task 8: overview of the traffic separation schemes, approaches...

1201 Western Avenue, Suite 200, Seattle, Washington 98101-2921 TEL 206.624.7850 FAX 206.682.9117 www.glosten.com

Consulting Engineers Serving the Marine Community

Gateway Pacific Terminal Vessel Traffic and Risk Assessment Study

Task 8: Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes, Approaches to the Proposed Terminal and Alternative Schemes for Vessel Traffic Management

Prepared for

Pacific International Terminals, Inc. Prepared by

The Glosten Associates, Inc. File No. 12096.01

24 January 2013

Rev. P0

Gateway Pacific Terminal VTS Study i The Glosten Associates, Inc. Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes File No .12096.01, 24 January 2013 and Approaches, Task 8, Rev. P0

Contents References ................................................................................................................. ii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. iv

Scope of Work per Professional Services Agreement ........................................... v

Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Description of the Study Area ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 Overview of the Traffic System ................................................................................... 3

1.3 Overview of the Vessel Traffic Service ....................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) ........................................................... 5

1.3.2 Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) ..................................................... 7

1.3.3 Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS) ......................................................... 8

1.3.4 Victoria Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) ......................... 8

1.3.5 Special Operating Areas (SOA) ............................................................................ 9

Section 2 Alternative Schemes for Vessel Traffic Management ....................... 14

2.1 Escort and Tethering ................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Escort, Prepositioned Standby or Sentinel Tugs ........................................................ 15

2.3 Voyage or Transit Planning ........................................................................................ 16

2.4 Speed Reduction ......................................................................................................... 17

2.5 Traffic Scheme/Flow Modification ............................................................................ 18

Section 3 Supplemental Aids to Navigation (ATON) .......................................... 20

Gateway Pacific Terminal VTS Study ii The Glosten Associates, Inc. Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes File No .12096.01, 24 January 2013 and Approaches, Task 8, Rev. P0

References

1. Revised Project Information Document; Gateway Pacific Terminal, Whatcom County, Washington, Pacific International Terminals, March 2012.

2. “Strait of Juan De Fuca and Georgia,” United States Coast Pilot 7 - 44th Edition, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, Chapter 12, 2012.

3. “Pacific Ocean and Southeast Asia,” 120 Sailing Directions (Planning Guide), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Springfield, Virginia, 2011.

4. International Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, (‘72 COLREGS), 1972.

5. Pacific Pilotage Regulations, Department of Justice, Canada, (C.R.C., c. 1270).

6. United States Coast Guard Navigation Rules, US Department of Transportation, COMDTINST M16672.2D, 23 November 2011.

7. Ships' routing, International Maritime Organization (IMO) www.imo.org/ourwork/safety/navigation/pages/shipsrouteing.aspx, Accessed 16 October 2012.

8. Puget Sound User's Manual, US Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service, 2007.

9. “Vessel Movement Reporting System,” Navigation and Navigable Waters, United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Part 161, Subpart B.

10. Canada/United States Co-cooperative Vessel Traffic System Agreement-Purpose and Objective, US Coast Guard Department of Homeland Security District 13, www.uscg.mil/d13/cvts/purposeandobjective.asp, Accessed 11 October 2012.

11. “Vessel Traffic Service and Vessel Movement Reporting System Areas and Reporting Points,” Navigation and Navigable Waters, United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Part 161, Subpart C.

12. “Services―VTS Measures and Operating Requirements,” United States Coast Pilot 7 - 44th Edition, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, Chapter 2, 2012.

13. “Escort Requirements For Certain Tankers-Applicable Vessels,” Navigation and Navigable Waters, United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Part 168.

14. “Tug escort requirements for oil tankers,” WAC 363-116-500, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=363-116-500, “Oil tankers―Intent and purpose,” RCW 88.16.170, “Oil tankers―Restricted waters - standard safety features required―Exemptions,” RCW 88.16.190, and “Oil tankers―Not to exceed speed of escorting tug,” RCW 88.16.195, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=88.16, accessed 23 January 2013.

15. Study of Tug Escorts in Puget Sound, prepared for State of Washington Department of Ecology, The Glosten Associates, Inc., File No. 04075, 25 February 2005.

16. Private Aids to Navigation and USCG form 2554, Department of Homeland Security US Coast Guard COMDTINST M16500.7A - 33 CFR Part 66, Article 1,Section B, Chapter 3, 2 March 2005.

Gateway Pacific Terminal VTS Study iii The Glosten Associates, Inc. Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes File No .12096.01, 24 January 2013 and Approaches, Task 8, Rev. P0

17. “Terms,” Crowley Pacific Northwest Schedule of Tugboat Rates and Terms, Crowley Maritime, Effective 01 February 2011.

18. Synopsis of State-funded Neah Bay Emergency Response Vessel Assists: 1999-2010, Department of Ecology, State of Washington, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/response_tug/synopsis_statefundedtug.pdf, Accessed 29 October 2012.

19. Neah Bay tug shifts from public to private funding July 1, Department of Ecology State of Washington, News Release - June 29, 2010 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2010news/2010-147.html, Accessed 29 October 2012.

20. Aids to Navigation Manual Administration, US Coast Guard Department of Homeland Security, http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/16000-16999/CIM_16500_7A.pdf, Accessed 31 October 2012, March 2005.

Gateway Pacific Terminal VTS Study iv The Glosten Associates, Inc. Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes File No .12096.01, 24 January 2013 and Approaches, Task 8, Rev. P0

Executive Summary

This Vessel Traffic and Risk Assessment Study (VTS) is being conducted by The Glosten Associates (Glosten) for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (GPT) to be located at GPT/Cherry Point in Washington State. The purpose of the study is to assess the potential risks posed by new bulk carrier traffic that the proposed terminal will bring to the Puget Sound.

Current vessel traffic levels and forecasted traffic levels are considered, including tugs and GPT calling vessels. The area studied includes the designated Puget Sound vessel transit lanes, the maneuvering area near the planned GPT terminal at GPT/Cherry Point, the local anchorage areas, and the transit routes for tugs assisting GPT. Plans call for 487 total annual visits for the anticipated GPT-bound traffic at full throughput level in 2026 (Reference 1). Of the total vessel calls, it is projected that there will be 318 Panamax and 169 Capesize (up to 250,000 DWT) vessels. The GPT-bound vessels will be utilizing the established traffic lanes between Cape Flattery and Cherry Point.

Responsibility for the safe transit and tracking vessels arriving or departing the proposed GPT lies with Puget Sound Pilots, in conjunction with:

Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service (VTS), operated by the US Coast Guard - Sector Puget Sound.

Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS), operated by the Canadian Coast Guard.

Victoria Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS).

Section 1 of this task report utilizes Governmental publications, NOAA Charts, and anecdotal data interviews with Puget Sound Pilots to provide an overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes and Vessel Traffic Services that are in place for the operating area. A detailed discussion of the traffic lanes, vessel monitoring systems, and special operating restrictions is presented.

Section 2 examines alternative schemes to manage the GPT vessel traffic in the waterways leading to and from the terminal. These alternatives are considered with respect to their ability to mitigate risks during the transit. This section also presents mitigation measures that utilize existing concepts or regulations from other types of shipping activities. Several concepts are examined that would be effective, but may present unique challenges in both the national and international approval process.

ndav461

Sticky Note

Primary responsibility for safe transit of vessels always resides with the vessel master and the company operating the vessel.

ndav461

Sticky Note

Pilots associated with the Puget Sound Pilots provide piloting services between Port Angeles and berth.

ndav461

Sticky Note

Vessels are tracked and may be directed throughout their route from their offshore approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca to berth by the U.S./Canadian Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service. Delete the 3 bullet points.

Gateway Pacific Terminal VTS Study v The Glosten Associates, Inc. Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes File No .12096.01, 24 January 2013 and Approaches, Task 8, Rev. P0

Scope of Work per Professional Services Agreement1

Provides an overview of current traffic separation and management schemes in force on the approaches to GPT and recommendations for alternative traffic control mechanisms for reduction of the risk of an accident, as defined in ¶ 3.2 In conjunction with Task 7, provide qualitative, relative assessment of the potential effectiveness of measures proposed in counteracting risks posed by increased traffic. This study should evaluate alternative schemes for vessel traffic management to mitigate risks. However, it is acknowledged that any such recommended protocols would need to be implemented through regulatory action involving multiple agencies of the federal, state, and local government. The study will specifically exclude discussion or opinion on the regulatory process or requirements. The study will limit discussion on alternative traffic control measures to the likelihood of reducing casualty risks rather than the achievement of “minimum risk.”

1 “Exhibit A, Scope of Services Task 8,” Professional Services Agreement between Pacific International Terminals, Inc. and the Glosten Associates, Gateway Pacific Terminal Vessel Traffic and Risk Assessment Study, Effective Date June 18, 2012. 2 Paragraph 3 reads “Accidents shall include collision, allision, power groundings and drift groundings.”

Gateway Pacific Terminal VTS Study 1 The Glosten Associates, Inc. Overview of the Traffic Separation Schemes File No .12096.01, 24 January 2013 and Approaches, Task 8, Rev. P0

Section 1 Introduction

This section presents information and regulations from Washington State, US Federal, and Canadian governments contained in several publications. Information found on the United States Coast Guard District 13 and Puget Sound VTS web sites, United States Coast Pilot #7, and Canadian Sailing Directions PAC 201, is combined with information from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Nautical Charts for the area.

The assessment considers alternative traffic control and risk mitigation measures that have the potential to reduce the impact of increased traffic resulting from the proposed GPT. Information obtained from prior studies for tanker risk mitigation and methods used by other ports is also considered when making recommendations.

Recommendations for additional lookouts, watch officers, good seamanship, and watch standing practices during the transits in confined waters are identified. Appropriate and prudent bridge resource management techniques are described.

1.1 Description of the Study Area

The Straits of Juan de Fuca is an international waterway that separates the south shore of Vancouver Island in British Columbia (BC), and the north shore of the United States Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. The entrance of the Strait lies between Cape Flattery, Washington (48°23´43″N, 124°44´11″W) to the south, and Carmanah Point, Vancouver BC (48°36´38″N, 124°45´00″W) to the north, and is an important waterway that connects the Pacific Ocean to passages in Puget Sound, BC, and Southeastern Alaska via the Inside Passage.

The vessel traffic through this area is extensive, both domestic and foreign, serving the lumber, fishing, rail, grain, cruise, oil, coal, and containerized cargo industries. In addition, both the United States and Canadian militaries have bases in the region and use several areas for the training and testing of weapons.

From the mouth to 50 nm east at Race Rocks, the Strait is generally about 12 nm wide, then widens to almost 16 nm for the next 30 nm east to Whidbey Island on the eastern boundary. The Strait is deep to the near shoreline as a rule, with very few outlaying dangers except in the eastern part.

Navigating these waters is relatively easy in clear weather using the numerous and well-placed navigational aids. During fog, however, caution must be used due to the strong and irregular currents that influence the set and drift of the ship and the detection of other traffic, especially in the eastern part (Reference 2).

The IALA Buoyage System – B (International Association of Lighthouse Authorities - Region B) is used for the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro, Georgia, and Rosario Straits. This system is also used in the Eastern Pacific, Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of North and South America, the Great Lakes, the Caribbean, Japan, Philippines and the Republic of Korea (Reference 3). The International Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (‘72 COLREGS, Reference 4) apply to all waters of the straits of Juan De Fuca, Haro Strait, Strait of Georgia, Rosario Strait, and Puget Sound.

ndav461

Sticky Note

Strait is singular in this case

ndav461

Sticky Note

outlying


For the purposes of this study, Haro Strait is defined as the waters north of a line between Discovery Island, located just east of Victoria, to Cattle Point at the southern tip of San Juan Island. The Strait’s northern boundary is a line that runs between Point Fairfax on Mosby Island to Turn Point on Stuart Island, where it then turns into Boundary Pass and then turns into the Strait of Georgia.

Haro Strait is a major shipping waterway that connects the Straits of Juan de Fuca to Boundary Pass and the Strait of Georgia, and is mainly used by vessels transiting to and from Vancouver BC and Alaska through the Inside Passage. The 30 nm passage, from the southern end at Discovery Island to the northern end abeam Patos Island where the passage opens into the Strait of Georgia, straddles the international boundary between the United States and Canada. Depths in the Strait range from 160 fathoms in the deepest areas, to 20 fathoms in the shoal areas.

Pilotage for Canadian vessels transiting Haro Strait is required for every ship over 350 gross tons that is not a pleasure craft and every pleasure craft over 500 gross tons (Reference 5). For US-bound ships, pilotage is compulsory for all foreign vessels and US vessels engaged in foreign trade. Pilotage is optional for US vessels engaged in the coastwise trade with a federally licensed pilot on board (Reference 2).

Rosario Strait is the easternmost channel leading from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the Strait of Georgia. The Strait’s southern end begins abeam of Davidson Rock and runs north 16 nm to Lawrence Point on Orcas Island. Its widest point is 5 nm between Davidson Rock and Deception Island, which narrows to 1.5 nm between Blakely Island and Strawberry Island. The depths range between 13 fathoms in the south end to 53 fathoms in the north end, with an average depth of approximately 30 fathoms.

Rosario Strait is regularly used by tankers calling refineries at Cherry Point and Anacortes, and by vessels transiting to Bellingham. It is sometimes used by vessels headed to or from Vancouver and Alaska when there is a tidal current advantage compared to those in Haro Strait (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Straits of Juan de Fuca Study Areas

ndav461

Sticky Note

Moresby Island


1.2 Overview of the Traffic System

A Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) is a traffic system governed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (‘72 COLREGS, Reference 4), Rule 10, applies on all the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Rosario Strait, and Strait of Georgia (Reference 6).

Elements of a traffic system include:

Traffic Separation Scheme: A routing measure aimed at the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and by the establishment of traffic lanes.

Traffic Lane: An area within defined limits in which one-way traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming separation zones, may constitute a boundary.

Separation Zone or Line: A zone or line separating traffic lanes in which ships are proceeding in opposite or nearly opposite directions; or separating a traffic lane from the adjacent sea area; or separating traffic lanes designated for particular classes of ship proceeding in the same direction.

Roundabout: A separation point or circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined limits.

Inshore Traffic Zone: A designated area between the landward boundary of a TSS and the adjacent coast.

Recommended Route: A route of undefined width for the convenience of ships in transit that is often marked by centerline buoys.

Deep-Water Route: A route within defined limits that has been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged articles.

Precautionary Area: An area within defined limits where ships must navigate with particular caution and within which the direction of flow of traffic may be recommended.

Area to be Avoided: An area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly hazardous, or should be avoided by all ships, or by certain classes of ships (Reference 7).

A TSS is used to regulate the traffic in busy, confined waterways or around capes. Within a TSS, it is normal to have at least one traffic-lane in each main direction, turning points, deep water lanes, and separation zones between the main traffic lanes. The body of water between two opposite lanes is a separation zone, and travel within them in US waters is generally prohibited, so the risks for head-on collisions are greatly reduced. In Canadian waters, vessels engaged in fishing may depart from certain provisions of Rule 10 of International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (‘72 COLREGS, Reference 4) and fish in any direction in a traffic lane. The direction of travel is indicated by arrows on the chart in each traffic lane.

The following paragraphs discuss the Canadian and US traffic lanes from Strait of Juan De Fuca Traffic Lane Separation Lighted Buoy “J” (48°29´36.50″N, 125°00´00″W) to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal located at Cherry Point, Washington, (48°51´29.97″N, 122°44´13.01″W) utilizing Haro, Georgia, and Rosario Straits.

ndav461

Sticky Note

--Traffic Separation Schemes--


The Strait of Juan de Fuca Traffic Scheme consists of five (5) pairs, of traffic lanes. Each pair consists of an inbound and outbound lane, with a separation zone of one-half (1/2) to two and one-half (2 1/2) nm wide.

The western approach and the southwestern approach, off the Washington coast at Swiftsure Bank, are used by vessels to make the arrival to the Strait of Juan de Fuca from sea. The convergence of these two (2) approaches is marked by a lighted yellow buoy, “Buoy J.” Traveling east, the next two (2) lanes are the western lanes that join the southern lanes at the area marked by Buoy “PA” south of Race Rocks, then to the Pilot Boarding area and Port Angeles. The northern lanes run from the Buoy “PA” north to the Canadian Pilot boarding area and Victoria (Reference 2). There are two precautionary areas in the Strait of Juan de Fuca: one west-north-west of Cape Flattery, and the other between Port Angeles in the south and Race Rocks to the north. Each precautionary area is marked by lighted yellow buoys. Both buoys marking the precautionary area are equipped with a RADAR (RAdio Detection And Ranging) transponder known as a RACON (RAdio beaCON). When illuminated by the ship’s radar, this RACON flashes back to the radar display with the Morse code letters indicating the buoys’ designation.

The purpose of the precautionary areas and buoys is to:

Assist in the separation of inbound and outbound vessels transiting the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Eliminate, as much as possible, the cross vessel traffic that occurs between the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca at Cape Flattery, the pilot stations at Port Angeles, the southern lanes from Seattle, and the northern lanes to Victoria BC.

The Haro Strait and Strait of Georgia TSS consists of inbound and outbound traffic lanes with separation zones, which continues east from the Victoria Approach segment of Strait of Juan de Fuca TSS to Victoria BC, then through Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and the Strait of Georgia, to Vancouver BC.

Two (2) abbreviated TSSs, consisting of inbound and outbound traffic separation lanes with separation zones, connect the Haro Strait and Strait of Georgia TSSs with the Puget Sound Traffic Service. One TSS leads northwest from the precautionary area east of Hein Bank into Haro Strait, and the other leads northwest from the precautionary area south of Alden Bank into the Strait of Georgia. These TSSs have also been adopted by the IMO (Figure 2).


Figure 2 Chart – Traffic Separation Schemes

1.3 Overview of the Vessel Traffic Service

1.3.1 Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)

Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service is operated by the US Coast Guard - Sector Puget Sound. It was established for the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of Port Angeles, Rosario Strait, Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound, and the navigable waters adjacent to these areas.

The Puget Sound VTS consists of three (3) components, which include: the TSS, the Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS), and surveillance system. The VMRS is based upon a VHF-FM communications network, which is monitored continuously by the Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Center in Seattle. The surveillance system includes:

A network of 12 strategically located radar stations from Cape Flattery, through Rosario Strait in the San Juan Islands, to Tacoma.

An automatic identification system (AIS).

A closed circuit television (CCTV).

The Puget Sound VTS center processes information received from vessels and disseminates navigational safety information to vessels participating in the service.

Passive participation is required. This level of participation, as a minimum, consists of the continuous monitoring of the appropriate VHF-FM VTS frequency (either 5A or 14, depending on location) in addition to Channel 13. This class of user shall also respond if hailed by the VTS, and adhere to sections pertaining to general VTS operating rules.

Vessels that are required to participate in the VTS must report the vessel’s name when it gets under way or when it enters the VTS area, enters the Straits of Juan de Fuca at 124°00´W, or when directed to do so by Seattle Traffic VTS. The vessel must also provide its name and

Buoy ‘J’

Strait of Juan de Fuca TSS

Port Angeles TSS

Port Angeles to Rosario TSS

Victoria Approach TSS

Rosario to Strait of Georgia TSS

Haro Strait to Strait of Georgia TSS


position, and must check out of the system when it arrives at its destination or when it leaves the VTS area.

The following vessels are required to participate in the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS):

Every power driven vessel of 20 meters (approximately 66 feet) or more in length, while navigating.

Every vessel of 100 gross tons or more, carrying one (1) or more passengers for hire, while navigating.

A dredge or floating plant engaged in or near a channel or fairway in operations likely to restrict or affect the navigation of other vessels (Reference 8, Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 3 Chart – VTS Reporting Areas


Figure 4 Chart – VHF Reporting Areas

1.3.2 Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS)

A Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) is a system used to monitor and track vessel movements in a VTS or VMRS area. This tracking is accomplished by requiring that vessels provide information under established procedures as set forth 33 CFR Part 161 Subpart B—Vessel Movement Reporting System, §161.13 VTS Special Area operating requirements (Reference 9), or as directed by the VTS Center. To avoid imposing an undue reporting burden or unduly congesting radiotelephone frequencies, reports are limited to information which is essential to achieve the objectives of the VMRS. These reports are consolidated into three reports; a sailing plan, position report, and final report (Reference 9).

The following vessels are required to participate in VRMS:

Every power-driven vessel of 40 meters (approximately 131 feet) or more in length, while navigating.

Commercial towing vessels of 8 meters (approximately 26 feet) or more in length, while navigating.

Every vessel certificated to carry 50 or more passengers for hire when engaged in trade.

ndav461

Sticky Note

VMRS


1.3.3 Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service (CVTS)

In 1979 by formal agreement, the Canadian and the United States Coast Guards established the Co-Operative Vessel Traffic System (CVTS) for the Strait of Juan de Fuca region. The purpose of the CVTS is to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vessel traffic while minimizing the risk of pollution by preventing collisions and groundings and the environmental damage that would follow. Responsibilities for the region are as follows:

Tofino Traffic provides VTS for the offshore approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and along the Washington State coastline from 48°00´N, 127°00´W, or within 50 nm of Vancouver Island. All vessels 20 meters or greater, including tug and tows, must contact Tofino Traffic.

Seattle Traffic provides VTS for both the Canadian and US waters of Juan de Fuca Strait.

Victoria Traffic provides VTS for both Canadian and US waters of Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, and the lower Georgia Straits (Reference 10, Figures 2 and 3).

1.3.4 Victoria Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS)

Victoria’s VTS system is operated by certified Marine Communication and Traffic Officers (MCTSOs), who monitor the movement of vessels using VHF radio and direction-finding equipment, AIS tracking computers, and surveillance radar. Victoria Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) provides VTS to vessels operating in Haro Strait and the Strait of Georgia, and north to 49°00´N. VTS Victoria provides a means of exchanging information between ships and the shore-based MCTS Center. This information is communicated to every ship twenty meters or more in length, and every ship engaged in towing or pushing any vessel or object, other than fishing gear, where:

The combined length of the ship and any vessel or object towed or pushed by the ship is forty-five meters or more in length; or

The length of the vessel or object being towed or pushed by the ship is twenty meters or more in length.

At least 15 minutes before a vessel intends to enter a VTS zone, a report is made via VHF radio that specifies:

Name of the vessel.

Radio call sign.

Position.

Estimated time that the vessel will enter the VTS zone.

Destination.

Estimated time that the vessel will arrive at its destination.

Whether any pollutant or dangerous goods cargo is carried onboard or onboard any vessel or object being towed or pushed by the vessel.

During the course of the transit between Buoy “J” at Cape Flattery, vessels transiting to the GPT using Haro Strait and the Strait of Georgia must report in via VHF radio at up to eight (8) Check-In Points (CIP). The report is to include; the vessels name, name of the Master and the

ndav461

Sticky Note

northwest of Cape Flattery


estimated time at which the ship will next arrive at a location requiring a report. This combined with the AIS and radar information provides a detailed record of the vessels transit (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Chart – MCTS Victoria Reporting Area

When transiting to/from GPT or Buoy “J” using Rosario Strait, vessels will call “Seattle Traffic” at least l5 minutes, but not more than 45 minutes, before navigating in the VTS area and report the following:

Vessel name and type.

Position.

Destination and estimated time of arrival (ETA).

Anticipated speed of advance.

Intended route.

Time and point of entry into the Seattle Traffic area.

If dangerous cargo is on board.

If there is a vessel in tow.

1.3.5 Special Operating Areas (SOA)

Turn Point

Turn Point is at the northwest extremity of Stuart Island and is the junction of two waterways, which are Boundary Pass to the northeast and Haro Strait to the south. In accordance with the

Buoy “J”


Cooperative Vessel Traffic Service between the United States and Canada, and in cooperation with industry and the British Columbia Coast Pilots, a Special Operating Area (SOA) has been established at the intersection of Haro Strait and Boundary Pass in the vicinity of where Turn Point Light (48°41´20″N, 123°14´15″W). This SOA will help reduce the risk of incidents between both commercial and recreational vessels transiting the boundary waters of Haro Strait and Boundary Pass (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Chart – Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and Turn Point

The SOA consists of those Canadian and United States waters contained within a four-sided area connected by the following coordinates: 48°41.324Ń, 123°14.245´W (Turn Point Light), 48°42.400Ń, 123°13.967´W, 48°41.087Ń, 123°17.631´W (Arachne Reef Light), and 48°39.732Ń, 123°16.438´W (Tom Point Light). The passage is approximately 1 nm wide in the vicinity of Turn Point and requires a vessel to make a turn of 85° to transit the next segment.

The Turn Point SOA applies to participating vessels of 100 meters/328 feet or longer that operate within or approach the Turn Point SOA, southbound for Haro Strait and northbound for Boundary Pass or Swanson Channel. These vessels are requested not to enter the Turn

Haro Strait

Turn Point

ndav461

Highlight


Point SOA when another VTS participant of 100 meters/328 feet or more in length is already located in the area, unless:

1. When following astern, a minimum of 0.5 nautical mile separation is maintained with the vessel ahead.

2. When overtaking in the SOA, with the concurrence of VTS, there is no opposing traffic and a Closest Point of Approach (CPA) of at least 0.5 nautical mile is maintained.

If outbound from Boundary Pass and meeting an inbound vessel from Haro Strait already in the SOA, it should only be entered after the outbound vessel is past the heading of the inbound vessel engaged in the turn and at least a 0.5 nautical mile CPA should be maintained.

If inbound from Haro Strait and meeting an outbound vessel from Boundary Pass already in the SOA, it should only be entered after the outbound vessel has crossed a bearing line between Turn Point and Arachne Reef and at least a 0.5 nautical mile CPA should be maintained.

All vessels should maintain a distance of at least 0.3 nautical mile off Turn Point. Special circumstances are considered to exist when more than two vessels, greater than 100 meters or more, are interacting around the SOA at the same time.

All 100 meter vessels in a special circumstance should maintain a CPA of at least 0.5 nautical mile, and continue to maintain a distance of 0.3 nautical mile off Turn Point.

All VTS participants will verbally communicate with Victoria Traffic on VHF-FM Channel 11 when 3 nautical miles from Turn Point. VTS participants are expected to make safe arrangements with other VTS participants within or near the SOA (Reference 2).

Rosario Strait and Guemes Channel VTS Special Areas

The Rosario Strait VTS Special Area consists of those waters bounded to the south by the center of Precautionary Area “RB” (a circular area of 2,500 yards radius centered at 48°26′24″N, 122°45′12″W), and to the north by the center of Precautionary Area “C” (a circular area of 2,500 yards radius centered at 48°40′34″ N, 122°42′44″ W; Lighted Buoy “C”) (Figure 7). (See also 33 CFR §165.1301 and §165.1303.)


Figure 7 Chart – Rosario Strait and Guemes Channel

The Guemes Channel VTS Special Area consists of those waters bounded to the west by Shannon Point on Fidalgo Island and to the east by Southeast Point on Guemes Island (Figure 7).

Rosario Straits and Guemes Channel share the following additional VTS Special Area Operating Requirements per §33 CFR 161.13:

A. A vessel engaged in towing shall not impede the passage of a vessel of 40,000 dead weight tons or more.

B. A vessel of less than 40,000 dead weight tons is exempt from the provision set forth in §33 CFR 161.13(b)(1).

C. A vessel of less than 100 meters in length is exempt from the provisions set forth in §33 CFR 161.13(b)(3). Approval will not be granted for:

a. A vessel of 100 meters or more in length to meet or overtake; or cross or operate within 2,000 yards (except when crossing astern) of a vessel of 40,000 dead weight tons or more; or

b. A vessel of 40,000 dead weight tons or more to meet or overtake; or cross or operate within 2,000 yards (except when crossing astern) of a vessel of 100

Rosario Strait Precautionary Area “C”

Precautionary Area “RB”

Guemes Channel


meters or more in length (Reference 11). (See also Puget Sound VTS Manual pp 6 and 7, Reference 8.)

Additionally, the following operating requirements apply within a VTS Special Area:

(a) A VTS User shall, if towing astern, do so with as short a hawser as safety and good seamanship permits.

(b) A VMRS User shall:

(1) Not enter or get underway in the area without prior approval of the VTS;

(2) Not enter a VTS Special Area if a hazardous vessel operating condition or circumstance exists;

(3) Not meet, cross, or overtake any other VMRS User in the area without prior approval of the VTS; and

(4) Before meeting, crossing, or overtaking any other VMRS User in the area, communicate on the designated vessel bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone frequency, intended navigation movements, and any other information necessary in order to make safe passing arrangements. This requirement does not relieve a vessel of any duty prescribed by the International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea, 1972 (‘72 COLREGS, Reference 4) or the Inland Navigation Rules (Reference 12).


Section 2 Alternative Schemes for Vessel Traffic Management

Vessel traffic management techniques can be varied in approach. Adopting current methods used by other forms of shipping would minimize regulatory, international, state, and local approvals, and reduce the impact to other shipping concerns utilizing the same waterways.

The introduction of innovative methods not currently approved or practiced would offer significant advantages to improving the safety of the transit, but could be burdensome in the regulatory approval process and alter current traffic patterns. In the long term, these might prove challenging for acceptance by other shipping and regulatory concerns.

Examining the current measures in place, the most obvious concepts that could be self-adopted and have little to no approval requirements are described in this section.

2.1 Escort and Tethering Escort and tethering follows procedures are set forth by the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee (April 2012) for all tank vessels as defined in the Federal OPA 90 tanker escort requirements as per 33 CFR 168 (single hull tankers over 5,000 GRT) (Reference 13); and State of Washington RCW 88.16.190 and WAC 363-116-500 (for all oil tankers 40,000 DWT and over) (References 14). This rule establishes that each laden tanker must be escorted by at least two escort vessels in those navigable waters of the United States and Washington State east of a line connecting New Dungeness Light with Discovery Island Light, and all points in the Puget Sound area north and south of these lights. This area includes all the navigable waters of the United States within Haro Strait, Rosario Strait, the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, as well as those portions of the Strait of Juan de Fuca east of the New Dungeness-Discovery Island line (Reference 13).

Other procedures of the Puget Sound Harbor Safety Committee recommend that laden tankers tether the escort tugs: between Saddlebag and Huckleberry Islands; in the vicinity of Viti Rocks; and in Guemes Channel from Shannon Point to Cap Sante, Boundary Pass, Haro, and Rosario Straits. The escort areas are diagramed in Figure 8.

Additionally, there are several other performance requirements that enhance the concept, for example:

The tugs’ horsepower must be equal to or exceed five percent (5%) of the ship’s deadweight tonnage, and the ship’s speed cannot exceed the service speed of the tug.

Speed restrictions apply when a ship is under escort.

Tug performance standards for assisting a stricken tanker are as noted in 33 CFR Part 168, Federal Performance Requirements (Reference 13).

ndav461

Highlight

ndav461

Highlight

ndav461

Sticky Note

The federal law says single-hull tankers must have two escort tugs, but the state law allows use of only one tug if it meets the hp to tonnage ratio requirement.


Figure 8 Chart – Shipping Lanes and General Areas where Tanker Escort is Required (Yellow and

Red) and Area where Tethered Escort is Practiced (Red)

2.2 Escort, Prepositioned Standby or Sentinel Tugs

There are no regulations in place for escorting bulk ships; however, it is reasonable to assume that a single escort tug could act as scout, close escort, or tethered tug. Based on current tariff rates for approved tugs, the cost of a single escort of a laden GPT ship from Cherry Point to Buoy “R” with a single tug would be in the neighborhood of $22,600 (2012 dollars) (Reference 17).

The standby or sentinel tug concept has been an effective tool to manage risk in West Straits of Juan de Fuca. Since the implementation of the pre-positioned tug in Neah Bay in 1999, it has assisted, stood by, or escorted 45 stricken vessels in and around the west end of the Straits of Juan de Fuca (Reference 18).


For effective response to the anticipated traffic from GPT using the transit routes, a system of two tugs, one in Haro Strait and the other in Rosario Straits, might be necessary at full utilization of the terminal. Due to the narrow channel geography of the Haro and Rosario Straits, the limited sea room in the event of a failure would reduce the time a tug has available to respond to a ship experiencing difficulty (Reference 15).

Because of this short period, it might reasonable for the tug to meet the ship at Buoy “CA” for outbound transits of Rosario Strait, and at Patos Island for outbound transits using Boundary Pass and Haro Strait. The tug would then escort the bulk ship through the narrow areas of the transit where a failure could result in a grounding or collision in a short period of time.

The additional value of this type of system is that the sentinel tug would act as a scout to provide additional situational awareness, hazard avoidance, an auxiliary bridge offering redundant watch-standing practices, communication and identification of hazards, and a redundant lookout. It would also provide separate navigation support and confirmation of the ships position. This procedure would bring particular value for Haro Strait due to the complexity of navigation in the Turn Point area. It might also be possible to utilize the sentinel tugs to assist in docking and undocking evolutions through contractual terms.

In 2010, the cost for this service in Neah Bay was $9,800 per day plus fuel used (Reference 19). Based on current information, if a sole source contract were negotiated, this method could be more cost effective than an active escort tether and assist under published tariffs and offers a viable solution for risk mitigation of accidents or groundings.

2.3 Voyage or Transit Planning

Another self-imposed approach could include scheduling inbound GPT vessels to arrive at the Puget Sound Pilot boarding area and board the Pilot for a daylight transit to Cherry Point. Puget Sound and Canadian regulations require a 96-hour notice of arrival and a 24-hour pre-arrival notice to VTS and the Pilots. Upon sending the 96-hour notice to Vessel Traffic Services, a ship could adjust the ETA to arrive at the Pilot Station two (2) hours before sunrise, with the anticipation to be south of Buoy “2” (Lawson Reef) at sunrise or six (6) hours before departure of vessels occupying the berth at GPT.

When the 24-hour notice to the Pilots is given, the ship could then be advised by the Pilot Service of the anticipated traffic for the area and pending departures from the GPT. The ship could then make final adjustments in speed for a daylight transit to an available anchorage near the terminal if a berth is unavailable or upon arrival at the GPT terminal.

Along with the cooperation of VTS and the Pilots, a GPT vessel could utilize AIS (Automatic Identification System) information to assist in planning arrival or departure times to coincide with favorable traffic conditions so as to avoid opposing traffic in Haro or Rosario Straits. Arrival and departure plans could be adjusted to reduce encounters with opposing traffic in other narrow channel locations, and to reduce exposure to crossing traffic or other navigational hazards.

Voyage plans for departures could be set for a berth departure at sunrise or no later than four (4) hours before sunset in order to be clear of Buoy “2” (abeam of Lawson Reef) during daylight hours. This would provide safer transits by utilizing daylight to improve situational awareness and mitigate the risk of reduced or nighttime visibility incidents.

ndav461

Highlight


2.4 Speed Reduction

A speed reduction for laden bulk ships making the transit between the GPT terminal and Buoy “R” for Rosario and Buoy “VH” for Boundary Pass and Haro Strait would further mitigate exposure to risk (Figure 9).

Figure 9 Chart – Buoys “R”, “VH”, “2”, and “CA” and GPT Location

Solely employing a simple speed reduction would allow additional time for the Pilot and/or Master to assess navigational situations and conditions, and to take countering action to prevent an incident or reduce the impact of a casualty if encountered. It will also reduce head reach of the ship in the event of a propulsion failure, and allow additional time for assistance to arrive.

Buoy “CA”

Buoy “2”

GPT

Buoy “R”

Buoy “VH”


A greater situational awareness could be added to the Bridge Team for more vigilant transit if a speed reduction were combined with:

An additional lookout on the bow of the ship, and

Another officer on the bridge with the sole duty of supporting the lookout and identifying navigational hazards.

2.5 Traffic Scheme/Flow Modification

Approaches that may require additional approvals from State, Federal, and International interests include:

Modification of routing schemes, such as altering the current traffic lane approaches from Seattle, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and the Straits of Georgia. A rotary one-way traffic scheme could be created where all traffic would utilize Rosario Straits for northbound transits and Boundary Pass/Haro Strait for all southbound transits. This change, along with a possible speed reduction below Patos Island for the departing ships, would increase the safety margin considerably.

Negotiation between the respective Pilotage interests may include utilizing Puget Sound Pilots for inbound routes (Rosario Strait) and Pacific Pilotage Authority for southbound routes (Boundary Pass and Haro Strait). Canadian bound vessels would continue changing Pilots, as they do now at the International Boundary (Patos Island).

Routing ship transits in this manner eliminates opposing ship traffic, slows advance in areas of navigational hazards, and eases congested traffic areas. This pattern is also conducive to Pilot boarding, as it establishes the ship in the correct traffic lane, establishes the direction for Pilot embarkation and disembarkation and, finally, reduces the amount of crossing traffic in the Hein Bank area.

Access to anchorages would be along and adjacent to the established traffic pattern for both tanker and GPT-calling vessels. Canadian traffic would not be affected, as the shipping would remain in the traffic pattern continuing north of Patos Island in the Strait of Georgia to the international border.

Combining speed restrictions with the modified routing would further improve the possibility of a safe transit. This concept would not minimize exposure to navigational hazards or crossing traffic.

Local modifications in the area approaching the berth at GPT and other nearby facilities may ease congestion and opposing traffic between Alden Bank and the mainland. Generally, the Puget Sound Pilots berth tankers “starboard side to” at the Conoco-Phillips refinery at Ferndale adopt a counter-clockwise approach, and departure from the dock at GPT would complement the current traffic pattern.

Instituting a departure north and west of Alden Bank, all ships berthing at Conoco-Phillips, Alcoa/Intalco, GPT, and BP would utilize the counter-clockwise concept. This would, in turn, reduce large vessel arrivals and departures on reciprocal courses and minimize crossing situations. It would also position the ship to employ Boundary Pass and Haro Strait as a departure route if desired. An additional benefit in this system is the minimization of impacts to fishing or crab gear in the area (Figure 10).

ndav461

Highlight

ndav461

Highlight

ndav461

Highlight

ndav461

Sticky Note

Currently, Canadian-bound vessels from Puget Sound ports switch pilots at the border, but all Canadian-bound vessels entering from sea only utilize Canadian pilots. The proposed change would mean more jobs for US pilots, shorter jobs for Canadian pilots on inbound ships and would likely cost more overall for Canadian-bound ships. Similarly, all outbound ships from the North Sound would be required to use pilots from two countries and have a longer route, particularly if departing Anacortes.

ndav461

Sticky Note

Is there a significant volume of crossing traffic in this location?


Figure 10 Chart – Routing Alternative for Arrival and Departure from GPT


Section 3 Supplemental Aids to Navigation (ATON)

The channels of Haro and Rosario have a number of navigational buoys and shore-based fixed lights along the traffic lane to mark the preferred channel, exposed rocks, islands, and turns. Since there are many long and straight legs in the transit of both routes, a series of ranges could be installed to indicate that the Pilot is navigating on a safe route or is in the middle of the channel.

For example, the optimal transit line to and from GPT using Rosario Strait could be marked by:

Ranges placed on Blakely Island and Lummi Island for the leg from Buoy “C” to Lydia Shoal.

Ranges on Orcas Island for the leg between Lydia Shoal and Cape St. Mary. A set of ranges on Allan Island for the leg from Cape St. Mary to Davidson Rock.

By placing navigational ranges and back ranges in strategic locations in Haro Strait, Boundary Pass, and Rosario Strait, the entire transit in confined waters could be enhanced with additional navigational resources (Figures 11 and 12).

The application process for new navigational aids, public and private, is through the United States Coast Guard and is defined in Private Aids to Navigation and USCG form 2554 (Reference 16).

Figure 11 Chart – Possible Range Lights for northern Rosario Strait


Figure 12 Chart – Possible Range Lights for southern Rosario Strait

task 8: overview of the traffic separation schemes, approaches...

Documents