(The) Committee is comprised of a wide spectrum of interests...Its primary concern is navigational safety, focusing on the safety of human lives, the environment, property and the continued health of local commercial and recreational endeavors.

Top of Page

Tug Escort Subcommittee (TES)...comprised
of local experts in ship operations, as well as regulatory and environmental representatives, defined risks and identified
mitigation measures.

Top of Page

This seven-year process achieved much more than
the development of a workable tug escort plan. It transformed a diverse group of maritime professionals, each with their own concerns and experiences, into
a team.

Top of Page

With the more than 2 billion-dollar port expansion and infrastructure improvements, these projects are dramatically altering the geographic make-up of the ports and their navigation channels.

Top of Page

Recognizing the interdependency of each of these major issues, the subcommittee developed a comprehensive plan to manage navigation safety.

Top of Page

By Robert M. Barker

Background

    The Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Safety Committee’s origin can be traced back to the late 1970's when several near-miss incidents, and one minor collision, brought the maritime community together to systematically address port safety. In 1991, the Port Navigation and Safety Committee (as it was then known) became the LA/LB Harbor Safety Committee under the new State of California Oil Spill Response Act (Act).
    The Act, which established five California harbor safety committees (located in San Diego, Port Hueneme, San Francisco, Humboldt Bay and Los Angeles/Long Beach) set out mandatory membership categories which added environmental organizations and federal and state representatives to the original LA/LB Committee’s roster. Its mission, however, remains unchanged – maintain cooperative problem solving to improve safety.
    Today’s Committee is comprised of a wide spectrum of interests, including private, commercial entities, environmental groups, labor and pilot organizations, port authorities, fishing fleets, and state and federal government agencies. Its primary concern is navigational safety, focusing on the safety of human lives, the environment, property and the continued health of local commercial and recreational endeavors.

Success Stories

    This paper illustrates, through two recent success stories, the Committee’s effectiveness in creating balanced resolutions of safety issues at both the state and federal government levels. This ability, coupled with the harbors’ successful safety record, has created a credible forum within which to discuss navigational safety concerns from all perspectives.

Development of Tug Escort Regulations

    The Act mandated all California committees to adopt regulations giving the "highest priority" to those implementing tug escort services for tank vessels. From its first formal meeting in 1991, the Committee began drafting regulations, which implemented existing tug/ship assist guidelines utilized by local pilots and other maritime professionals inside the federal breakwater area.
    Further informal risk assessments by federal, state and environmental representatives served to convince the port community that tug escorts beyond the federal breakwater and in the approaches were necessary. The committee then formed a Tug Escort Subcommittee (TES) and charged it with further study and recommendations for subsequent regulations.
    The TES, comprised of local experts in ship operations, as well as regulatory and environmental representatives, defined risks and identified mitigation measures. Concurrently, the San Francisco Harbor Safety Committee approached the tug escort issue by retaining a marine engineering consultant company tasked to calculate tug forces needed to control movements of vessels experiencing mechanical failures within individual transit areas of San Francisco Bay.
    The TES, after reviewing the San Francisco Bay engineering models determined that certain segments could be adapted to meet the conditions of the LA/LB Harbors, thus alleviating the need for additional time and expenditure.
    State law mandated validation by the engineering firm that San Francisco’s information could be relied upon to determine tug power requirements for the LA/LB Harbors. Unfortunately, the engineers determined that the San Francisco model had some significant inconsistencies with actual LA/LB conditions. Concurrently, the engineers’ initial modeling of LA/LB harbor distances and conditions resulted in force requirements which greatly exceeded local tugboat capabilities.
    Despite the modeling results, local ship assist practices and accurate local computer simulations evinced that current tug inventories were adequate to control mechanical failures of the largest ships calling at the ports.
    The TES decided that the problem was how to define the local harbor in terms that could be modeled accurately by the consultants. The key differences between the San Francisco model and the LA/LB harbor conditions included: the ability of the tugs to steer as well as stop the vessel, pre-tethering the tugs to the tanker, the different dimensions and conditions of the approaches, and quantifying the differences between tractor and conventional tugs.
    Hours of meetings, discussions and debates, along with hundreds of e-mails, faxes and phone calls resulted in a definition of the LA/LB "highest risk transit" in terms that could be modeled. Based on this definition and local conditions, a new computer model was developed which accurately predicted requirements more closely reflecting actual practice. A matrix of tug force requirements for increasing levels of vessel displacement was created and published in the Harbor Safety Plan and State regulations. 
    This seven-year process achieved much more than the development of a workable tug escort plan. It transformed a diverse group of maritime professionals, each with their own concerns and experiences, into a team. This team was able to demonstrate to the State of California, in its first major foray into navigational safety regulatory activity, that each port is unique and that a common regulatory approach is not necessarily the best solution. Certainly this was a positive lesson which created a collaborative association among local maritime professionals, environmental concerns and government representatives.

Traffic Management in San Pedro Channel, Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors

    Over the last several years the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have been aggressively engaged in new construction and renovation projects. In the Port of Los Angeles, projects include the Pier 300/400 construction (largest landfill project undertaking in the U.S.), and the deepening of both the approach and main channel for LA harbor. In the Port of Long Beach, major projects include the opening of a new 170-acre Pier A terminal, the renovation of Pier T (the former Long Beach Naval Shipyard) and the deepening of their approach channel as well. With the more than 2 billion-dollar port expansion and infrastructure improvements, these projects are dramatically altering the geographic make-up of the ports and their navigation channels. These alterations include:

• the addition of 582 acres (landfilled) in the Port of Los Angeles for container terminals,
• the creation of 166 acres of shallow water habitat in the Port of Los Angeles,
• the deepening of the LA main channel to 81’,
• the loss of 15 anchorages in LA harbor,
• the deepening of the LB main channel to 76’, and
• the creation of a new 300-plus acre container terminal in Long Beach.
• the creation of a new 170-acre container terminal in Long Beach.

    As you can imagine, these alterations give rise to significant navigation safety issues both inside the two ports and in the San Pedro Channel where approximately 5,600 deep draft vessel arrivals occurred last year. The existing traffic management scheme was designed when there was more water acreage available for navigation, smaller ships, and less traffic. Although the Coast Guard is mandated to ensure port safety and has the authority to implement whatever safe navigation measures are needed, it is the Harbor Safety Committee that serves as the venue to address these navigational safety concerns through its partnership with the Coast Guard.
    To tackle the alterations issue, the Harbor Safety Committee realized that a holistic approach was needed. Sub-committee #1 (Navigation Safety & Piloting) was given the job of analyzing the situation and developing a recommended course of action. This sub-committee includes representatives from the two port authorities, the two pilot services, the Marine Exchange, representatives from various carriers and terminals (container, bulk, and liquid bulk), tug companies, Offshore Mooring Master, the commercial and sport fishing community, environmentalists, the State of California, and federal representatives from the Coast Guard (including the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS)), Army Corp of Engineers, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    The major issues the subcommittee tackled were:

• marking of the new deep draft approach channels,
• extension/designation of pilot boarding areas for vessels constrained by draft to the deep draft channels, and
• the flow of traffic into and from the existing Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) due to the changes in channel marking and pilot boarding areas.

    Recognizing the interdependency of each of these major issues, the subcommittee developed a comprehensive plan to manage navigation safety. The plan was developed with the intention of implementing the entire plan at one time, not in phases. This will reduce the likelihood of confusion over changing navigation safety elements that might occur if done piecemeal. The challenges faced by the subcommittee included understanding and working around International Maritime Organization (IMO) and federal rulemaking procedures to change the internationally recognized TSS, coordinating aids to navigation needs with Coast Guard funding and ship schedules, coordinating navigation chart issuance with NOAA, and developing recommendations for modifying the TSS Precautionary Area and Regulated Navigation Areas with the various user communities.
    Although these modifications to the traffic management system are still in the process of being implemented, it is a clear success for the Harbor Safety Committee to partner with the federal government to design the best system for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Harbor Safety Committee pulled together representatives from all facets of the maritime community. This has resulted in a collective voice that has positively influenced the federal regulatory process.

Conclusion

    These success stories demonstrate the capability of a well-organized and active Harbor Safety Committee. The tenet of the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Safety Committee is to have all stakeholders participate at the ground level of decision making, to build consensus, and to tackle conflict at the lowest possible level. In this, the Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor Safety Committee has been successful. The best way to improve navigation safety is to have the local community manage the issues and use the power and talents of local, state, and federal organizations to ensure navigation safety and meet the needs of the waterway stakeholders.