions from Alaska to the southern border of California. Ocean currents were determined to be generally parallel to the coast but did not have a significant on shore component.

Drift data for various types of hulls varied between 2-10% primarily depending upon a ship's hull type and load conditions. A 9% drift factor was used as a "worst case" for this drift analysis. Using wind speed zones and a drift factor of 9% a vessel drift rate was established and incremental drift lines were constructed.

The second step of the process was to construct concentric speed of advance (SOA) circles from West Coast Ports where assist vessels of sufficient size were located and available for tug assist/rescue of disabled vessels. A speed of advance (SOA) of ten knots was modeled for the assist vessel.

To account for varying times and distances to proceed from harbor moorings, an artificial buffer zone (in miles) was added to the disabled vessel drift lines; this buffer zone accounted for the time it would take an assist vessel to clear the harbor as well as the distance the disabled vessel would drift in that time frame.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 49 Estimated Tug Distances and Times from Selected West Coast Ports

Latitude Longitude DeciLat DeciLong Estimated Estimated time Location (degrees- (degrees- (Degree) (Degree) distance from from harbor minutes- minutes- harbor entrance entrance seconds seconds (nautical miles) North) West) San Diego, at 32-39-54 117-14-30 32.66500 -117.24167 5.5 .5 hour Pt. Loma LA/LB at Pt. 33-42-20 118-17-36 33.70556 -118.29333 5.5 .5 hour Fermin San Francisco 37-45-0.0 122-41-36 37.75000 -122.69333 18 2 hours sea buoy Columbia 46-11-05 124-11-03 46.18472 124.18417 64 6 hours; 2 to River entrance man a tug and 4 buoy ("CR") hours travel time from Rainier Puget Sound 48-29-12 124-43-42 48.48667 -124.72833 See note 1 5-6 hours from at “J” Buoy below Port Angeles, 10-12 from Seattle, 8 -10 from Vancouver Valdez at 60-14-18 146-38-48 60.23833 -146.64667 See note 2 1 hour from Cape below Hinchinbrook, 5- Hinchenbrook 6 from Valdez 1. 55 miles from Port Angles, 63 miles from Victoria, 95 miles from Anacortes, 125 miles from Seattle 2. 10 miles from Hinchenbrook Island, 62 miles from Port Valdez

After drift rate lines and rescue/assist SOA circles were constructed, the intersection of matching drift lines and circles were plotted. The resulting line shows the boundary that a vessel would have to remain seaward of in order to be rescued before drifting ashore. If a vessel transited inside that boundary, then the rescue vessel would not be able to reach it before a drift-grounding occurred.

This process and the drift contours for both mean and maximum wind conditions are shown in Appendix J. This information was incorporated into the Relative Ranking/Risk Indexing model described below.

RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL DEVELOPMENT Basic risk management steps include: 1. Setting a goal 2. Collecting the data 3. Developing a Risk Assessment model (Applying the data to the model) 4. Implementing risk management principles 5. Assessing the results, or impact, of the risk management principles over time

The Workgroup's goal was to reduce grounding/collision risks from offshore vessel traffic on the West Coast of the United States and Canada. The next step in accomplishing this task was to develop a risk assessment model. Once the results of the model were determined, the Workgroup could determine if the present risks were acceptable or recommend steps to reduce the risks. In developing a risk model for the Workgroup, six types of risk assessment models utilized by the US and Canada were reviewed. These included the:

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 50 1. Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment Guide (PAWSA) 2. Waterway Evaluation Tool (WET) 3. Oceans Risk and Criteria Analysis (ORCA) 4. US Coast Guard Model for Moored Passenger Vessels 5. US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Jacksonville Model 6. US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles/Long Beach Model

The PAWSA, WET, and ORCA models were not employed due to their complexity and need for additional data not requested by the group. Of the three Coast Guard models examined, the Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles/Long Beach’s model proved most adaptive to the Workgroup's needs, due to its ability to easily display and categorize the various risk data fields. It is important to note, however, that elements of all of the models were used to develop the Workgroup risk assessment. What the Workgroup ended up with is sometimes referred to as the "Relative Ranking/Risk-Indexing" method.

The US Coast Guard has guidelines on Risk-Based Decision-Making (RBDM) methodologies in support of its Marine Safety and Environmental Protection program42. Relative Ranking/Risk- Indexing is one of the tools in RBDM. The RR/RI technique assesses the attributes, for example, of a vessel, operation, etc., to calculate risk index numbers. The USCG's Port State Control targeting matrix is a prime example of using the RR/RI tool.

An RR/RI is a systematic process, generally performed by a small group who are not necessarily risk experts. It is based mostly on interviews, documentation reviews, and field inspections, and is a technique that generates, 1) index numbers that provide an ordered list of priorities, and 2) lists of attributes that are the dominant contributors to problems. The steps to Relative Ranking/Risk Indexing are as follows: 1. Define scope of study 2. Select ranking tool 3. Collect scoring information 4. Calculate ranking indexes 5. Use the results in decision making

It is important to understand the limitations of the RR/RI methodology: • Results cannot always be tied to absolute risks; instead, results define relative values of risk such as higher, lower, and average; and • The methodology does not account for unique situations; with the number of variables at play in any collision/grounding scenario, obviously the Workgroup could not have thought of every possible scenario.

Besides remembering the limitations to an RR/RI, another note of importance is validating the indexing model and refining it as needed. There are two ways to do this: 1. Statistical evaluation -- uses historical data to create several scenarios for testing the indexing tool. The results of the tool can then be compared with the actual historical outcomes; or 2. Simple consensus -- a group of subject matter experts creates scenarios and evaluates whether the tool generates an appropriate index number or action. This is the method we used. As explained below, Workgroup members from Alaska, BC, Washington,

42 The USCG's Risk-Based Decision-Making website can be found at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/risk

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 51 Oregon, and California developed and ranked scenarios which defined our threshold values; this process validated the model.

The following steps were taken to implement the model; these are explained below: 1. Determined the scoring information by interpreting all the collected data into various factors that contribute to drift grounding/collision oil spill risk. 2. Assigned a risk-indexing value for each risk factor (1 to 10 points possible). 3. Calculated the relative ranking indexes to represent the degree of risks (lower, average, and higher relative risk levels).

Determining the scoring information The Workgroup examined the data collected along with other significant and quantifiable factors that could affect ship safety. This resulted in a decision to use the following nine risk factors: 1. Volume of Oil/Vessel Design Factor – Ranked the major types of ships for which data were collected, including tankers, tank barges, cargo vessels, passenger vessels, and large fishing vessels. This factor included a "credit" for vessels with redundant propulsion/steering systems. 2. Drift Factor – Ranked the ability of the vessel to drift due to the amount of sail area. 3. Higher Collision Factor – Ranked the risks vessels incur due to transiting through restricted or hazardous areas or across traffic lanes. 4. Distance Offshore Factor – Ranked the risk of oil spill due to a vessel's distance from land. This factor included "credits" for compliance with existing management measures. 5. Weather/Seasonal Factor – Ranked the risk of damage/sinking of a vessel due to its geographic location on the West Coast (Alaska to California) during each season. 6. Tug Availability Factor – Ranked the time a pre-positioned tug could respond to an offshore vessel needing assistance, as modeled in the tug response time analysis. 7. Coastal Route/Density Factor – Ranked the risk posed to vessels due to the amount of vessel traffic off specific sections of the West Coast. 8. Historical Casualty Factor – Ranked the risk posed by vessel types due to the number of casualties experienced over an eight-year period. 9. Environmental Sensitivity Factor – Ranked the impact of an offshore spill on environmentally sensitive areas.

Assigning the risk-indexing value The maximum risk-indexing value was determined in order to set a numerical range for recording the risks. The Workgroup agreed that the maximum index value factor for each risk factor category would be ten. Subsequently each risk factor would be ranked from one to ten.

Utilizing the professional expertise of the Workgroup, each of the nine risk factors was broken down into individual elements. Each element was assigned an appropriate numeric risk- indexing value as follows: 1. Lower Risk: Values of 1 to 3 points 2. Average Risk: Values of 4 to 6 points 3. Higher Risk: Values 7 to 10 points

In addition, the Workgroup agreed to recognize some of the positive practices taken by the maritime industry to reduce risk, and subsequently added some offsetting features to two of the risk factors (Volume of Oil/Vessel Design Factor and Distance Offshore Factor) addressing these practices (see above)

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 52 Calculating the relative ranking index Once the risk-indexing model was created, the Workgroup evaluated several scenarios to validate the model. In order to obtain a good average median, each regional group (Alaska, British Columbia, Washington/Oregon, and California) was tasked with developing a number of specific risk scenarios appropriate for their regions, utilizing the risk matrix (Please reference Appendix L). The results are as follows:

Area Number of Scenarios Range of Points Total Alaska Region 11 (x 3 seasons) 30 - 57 British Columbia Region 10 (x 3 seasons) 20 - 63 Washington/Oregon Region 16 (x 3 seasons) 33 - 69 California Region 15 (x 3 seasons) 25 - 66 Total 52 (x 3 seasons) 20 - 69

The table above shows the lowest value to be 20 and the highest value to be 69, which represent what may be the typical range of points possible with this model. Alone, these index values are simply numbers. Therefore, in order to define the levels of relative risk, the following thresholds were assigned:

Weighted Score Lower Risks 20 - 36 points Average Risks 37 - 52 points Higher Risks 53 - 69 points

These thresholds allow the Workgroup, upon completion of the risk analysis, to next concentrate its efforts on identifying and reducing the risk on the higher risk vessels and/or areas. In order to visually display the information on the risk-indexing matrix, a color scheme of green, yellow and red representing lower risk, average risk, and higher risk, respectively, are used.

RISK SCENARIOS & RESULTS Subcommittees of Workgroup members from each geographic region developed typical risk scenarios for their respective geographic areas (Appendix L). After scoring each scenario using the risk-indexing matrix, the scenarios were sorted according to their risk categories as follows:

Number of Higher Risk Average Risk Lower Risk Region Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios Alaska 33 5 26 2 British 30 10 14 6 Columbia Washington 48 36 11 1 and Oregon California 45 15 26 4 Total 156 66 77 13

The higher and average risks were plotted to obtain a visual display. However, in order to exhibit the risk for an entire geographic region, the scenarios were expanded. Additional

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 53 reference points at more frequent intervals were chosen for each geographic area. The risk model was applied for all chosen vessels types, transiting off the coast at fixed distances of <12, 15, 25, 50, 75, and 100 nautical miles from these reference points. This resulted in creating 1,296 additional scenarios; these were plotted and connected to map the offshore risk. This "macro" image greatly assisted the Workgroup in identifying the relative offshore risks areas for the entire region.

A visual display of the results, which portrays coastal areas outlined as color zones indicating the relative risk levels (red zone = higher risk, yellow zone = average risk) is provided in Appendix L. Laden tankers, cargo vessels and passenger vessels generally proved to have the same results, so these categories were grouped together. Laden tank barges and fishing vessel results varied greatly, and are displayed separately. These pictorial displays represent scenarios where the vessels are single hulled, laden and transiting in winter, so it is important to note that these depict only the worst case scenarios. The numbers in the tables of Appendix L depict the entire range of possibilities, especially the greatly reduced risk levels if a tank vessel were double-hulled, and can be used to describe more typical or "average" case scenarios.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 54 Part V. Development of Findings and Recommendations

At their meeting on April 23-24, 2001 the Workgroup agreed to ask the Task Force and the US and Canadian Coast Guards to extend their mandate for one more year in order to develop risk management recommendations. In order to identify the risk factors upon which they would focus in order to do so, CDR Uberti led the Workgroup in a review of the risk factors that contributed to the Higher Risk Scenario scores for each jurisdiction. All risk factors contributed to some degree, but ranked according to the frequency of contribution from higher to lower, the factors were: weather, environmental sensitivity, distance offshore, collision hazard, traffic density, historic casualty rates by vessel types, drift rate, vessel design, and tug availability.

Reviewing those risk factors most likely to be mitigated by actions which the Workgroup might recommend, the group chose to focus on the following four: The Distance Offshore Risk Factor: The risk of grounding decreases with greater distance offshore. The Subcommittee addressing this topic was chaired by Stan Norman.

The Higher Collision Hazard Risk Factor, Part A: Risk of collision increases with traffic density at approaches to ports. Follow- through on this issue was managed by CDR Uberti & Gordon May. Part B: Risk of collision may increase with offshore traffic density between ports. This subcommittee was chaired by Sven Eklof.

The Tug Availability Risk Factor: Risk of drift grounding decreases with rescue vessel availability & capability, and is significantly impacted by weather conditions. This subcommittee was chaired by Jerry McMahon.

The Historical Casualty Risk Factor: Risk increases for vessels types that have relatively higher casualty rates. This subcommittee was chaired by USCG LCDR Jane Wong.

The Workgroup and Subcommittees agreed to use the following criteria in reviewing potential recommendations: " A recommendation is supported by the data in the study; " It is realistic, meaning capable of being implemented with available technology and expertise within a reasonable timeframe; " It would be effective, meaning providing real protection to the environment, not just the appearance of protection; " It would be economically feasible, meaning capable of being implemented without imposing unreasonable cost increase on vessel owner/operators, their customers, or ports; and " It would be flexible, meaning allowing for improvements and changes in technology and policies.

The Workgroup also agreed to utilize outside expertise where necessary, such as ship masters and/or VTS operators with current experience to assist in the evaluation of needs. In addition, they agreed to consider all options or recommendations, and consider whether existing management measures and the recommendations work together in a consistent regime. The Subcommittees agreed to stay focused on the “higher risk” areas identified.

The Task Force (known as the “Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force after July of 2001) and the Coast Guards agreed to extend the Workgroup for one more year. The

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 55 Subcommittees noted above brought recommendations to the full Workgroup at their meeting in San Diego in October. There, and during subsequent conference calls, the Workgroup agreed to a set of draft Findings and Recommendations on these four topics, as well as on the need for improved data and long-term implementation monitoring.

These draft Findings and Recommendations were then made available for public comment. Rick Holly, CDR Uberti, the Workgroup members, and Jean Cameron (Task Force Executive Coordinator) gave presentations on the Project and draft recommendations to the following groups from December 2001 through March of 2002. : • The Alaska Regional Response Team • The Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Board of Directors • The US Coast Guard Navigation Safety Advisory Council • The Columbia River Ports and Waterways Safety Committee Meeting • The Olympic National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council • The San Diego Harbor Safety Committee • The NW Regional Response Team and Area Committee • The California Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee • The Los Angeles Harbor Safety Committee • The Western States Petroleum Association’s Marine Subcommittee • The Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee • The San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee • The Western Marine Community, Pacific Coast Marine Review Panel of Vancouver, British Columbia • The California Coastal Commission • The Canadian Maritime Advisory Council • The California State Lands Commission Customer Service Meeting • The Humboldt Bay Harbor Safety Committee; and • The American Waterways Operators, Pacific Region

In addition to these presentations, the draft Findings and Recommendations were also published in the Task Force’s January 2002 newsletter, available on the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force web site.

Public comments on the draft Findings and Recommendations were received until March 31st, and were reviewed and discussed by the WCOVTRM Project Workgroup at their April 2002 meeting, prior to adoption of their final Findings and Recommendations. These comments, and the Workgroup’s responses, are summarized in Appendix N.

Final Findings and Recommendations were adopted by the Workgroup at their last meeting on April 25-26, 2002 in Vancouver, BC. The Workgroup then worked with the Task Force’s Executive Coordinator on development of the final project report. Their Final Project Report and Findings and Recommendations will be presented to the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force Members at their July 2002 Annual Meeting. Jean Cameron and Rick Holly will work with the US and Canadian Coast Guards to present the Final Project Report and Findings and Recommendations to their executive officers as well. The Task Force’s Coordinating Committee met with US Coast Guard Pacific Area marine safety officers in May of 2002 and began the process of discussing steps to implement the Workgroup’s recommendations. This process will continue through 2002 and into 2003 as needed.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 56 Part VI: Findings and Recommendations

I. Findings and Recommendations regarding Collision Hazards on the West Coast 1. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that the risk of vessel collisions increases with traffic density. One area of increased traffic density is at port entrances. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup therefore recommends that Harbor Safety Committees or their equivalents in West Coast ports continuously monitor this risk and evaluate the need for enhanced traffic safety systems at their port entrances.

2. Based on their survey of coastal transits for July of 1998 through June of 1999, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that coastwise traffic density is higher along the section of the West Coast between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Los Angeles/Long Beach than either north of the Strait or south of LA/LB. The coastal sections of highest density within this area are those between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Columbia River, and between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Long Beach.

While we recognize that the transit numbers for that period represent only one snapshot in time, according to our best professional judgment we foresee no major changes to that relative volume pattern. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup anticipates that the pending AIS carriage requirement, when fully implemented, could significantly reduce any collision hazard in these areas of high traffic density. We therefore recommend that the maritime and towing industry operating on the West Coast consider implementing compatible Automatic Identification System (AIS) carriage in advance of the required schedule.

Because the Workgroup feels that AIS carriage will be adequate, we find that the risk of collisions associated with these traffic densities does not justify a recommendation for a traffic control scheme covering the entire West Coast. This finding is not intended to preempt local decisions to monitor compliance with traffic separation schemes or Areas To Be Avoided or future decisions to use AIS data to track vessel traffic patterns.

3. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Workgroup finds that different offshore ballast water exchange standards have been adopted by California, Oregon, Washington, and various Canadian west coast ports (under the auspices of the Transport Canada publication “Guidelines For The Control Of Ballast Water Discharge From Ships In Waters Under Canadian Jurisdiction”). Although the Project Workgroup does not find that these differing standards impose an increased risk of collision offshore, we recommend that the US Coast Guard, in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada, and consistent with IMO actions, adopt a single set of preemptive national or regional offshore ballast water exchange standards that would enhance the consistency of navigation for the purpose of ballast water exchange on the West Coast.

II. Findings and Recommendations regarding Historic Casualty Factors Vessel casualty data collected for this study indicate that there were over 800 reported marine casualties involving vessels 300 gross tons or larger along the West Coast of North America from 1992 to 1999. Pro-rated for a one year period, which is the length of time for which we collected transit data, this number represents approximately 0.52% of all vessel arrivals on the

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 57 West Coast. It is worth noting that, since foreign flag vessels are not required to report casualties which take place outside of the 12 nm territorial sea, the total number of reported casualties within our study area may have been less than the actual number that occurred. Ninety-six of these casualties fall within the scope of this report as "offshore" (3-200 nm) casualties which had the potential to cause a significant oil spill. Pro-rated for a one-year period, this represented 0.062% of all vessel arrivals on the West Coast. These casualties ranged from mechanical failures to collisions or groundings -- basically, any incident that may have caused an oil spill of 1000 gallons or more. Overall, the Workgroup found that incidents involving mechanical and equipment failures do occur off the West Coast with enough regularity - an average of 12 times/year over the study period - to justify our concern that such incidents could result in drift groundings and the release of oil or other hazardous materials into the environment.

1. The Workgroup finds that a heavy concentration of reported casualty positions near major ports can be discerned as one trend. This may be attributed to higher traffic density in these areas, as well as to the fact that ships conduct their status review of steering and propulsion systems 12 hours prior to entering US waters. Therefore the incidents are reported and monitored closely (loss of steering was the most common type of equipment failure). The USCG Marine Safety Office Puget Sound has worked with the Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association to develop a recommended “Standard of Care” covering maintenance procedures, preventive measures, and actions in the event of a power loss. The Workgroup recommends adoption of a similar Standard of Care by other West Coast US ports and encourages Canadian authorities and industry to examine the applicability in Western Canadian waters as well.

2. The Workgroup also finds that cracks and fractures in tank vessel cargo tanks were the most common type of structural failure identified in the casualty data. Structural stress for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) trade tankers is not unusual, considering that these tankers routinely transit through the harsh environment of the Gulf of Alaska. Moreover, TAPS tankers are subject to very stringent inspection and reporting standards, which may skew the reported vessel casualties to include a high number of tanker incidents. The Workgroup anticipates that such incident frequency will decrease as new double-hull replacements come on line for the existing TAPS fleet. The Workgroup recommends continued vigilant application of the Critical Area Inspection Program (CAIP) by the US Coast Guard as the TAPS fleet ages, and encourages TAPS tanker operators to consider expedited replacement schedules.

3. The Workgroup also found that cargo/freight ships had the highest number of casualties overall, but notes that this vessel type also represents the greatest number of offshore transits. The resultant overall rate of casualties per transits of 0.054% for cargo/freight ships represents a low average casualty risk. We note that these vessels are subject to national and international safety and environmental regulations, as well as to our recommendations on AIS carriage and on maintaining a voluntary recommended minimum distance offshore.

4. Fishing vessels also ranked high in the mechanical/equipment failure category; their overall rate of casualties per transits was 0.384%. Based upon the Workgroup’s examination of existing and proposed programs sponsored by both government and the fishing industry to improve safety overall, the Workgroup recommends implementation of

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 58 the US Coast Guard’s Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Action Plan.43 The Workgroup also recognizes the State of Washington’s Fishing Vessel Inspection program as a good model for fishing vessel inspections, since it focuses on reducing accidents caused by human error. 44

5. The Workgroup looked into casualty rate reductions to be expected as a result of implementation of the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code), which is being phased in through July of 2002, as well as the 1995 Amendments to the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) which are being phased in through August of 2002 internationally and February of 2003 for US domestic vessels. The Workgroup finds that any risk reduction trends attributable to these measures should be discernable after full implementation.

III. Findings and Recommendations regarding Rescue Tug Availability on the West Coast 1. Based on a 2000-2001 inventory, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup found that approximately 182 ocean-going tugs operate out of West Coast “home ports. “ Of these, 77 were found to be capable of severe weather rescues based upon our analysis of existing studies on the bollard pull necessary to operate in such conditions. The Project Workgroup further finds that the capability of potential rescue vessels on the West Coast has improved greatly in recent years with the construction and placement of numerous state-of-the-art tugs with greater horsepower, maneuverability and technologically advanced equipment.

2. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup conducted an analysis of the probable response times of these rescue tugs from their home ports under both average and worst case wind conditions, assuming that a disabled vessel is drifting towards shore and no other means is available to stop its drift. This analysis defined response time contours which varied from 15 to 216 nautical miles offshore, depending upon various model variables. This information was used in the Relative Ranking/Risk Indexing model to define higher risk areas on the West Coast.

3. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Workgroup finds that the International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS), which operates in the US/Canadian transboundary waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, and which covers the coastline of British Columbia as well, provides information on the location and basic capabilities of ocean-going tugs. This information supplements tug location information available through the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) system for that area.

4. The Workgroup finds that it would be beneficial to enhance tug location and capability information coastwise. The Workgroup recognizes that International Maritime Organization (IMO) mandated AIS carriage, as well as US domestic requirements for

43 See copies of Proceedings of the Marine Safety Council, April – June 2001, pages 61-62 at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/pubs/proceed/q2-01.pdf. The eight long-term action items identified in the plan include completing a regulatory project on stability and watertight integrity for certain fishing vessels; improving casualty investigation and analysis; mandatory vessel examinations; and mandatory training-based certificate programs for operators and crew. 44 Washington’s inspection standards for fishing vessels can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/prevention/Fishing%20Vessel%20Accepted%20Industry%20Stand ards.pdf

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 59 AIS carriage, should be in place for tugs no later than 2008, or 2004 as currently proposed by pending US legislation. The Workgroup therefore recommends that the US Coast Guard evaluate whether the information to be available through AIS carriage will provide equivalent or better tug location and capability information than that provided by ITOS. If so, the US Coast Guard should take steps to ensure that this information on possible rescue tug locations is made available to all Captains of the Port on the West Coast. If not, or if the carriage requirements are not implemented by 2008 at the latest – optimally by 2004 – we recommend that the US Coast Guard consider placing transponders on ocean-going tugs not already carrying them, and adding signal receiving stations as needed to establish a coastwise network for information on ocean- going tug locations.

5. Where the tug availability risk factor is high due to a lack of readily available severe weather rescue tugs as identified by our tug homeport analysis, the Workgroup recommends several measures or combinations of measures for consideration by local jurisdictions to reduce that risk, including investment in a dedicated rescue tug, creation of a stand-by tug fund, or adoption of regulations requiring rescue tug contracts held by vessel operators.

We find that dedicated rescue tugs are expensive investments45 and that funding schemes vary from federal funding in the UK, France, and South Africa to private funding for a tug stationed at Cape Hinchinbrook, Alaska, to state funding for a tug stationed at Neah Bay, Washington during the winter months46.

Regarding a regulatory approach, we find that the US Coast Guard is developing salvage contract requirements as part of the oil spill contingency plans covering tank vessels; their final rule is not expected to be completed until 2004. The State of California has salvage and rescue tug contract requirements that applied to tank vessel contingency plans effective 7/1/2000, and similar regulations that will apply to non-tank vessel contingency plans effective 7/1/2002.

Another possible measure is a stand-by fund. In the US, such a fund could be supported by both state and federal appropriations that provide funding for a Captain of the Port decision to require an assist tug(s) when circumstances warrant such a preventive measure. In Canada, authority exists to require a rescue tug to stand-by a vessel if the threat of pollution is imminent; the resulting cost is then the subject of legal interpretation. Canadian authorities could consider use of a stand-by fund to cover the cost of such cases.

IV. Findings and Recommendations regarding the Distance Offshore Risk Factor 1. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that the risk of a grounding/collision generally increases the closer a vessel transits to shore. Using a relative ranking/risk-indexing model that incorporated nine risk factors (volume of oil/vessel design factor, drift factor, higher collision factor, distance offshore factor, weather/seasonal factor, tug availability factor, coastal route/density factor, historical casualty factor, and environmental sensitivity factor), the Workgroup mapped areas of higher risk along the West Coast of Canada and the United States. The resulting higher

45 $2,555,000 annual operating costs were estimated (based on $7000/day for the tug at Neah Bay), which is only on station for a six month period. 46 The State of Washington has recommended that the federal government share funding of the tug.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 60 risk area line was generally no more than 25 miles from land along the entire West Coast, except off Southeast Alaska, off Northwest BC, and off Point Arguello in California, where it extended to 50 nm offshore in those cases. The workgroup finds that vessels transiting within these higher risk areas have a greater potential for a grounding due to one or more of the risk criteria than if they transited offshore of these areas.

2. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that, where no other management measure such as Areas to Be Avoided (ATBAs), Traffic Separation Schemes (TSSs), or recommended tracks already exist, vessels 300 gross tons or larger transiting coastwise anywhere between Cook Inlet and San Diego should voluntarily stay a minimum distance of 25 nautical miles (nm) offshore.

3. For the sake of consistency with existing agreements, the Workgroup further recommends that, where no other management measures such as ATBAs, TSSs, Tanker Exclusion Zones, or recommended tracks already exist, tank ships laden with crude oil or persistent petroleum products47 and transiting coastwise anywhere between Cook Inlet and San Diego should voluntarily stay a minimum distance of 50 nm offshore.

4. Vessels transiting short distances between adjacent ports should seek routing guidance as needed from the local Captain of the Port or VTS authority for that area.

5. In addition, the Workgroup recognizes that laden tank barges operated by members of the American Waterways Operators have agreed to a voluntary policy of transiting at least 25 miles offshore of the US West Coast. The Council of Marine Carriers in British Columbia has committed to a similar voluntary policy for its laden tank barges transiting in the open ocean off the West Coast of Canada, but also maintains the longstanding practice of tugs seeking refuge in the many inlets available along the BC coastline which may be the safer action under certain circumstances.

6. Nothing in these voluntary minimum distance offshore recommendations is intended to preclude a vessel master from taking prudent action for the safety of the vessel and its crew.

7. The Workgroup further recommends that these voluntary minimum distances offshore be communicated to mariners by placing the text of these recommendations in the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions for the West Coast, and also by placing notes on the appropriate nautical charts, to be repeated at headlands, which indicate the voluntary minimum distances offshore and refer the mariner to the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions for further details.

47 33 CFR 154.1020, Definitions. Persistent oil means a petroleum-based oil that does not meet the distillation criteria for a non-persistent oil. For the purposes of this subpart, persistent oils are further classified based on specific gravity as follows: (1) Group II - specific gravity less than .85. (2) Group III - specific gravity between .85 and less than .95. (3) Group IV - specific gravity .95 to and including 1.0. (4) Group V - specific gravity greater than 1.0.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 61 8. Regarding the areas where the Higher Risk zones go beyond 25 nm, the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Workgroup finds that various factors mitigate the risk in these areas. For instance, the coastal transportation trade along British Columbia and SE Alaska is primarily by tug and tows. A number of powerful potential "rescue tugs" are frequently transiting through these areas as a result of this unique trading pattern. These transiting tugs supplement the rescue tugs located in homeports as used in this study. In addition, many of these coastal trading tugs are powerful long distance tugs that report in to Canada's MCTS (VTS) and/or are equipped with transponders that enhance their identification as possible rescue tugs. For the area off Point Arguello, the Workgroup finds that the northbound lanes of the Traffic Separation Scheme to/from Los Angeles/Long Beach will capture this traffic.

V. Findings and Recommendations regarding Data Improvements 1. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup finds that due to the configuration of the databases currently in use by US and Canadian federal agencies, information on cause and outcome of casualties is difficult to extract. We note that the US Coast Guard and the Canadian Transportation Safety Board are revising their vessel casualty databases, and recommend that they redesign these systems to allow for improved access to information on both the causes and outcomes of reported incidents. The Workgroup further recommends that the member agencies of the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force implement their agreement to include causal information in their oil spill incident databases and to share that information on a coastwise basis.

2. The Workgroup also recommends that the US and Canadian Coast Guards work with the West Coast states and maritime industry to investigate the causes of past vessel incidents and casualties on the West Coast over a period of not less than five years. Particular focus should be given to casualties that might have led to a grounding (including propulsion losses, steering failures, tow wire failures, and navigational errors), collisions, and allisions. A final report should provide summary information on causes, trends, and possible prevention mechanisms.

3. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that the US and Canadian Coast Guards continue to coordinate with marine exchanges and other appropriate organizations to improve coast-wise data collection procedures covering vessel movements in order to provide more detailed and standardized information regarding vessel types, cargo, routing, and ports of origin. Future implementation of AIS carriage should be evaluated as a potential source of data for this purpose.

VI. Recommendation regarding Implementation Review 1. The West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup recommends that the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force work with the US and Canadian Coast Guards in 2007 to review the status of implementation and efficacy of the final recommendations from this project.

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 62 References

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Best Achievable Technology Determination, 1997

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (Allan & Dickins), A Review of Escort, Rescue and Salvage towing Capability in Canadian Waters, 1995

Chen, C.-S., and D.-P. Wang (2000). Data assimilation model study of the wind effects in the Santa Barbara Channel. J. Geophys. Res. 105:22003-22013.

D.F. Dickins Associates Ltd; Oil Spill Consequences: Costs of Selected Incidents, Summary prepared for the North Puget Sound Oil Spill Risk Management Panel; 2000.

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Aids to Navigation Division; Port Access Route Studies for the San Pedro Bay Area; 2000

Hickey, B. M. (1992). Circulation over the Santa Monic-San Pedro Basin and Shelf. Prog. Oceanog. 30: 37-115.

Holder, L.A., J. Werkhoven, and G.F. Williams, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Behavior of Disabled Large Tankers, 1981

Huyer, A., P. M. Kosro, J. Fleischbein, S. R. Ramp, T. Stanton, L. Washburn, F. P. Chavez, T. J. Cowles, S. D. Pierce, and R. L. Smith (1991). Currents and Water Masses of the Coastal Transition Zone off Northern California, June to August 1988. J. Geophys. Res. 96:14809- 14831.

ITOS Coalition (AWO, PSSOA, WSPA), Enhanced Puget Sound International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS), 1998

Landry, M. R., and B. M. Hickey (1989). Coastal Oceanography of Washington and Oregon. Elsevier Press, New York, 607 pp.

Lewison, G.R.G., Proceedings of the Symposium on the Behavior of Disabled Large Tankers, 1981;

Marine Bioregions: Gulf of Alaska and British Columbia, prepared by R. Glenn Ford and Jennifer Caylor Ward for the World Wildlife Fund, 1998

NOAA HAZMAT Report 97-3, Ship Drift Analysis for the Northwest Olympic Peninsula and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 1997

NOAA HAZMAT Report 2000-2, Ship Drift analysis, West Coast of North America, Alaska to Southern California, 2000

PACAREA Resource Management Division; US Coast Guard Pacific Area’s 2000 Regional Strategic Assessment; 2000

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 63 Sensitivity of Coastal Waters Off California, Oregon, and Washington to Oil Spills, Based on the Distribution of Seabirds, Marine Mammals, and Fisheries, prepared for the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center by Michael L. Bonnel, R. Glenn Ford, and Janet L. Casey, 1993

Smeaton, G.P., Proceedings from the Symposium on the Behavior of Disabled Large Tankers, 1981, pp. 65-72.

Strub, P. T., J. S. Allen, A. Huyer, and R. L. Smith (1987). Seasonal Cycles of Currents, Temperatuers, Winds and Sea Level Over the Northeast Pacific Continental Shelf: 35°N to 48° N. J. Geophys. Res. 92:1507-1526.

The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration and US Coast Guard, California Marine Sanctuary Vessel Traffic Study, 1997

The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, Coping With Technological Disasters: A User Friendly Guidebook, 1999

The US Department of Transportation, An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, A Report to Congress, 1999

UK Maritime and Coast Guard Agency Report, United Kingdom Emergency Towing System, 1998

US Coast Guard Joint Pub 3-50 COMDTINST M16120.5A, National Search and Rescue Manual, Volume I: National Search and Rescue System, 1991

US Coast Guard Report No. 9522-002, Regulatory Assessment: Use of Tugs to Protect Against Oil Spills in the Puget Sound Area, 1999

US Coast Guard, Evaluation of Oil Tanker Routing per Section 4111(b)(7) of OPA 90, 1995

US Coast Guard Document USCG-1999-4974. A Port Access Route Study for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent waters. 2000

Washington State Office of Marine Safety (Allan), Emergency Towing System Task Force Report, 1994

West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Final Report 7/2002 64

Appendix A West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup Members, Interested Observes, Staff and Subcommittees

Workgroup Co-Chairs Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force co-chair: CAPT Rick Holly, Office of Spill Prevention and Response, California Department of Fish and Game US Coast Guard, Pacific Area Command, Marine Safety Division Co-Chairs (in chronological order): CAPT Ed Page; CAPT Frank Whipple; CRD William Uberti; CAPT Glenn Anderson; CDR Steve Danscuk

Workgroup Members and Alternates Steve Provant and Betty Schorr, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Stafford Reid, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks CAPT Stan Norman, Washington Department of Ecology CAPT Jack Barfield, Alternate, Washington Department of Ecology Ed Wilson, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality CAPT Ed Page and LT Wade Gilpin, US Coast Guard, District 17, Marine Safety Division LCDR Al Echols, Alternate to CAPT Page LCDR Jane Wong, US Coast Guard, District 13, Marine Safety Division CDR William Uberti, US Coast Guard, District 11, Marine Safety Division Ted Severud, Gordon May, Larry Pokeda, Canadian Coast Guard, Pacific Region Doug Alpen and Dave Godfrey, Alternates James Carter, Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council Rory Dabney, Alternate CAPT Ron Cartwright, Rick Bryant, and CAPT Dave Watson, British Columbia Chamber of Shipping Peter Woodward, Council of Marine Carriers, Pacific Region LT Jon Treen, Canadian Maritime Forces, Pacific Headquarters Harry Hutchins, Puget Sound Steamship Operators’ Association Robert Bohlman, Alternate Eric Johnson, Washington Public Ports Association CAPT Andrew Palmer, Ocean Policy Advocates (1999-2001) Liz Wainwright, Portland Merchants Exchange CAPT Jim Townley, Alternate Mic Dorrance, Marine Division, Port of Portland Pad Quinn, Alternate Vicki Nichols, Save Our Shores Jonathan Bishop and Alan Graves, Alternates Ellen Faurot-Daniels, California Coastal Commission Robin Blanchfield, Alternate CAPT Ed Irish, Western States Petroleum Association CDR Jim Morris, NOAA Hazmat CDR Ken Barton, Alternate George Galasso, Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA NMS CAPT Patrick Maloney, Council of American Master Mariners Sven Eklof, US Navy, Region Northwest Jerry McMahon, American Waterways Operators, Pacific Region Dick Lauer, Alternate Dale Ferrier and Howard Seto, Teekay Shipping and INTERTANKO John Berge, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association John McLaurin, Alternate

Interested Observers • Joe Cox and Kathy Metcalf, Chamber of Shipping of America • Lindy Johnson, NOAA Headquarters • Leslie Hughes, North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association • Charles Hansen, Transport Canada • CAPT Terry Rice, USCG District 14, Marine Safety Division • Holly Price, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA • Margie Hegy, USCG Waterways Management Directorate • CAPT Steen Stender Petersen, Deputy Secretary General, BIMCO

Staff or Advisory • LT Patricia Springer, USCG Pacific Area Command, Marine Safety Division • Mike VanHouten, USCG District 11, Aids to Navigation Branch • Heather Parker-Hall, NOAA Hazmat • Fred Stephenson, contact for the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans • Jean Cameron, Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force

Subcommittee Membership • Stan Norman chaired the Vessel Types Subcommittee, whose membership included USCG LT Jim Peschel, Ed Wilson, and Mic Dorrance. • Rick Holly chaired the Vessel Routes Subcommittee, whose membership included CAPT Patrick Maloney and Ken Levin. Sven Eklof contributed information as well. • Sven Eklof chaired the Vessel Traffic Volume Subcommittee. Traffic data compilation and the generation of tables, graphs, and charts was primarily done by USCG LT Patricia Springer. Data research was conducted by LT Springer as well as the other Subcommittee members, including Ellen Faurot-Daniels, Ted Severud and Dave Godfrey, Mic Dorrance, Harry Hutchins, Patrick Maloney, Jack Barfield, Jim Townley, Ed Irish, and John McLaurin. • The Existing Vessel Management Measures report was initially compiled by USCG LCDR Brian Tetreault; after his transfer, LT Patricia Springer expanded the report to both text and matrix format. • The Vessel Drift Analysis Subcommittee was chaired by NOAA CDR Jim Morris; other committee members and advisors included Andy Palmer, CAPT Ed Irish, and Glen Watabayashi of NOAA. • The Casualty Data Report was researched and compiled by USCG CAPT Frank Whipple and LT Patricia Springer. • The Assist Vessel Subcommittee was chaired by Jerry McMahon of the American Waterways Operators, Pacific Region; members included Stan Norman, Harry Hutchins, Andy Palmer, and Ellen Faurot-Daniels.

Appendix B Pacific Coast Environmental Sensitivity Maps

Map #1: Combined intensity of all biological taxa (fisheries, marine mammals, and seabird) along the Gulf of Alaska Coast of Alaska and British Columbia Source: Marine Bio-regions: Gulf of Alaska and British Columbia. Prepared for World Wildlife Fund by R. Glenn Ford and Jennifer Caylor Ward, 1998

Map #2: Overall Sensitivity of Pacific Coastal Waters based on Distribution of Seabird, Marine Mammals, Listed Species, and Fisheries Source: Evaluation of Oil Tanker Routing, US DOT Report to Congress 1996; Appendix B, Sensitivity of Coastal Waters off California, Oregon, and Washington Prepared for the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center by Ecological Consulting, Inc., 1993

Appendix C: Spill Cost Summary: Selected US Incidents, 1984-2000 (all costs in 1997 US$ equivalents)

Natural Vessel or Vessel Total Spill Resource Economic TOTAL TOTAL Damages Facility Name Type Date Location Oil Type Vol. Response Claims SPILL COST COST/GAL Cost

(gal) ($ per gal. ($ per gal. ($ per gal. (millions) ($ per gal. spilled) spilled) spilled) spilled) Arco Anchorage Tanker 31-Dec-85 WA, Crude 189,000 143 3 27.2 143 Apex Houston Barge 28-Jan-86 CA Crude 25,000 2 481 12.11 484 Glacier Bay Tanker 2-Jul-87 AK Crude 60,000 68 1,416 89.18 1,486 Nestucca Barge 23-Dec-88 WA Fuel Oil 231,000 56 57 4 27.68 119 Exxon Valdez Tanker 24-Mar-89 AK Crude 11,000,000 306 140 665 12,262.95 1,114 American Trader Tanker 7-Feb-90 CA Crude 417,000 36 29 54 59.52 142 Sammi Freighter 8-Jan-91 CA Fuel Oil 32,064 620 20 623 Superstars/Maui Texaco Anacortes Refiner 22-Feb-91 WA Crude 27,300 11 402 Tenyo Maru Fishing 22-Jul-91 WA/BC Fuel oil, 173,000 88 65 in NRDA 28.33 163 Vessel diesel Union Oil Pipeline 3-Aug-92 CA Crude 14,700 1,006 108 16.7 1,136 Morris J. Barge 7-Jan-94 Puerto Fuel Oil 789,000 111 9 7 182.14 230 Berman Rico Barge 101 Barge 31-Dec-94 WA Diesel 26,900 Kure Freighter 5-Nov-97 CA Fuel oil 4,500 2,222 Kuroshima Freighter 26-Nov-97 AK Fuel oil 47,000 159 11.5 244 (Fish) Command Tanker 28-Sep-98 CA Fuel Oil 51,450 23 9.4 182 New Carissa Freighter 4-Feb-99 OR Fuel oil 70,000 328 36.5 521

US Averages 822370 369 112 429 914 499 US Avg. excl 145328 374 107 370 41 451 Valdez

DF Dickins Associates Ltd. from D.S. Etkin (98 and current), Harper et al. (95) and OSIR (29/7/99, 30/12/99, 20/01/00)

Spill Cost Summary: Selected Worldwide Incidents, 1984-2000 (all costs in 1997 US$ equivalents)

Natural Vessel or Vessel Date Location Oil Type Total Spill Response Resource Economic TOTAL TOTAL Cost Facility Name Type Vol. Damages Claims SPILL COST COST/GAL Maritime Bulker 24-Jan- Japan Fuel oil 242,000 31 7.72 31 90 Gardenia Vista Bella Barge 6-Mar- Caribbean Bunker 588,000 10 5.97 10 91

Agip Abruzzo Tanker 11-Apr- Italy Crude + 588,000 41 29.4 50 91 Haven Tanker 4-Apr- Italy Crude 6,000,000 38 113 1.89 927.07 154 91 Arisan Ore 12-Jan- Norway Fuel Oil 44,000 129 5.68 129 92

Aegean Sea Tanker 3-Dec- Spain Crude 21,900,000 1.44 12 313.83 14 92 Taiko Maru Tanker ###### Japan Fuel oil 153,000 67 78 22.34 146 ## Keumdongf.5 Barge 27-Sep- S. Korea Fuel Oil 391,000 18 687 301.44 770 93 Sea Prince Tanker 23-Jul- S.Korea Fuel Oil 412,000 61 680 305.17 740 95 Yea Myung Tanker 3-Aug- S. Korea Fuel Oil 12,000 117 775 10.73 894 95 Honan Sapphire Tanker 17-Nov- S. Korea Crude 370,400 32 167 74.08 200 95 Sea Empress Tanker 15-Feb- UK Crude + 21,274,000 1.45 12.34 10 479 22 96 fuel oil Nakhodka Tanker 2-Jan- Japan Fuel oil 2,288,000 94 36 286.9 125 97 Erika Tanker 12-Dec- France Fuel oil 2,800,000 Ongoing Ongoing 16 Ongoing Ongoing 99

AVERAGES 4,174,031 149 163 246 213 253

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix D

Coastal Vessel Traffic Volume Tables, Graphs, Charts And Coastal Section Transit Totals

Cook Inlet - Arrivals by Vessel Type

140

120

100

80

60

Tank Barge 40 Tank Ship Other

20

0

K , A D ng Sea l) i ak NLET a di I UN Ber o K O BC K ION Is/ O . S T OR R M gener S B CO ( VE ian W SE ALASKA WE REG BAY B ka RI S BAY s A A T /L t eut as S HAR O F BAY A O Al NCE Al BI S L e I FUC M CO EG ica s U ne PR E L DI twi ca i GRAY MBOLD Amer ri ai a AN e w si N D CO SoCal Por th ng Zo a ia A HU S r Coas H A isc. o Am an ope JU N shi h ce M ut n O Eur e East So dl ther US Fi / n d i Mi Unknown Nor Lat Ship her t ank

O T

wn

no

k

Un

t

s

e Ea e

dl

d

Mi

e

p

o

r

Eu

a

ani

e

Oc

a i As

pe i i

wa

Ha

a

ic

r

Ame

h t

ou

one S

/ / Z

in g

t

n

Vessel Ty i La

e

s

wi

st US Fish US

a

Co

ls by ca ri

a

me

A

h t

EGO

rriv Nor n

DI

er

h t

r

s

t SAN

No

Por l

oCa

B

S

L /

c.

s

LA

Mi

BAY

SF

Y

BA

DT

HUMBOL

COOS BAY COOS

VER

A RI A

OR

UMBI

RB

COL

Prince William Sound - A HA

S S

ON

EGI

GRAY R

UCA UCA

F

E E

EST BC EST

D

W ) l

ra

e

UAN UAN

J

en

g

a ( a

k KA

as

AS

Al

SE AL SE

SOUND

M.

ET

NL

NCE W NCE

K

A

PRI

COOK I COOK

k,

a

i

d

a Ko

g Se g

n

i

r

0 e

/B

50 Is

n

100 ia 150 t

200

250

300 eu

350 400 Al

Ship her t ank

O T

wn

no

k

Un

t

s

e Ea e

dl

d

Mi

e

p

o

r

Eu

a

ani

e

Oc

a i

As

i i wa

pe Ha

a

ic

r

Ame

h t

ou

one S

/ / Z

in g

t

n

i

La

e

s

Vessel Ty wi

st US Fish US

a

Co

ca

ri

me

A

ls by

h t

a

EGO

n Nor n

DI

er

h t

r

s

rriv t SAN

No

Por l

A

oCa

B

S

L /

c.

s

LA

Mi

BAY aska -

l SF Y

A

BA

DT HUMBOL

heast

COOS BAY COOS

VER

A RI A

Sout OR UMBI

RB

COL HA

S S

ON

EGI

GRAY R

UCA UCA

F

E E

EST BC EST

D

W ) l

ra

e

UAN UAN

J

en

g

a ( a

k KA

as

AS

Al

SE AL SE

SOUND

M.

ET

NL

NCE W NCE

K

A

PRI

COOK I COOK

k,

a

i

d

a Ko

g Se g

n

i

r

0 e

5 /B

Is

10 15 n

20

25

30 ia

35 t

40

eu Al

e g Bar Ship her t ank ank

O T T

wn

no

k

Un

t

s

e Ea e

dl

d

Mi

e

p

o

r

Eu

a

ani

e

Oc

a i

As

i i

wa

Ha

a

ic r

pe

Ame

h t

ou

one

S

Z / /

g in

t

n

i

La

e

s

wi

st US Fish US

a

Co

ca

ri

Vessel Ty

me

A

h t

EGO

n Nor n

DI

er

ls by h t

r

s

t a SAN No

Por l

oCa

B

rriv S

L /

c.

s

LA A Mi

-

BAY

C

SF Y

B

BA

DT

West HUMBOL

COOS BAY COOS

VER

A RI A

OR

UMBI

RB

COL HA

S S

ON

EGI

GRAY R

UCA UCA

F

E E

EST BC EST

D

W ) l

ra

e

UAN UAN

J

en

g

a ( a

k KA

as

AS

Al

SE AL SE

SOUND

M.

ET

NL

NCE W NCE

K

A

PRI

COOK I COOK

k,

a

i

d

a Ko

g Se g

n

i

r

0 e

/B

Is

20

40

60 n

80 ia t

100

120 eu

140 Al

e g Bar Ship her t ank ank

O T T

wn

no

k

Un

t

s

e Ea e

dl

d

Mi

e

p

o

r

Eu

a

ani

e

Oc

a i As

pe

i i

wa

Ha

a

ic

r

Ame

h t

ou

one

S

Z / /

Vessel Ty

g in

t

n

i

La

e

s

wi

st US Fish US a

ls by Co

a ca

ri

me

A

h t

rriv

EGO

n Nor n

DI

A er

h t

r

s

t SAN

No

Por l

oCa

B

S

L /

c.

s

LA

Mi

BAY

SF

Y

BA

DT

Juan de Fuca -

HUMBOL

of BAY COOS

VER A RI A

rait

OR

UMBI RB

St

COL HA

S S

ON

EGI

GRAY R

UCA UCA

F

E E

EST BC EST

D

W ) l

ra

e

UAN UAN

J

en

g

a ( a

k KA

as

AS

Al

SE AL SE

SOUND

M.

ET

NL

NCE W NCE

K

A

PRI

COOK I COOK

k,

a

i

d

a Ko

g Se g

n

i

r

0 e

/B

Is

n

200

400 ia

600 t 800 eu

1000 1200 Al 1400 1600 1800 2000

her t

O

n

w

o

n

k

n

U

t

s

a

E

e

l

d

d i

M

e

p

o

r

u

E

a

i

n

a

e

c

O

a

i

s

A

i

i

a

w

a

H

a

c i

r

e

m

A

h

t

pe u

e

o

n

S

o

/

Z

n

i

t g

a n

i

L

h

s

i

e

F

s

i

S

w

t

U

s

a

o

C

a

c i

r

e

m

A

Vessel Ty

h t

r

O o

G N

E n

I

r

D e

h

t N

r

A

o

s ls by S t

N r

o

a

P

l

a

C

o

S

B

. L

/

rriv c

s A i

L M

A

Y

A

B

F

S

Y

A

B rbor -

T

a D L

O

Y

B

A

M

B

U

S

s H H O

O

C R

E

V I

R

A

I

Gray B R

M

O

U

B

L

R

O

A

C

H

S

N

Y

O

I

A

G

R

E

G

R

A

C

C

B

U

T

F

S

E

E

D

W

) N

l

A a

r

U

e

J

n

e

g

(

a

A

k

K

s

S a

l

A

A L

A

E

D

S

N

U

O

S

.

M T

E

W

L

E

N

I

C

K

N I

O

R

K

O

P

A

C

,

k

a

i

d

o

K a

e

S

g

n

i

r

0 e

5 B /

s

I

10 n

15 a i

20 t

25 u

e l A

Columbia River - Arrivals by Vessel Type

700

600

500

400

300

Other 200 Tank Ship Tank Barge

100

0 e g Bar her t ank

O T

wn

no

k

Un

t

s

e Ea e

dl

d

Mi

e

p

o

r

Eu

a

ani

e

Oc

a i

As

i i

wa

Ha

a

ic r

pe

Ame

h t

ou

one S

/ / Z

in g

t

n

i

La

e

s

wi

st US Fish US

a

Co

ca

ri

Vessel Ty

me

A

h t

EGO

n Nor n

DI

er

ls by

h t

r

s

a t SAN

No

Por l

oCa

B rriv S

L /

c.

s

LA A Mi

-

y BAY

a SF

Y

BA

DT

oos B HUMBOL

C

COOS BAY COOS

VER

A RI A

OR

UMBI

RB

COL HA

S S

ON

EGI

GRAY R

UCA UCA

F

E E

EST BC EST

D

W ) l

ra

e

UAN UAN

J

en

g

a ( a

k KA

as

AS

Al

SE AL SE

SOUND

M.

ET

NL

NCE W NCE

K

A

PRI

COOK I COOK

k,

a

i

d

a Ko

g Se g

n

i

r

0 e

/B

Is

20

40

60 n

80

ia t 100 eu

120

140 Al

e g Bar her t ank

O T

n

w

o

n

k

n

U

t

s

a

E

e

l

d

d i

M

e

p

o

r

u

E

a

i

n

a

e

c

O

a

i

s

A

i

i

a

w

a H

pe

a

c i

r

e

m

A

h

t

e u

n o

o

S

Z /

n

g i

t

n

i a

h

L

s

e

i

s

F i

w

S

t

s U

a

Vessel Ty o

C

a

c i

r

e

m

A

h

t

r

ls by O o

G

N

E

a I

n

r

D

e

h N

t

r

A

s

o

t

S

r

N o

rriv P

l

a

C

A o

B

S

L

. /

c

- A

s

i L

y M

a Y

A

B

F

B S

Y

A

B

T

D

L

O

Y

B A

B M

U S

H

mboldt O

O

R

C

u E

V I

R

H

A I

B R

M

O

U B

L

R

O

A

C

H

N

S

O Y

I

A

G

R

E

G

R

A

C

C

B

U

T

F

S

E E

D

W

)

l

N

a

r A

e

U

n

J

e

g

(

A

a

k K

s

S

a

l

A

A L

A

E

D

S N

U

O

S

.

T

M

E

W L

N E

I

C

K

N

I

O

K

R

O

A

P , C

k

a

i

d

o

a K

e

S

g

n

i

r

0 e

B

/

s

10 I

20

30

40 n

50

60 a

70 i

80 t

90

u

e l A

e g Bar Ship her t ank ank

O T T

wn

no

k

Un

t

s

e Ea e

dl

d

Mi

e

p

o

r

Eu

a

ani

e

Oc

a i

As

i i

wa

Ha

a

ic

r

Ame

h t

ou

one

S

Z / /

g in

t

n

i

La

e

y s

wi

st

a Fish US a

Co

ca

ri

me

A

h t

EGO

n Nor n

DI

er

h t

r

s

t SAN

No

Por l

oCa

B

S

L /

c.

s

LA

Mi

BAY

San Francisco B

SF

Y

BA

DT

HUMBOL

COOS BAY COOS

VER

A RI A

OR

UMBI

RB

COL HA

S S

ON

EGI

GRAY R

UCA UCA

F

E E

EST BC EST

D

W ) l

ra

e

UAN UAN

J

en

g

a ( a

k KA

as

AS

Al

SE AL SE

SOUND

M.

ET

NL

NCE W NCE

K

A

PRI

COOK I COOK

k,

a

i

d

a Ko

g Se g

n

i

r

0 e

/B

Is

n

200 ia 400 t

600

800

eu 1000 Al 1200 1400

e g Bar Ship her t ank ank

O T T

n

w

o

n

k

n

U

t

s

a

E

e

l

d

d i

M

e

p

o

r

u

E

a

i

n

a

e

c

O

a

pe i

s

A

i

i

a

w

a

H

a

c

i

r

e

m

A

h

Vessel Ty t

u e

o n

o S

/ Z

n

i g

t

n

a i

L h

s

i e

s F i

w ls by S t

U s

a a o

C

a

c i

r

e

m

rriv A

h

t

r

O

o

G

N

E

I

n

r

D

e

h

N

t

r

A

o

s

t S

r N

o

P

l

a

C

o

B

S

L .

/

c

A

s

i

L

M

Y

A

B

F

S

Y

A

B

T

D

L

O

Y

B

A

M

B

U

S

H

O

O

R C

E

V

ngeles/Long Beach - A I

R

A

I

B

R

M

O

U B

L

R

O

A

C

H

N S

Y

Los A O

I

A

G R

E

G

R

A

C

C

B

U

T

F

S

E

E

D

W

)

l

N a

r A

e U

n J

e

g

(

a

A

k

K

s

S

a

l

A

A

L

A

E D

S N

U

O

S

.

T M

E

W L

N E

I

C

K

N

I

O

K

R

O

A

P

C ,

k

a

i

d

o

a K

e

S

g

n

i

r

0 e

B

/

s

I

n

a 200 i

400 t

600

800 u

e l 1000 A 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

her t

O

n

w

o

n

k

n

U

t

s

a

E

e

l

d

d i

M

e

p

o

r

u

E

a

i

n

a

e

c

O

a

i

s

A

i

i

a

w

a

H

a

c i

r

e

m

A

h

t

u

e

o

n

S

o

/

pe Z

n

i

t g

a n

i

L

h

s

i

e

F

s

i

S

w

t

U

s

a

o

C

a

c i

r

e

m

A

h t

r

O o

Vessel Ty

G N

E n

I

r

D e

h

t N

r

A

o

s S t

N

r

o

P

ls by l

a

a C

o

S

B

.

L

/

c

s A i

L M

rriv

Y

A

A

B

F

S

Y

A

B

T

ego - D

i L

O

Y

B

A

M

B

U

S

H

O

O

C R

E

V I

San D R

A I

B

R

M

O

U

B

L

R

O

A

C

H

S

N

Y

O

I

A

G

R

E

G

R

A

C

C

B

U

T

F

S

E

E

D

W

) N

l

A a

r

U

e

J

n

e

g

(

a

A

k

K

s

S a

l

A

A L

A

E

D

S

N

U

O

S

.

M T

E

W

L

E

N

I

C

K

N I

O

R

K

O

P

A

C

,

k

a

i

d

o

K a

e

S

g

n

i

r

0 e

B

/

s

I

20

40

60 n

80

a

i

t

100 u

120 e

140 l 160 A

Cook Inlet Vessel Arrivals

PRINCE WM. SOUND 2.7% Aleutian Is/Bering Sea SE ALASKA 0.4% 0.2%

JUAN DE FUCA REGION 33.0%

Unknown 57.6%

SF BAY Asia 0.2% 4.7% LA/LB Hawaii 0.2% 0.7% Oceania 0.2%

Prince William Sound Vessel Arrivals

COLUMBIA RIVER 2.9%

SF BAY 19.7% SAN DIEGO 0.1% LA/LB Hawaii 10.8% 4.0% Asia 2.3%

JUAN DE FUCA REGION Unknown 39.7% 0.4% Aleutian Is/Bering Sea 0.9% Kodiak, AK SE ALASKA COOK INLET 1.7% 10.8% 4.2%

WEST BC 2.5%

Southeast Alaska Vessel Arrivals

Asia 42.7% Unknown 1.9% Latin/ South America Aleutian Is/Bering Sea 1.9% 1.0% COOK INLET LA/LB 1.9% 1.9% WEST BC COLUMBIA RIVER 9.7% 4.9%

JUAN DE FUCA REGION 34.0%

West British Columbia Vessel Arrivals

Unknown 2.7% Oceania PRINCE WM. SOUND 3.6% 5.3%

SE ALASKA 7.4%

Alaska (general) 14.2%

Asia JUAN DE FUCA REGION 45.0% 5.6%

GRAYS HARBOR 0.3% COLUMBIA RIVER 3.3% LA/LB SF BAY 2.7% 2.1% Misc. SoCal Ports 7.1% Latin/ South America 0.9% Strait of Juan de Fuca Vessel Arrivals

Aleutian Is/Bering Sea Middle East 2.4% COOK INLET 0.1% 0.3% Unknown PRINCE WM. SOUND Oceania 3.7% 1.8% 1.5%

Alaska (general) 11.6% WEST BC 5.6% GRAYS HARBOR Asia 0.6% 35.7% COLUMBIA RIVER 11.5%

COOS BAY LA/LB 0.5% 9.1% SF BAY 6.0% Latin/ South America 5.2%

US Fishing Zone 0.9% Misc. SoCal Ports Coastwise SAN DIEGO 3.1% 0.04% 0.5% Grays Harbor Vessel Arrivals

Alaska (general) 3.1% Oceania 1.5% WEST BC 6.2%

Asia 35.4%

JUAN DE FUCA REGION 30.8%

LA/LB HUMBOLDT BAY 1.5% 10.8% SF BAY 1.5% COLUMBIA RIVER 9.2%

Columbia River Vessel Arrivals

COOK INLET Unknown 0.1% Middle East 0.1% Alaska (general) 0.2% 1.3% Oceania WEST BC 2.9% 1.8%

Asia 31.7% JUAN DE FUCA REGION 32.9%

HUMBOLDT BAY 0.1% Hawaii SF BAY 1.1% 9.6% COOS BAY Latin/ South America 0.2% 5.7% GRAYS HARBOR SAN DIEGO 0.2% 1.0% LA/LB 9.3% Misc. SoCal Ports 1.8% Coos Bay Vessel Arrivals

COOK INLET 0.3% WEST BC 0.5%

Unknown JUAN DE FUCA REGION GRAYS HARBOR 17.8% 19.1% 0.3% COLUMBIA RIVER 3.0% HUMBOLDT BAY 0.8% SF BAY Asia 3.5% 21.6% LA/LB 0.5%

Northern North America 32.7%

Humboldt Bay Vessel Arrivals

WEST BC 2.4% Europe 0.6% JUAN DE FUCA REGION 7.2%

Asia 10.2% SF BAY LA/LB 5.4% 0.6%

Coastwise 73.7%

San Francisco Bay Vessel Arrivals

Latin/ South America 5.0% Middle East Coastwise Hawaii Oceania 0.4% 1.1% 3.9% 2.4% SAN DIEGO 0.7%

Misc. SoCal Ports Asia 0.4% 9.1% COOK INLET 0.03% Kodiak, AK Unknown 0.03% 10.8% Aleutian Is/Bering Sea 0.03%

LA/LB PRINCE WM. SOUND 45.7% JUAN DE FUCA REGION 2.5% 11.8% SE ALASKA 0.2% WEST BC 0.2%

COLUMBIA RIVER 4.2% COOS BAY HUMBOLDT BAY 0.7% 0.7% Los Angeles/Long Beach Vessel Arrivals

Europe Middle East 0.3% 0.5% Unknown Oceania 0.7% 2.5% COOK INLET PRINCE WM. SOUND 0.2% 1.5% WEST BC 0.2% SE ALASKA 0.02% JUAN DE FUCA REGION Asia 6.4% 36.3% GRAYS HARBOR 0.1% COLUMBIA RIVER 3.6% COOS BAY 0.6% SF BAY 12.3% HUMBOLDT BAY Hawaii 0.1% 1.9% Latin/ South America 29.0% Misc. SoCal Ports 1.7% SAN DIEGO 2.3%

San Diego Vessel Arrivals

JUAN DE FUCA REGION 3.8% COLUMBIA RIVER Unknown WEST BC 2.4% 5.5% 1.1% COOS BAY Oceania 2.9% 2.2% SF BAY 2.2%

Asia 18.6%

LA/LB Hawaii 31.4% 1.8%

Latin/ South America 26.3%

Misc. SoCal Ports 1.8%

Total Vessel Transits by Coastal Section

Alaska Coastline to British Columbia: 2,211 annual transits, including: • All Alaska arrivals from ports south: 1,042 • All BC port arrivals from Alaska: 91 • Juan de Fuca arrivals from Alaska: 866 • Grays Harbor arrivals from Alaska: 2 • Columbia River arrivals from Alaska: 28 • Coos Bay arrivals from Alaska: 1 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from Alaska: 0 • San Francisco Bay arrivals from Alaska: 92 • LA/LB arrivals from Alaska: 89 • San Diego arrivals from Alaska: 0

British Columbia coastline between Alaska and Juan de Fuca: 2,527 annual transits, including: • Juan de Fuca arrivals from AK and BC ports: 1169 • Alaska arrivals from Juan de Fuca and ports south: 1004 • BC arrivals from Juan de Fuca and ports south: 74 • Grays Harbor arrivals from BC and AK: 6 • Columbia River arrivals from BC and AK: 66 • Coos Bay arrivals from BC and AK: 3 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from BC and AK: 4 • San Francisco Bay arrivals from BC and AK: 99 • LA/LB arrivals from ports north of Juan de Fuca: 97 • San Diego arrivals from BC and AK: 5

Juan de Fuca to Grays Harbor: 4,221 annual transits, including: • Grays Harbor arrivals from all ports to the north: 26 • Columbia River arrivals from all ports north of Grays Harbor: 745 • Coos Bay arrivals from all ports north of Grays Harbor: 79 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from all ports north of Grays Harbor: 16 • San Francisco Bay arrivals from all ports north of Grays Harbor: 495 • LA/LB arrivals from all ports north of Grays Harbor: 433 • San Diego arrivals from all ports north of Grays Harbor: 22 • Alaska arrivals from Grays Harbor and ports further south: 382 • BC arrivals from Grays Harbor and ports further south: 55 • Juan de Fuca arrivals from all ports south: 1968

Grays Harbor to the Columbia River: 4,188 annual transits, including: • Grays Harbor arrivals from all ports to the south: 15 • Juan de Fuca arrivals from Columbia River and ports south: 1937 • BC arrivals from Columbia River and ports south: 54 • Alaska arrivals from Columbia River and ports south: 382 • Columbia River arrivals from all ports to the North: 749 • Coos Bay arrivals from ports north of the Columbia River: 80 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from ports north of the Columbia River: 16 • San Francisco Bay arrivals from ports north of the Columbia River: 495 • LA/LB arrivals from ports north of the Columbia River: 438 • San Diego arrivals from ports north of the Columbia River: 22

Columbia River to Coos Bay: 3,694 annual transits, including: • Coos Bay arrivals from all ports north: 92 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from ports north of Coos Bay: 16 • San Francisco arrivals from ports north of Coos Bay: 637 • LA/LB arrivals from ports north of Coos Bay: 626 • San Diego arrivals from ports north of Coos Bay: 33 • Columbia River arrivals from all ports south: 575 • Grays Harbor arrivals from Coos Bay and ports south: 9 • Juan de Fuca arrivals from Coos Bay and ports south: 1318 • BC arrivals from Coos Bay and ports south: 43 • AK arrivals from Coos Bay and ports south: 345

Coos Bay to Humboldt Bay: 3,658 annual transits, including: • Coos Bay arrivals from all ports south: 19 • Columbia River arrivals from ports south of Coos Bay: 570 • Grays Harbor arrivals from arrivals from ports south of Coos Bay: 9 • Juan de Fuca arrivals from arrivals from ports south of Coos Bay: 1292 • BC arrivals from arrivals from ports south of Coos Bay: 43 • Alaska arrivals from arrivals from ports south of Coos Bay: 345 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from all ports North: 16 • San Francisco Bay arrivals from ports north of Humboldt Bay: 660 • LA/LB arrivals from ports north of Humboldt Bay: 658 • San Diego arrivals from ports north of Humboldt Bay: 46

Humboldt Bay to San Francisco Bay: 3,668 annual transits, including: • San Francisco Bay arrivals from all ports north: 685 • LA/LB arrivals from Humboldt Bay and ports north: 662 • San Diego arrivals from Humboldt Bay and ports north: 46 • Humboldt Bay arrivals from San Francisco and all ports south: 10 • Coos Bay arrivals from San Francisco and all ports further south: 16 • Columbia River arrivals from San Francisco and all ports further south: 567 • Grays Harbor arrivals from San Francisco and all ports further south: 2 • Juan de Fuca arrivals from San Francisco and all ports further south: 1292 • BC arrivals from San Francisco and all ports further south: 43 • AK arrivals from San Francisco and all ports further south: 345

San Francisco Bay to LA/LB: 4,604 annual transits, including: • LA/LB arrivals from San Francisco and all ports north: 1314 • San Francisco Bay arrivals from LA/LB and all ports south: 1732 • San Diego from San Francisco and ports further north: 56 • Humboldt Bay from LA/LB and ports south: 1 • Coos Bay from LA/LB and ports south: 2 • Columbia River from LA/LB and ports south: 368 • Grays Harbor from LA/LB and ports south: 1 • Juan de Fuca from LA/LB and ports south: 968 • BC from LA/LB and ports south: 36 • AK from LA/LB and ports south: 126

LA/LB to San Diego: 2,615 annual transits, including: • San Diego from all ports north, including LA/LB: 206 • LA/LB from south: 1764 (includes San Diego, So. Cal, South America, and Europe) • San Francisco from San Diego and south: 192 • Humboldt Bay from San Diego and south: 0 • Coos Bay from San Diego and south: 0 • Columbia River from San Diego and south: 138 • Grays Harbor from San Diego and south: 0 • Juan de Fuca from San Diego and south: 309 • BC from San Diego and south: 3 • AK from San Diego and south: 3

Reporting/Monitoring Systems

MEASURE TYPE NAME LOCATION APPLICABILITY AUTHORITY REGS CITE REMARKS Vessel Traffic Service Prince William Sound Prince William Sound VTS User US Regs 33 CFR 161.60 Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound Puget Sound VTS User US Regs 33 CFR 161.55 Vessel Traffic Service San Francisco San Francisco VTS User US Regs 33 CFR 161.50 Vessel Traffic Service Los Angeles-Long Beach Los Angeles-Long Beach VTS User US, Calif. Regs State Law Adding VTS to Fed. Regs under review Vessel Traffic Service Western Canada MCTS/CVTS Offshore British Columbia All Vessels Canadian Regs Monitoring PWS AISSE Prince William Sound (out to TAPS Tankers US Regs 33 CFR 164.43 ~70 nm from Cape Hinchenbrook) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System Alaska Tugs Voluntary Industry initiative related/similar organization) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System Between AK & Puget Sound CSX lines of Tacoma, Voluntary Announced August 2000 related/similar WA organization) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System Puget Sound Tugs Voluntary Industry initiative related/similar organization) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System Columbia River Tugs Voluntary Industry initiative related/similar organization) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System Oregon Coast Tugs Voluntary Industry initiative related/similar organization) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System California (monitoring stations) Tugs Voluntary Under consideration related/similar organization) Monitoring (by MAREX or Int'l Tug of Opportunity System TBD Deep draft vessels Voluntary Industry initiative related/similar organization) Monitoring MOU on Air Quality 20-mile radius of Point Fermin All Vessels Voluntary Industry initiative to limit vessel Improvement (San Pedro Bay) speed (5~10 kts) for emission control

APPENDIX E

Exclusion Zones & Protected Areas

MEASURE TYPE NAME LOCATION APPLICABILITY AUTHORITY REGS CITE REMARKS Marine Sanctuary Olympic Coast NMS Offshore WA Coast All Vessels US Regs 15 CFR 922.150 Marine Sanctuary Cordel Bank NMS Offshore San Francisco All Vessels US Regs 15 CFR 922.110 Marine Sanctuary Gulf of the Farallons NMS Offshore San Francisco All Vessels US Regs 15 CFR 922.80 Marine Sanctuary Monterey Bay NMS Central Calif. Coast All Vessels US Regs 15 CFR 922.130 Marine Sanctuary Channel Islands NMS Channel Islands All Vessels US Regs 15 CFR 922.70 Area to be Avoided Olympic Coast Offshore WA Coast Tankers, Tank Barges Voluntary IMO Ships' Routeing Area to be Avoided Channel Islands Channel Islands All Vessels Voluntary IMO Ships' Routeing Tanker Exclusion Zone Vancouver Island TEZ Offshore Vancouver Isl. All Tankers Voluntary Exclusion Zone ANS crude export restrictions North Pacific TAPS Tankers Presidential Mandate Presidential Statement 28 April 1996 (Outside US EEZ) Routing Measures

MEASURE TYPE NAME LOCATION APPLICABILITY AUTHORITY REGS CITE REMARKS Traffic Separation Prince William Sound Prince William Sound All Vessels IMO, US Regs 33 CFR 167.XX Yet to be entered in regulations Scheme Traffic Separation Strait of Juan de Fuca and Offshore Puget Sound All Vessels IMO, US Regs 33 CFR 167.XX Port Access Route Study (PARS) complete* Scheme Approaches Traffic Separation Approaches to San Offshore San All Vessels IMO, US Regs 33 CFR 167.400 Changes effective as of 30 August 2000 Scheme Francisco Francisco Traffic Separation Santa Barbara Channel Santa Barbara All Vessels IMO, US Regs 33 CFR 167.450 Changes effective as of 30 August 2000 Scheme Channel Traffic Separation Approaches to LA-LB Offshore LA-LB All Vessels IMO, US Regs 33 CFR 167.500 Changes effective as of 06 September 2000 Scheme Shipping Safety Fairway Unimak Pass Unimak Pass Offshore Structures US Regs 33 CFR 166.400(b)(2) Intended to keep fairways clear of structures Shipping Safety Fairway Prince William Sound PWS Offshore Structures US Regs 33 CFR 166.400(b)(1) Intended to keep fairways clear of structures Recommended Track >300GT - Northbound Central Calif. Coast >300GT, not HAZMAT Voluntary IMO endorsed Result of Monterey Bay National Marine (12.7~15nm offshore) Sanctuary Vessel Management study -- effective December 1, 2000 Recommended Track >300GT - Southbound Central Calif. Coast >300GT, not HAZMAT Voluntary IMO endorsed Result of Monterey Bay National Marine (16~20nm offshore) Sanctuary Vessel Management study -- effective December 1, 2000 Recommended Track HAZMAT vessels - Central Calif. Coast HAZMAT vessels Voluntary IMO endorsed Result of Monterey Bay National Marine Northbound (25nm offshore) Sanctuary Vessel Management study -- effective December 1, 2000 Recommended Track HAZMAT vessels - Central Calif. Coast HAZMAT vessels Voluntary IMO endorsed Result of Monterey Bay National Marine Southbound (30nm offshore) Sanctuary Vessel Management study -- effective December 1, 2000 Industry Agreement Western States Petroleum 50 nm offshore WSPA Tankers Voluntary Contained in WSPA press release Assoc. (loaded w/ ANS Crude) Industry Agreement American Waterways 25 nm offshore AWO Tank Barges Voluntary AWO's "Responsible AWO/USCG partnership Operators Carrier Program" Industry Agreement Tankers 50 nm offshore of CA Tankers Voluntary Part of MBNMS measures; agreements being developed Industry Agreement Tankers Shelikof Strait (Kodiak, Tankers Voluntary State approved c-plan. Tankers are routed through Kennedy AK) Entrance vice Shelikof Strait.

* Some of the Routing Measures proposed by the Puget Sound Port Access Routing study are: Extending the TSS at the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca 10 miles further offshore; retain multiple approach lanes to the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca while flaring the offshore ends of the lanes and softening the hard point at the southern corner of the inbound lane to provide smoother transitioning for vessels entering and departing lanes; expanding the ATBA boundaries to the north and west, and soften the northwest corner to provide greater buffer around Duntze Rock and offshore; establishing IMO Recommended Routes south of the TSS to recognize and accommodate existing traffic patterns and starboard to starboard passing; and extending the applicability of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary ATBA to all vessels 1600 GT or greater.

Appendix F

Ship Drift Analysis West Coast of North America: Alaska to Southern California HAZMAT Report 2000-2; April 2000

2.2 Drift Factors When its propulsion or steering device fails, a ship will drift due to the combined effects of the wind, waves, current, trim, and ballast. Tanker drift data has been studied with theory and models (Holder et al. 1981; Lewison et al. 1981; Smeaton 1981). These models can be quite complicated with a large scatter in predictions based upon variations in ship size, shape, orientation, list, degree of loading, and other parameters. Ship drift factors are also important in U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue operations (USCG 1991), where tables relating drift speed and angles for different vessels and environmental conditions are tabulated.

In addition to theoretical and test tank studies, industry records and questionnaires provide solid empirical information for defining bounds to the problem. For example, Holder et al. (1981) summarized an Oil Companies International Marine Forum study that sent a questionnaire to member companies and members of the International Chamber of Shipping. A total of 196 evaluation periods using 47 ships were used in the study. From the questionnaire returns, the direction and rate of the ship drift could be determined. Then, by subtracting current vectors, the drift due to wind and wave forces for up to six hours at a stretch could be estimated. The ships were divided into categories by size and load type. Smaller vessels were considered less than 200,000 tons summer dead weight (SDWT). Larger vessels or very large carrying capacity (VLCC) are greater than 200,000 SDWT. The vessels were considered fully loaded or carrying ballast.

Figures 2 and 3 show the results for a fully loaded and ballasted VLCC (> 200,000 SDWT). There is a loose linear relationship between ship drift speed and wind speed, with the ship drift generally bounded between 2 percent to 10 percent of the wind speed.

2.5

2

VLCC DRIFT 1.5 2% WIND SPEED

1 10% WIND SPEED

0.5

0

WIND SPEED (KNOTS) Figure 2. Plot of drift speed and wind speed for loaded VLCC.

1 4.0

3.0

VLCC DRIFT

2.0 10% WIND SPEED

2% WIND SPEED

1.0

0.0 010203040 WIND SPEED (KNOTS)

Figure 3. Plot of drift speed and wind speed for ballasted VLCC.

Figures 4 and 5 show the plot of the drift speed and wind speed for small vessels (< 200,000 SDWT). Again, the ship drift is generally bounded between 2 percent to 10 percent of the wind speed.

4

3

SMALL VESSEL DRIFT

2 10% WIND SPEED

2% WIND SPEED

1

0

WIND SPEED (KNOTS)

Figure 4. Plot of drift speed and wind speed for loaded small vessel.

2 6

5

4 SMALL VESSEL DRIFT

3 10% WIND SPEED

2% WIND SPEED 2

1

0

WIND SPEED (KNOTS) Figure 5. Plot of drift speed and wind speed for ballasted small vessel.

The ships do not generally drift straight downwind, but show a drift angle to the wind. This drift angle can vary 60 degrees or more to the right or left. A similar maximum drift angle is reported in USCG (1991). Based on data from Holder et al. (1981), there does not seem to be a clear relationship between the choice of drift angle and wind speed, ship size or degree of loading. Figures 6 and 7 show a plot of the absolute value of the drift angle and wind speeds for both large and small loaded vessels and ballasted vessels.

80

60

40

20

0

WIND SPEED (KNOTS) Figure 6. Plot of drift angle (absolute value) and wind speed for loaded vessel.

3 80

60

40

20

0

WIND SPEED (KNOTS)

Figure 7. Plot of drift angle (absolute value) and wind speed for ballasted vessel.

Since this study is not designed for any particular ship or configuration, it seemed best to consider a range of choices for drift factors. Lacking specific knowledge of a particular ship configuration, the entire set of results can be used. Where the drift factors are known for a specific case, the appropriate subset can be selected.

SHIP DRIFT TABLES

The final ship drift tables were computed by assuming that the ship would drift at a percentage of the wind speed. For example, if the average onshore wind speed is 11 knots and the windage on the ship is 10 percent, then the wind would move the ship toward shore at 10 percent of 11 knots or 1.1 knots.

The onshore ship drift tables for the five representative wind stations are presented as follows.

Middleton Island, Alaska (61° 9.5' N, 150° 6.8' W)

Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.1 4.0 8% .8 3.2 6% .7 2.4 4% .4 1.6 2% .2 .8

4 North of Vancouver Island, Canada (50° 52.0' N, 129° 55.0' W)

Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.3 3.3 8% 1.0 2.6 6% .9 2.0 4% .5 1.3 2% .3 .7

Columbia River Mouth, Washington-Oregon (46° 7.0' N , 124° 30.0'W)

Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (Knots) (knots) 10% .8 4.0 8% .6 3.2 6% .5 2.4 4% .3 1.6 2% .2 .8

Off San Francisco, Northern California (37° 45.0' N, 122° 50.0' W)

Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.3 3.3 8% 1.0 2.6 6% .9 2.0 4% .5 1.3 2% .3 .7

Off Pt. Arguello, Southern California (34° 42.0' N , 120 58.0' W)

Windage1 Average Drift2 Worst Case Drift3 (knots) (knots) 10% 1.3 2.7 8% 1.0 2.2 6% .9 1.6 4% .5 1.1 2% .3 .5

The columns in the table represent the percent of drift: 1 Percent of the wind used for computing the speed of drift 2 Speed of drift for the average onshore wind condition 3 Speed of draft for the worst case onshore wind condition

5

Ship Drift Analysis West Coast of North America: Alaska to Southern California HAZMAT Report 2000-2; April 2000

References

Holder, L.A., J. Werkhoven, and G.F. Williams. 1981. Research on disabled tankers-operational and training implications. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Behavior of Disabled Large Tankers, held jointly by The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, The Royal Institute of Navigations, and The Nautical Institute, London, June 9 and 10, 1981, pp. 73-83.

Lewison, G.R.G. 1981. Experimental determination of wind, wave and drift forces on large tankers. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Behavior of Disabled Large Tankers, held jointly by The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, The Royal Institute of Navigations and The Nautical Institute, London, June 9 and 10, 1981, pp. 35-54.

NOAA. 1997. HAZMAT Report 97-3: Ship Drift Analysis for the Northwest Olympic Peninsula and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Seattle: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division.

Smeaton, G.P. 1981. A mathematical model of the drift of disabled large tankers. Proceedings from the Symposium on the Behavior of Disabled Large Tankers, held jointly by The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, The Royal Institute of Navigations and The Nautical Institute, London, June 9 and 10, 1981, pp. 65-72.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1991. National Search and Rescue Manual, Volume I: National Search and Rescue System. Joint Pub 3-50 COMDTINST M16120.5A.

Please contact the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force office for copies of NOAA’s statistical wind data in support of this material. Either write Jean Cameron at PO Box 1032, Neskowin, OR 97149- 1032, or call 503-392-5860, or email [email protected].

6 STATISTICAL WIND DATA

Middleton Island Station

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7156 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JAN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .3 .7 .9 .3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 12.3 NNE .4 .4 1.1 1.0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 9.7 NE .2 1.1 1.8 1.6 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 10.3 ENE .3 .9 1.6 1.7 .9 .3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 5.9 12.1 E .4 1.4 2.6 3.8 3.2 3.2 1.6 .9 .1 .0 .0 17.2 17.7 ESE .3 .6 1.4 3.7 2.5 2.6 1.3 .7 0.0 .0 .0 13.1 18.5 SE .3 .7 1.1 2.4 1.6 1.2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 7.7 15.5 SSE .3 .8 1.3 1.7 .8 .6 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 5.7 13.5 S .3 1.4 2.1 2.4 .6 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.3 10.9 SSW .3 .8 1.6 1.3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.1 9.5 SW .3 .9 1.3 1.2 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 9.4 WSW .3 .9 1.5 1.3 .8 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 11.8 W .3 .6 2.0 2.6 1.6 .8 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 8.6 14.4 WNW .2 .4 .9 1.0 .4 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 3.3 13.0 NW .1 .3 .5 .8 .2 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 12.9 NNW .1 .4 .5 .9 .3 .4 .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 2.9 15.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 0 ALL 4.4 11.9 21.9 28.2 14.3 11.0 4.6 2.2 .3 0.0 .0 100.0 14.0

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 6682 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

FEB

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 .7 1.3 1.5 .8 .7 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 5.8 13.2 NNE .4 1.1 2.1 2.2 .7 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.8 10.8 NE .5 1.8 3.0 2.5 1.2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.1 10.4 ENE .6 1.5 2.0 2.0 .9 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 11.1 E .5 1.6 2.9 3.6 2.2 2.5 1.0 .6 0.0 .0 .0 14.9 15.9 ESE .4 1.0 1.2 2.5 2.7 2.2 1.1 .3 0.0 .0 .0 11.4 17.6 SE .4 .5 1.2 2.4 1.1 .7 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.5 13.7 SSE .3 .4 .8 1.1 .4 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 12.2 S .6 1.0 1.8 1.5 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.6 10.1 SSW .4 .6 .9 1.1 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 10.2 SW .3 .6 .7 .5 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 9.5 WSW .3 .4 .8 1.0 .5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 11.8 W .5 1.2 1.9 2.8 1.3 1.1 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 9.4 14.1 WNW .3 .3 .8 .9 .6 .3 .0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 3.3 12.6 NW .2 .4 .4 .6 .3 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 12.3 NNW .2 .3 .7 1.0 .6 .5 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 3.5 14.9 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 ALL 6.5 13.4 22.4 27.1 14.5 10.0 3.6 1.3 .1 .0 .0 100.0 13.1

7 Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7264 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 .9 1.3 1.6 .4 .5 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 11.1 NNE .2 .9 1.1 1.4 .5 .3 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 11.1 NE .3 1.3 2.1 2.1 .9 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 11.5 ENE .2 .7 2.0 2.3 .8 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.7 12.4 E .5 1.2 2.9 4.5 2.4 1.6 1.3 .4 0.0 .0 .0 14.8 15.6 ESE .3 .6 1.5 3.1 2.2 1.7 1.4 .3 0.0 .0 0.0 11.2 17.6 SE .4 .7 1.4 2.8 1.3 .7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 7.7 14.0 SSE .3 .9 1.4 1.7 .6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 11.4 S .3 1.5 2.4 2.0 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.8 9.9 SSW .2 .7 1.4 1.0 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 9.2 SW .3 .7 1.0 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 9.0 WSW .2 .7 .9 1.1 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 .0 3.6 11.3 W .4 1.2 2.3 2.1 1.4 .6 .1 0.0 .1 0.0 .0 8.1 12.2 WNW .3 .7 1.4 1.0 .5 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 4.1 11.6 NW .2 .4 .8 .4 .3 .3 .4 .3 .1 .0 .0 3.2 16.6 NNW .4 .6 .6 .6 .7 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 13.4 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 ALL 5.2 13.8 24.5 28.6 13.1 7.7 4.1 1.2 .2 0.0 0.0 100.0 12.9

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7386 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

APR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 1.0 1.1 .8 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 8.3 NNE .3 .7 .8 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.4 NE .3 1.0 1.8 1.4 .2 .1 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 4.8 9.7 ENE .3 1.1 2.3 2.3 .7 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 11.2 E .6 2.2 4.3 5.8 3.9 3.1 1.7 .5 .0 .0 .0 22.1 15.6 ESE .3 1.3 2.6 4.8 3.7 2.1 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 16.2 15.9 SE .4 .9 2.4 2.9 1.0 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 8.4 12.5 SSE .4 1.1 1.7 1.3 .3 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 9.6 S .5 1.4 1.5 .9 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 7.9 SSW .3 .9 .6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 6.7 SW .2 .4 .4 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 7.7 WSW .3 .6 .8 .6 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 11.2 W .8 2.1 3.2 3.3 .8 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 10.7 10.2 WNW .2 .8 1.3 .9 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 10.1 NW .3 .5 .6 .4 .1 .0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 8.6 NNW .3 .6 .7 .6 .2 .1 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 2.5 9.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 ALL 5.9 16.8 26.0 26.7 12.3 7.2 3.4 .7 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 12.1

8 Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7539 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAY

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 .7 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 5.6 NNE .2 .4 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 6.1 NE .2 .5 .7 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 7.5 ENE .2 1.2 1.5 1.1 .3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 9.6 E .9 3.2 5.7 6.2 2.9 1.1 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 20.4 11.8 ESE .6 1.9 4.4 6.4 2.8 1.6 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 18.4 13.4 SE .5 1.5 2.8 3.2 1.0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.3 10.8 SSE .5 1.6 2.0 1.4 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 8.7 S .8 2.0 1.7 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 6.7 SSW .5 .9 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 5.6 SW .3 .8 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 6.3 WSW .6 1.3 1.4 .9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 7.5 W 1.0 3.2 4.4 3.3 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.7 8.8 WNW .5 1.5 1.4 1.3 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 8.7 NW .3 .9 .8 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 8.0 NNW .4 .9 .5 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 7.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 0 ALL 8.1 22.7 29.5 25.7 8.8 3.2 1.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9.9

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7372 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 .8 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 5.2 NNE .1 .4 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 6.1 NE .3 .7 .6 .2 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.2 ENE .2 1.4 1.8 1.6 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.6 10.0 E 1.0 4.2 6.7 8.8 3.8 1.5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 26.3 11.9 ESE .7 2.5 3.8 4.1 1.6 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13.0 10.6 SE .8 1.9 2.1 1.5 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.5 8.3 SSE .8 1.8 1.1 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 5.9 S .9 1.9 1.2 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 5.7 SSW .6 1.1 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 5.0 SW .4 1.1 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.4 5.8 WSW .4 2.6 3.3 1.4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.9 7.8 W .7 4.1 6.9 5.3 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.5 9.1 WNW .4 1.1 .9 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 7.1 NW .3 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 5.3 NNW .3 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.2 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 0 ALL 8.7 26.3 30.6 24.4 6.9 2.0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9.1

9 Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7662 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUL

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 .8 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 4.8 NNE .5 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 4.6 NE .3 .5 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 7.0 ENE .5 1.4 1.5 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 8.0 E 1.7 5.5 4.6 3.3 1.2 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.6 8.6 ESE 1.0 3.6 4.9 2.8 .5 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.9 8.6 SE .9 2.2 2.4 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.8 7.4 SSE .6 1.7 1.6 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 6.7 S 1.1 1.9 1.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 5.3 SSW .9 1.4 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 4.8 SW .9 2.0 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 5.1 WSW 1.4 3.9 4.1 1.9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.4 7.3 W 1.3 5.2 7.7 5.9 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.6 8.8 WNW .6 1.3 1.1 .6 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 7.2 NW .5 .7 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 5.9 NNW .4 .6 .2 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 5.1 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .9 0 ALL 13.1 33.1 31.6 17.9 2.8 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 7.6

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7199 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

AUG

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 .6 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 6.4 NNE .3 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.4 NE .3 .9 .8 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 7.6 ENE .3 1.3 1.5 1.2 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 .0 4.8 9.3 E 1.1 3.5 4.9 4.3 1.3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 15.7 10.0 ESE .7 3.0 4.9 3.5 1.3 .9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.3 10.6 SE .7 2.3 3.2 2.2 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.1 9.3 SSE .5 1.4 1.7 1.3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 8.3 S .9 1.9 1.9 .9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 .0 5.6 7.1 SSW .5 1.6 1.0 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 6.4 SW .7 1.2 .9 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 6.3 WSW .9 2.5 2.8 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.7 7.4 W 1.5 3.7 5.6 4.5 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 15.8 8.7 WNW .6 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 7.4 NW .7 .8 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 5.8 NNW .5 .6 .4 .3 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 7.0 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .9 0 ALL 10.5 27.4 32.4 22.2 4.5 1.8 .2 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 100.0 8.5

10 Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7357 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

SEP

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .9 .8 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 7.7 NNE .2 .5 .5 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 7.6 NE .2 .6 .8 .3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 8.2 ENE .2 .9 1.1 .7 .2 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 9.4 E .5 1.6 1.9 2.2 1.4 1.1 .5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 9.6 14.0 ESE .4 1.2 1.7 2.7 2.0 1.7 .9 .1 .0 .0 .0 10.7 15.7 SE .7 1.7 2.3 2.9 .8 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.9 10.9 SSE .3 1.8 2.3 1.9 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.1 9.6 S .9 2.6 2.9 2.1 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.1 8.7 SSW .4 2.1 2.2 .8 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 7.5 SW .4 1.7 1.9 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.8 7.4 WSW .7 2.3 2.9 2.2 .4 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 8.7 9.0 W .9 2.8 4.7 4.3 1.2 .6 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 14.7 10.5 WNW .4 1.1 1.4 1.3 .3 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 4.7 10.0 NW .3 .5 .8 .8 .4 .1 .1 .1 .2 0.0 0.0 3.5 14.4 NNW .2 .6 .5 .7 .2 .2 .1 0.0 .1 .1 .0 2.7 13.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6 0 ALL 7.3 23.0 28.5 24.0 8.8 5.1 1.8 .5 .4 .1 0.0 100.0 10.7

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7529 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

OCT

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 .9 1.7 1.4 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 10.0 NNE .2 1.0 1.2 1.0 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 9.2 NE .2 1.3 2.1 1.4 .3 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 9.5 ENE .3 1.2 1.8 1.2 .4 .3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 5.5 11.4 E .5 1.7 2.5 3.4 2.0 2.0 1.2 .7 .1 .0 .0 14.1 16.3 ESE .4 1.0 1.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 .8 .2 0.0 .0 .0 10.1 15.9 SE .4 .8 1.6 2.1 1.5 1.0 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 14.4 SSE .3 1.2 1.5 1.6 .5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 10.8 S .8 2.0 2.8 1.6 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 8.5 SSW .4 1.4 2.0 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 7.4 SW .7 1.1 1.6 .9 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.7 8.1 WSW .3 .9 1.0 1.5 .7 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 11.4 W .7 1.5 1.9 2.4 1.5 .9 .4 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 9.3 13.1 WNW .3 .7 .9 1.1 .7 .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 4.2 12.5 NW .3 .5 .7 .7 .3 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 11.4 NNW .3 .6 1.1 1.5 .3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 12.1 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .7 0 ALL 6.8 17.8 26.0 24.8 11.1 7.5 3.7 1.3 .2 0.0 .0 100.0 12.1

11 Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7035 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

NOV

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .5 1.1 1.8 1.0 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 12.9 NNE .3 1.0 1.4 1.2 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 9.6 NE .5 1.4 3.1 2.5 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 10.1 ENE .4 1.2 2.4 1.9 .9 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 11.2 E .6 1.3 2.1 3.0 2.0 2.2 1.6 .6 .1 0.0 .0 13.5 17.4 ESE .3 .7 1.6 2.9 1.5 .9 .7 .4 .2 .0 .0 9.1 16.4 SE .2 .7 1.5 2.3 1.0 .7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 6.9 14.1 SSE .3 .8 1.2 1.4 .6 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.7 12.3 S .4 1.5 1.3 1.4 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 10.0 SSW .3 .8 1.3 .8 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 8.7 SW .2 .8 1.2 .9 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 9.4 WSW .1 .5 .9 1.3 .6 .5 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 4.1 14.4 W .3 .6 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 10.2 18.3 WNW .2 .3 .5 .9 .6 .5 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 3.6 16.6 NW .2 .2 .7 1.0 .7 .4 .4 .2 .1 0.0 .0 3.8 17.5 NNW .2 .4 .6 1.6 1.5 1.3 .7 .4 .1 0.0 .0 6.8 19.2 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 0 ALL 4.7 12.6 22.2 27.2 14.1 10.0 5.9 2.3 .6 .1 .0 100.0 14.3

Middleton Island LAT 61 9.5 LONG 150 6.8 : Total number of data points = 7412 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

DEC

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .4 .8 1.0 .4 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 3.3 14.2 NNE .2 .6 .7 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 9.0 NE .3 .8 1.4 1.1 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 10.2 ENE .4 1.3 1.6 1.4 .8 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 11.7 E .7 .9 1.6 2.8 3.4 3.4 1.8 .8 .2 .0 0.0 15.6 19.1 ESE .4 .7 1.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 1.8 .9 .2 .0 .0 14.4 19.6 SE .3 .7 1.6 3.0 2.4 1.7 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 10.4 16.0 SSE .3 .7 1.7 1.9 1.3 .9 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 13.8 S .3 1.6 2.2 2.3 .7 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 10.7 SSW .4 .9 1.6 1.4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 9.8 SW .3 .7 1.1 1.1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 8.9 WSW .1 .6 .8 .9 .7 .3 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 12.6 W .2 .4 1.0 2.3 1.6 1.1 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 7.3 16.5 WNW .1 .1 .6 .8 .5 .3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 2.8 15.3 NW .1 .3 .5 .6 .6 .2 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 2.7 15.9 NNW .1 .1 .5 1.0 .9 .6 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 3.8 18.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .6 0 ALL 4.7 10.9 19.2 25.3 17.3 12.9 6.0 2.6 .5 .0 0.0 100.0 15.1

12 CANADIAN STATION 46207

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5625 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JAN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .4 .8 1.9 .6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 12.8 NNE .1 .3 .9 1.9 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 12.8 NE .3 .3 1.2 2.5 1.1 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 13.8 ENE .1 .5 .8 2.1 1.5 .7 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.9 15.1 E .2 .3 .5 2.2 1.3 1.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 15.6 ESE .1 .3 .8 1.9 1.0 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.7 14.5 SE .1 .3 .7 1.8 1.1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 14.0 SSE .2 .1 .5 1.8 1.0 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.1 15.0 S .1 .2 .7 1.8 1.0 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 14.6 SSW .1 .3 1.2 2.0 1.5 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.8 14.6 SW .1 .3 .9 1.7 2.1 .9 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 15.6 WSW .1 .3 .9 2.3 2.4 1.5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.9 16.6 W .1 .5 1.2 3.1 3.0 1.0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 9.0 15.7 WNW .2 .4 1.1 2.7 3.2 3.2 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 12.2 18.9 NW .1 .3 1.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.6 1.2 .0 .0 .0 10.6 21.2 NNW .2 .4 .8 1.2 1.5 .7 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 15.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 ALL 2.4 5.2 13.8 32.8 25.1 14.6 4.4 1.5 .0 .0 .0 100.0 16.1

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5320 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

FEB

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .2 .5 .6 .3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 13.0 NNE .1 .3 .8 .7 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.4 11.6 NE .2 .5 .6 1.3 .5 .8 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 14.2 ENE .2 .5 1.1 2.7 .9 .3 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 13.5 E .2 .7 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.4 14.0 ESE .2 .3 .8 1.4 .9 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.1 13.4 SE .2 .4 .9 1.5 .9 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 13.3 SSE .1 .3 .9 1.1 .8 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 3.6 13.6 S .2 .3 .7 1.6 1.1 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 14.4 SSW .1 .3 .7 1.8 1.5 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 15.0 SW .1 .4 1.3 2.5 1.1 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.9 13.4 WSW .1 .5 1.2 2.4 2.1 1.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 15.6 W .2 .4 1.7 3.4 3.4 2.4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 11.7 16.5 WNW .1 .5 1.1 3.5 3.4 3.2 1.9 .7 .2 .0 .0 14.5 20.1 NW .3 .5 1.1 3.0 2.3 4.0 2.1 .9 .4 .0 .0 14.6 21.2 NNW .2 .4 .7 1.1 .4 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 12.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 ALL 2.6 6.4 15.6 30.5 21.3 16.2 5.0 1.8 .6 .0 .0 100.0 16.2

13 STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5082 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 .9 .8 .9 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 10.5 NNE .2 .4 .5 .7 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 11.2 NE .2 .5 1.0 1.2 .8 .9 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 14.9 ENE .3 .7 .9 1.8 1.0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 12.6 E .3 .6 .8 3.5 1.5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.9 13.2 ESE .2 .6 1.3 3.2 .8 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 12.2 SE .3 .7 1.6 2.3 .8 .3 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 12.5 SSE .2 .9 1.5 1.4 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 10.2 S .2 .5 1.2 1.4 .8 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 12.4 SSW .2 .7 1.0 1.5 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 11.7 SW .2 .4 1.2 2.5 .7 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 12.2 WSW .3 .5 1.1 2.9 1.4 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.7 13.4 W .3 .7 1.7 3.0 2.4 1.0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.3 14.4 WNW .5 .8 1.7 3.0 2.8 2.9 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 12.3 16.4 NW .5 1.0 1.6 2.9 2.4 2.8 1.2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 12.4 17.3 NNW .4 .5 .6 1.5 .6 .9 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 5.1 15.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 0 ALL 4.7 10.4 18.5 33.7 17.8 11.0 3.3 .3 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 13.8

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5074 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

APR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .3 .4 .9 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 13.2 NNE .1 .3 .5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 9.3 NE .2 .2 .5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 8.3 ENE .3 .3 .7 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 9.5 E .2 .3 .9 1.5 .7 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 12.8 ESE .3 .5 1.4 2.9 1.8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 13.0 SE .3 .5 1.2 3.2 1.8 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.3 13.5 SSE .3 .8 1.3 2.2 1.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.9 12.0 S .3 1.0 1.4 2.1 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.8 11.0 SSW .4 1.0 1.9 2.2 .6 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 10.5 SW .4 1.0 1.8 2.1 .8 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.5 11.2 WSW .3 1.3 1.8 3.0 .9 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 11.4 W .3 .8 2.2 5.5 2.0 .5 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 11.3 13.0 WNW .4 .7 1.8 4.1 4.6 2.4 .9 .2 .0 .0 .0 15.0 16.8 NW .1 .3 .9 2.6 3.2 3.3 1.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 11.9 19.1 NNW .2 .4 .3 1.3 .8 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 15.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 0 ALL 3.9 9.7 19.0 35.0 20.3 8.8 2.5 .3 .0 .0 .0 100.0 13.6

14 STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5722 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAY

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 .3 .7 .9 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 12.7 NNE .1 .3 .5 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 10.2 NE .2 .3 .4 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 8.0 ENE .2 .3 .6 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 8.5 E .2 .4 1.2 3.5 1.5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.7 12.8 ESE .1 .5 1.4 7.3 3.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13.0 14.1 SE .3 .8 2.3 8.9 3.9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.2 13.4 SSE .4 .8 2.7 4.5 1.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.8 11.9 S .3 .9 1.6 1.6 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 10.4 SSW .3 .6 1.0 1.0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 9.9 SW .3 .4 1.7 1.7 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.1 9.8 WSW .2 .7 1.5 2.0 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 10.5 W .3 .9 1.4 3.2 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.3 12.1 WNW .3 .9 1.6 4.5 2.0 1.4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.9 14.4 NW .3 .7 1.4 2.5 1.5 .7 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.4 13.9 NNW .1 .2 .8 1.0 .7 .7 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 15.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 0 ALL 3.8 9.1 20.8 43.8 17.4 4.1 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 12.6

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5845 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 .4 .7 .7 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 10.0 NNE .3 .3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 6.6 NE .2 .4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6.5 ENE .2 .2 .5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 7.8 E .2 .4 1.5 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 9.8 ESE .2 .7 1.4 5.0 1.3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.6 12.5 SE .3 .7 2.1 9.6 4.5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.4 13.9 SSE .4 1.2 2.7 5.0 1.1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.6 11.4 S .2 1.5 2.5 3.4 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 10.1 SSW .2 1.1 2.8 1.6 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 9.2 SW .4 1.3 2.3 1.8 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 8.8 WSW .6 1.0 2.2 2.5 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.1 10.4 W .5 1.1 1.9 2.5 1.3 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 11.6 WNW .4 .7 2.0 2.5 1.1 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 12.3 NW .4 .8 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.9 13.6 NNW .3 .6 .7 1.0 .9 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 14.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 0 ALL 5.4 12.3 25.5 39.3 13.2 3.6 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.6

15 STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5514 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUL

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 4.4 NNE .3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 9.4 NE .1 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 9.4 ENE .2 .1 .1 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 7.5 E .3 .4 .4 1.3 1.1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 12.9 ESE .4 .6 1.7 7.3 4.6 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.9 14.1 SE .4 1.1 4.4 17.7 10.0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 33.8 14.1 SSE .2 1.4 5.8 6.1 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.3 10.5 S .6 1.5 3.0 1.2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 7.8 SSW .5 1.4 2.3 .9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 7.6 SW .4 1.2 1.8 1.5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 8.8 WSW .4 .9 1.6 1.4 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.8 9.5 W .2 .7 1.8 1.6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 9.7 WNW .2 .6 1.2 1.5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 10.7 NW .2 .2 .3 .3 .1 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 13.1 NNW .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 7.4 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 ALL 4.5 10.3 24.6 41.4 17.7 1.4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.8

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5623 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

AUG

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .3 .6 1.1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 9.6 NNE .4 .3 .5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 7.8 NE .3 .6 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 6.4 ENE .3 .7 .8 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.0 E .4 .6 1.7 1.8 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 10.8 ESE .4 1.1 3.0 6.8 1.7 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13.2 11.9 SE .5 1.8 4.9 10.4 2.9 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.7 12.1 SSE .3 1.7 3.6 3.7 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.2 10.3 S .5 1.4 2.2 1.5 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 9.3 SSW .4 1.9 1.7 .8 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 8.1 SW .4 1.4 1.5 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.7 8.0 WSW .8 1.3 2.0 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 7.7 W .7 1.7 2.0 2.2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 9.5 WNW .4 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.4 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 11.8 NW .3 1.3 1.1 1.1 .4 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 10.0 NNW .3 .5 .8 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 0 ALL 6.5 18.0 28.6 35.2 9.4 1.9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 10.3

16 STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 5721 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

SEP

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 .4 .3 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6.4 NNE .3 .4 .1 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 7.0 NE .2 .5 .4 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 8.0 ENE .3 .3 .6 .8 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 10.0 E .2 .6 2.0 3.7 1.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 11.9 ESE .2 1.0 3.5 7.3 3.6 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.3 13.2 SE .3 1.5 4.5 9.4 1.6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.5 11.5 SSE .4 1.3 2.6 2.5 .6 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 9.8 S .6 1.4 1.5 1.5 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 9.0 SSW .2 1.0 1.8 1.1 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 9.3 SW .3 1.2 2.1 1.6 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 9.2 WSW .2 1.0 2.2 2.8 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 11.0 W .2 1.1 1.6 2.6 1.3 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.7 12.9 WNW .5 .8 2.1 2.0 1.4 .7 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 13.5 NW .3 .7 1.7 .8 .6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 11.2 NNW .3 .8 .7 .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 8.0 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .3 0 ALL 4.9 14.1 27.6 37.0 12.0 3.1 .8 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.2

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 6723 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

OCT

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .6 .6 .2 .2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 11.7 NNE .3 .4 .7 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 8.1 NE .4 .5 .5 .4 0.0 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 8.4 ENE .2 .5 .6 1.1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 10.8 E .4 .5 1.6 1.9 1.1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.6 11.7 ESE .4 .6 1.9 3.4 1.5 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 12.5 SE .2 .5 1.4 3.4 1.4 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 13.3 SSE .2 .8 1.4 3.2 1.5 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 13.0 S .4 .9 1.9 3.2 1.7 .4 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 8.5 12.7 SSW .4 .5 1.5 2.6 1.4 .6 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 13.0 SW .4 .9 1.6 2.5 1.1 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.1 12.1 WSW .5 .7 1.6 2.8 1.6 .6 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.9 13.0 W .3 .9 1.3 3.2 2.3 1.2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 9.4 14.8 WNW .2 .6 1.1 3.6 2.1 2.6 .9 .1 0.0 .0 .0 11.3 17.4 NW .3 .4 .8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.4 .4 0.0 0.0 .0 8.0 19.8 NNW .2 .4 .4 .6 .4 .4 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 2.7 15.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2 0 ALL 5.2 9.6 19.0 34.1 18.2 9.9 3.0 .8 .1 .1 .0 100.0 13.8

17 STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 6806 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

NOV

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N 0.0 .3 .3 .6 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 11.7 NNE .1 .3 .3 .5 .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 13.0 NE .1 .4 .5 .5 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 10.4 ENE .1 .4 .5 .9 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 11.8 E .2 .3 .9 1.7 1.2 1.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 15.8 ESE .1 .5 .7 1.9 1.2 .8 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 15.4 SE .1 .3 1.2 2.5 1.3 1.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 15.4 SSE .2 .4 1.5 2.8 2.0 .9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 14.4 S .2 .4 1.2 3.1 1.8 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 14.3 SSW .2 .5 1.1 2.5 1.5 .8 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.6 14.2 SW .2 .5 1.4 3.1 1.7 .8 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 14.1 WSW .3 .6 1.6 2.7 1.9 1.7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 9.0 15.3 W .1 .4 1.5 3.2 2.4 1.8 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 9.9 16.2 WNW .2 .4 1.0 2.4 2.3 2.7 1.7 .3 .0 .0 .0 11.1 19.6 NW .1 .2 .5 2.0 2.8 3.8 2.1 .5 0.0 .0 .0 12.0 21.6 NNW .1 .2 .4 .9 .5 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 2.9 17.1 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 ALL 2.3 6.2 14.5 31.3 21.6 17.4 5.5 1.1 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 16.1

STATION 46207 LAT 50 52.0 LONG 129 55.0 : Total number of data points = 6249 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

DEC

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .2 .4 .6 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 12.2 NNE 0.0 .2 .2 .4 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 13.8 NE .1 .2 .2 .6 .8 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 17.4 ENE .1 .1 .4 .6 .6 .7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 3.0 18.3 E 0.0 .2 .4 .9 .9 1.1 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 4.0 19.3 ESE .1 .3 .3 .8 .4 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 16.5 SE 0.0 .4 1.0 2.2 2.2 1.8 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 7.9 17.1 SSE 0.0 .1 .7 2.9 2.5 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 16.5 S .1 .4 1.4 2.3 2.1 1.6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.9 15.9 SSW .1 .4 .9 2.2 2.9 1.6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.1 16.6 SW .2 .4 .8 2.9 1.8 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 15.1 WSW .2 .4 1.1 3.8 1.8 .9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 14.7 W .1 .5 1.3 3.4 3.1 1.9 1.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 11.3 17.4 WNW .1 .4 1.0 2.8 3.2 3.3 3.1 .6 0.0 .0 .0 14.5 20.9 NW .1 .4 .6 1.1 1.4 2.8 1.8 .3 .0 .0 .0 8.3 21.5 NNW .1 .2 .4 .7 .7 .8 .5 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 3.4 18.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 0 ALL 1.5 4.7 10.9 28.3 25.1 20.0 8.0 1.5 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 17.5

18 COLUMBIA RIVER

Columbia River Bar LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 4903 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JAN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 .7 .5 .4 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.6 NNE .2 1.2 .8 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 7.5 NE .3 1.2 1.0 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 8.3 ENE .3 1.4 2.3 9.2 2.7 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.7 13.6 E .3 2.1 6.3 10.6 2.1 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22.4 12.2 ESE .3 1.2 1.8 1.2 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 9.2 SE .2 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 10.2 SSE .2 .7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.7 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 8.0 16.8 S .2 .5 1.4 4.2 3.3 3.6 1.9 .1 .0 .0 .0 15.2 18.4 SSW .3 .8 1.2 2.0 1.2 .7 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.4 14.0 SW .1 .6 .7 1.2 .6 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 13.5 WSW .1 .7 .7 1.3 .3 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 11.5 W .2 .5 .7 .9 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 10.8 WNW .1 .4 .3 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 10.6 NW .2 .4 .4 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 9.4 NNW .2 .7 .4 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 7.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 ALL 3.7 13.8 20.6 34.8 12.9 8.6 3.0 .3 .0 .0 .0 100.0 12.9

LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 3942 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

FEB

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 1.5 1.6 1.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 8.1 NNE .4 .8 1.1 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 7.7 NE .6 1.1 1.0 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 7.1 ENE .3 1.5 3.6 5.4 1.5 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.7 12.0 E .6 2.6 5.7 8.8 2.4 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 21.1 12.2 ESE .3 .8 1.6 .7 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 8.7 SE .2 .5 .6 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 9.6 SSE .2 .5 1.0 1.5 1.0 .5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 14.5 S .2 1.4 1.8 3.3 2.6 2.9 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 12.6 15.8 SSW .4 .9 1.3 2.2 1.0 .9 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 13.8 SW .1 1.0 .9 2.0 .7 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.8 12.0 WSW .2 .5 .7 1.3 .6 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 13.5 W .4 .8 .9 1.2 .1 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 10.5 WNW .6 .7 .8 .9 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 9.6 NW .5 .7 .8 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 8.2 NNW .3 1.0 1.2 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 8.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 ALL 5.6 16.4 24.5 31.9 10.8 7.1 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.5

19 Columbia River Bar LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 3621 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 1.5 2.8 1.5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.7 8.8 NNE .4 1.3 1.4 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 8.2 NE .5 1.5 .9 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.1 6.2 ENE .5 1.4 2.3 1.7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.9 8.9 E .4 1.7 3.1 3.0 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.5 10.0 ESE .3 .7 1.0 .8 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.1 9.5 SE .2 .5 .3 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 9.2 SSE .2 .6 1.2 1.8 1.4 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.9 14.2 S .2 1.4 2.5 3.3 2.2 1.8 1.5 .5 .0 .0 .0 13.5 16.6 SSW .4 1.6 1.5 2.8 1.2 1.2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 9.1 13.6 SW .2 1.1 1.7 1.8 .8 .6 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 6.5 12.9 WSW .4 .9 1.3 1.6 .6 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 11.4 W .4 .8 .8 1.6 .6 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 11.4 WNW .4 1.1 .9 .9 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 8.6 NW .6 2.1 2.3 1.6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.9 8.3 NNW .8 1.6 2.8 3.5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.0 9.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0 ALL 6.6 19.7 26.7 27.6 8.5 4.9 2.1 .6 .0 .0 .0 100.0 10.9

LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 3339 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

APR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 1.6 1.2 1.9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 9.0 NNE .4 .8 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 6.2 NE .4 .5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 5.3 ENE .2 .7 .5 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 9.3 E .6 1.0 1.9 2.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 9.5 ESE .6 1.5 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 6.2 SE .2 .8 .6 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.3 SSE .3 .9 1.2 2.1 1.7 1.0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 14.8 S .4 1.4 2.4 5.1 2.2 1.9 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 13.7 14.2 SSW .2 1.3 2.9 3.4 .9 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.8 11.4 SW .5 1.3 2.2 2.7 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.4 10.5 WSW .4 2.1 1.6 1.4 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 9.3 W .6 1.7 2.0 1.0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 8.2 WNW .3 1.6 2.4 1.8 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.4 9.3 NW .2 1.8 2.5 3.7 1.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.2 11.0 NNW .3 1.6 3.1 3.5 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.1 10.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 0 ALL 6.0 20.8 26.5 30.6 7.8 3.7 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 10.3

20 Columbia River Bar LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 4986 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAY

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 1.6 2.6 5.6 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.3 11.5 NNE .4 1.0 .8 .5 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 7.7 NE .2 .6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 5.8 ENE .2 .6 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 7.0 E .3 .7 .6 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 8.3 ESE .2 .7 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.2 SE .2 .7 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 6.4 SSE .3 .5 .7 1.4 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 11.9 S .2 1.0 1.4 2.3 1.2 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.1 13.2 SSW .5 1.4 1.8 2.8 .8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 10.8 SW .6 1.3 1.4 2.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.8 9.1 WSW .5 1.5 1.2 1.5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 8.6 W .8 2.1 2.1 1.5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.7 8.2 WNW .6 2.8 2.9 2.5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.9 8.5 NW .5 3.3 5.1 4.8 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.0 9.5 NNW .3 2.4 5.0 7.1 1.7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.5 11.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 ALL 6.4 22.3 27.1 33.6 6.2 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9.7

LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 5230 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 1.9 3.4 4.8 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.2 10.6 NNE .2 .8 .6 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.7 NE .2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 4.7 ENE .1 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 5.7 E .1 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 7.0 ESE .2 .3 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 6.4 SE .2 .4 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 6.4 SSE .2 .4 .9 1.1 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 11.3 S .4 1.2 2.5 2.5 .9 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 11.2 SSW .4 1.4 1.7 1.7 .1 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 9.2 SW .6 2.2 2.1 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 8.2 WSW .5 2.1 1.6 1.2 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 8.3 W .6 2.4 1.5 1.0 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.6 7.4 WNW .6 3.2 2.7 1.5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 8.1 NW .7 4.3 6.3 4.3 1.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.6 9.4 NNW .6 3.9 5.8 8.9 2.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 21.6 11.2 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 0 ALL 6.2 25.7 30.2 29.1 6.0 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9.4

21 Columbia River Bar LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 6602 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUL

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 3.8 5.7 6.9 1.1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18.1 10.4 NNE .3 .6 .7 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.4 NE .2 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 3.7 ENE .2 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 3.5 E .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 2.7 ESE .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 3.3 SE .4 .5 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 4.4 SSE .4 1.0 1.1 .9 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 9.2 S .7 1.7 1.7 1.6 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 8.9 SSW .7 2.0 1.3 .8 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 7.4 SW .9 1.6 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 5.3 WSW 1.0 1.6 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.1 4.9 W 1.0 3.0 1.1 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 5.6 WNW 1.0 3.1 2.1 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.7 6.5 NW .7 4.0 4.8 2.9 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.7 8.5 NNW .6 3.9 8.4 12.6 2.1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 27.7 11.2 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 0 ALL 9.1 27.3 28.0 27.4 4.1 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 8.6

LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 6648 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

AUG

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .8 3.2 4.2 5.2 .9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.3 10.1 NNE .7 1.4 1.6 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 8.0 NE .3 .7 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 6.3 ENE .3 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 4.8 E .3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 4.7 ESE .5 .8 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 4.6 SE .6 1.0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 4.8 SSE .7 1.8 1.6 1.3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.6 8.2 S 1.1 4.0 2.5 2.1 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.6 8.6 SSW 1.0 3.4 1.6 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.4 6.0 SW 1.1 2.3 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 5.1 WSW .9 1.7 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 5.0 W 1.2 1.5 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 4.9 WNW 1.0 2.4 1.1 .3 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.8 5.7 NW 1.0 3.6 3.7 1.5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.8 7.6 NNW 1.1 4.5 5.6 6.6 2.5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.3 10.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.7 0 ALL 12.6 33.1 24.6 19.1 4.5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 7.6

22 Columbia River Bar LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 5950 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

SEP

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 2.8 4.9 4.8 .7 .0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 13.8 10.2 NNE .7 2.1 1.6 1.2 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 8.1 NE .4 1.3 1.1 1.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 9.0 ENE .3 .8 1.1 2.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 10.5 E .5 1.2 .9 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 7.8 ESE .2 1.0 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 7.1 SE .3 1.1 .4 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 7.4 SSE .8 1.6 1.5 1.5 .5 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 9.9 S .9 3.3 3.0 3.0 .9 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 11.4 9.9 SSW 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.1 .3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.5 8.7 SW .8 1.5 1.4 1.2 .2 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 8.9 WSW .6 1.2 1.0 .8 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 8.0 W .8 1.3 .9 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 6.2 WNW .6 1.6 1.0 .5 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 6.9 NW .7 2.1 1.3 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 7.8 NNW .5 2.6 4.2 5.5 .6 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13.3 10.4 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 0 ALL 9.6 27.6 26.9 25.6 4.3 1.3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 8.7

LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 5906 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

OCT

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 1.7 2.5 2.5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.7 9.5 NNE .5 2.1 1.5 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 7.9 NE .4 1.5 1.8 .7 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 7.9 ENE .3 1.1 1.3 1.6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 9.3 E .4 1.4 2.1 2.0 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.4 9.8 ESE .4 1.5 1.3 .6 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 7.5 SE .4 1.2 1.0 .7 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 8.9 SSE .5 1.3 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.5 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 10.2 14.6 S .6 1.9 2.1 2.6 1.7 1.2 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 10.7 13.7 SSW .5 1.6 1.8 1.8 .8 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 7.2 11.7 SW .5 1.5 1.2 1.4 .5 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 10.5 WSW .5 1.2 .9 1.4 .5 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 11.2 W .6 1.5 1.2 .8 .3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 8.9 WNW .6 1.4 1.5 1.4 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.2 9.1 NW .3 1.2 1.5 2.4 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.9 10.4 NNW .4 1.5 2.1 2.3 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.8 10.1 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 ALL 7.6 23.5 25.9 25.7 7.8 4.4 1.7 .3 .0 .0 .0 100.0 10.3

23 Columbia River Bar LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 4835 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

NOV

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .5 .3 .8 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 9.2 NNE .2 .5 .8 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 9.0 NE .4 .9 .9 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 7.5 ENE .3 .8 1.0 2.2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.7 10.9 E .5 1.4 3.2 7.1 3.8 1.9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.8 14.1 ESE .2 1.3 2.0 1.4 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 10.6 SE .3 .8 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.9 11.6 SSE .2 .8 2.0 3.8 2.1 2.0 .7 .3 0.0 .0 .0 12.0 16.4 S .3 1.3 3.2 4.5 2.2 3.1 1.2 .4 .0 .0 .0 16.4 16.3 SSW .2 1.0 1.7 3.1 1.7 1.2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 9.2 14.4 SW .2 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1 .9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 13.6 WSW .2 .6 .8 1.1 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 11.2 W .3 .7 1.0 1.7 .5 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 11.4 WNW .3 .5 .8 1.1 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 11.7 NW .2 .5 1.1 1.0 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 10.5 NNW .2 .5 .5 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 9.4 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 ALL 4.3 13.3 21.8 31.3 14.0 10.3 2.6 .8 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 13.2

LAT 46 7.0 LONG 124 30.0 : Total number of data points = 3812 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

DEC

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .5 .5 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 8.4 NNE .2 .8 .9 .8 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 9.9 NE .3 1.1 1.3 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 8.4 ENE .3 1.2 2.3 3.6 .9 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.8 12.1 E .4 1.2 4.6 8.2 4.9 3.4 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.3 15.0 ESE .3 1.3 2.6 3.0 .6 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 11.0 SE .2 .4 .4 .8 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 11.5 SSE .1 .5 1.0 3.0 1.5 2.0 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 8.7 17.5 S 0.0 .4 1.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.1 .8 .0 .0 .0 10.4 19.8 SSW .1 .5 1.2 2.0 1.1 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 5.4 14.0 SW .2 .7 1.4 2.0 1.0 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 6.0 13.8 WSW .2 .7 1.1 1.3 .8 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 12.6 W .1 .9 1.5 1.3 .4 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 11.4 WNW .1 .4 1.3 1.3 .6 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 4.3 13.6 NW .1 .4 .9 .9 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 11.9 NNW .1 .2 .7 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 9.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 ALL 2.6 11.3 22.7 31.8 15.0 10.9 2.6 1.2 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 13.7

24 SAN FRANCISCO

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 8565 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JAN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 .8 .2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 6.5 NNE .5 .9 .4 .3 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 7.8 NE .7 1.7 2.8 3.7 1.4 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.8 11.5 ENE .7 2.8 4.9 8.1 2.1 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 19.3 11.8 E .7 2.2 3.2 3.0 .9 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.2 10.2 ESE .4 .5 .6 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 8.2 SE .4 .6 .7 1.0 .5 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 12.6 SSE .3 .8 1.3 2.6 1.7 1.3 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 8.7 15.7 S .3 1.0 1.6 1.8 .8 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.1 12.5 SSW .2 .7 .7 .9 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 11.4 SW .4 .5 .6 .8 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 9.4 WSW .3 .6 .4 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 8.7 W .4 1.0 .7 .8 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 9.8 WNW .6 1.4 1.5 2.3 .7 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 11.4 NW .6 1.7 2.3 2.9 1.5 .9 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 10.2 12.7 NNW .5 1.1 .9 .7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 8.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0 ALL 7.4 18.3 22.8 30.1 11.5 5.1 1.5 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.1

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 8917 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

FEB

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 .9 .2 .2 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 5.2 NNE .5 .7 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 5.7 NE .6 1.2 1.1 1.1 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 9.3 ENE .5 1.8 2.7 2.9 .5 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.0 10.7 E .6 1.6 1.5 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 8.0 ESE .4 .8 .5 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 7.4 SE .3 1.0 .8 .7 .5 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 4.0 12.7 SSE .5 .9 1.1 1.8 1.2 1.9 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 8.2 16.3 S .4 .9 1.2 1.7 .9 .6 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.8 12.8 SSW .3 .9 .9 1.0 .5 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 10.8 SW .4 1.0 .9 .9 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 9.3 WSW .5 1.5 1.0 .8 .3 .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 8.9 W .5 2.0 1.3 1.3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 9.1 WNW .7 3.2 3.7 4.2 1.4 1.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.7 11.6 NW .8 2.7 4.0 5.6 2.5 1.3 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.2 12.6 NNW .6 1.6 1.1 .6 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 7.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 0 ALL 8.2 22.7 22.1 24.4 9.0 6.9 1.5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 10.5

25 San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 10415 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.9 NNE .3 .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 6.0 NE .3 .3 .3 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 6.6 ENE .3 .6 .8 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.9 E .2 .7 .6 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 7.2 ESE .2 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 8.5 SE .4 .5 .7 .8 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.8 11.0 SSE .3 1.0 1.3 2.7 1.6 1.3 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 9.1 15.7 S .5 1.3 2.1 2.1 .7 .6 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 11.7 SSW .5 1.6 1.0 .7 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 8.3 SW .6 1.6 1.0 .7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 8.0 WSW .7 1.9 .9 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 7.3 W .7 2.6 2.5 1.7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.0 8.7 WNW .6 3.0 5.6 8.4 3.2 1.9 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 23.0 12.9 NW .8 2.6 3.7 7.3 5.1 2.9 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 22.5 14.2 NNW .3 1.0 1.0 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.1 8.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 ALL 7.0 19.5 21.8 27.2 12.0 7.3 1.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.3

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 10357 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

APR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .2 0.0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 6.6 NNE .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 6.9 NE .2 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 5.0 ENE .1 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 6.7 E .1 .2 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 6.3 ESE .2 .2 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 5.1 SE .2 .4 .2 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 9.4 SSE .2 .8 1.1 1.4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 11.0 S .4 1.5 1.8 1.4 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 9.0 SSW .4 1.9 1.3 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.1 6.9 SW .6 1.7 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 5.6 WSW .7 2.6 1.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 5.8 W .9 3.4 3.6 1.6 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 9.6 7.8 WNW .6 3.7 6.5 12.4 5.2 2.7 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 31.7 13.4 NW .6 2.5 3.6 9.1 5.9 4.7 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 27.1 15.4 NNW .4 .7 .6 .6 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 9.1 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 ALL 6.1 20.4 21.3 27.9 12.3 7.7 1.1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.4

26 San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 10227 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAY

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.9 NNE .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.4 NE .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.0 ENE .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 4.6 E .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 4.1 ESE .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 5.2 SE .3 .4 .3 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 7.8 SSE .3 .9 1.4 1.7 .5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 11.2 S .4 1.7 2.0 1.1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 8.4 SSW .4 2.1 1.2 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 6.3 SW .7 2.0 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.6 5.5 WSW .6 3.0 1.7 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 6.3 W .6 3.6 5.0 3.7 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13.5 9.3 WNW .5 3.5 8.0 14.4 6.0 2.7 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 35.4 13.5 NW .3 1.8 3.4 7.8 5.0 3.1 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 21.8 15.0 NNW .1 .5 .3 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 9.1 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 ALL 4.8 20.2 24.2 29.9 12.3 6.3 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.4

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 10328 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 2.8 NNE 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 5.0 NE .0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 9.0 ENE 0.0 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 6.1 E 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.0 ESE .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.1 SE .2 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 5.8 SSE .3 1.0 1.0 .8 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 8.5 S .6 2.5 2.1 .8 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 7.3 SSW .7 3.0 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 5.7 SW .8 3.2 1.0 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 5.4 WSW .7 3.2 2.3 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.6 6.4 W .6 3.9 5.7 4.1 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.8 9.2 WNW .6 2.9 6.3 14.6 6.6 3.1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 34.2 14.0 NW .2 1.1 3.2 8.7 5.3 2.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 20.9 15.1 NNW .1 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 7.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 ALL 5.1 21.5 23.1 29.9 12.4 5.4 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.1

27 San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 9939 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUL

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.6 NNE 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.0 NE .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 3.3 ENE 0.0 .0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 6.5 E .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 2.2 ESE .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 2.5 SE .2 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 3.3 SSE .4 1.1 .9 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 6.6 S .7 3.3 2.9 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.6 6.9 SSW 1.2 4.5 1.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.1 5.3 SW 1.3 4.4 .8 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.5 4.8 WSW 1.4 5.3 1.4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 5.3 W 1.1 6.7 6.1 3.5 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18.0 8.2 WNW .7 4.2 8.5 13.1 4.9 2.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 33.5 12.6 NW .4 1.4 3.2 5.7 2.0 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13.0 12.4 NNW .1 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 6.4 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 0 ALL 7.7 31.2 25.5 23.5 7.4 2.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9.2

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 8937 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

AUG

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.1 NNE 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 2.0 NE 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 2.7 ENE 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 4.3 E 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 4.0 ESE .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 2.2 SE .1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 5.4 SSE .2 .9 .7 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 7.6 S .6 2.4 1.9 .9 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.8 7.4 SSW .9 3.1 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.4 5.6 SW 1.2 3.4 1.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 5.1 WSW 1.1 4.5 1.4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.2 5.4 W 1.2 6.3 6.4 2.9 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17.0 7.8 WNW 1.0 5.7 10.6 14.6 2.9 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 35.2 11.1 NW .4 2.2 4.2 7.7 2.0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16.8 11.9 NNW .2 .4 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 ALL 7.2 29.1 27.9 27.1 5.0 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 8.9

28 San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 9273 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

SEP

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 3.1 NNE .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.7 NE .2 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 3.4 ENE .2 .1 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 4.4 E .3 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 3.8 ESE .3 .3 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 3.5 SE .5 .4 .2 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 4.5 SSE .8 1.4 1.2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 6.1 S 1.0 3.1 1.5 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.1 6.0 SSW 1.4 3.5 1.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.2 5.1 SW 1.5 3.7 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 4.6 WSW 1.9 4.2 1.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.1 4.7 W 1.8 6.8 4.5 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14.4 6.6 WNW 1.3 6.3 7.8 9.0 1.5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 26.2 10.0 NW 1.2 3.7 4.4 6.7 2.0 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18.2 10.8 NNW .5 1.1 .6 .4 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 6.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.8 0 ALL 13.4 35.0 23.1 18.4 3.8 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 7.4

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 10628 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

OCT

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.4 NNE .2 .3 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 5.8 NE .4 .3 .2 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 6.1 ENE .3 .6 .8 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.5 E .4 .6 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 6.2 ESE .3 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.5 SE .4 .6 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 4.9 SSE .5 1.4 1.4 1.3 .3 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 5.1 9.9 S .9 2.1 1.3 1.0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 7.5 SSW 1.0 2.1 .6 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.0 5.5 SW 1.0 1.7 .4 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 4.7 WSW 1.2 2.1 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 4.4 W 1.5 3.8 1.9 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 6.1 WNW 1.3 5.9 7.1 7.2 1.6 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.9 10.1 NW 1.5 4.6 6.9 8.3 3.4 2.0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 26.8 11.9 NNW 1.1 1.6 .9 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 6.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.9 0 ALL 12.5 28.7 22.6 20.2 5.7 3.1 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 8.3

29 San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 9944 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

NOV

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 .8 .2 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 6.8 NNE .6 .7 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 5.5 NE .5 1.2 1.4 1.5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.0 9.2 ENE .5 1.8 3.2 3.2 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.5 10.3 E .4 1.3 1.9 1.6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 9.3 ESE .4 .5 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 5.8 SE .3 .6 .2 .4 .1 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 9.9 SSE .3 .7 1.1 2.2 1.3 .8 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.6 14.5 S .3 1.0 1.3 1.0 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 10.4 SSW .3 .9 .7 .4 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 8.6 SW .3 .7 .4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 8.1 WSW .4 .8 .5 .6 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 8.4 W .8 1.7 1.2 .7 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.6 7.3 WNW .9 3.9 4.2 4.8 1.9 .7 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 16.5 11.0 NW 1.1 4.3 6.0 7.4 2.9 1.6 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.6 11.9 NNW .9 2.0 1.3 1.0 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.5 7.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 0 ALL 8.6 22.9 24.2 25.8 8.7 4.0 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9.8

San Francisco LAT 37 45.0 LONG 122 50.0 : Total number of data points = 10109 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

DEC

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 1.1 .3 .3 .2 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 7.7 NNE .6 .8 .3 .3 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 2.3 8.3 NE .8 1.8 2.7 4.0 1.3 .3 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 10.9 11.2 ENE .7 3.1 5.7 9.9 2.4 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22.2 11.7 E .5 2.1 3.1 2.9 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.4 9.9 ESE .4 .7 .4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.9 SE .4 .5 .5 .6 .3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 12.1 SSE .2 .6 .8 2.1 1.0 1.5 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 6.7 16.5 S .2 .6 .7 .9 .5 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 12.7 SSW .2 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 11.3 SW .1 .5 .4 .3 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 10.4 WSW .2 .6 .5 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 8.1 W .4 1.0 .6 .5 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 9.0 WNW .4 1.8 1.8 1.7 .6 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.8 11.0 NW .8 2.5 3.2 3.9 1.9 1.3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 13.9 12.2 NNW .5 1.8 1.6 1.2 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 9.3 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 ALL 7.1 19.8 23.0 29.8 10.4 5.4 .9 .1 0.0 .0 .0 100.0 10.9

30 PT ARUGUELLO

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 8717 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JAN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .7 1.1 1.0 1.7 .9 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 6.0 11.8 NNE .4 .7 .1 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 6.0 NE .4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.6 ENE .4 .8 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 5.0 E .6 1.2 .7 .3 .3 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 9.6 ESE .5 1.0 .7 .9 .6 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 4.3 11.5 SE .4 .6 .7 1.3 .5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 11.8 SSE .4 .4 .5 .8 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.4 10.1 S .2 .4 .4 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 9.4 SSW .3 .3 .2 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 8.3 SW .2 .4 .4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 9.2 WSW .2 .7 .3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.9 W .4 .9 .7 .6 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 8.2 WNW .5 1.7 2.6 2.7 .9 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.6 10.7 NW .6 3.3 5.7 11.4 6.4 2.8 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 30.5 13.9 NNW .6 2.5 4.1 7.8 4.8 3.3 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.6 14.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.7 0 ALL 6.7 16.5 18.5 29.4 15.1 7.9 1.1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 11.7

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 8599 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

FEB

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 1.0 .9 .7 .5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.7 9.8 NNE .3 .3 .2 0.0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 5.0 NE .3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.4 ENE .2 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.9 E .2 .7 .7 .8 .3 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 3.5 13.0 ESE .4 1.2 1.0 1.5 .8 .9 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 6.3 14.2 SE .3 .9 1.2 1.4 .7 .6 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 5.2 13.4 SSE .2 .6 1.0 1.3 .3 .3 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 3.8 11.6 S .3 .6 .8 1.0 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.0 10.5 SSW .2 .5 .4 .6 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 9.7 SW .3 .7 .5 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 7.9 WSW .5 1.1 .6 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.7 7.3 W .6 1.4 1.2 .7 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.2 8.2 WNW .5 1.9 2.4 2.8 .8 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.3 11.5 NW .3 2.3 4.0 10.6 6.9 3.9 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 28.6 15.3 NNW .5 1.8 3.0 6.5 4.6 3.5 .7 0.0 .0 .0 .0 20.7 15.5 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 0 ALL 5.6 15.9 18.3 29.0 15.8 10.7 1.9 .3 .1 .0 .0 100.0 12.9

31 Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 9495 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .8 .6 .6 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 9.1 NNE .2 .2 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 4.8 NE .2 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 4.8 ENE .2 .3 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 6.0 E .3 .6 .3 .3 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 9.7 ESE .2 .6 .7 1.2 .3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 12.7 SE .2 .5 .7 1.2 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 12.1 SSE .2 .5 .5 .7 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 10.7 S .2 .6 .5 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 9.4 SSW .3 .7 .3 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.6 SW .3 .8 .5 .4 .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 7.8 WSW .3 .9 .6 .6 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 8.6 W .3 .9 1.1 .9 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 9.5 WNW .5 1.4 2.2 3.2 1.4 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.9 12.9 NW .4 1.9 4.7 13.2 9.2 8.0 1.3 .1 .0 .0 .0 38.8 16.6 NNW .3 1.5 2.8 6.9 5.9 4.5 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 22.6 16.3 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 ALL 4.1 12.4 15.7 30.0 18.3 14.7 2.2 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 14.0

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 9162 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

APR

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .6 .5 .3 0.0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.9 NNE .1 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.3 NE .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.2 ENE .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.0 E .2 .3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 6.3 ESE .2 .6 .5 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 9.0 SE .2 .4 .5 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 9.8 SSE .2 .6 .5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.6 S .2 .5 .4 .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 6.6 SSW .3 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 5.6 SW .2 .6 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6.1 WSW .2 .7 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6.1 W .3 1.0 .8 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 7.2 WNW .4 1.2 1.9 2.4 .9 .9 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.8 12.8 NW .3 1.8 4.6 13.7 12.9 10.7 3.2 .5 .0 .0 .0 47.6 17.9 NNW .3 1.5 3.0 7.4 7.3 5.6 1.3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 26.4 17.0 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 ALL 3.5 10.7 13.9 26.0 21.5 17.3 4.7 .5 .0 .0 .0 100.0 15.2

32 Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 8675 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

MAY

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 .4 .4 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 8.2 NNE .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 5.2 NE .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.1 ENE .1 .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.9 E .1 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 5.3 ESE .1 .4 .1 .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 11.5 SE .2 .5 .3 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 7.7 SSE .1 .5 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 6.7 S .1 .3 .3 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 6.8 SSW .1 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 5.2 SW .2 .2 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 5.3 WSW .1 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 5.5 W .2 .8 .7 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 6.9 WNW .2 1.3 2.4 4.1 1.5 1.3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.9 13.4 NW .3 2.1 6.1 16.9 13.2 10.5 1.8 .4 .0 .0 .0 51.4 16.9 NNW .1 1.4 3.5 7.6 6.8 5.7 .8 0.0 .0 .0 .0 25.9 16.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 ALL 2.5 9.1 14.8 29.8 21.7 17.7 2.7 .4 .0 .0 .0 100.0 15.3

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 11145 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUN

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .5 .4 .4 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 9.8 NNE .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 4.4 NE .1 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.1 ENE .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 3.3 E .1 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 5.1 ESE .2 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 5.8 SE .2 .7 .3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 6.6 SSE .2 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 6.3 S .2 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 5.5 SSW .4 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 4.1 SW .2 .4 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 4.5 WSW .3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.4 W .4 1.3 .6 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 6.1 WNW .6 2.3 3.3 3.5 1.6 .8 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.2 11.7 NW .6 2.6 6.1 14.1 14.8 11.5 1.4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 51.0 16.9 NNW .3 1.6 3.2 6.7 5.6 4.3 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 22.2 16.0 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 ALL 4.2 12.5 15.0 25.4 22.1 16.7 2.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 14.3

33 Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 11512 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

JUL

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .3 .3 .4 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 9.2 NNE .1 .1 .1 .0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 7.1 NE .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 6.1 ENE .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 4.8 E .2 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 5.0 ESE .2 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 4.0 SE .2 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 4.3 SSE .3 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 4.1 S .3 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 3.7 SSW .3 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 3.6 SW .4 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 3.5 WSW .6 .7 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 3.8 W .6 1.4 .7 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 5.6 WNW .6 2.6 3.3 4.2 1.5 .6 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.9 11.3 NW .5 2.4 6.4 19.8 14.7 6.2 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.3 15.6 NNW .3 1.6 2.8 7.9 7.0 3.6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.4 15.8 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 ALL 5.1 11.7 14.1 32.3 23.4 10.6 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 13.6

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 10339 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

AUG

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .1 .5 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 7.1 NNE .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 3.5 NE .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 3.2 ENE .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 5.6 E .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.6 ESE .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 5.3 SE .1 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 5.0 SSE .1 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 4.4 S .1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 4.6 SSW .1 .3 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 4.7 SW .2 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 4.2 WSW .2 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .6 4.6 W .3 1.1 .5 .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 6.1 WNW .5 1.5 2.7 3.8 1.4 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.5 11.9 NW .3 2.1 7.3 21.8 18.6 7.7 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 58.0 16.0 NNW .2 1.8 4.0 8.4 5.6 2.5 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 22.7 14.7 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 ALL 2.8 8.8 15.4 34.4 25.6 10.7 .5 0.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 14.2

34 Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 10665 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

SEP

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .2 .6 .6 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 8.0 NNE .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 4.5 NE 0.0 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 5.4 ENE .1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 4.6 E .2 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 5.0 ESE .3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 5.0 SE .2 .3 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 6.0 SSE .3 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 5.1 S .2 .7 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 6.0 SSW .4 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 4.6 SW .4 .4 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 5.1 WSW .3 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 4.3 W .3 1.1 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 5.8 WNW .6 2.2 3.1 4.4 1.2 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.0 11.5 NW .5 2.4 6.2 20.9 14.0 6.3 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 50.6 15.5 NNW .4 1.6 4.0 8.9 5.0 2.3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 22.2 14.3 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 ALL 4.4 11.7 16.2 35.0 20.3 9.1 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 13.1

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 10665 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

OCT

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .4 1.4 .8 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.3 7.9 NNE .3 .4 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.6 NE .3 .4 .1 .0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.3 ENE .3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 4.7 E .2 .6 .1 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.1 ESE .3 .7 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 6.6 SE .3 .8 .5 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.1 SSE .2 .7 .4 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.6 S .2 .5 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 6.6 SSW .2 .5 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 5.5 SW .3 .4 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.0 WSW .2 .5 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .9 5.3 W .5 1.1 .5 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.2 5.8 WNW .5 2.3 3.1 3.3 1.0 .9 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 11.4 11.8 NW .7 3.4 7.3 14.9 9.5 6.0 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 42.6 15.0 NNW .6 2.7 4.3 8.4 5.9 3.3 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 25.7 14.6 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 ALL 5.5 16.6 18.5 28.4 16.7 10.4 1.5 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 12.6

35 Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 9226 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

NOV

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .6 1.3 1.1 1.2 .3 .3 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.8 9.9 NNE .4 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.1 5.2 NE .4 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 4.2 ENE .3 .6 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 4.9 E .4 .6 .4 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 7.2 ESE .3 .6 .5 .5 .2 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.3 10.1 SE .2 .6 .4 .4 .4 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.4 12.1 SSE .2 .6 .5 .5 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 9.4 S .3 .7 .6 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 7.6 SSW .2 .5 .4 .3 .2 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 8.6 SW .2 .4 .2 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.2 7.9 WSW .2 .4 .3 .2 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 9.6 W .5 1.1 .7 .5 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.9 7.5 WNW .6 2.0 2.5 2.5 .9 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 9.2 11.1 NW .7 3.3 5.9 11.5 7.2 5.1 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 34.6 15.0 NNW .7 2.6 4.4 9.0 6.2 4.3 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 27.8 15.0 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 ALL 6.2 16.2 18.1 27.5 16.0 11.0 1.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 12.6

Pt Argeullo LAT 34 42.0 LONG 120 58.0 : Total number of data points = 9002 WIND DIRECTION vs SPEED from raw station data

DEC

| SPEED (KNOTS) | TOTAL|MEAN 16 PT.| 1 - 3| 4 - 6| 7-10| 11-16| 17-21| 22-27| 28-33| 34-40| 41-47| 48-55| >=56|PERCNT|WIND DIR. | | | | | | | | | | | | |SPEED

N .5 1.2 1.2 2.2 1.4 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 12.2 NNE .5 .5 .5 .6 .4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 9.9 NE .4 .7 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 5.5 ENE .4 .6 .4 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.5 6.7 E .5 .8 .5 .3 .2 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 9.6 ESE .4 .9 .7 1.0 .6 .7 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 4.9 14.5 SE .4 1.0 .9 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.9 12.3 SSE .3 .7 .5 .8 .2 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.6 9.6 S .4 .6 .4 .3 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.8 7.5 SSW .4 .4 .3 .4 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 8.2 SW .3 .5 .2 .1 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 6.7 WSW .4 .8 .2 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.6 6.2 W .7 .9 .4 .2 .1 0.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.5 6.7 WNW .8 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.1 .9 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 8.2 11.5 NW .9 3.3 4.6 8.9 5.9 4.4 .4 0.0 .0 .0 .0 28.3 14.5 NNW .6 2.6 4.6 7.1 4.7 3.3 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 23.2 14.2 VAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CLM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 0 ALL 8.0 17.6 17.3 25.2 15.8 10.8 1.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 12.1

36

Appendix G

Historic Casualty Maps, Tables, and Graphs for the US West Coast Gulf of Alaska

1

2 3 4

5

6 8 7

9 10

11 12 13

14

15

British Columbia/Strait of Juan de Fuca

A B

C D

E

16

17 18 F

G 19 H J I M L K N 20 Q O P 21 R 22T S 23 24

Washington/Oregon/California

17 18 F

G 19 H J I M L K N 20 Q O P 21 R 22T S 23 24

26 25 28 29 27 30 31 38 36 32 34 33 37 35

39 40

41 42 43

44 45

46

50 51 52 47 53 54 48 55 49 56 57 58 62 61 59 60

63 64 67 65 66 69 70 71 68 72 74 73 75 76

Vsl/Flag Casualty Type Main Vsl Type Specific Vsl Type Incident Causes Date Incident Position 6 LI COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP Collision w/ FV--Lost compass & autopilot--No 3-Mar-92 20 nm from Kodiak Ship/Misc. breach of hull 32 CY COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP Collision w/ FV. FV sunk 12-Jul-93 14 nm off mouth of Columbia River Ship/Misc. 38 MY COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP Collision w/ FV. FV had ruptured fuel tank 16-Oct-94 190 nm off Columbia River mouth Ship/Misc. 60 LI COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP Loss of 100 gal.s diesel and 5 gal.s lube oil 30-Apr-95 10 nm off San Francisco Bay Ship/Misc. 67 GR COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP COLLISION 5-Dec-96 Santa Barbara Channel; 3 nm Santa Cruz Ship/Misc. 62 KS COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP COLLISION 24-Jul-97 10 nm SW Pillar Pt Ship/Misc. 75 US COLLISION Freight FREIGHT SHIP COLLISION 21-Oct-97 30 nm offshore Ship/Misc. 27 US COLLISION Freight PUBLIC VESSEL,UNC. Unknown 3-Mar-95 50 nm off mouth of Columbia River Ship/Misc. 47 US COLLISION Freight TOWBOAT/TUGBOAT Vsl sank, releasing 35,000 gal.s fuel oil 27-Jan-92 19 nm offshore Ship/Misc. 30 CA COLLISION Freight TOWBOAT/TUGBOAT Unknown 11-Nov-93 20 nm off mouth of Columbia River Ship/Misc. S RS DISABLED Fishing Vessel FISHING VESSEL UNKNOWN 3-Feb-99 20 nm west of Juan de Fuca T RS DISABLED Fishing Vessel FISHING VESSEL UNKNOWN 19-Feb-99 10 nm southwest of Cape Flatterly F PN DISABLED Freight CARGO SHIP WEATHER 11-Feb-99 12 nm North of Traingle Mountain Ship/Misc. 9 US FLOODING Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT FLOODING 5-Feb-98 25 nm from Kodiak 68 US GROUNDING Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT GROUNDING 12-Nov-97 San Miguel Island 29 US GROUNDING Freight Barge FREIGHT BARGE BREAKAWAY 17-May-96 5 nm W Cape Disappointment 4 US GROUNDING Freight Barge FREIGHT BARGE GROUNDING 29-Nov-96 Gulf of AK; 35 nm offshore 74 US GROUNDING Freight FREIGHT SHIP Grounded on sand bar 9-Jan-92 70 nm from Channel Islands Ship/Misc. 31 PN GROUNDING Freight FREIGHT SHIP Foreign flag vsl grounded outside of US territorial 12-Feb-94 Astoria Bar Ship/Misc. waters 45 US GROUNDING Freight FREIGHT SHIP BREAKAWAY 18-Nov-96 4 nm offshore Ship/Misc. 35 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT LOSS OF STEERING 10-Jul-96 10 nm off mouth of Columbia River FAILURE 39 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT ENGINE FAILURE 5-Aug-96 25 nm offshore FAILURE 43 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT LOSS OF STEERING 19-Sep-96 6 nm offshore FAILURE 26 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT LOSS OF STEERING 3-Dec-96 Mouth of Columbia River; 7 nm offshore FAILURE 66 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT ENGINE FAILURE 30-Jun-97 7 nm offshore FAILURE 25 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT LOSS OF STEERING 26-Aug-97 30 nm off Grays Harbor FAILURE 13 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT ENGINE FAILURE 8-Oct-97 Gulf of AK; 150 nm offshore FAILURE 5 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT LOSS OF STEERING 26-Jul-99 Gulf of AK; 170 nm S of Valdez FAILURE 33 US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT ENGINE FAILURE 29-Sep-99 5 nm off mouth of Columbia River FAILURE K US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING VESSEL DISABLED 10-Oct-97 50 nm West of Estevan FAILURE P US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING VESSEL DISABLED 12-Apr-96 NW Amphitrite FAILURE O US MECH/EQUIP Fishing Vessel FISHING VESSEL DISABLED 22-Aug-98 33 nm west Amphitrite Point FAILURE Q N MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 2-Jul-99 30 nm off Estevan Point O FAILURE Ship/Misc. M G MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 11-Feb-99 100 nm west of Vancouver Island R FAILURE Ship/Misc. G BF MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 13-Nov-99 7.5 nm West of Kains Island FAILURE Ship/Misc. J PN MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 15-Feb-99 35 nm fm Vancouver Island FAILURE Ship/Misc. I PN MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 16-May-96 17 nm SW of Lookout Island FAILURE Ship/Misc. C AC MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 19-Dec-94 40 nm NW Langara Island FAILURE Ship/Misc. R BF MECH/EQUIP Freight BULK CARRIER DISABLED 20-Aug-97 10 nm SE of Cape Beale FAILURE Ship/Misc. H LI MECH/EQUIP Freight CARGO SHIP DISABLED 12-Feb-99 15 nm SW of Brooks Peninsula FAILURE Ship/Misc. 58 PN MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Engine failure due to defective air intake valve 22-Jun-92 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. 24 DA MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Engine had clogged fuel injector 28-Sep-93 Strait of Juan de Fuca; 12 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. 36 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Unable to locate case in MSIS 26-May-94 20 nm from Tillamook Head FAILURE Ship/Misc. 50 BF MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Loss of reverse prop discovered on prearrival trial 31-Jul-94 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. to SF Bay 69 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Main engine failure 7-Mar-95 Santa Barbara Channel FAILURE Ship/Misc. 54 RO MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Broken piston on main engine near entrance to SF 8-Mar-95 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. Bay 48 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP Failure of port steering system 16-Oct-95 NW of San Francisco; 40 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. 41 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 29-Jan-96 30 nm off Oregon Coast FAILURE Ship/Misc. 55 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 30-Jan-96 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. 37 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 11-Feb-97 14 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. 40 PN MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 13-Feb-97 40 nm off Oregon Coast FAILURE Ship/Misc. 34 GR MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP ENGINE FAILURE 15-Mar-97 5 nm off mouth of Columbia River FAILURE Ship/Misc. 52 DA MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP ENGINE FAILURE 1-Jun-97 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. 76 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP STRUCTURAL FAILURE 24-Aug-97 30 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. 53 US MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 29-Oct-98 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. 10 US STRUCT FAIL Freight FREIGHT SHIP STUCTURAL DAMAGE 17-Feb-96 Gulf of AK; 90 nm S of Kodiak Ship/Misc. 20 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Barge TANK BARGE Crack to cargo tank side shell 3-Feb-92 Vancouver, BC; 70 nm offshore 23 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP 42" fractures found in cargo tank 31-Jan-92 30 nm from entrance to Juan de Fuca 44 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Fracture in oil cargo tank 21-Mar-93 North of Humboldt Bay; 35 nm offshore 28 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Fracture in oil cargo tank 24-Jul-93 10 nm off mouth of Columbia River 8 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Fractures involving tank found prior to loading oil 13-Dec-93 Gulf of AK; 200 nm offshore products 12 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Fracture in oil cargo tank 28-Dec-93 Gulf of AK; 140 nm offshore 16 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Crack in cargo tank 30-Jan-94 90 nm W of Qeen Charlotte 1 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Not recorded 16-Feb-94 S/B passage from Valdez AK 46 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Crack involving tank found prior to loading oil 27-Mar-94 140 nm from Humboldt products 3 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Weld failure in tank bulkhead 5-Apr-94 Gulf of AK; 60 nm offshore 49 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Fracture in main deck over cargo tank 12-Apr-94 9 nm SW of Pt Reyes 7 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Crack in underdeck at cargo tank 14-Jun-94 Gulf of AK; 170 nm offshore 19 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Cracks found in vicinity of tanks 27-Feb-95 Vancouver, BC; 150 nm offshore 14 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP Fracture in cargo tank bulkhead 5-Mar-95 Gulf of AK; 170 nm offshore 42 US STRUCT FAIL Tank Ship TANK SHIP STUCTURAL DAMAGE 2-Feb-96 110 nm offshore OR/CA border 71 GR MECH/EQUIP Freight FREIGHT SHIP ENGINE FAILURE 16-Mar-99 Santa Barbara Channel; 9 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. 64 US MECH/EQUIP Freight INDUSTRIAL VESSEL Electrical power and propulsion lost close to land 30-Nov-94 Pt. Piedras Blancas; 40 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. N US MECH/EQUIP Freight RORO/CONTAINER DISABLED 1-Feb-98 10.2 nm off Estevan FAILURE Ship/Misc. B US MECH/EQUIP Freight RORO/CONTAINER DISABLED 4-Aug-99 80 nm west of Langara FAILURE Ship/Misc. L PN MECH/EQUIP Freight RORO/CONTAINER DISABLED 14-Feb-98 74 nm fm Vancouver Isl. FAILURE Ship/Misc. 70 US MECH/EQUIP Freight SCHOOL SHIP Steering failure in San Francisco Bay 29-May-95 Santa Barbara Channel; 14 nm offshore FAILURE Ship/Misc. 51 US MECH/EQUIP Freight TOWBOAT/TUGBOAT LOSS OF STEERING 1-Nov-98 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Ship/Misc. 59 US MECH/EQUIP Passenger PASSENGER Loss of steering in traffic lanes 3-May-92 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE Vessel 15 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Barge TANK BARGE Damage to piping on tank barge 20-Sep-94 160 nm S of Aluetian Chain FAILURE 61 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Barge TANK BARGE LOSS OF STEERING 14-Dec-97 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE 21 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP Loss of power to all bridge equipment 28-Jan-92 Vancouver, BC; 65 nm offshore FAILURE 18 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP Electrical power failure caused loss of control 20-Dec-92 South Graham Island, Canada FAILURE 73 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP Loss of both steering pumps & loss of 2-Aug-93 20 nm from Channel Islands FAILURE maneuverability 63 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP Starboard steering sys failed to respond 12-Sep-94 Pt. Piedras Blancas; 35 nm offshore FAILURE 22 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP Sounding system inoperative in Puget Sound 3-Nov-94 40 nm fm Vancouver Island FAILURE 2 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP Stbd steering sys. failed to operate during 24-Jun-95 Gulf of AK; 50 nm offshore FAILURE prearrival tests 72 US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 28-Feb-96 20 nm south of Channel Islands FAILURE 56 PN MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANK SHIP LOSS OF STEERING 19-Feb-97 10 nm off San Francisco Bay FAILURE E US MECH/EQUIP Tank Ship TANKER DISABLED 24-Feb-95 150 nm NW Cape St. James FAILURE D BF ON FIRE Freight BULK CARRIER UNKNOWN 21-Feb-95 5 nm N. of Langara Island Ship/Misc. A ? ON FIRE Freight CARGO SHIP UNKNOWN 6-Oct-97 64 nm west of Forrester Island Ship/Misc. 57 US SINKING Freight Barge FREIGHT BARGE SINKING 21-Mar-96 10 nm off San Francisco Bay 65 US SINKING Freight Barge FREIGHT BARGE COLLISION 31-Aug-96 17 nm offshore 11 US STRUCT FAIL Fishing Vessel FISHING BOAT Breached hull released 12,500 gallons of fuel oil 26-Feb-95 25 nm from Shelikof Island 17 US STRUCT FAIL Freight FREIGHT SHIP STUCTURAL DAMAGE 9-Feb-96 180 nm offshore Ship/Misc. Summary of Casualties with the potential for a significant oil spill:

Vessel Type Casualty Type Passenger Tank Barge Freight Barge Fishing Tank Ship Freight Ship/Misc. Total Mech/Equip. Failure 1 2 12 9 30 54 Collision 10 10 Grounding 2 1 3 6 Structural Failure 1 1 14 2 18 On Fire 2 2 Disabled 2 1 3 Flooding 1 1 Sinking 2 2 Total 1 3 4 17 23 48 96

The table above is further illustrated by the bar graph below:

Maritime Casualty Summary 1992 - 1999

30

25

20

15

10

5 Freight Ship/Misc. Tank Ship Fishing Vessel 0 Freight Barge

re Tank Barge ilu on a si ng re Passenger Vessel F lli di u re p. o il i C a ed g qu roun F n Fi n g E G O n tural Disabl loodi nki uc F Si Mech/ r St INVENTORY OF WEST COAST TUGBOATS HOME PORT COMPANY TUG NAME HP ID LOA BP(TONS) PROPULSION ANCHORAGE COOK INLET T&B GLACIER 2200 218 65 24 Z-DRIVE ANCHORAGE COOK INLET T&B STELLAR WIND 3500 217 85 47 Z-DRIVE BRITISH COLUMBIA RIVTOW MARINE ESCORT PROTECTOR 3280 149 170 42 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA RIVTOW MARINE MERCER STRAITS 2200 150 87 28 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA RIVTOW MARINE RIVTOW CAPT. BOB 5600 148 144 101 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN CHALLENGER 3600 130 131 54 SINGLE BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN COMMODORE 5750 127 142 90 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN DISCOVERY 4000 129 104 66 TRACTOR BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN KING 3600 131 132 54 SINGLE BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN MONARCH 2400 132 106 45 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN PACER 2250 134 95 37 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN REGENT 5750 128 140 90 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN SOVEREIGN 2400 133 123 40 SINGLE BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN QUEEN 1710 N/A 95 N/A TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN CRUSADER 1450 N/A 82 N/A TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA WA MARINE GROUP SEASPAN NAVIGATOR 1700 N/A 84 40 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA UNION T&B LTD ARTIC HOPPER 2250 147 102 40 TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA UNION T&B LIU SEA COMMANDER 3100 146 143 40 SINGLE BRITISH COLUMBIA ISLAND TUG&BARGE LTD ISLAND TUGGER 3000 N/A 116 N/A TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA ISLAND TUG&BARGE LTD ISLAND MONARCH 2650 N/A 135 N/A TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA ISLAND TUG&BARGE LTD ISLAND CROWN 1450 N/A 73 N/A TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA ISLAND TUG&BARGE LTD ISLAND BRAVE 960 N/A 62 N/A TWIN BRITISH COLUMBIA ISLAND TUG&BARGE LTD ISLAND SCOUT 1800 N/A N/A N/A TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE CAPT. LES EASOM 3900 9 121 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE COCHISE 2300 11 105 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE HENRY SAUSE 3000 223 0 0 SINGLE COOS BAY SAUSE JOE SAUSE 3000 222 0 0 SINGLE COOS BAY SAUSE MIKI HANA 3000 6 99 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE NATOMA 5700 12 128 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE NAVAJO 5700 13 128 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE ROBERT L. 3000 7 117 0 TWIN NOZZLE COOS BAY SAUSE ROUGHNECK 2850 162 116 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE SALISHAN 4200 8 109 0 TWIN COOS BAY SAUSE TITAN 4200 10 143 0 TWIN DUTCH HARBOR DUNLAP TOWING JAMES DUNLAP 4000 206 Z-DRIVE DUTCH HARBOR PAC COAST MAR GYRFALCON 4000 220 100 Z-DRIVE EUREKA CROWLEY MERCURY 4300 126 106 TWIN 1 INVENTORY OF WEST COAST TUGBOATS HOME PORT COMPANY TUG NAME HP ID LOA BP(TONS) PROPULSION EUREKA KNUTZEN KOOS KING 2000 UK 64 57 TWIN EUREKA KNUTZEN KOOS HUMBOLT 1500 UK 61 33 TWIN GRAYS HARBOR FOSS MARITIME BENJAMIN FOSS 2200 211 75 26 TWIN LA/LB CROWLEY ADMIRAL 4800 112 105 54 DIRECT; INDIRECT 1 VOITH TRACTOR LA/LB CROWLEY LEADER 4800 114 105 54 DIRECT; INDIRECT 1 VOITH TRACTOR LA/LB CROWLEY MASTER 4800 111 105 54 DIRECT; INDIRECT 1 VOITH TRACTOR LA/LB CROWLEY SCOUT 4800 115 105 54 DIRECT; INDIRECT 1 VOITH TRACTOR LA/LB CROWLEY SEACLOUD 4962 104 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN LA/LB CROWLEY SEA ROBIN 4962 103 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN LA/LB FOSS MARITIME EDDIE C 3100 56 117 46 Z-DRIVE LA/LB FOSS MARITIME PACIFIC ESCORT 3500 55 100 38 VOITH LA/LB FOSS MARITIME PETER FOSS 3300 57 98 44 Z-DRIVE LA/LB FOSS MARITIME PHILLIPS FOSS 4300 54 120 63 TWIN NOZZLE LA/LB FOSS MARITIME MARSHALL FOSS 6250 N/A 98 83.3 ASD Thruster LA/LB MILLENNIUM MARITIME MILLENNIUM FALCON 4400 219 105 Z-DRIVE LA/LB PAC COAST MAR EAGLE 4000 221 0 Z-DRIVE LA/LB MILLENNIUM MARITIME MILLENNIUM MAVERICK N/A N/A N/A 70 N/A LA/LB MILLENNIUM MARITIME MILLENNIUM STAR N/A N/A N/A 70 N/A LONGVIEW BRUSCO PRIMO 2550 210 104 TWIN PORT ANGELES FOSS MARITIME RICHARD M 2550 171 92 35 TWIN PORTLAND FOSS ASTORIA 2200 225 85 30 TWIN PORTLAND (RAINIER) FOSS HOWARD OLSEN 3000 224 110 41 TWIN PORTLAND FOSS JOSEPH T 2250 226 82 31 TWIN PORTLAND FOSS MARITIME AMERICA 3000 52 95 0 VOITH PORTLAND (RAINIER) FOSS MARITIME DANIEL FOSS 3300 41 96 45 Z-DRIVE PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY ALERT 10200 214 153 150 PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY ATTENTIVE 10200 215 153 150 PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY AWARE 10200 216 153 150 PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY GUARD 5500 102 120 60 DIRECT; 150 INDIRECT VOITH TRACTOR PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY PATHFINDER 5650 212 136 5650 TWIN PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY SEA VENTURE 7200 96 150 120 AHEAD; 65 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY SEA VOYAGE 7200 97 150 120 AHEAD; 65 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY STALWART 7200 213 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY NANUQ 10192 78 155 106 VOITH TRACTOR PRINCE WM SOUND CROWLEY TAN'ERLIQ 10192 79 155 106 VOITH TRACTOR PRUDHOE BAY CROWLEY PT.BARROW 2100 124 90 24 AHEAD; 23 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE

2 INVENTORY OF WEST COAST TUGBOATS HOME PORT COMPANY TUG NAME HP ID LOA BP(TONS) PROPULSION PRUDHOE BAY CROWLEY PT. THOMPSON 2110 123 90 24 AHEAD; 23 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND CROWLEY ADVENTURER 7200 87 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY BLACKHAWK 3000 117 122 32 AHEAD; 23 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY BULWARK 7200 88 137 75 AHEAD; 6O ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY CAVALIER 7200 89 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY CHIEF 4800 116 105 54 DIRECT; INDIRECT 1 VOITH TRACTOR PUGET SOUND CROWLEY COMMANDER 7200 94 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY GUARDSMAN 7200 90 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY GUIDE 4800 113 105 54 DIRECT; INDIRECT 1 VOITH TRACTOR PUGET SOUND CROWLEY HERCULES 2000 122 87 20 AHEAD, 15 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY HUNTER 7200 93 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY INVADER 7200 80 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY PROTECTOR 5500 101 120 60 DIRECT; 150 INDIRECT VOITH TRACTOR PUGET SOUND CROWLEY RANGER 7200 91 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEABREEZE 4962 110 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA HORSE 4962 107 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA KING 4962 105 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA PRINCE 4962 106 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA RANGER 4962 108 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA VALIANT 5750 98 129 88 AHEAD; 52 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA VALOR 5750 99 129 88 AHEAD; 52 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SEA VICTORY 7200 95 150 120 AHEAD; 65 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE PUBET SOUND CROWLEY SEA VIKING 4962 109 126 55 AHEAD; 35 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY SIOUX 2900 119 106 30 AHEAD; 22 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY STALWART 7200 92 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTRN TWIN PUGET SOUND CROWLEY WARRI0R 7200 86 137 75 AHEAD; 60 ASTERN TWIN PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING GENE DUNLAP 3420 29 123 42 TWIN PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING JAMES DUNLAP 4000 28 101 52 Z-DRIVE PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING MALOLO 3420 30 105 37 TWIN PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING MANFRED MYSTROM 4000 31 126 43 TWIN PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING MIKE O'LEARLY 2250 39 110 28 TWIN PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING SNOHOMISH 3420 32 110 38 TWIN PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING SUIATTLE 3070 33 122 43 SINGLE PUGET SOUND DUNLAP TOWING TAUARUS 2250 34 95 23 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME AGNES FOSS 3000 45 120 38 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME ALAPUL 3000 46 105 42 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME ARTHUR FOSS 4000 40 107 54 VOITH TRACTOR 3 INVENTORY OF WEST COAST TUGBOATS HOME PORT COMPANY TUG NAME HP ID LOA BP(TONS) PROPULSION PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME ASTORIA FOSS 2200 166 95 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME BARBARA FOSS 4300 37 126 72 TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME CRAIG FOSS 4000 51 123 47 SINGLE/CP PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME DREW FOSS 3000 47 126 38 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME FAIRWIND 4300 38 110 60 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME GARTH FOSS 8000 35 155 87 VOITH TRACTOR PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME HENRY FOSS 3000 42 101 38 VOITH PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME JEFFREY FOSS 4300 58 120 63 TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME JOSEPH T 2250 168 82 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME LINDSEY FOSS 8000 36 155 87 VOITH TRACTOR PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME PACIFIC KING 2200 170 75 26 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME SANDRA FOSS 2900 49 112 47 TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME SHELLY FOSS 2850 172 85 40 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME SIDNEY FOSS 3000 48 126 38 TWIN PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME STACEY FOSS 2900 50 112 47 TWIN/NOZZLE PUGET SOUND FOSS MARITIME WENDELL FOSS 3000 43 101 38 VOITH PUGET SOUND OLYMPIC T&B ALYSSA ANN 2100 174 107 36 TWIN PUGET SOUND OLYMPIC T&B BRIAN'S 3000 173 105 41 TWIN PUGET SOUND OLYMPIC T&B CATHERINE QUIGG 3350 175 65 31 TWIN PUGET SOUND OLYMPIC T&B LELA JOY 2400 209 86 TWIN PUGET SOUND OLYMPIC T&B PACIFIC FALCON 4000 208 121 TWIN PUGET SOUND SEACOAST CASCADE 3000 159 91 TWIN PUGET SOUND SEACOAST OCEAN WARRIOR 4000 158 134 SINGLE PUGET SOUND SEACOAST PACIFIC EAGLE 2000 157 93 TWIN PUGET SOUND SEACOAST PACIFIC PRIDE 2600 160 83 TWIN PUGET SOUND SEACOAST TIGER 2000 161 70 22 TWIN PUGET SOUND VICTORY MARINE ALASKAN VICTORY 4000 183 102 VOITH TRACTOR PUGET SOUND VICTORY MARINE COMMANDER 4000 179 153 SINGLE PUGET SOUND VICTORY MARINE ENFORCER 4000 180 128 TWIN PUGET SOUND VICTORY MARINE EXPLORER 2400 181 170 TWIN PUGET SOUND VICTORY MARINE MARINE COMMANDER 3500 185 55 SINGLE PUGET SOUND VICTORY MARINE PACIFIC VICTORY 3900 184 85 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT ALASKA MARINER 4000 73 116 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT OCEAN MARINER 3400 69 94 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT OCEAN NAVIGATOR 3600 70 94 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT OCEAN RANGER 4000 74 116 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT WESTERN MARINER 3200 68 90 TWIN 4 INVENTORY OF WEST COAST TUGBOATS HOME PORT COMPANY TUG NAME HP ID LOA BP(TONS) PROPULSION PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT WEST.NAVIGATOR 3600 71 94 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT WESTERN RANGER 3600 72 116 TWIN PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT WESTERN TITAN 4500 75 110 Z-DRIVE PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT WESTRAC 2400 66 76 Z-DRIVE PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT WESTRAC II 2400 67 79 Z-DRIVE PUGET SOUND WESTERN TOWBOAT PACIFIC TITAN N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A PUGET SOUND HARTLEY PACIFIC FALCON N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A SAN DIEGO CROWLEY SATURN 3500 121 91 28 AHEAD; 21 ASTERN TWIN SAN DIEGO CROWLEY SPARTAN 3500 120 91 28 AHEAD; 21 ASTERN TWIN SAN DIEGO MSC NAVAJO 3600 197 0 TWIN SAN DIEGO MSC SIOUX 3600 198 9 TWIN SAN DIEGO US NAVY USN - 1 0 191 0 35 SAN DIEGO US NAVY USN - 2 0 192 0 35 SAN DIEGO US NAVY USN - 3 0 193 0 35 SAN DIEGO US NAVY USN - 4 0 194 0 35 SAN DIEGO US NAVY USN - 5 0 195 0 35 SAN DIEGO US NAVY USN - 6 0 196 0 60 SAN FRANCISCO AMNAV ENTERPRISE 0 199 0 52 SAN FRANCISCO AMNAV TITAN 0 200 0 33 SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA DELTA CAREY 4400 24 105 64 Z-DRIVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA DELTA DEANNA 4400 25 105 71 Z-DRIVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA DELTA LINDA 4400 26 105 71 Z-DRIV E SAN FRANCISCO FOSS MARITIME ANDREW FOSS 4000 59 107 50 VOITH SAN FRANCISCO FOSS MARITIME BRYNN FOSS 3000 60 97 39 VOITH SAN FRANCISCO FOSS MARITIME RICHARD FOSS 3000 44 110 38 TWIN SAN FRANCISCO OSCAR NIEMETH AMERICAN EAGLE 0 201 0 57 SAN FRANCISCO OSCAR NIEMETH SEA EAGLE 0 202 0 24 SAN FRANCISCO OSCAR NIEMETH SILVER EAGLE 0 203 0 62 SAN FRANCISCO SEARIVER S/R CALLIFORNIA 7200 204 0 75 AHEAD SAN FRANCISCO SEARIVER S/R CARQUINEZ 4000 205 0 66 TWIN SAN FRAACISCO SEARIVER S/R MARE ISLAND 4400 27 105 64 Z-DRIVE SAN FRANCISCO SEAWAY TOWING MARIN SUNSHINE 0 207 0 24 SAN FRANCISCO WESTAR ORION 3000 76 100 34 AHEAD; 26 ASTERN TWIN SAN FRANCISCO WESTAR SAGITTARIAN 2000 77 79 25 AHEAD; 18 ASTERN TWIN WESTERN ALASKA CROWLEY SENECA 2900 118 106 30 AHEAD; 22 ASTERN TWIN WHITTIER CROWLEY PT. OLIKTOK 2100 125 90 24 AHEAD; 23 ASTERN TWIN/NOZZLE WRANGELL CAMPBELL MOGAL 2600 188 110 TWIN 5 INVENTORY OF WEST COAST TUGBOATS HOME PORT COMPANY TUG NAME HP ID LOA BP(TONS) PROPULSION WRANGELL CAMPBELL TOWING LT.CAMPBELL 3000 189 99 TWIN

6

Appendix H

West Coast Tug Inventory

2000/2001

EMERGENCY TOW VESSEL CAPABILITY MATRIX (BOLLARD PULL IN TONS)

Study Assisted Vessel Type/Size Moderate Weather Very Rough Weather (deadweight tons) Seas 10-20’, Winds 20-40 kts. Seas > 20’, Winds > 40 kts. Washington State Office of Marine All Types up to 180,000 Tons 100 150 Safety (Allan) Emergency Towing System Task Force Report, 19941 Canadian Council of Ministers of 265,000 Ton Tanker 42 (South BC) – 70 (North BC) 120 (South BC) – 220 (North BC) the Environment (Allan & Dickins) South BC = West Coast of A Review of Escort, Rescue and Vancouver Island Salvage towing Capability in North BC = Queen Charlottes & Canadian Waters, 19952 North Alaska Department of 265,000 Ton Tanker Not Addressed 90-125 Environmental Conservation Best Achievable Technology, 19973 Enhanced Puget Sound Tanker/Bulker International Tug of Opportunity <40,000 35-39 40-59 System (ITOS), 19984 40, 000 – 75,000 40-59 >60 75,000 – 125,000 >60 >60 125,000 – 250,000 >60 >60 Container/Cruise/Car Carrier <40,000 40-59 >60 40,000 – 75,000 >60 >60 75,000 – 125,000 >60 >60 125,000 – 250, 000 >60 >60 Reefer/RORO/Log <40,000 35-39 40-59 40,000 – 75,000 40-59 >60 Fishing <40,000 35-39 40-59 United Kingdom Emergency 265,000 Ton Tanker Not Addressed 125 Towing System, 19985

1 Worst Case Planning. Planning factor was the capability to effectively respond to 99% of vessels adrift in severe conditions (slightly less than Very Rough above). 2 Worst Case Planning. Planning factor was the capability to effectively respond to 94% of vessels adrift in severe conditions (slightly less than Very Rough above). 3 Worst Case Planning. Planning factors based on tank vessel and tow vessel operator experience and actual towing tests. 4 All Case Planning. Planning factors based on tow vessel operator experience. 5 Worst Case Planning. Planning factors based on actual emergency towing experience.

Rescue Vessel Equipment Requirements and Procedures

The process of performing a successful rescue of a disabled vessel, whether its mission is to hook up and stabilize the vessel and arrest its drift, or to actually hook up and tow the disabled vessel, is dependent upon a multitude of factors including the type and size of disabled vessel to be rescued; the existing weather and sea conditions the size, horsepower (bollard pull), propulsions and standard towing equipment available, and the urgency of the situation in terms of location and distance from shore.

• The basic equipment requirements for performing a rescue would typically include: 1. 600’ of 8” polypropylene float line; 2. a line throwing gun; 3. 1ea 150X2 ¼” wire pendants; 4. Orville Hook or special towing shackle which could choke the ship’s anchor chain; 5. 250’ X 14 “ nylon shock line; 6. 400’ X 1 1/4” wire 7. If all of the above equipment is not available, an oceangoing tugboat will typically have 7”to 7 ½”: deck lines, a winch and tow wire , and/ or Orville Hook that can be used to hook up to a disabled vessel’s anchor chain to provide interim assistance and arrest its drift, until such time as a suitable rescue vessel arrives to provide rescue towing assistance

• Providing the disabled vessel has a source of power and sea conditions allow, a rescue hook-up would involve the following steps: 1. Ship passes an appropriate deck line to the tug and hoists up 1 ea 150’X2 ¼” wire pennant which is connected to the rescue vessel’s surge chain which are connected to the rescue vessel’s tow wire--- a 250’ X 14” nylon shock line or the 10” shock lines can be used in addition to or in place of the rescue vessel’s surge chain. 2. If the disabled vessel doesn’t have power and sea conditions allow, the rescue vessel will lay alongside the disabled vessel and pass the polypropylene line or hard wire utilizing the rescue vessel’s winch, or; 3. The rescue vessel will utilize an Orville Hook or a special towing shackle which can securely choke a ship’s anchor chain to make a secure connection to the ship’s anchor chain; 4. If urgency is not an issue and there is an adequate amount of time, the rescue vessel running gear will be utilized to draw the ship’s anchor chain to the work deck of the rescue tug and the tugs surge chain will be connected to the anchor chain which ultimately will be connected to the rescue vessel’s tow wire.

Appendix I

Rescue Vessel Equipment Requirements and Procedures

EMERGENCY TOW VESSEL CAPABILITY MATRIX

Appendix J TUG RESPONSE / DRIFT RATE ANALYSIS

Input to Model (Monterey Bay )

•Response Locations •Tug Speed of Advance (SOA) - 10 knots •5 & 18 Mile Buffer from Shoreline •Worst Case Drift Rates •Average Case Drift Rates

TUG RESPONSE / DRIFT RATE ANALYSIS

Output from Model

•Tug SOA Circles •Vessel Wind Drift Lines •Intersection of Adjacent Tug SOA Circles •Intersection of “Circles / Drift Lines”

#

Response Locations •Prince William Sound •Puget Sound #

•Columbia River # •Coos Bay •Humboldt Bay # •San Francisco #

•Los Angeles / Long Beach # •San Diego # #

INTERSECTION OF TUG SOA $ CIRCLES

•6-Hour Circles $ •10 knot SOA

$

$ $

#

Wind Speed Zones

Zone 1

Zone 2 # #

#

Zone 3 #

# Zone 4 # Zone 5 #

Onshore Vessel Drift Rate •Zone 1 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 3.6 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 1.1 knots •Zone 2 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 2.97 knot •Average Case Drift Rate - 1.3 knots •Zone 3 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 3.6 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 1.0 knots •Zone 4 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 2.97 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 0.8 knots •Zone 5 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 2.43 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 0.8 knots

#

Onshore Vessel Drift Rate # #

#

#

#

# #

INTERSECTION OF # #

# “CIRCLES / DRIFT $ #

LINES” #

# $

#

#

$

#

#

#

#

#

$ #

# #

100 Miles

SUMMARY OF 216 Miles WORST CASE INTERSECTION OF # 48 Miles # “CIRCLES / DRIFT 36 Miles # LINES” (Revised) 37 Miles # 48 Miles #

58 Miles # #

#

30 Miles

SUMMARY OF 60 Miles AVERAGE CASE INTERSECTION OF # 27 Miles # “CIRCLES / DRIFT 20 Miles LINES” (Revised) # 20 Miles # 15 Miles #

18 Miles # #

#

SUMMARY OF

WORST / AVERAGE #

CASE INTERSECTION #

OF “CIRCLES / DRIFT LINES” #

#

#

# #

OBSERVATIONS •Tug Response / Drift Rate Model •Dynamic •Drift Rate •Tug Location •Tug SOA

•5 & 18 Mile Buffer Adjustable •Tug Readiness •Tug Location (Harbor)

•Worst Case Drift Rate •36 – 216 Miles Offshore

•Average Case Drift Rate •15 – 60 Miles Offshore •Approximates Current Offshore Traffic Patterns

Appendix J TUG RESPONSE / DRIFT RATE ANALYSIS

Input to Model (Monterey Bay )

•Response Locations •Tug Speed of Advance (SOA) - 10 knots •5 & 18 Mile Buffer from Shoreline •Worst Case Drift Rates •Average Case Drift Rates

TUG RESPONSE / DRIFT RATE ANALYSIS

Output from Model

•Tug SOA Circles •Vessel Wind Drift Lines •Intersection of Adjacent Tug SOA Circles •Intersection of “Circles / Drift Lines”

#

Response Locations •Prince William Sound •Puget Sound #

•Columbia River # •Coos Bay •Humboldt Bay # •San Francisco #

•Los Angeles / Long Beach # •San Diego # #

INTERSECTION OF TUG SOA $ CIRCLES

•6-Hour Circles $ •10 knot SOA

$

$ $

#

Wind Speed Zones

Zone 1

Zone 2 # #

#

Zone 3 #

# Zone 4 # Zone 5 #

Onshore Vessel Drift Rate •Zone 1 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 3.6 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 1.1 knots •Zone 2 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 2.97 knot •Average Case Drift Rate - 1.3 knots •Zone 3 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 3.6 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 1.0 knots •Zone 4 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 2.97 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 0.8 knots •Zone 5 •Worst Case Drift Rate - 2.43 knots •Average Case Drift Rate - 0.8 knots

#

Onshore Vessel Drift Rate # #

#

#

#

# #

INTERSECTION OF # #

# “CIRCLES / DRIFT $ #

LINES” #

# $

#

#

$

#

#

#

#

#

$ #

# #

100 Miles

SUMMARY OF 216 Miles WORST CASE INTERSECTION OF # 48 Miles # “CIRCLES / DRIFT 36 Miles # LINES” (Revised) 37 Miles # 48 Miles #

58 Miles # #

#

30 Miles

SUMMARY OF 60 Miles AVERAGE CASE INTERSECTION OF # 27 Miles # “CIRCLES / DRIFT 20 Miles LINES” (Revised) # 20 Miles # 15 Miles #

18 Miles # #

#

SUMMARY OF

WORST / AVERAGE #

CASE INTERSECTION #

OF “CIRCLES / DRIFT LINES” #

#

#

# #

OBSERVATIONS •Tug Response / Drift Rate Model •Dynamic •Drift Rate •Tug Location •Tug SOA

•5 & 18 Mile Buffer Adjustable •Tug Readiness •Tug Location (Harbor)

•Worst Case Drift Rate •36 – 216 Miles Offshore

•Average Case Drift Rate •15 – 60 Miles Offshore •Approximates Current Offshore Traffic Patterns

Appendix K

WEST COAST OFFSHORE VESSEL TRAFFIC RISK MANAGEMENT RELATIVE RANKING/RISK INDEXING WORKSHEET

1. Volume of Oil/Vessel Design Factor Ship Type Risk Credit Scoring Notes Laden Tanker (single hull) 10 * Those vessels with Laden Barge (single hull) 9 double propulsion and Tanker (ballast, single hull) 8 steering systems Large Cargo/Passenger (single hull) 7 (applies to all cruise Large Fishing Vessel (single hull) 6 ships and includes tug Laden Tanker (double hull) 5 & tow) shall get a Laden Barge (double hull) 4 "credit" of negative two Tanker (ballast, double hull) 3 points to be added to Large Cargo/Passenger (double hull) 2 their Risk Factor Value Large Fishing Vessel (double hull) 1 determined above. * Redundant Propulsion & Steering -2 Systems

2. Drift Factor Drift Rate of the Ship Risk Credit Scoring Notes High Surface Effect (8~10% of wind spd) 10 Cruise ships & most Medium Surface Effect (5~7%) 6 cargo vessels generally Low Surface Effect (2~4%) 2 have a high surface effect, fishing vessels medium & laden tankers medium to low.

3. Higher Collision Hazard Factor Areas Causing Re-routing Risk Credit Scoring Notes Known areas where vessels are not 10 If more than one factor simply transiting between ports, crossing applies, choose the traffic lanes due to operation, e.g. highest. engaged in fishing, dredging, etc. Transition/Intersecting Zones 9 Lightering Areas (San Diego) 7 Drill Rig Platform Areas (AK, CA) 5 Areas to be Avoided 3 Cruise Ship Loitering Areas (San Diego) 2 Military Op Areas (e.g. Ranges) 1

4. Distance Offshore Factor Distances Offshore Risk Credit Scoring Notes 3 ~ 12 nm 10 * If location of the 13 ~ 15 nm 9 scenario is within one of 16 ~ 20 nm 8 the routing measures 21 ~ 30 nm 6 already in place to reduce risk as listed, apply the 31 ~ 40 nm 5 negative value to “lower” 40 ~ 50 nm 4 the risk value. If two Greater than 50 nm 1 negative values apply, * Tanker Exclusion Zone (BC) or -1 apply the higher value Shipping Safety Fairways (PWS & Unimak) (lower negative number), * VTS Op Areas/TSS Area; -2 i.e. the negative numbers 25 nm AWO Tank Barge Track; are not to be cumulative. 50 nm ANS Crude Oil Track (WSPA); or MBNMS Recommended Tracks

5. Weather/Seasonal Factor Weather/Seasons Risk Credit Scoring Notes Winter (Alaska, British Columbia) 10 Each scenario should Winter (Oregon, Washington, Nor Cal.) 9 have all four seasons Winter (Southern California) 8 covered. Autumn/Spring (AK, BC) 8 Autumn/Spring (OR, WA, Nor CA) 7 Autumn/Spring (Southern California) 5 Summer (AK, BC) 4 Summer (OR, WA, Nor CA) 2 Summer (Southern California) 1

6. Tug Availability Factor Tug Availability (@ 10kt avg. Speed) Risk Credit Scoring Notes 2 or more days 10 Refer to the Assist Up to 1 1/2 days 8 Vessel Response Time 19 ~ 24 hours 6 Contour Maps 13 ~ 18 hours 4 (Appendix H of the 7 ~ 12 hours 2 Report). 6 or less hours 1

7. Coastal Route/Density Factor Transits Over One Year Period Risk Credit Scoring Notes Over 5000 vessel transits 10 * Scenario should be in 4000 ~ 4999 vessel transits 7 one of the nine coastline 3000 ~ 3999 vessel transits 5 sections listed below, then 2000 ~ 2999 vessel transits 3 apply the appropriate traffic density total. Less than 2000 transits 1

* Total transits by section are based on Vessel Arrival data (Appendix D): 1) Alaska Coastline to BC = 2211 annual transits 2) BC coastline between AK and Juan de Fuca = 2527 3) Juan de Fuca to Grays Harbor = 4221 4) Grays Harbor to Columbia River = 4188 5) Columbia River to Coos Bay = 3694 6) Coos Bay to Humboldt Bay = 3658 7) Humboldt Bay to San Francisco Bay = 3668 8) San Francisco to LA/LB = 4604 9) LA/LB to San Diego = 2615

8. Historical Casualty Factor Total # of Casualties / # of Vsl Transits Risk Credit Scoring Notes Fishing Vessel (0.384%) 10 * See below. Oil Tanker (0.091%) and Oil Barge 3 (0.074%) Cargo Ship & Misc. vessels (0.054%) and 2 Passenger Ships (0.024%) Cargo (Freight) Barge (0.019%) 1 * Note that our data collected an eight-year casualty record (1992~1999) while we only have a one-year vessel transit record (summer of 1998 to summer of 1999), therefore, the number of casualties was divided by eight to obtain a rough average of the yearly vessel casualties. This number was then used to divide into the number of transits of individual vessel types to calculate the percentages of casualty rates. Highest casualty rate being 0.384% (factor value of 10) with lowest at 0.019% (factor value of 1), the values in between were assigned proportionately.

9. Environmental Sensitivity Factor Shorelines Range of Factor Values Notes Higher Risk -- * A "Point of Concern" - Offshore areas of nat'l significance, 10 refers to those areas that e.g. U.S. Marine Sanctuaries and will have more of an Canadian Marine Nat'l Parks environmental impact than other shoreline, for - 50 nm from point of concern* 8 example in vicinity of Average Risk -- bays & rivers due to their - 50 nm from shore 6 sensitivity threshold. Lower Risk 2

Relative Ranking Scoring Scheme

Degree of Risk Score Less/Lower Risk Less than or equal to 36 points total Average/Medium Risk Between 37 ~ 52 points total More/Higher Risk Greater than or equal to 53 points total

Appendix L

Risk Scenarios Expanded Risk Scenarios Mapped Risk Zones Alaska Region AK Scenario 1 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Double-hulled Vessel is 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 3 4) 45 miles offshore, tank ship, in inbound to 2) Drift 2 following WSPA ballast Valdez from 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 agreement San Francisco; 4) Distance Offshore 2 loses power in Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 Vicinity of 6) Tug Availability 10 Sitka 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 6 9) Environmental Sensitivity 8 43 Spring/Autumn 8 41 Summer 4 37

AK Scenario 2 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Single hulled; Outbound fm 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 4) 75 nm offshore laden tankship Cook Inlet to 2) Drift 2 following WSPA Juan de Fuca; 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 agreement vsl loses 4) Distance Offshore -1 power off of Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 Glacier Bay 6) Tug Availability 8 National Park 7) Coastal Route Density 2 region 8) Historical Casualty 6 9) Environmental Sensitivity 2 39 Spring/Autumn 8 37 Summer 4 33

AK Scenario 3 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Single hulled In transit fm 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 7 4) 15 nm offshore cargo vessel Homer to 2) Drift 6 Seattle; vsl 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 loses power in 4) Distance Offshore 9 Glacier Bay Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 area 6) Tug Availability 8 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 4 9) Environmental Sensitivity 8 54 Spring/Autumn 8 52 Summer 4 48

AK Scenario 4 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments single hulled, In transit fm LA 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 7 4) 75 nm offshore cargo vessel to Kodiak; vsl 2) Drift 6 following Shipping loses power in 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 Safety Fairway vicinity of Sitka 4) Distance Offshore 1 Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 6) Tug Availability 10 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 4 9) Environmental Sensitivity 2 42 Spring/Autumn 8 40 Summer 4 36

AK Scenario 5 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Cruise Ship Enroute to 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 7 4) 25 nm offshore Seward fm LA; 2) Drift 10 loss of power 3) Higher Collision Hazard 9 off of 4) Distance Offshore 6 Montague Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 5) note cruises are Island 6) Tug Availability 1 typically in summer 7) Coastal Route Density 2 season only 8) Historical Casualty 1 9) Environmental Sensitivity 8 54 Spring/Autumn 8 52 Summer 4 48

AK Scenario 6 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Cruise Ship Enroute Cook 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 7 Inlet fm 2) Drift 10 Juneau; vsl 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 loses power 25 4) Distance Offshore 6 nm SE of Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 5) note cruises are Chugach 6) Tug Availability 1 typically in summer Island, Kenai 7) Coastal Route Density 2 season only Peninsula 8) Historical Casualty 1 9) Environmental Sensitivity 10 47 Spring/Autumn 8 45 Summer 4 41

AK Scenario 7 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments LPG Carrier; Outbound fm 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 5 double hulled Nikiski enroute 2) Drift 2 to LA; vsl loses 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 power 38 nm 4) Distance Offshore 6 off Cape Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 Spencer, 6) Tug Availability 8 Cross Sound 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 4 9) Environmental Sensitivity 6 43 Spring/Autumn 8 41 Summer 4 37

AK Scenario 8 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Fish processor In transit fm 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 6 Portland to 2) Drift 6 Kodiak; vsl 3) Higher Collision Hazard 9 loses power 4) Distance Offshore 5 35nm south of Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 Montague 6) Tug Availability 1 Island 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 10 9) Environmental Sensitivity 8 57 Spring/Autumn 8 55 Summer 4 51

AK Scenario 9 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Fishing Vsl Enroute fm 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 6 Cordova to 2) Drift 6 Seattle; vsl 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 loses power 70 4) Distance Offshore 1 nm west of Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 Cape Muzon 6) Tug Availability 10 (southern tip of 7) Coastal Route Density 2 Dall Island, 8) Historical Casualty 10 Dixon 9) Environmental Sensitivity 2 47 entrance) Spring/Autumn 8 45 Summer 4 41

AK Scenario 10 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments Fully laden Enroute to 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 9 Tank Barge & Yakutat fm 2) Drift 2 tow Juneau; vsl 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 loses power 20 4) Distance Offshore 8 nm off Cape Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 Fairweather 6) Tug Availability 6 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 5 9) Environmental Sensitivity 8 50 Spring/Autumn 8 48 Summer 4 44

AK Scenario 11 Vessel Location Season Risk Factors Pts Pts Total Comments single laden enroute to 1) Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 9) Point of concern = tankship Cook Inlet, 2) Drift 6 Chugach Nat'l Park loses pwr 3) Higher Collision Hazard 0 25nm SE of 4) Distance Offshore 6 Chugach Winter 5) Weather/Seasonal 10 6) Tug Availability 6 7) Coastal Route Density 2 8) Historical Casualty 6 9) Environmental Sensitivity 8 54 Spring/Autumn 8 52 Summer 4 48 California's Higher Risk & Average Scenarios

Washington/Oregon and British Columbia's Higher Risk & Average Risk Scenarios

Alaska's Higher & Average Risk Scenarios Alaska

* Although factors 1, 2 & 8 will vary, the totals (in effect, the risk zones) for cargo/passenger vessels are close enough to tankers to be considered the same. HOMER (Perl Island) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 6666662222226666664) -2 pts applied to 3. Higher Collision Hazard 000000000000000000vsls at WSPA/AWO 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 1 1 agreed distances 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (>50nm for laden (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888tankers & >25nm for (Summer) 444444444444444444AWO tug barges) 6. Tug Availability 111244111244111244 7. Coastal Route Density 3333333333333333336) tug out of Cook 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010Inlet 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 51 50 47 46 37 37 46 45 42 41 32 32 54 53 50 49 42 42 Total (Spring/Autumn) 49 48 45 44 35 35 44 43 40 39 30 30 52 51 48 47 40 40 Total (Summer) 45 44 41 40 31 31 40 39 36 35 26 26 48 47 44 43 36 36 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 46 45 42 41 32 32 41 40 37 36 27 27 49 48 45 44 37 37 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 44 43 40 39 30 30 39 38 35 34 25 25 47 46 43 42 35 35 " " Total (Summer) 40 39 36 35 26 26 35 34 31 30 21 21 43 42 39 38 31 31

SEWARD (Rugged Island) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 666666222222666666 3. Higher Collision Hazard 000000000000000000 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 1 1 4) -2 pts applied to 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vsls at WSPA/AWO (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888agreed distances (Summer) 444444444444444444 6. Tug Availability 1222241222241222246) tug out of Prince 7. Coastal Route Density 333333333333333333William Sound 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 51 51 48 46 35 37 46 46 43 41 30 32 54 54 51 49 40 42 Total (Spring/Autumn) 49 49 46 44 33 35 44 44 41 39 28 30 52 52 49 47 38 40 Total (Summer) 45 45 42 40 29 31 40 40 37 35 24 26 48 48 45 43 34 36 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 46 46 43 41 30 32 41 41 38 36 25 27 49 49 46 44 35 37 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 44 44 41 39 28 30 39 39 36 34 23 25 47 47 44 42 33 35 " " Total (Summer) 40 40 37 35 24 26 35 35 32 30 19 21 43 43 40 38 29 31 Alaska

CORDOVA (Pt Whitshed) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 666666222222666666 3. Higher Collision Hazard 0000000000000000004) Safety Fairway at 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 8 5 4 1 1 21 nm offshore 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4) -2 pts applied to (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888vsls at WSPA/AWO (Summer) 444444444444444444agreed distances 6. Tug Availability 1112241112241112246) tug out of Prince 7. Coastal Route Density 333333333333333333William Sound 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 51 50 47 46 35 37 46 45 42 41 30 32 54 52 49 49 40 42 Total (Spring/Autumn) 49 48 45 44 33 35 44 43 40 39 28 30 52 50 47 47 38 40 Total (Summer) 45 44 41 40 29 31 40 39 36 35 24 26 48 46 43 43 34 36 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 46 45 42 41 30 32 41 40 37 36 25 27 49 47 44 44 35 37 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 44 43 40 39 28 30 39 38 35 34 23 25 47 45 42 42 33 35 " " Total (Summer) 40 39 36 35 24 26 35 34 31 30 19 21 43 41 38 38 29 31

YAKUTAT (Ocean Cape) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 666666222222666666 3. Higher Collision Hazard 000000000000000000 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 1 1 4) -2 pts applied to 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vsls at WSPA/AWO (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888agreed distances (Summer) 444444444444444444 6. Tug Availability 6666686666686666686) tug out of Prince 7. Coastal Route Density 333333333333333333William Sound 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 56 55 52 50 39 41 51 50 47 45 34 36 59 58 55 53 44 46 Total (Spring/Autumn) 54 53 50 48 37 39 49 48 45 43 32 34 57 56 53 51 42 44 Total (Summer) 50 49 46 44 33 35 45 44 41 39 28 30 53 52 49 47 38 40 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 51 50 47 45 34 36 46 45 42 40 29 31 54 53 50 48 39 41 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 49 48 45 43 32 34 44 43 40 38 27 29 52 51 48 46 37 39 " " Total (Summer) 45 44 41 39 28 30 40 39 36 34 23 25 48 47 44 42 33 35 Alaska

GLACIER BAY (Cp Spencer) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 666666222222666666 3. Higher Collision Hazard 000000000000000000 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 1 1 4) -2 pts applied to 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vsls at WSPA/AWO (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888agreed distances (Summer) 444444444444444444 6. Tug Availability 8888888888888888886) tug out of Prince 7. Coastal Route Density 333333333333333333William Sound 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 58 57 54 52 41 41 53 52 49 47 36 36 61 60 57 55 46 46 Total (Spring/Autumn) 56 55 52 50 39 39 51 50 47 45 34 34 59 58 55 53 44 44 Total (Summer) 52 51 48 46 35 35 47 46 43 41 30 30 55 54 51 49 40 40 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 53 52 49 47 36 36 48 47 44 42 31 31 56 55 52 50 41 41 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 51 50 47 45 34 34 46 45 42 40 29 29 54 53 50 48 39 39 " " Total (Summer) 47 46 43 41 30 30 42 41 38 36 25 25 50 49 46 44 35 35

SITKA (Cape Edgecumbe) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 666666222222666666 3. Higher Collision Hazard 000000000000000000 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 1 1 4) -2 pts applied to 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vsls at WSPA/AWO (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888agreed distances (Summer) 444444444444444444 6. Tug Availability 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6) tug out of Prince 7. Coastal Route Density 333333333333333333William Sound 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 60 59 56 54 43 43 55 54 51 49 38 38 63 62 59 57 48 48 Total (Spring/Autumn) 58 57 54 52 41 41 53 52 49 47 36 36 61 60 57 55 46 46 Total (Summer) 54 53 50 48 37 37 49 48 45 43 32 32 57 56 53 51 42 42 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 55 54 51 49 38 38 50 49 46 44 33 33 58 57 54 52 43 43 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 53 52 49 47 36 36 48 47 44 42 31 31 56 55 52 50 41 41 " " Total (Summer) 49 48 45 43 32 32 44 43 40 38 27 27 52 51 48 46 37 37 Alaska

Craig (Cape Bartolome) Laden Tankers (*Cargo & Passenger Vsls) Laden Tank Barge Fishing Vessels Comments Risk Factors <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm <12 nm 15 nm 25 nm 50 nm 75 nm 100 nm 1. Vol Oil/Vessel Design 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9999666666 2. Drift 666666222222666666 3. Higher Collision Hazard 000000000000000000 4. Distance Offshore 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 -1 -1 10 9 6 4 1 1 4) -2 pts applied to 5. Weather/Seasonal (Winter) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vsls at WSPA/AWO (Spring/Autumn) 888888888888888888agreed distances (Summer) 444444444444444444 6. Tug Availability 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6) tug out of Prince 7. Coastal Route Density 333333333333333333William Sound 8. Historical Casualty 333333333333101010101010 9. Environmental Sensitivity 888822888822888822 Total (winter) 60 59 56 54 43 43 55 54 51 49 38 38 63 62 59 57 48 48 Total (Spring/Autumn) 58 57 54 52 41 41 53 52 49 47 36 36 61 60 57 55 46 46 Total (Summer) 54 53 50 48 37 37 49 48 45 43 32 32 57 56 53 51 42 42 If Double Hull - Total (winter) 55 54 51 49 38 38 50 49 46 44 33 33 58 57 54 52 43 43 " " Total (Spring/Autumn) 53 52 49 47 36 36 48 47 44 42 31 31 56 55 52 50 41 41 " " Total (Summer) 49 48 45 43 32 32 44 43 40 38 27 27 52 51 48 46 37 37

Laden Tankers/Cargo/Passenger Vessels -- Alaska

Homer Cordova Seward

50 50 Yakutat 100 15

100 Glacier Bay 50 25

50 Sitka

Craig 100 50

The factor contributing to this higher-risk area for laden tankers, cargo ships, and passenger vessels is mainly the lack of rescue tugs at homeports in the area. The only ocean-going rescue tug stationed in this area is at Hinchinbrook entrance to Prince William Sound. It is important to note that the scenarios graphed here are all for single-hull, laden vessels operating during the winter season – in other words, worst case scenarios.

Laden Tankers/Cargo/Passenger Vessels -- British Columbia

Langara Point 100 50

100 50 Tcenakun Point

50 Cape Saint James 100

15 Triangle Island 100

15 Solander Island 100

Estevan Point 100 25 Amphitrite Point 50

Off of British Columbia the Higher risk for these vessel types runs from

0 to 50 nautical miles offshore.

Off of Amphitrite Point, the risk is mainly due to the fact that the area

is a high transition/intersection zone for the entrance of the Strait of

Juan de Fuca, contributing to a higher collision hazard.

From Solander Island and further north, the risk is mainly due to the

distance from a designated rescue home-ported in Port Angeles.

Laden Tankers/Cargo/Passenger Vessels -- Washington/Oregon

25 100 Neah Bay

100 15 Queets Bay

100 25 Grays Harbor

100 25 Astoria

50 Newport

50 Coos Bay

Crescent City

Higher risk areas off Washington and Oregon extend from 25 nm off of

Neah Bay to 25 nm off Astoria and Gray’s harbor with a slight indentation to 15 nm off Queen’s Bay. The main risk factors are high vessel traffic density and busy intersection zones at the entrances to

the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Columbia River.

Laden Tankers/Cargo/Passenger Vessels -- California

Coos Bay

100 12 Crescent City

100 15 Humbolt Bay

50 12 Point Arena

25 San Francisco 100

Monterey Bay 100 15

100 15 San Luis Obispo 50 Point Arguello 100 Los Angeles 25 100 San Diego 100 15

In California, these vessels are at higher risk along the entire coastline, ranging from 12 nm off Crescent City to 15 nm off San Diego, with the higher risk area off Point Arguello extending to 50 nm. These higher risk areas are primarily caused by high vessel traffic density and busy transition zones. The increased risk off Point Arguello is due to the lack of rescue tugs home-ported nearer than San Francisco or LA/LB.

Laden Tank Barges -- Alaska

Homer Cordova Seward

50 50 50 Yakutat

15 50

Glacier Bay 50 12

Sitka 50 15

50 15 Craig

The higher risk area for laden tank barges in Alaska is relatively small,

extending only 12 to 15 nm out from Glacier Bay to Craig. Rescue tug

availability is still the major factor contributing to these higher risk

areas. However, laden tank barges are expected to have a significantly

lower drift rate than other vessels, thus lowering the overall risk scores.

Laden Tank Barges -- British Columbia

50 Langara Point 50 15

50 15 Tcenakun Point

50 12 Cape Saint James

50 Triangle Island

Solander Island 100

Estevan Point 100 Amphitrite Point 15 100

Off of British Columbia, the higher risk areas for laden tank barges were limited to approximately 15 nm off of Amphitrite Point and to 12 to

15 nm off of Graham Island (Cape St. James to Langara Point). The higher risk off of Amphitrite Point is due to higher collision risk factors.

Off of Graham Island, the risk is due to lack of rescue tug availability.

Laden Tank Barges -- Washington/Oregon

50 15 Neah Bay

50 12 Queets Bay

50 15 Grays Harbor

50 25 Astoria

50 Newport

50 Coos Bay

Crescent City

Higher risk regions for Washington and Oregon extended from 15 nm

off of Neah Bay to 25 nm seaward of Astoria. These higher risk zones for laden tank barges are identical to those for tankers and cargo and passenger vessels due to high traffic density and busy transition points.

Laden Tank Barges -- California

Coos Bay

50 Crescent City

50 Humbolt Bay

50 Point Arena

50 25 San Francisco

50 Monterey Bay

100 San Luis Obispo 100 15 Point Arguello

25 Los Angeles 75

12 San Diego 50

In California, laden tank barges were at higher risk off San Francisco and between Point Arguello and San Diego due to these areas being busy intersection/high traffic areas.

Fishing Vessels -- Alaska

Homer Cordova Seward

12 15 15 Yakutat

100 100 100 50 100 Glacier Bay 100 50

Sitka 100 50

100 50 Craig 100

Fishing vessels made up the last category of vessels graphed by the

Workgroup. Fishing vessels generally had a greater relative risk overall compared to other vessel categories, due to their historic casualty rates. Fishing vessels showed higher risk off the entire coast of Alaska generally due to rescue vessel response times being high.

Fishing Vessels -- British Columbia

100 Langara Point 50

100 5050 Tcenakun Point

Cape Saint James 100 50

15 Triangle Island 100 50

15 Solander Island 100 50

Estevan Point 12 100 Amphitrite Point

25 100

In the British Columbia area, fishing vessels were at higher risk

approximately 50 miles off the entire coast, narrowing to 12-25 miles in

the southern region of Vancouver Island. Contributing factors were

fishing vessels’ higher casualty rates and tug response times for remote

areas.

Fishing Vessels -- Washington/Oregon

100 25 Neah Bay

50 Queets Bay 100

100 50 Grays Harbor

100 25 Astoria

50 15 Newport

50 15 Coos Bay

Crescent City

In the Washington/Oregon area fishing vessels incurred higher risk

along the entire corridor, especially from Neah Bay to Astoria, with the highest risks off of Queets Bay and Grays Harbor, mainly due to higher rescue tug response times.

Fishing Vessels -- California

Coos Bay

100 15 Crescent City

100 15 Humbolt Bay

100 15 Point Arena

25 San Francisco 100

Monterey Bay 100 50

100 50 San Luis Obispo Point Arguello 100 100 Los Angeles 25 100 San Diego 50 50 100

In California, the higher risk areas for fishing vessels are similar to those for tanker/cargo/passenger vessels, with the same contributing factors: higher density and transition zones, and slower rescue tug

response times off Point Arguello. Appendix M

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WEST COAST OFFSHORE VESSEL TRAFFIC RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT WORKGROUP With Responses from the Project Workgroup

I. Public Outreach Schedule December 2001- March 2002 • 12/6/01: ALASKA Regional Response Team (ARRT)

• 12/7/01: Cook Inlet Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (CIRCAC) Board of Directors

• 12/11/01: US Coast Guard Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC)

• 1/9/02: Columbia River Ports and Waterways Safety Committee Meeting (CR PAWSC)

• 1/18/02: Olympic National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council (OLYNMSAC)

• 1/23/02: San Diego Harbor Safety Committee (SD HSC)

• 1/31/02: NW Regional Response Team and Area Committee (NWRRT)

• 2/5/02: California Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee (CA TAC)

• 2/6/02: LA Harbor Safety Committee, Los Angeles (LA HSC)

• 2/7/02: Western States Petroleum Association Marine Committee

• 2/13/02: Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee (PS HSC)

• 2/14/02: San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee, Oakland, CA (SF HSC)

• 2/27/02: Western Marine Community, Pacific Coast Marine Review Panel, Vancouver, British Columbia

• 3/6/02: California Coastal Commission (CCC)

• 3/15/02: American Waterways Operators, Pacific Region (AWO)

• 3/19/02: Canadian Maritime Advisory Council (CMAC)

• 3/20/02: California State Lands Commission Customer Service Meeting (CSLC)

• May,2002: Humboldt Bay Harbor Safety Committee

• Draft Findings and Recommendations were also available on the Pacific States/BC Oil Spill Task Force web site during the outreach period

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 1 II. Public Outreach Comments, organized by Risk Factor Topic, General Comments on the Study, and Other Comments are bulleted; responses from the Project Workgroup are in italics. Please Note: The full text of all written comments can be found in Section III below; all other comments captured here were verbal comments made at the presentations listed in Section I.

Regarding the Higher Collision Hazards Risk Factor • In response to questions, you said that the risk assessment did not take into consideration the increase to risk (of oil spills/accidents/collisions) if B.C. does open up our coast to oil exploration/drilling. (Jerry Hockin, written comment) The effect of offshore drilling on the BC coast was not considered because it is not yet a reality. The existence of offshore drilling along the CA coast was factored into the Higher Collision risk factor, so a similar adjustment could be made for the BC coastline, if necessary. In the meantime, we will note the interest in drilling off BC in the Future Projections section under Part III, “Defining the Risk” in the Final Project Report.

Regarding the Historic Casualty Risk Factor • Several verbal comments were made that the study should have considered crew and vessel histories, fuel type carried by vessels, and vessel owner/operator funding issues as part of the risk equation. • In response to questions, you said that the risk assessment did not take into consideration the age and state of maintenance of vessels (oil tankers, oil barges, or tugs) or the issue of false maritime documents, in crews of vessels with flags of convenience. (Jerry Hockin, written comment) The risk assessment considered vessel casualties rates by vessel type, but data on crew histories, owner/operator funding, and fuel types was not available in the historic casualty database. The risk assessment model which the Workgroup developed incorporated data which was available, including vessel design and amount of fuel carried by vessel type. But the risk assessment was not designed to focus on specific vessels or crews so much as on vessel types. • How did we include the human element in the risk assessment? How were ISM and STCW factored in? We considered the human element in the project report, and also considered the impact of ISM and STCW on human error, but noted in the Historic Casualty Findings that it’s too soon to tell whether there will be any reduction in casualties as a result of these international programs. • The Fishing Vessel Safety program does not focus on structural integrity issues as much as on human health/safety issues. The Workgroup recommends implementation of the US Coast Guard’s Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Action Plan. The eight long-term action items identified in the plan include completing a regulatory project on stability and watertight integrity for certain fishing vessels; improving casualty investigation and analysis; mandatory vessel examinations; and mandatory training-based certificate programs for operators and crews, all of which would help reduce overall fishing vessel casualty rates. • Were there any drift casualties in the historic data? Among the 96 incidents used by the USCG in the risk assessment, there were 14 engine failures, 15 incidents where a ship was “disabled,” and 19 which involved loss of steering, all of which could have ended in a drift grounding. In addition, there were three groundings, but no data is available to indicate whether these vessels drifted aground. The Workgroup noted that the drift routes of the bow of the M/V New Carissa and the M/T Atigun Pass provide further examples of what might occur when vessels drift during worst case wind events.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 2 • In response to questions, you said that the risk assessment did not take into consideration the availability of oil-spill clean-up equipment and supplies. (Jerry Hockin, written comment) It is not appropriate for a spill prevention study to include the availability of spill response equipment, although the costs of response were reviewed in the study as part of the economic consequences of a spill. It is worth noting that, thanks to regulations adopted by the West Coast states, all larger non-tank vessels, as well as all tank vessels operating in state waters must be covered by contingency plans and contracts with spill response organizations. All vessels, both tank and non-tank, over 400 gross tons operating in Canadian waters must have contracts with a spill response organization and carry a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP). In addition, all tank vessels in US territorial waters must be covered by contingency plans and contracts with spill response organizations.

Regarding the Tug Availability Risk Factor • Recheck the number of tugs in Prince William Sound; commenter says there are 10, not seven. The Workgroup recognizes that the tug inventory used for this study is a snapshot in time, and that the number of tugs home-ported in each West Coast port will change somewhat over time. They are confident, however, that the relative distribution of tug populations will remain constant over the next few years. Since they used only ports with a substantial tug population for the risk assessments, the Workgroup felt that the inventory data will be adequate. • Our risk projections assume availability of a tug in Neah Bay. The risk assessments specifically did NOT include the rescue tug at Neah Bay, since the Workgroup is aware that this tug is part-time and potentially temporary until funding issues are resolved. • Two comments were made expressing concern regarding who pays for rescue tugs and whether a dedicated rescue tug is necessary. Another commenter suggested that there should be a dedicated tug stationed in the Queen Charlotte Islands area of British Columbia. The Workgroup estimated that the annual operating cost of a dedicated tug would be approximately $2, 555,000, based upon the $7000/day cost for the tug at Neah Bay, Washington, which is only on station during the winter months. The State of Washington has recommended that the federal government assume costs of this tug. The Workgroup is recommending that a dedicated tug be considered as one alternative among several which a local or federal government could consider if tug availability risk is high in a specific area. • Was the possibility of rescue by vessels other than tugs considered? It was discussed, but the Workgroup recognized that the primary focus of any intervention by other vessels would be on crew safety more than vessel safety. Moreover, the availability of passing vessels is too uncertain to include as a risk variable. • There are also the issues of only one tug capable of responding, in heavy weather, for rescue purposes, between Washington State and Alaska. If that one tug was already involved in some other work, the whole coast of BC, with one of the longest coast lines in the world, would be at increased risk, as any rescue tug would have to travel that much farther. (Jerry Hockin, written comment) The project report indicates that a total of 21 tugs were inventoried in British Columbia ports; of these, four are considered capable of responding in severe weather conditions. In addition, there is a higher volume of working tugs transiting in between Puget Sound and Juneau than on any other section of the West Coast, according to International Tug of Opportunity (ITOS) data. • On the issue of setting up a fund for standby tugs, I would be totally opposed to the use of tax dollars for subsidizing what is a very profitable corporate sector, which can well afford to provide funds of their own. (Jerry Hockin, written comment) A decision to establish a tug stand-by fund is a local political decision based upon a region’s level of risk aversion. Funding recommendations were beyond the scope of this project.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 3 • We are cautious with regard to the International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS). We agree that having the type of information that ITOS provides is valuable, however given the caveats identified in the report we realize that this is just one spoke in the rescue tug wheel and should be treated as such. (C. Donaldson, written comment) The Workgroup agrees, and does treat any coastwise expansion of tug availability information as one element of overall risk reduction to be accomplished by their final recommendations in toto. • The (Olympic NMS) Advisory Council believes that oil spills from tankers, tank barges, cargo vessels and large fishing vessels form the greatest single risk from the Columbia River to the north end of Vancouver Island. We recommend more emphasis on the following recommendation to address areas of special concern to the Sanctuary: “Investigate dedicated/stand-by tug/regulatory alternatives.” As noted above, the Workgroup feels that the use of these alternatives is a local or federal political decision. The final wording of the recommendation was changed to emphasize that the Workgroup recommends consideration of any or all of these mechanisms if state, provincial, or federal governments wish to reduce the risks associated with tug availability in their regions.

Regarding the Distance Offshore Risk Factor • Smaller boats don’t want to go further offshore during worst case weather; they want to head to refuges along the coastline. The Workgroup added a statement to their Distance Offshore Recommendation stating that “Nothing in these voluntary minimum distance offshore recommendations is intended to preclude a vessel master from taking prudent action for the safety of the vessel and its crew.” • Changes to the Coast Pilot are easy to implement and available to the mariner electronically. The Workgroup adopted a recommendation to the US and Canadian Coast Guards that the recommended voluntary minimum distances from shore be communicated to mariners by placing the text of these recommendations in the Coast Pilot for the US West Coast and the Sailing Directions for the Canadian West Coast. Furthermore, they recommended that notes be placed on navigation charts for the US and Canadian West Coasts to reference the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions, to be repeated at headlands, which indicate the voluntary minimum distances offshore and refer the mariner to the Coast Pilot and Sailing Directions for further details. • Consider electronic mapping of distance off shore or any other recommendations that required chart mark up. The Workgroup would expect the two Coast Guards to work with the appropriate charting agencies in the US and Canada to find the most expeditious and effective means of communicating its recommendations to mariners, per their recommendations to us the Coast Pilot, Sailing Directions, and notes on charts. • I believe therefore, in the interests of protecting the environment, that the minimum distance from shore, of all oil carrying marine traffic, should, instead of the 30 mile from shore zone (aka "Tanker exclusion zone"), that the study favors, should be a minimum of 100 miles. (Jerry Hockin, written comment) The Workgroup adopted a recommendation that all tank ships carrying crude oil or persistent petroleum products voluntarily transit at least 50 nautical miles (nm) off the West Coast, except where other management measures such as the Canadian Tanker Exclusion Zone already exist or when entering/departing from ports. The Workgroup further recommended that laden tank barges, tank ships in ballast or carrying non-persistent products, and all cargo, passenger, and fishing vessels 300 GT or larger voluntarily transit a minimum of 25 nm offshore, except where other management measures already exist. The Workgroup did not feel that the study data supported recommendations for transits further offshore. • Regarding the distance offshore risk factor, we are more likely to support the recommendation that a minimum offshore distance of 30 nautical miles be maintained in the identified “higher

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 4 risk” areas rather than 25 miles from land along the entire West Coast. We would include in this recommendation a caveat with regard to adverse weather conditions such as: …the workgroup suggests that a minimum offshore distance of 30 nautical miles be recommended for those areas in anticipation of or during adverse weather conditions. (C. Donaldson, written comment) Weather was one risk factor used in the development of the “higher risk areas.” These higher risk areas were generally inside a line 25 nm offshore. As noted above, the Workgroup adopted a recommendation that all tank ships carrying crude oil or persistent petroleum products voluntarily transit at least 50 nautical miles (nm) off the West Coast, except where other management measures such as the Canadian Tanker Exclusion Zone already exist or when entering/departing from ports. The Workgroup further recommended that laden tank barges, tank ships in ballast or carrying non-persistent products, and all cargo, passenger, and fishing vessels 300 GT or larger voluntarily transit a minimum of 25 nm offshore, except where other management measures already exist. The Workgroup felt that distance offshore recommendations that varied with weather conditions would be too inconsistent to be good public policy. • The Advisory Council supports Minimum Distance Offshore Proposal #1: “25 nm voluntary minimum distance for entire coast and show Higher Risk areas on charts and publications.” In any case, display of minimum distance offshore on the charts is essential to the effective implementation of either proposal. (Olympic National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, written comment) Please reference replies to the previous comments above.

Regarding the Study Design/Data/Process • Although we don’t include the Inside Passage in the study, it should extend to the BC coastline around the Queen Charlotte Islands, where it’s actually exposed to the open ocean. The study did treat that area as open ocean, since the tug response time analysis used the closest point of land, which in this case, was inside the Inside Passage. • How absolute are your numbers? What’s the margin of error? Can you estimate risk in terms of probability? The risk assessment model shows higher risk areas as based on nine risk factors, not the probability of a casualty occurring. The tool used is called the Relative Ranking/Risk Indexing model, which ranks risk under each of the nine factors and then applied the resultant index to scenarios and extrapolated these over a wide geographic area to develop the “higher risk” areas. • How reliable is the casualty data? As reliable as the information put in, and that does leave gaps with regard to causes and outcomes, thus our final recommendations regarding improvements to databases address these problems. • Why were collision risks included in the study if the primary focus was on preventing drift groundings? The project goal was expanded by the Workgroup at their first meeting, in recognition of the fact that collisions are a component of offshore risks which had to be considered in the design of the risk assessment as well as the final recommendations. • MSIS data doesn’t include foreign-flag vessel casualties unless they occur within the territorial sea of US or Canada (12 nautical miles). This is true, so the reported casualty figures we had to work with are conservative. • The shoreline should start further out to include sea stacks off Olympic National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) coast. The study overall was focused on the offshore, which we defined as 3 to 200 nm from shore. Some of the Olympic NMS coastal features are further offshore than 3 miles, and would have been included in this study area. The Tug Availability model would not have included environmental

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 5 features, however, since used drift rate and tug speed of advance from its homeport. The Relative Ranking/Risk Indexing model did include environmental sensitivity as one factor, so this area would have scored high based upon its National Marine Sanctuary designation, thus increasing the emphasis on it being a higher risk area. • Drift rates are directly east to west and don’t conform to land shapes. Drift contours in the tug availability risk assessment do conform to land shapes. The drift rates include the onshore wind component, with a 22 degree variable north to south. But the wind data, like all data in the study, is taken at a macro level and doesn’t consider local variables. • There was insufficient environmental participation on the Workgroup. The Workgroup regrets that, of the four public interest environmental organizations invited to participate as Workgroup members, only two were able to provide representatives over the full three year span of this project. We understand that public interest groups may have fewer staff and other resources to assign to such projects, and therefore must prioritize their involvement. We rotated our meetings between West Coast locations in order to enhance participation opportunities for members, and we varied between meetings and conference calls for the same reason. In addition, we have made interim reports available annually, and scheduled extensive public outreach after development of the draft findings and recommendations. It should be noted that representatives from state and federal public agencies also represented the public interest. Fully participating agencies included the US and Canadian Coast Guards, NOAA (both Hazmat and National Marine Sanctuaries), the BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, the Washington Department of Ecology, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response, and the California Coastal Commission. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Transport Canada also monitored the project and/or participated as possible based upon their resource availability. • Did the salvage community participate on the workgroup? (NW RRT) West Coast tug companies with rescue tug assets were represented by Jerry McMahon of AWO, but salvage vessel operators not members of AWO were not. Our focus was on rescue tugs to prevent groundings requiring salvage. • Did vessel masters participate on the workgroup? (NW RRT) Yes, a number of our Workgroup members have been or still work as vessel masters. • Did the Navy and SUPSALV participate? (NW RRT) The US Navy was represented by Sven Eklof and the Canadian naval forces by LT Jon Treen, but SUPSALV was not formally represented. As noted above, our focus was on rescue tugs to prevent groundings requiring salvage. • One commenter questioned why a large fishing vessel ranked above a double hulled tanker on the worksheet for “Volume of Oil/Vessel Design Factor.” Under this risk factor, the Workgroup defined the risk as the vessel going aground and the hull being breached in such a manner that oil leaked out. If the oil didn't leak out it wouldn’t matter how much the vessel was carrying, so we considered single hulls as more likely to be breached than double hulls. • Were any representatives from Humboldt Bay involved in the project? Not directly; their interests were intended to be represented by the California representatives. • Was the Port Hueneme Harbor Safety Committee given a presentation? The Director of Port Hueneme attended the California Coastal Commission presentation. He declined an offer for a presentation at Port Hueneme (which has no active Harbor Safety Committee), but was provided with copies of the Interim Report and full text of the draft Findings and Recommendations. • The study didn't seem to assign a risk "value" to single hull oil barges; which is most, if not all, of the present oil barges in BC (Jerry Hockin, written comment) A laden barge, single hull is ranked a 9 out of a possible 10 on the risk scoring worksheet.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 6 • It would be helpful to have information on the number of tankers not covered [by the WSPA agreement] to illustrate the risk and need for universal compliance. We recommend the Task Force gather that information as soon as possible and add it to the report. (Olympic NMS Advisory Council written comment) The Workgroup discussed this suggestion, but it was made moot by their final recommendation that all tank ships laden with crude oil or persistent petroleum products voluntarily stay a minimum distance of 50 nm offshore, which is the essence of the current WSPA agreement. Now all non-WSPA tank ships will be subject to the same voluntary paradigm. • Putting a [helicopter] system similar to the Columbia River Bar Pilots and Gray's Harbor Pilots at every port in the United States would be the most dramatic and cost effective way to keep the oil off of the beaches ever devised. Rotterdam has had this in place since 1986 with zero defects, and they are the busiest port in the world. I think your task force skipped over this terrific advance in their study. (Captain Worth, Columbia River Bar Pilots, written comment) For the purpose of this study, the relevance of access to disabled vessels via helicopter seems to be a larger issue than whether that helicopter is operated by a pilot organization or the Coast Guard. Moreover, access to the vessels was not our focus, since putting people on a disabled vessel doesn’t necessary stop its drift, which is our focus. Our study assumed that drifting vessels already have crew on board, and that this crew has failed to stop the vessel drift. • Regarding the Tug Response Time Analysis, one commenter submitted the following: I have two concerns related to how the authors define these scenarios. First, the “Average Case” is based upon average wind speeds over a ten to fifteen year period. To the extent that vessels are more likely to be disabled in poor weather conditions, this “average case” may not be typical of the average conditions under which an at-sea casualty occurs. If this is true, the average case is overly optimistic. Second, both the worst case and average case scenarios assume the same speed of advance for the assisting tug. If weather conditions are related to both (a) the “drift speed” of the disabled vessel and (b) speed at which the assisting tug is able to travel, then the “worst case” and “average case” scenarios should be based on different assumptions about the speed of advance of the tug. This may result in extending the worst case risk zone farther from shore. If the above issues have merit, simple adjustments could be performed while still working within the general modeling framework adopted by the authors of the report. These might include: 1. Using wind speed data for the “average” scenario that correspond to the typical conditions under which an at sea casualty occurs. If insufficient data exists to make these adjustments, then the term “average” should be used with caveat. 2. Varying the tug speed of advance in the worst case versus average case scenario. It is important to note that the above changes would not change the complexity of the model mechanics, and therefore, all the authors’ caveats regarding model simplicity still apply. As you suggested, we will make it clear that our examination of Tug Response Time is a time- distance examination only and not a probabilistic analysis of the tug reaching its destination. Further, we agree with your comment regarding no tug response. In some cases, the tug would not be able to respond at all due to wind and sea conditions, as well as shallow water wave conditions at the entrance to some harbors. Lowering the Speed of Advance (SOA) of the tug was examined. As you point out lowering the SOA will move the “safe envelope” even further offshore incrementally to the worst case where the tug does not respond at all. As stated in our report the worst case scenarios are based upon onshore wind speeds that occur .1% of the time over a 10 to15-year period (40 kts. in the case of Alaska). However, we believe that our SOA of 10 knots is still reasonable for the simple graphical analysis we had in mind. A speed of 10 kts. varies between 71-83% of the tugs maximum speed. We re-examined the data to determine if vessels are more likely to be disabled in poor weather conditions. While this thought may have intuitive appeal

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 7 the data we have gathered does not support this relationship. The only apparent trend we noted was the propensity of casualties in the vicinity of major ports which we believe is unrelated to weather. • Regarding the Risk Index Model, the same commenter noted that: First, while an additive index has intuitive appeal, it is in conflict with the authors’ initial definition of “risk”: the probability of an event occurring multiplied by the consequence of that event. With the authors’ additive risk index, the relative importance of the “probability of event” versus “consequence of event” is distorted. It includes eight elements that affect the probability of an adverse environmental consequence (i.e., vessel types, drift, collision, offshore distance, weather, tug availability, traffic, historical casualties) but only one item that describes the magnitude of that environmental consequence (i.e., environmental sensitivity). This suggests that the magnitude of the negative consequence is only worth about 1/9 of the index, while it would conceptually be worth 1/2 the “risk value” (very loosely speaking) in a typical risk model. This problem may be compounded, as there appears to be little variation in the authors’ “environmental sensitivity” component. In sum, the index does not provide much insight into “risk”, but rather the “probability” of an adverse outcome (independent of its severity). Second, the strict additive index ignores the interrelationship between “risk factors”. In the risk index, the contribution of one risk factor is the same regardless of the values assigned to the other factors. For example, consider the following two elements of the risk index: “distance off-shore” and “tug availability”. According to the model, a point that is 5 nm off-shore and 2 days from a tug receives a risk contribution of 20 from these two risk factors. A point that is 5 nm off-shore and 15 hours from a tug receives a risk contribution of 14 from these two factors. However, even though these risk scores are quite a bit different (a 30% reduction in the index as you move farther from shore), there may be very little variation in the probability of a casualty (i.e., the tug may not be able to reach an offshore casualty in time to stop grounding because of the close proximity to the shore in both cases). This type of problem is inherent in the formula used for index construction. Third, the relative importance placed on the various inputs is based upon the informed experience of participants in the project. While this type information is useful for assessing risk in offshore vessel traffic, it is associated with a certain degree of uncertainty. In my opinion these data are strongest for assessing the types of information that belong in a risk model. It is not as reliable for assessing the relative contribution of various factors to risk, although it is sometimes the best information available (and therefore should be used for this purpose with the appropriate caveats). This data source is problematic for examining potential interactions between risk factors, as there is a daunting number to consider. This may be one reason why these factors are left out of the risk index. In sum, little discussion is included on the limitations of these sorts of data, and no instruction in how the model should (and should not) be applied to help practitioners interpret its output. Based upon my assessment of the construction of the risk index, I suggest the following strategies for making the model more useful: 1. Spend more time interpreting/ground-truthing index. Because of the uncertainty in the input data and the potential limitation of an additive index, the value of the analysis does not reside in the model output, per se (i.e., the maps do not “speak for themselves”). Rather, the value is in the discussion of the process that leads to the output. This includes interpretation of how the results for a specific scenario (e.g., fishing vessels of the coast of California) depended on various assumptions. At a minimum, the authors should include brief discussions describing the output of each risk scenario map (presented in Appendix L), including answers to the following questions: Why do certain areas off the coast appear to be relatively low risk for specific vessels? Why are other areas relatively higher risks? Does the output have face validity (i.e., does it have intuitive appeal); and are there important interactions between risk factors that may be overlooked for the specific scenario?

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 8 Not only would this provide a fuller description of the model, but it would help instruct the reader on how the model might be appropriately applied to examine risk. This would require much more description than currently presented, and may be more appropriate for a final report. 2. Simplify the risk index where possible. Since the output of the risk model requires considerable interpretation in order to be meaningful, the risk index should be simplified where possible. At a minimum, the environmental sensitivity risk factors should probably be removed, as it does not appear to be serving its intended purpose. It is important to stress that the value of this report is in its exploration of risk situations rather than the output of the model in a specific case. It is my opinion that application of this model to specific cases should be done with great care, and that it should only be used in conjunction with other information that provides situation-specific validation of the model results. We are in agreement with your assessment of the pros and cons of the “Risk Index “model the study group chose. Throughout the group’s deliberations we reminded ourselves continuously that this was a relative risk model and not an absolute one. As the title of our project states, this project is confined to “Offshore Vessel Traffic” and does not address inshore, harbor, or port entry traffic patterns which, generally speaking, are more congested from a traffic and geographic standpoint. The indices in the model have eight indices that address the probability of an adverse outcome. In retrospect, the mind-set of the group was “Prevention” or lowering the probability of an adverse event. Additionally, the group had extreme difficulty dealing with the Environmental Sensitivity Index. There was a general reluctance to rank any of the North America Western Coastline lower than the maximum value of 10. Even after much debate, the range the group agreed to was very small and consequently, of little value in distinguishing more sensitive areas from others. While the intent of the group was to emphasize the importance of the “consequences of an event (oiled coastline)”, the model may have understated that element. We believe that Appendix L does have sufficient numerical detail to interpret the dominant factors in each of the scenarios. We do agree that a discussion of the process that led to the outputs would be beneficial.

Regarding Miscellaneous Other Topics • One commenter noted that the maritime industry should work with the Task Force and Coast Guards to conduct a drift study. The Workgroup considered making a recommendation for further drift studies, but decided to investigate the nature of drift models currently used by the Search and Rescue programs of the US and Canadian Coast Guards in order to determine whether such a study would indeed be necessary. • Should a towing package be included on non-tank vessels? Our focus was on getting a rescue vessel to a drifting ship to stop the drift, not necessarily to get a line on the drifting vessel. Appendix I of the Final Project Report captures the equipment and procedures necessary for vessel rescues. • Will the outcome require a bilateral agreement between US and Canada? (CMAC) No bilateral agreement is anticipated, simply continued cooperation and coordination to implement the Workgroup’s recommendations. • A joint investigation project between the Canadian Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard and the Task Force members; and west coast tanker operators, tug and barge operators, dry cargo vessel operators, commercial fishing interests, and pilots was suggested. The investigation would look into the causes of vessel incidents and casualties on the west Coast of the United States and Canada 1996 - 2001. This project should be completed in a manner to compliment the West Coast Vessel Routing project, and would entail a summary level investigation into the causes of vessel incidents that have occurred over the last 5 years on the west Coast. Particular focus should be on actual casualties and on incidents that can lead to groundings (including propulsion losses, steering failures, tow wire failures,

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 9 navigational errors), collisions and allisions. Benefits should include improved data collection, improved spill prevention, and pressing forward on strengthening multi- organization partnerships. A study of this nature was included in the Workgroup’s final recommendations on improving available data.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 10 III. Written Comments

Email Comment received from Jerry Hockin, Safety Rep., ILWU Local 400, Vancouver, BC: I attended the regional CMAC meeting, at BCIT (n.Van), on March 19/02, and am writing to comment on the draft report that you presented. I believe that this report has a number of major weakness/flaws, in its risk assessment. In response to questions, you said that the risk assessment did not take into consideration: - the age and state of maintenance of vessels (oil tankers, oil barges, or tugs); -the availability of oil-spill clean-up equipment and supplies; -the increase to risk (of oil spills/accidents/collisions) if B.C. does open up our coast to oil exploration/drilling; or - the issue of false Maritime documents, in crews of vessels with flags of convenience;

I believe that without considering all factors of risk that this study is useless. There are also the issues of: -only one tug capable of responding, in heavy weather, for rescue purposes, between Washington State and Alaska. If that one tug was already involved in some other work, the whole coast of BC, with one of the longest coast lines in the world, would be at increased risk, as any rescue tug would have to travel that much farther. -the study didn't seem to assign a risk "value" to single hull oil barges; which is most, if not all, of the present oil barges in BC;

I believe therefore, in the interests of protecting the environment, that the minimum distance from shore, of all oil carrying marine traffic, should, instead of the 30 mile from shore zone (aka "Tanker exclusion zone"), that the study favors, should be a minimum of 100 miles.

On the issue of setting up a fund for standby tugs, I would be totally opposed to the use of tax dollars for subsidizing what is a very profitable corporate sector, which can well afford to provide funds of their own.

Comments received from Charles W. Donaldson, Manager, Emergency Management and Site Assessment Section, Land Quality Division, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: After reviewing the Public Comment Draft of Findings and Recommendations of the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has the following observations and recommendations: ♦ Many of the recommendations encourage continuation of current practices, encourage successful practices in certain ports be examined by other ports, or encourage expedited implementation of planned improvements to the current system. We generally agree with these recommendations. ♦ A national or regional standard for ballast water management would be beneficial. ♦ That the overall rate of casualties per transits for cargo/freight vessels at 0.054% is indicative of an overall success in the system. No major changes are recommended. ♦ We are cautious with regard to the International Tug of Opportunity System (ITOS). We agree that having the type of information that ITOS provides is valuable, however given the caveats identified in the report we realize that this is just one spoke in the rescue tug wheel and should be treated as such.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 11 ♦ Regarding the distance offshore risk factor, we are more likely to support the recommendation that a minimum offshore distance of 30 nautical miles be maintained in the identified “higher risk” areas rather than 25 miles from land along the entire West Coast. We would include in this recommendation a caveat with regard to adverse weather conditions such as: …the workgroup suggests that a minimum offshore distance of 30 nautical miles be recommended for those areas in anticipation of or during adverse weather conditions.

Comments received from Capt. William Worth, Columbia River Bar Pilots I was reviewing your Findings and Recommendations of West Coast Offshore Traffic Risk Management Project Workgroup findings today and wanted to update you on our helicopter project on the Columbia River Bar.

The Columbia River Bar Pilots have now completed over 6000 ship operations in the last two and a half years and have proven without a doubt the ability of the helicopter to deliver ships pilots in all weather up to force 11. We are now working ships in worse weather than we have ever been capable of in the past, 15 miles further to sea, almost out of sight of land.

Without a doubt the ability to put a salvage crew on board the Supertanker ATIGUN PASS, saved the Willapa Bay Estuary from significant environmental harm this winter when the ship got within 12 hours of going aground. We have now expanded the protective envelope that the helicopter provides to include the Port of Grays Harbor, Washington.

Without any cost to the people of Oregon or Washington, this project is funded from the foreign ships who call on the river; we have instituted the most progressive safety advance in the history of the Bar Pilots. Putting a trained USCG Unlimited Tonnage Master Mariner on board these ships, is the best way to insure that they are thoroughly evaluated before we allow them to get in harms way.

The legislature's of both Washington and Oregon have made resolutions praising this advance in the protection of their coasts, and acknowledge that we have seriously lowered the risk of another NEW CARISSA or EXXON VALDEZ type of accident. This has been done with a lot of complaints from the foreign shipping agents in Portland who have told us in sworn testimony that "cost is everything". It has also been said to the Bar Pilots that "safety is the Buzzword of the eighties". Fortunately we have persevered and now have a system in place that protects all of us from a maritime disaster.

Putting a system similar to the Columbia River Bar Pilots and Gray's Harbor Pilots at every port in the United States would be the most dramatic and cost effective way to keep the oil off of the beaches ever devised. Rotterdam has had this in place since 1986 with zero defects, and they are the busiest port in the world.

I invite you to come down some time to see just what we are doing down here on the "graveyard of the Pacific", as I think your task force skipped over this terrific advance in their study.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 12

Comments received from the Olympic National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council: Cover letter: Dear Ms. Cameron: I am pleased to pass along the enclosed letter from the Olympic coast National marine Sanctuary Advisory committee. The letter comments upon the “Report and Recommendations fo the West coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project” undertaken by the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill task Force. The letter acknowledges the good work and information created by the Project and makes several recommendations for improving the Report. I fully concur with the recommendations of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. Thank you for taking the time to make an excellent presentation before the Sanctuary Advisory Council on the Project. Please inform us of the final recommendations from the Task Force.

Sincerely, Carol Bernthal, Superintendent Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

Letter from the Sanctuary Advisory Council: Carol Bernthal, Superintendent Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 138 West First Avenue Port Angeles, WA 98362

Subj: Comments on Report and Recommendations of the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project

Dear Ms. Bernthal:

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council is please to comment on the Report and Recommendations of the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project. We ask that you forward on our comments to Ms. Jean Cameron of the Pacific States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force. The extensive work completed by the project workgroup has produced much valuable information and identified several serious areas of risk. While supporting the report, we recommend more emphasis on the following recommendations to address areas of special concern to the Sanctuary:

“Investigate dedicated/stand-by tug/regulatory alternatives.”

The Advisory Council believes that oil spills from tankers, tank barges, cargo vessels and large fishing vessels form the greatest single risk from the Columbia River to the north end of Vancouver Island. Please refer to the enclosed letter from the Advisory Council to the Washington State Legislature, supporting a tug at Neah Bay (see below).

“Expand the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the American Waterways (AWO) Agreements.”

Most tankers are not covered by the WSPA Agreement. It would be helpful to have information on the number of tankers not covered to illustrate the risk and need for universal compliance. We recommend the Task Force gather that information as soon as possible and add it to the report.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 13

In addition, the Advisory Council supports Minimum Distance Offshore Proposal #1: “25 nm voluntary minimum distance for entire coast and show Higher Risk areas on charts and publications.” In any case, display of minimum distance offshore on the charts is essential to the effective implementation of either proposal. For clarification, we understand that this recommendation applies to tankers, tank barges, cargo, passenger vessels, and fish vessels in transit 300 gross tons and larger.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council thanks the workgroup for the opportunity to comment on your report.

Sincerely

Alan Brooks Chair

Referenced letter from the Advisory Council to the Washington State Legislature, supporting a tug at Neah Bay: The Honorable Gary Locke, Governor Office of the Governor PO Box 40002 Olympia, WA 98504-0002

The Honorable Sid Snyder, Majority Leader Washington State Senate P.O. Box 40419 Olympia, WA 98504-0419

The Honorable Frank Chopp, Speaker Washington State House of Representatives PO Box 40600 Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Dear Governor Locke, Senator Snyder, and Speaker Chopp:

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council believes that a major oil spill, either in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca or on the out coast of Washington, is the greatest single threat to the irreplaceable natural resources that the Sanctuary protects. Oil spill response effectiveness in the Sanctuary is particularly challenging due to the rugged coastline and relatively high sea state prevalent in the Sanctuary. Therefore, we must do all we can do to prevent oil spills from occurring in the first place. The Neah Bay rescue tug has proven its value in preventing oil spills, particularly in the last few months. A dedicated vessel is necessary for this remote area because unencumbered tugs of opportunity are extremely rare west of Port Angeles and vessel casualties are largely unpredictable.

We thank the Legislature for funding the Neah Bay rescue tug through the spring of 2002 and Governor Locke for including funding for the tug in his supplemental budget for Fiscal Year 2003. The rescue tug is vital to protecting the Sanctuary, coastal communities and their tourist businesses, the Olympic National Park with its thousands of visitors annually, and coastal tribal cultures and economies. People live and work in Washington because of the quality of life we

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 14 enjoy here. Our natural environment is an essential part of that quality of life. The Neah Bay rescue tug is relatively cheap insurance to help ensure that our quality of life is not diminished by a major oil spill.

Therefore, we strongly urge the Sate of Washington to take whatever actions are necessary to maintain a dedicated rescue tug in Neah Bay.

Sincerely,

Alan Brooks Public Member and Chair

Comment received 5/22/02 from Matthew Zafonte to Rick Holly Ken Mayer asked me to provide you comments on the West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management Project Interim Report, 2001. To put my comments in the proper perspective, it is important to note that I do not have any specific substantive expertise in offshore vessel traffic. I do, however, have a relevant background in statistics, mathematical modeling, along with some academic exposure to risk assessment. Because of my background, my feedback is most useful for assessing methodological issues and assumptions, rather than the substantive details on specific risk factors. For these reasons, I focus on the two models presented in the report: the tug response model and the risk index model. These comments should be consistent with the verbal feedback that I provided last month.

Tug Response Time Overview: This model explores the offshore distance within which a disabled vessel is in danger of grounding prior to the arrival of tug assistance. The area at risk varies by latitude based upon the relative proximity of ports with assist vessels of sufficient size. The two model scenarios are: 1. Worst Case. The disabled vessel drifts towards shore at 9% of what NOAA estimates as the worst case scenario for the sustained speed of the wind at the given location. 2. Average Case. The disabled vessel drifts towards shore at 9% of what NOAA estimates as the average wind speed in the given location. In both scenarios, the speed the tug traveling to arrest the drift is assumed to be 10 knots. The authors qualify their results by noting that their goal is to perform a simple graphical analysis,1 and the general approach seems reasonable as long as the authors’ caveats regarding the simplicity of the model are kept in mind.

Comments: I have two concerns related to how the authors define these scenarios. First, the “Average Case” is based upon average wind speeds over a ten to fifteen year period. To the extent that vessels are more likely to be disabled in poor weather conditions, this “average case” may not be typical of the average conditions under which an at-sea casualty occurs. If this

1 The authors specifically use the term “probability” of assist vessels reaching a disabled vessel at the given location. This language is inaccurate as there is no explicit probabilistic component to the analysis (i.e., it focuses on average wind speeds and average tug speeds. It seems more appropriate to label the model as simply a graphic examination of “zones” of potential threat.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 15 is true, the average case is overly optimistic.2 Second, both the worst case and average case scenarios assume the same speed of advance for the assisting tug. If weather conditions are related to both (a) the “drift speed” of the disabled vessel and (b) speed at which the assisting tug is able to travel, then the “worst case” and “average case” scenarios should be based on different assumptions about the speed of advance of the tug. This may result in extending the worst case risk zone farther from shore.

Suggestions: If the above issues have merit, simple adjustments could be performed while still working within the general modeling framework adopted by the authors of the report. These might include: 1. Using wind speed data for the “average” scenario that correspond to the typical conditions under which an at sea casualty occurs. If insufficient data exists to make these adjustments, then the term “average” should be used with caveat. 2. Varying the tug speed of advance in the worst case versus average case scenario. It is important to note that the above changes would not change the complexity of the model mechanics, and therefore, all the authors’ caveats regarding model simplicity still apply.

Risk Index Model Overview: The risk index model presented by the authors characterizes risk by summing the subjective numeric assessments of experts from different stakeholder groups on various components of risk. The authors include “risk factors” that affect both the probability of an event occurring (high value on the input implies that mishap is more likely to occur) and the consequence of the event occurring (high value of the input means there is a greater environmental consequence). This provides the common sense interpretation that risk increases as events become more common and larger in magnitude. The method is a reasonable general approach for grappling with the risk-related issues surrounding off-shore vessel traffic, as long as some general caveats are kept in mind. The most important caveat is that the output of the risk index has no “objective” interpretation. This is evidenced, in part, by the fact that the index has no units.3 If all we were looking at was the risk index, we would not be able to evaluate whether a value of “50” is a serious threat to environment and public health or if “50” represents almost zero threat. This would be true even if there were no conceptual problems with the risk model. From a policy standpoint, this implies that the risk index (by itself) should not be used to justify whether there is sufficient risk to increase (or decrease) the amount of risk-limiting actions that should be taken at any point along the coast. As the authors note, the best use of the risk index is as a measure of “relative risk”. This means that it is relevant to informing policy decisions that are structured around answering the following question: given that we are going to spend $X on risk reduction, where should we consider applying those funds? The following comments will focus on the applicability of the risk index model to address this question.

Comments: First, while an additive index has intuitive appeal, it is in conflict with the authors’ initial definition of “risk”: the probability of an event occurring multiplied by the consequence of that event. With the authors’ additive risk index, the relative importance of the “probability of

2 It is important to at least mention that the “worst case” may be that the tug can never make it over the bar due to weather conditions. This would truly be the “worst case” scenario as the tug would not be able respond at all. The importance of examining this scenario would depend on how often these conditions occur. 3 One example of risk “units” would be the expected number of birds killed per year as a result of at-sea casualties. This would be calculated by a model that examines the probabilities and magnitudes of various bird mortality scenarios. It is important to note that the construction of such a model would be extremely challenging, and would still have significant uncertainties in how its results could be interpreted.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 16 event” versus “consequence of event” is distorted. It includes eight elements that affect the probability of an adverse environmental consequence (i.e., vessel types, drift, collision, offshore distance, weather, tug availability, traffic, historical casualties) but only one item that describes the magnitude of that environmental consequence (i.e., environmental sensitivity).4 This suggests that the magnitude of the negative consequence is only worth about 1/9 of the index, while it would conceptually be worth 1/2 the “risk value” (very loosely speaking) in a typical risk model. This problem may be compounded, as there appears to be little variation in the authors’ “environmental sensitivity” component. In sum, the index does not provide much insight into “risk”, but rather the “probability” of an adverse outcome (independent of its severity). Second, the strict additive index ignores the interrelationship between “risk factors”. In the risk index, the contribution of one risk factor is the same regardless of the values assigned to the other factors. For example, consider the following two elements of the risk index: “distance off-shore” and “tug availability”. According to the model, a point that is 5 nm off-shore and 2 days from a tug receives a risk contribution of 20 from these two risk factors. A point that is 5 nm off-shore and 15 hours from a tug receives a risk contribution of 14 from these two factors. However, even though these risk scores are quite a bit different (a 30% reduction in the index as you move farther from shore), there may be very little variation in the probability of a casualty (i.e., the tug may not be able to reach an offshore casualty in time to stop grounding because of the close proximity to the shore in both cases). This type of problem is inherent in the formula used for index construction. 5 Third, the relative importance placed on the various inputs is based upon the informed experience of participants in the project. While this type information is useful for assessing risk in offshore vessel traffic, it is associated with a certain degree of uncertainty. In my opinion these data are strongest for assessing the types of information that belong in a risk model. It is not as reliable for assessing the relative contribution of various factors to risk, although it is sometimes the best information available (and therefore should be used for this purpose with the appropriate caveats). This data source is problematic for examining potential interactions between risk factors, as there is a daunting number to consider. This may be one reason why these factors are left out of the risk index. In sum, little discussion is included on the limitations of these sorts of data, and no instruction in how the model should (and should not) be applied to help practitioners interpret its output.

Suggestions: Based upon my assessment of the construction of the risk index, I suggest the following strategies for making the model more useful: 1. Spend more time interpreting/ground-truthing index. Because of the uncertainty in the input data and the potential limitation of an additive index, the value of the analysis does not reside in the model output, per se (i.e., the maps do not “speak for themselves”). Rather, the value is in the discussion of the process that leads to the output. This includes interpretation of how the results for a specific scenario (e.g., fishing vessels of the coast of California) depended on various assumptions. At a minimum, the authors should include brief discussions describing the output of each risk scenario map (presented in Appendix L), including answers to the following questions: Why do certain areas off the coast appear to be relatively low risk for specific vessels? Why are other areas relatively higher risks? Does the output have face validity (i.e., does it have intuitive appeal); and are there important interactions between risk factors that may be overlooked for the specific scenario?

4 Note the “Volume of Oil/Vessel Design Factor” may fit in both categories. 5 It is important to note that alternative formulas for index construction may not reasonable given the type of data used as inputs in the model (i.e., largely qualitative assessments by informed individuals).

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 17 Not only would this provide a fuller description of the model, but it would help instruct the reader on how the model might be appropriately applied to examine risk. This would require much more description than currently presented, and may be more appropriate for a final report. 2. Simplify the risk index where possible. Since the output of the risk model requires considerable interpretation in order to be meaningful, the risk index should be simplified where possible. At a minimum, the environmental sensitivity risk factors should probably be removed, as it does not appear to be serving its intended purpose.6 It is important to stress that the value of this report is in its exploration of risk situations rather than the output of the model in a specific case. It is my opinion that application of this model to specific cases should be done with great care, and that it should only be used in conjunction with other information that provides situation-specific validation of the model results. I would be happy to discuss any of these comments with you.

6If the environmental sensitivity factor is retained, the authors may want to consider either (1) choosing an alternative weighting scheme, or (2) analyzing the index with and without that risk factor.

Public comments on draft WCOVTRM Findings & Recommendations 18 Appendix N Glossary and Conversion Table

Glossary AIS – Automatic Identification System ANS – Alaska North Slope ATBA - Area To Be Avoided AWO - American Waterways Operators BC - British Columbia CAIP – Critical Area Inspection Program CCG - Canadian Coast Guard CFR – Code of Federal Regulations (USA) COLREGS – 1972 IMO Convention; International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea COTP - Captain of the Port CVTS - Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service Agreement EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone EPIRB - Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon ESI - Environmental Sensitivity Index ETV - Emergency Towing Vessel GMDSS - Global Maritime Distress and Safety System HAZMAT – Hazardous Materials IMO - International Maritime Organization ISM Code - The International Safety Management Code ITOS – International Tug of Opportunity System LA/LB - Los Angeles/Long Beach LCV - Large Cargo Vessel LNG/LPG - Liquefied Natural Gas/Liquefied Petroleum Gas LPOC - Last Port of Call MBNMS - Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary MCTS – Marine Communications and Traffic Service MSIS - Marine Safety Information System MTS - Marine Transportation System, a US Dept. of Transportation initiative NAVSAC - Navigation Safety Advisory Council to the US Coast Guard NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OPA 90 - Oil Pollution Act of 1990 OSPR - Office of Spill Prevention and Response PSSOA - Puget Sound Steamship Operators' Association RCAC - Regional Citizens Advisory Council RCC - Rescue Coordination Center RRRI – Relative Ranking Risk Indexing SAR - Search and Rescue SOA – Speed of Advance SOLAS – 1974 IMO Convention regarding the Safety of Life at Sea STCW – Standards for Training and Certification of Watchkeepers TAPS - Trans Alaska Pipeline System TEU - Trailer Equivalent Unit; the volume of a 20' shipping container TEZ - Tanker Exclusion Zone TSS - Traffic Separation Scheme US - United States USCG - United States Coast Guard VLCC - Very Large Crude Carrier VTC - Vessel Traffic Center VTS - Vessel Traffic Service WCOVTRM - West Coast Offshore Vessel Traffic Risk Management WSPA - Western States Petroleum Association

Conversion Table 1 barrel = 42 US gallons = 0.16 cubic meters 1 cubic meter = 6.29 barrels = 264 gallons 1 mile = 0.87 nautical miles = 1.61 kilometers