Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjoo20

Journal of Operational Oceanography

ISSN: 1755-876X (Print) 1755-8778 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjoo20

NOAA’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System(PORTS®)

Richard F. Edwing

To cite this article: Richard F. Edwing (2019) NOAA’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®), Journal of Operational Oceanography, 12:sup2, S176-S186, DOI:10.1080/1755876X.2018.1545558

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2018.1545558

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup

Published online: 17 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 373

View related articles

View Crossmark data

NOAA’s Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®)Richard F. Edwing

Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SilverSpring, MD, USA

ABSTRACTThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Physical Oceanographic Real-TimeSystem (PORTS®) is an integrated system of sensors concentrated in seaports that provide accurateand reliable real-time information about environmental conditions. PORTS measures anddisseminates observations for water levels, currents, waves, bridge air gap, water temperature,salinity, and meteorological parameters. PORTS was developed and implemented in the early1990s in response to an accident in Tampa Bay where a vessel struck the Sunshine SkywayBridge resulting in a substantial loss of life and property. The programme was established as apublic-private partnership where the local community funds the establishment and maintenanceof the local observing system, and NOAA provides the programme and data management.Today, PORTS has grown to over 30 locations around the country and services over 80% of thetonnage and over 90% of the value of cargo transiting U.S. seaports. A number of economicbenefit studies have shown PORTS can reduce accidents by over 50% and significantly increaseefficiency. This article examines the evolution of the programme in terms of addressingemerging observational needs, infusing new technology, enhancing products, conductingeconomic benefit studies, adapting business models, and serving other societal needs.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 23 March 2018Accepted 29 October 2018

Introduction

The Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System(PORTS®)1 is a domestic cost-shared programme betweenthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) and the maritime community. PORTS providesa suite of environmental observations that provide safetyand/or efficiency benefits primarily for maritime com-merce; however, its publicly available data and productsbenefit many other economic sectors as well. It helpsaddress a long-standing high priority for the marine trans-portation system community: the availability of timely,accurate and reliable data needed for safe and efficientoperations (U.S. Department of Transportation 1999).Situational awareness of key observation parameters thatdescribe the dynamic, and often challenging, an opera-tional environment that commercial vessels transit dailyin and out of our nation’s seaports is essential to enablingbest safety and efficiency decisions to be made. Whilesafe and efficient commerce through our nation’s seaportshas always been vital to the nation’s economy, ever largervessels (Figure 1) and increasingly congested seaportsmake the provision of PORTS data even more beneficial.Shutting down a major seaport, such as Los Angeles/

Long Beach, for a single day can cost the U.S. economy$65–$150 million (Congressional Budget Office 2006).

PORTSbeganas a demonstrationproject inTampaBay,Florida in 1991. Its development was prompted by a tragic1980 accident in Tampa Bay when a vessel struck the Sun-shine Skyway Bridge and caused the loss of 35 lives. Whilehigh winds and heavy rains were found to be the probablecause of the accident, other environmental conditions suchas fog and currents were factors as well (National Trans-portation Safety Board 1981). The accident underscoredthe need for timely, accurate, and reliable environmentalinformation to be available to ship operators. In responseto the accident and subsequent Congressional interest,NOAAdeveloped and established the PORTSprogramme,initially through several pilot demonstrations beginning inTampa (NOAA and USCG 2000).

The development of PORTS considerably advanced theuse of oceanographic information by: (1) providing data innear real-time (measurements taken every 6 minutes anddisseminated within 12–18 minutes) to inform users ofactual conditions, and (2) ’integrating’ a variety of environ-mental parameters on one website, eliminating the need togo to multiple sites or sources for different observation

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon inany way.

CONTACT Richard F. Edwing richard.edwing@noaa.gov Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, National Ocean Service, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East West Highway, Room 6650, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY2019, VOL. 12, NO. S2, s176–s186https://doi.org/10.1080/1755876X.2018.1545558

types. The ability to get a comprehensive and easily under-stood view of the operating environment is particularly cri-tical on the bridge of a vessel where there can many issuesgoing on at the same time. With today’s technology, whilethese features are now commonplace acrossmany differentobserving systems and distribution portals, PORTS hascontinued to evolve to infuse new technology and provideadditional parameters, expand to covermore locations, andto be the trusted source for this type of information.

What is PORTS?

PORTS is a national network of local observing systems.PORTS is built upon two, long-standing federally fundedobservation programmes that acquire physical oceano-graphic data and provide a broad suite of products and

services. The National Water Level Observation Network(NWLON) is an in-situ network of long-term tide andwater levels (Great Lakes) monitoring stations whosefoundational purpose is to provide the reference frame-work upon which all other tide and water level productsit generates are based, such as predictions, near real-timedata, forecasts, long-term trends, and statistical analyses.The National Currents Observation Program (NCOP)conducts short-term current surveys (a number ofshort-term current observations acquired in a geo-graphic locale) to support products such as tidal currentpredictions and hydrodynamic forecast models.Together, these national observation systems and theend-to-end operational infrastructure required to sup-port them are the foundation upon which PORTS isbuilt. The operational infrastructure provides the ability

Figure 1. Ships getting larger. Source: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty.Note: Changes in ship size and capacity from 1968 to present.

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s177

to: develop and set national standards enabling seamlessdata interoperability; test, evaluate, integrate, and infusenew technology to reduce costs and improve servicedelivery; maintain observing systems to ensure timely,reliable, and accurate data; ingest, quality control, pro-cess, analyse, and generate products. Essential to this isthe oceanographic, engineering, information technology,and programme management expertise resident inNOAA’s human capital.

In some locations, the real-time water level data pro-vided by an NWLON station may be sufficient to meetlocal maritime safety and efficiency needs. Most majorseaports have at least one NWLON station locatedwithin their geographic area, and sometimes several.Many NWLON stations also monitor and provide real-time wind, barometric pressure, and air temperaturedata. Most major seaports have had tidal current surveysconducted over past years that update and add to localtidal current predictions.

However, while these two national observing systemsmeet NOAA mission requirements for tide, water level,and current information, local requirements for safeand efficient maritime commerce often drive the needfor additional real-time water levels, currents, andother oceanographic and meteorological observations.Every seaport is unique in terms of geography, types ofvessels, cargo types, and other factors that may requirea different subset of observation parameters to providethe mariner with a comprehensive understanding ofhis or her operating environment. PORTS has evolvedover time and today can provide the overall suite of para-meter types identified by user communities as mostessential for safe and efficient maritime commerce (Fig-ure 2). These parameters are:

. Tide/water level observations to ensure a vessel accu-rately knows its underkeel clearance, i.e. the distancebetween the bottom of the vessel and the seafloor.This avoids groundings and also enables optimal useof the available water column by maximising thedraft of a vessel transiting it. PORTS water leveldata has helped many seaports reduce their minimumunderkeel clearance safety margins, thus increasingvessel capacity and realising additional revenue inevery vessel transit.

. Air gap observations ensure the safe passage of a vesselunder a bridge and are a relatively recent addition toPORTS given the emerging issue of ever larger vesselsstriking bridges. Some seaports have required theestablishment of an air gap sensor on one or morebridges before allowing vessels of a certain class or lar-ger to transit and have also reduced their overheadclearance safety margins.

. Current profile observations ensure safe vessel man-oeuvers in areas with strong and variable currents.This is particularly needed in congested areas, loca-tions where the federal channels have turns and dog-legs, docking and anchorages, etc. Vessels with deepdrafts (tens of feet) require current profiles to accountfor current speed and direction at variable depths thatmay affect their vessel draft. Aligning vessel transitswith current direction can also increase efficiency.

. Wave observations help ensure safe vessel operationsaround entrances to estuaries and seaports wherewaves can be significant. Knowing wave conditionsis particularly critical for vessel pilots, as they oftenmust board or disembark commercial vessels offshorefrom pilot boats and cannot do so once wave condi-tions exceed their safety criteria.

. Salinity and water temperature aid mariners in cor-rectly accounting for vessel buoyancy in estimatingthe draft of their vessel.

. Wind speed and direction are like current observationsin that they enable mariners to account for potentialimpacts on ship track and manoeuvers. These obser-vations support both safety and efficiency decisions.

. Visibility observations help determine where theremay be large gaps in fog conditions that allow for par-tial port operations to be authorised versus shuttingdown the entire port region.

Again, while a seaport may not need all of these observa-tion types, they are all available through PORTS, andusers can tailor what near real-time observations areneeded for their specific requirements.

Technology infusion

PORTS utilises the same data collection platform, com-munications, power supply, sensors, and other technol-ogy components employed by NOAA to operate andmaintain the NWLON and NCOP. Given NOAA is thenation’s authoritative source for tide, water level, andcurrent data, the NWLON and NCOP are robustlydesigned to acquire data in a broad range of environ-mental conditions, sometimes in remote areas, fromice-covered arctic to warmer climates where corrosion,biofouling and other issues arise. Conditions can bevery dynamic with tsunamis, hurricanes, and otherextreme coastal events threatening operations. Theoperational and technology lessons gleaned from theseobserving systems are the foundation upon whichPORTS builds.

NOAA continually monitors what new technologiesfor all components of their observing are emerging

s178 R. F. EDWING

from industry and academia. NOAA tests and evaluatesthem to ensure their capabilities are fully understood,and that they can deliver potential improvements andefficiencies. If they are approved for the transition tooperations, NOAA works to integrate them into the lar-ger observing system, including any changes needed allthe way through the data management system.

One of the first challenges for the fledgling PORTSprogramme was how to establish long-term in-situ cur-rent profilers given NOAA’s prior experience was pri-marily in short-term deployments. The locations mostdesired by the user community were for the current mea-surements to be provided alongside federal channels andother offshore areas where large commercial vessels werenavigating twists and turns in those areas. The initialapproach was to deploy a bottom-mounted, upward-looking, acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) thatrelied on a long cable run to provide power and returndata. Given the limitations of a long cable run andtheir susceptibility to damage from anchors, trawlers,and other hazards, these deployments could be bothexpensive and not as reliable as desired.

In response, NOAA adopted two new ways of deploy-ing current profilers to better meet user requirements.One methodology is to utilise a side-looking ADCPdeveloped by industry that is mounted horizontally on

a pier, bulkhead, or other vertical surface and providesmeasurements 200 m or more out into a waterway (Fig-ure 3). The profiler is mounted on a platform attached toa steel channel to enable it to be easily raised and loweredfor maintenance. While improving reliability and redu-cing expense, side-looking ADCPs have limited rangeand are best used where channels approach the shore.

Another methodology that has become most pre-ferred utilises U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) aids-to-naviga-tion (ATON) buoys, which are common in most U.S.seaports and typically located along the federal channelwhere the data are most needed. NOAA developed andtransitioned to operations a methodology in 2005 tomount an ADCP on the ATON buoy (Bosley et al.2005, 2006). Data from the buoy are transmitted vialine-of-sight radio to a shore station data collection plat-form where it is processed, formatted, and then trans-mitted back to NOAA via the NOAA GeostationaryOperational Environmental Satellite (GOES).

This system was recently modernised by placing allcomponents on the buoy and using Iridium satellitecommunications to handle a large amount of datainvolved. Called iATON, the system significantly reducescosts by eliminating the shore station data collectionplatform, improves data reliability by eliminating theintermediate line of sight radio communication path,

Figure 2. Ports overview. Source: NOAA.Notes: PORTS® sensors measure water levels, currents, waves, salinity, bridge clearance (air gap), winds, air and water temperature, and visibility. A data collectionplatform records the data every 6 minutes and sends it to NOAA via satellite, where it is reviewed for accuracy and posted online.

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s179

and also extends the geographic scope of how far offshore ATONs can be leveraged (Hensley and Heitsen-rether 2017). A new PORTS was just established inMiami, where iATONs now provide currents data asfar as 3 miles offshore along the channel that takes a dog-leg turn before vessels attain the protection of theentrance jetties. This PORTS system would not havebeen possible without the iATON system (Figure 3).

Other PORTS parameters identified by users werenew to NOAA observing systems. Users identified visibi-lity as an important parameter given the frequency andimpact of fog on port operations in some parts of thecountry. While visibility was a commonly observed para-meter along U.S. highways and other surface transporta-tion systems, observation technology that could operatereliably in challenging coastal environment had notbeen extensively tested and evaluated. In 2008, NOAA,the Federal Aviation Administration, the US ArmyCorps of Engineers, and the USCG completed collabora-tive testing and evaluation of a number of visibilityobserving technologies, the results of which enabledNOAA to introduce a point source technology that hasoperated with a high degree of reliability since inception(Roggenstein et al. 2009). Thirteen visibility sensors havenow been added to six PORTS locations (Figure 4).

Another parameter requested by users was for near-shore observations of wave height and direction.NOAA’s PORTS programme did not have the opera-tional infrastructure in place to support nearshorewave buoys, so a partnership was formed with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers by leveraging their CoastalData Information Program (CDIP). CDIP operates anetwork of nearshore buoys that monitor waves andother environmental data for supporting coastal studiesand projects. Where CDIP buoys are already operatingwithin the boundaries of an existing PORTS, that dataare accessed, integrated, and provided to PORTS usersthrough their respective PORTS portals. Where wave

information is required, and a CDIP buoy is not beingoperated, PORTS partners can fund the deployment ofone.

Air gap is a relatively new and frequently requestedPORTS parameter because of the increasing size of ves-sels transiting U.S. seaports. In many seaports, vessel’ssuperstructures are striking bridges with increasing fre-quency, damaging both the bridge and the vessel, notto mention the obvious hazard to life. In response tothis emerging issue, NOAA identified, tested, and

Figure 3. Side-looking ADCP and MIAMI ports iATON buoy. Source: NOAA.Notes: (left) A NOAA crew install a side-looker Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler onto a pier in Casco Bay, ME (right) a crew installs an iATON current meter on aU.S. Coast Guard aids-to-navigation buoy along the entrance channel to PortMiami.

Figure 4. Visibility sensor. Source: NOA.Note: A visibility sensor, part of Narragansett Bay PORTS® in Rhode Island, aidsboaters in making safe decisions about where and when to sail when visibilityis low outside.

s180 R. F. EDWING

integrated into PORTS an air gap sensor that providesreal-time measurements of the distance between the low-est point of the bridge and the water level (Bushnell et al.2005; Heitsenrether and Hensley 2013). The measure-ment takes into account not just variations in the waterlevel, but fluctuations in the bridge elevation driven bytemperature change, traffic loading, and other condi-tions. Many seaports have not allowed larger vessels totransit until an air gap sensor has been established, andin several cases, the safe import of large cranes to theirfinal destinations was heavily reliant upon air gaps toclear bridges. As of 2017, there are 16 individual airgap sensors, serving 10 different PORTS systems aroundthe country (Figure 5).

Data management and products

Situational awareness on the bridge of a ship, where theremay be many activities requiring timely decisions to bemade, can be greatly aided when all decision-supportinformation can be accessed through one source, suchas a web portal, piloting device, or other technologyregardless of the multiple sources. However, before thereal-time observations become PORTS products, anessential step is to quality control the data to ensure itaccurately represents the existing conditions. High-qual-ity data can prevent accidents and improve efficiency,while inaccurate data has the potential to cause, or con-tribute to, an accident – typically a grounding, allision, orcollision. Given the significant potential damage a mari-time accident can cause to life, property and the environ-ment, there can be large legal liability associated with theprovision of the data. To ensure high-quality data andproducts and to mitigate any risk of liability, a key func-tion performed by NOAA is the continuous monitoringand management of the real-time data. NOAA operatesthe 24/7/365 Continuously Operating Real-time

Monitoring System (CORMS), which performs qualitycontrol on all data acquired by PORTS before dissemi-nating to users.

CORMS uses example-based reasoning automatedroutines (Vafaie and Cecere 2004) that check continuous6-minute data from over 1600 sensors and flags that aresuspect, missing, intermittent, or experiencing otherissues. CORMS flags data that are missing or exceed pre-set maximum/minimum thresholds, the rate of changethresholds, and other criteria. Watch standers on dutyat all times assess the flagged data and based upontheir analysis, either approve its continued disseminationor stop dissemination and refer it to a team of oceanogra-phers who conduct further analysis and determine why itwas flagged. Once the issue has been resolved, data dis-semination resumes. Automated routines have enabledthe number of sensors to grow substantially over timewithout having to add more CORMS watch standers(Figure 6).

PORTS data are disseminated through a variety ofplatforms and products. Originally, given the limitedaccess to the internet, the most common way of accessingPORTS data was through cell phone service using anautomated menu tree to select data from a specific sen-sor. While this service is still available, the internet isnow the most widely used method of accessing PORTSdata and products, ranging from simple text displays tographics. PORTS products have been adapted to displayproperly on a variety of devices ranging from smartphones to tablets to full monitors. PORTS displays pro-vide a number of options ranging from viewing datafrom just one location to data from multiple sensorsand/or multiple locations.

A product called MyPORTS allows users to customisetheir own data display. A user who may only need a sub-set of all available sensors on a regular basis can selectjust those sensors needed and create their own web

Figure 5. LA/Long beach air gap and Chesapeake Bay Cranes. Source: NOAA.Notes: (left) A large container vessel transits under an air gap sensor on the Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, California. (right) Real-time air gap informationfrom the Chesapeake Bay PORTS® was critical for transiting new super cranes under the Bay Bridge to the Port of Baltimore in 2012, ensuring the port couldremain competitive in global maritime trade.

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s181

page, which will update automatically. The MyPORTSpage can then be bookmarked and emailed to otherusers.

It is also possible for PORTS partners or other thirdparties to create value-added products that use PORTSdata. For example, the Port of Portland developed anonline planning tool called LOADMAX for vessels tran-siting the 100-mile-plus length of the Columbia River.The tool uses the PORTS near real-time data, river fore-cast data, and estimated vessel speed to estimate depth atvarious points along the river, optimising arrival anddeparture times, as well as how much cargo can be safelyloaded. A mobile phone app called Transit Time wasdeveloped by the Conrad Blucher Institute to predicthydrodynamic conditions and visualise ship travelalong the Houston, Texas ship channel for vessel transitplanning. A number of private companies offer under-keel clearance models and services that rely on real-time data provided by PORTS to enable the optimaluse of water depth within a channel.

While not a formal part of the PORTS programme,under the National Operational Coastal Modeling Pro-gram NOAA operates hydrodynamic models in mostmajor seaports areas and is steadily working towardcomplete coverage of the nation’s coasts, including theGreat Lakes. The hydrodynamic models provide nowcast(modeled observations) and forecast guidance out 48hours for many of the same parameters that PORTS pro-vide in near real-time, and at a greater spatial resolution,

mutually extending the value of both observations/now-casts and forecasts. Vessel schedules can be aligned withfavourable environmental conditions such as takingadvantage of tidal currents to reduce fuel usage. Theinformation also allows cargo optimisation for availablewater depth. For example, if water levels are forecast tohigher than normal over the next few days, the vesselmay be able to load and transport more cargo. If theyare forecast to be lower, the vessel may not load asmuch cargo or can decide to wait until sufficient waterdepth is available.

The PORTS partnership

A PORTS is established when the local maritime com-munity identifies its requirements for real-time observa-tions within a desired geographic area, identifies thefunding needed to establish and maintain the localPORTS, and enters into an agreement with NOAA.PORTS partners are as diverse as the maritime commu-nity is itself and are typically pilots, port authorities,marine exchanges, state agencies, private industry, andother federal agencies (US Navy and USACE). Whileship pilots are the main frontline users of the system tomake the best safety of life and property decisions, theentire local maritime community is heavily reliant onthe safe and efficient passage of vessels and recognisesthe critical role played by PORTS. The maritime com-munity comes together to identify areas within the port

Figure 6. CORMS watchstanders. Source: NOAA.Note: A member of CORMS reviews environmental data streaming in from sensors across the country.

s182 R. F. EDWING

where real-time data can address specific issues or chal-lenges. Sometimes PORTS systems are motivated byother factors. For example, a number of PORTS havebeen established, or are being considered, due to the con-struction of liquid natural gas facilities given the hazar-dous nature of the cargo and the local safety concerns.Other PORTS have been established or expanded dueto the opening of the post-PANAMAX canal and theadvent of larger vessels requiring both 50-foot authoriseddepth channels and also adequate bridge clearance. Anumber of ports would not allow certain large class ves-sels to enter until a PORTS air gap sensor was in service.

It is important to realise that one PORTS may serviceone or more seaports depending on the geography of thearea, the local parties that are interested in partnering toestablish the PORTS, and their span of responsibility.Any NWLON stations that may be located in the areahave their data incorporated into PORTS data displays,but NOAA is still responsible for their maintenance.

A PORTS can be as small as one sensor servicing a sea-port up to hundreds of sensors. For example, Savannah,Georgia uses an air gap sensor to ensure safe passage ofvessels under the Talmadge Memorial Bridge, althoughthe local NWLON station at Fort Pulaski, Georgia isalso displayed. Jacksonville, Florida uses 32 sensors inaddition to the one local NWLON station. SomePORTS start with the establishment of one or two sensors

and then have more added on as the users and local com-munity learn how tomost effectively use them, gain confi-dence in the system, and realise the benefits.

Safety and economic benefits

PORTS has grown over the decades to a system of over 30PORTS that service over 75 seaports. There are over 300seaports in the U.S., and commerce can be tracked usingstatistics such as tonnage, value, number of transits, vesseltypes, and other statistics. No one statistic can adequatelycapture all the types of vessels and cargo that transit U.S.seaports—containers, bulk commodity, tankers, and evencruise liners. Every seaport will have a different mix,which may or may not be dominated by one type. Forexample; the port of Baltimore, Maryland is the largesttotal tonnage port in the U.S. and ranks near the top oflists compiled by other statistics as well (Sprung, 2017).Port Fourchon, Louisiana will not be found anywherenear the tonnage lists, but it services over 90% of the Gulfof Mexico deepwater oil production and furnishes about18% of the nation’s oil supply (http://portfourchon.com/seaport/port-facts/) (Figure 7).

A PORTS economic assessment methodology hasbeen developed to estimate the economic benefits pro-vided by PORTS (Kite-Powell, 2005a). The approachestimates with varying degrees of confidence the benefits

Figure 7. Ports location map. Source: NOAA.Note: This map shows the 33 existing PORTS locations in the United States (as of August 2018), consisting of over 550 sensors.

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s183

in dollars, and also assesses nonquantifiable benefits.Potential sources of economic benefit from PORTSinformation considered by this methodology included:

. Greater draft allowance/increased cargo capacity andreduced transit delays for commercial maritime trans-portation (water level information).

. Reduced risk of groundings/allisions for maritimetraffic (currents and wind information).

. Enhanced recreational use of coastal waters boaters,windsurfers, etc. (winds, weather forecasts, andother information).

. Improved environmental/ecological planning andanalysis, including hazardous material spill response

From 2005 to 2010 benefits were determined by indivi-dual PORTS beginning with Tampa Bay, Florida ($7 mil-lion in 2005 dollars) (Kite-Powell, 2005b), then HoustonGalveston, Texas ($15.6 million in 2006 dollars) (Kite-Powell, 2007), New York/New Jersey ($9.9 million in2009 dollars) (Kite-Powell, 2009) and Columbia River($7.5 million in 2009 dollars) (Kite-Powell, 2010). Ineach case, significant annual economic benefits wereidentified, with over $50 million cumulatively in today’sdollars. Perhaps most significantly, a 50% or more reduc-tion in accidents was identified at three of the locationswhere the availability of real-time information was anew capability. Columbia River has operated a PORTSlike system since the mid-1980s and already realisedthe safety improvements.

In 2013, an NOAA economic report that built on thefour preceding reports was published that looked at theeconomic benefits if a national system of PORTS wasestablished for 175 coastal ports (Wolfe and MacFarland2013). These ports were identified on the basis of ton-nage, national security, commercial fishing, and otherfactors. Benefits were defined for the 58 ports that hadaccess to PORTS data in 2010 and the 117 that did notto identify the benefits PORTS are and could be generat-ing. The report found that

shippers and marine pilots have found the PORTSinformation to be the single most important source ofinformation when they are working with ships that areoperating very close to the channel bottom (depth con-strained) or bridges spanning the channels and duringtimes of adverse weather.

The analysis conservatively indicated that PORTS couldpotentially provide a total benefit of $300 millionannually for the 175 ports, as well as significant improve-ments in marine safety, with reductions in the commer-cial marine accident rates of:

. Groundings were reduced by 59%.

. Overall accident rate (allisions, collisions and ground-ings) reduced 33%.

. Mortality reduced 60%.

. Morbidity reduced 45%.

. Property damage reduced by 37%.

In addition, the socioeconomic effect from PORTS iffully implemented at the top U.S. 175 ports would be,

. PORTS could help sustain 34,000–46,000 jobs.

. PORTS could help support $1.6–$2.4 billion in wages.

A follow-on internal NOAA 2017 study to the 2013report investigated in more depth the incidence of acci-dents (allisions, collisions, and groundings or ACGs)from over the period 2005 to 2016 based on locationswith and without PORTS (Wolfe 2017). The studyused accident data from the USCG Marine Informationand Safety and Law Enforcement and economic datafrom the USACE Channel Portfolio Tool database. Thestudy assessed: (1) overall trends in ACGs, (2) relativeaccident rates; (3) morbidity and mortality costs;(4) property losses associated with vessel, cargo, facility,and other sources; (5) costs of petroleum release reme-diation resulting from ACGs; and, (6) identification ofports where updated and/or additional navigationalaids might be beneficial. Overall, 77 locations withPORTS and 163 without PORTS were analysed. Someof the most significant impacts of PORTS included:

. ACG rates (vessel transits per accident occurrence) atlocations with PORTS witnessed an overall increaseapproaching 163%, while locations without PORTSdecreased by about 30%

. Over 10 years, locations with PORTS were estimatedto have realised about $183 million (two-thirds) oftotal savings from ACG reduction alone. There were19 fewer lives lost (present value of $102 million),41 fewer injuries (present value of $8 million), lowerproperty losses (present value of $72 million), andreduced oil pollution remediation costs (presentvalue about $1 million)

. More speculatively, if PORTS were installed at allmajor locations without PORTS at the end of 2016over $107 million might be saved over 10 years,only considering ACG reduction. There were about2 fewer lives lost (present value of $14 million), 84fewer injuries (present value of $24 million), lowerproperty losses (present value of $69 million), andde minimis reduced oil pollution remediation costs(present value $0.1 million).

s184 R. F. EDWING

. The top 23 locations (20% of the 116 locations iden-tified) account for almost 62% of all ACGs duringthe study period and suggest the most benefitcould be derived from having PORTS establishedthere.

While this paper focuses on PORTS benefits to the mar-ine transportation sector, it would be remiss not tobriefly note other societal areas that also benefit fromthe data it provides.

PORTS data is also used by:

. Emergency responders for oil and other hazardousmaterial spills to inform and validate trajectory mod-els used to predict where spills are going and whenthey will arrive, and environmental conditions neededfor planning both containment and cleanup opera-tions such as deploying vessels, booms, etc.

. Emergency responders to natural hazards such as hur-ricanes and other severe events. Environmental condi-tions are used to preposition response assets and wellas support response actions during and after theevent.

. Government and private sector weather forecasters toinform and validate marine weather and storm surgeforecasts.

. Recreational users for recreational boating safety,windsurfing, surfing, fishing, tourism, and relatedpurposes.

. Coastal planners for natural habitat and coastal infra-structure planning.

. Academia and researchers for a better understandingof coastal oceanographic dynamics (e.g. citations).

Looking forward

Since its inception, the PORTS programme has evolvedand grown into a true national programme that ser-vices over 90% of the nation’s commerce by both ton-nage and value through its seaports. Early technicalchallenges posed by the ability to acquire observationsin near real-time and disseminate through integratedproducts and services have been overcome. The abilityto deliver the entire suite of environmental parametersneeded to provide users with full situational awarenessof their operating environment has also been achieved.Like all well managed observing systems, there is anongoing test and evaluation process for the identifica-tion and infusion of new technologies to continuallyimprove services while reducing costs. Given the costshare nature of the programme, while it has developedand grown in a non-strategic nature (first come, first

served), today most of the nation’s major seaportshave a PORTS. Maintaining, expanding, and enhancingthe exiting suite of 33 PORTS has become the primaryfocus of the programme versus adding new locationsalthough that is still occurring. Another focus area ison the integration and dissemination of PORTS datathrough hydrodynamic forecast models, the USCGNational Automatic Identification System, other Auto-matic Identification Systems, and other venues.This enables ingestion, integration and display ofPORTS data on electronic displays on vessel bridges,portable pilot units, and other devices with other infor-mation that allows features such as alerts, warnings,tide controlled depths and other to be realised. ThePORTS programme will continue to evolve in concertwith the larger fabric of the marine transportationsystem.

Summary

NOAA’s PORTS programme has been delivering safetyand economic benefits to the Nation for over 25 years.It has continued to expand and evolve to meet theemerging needs of its users while leveraging technolo-gical advances to reduce costs and improve products. Itis a unique public-private partnership that leveragesthe respective strengths of its partners. NOAA bringsthe federal backbone observing systems of NWLONand NCOP, the accompanying national standards,data management, and expertise that provide theoperational infrastructure at the national level, whilepartners bring the local requirements and fundingneeded to build a robust and diverse coastal observingsystem that serves multiple societal needs beyond themaritime community. A progression of economic stu-dies has consistently documented substantial safetyand economic benefits as a result of the programme.Future enhancements for the programme will focuson the continued infusion of new technology, datavisualisation improvements, integration of PORTSdata and products with hydrodynamic models, aswell as integration with other navigation safety infor-mation, such as electronic navigation charts, and tar-geted precision navigation products that addressspecific issues within a seaport.

Note

1. The term Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System istrademarked to NOAA under US Patent and Trade-mark Office Registration Number 2,490,304 on 18 Sep-tember 2001.

JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY s185

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Bosley K, T. Dussault J, McGrath C, Stepnowski J. 2005. Real-time measurements on Coast Guard navigation buoys. In:Current measurement technology. Proceedings of theEighth Working Conference on Current MeasurementTechnology; Jun 28–29; Silver Spring (MD): IEEE/OES,p. 122–126.

Bosley K, McGrath C, Graff T, Stepnowski J. 2006.Enhancements to the NOAA current measurement systemson US Coast Guard navigation buoys. Proceedings of theOCEANS 2006 Conference; Sep 18–21; Boston (MA):MTS Ocean Engineering Society and IEEE.

Bushnell M, Bosley K, Mero T. 2005. Microwave air gap-bridgeclearance sensor test, evaluation and implementation sup-port. Silver Spring (MD): NOAA. NOAA TechnicalReport NOS CO-OPS 042.

Congressional Budget Office. 2006. The economic costs of dis-ruptions in container shipments. Washington, DC: USCongress, Analysis Report.

Heitsenrether R, Hensley W. 2013. Test and evaluation reportfor Waterlog® h-3612 radar sensor in CO-OPS air gap appli-cations. Silver Spring (MD): NOAA; NOAA TechnicalReport NOS CO-OPS 072.

Hensley W, Heitsenrether R. 2017. Iridium telemetry of real-time ocean current data from USCG ATON buoy platforms.Proceedings of the Oceans ‘17 Conference; Sep 18–22;Anchorage (AK): MTS/IEEE.

Kite-Powell H. 2005a. Estimating economic benefits fromNOAA PORTS® installations: a value of informationapproach. Silver Spring (MD): NOAA. NOAA TechnicalReport NOS CO-OPS 044.

Kite-Powell H. 2005b. Estimating benefits from NOAAPORTS® information: a case study of Tampa Bay. Tampa

Bay (FL): Tampa Bay Harbor Safety and SecurityCommittee.

Kite-Powell H. 2007. Estimating benefits from NOAA PORTS®information: a case study of Houston/Galveston. Houston(TX): Port of Houston Authority.

Kite-Powell H. 2009. Estimating economic benefits fromNOAAPORTS® information: a case study of the Port of New York/New Jersey. Woods Hole (MA). Unpublished report.

Kite-Powell H. 2010. Estimating benefits from NOAA PORTS®information: a case study of the Columbia River. Portland(OR): Port of Portland.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration andUnited States Coast Guard. 2000. Real-time tide and currentdata systems in United States ports. Washington (DC).Report to Congress.

National Transportation Safety Board. 1981. MarineAccident Report: ramming of the Sunshine SkywayBridge by the Liberian Bulk Carrier Summit VentureTampa Bay, Florida, May 9, 1980. Washington (DC);NTSB-MAR-81-3.

Roggenstein E, Bushnell M, Krug W. 2009. Visibility sensorsimplementation plan. Silver Spring (MD): NOAA. NOAATechnical Report NOS CO-OPS 055.

Sprung, MJ. 2017. Port performance freight statistics programannual report to congress. Washington (DC). Report toCongress.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1999. An assessment ofthe U.S. Marine Transportation System. Washington(DC). Report to Congress.

Vafaie H, Cecere C. 2004. CORMS AI: decision support systemfor monitoring US maritime environment. Silver Spring(MD): ICTAI. Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 2004.

Wolfe EK. 2017. Vessel allision, collision and grounding inci-dents: estimated impact of PORTS®. Silver Spring (MD).2005-2016 unpublished report: NOAA Economic Report.

Wolfe EK, MacFarland D. 2013. An assessment of the value ofthe Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®) tothe U.S. economy. Silver Spring (MD).

s186 R. F. EDWING