FINA NO March Abt Ass Bethesd Corona Louisvi AL REP AA F 2018 sociates I da, Mary a Environ ille, CO PORT Fleet Inc. yland nmental C t Soc Consultin cietal ng Writt Marin www. l Ben ten under con ne & Aviatio .omao.noaa. nefit ntract for the on Operation .gov Stud e NOAA Off ns dy fice of
165
Embed
NOAA F leet Societal Benefit Studdy...NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report i Foreward: Interpreting the Value Estimates from the NOAA Fleet Societal Benefit Study NOAA
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
FINA
NO
March Abt AssBethesd
CoronaLouisvi
AL REP
AA F
2018
sociates Ida, Mary
a Environille, CO
PORT
Fleet
Inc. yland
nmental C
t Soc
Consultin
cietal
ng
WrittMarinwww.
l Ben
ten under conne & Aviatio.omao.noaa.
nefit
ntract for theon Operation.gov
Stud
e NOAA Offns
dy
ffice of
Prepared b
Abt Asso
Corona E Prepared f NOAA’s
The NatioAviation survey shCommissNOAA Sm
by:
ociates Inc.
Environme
for:
Office of M
onal OceanOperationships and nisioned Officmall Boat Pr
.
ental Consu
Marine and
ic and Atms (OMAO) mne aircraft.cer Corps, Orogram.
ulting
d Aviation
ospheric Amanages an. ComprisedOMAO also
Operation
dministratind operatesd of civilian manages t
ns
on's (NOAAs NOAA's flens and officthe NOAA D
A) Office ofeet of 16 recers of the Diving Prog
f Marine anesearch anNOAA
gram and th
d d
he
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
Table of Contents
Forward .................................................................................................................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. vi
1.2 Overview of Research Approach ............................................................................................................................. 3
2. Value of Products and Services Dependent on the NOAA Fleet ............................................................................ 7
2.1 Coral Reefs: Coral Status and Trends Report .......................................................................................................... 7
3. Monetized Benefits of Select Products and Services ............................................................................................. 23
3.1 Methodology for Estimating Value of NOAA Fleet ............................................................................................. 24
3.2 Coral Reefs: Coral Status and Trends Report ........................................................................................................ 24
3.5 Seasonal Forecasts: ENSO Outlook ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.6 Ecosystem Management: National Marine Sanctuaries Conditions Report .......................................................... 33
4. Cost-Effectiveness of NOAA Ships and Charter Vessels for Select Data Collection Efforts............................... 36
4.1 Marginal Cost of Using the NOAA Fleet .............................................................................................................. 36
4.2 Cost-Effectiveness Case Studies ............................................................................................................................ 37
4.3 Capacity, Availability, and Other Factors Affecting the Use of Charter Vessels ................................................. 42
5. Summary of Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Next Steps .................................................................. 44
5.1 Conclusions and Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................................... 44
5.2 Recommended Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix A. Value Chain Descriptions for Select NOAA Products
Appendix B. Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
Appendix C. Interviews with Charter Providers
Appendix D. Acknowledgements
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
i
Foreward: Interpreting the Value Estimates from the NOAA Fleet Societal Benefit Study NOAA managers and scientists routinely make difficult decisions about how to allocate public investments to study, protect and restore the nation’s oceans and coasts. One of the most important considerations in these decisions is the value that will be returned to the public. Thus, NOAA is often asked to demonstrate the economic benefits of its investments, preferably in dollar terms. Despite the uncertainty associated with such estimates, they provide evidence that investments are being managed to produce societal benefits and a basis for comparing benefits and costs. For some decisions, such as those involving public health or safety, economic considerations are secondary. However, even in these situations, managers need to make choices that involve tradeoffs – decisions that call for economic analysis.
The NOAA Fleet Societal Benefit Study provides important new evidence about the value of NOAA’s ships to the nation and how the cost of using these assets compares to that of contract vessels. Major results from this study include: “value chains” describing how data from the fleet support products and users; estimated annual dollar values of selected products; and mission-specific cost comparisons between NOAA and contract ships. The study, funded by NOAA and completed by Abt Associates in 2017, was conducted to support NOAA’s on-going efforts to modernize the current NOAA fleet. As the senior NOAA staff managing this project, we concluded, after receiving the final report and fielding questions about the value estimates in particular, that some additional context on interpreting the study results would be useful. We therefore added this Forward to provide additional comments on methods, to introduce some similar recent value estimates for NOAA ships, and to reinforce the challenges of estimating economic value for public goods, even when methods, assumptions, and sources are fully described. Key considerations when interpreting the Societal Benefit Study findings The following topics are particularly important considerations regarding the methods and sources used in the Societal Benefit Study and the overall interpretation of the value estimate results. Data denial: The model used by NOAA to set priorities across its observing systems provided important inputs to this analysis, particularly for estimating the degree to which the quality of final products would be affected by the absence of data from NOAA ships. This model is designed to minimize bias towards any one system and provides estimates of the impact of data denial that are based on extensive input from the subject matter experts who also use the data to generate final products. However, these estimates of the impact of data denial have not been confirmed via “denial of data experiments.” Denial of data experiments are commonly used for this purpose but were beyond the scope of this study. Further, the role that could be played by the private sector in responding to any future diminished capacity of the NOAA fleet was not assessed. Any such role would result in private sector costs and benefits whose analysis was also beyond the scope and resources of this study. Use of existing data: All estimates of value for the Societal Benefit Study were based on existing data and past research. And although the products selected for the Study was based, in part, on the availability of existing analyses, these materials were often dated or incomplete. This affected both the absolute value of dollar estimates and the comparability of dollar estimates between the products analyzed. For example, the value of nautical charting products is based on a 2007 study conducted before the now widespread use of electronic nautical charts. This study estimated the value of a marginal improvement in nautical charts, not their total value, and excluded key beneficiaries such as commercial fishermen and military users. The probable result is that the value of nautical charting products is understated in the Societal Benefit report. Accrual of value to users versus the economy: Estimating the value of environmental goods and service is challenging not only because the price people would be willing to pay for clean water or healthy marine mammals is not revealed in economic markets, but also because much of the presumed value accrues directly to individual users or consumers whose interests and behaviors are difficult to discern. While economists have methods to estimates of these values such as through the use of surveys to estimate society’s willingness to pay for the benefits that they receive, these methods are expensive and time
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
ii
consuming to employ. Therefore, even when existing studies were not sufficient to precisely estimate values for the five products selected, additional investigations or analyses were beyond the scope of our study. Product quality versus value: The study team assumed a direct correspondence between product quality and value. For example, if the loss of data from the NOAA fleet was expected to reduce the quality of a product by 5 percent, a corresponding 5 percent decline in value to users was assumed. In some use cases, however, the impact of a 5 percent degradation in product quality might be negligible whereas, in other cases, the product might be rendered useless. The simplifying assumption used in this study is reasonable but has not been verified by independent studies. Comparability of product value estimates: The summary value estimates presented in the Societal Benefit report are all reported in 2016 dollars. However, because different methods were used to derive these estimates, combining the results may present challenges. For example, a value estimate derived from market values (sea level rise viewer) is perhaps not comparable to a value estimate derived via contingent valuation (corals). Readers of the final report are advised to consider these factors before using or referencing the study results. Comparable recent value estimates
In 2012, NOAA conducted an internal, preliminary assessment of the economic benefits of the NOAA fleet. Although the 2012 study remains unpublished, there are some interesting and useful intersections with the Societal Benefit Study that highlight the challenges of estimating economic value. This is most usefully revealed by contrasting the methods and results for two products or themes where the studies overlapped – Nautical Charting Products and National Marine Sanctuaries Condition Reports.
Nautical Chart Products . NOAA’s 2012 study estimated that the NOAA fleet accounts for $12 million annually to the overall value of nautical charts, compared to a lower-bound estimate of $17 million annually in the Societal Benefit Study. Although the results are similar, the methods used to generate these two estimates vary significantly. The 2012 study is based on estimates of the increased loadings of commercial vessels, reduced number of groundings of commercial and recreational vessels, and reduced loss of life associated with the use of nautical charts. The Societal Benefit Study estimate is based on surveys that assessed the willingness of nautical chart users to pay for improved nautical charting. While the Societal Benefit Study estimate is larger, it also likely understates the full value of nautical charts because, as stated above, (a) it assesses the only the marginal value of improved nautical charts and not their full value, and (b) some users were not included in the results, notably commercial fishermen and military users.
National Marine Sanctuaries Conditions Reports. NOAA’s 2012 study estimates that the NOAA fleet contributes $10 million annually to the value of products and services developed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries that manages the sanctuary sites (though not specifically the Conditions Reports), compared to a lower-bound estimate of $605 million annually in the Societal Benefit Study for the Conditions Reports. There are several probable reasons why these findings are so different. First, the 2012 study reflects an older estimate of the total value of the economic impact of the National Marine Sanctuaries sites ($4 billion annually) while the Societal Benefit Study reflects the more recent and more commonly cited figure of $8 billion annually. However, the most important factors may be that (a) differences in estimates of the degree to which economic values from the National Marine Sanctuaries sites are likely to be eroded without the products and services provided by ONMS, and (b) the degree to which these products and services depend on the NOAA fleet. The value estimates could certainly be improved by a closer investigation of these two factors.
Interestingly, NOAA’s 2012 study also recommended that future studies of the economic value of the NOAA Fleet should employ a value or logic chain relationship between products and users - the method used to underpin the Societal Benefit Study - to ensure more accurate value estimates.
In Summary
The table below contrasts the analysis methods and underlying basis of the value estimates for each of the products evaluated in the Societal Benefit Study. We suggest these contrasts are important to note for two reasons in particular. First, adding the dollar value estimates of different products together, even though they are all rendered in 2016 dollars, presents challenges that readers should be aware of. And second, further, more refined analysis of these products would likely lead to different dollar values – some lower and some higher – than the current study results.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
iii
Methods and Underlying Basis for Benefit Estimates
Coral Status and
Trend Report
contingent valuation
(willingness to pay)
reflects values derived from NOAA‐funded meta‐
analysis of recent work
Sea Level Riser
Viewermarket‐based
based on an EPA study of net benefits from
implementation of climate change adaptation
measures
Nautical Chart
Products
contingent valuation
(willingness to pay)
because key sectors/users (e.g. military, commercial
fishermen) were not included in source studies, these
products are almost certainly undervalued
El Nino Southern
Oscillation Outlookmarket‐based reflects value of ENSO data for agriculture sector only
National Marine
Sanctuaries
Condition Reports
economic impact
analysis
economic impacts of site use, including commerical and
recreational fishing and research
The value chains developed for the Societal Benefit Study will help support NOAA’s capacity to write “value stories” that explain how data from the NOAA fleet contribute to the quality of its products, and how specific users benefit in specific ways. These value stories provide a useful context to help decision-makers assess the reasonableness of dollar estimates by explaining the manner, extent, mechanisms, and degrees of impact. They also provide a basis for conducting sensitivity analysis to identify the assumptions under which investments in the NOAA fleet break even which, in turn, allow subject matter experts to make subjective judgements about the reasonableness of those assumptions. Value chains also provides a basis for soliciting input that can improve future estimates. Finally, understanding how users benefit from NOAA products can provide insights into how to modify these products to make them even more beneficial.
In summary, the primary objective for the Societal Benefit Study was to estimate the societal benefits of NOAA fleet. The results strongly indicate that the benefits associated with operation of the NOAA fleet, even when only five of more than 600 fleet-dependent NOAA products are assessed, significantly exceed the cost of operations. Stated another way, the savings realized by not operating NOAA ships would appear to be more than offset by a loss of societal benefits.
Charles Alexander Jeffery Adkins Chief, Planning and Performance Senior Economist Management Division ISS Management NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Office of the NOAA Chief Economist 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 500 2234 Hobson Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Charleston, SC 29404 [email protected][email protected]
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
iv
Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to identify and monetize the benefits associated with a subset of key NOAA products and services that are dependent on the NOAA Fleet, and assess the cost-effectiveness of using charter vessels as a substitute for NOAA’s ships for some data collection efforts. The project team developed estimates of the societal benefits for five of the 638 products and services supported by the NOAA Fleet, finding that the value added by the NOAA Fleet to these five products alone significantly exceeds annual operating costs.
Value of Products and Services Dependent on the NOAA Fleet The NOAA Fleet supports over 600 products and services across the agency’s 26 mission service areas. To demonstrate the societal benefits associated with fleet data collection activities, the project team developed qualitative “value chains” for 12 products (Table ES-1) that are highly dependent on the fleet and/or have a relatively large societal benefit, meaning they affect decisions made in important sectors of the economy and/or result in significant savings or increased well-being for U.S. households.
Table ES-1. Product Value Chains developed for this report
(see Table 3 in main report for descriptions of the value chains)
Next, we selected five products for further evaluation based on criteria developed in coordination with the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) project team and NOAA’s Observing Systems Council. For these products, we developed monetary estimates of the anticipated benefits that the product provides, and estimated the portion of this anticipated benefit that is attributable to the NOAA Fleet. This study found that, for these five products, 15 to 37 percent of their value is directly attributable to the NOAA fleet ($0.77 billion to $3.39 billion, Table ES-2). In addition to the five products included in this study, the project team also recommended monetization of a sixth NOAA product – fish stock assessments conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). However, during this study, we learned that NMFS recently initiated research to estimate the value of this product. To avoid duplication of effort, OMAO will incorporate the results of NMFS’ analysis, when it is completed, with the findings of this research.
Cost-effectiveness of NOAA Ships and Contract Vessels
The second component of this study is an assessment the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the use of contract vessels as a substitute for NOAA’s ships for some data collection efforts. We examined several case studies that compared the marginal cost of using NOAA ships for specific individual missions to estimated costs for using contract vessels to provide the same services and support as the NOAA ship and meet the same mission requirements.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
v
Table ES-2. Societal benefits (billions of dollars) of select NOAA products and associated value of NOAA Fleet (see Sections 2-3 of main report and Appendix A for more details)
SEASONAL FORECASTS: El Nino Southern Oscillation Outlook
$0.560 - $1.300 $0.026 - $0.270 4.6% - 20.0%
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: National Marine Sanctuary Condition Reports
$2.420 - $5.180 $0.610 - $1.800 25.0% - 35.0%
Annual Anticipated Benefits Attributed to NOAA Fleet
Annual Anticipated Benefit of Product
Value Chain/Product
The single case study involving a single purpose mission of limited scope (TAO maintenance without supplemental scientific research) showed a contract vessel to be the most cost-effective option. The case studies of multi-disciplinary research missions indicated that there are examples where contract vessels are more cost effective and others where NOAA ships are more cost effective.
These case studies were not conclusive regarding the factors that determine cost-effectiveness. Geography could be one factor. NOAA ships appeared more cost effective for the research missions conducted in the remote tropical Pacific, while contract vessels appeared more cost effective for those conducted in U.S. coastal waters. These results, however, could also be related to the specific NOAA ships examined. These case studies where contract vessels were more cost effective involved NOAA ships with higher marginal costs than the average for NOAA’s fleet overall.
We also conducted a limited examination of the capacity and availability of contract vessels, along with other factors that could affect NOAA’s use of contract vessels. NOAA successfully contracts with a large number of different contract vessel providers and individual vendors report good availability to provide support. Specific projects, however, may have requirements (e.g., vessel capabilities, project scheduling, or location) that are not a good match for a very large number of contract vessels. Of NOAA contracts for vessel services active in fiscal year 2015, just over half received only one offer and almost 70 percent had two or fewer offers. Data are not available on the number of solicitations that received no bids.
In general, contract vessel availability appears to be greater for smaller vessels with more limited capabilities. The individual vessels that are the most obvious substitutes for NOAA ships (UNOLS vessels) are also the least available. There may, however, be opportunities for NOAA to make greater use of contract vessels during periods when those vessels have greater availability (i.e., outside of the summer months).
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
vi
Lessons Learned This study provides NOAA with a systematic process for assessing the value of individual observing systems and data streams through the development of value chains for the products and services that depend on them. NOAA can use the general approach to assess the value of Fleet-dependent products and/or additional observing systems (e.g., OMAO aircraft).
While this study represents a significant first step in demonstrating the value of the NOAA Fleet, it is limited in scope. Under this contract the project team was only able to develop value chains for 12 Fleet-dependent products, and quantify the value of 5 products. In addition, we were not able to conduct original valuation analyses; our monetary estimates of value therefore depend on existing studies and estimates from the literature, which are also subject to limitations and caveats. We were also only able to conduct a limited number of interviews, which we conducted with product experts from within NOAA.
In addition, throughout the study we learned that it is difficult to isolate the effect of individual data streams on the performance of a given product, given the interdependency of data that most products rely on. Thus, it is difficult to attribute an exact percentage of product value to the NOAA Fleet. We have attempted to reflect this uncertainty by providing a reasonable range of values using Fleet data-dependency estimates provided by TPIO and the subject matter experts.
The data used as inputs to this analysis represent the best available information. However, the studies upon which the quantifications are based were often few in number and, as with any study, limited in their accuracy, completeness, and broader applicability. Estimates of the contribution of the NOAA fleet to final products and services are based on extensive research and analysis by NOAA’s Technology, Planning, and Integration for Observation office (TPIO) but this work has its own limitations and the results have not been independently verified (as with a “denial of data” analysis). In short, the resulting values represent an empirical first step in the direction of developing more accurate and complete estimates of the value of NOAA products and services and the share of that value attributable to the NOAA fleet. A more scientifically rigorous analysis would require additional primary data collection and analysis which, if performed comprehensively, would be cost-prohibitive. This study does establish a scientifically sound process for assessing the societal benefits of the NOAA fleet and identifies critical information requirements that should be used to inform future research agendas.
Despite these challenges, which are inherent in most economic analyses, our use of published studies and extensive interviews with subject matter experts established a highly credible range of value estimates. We are confident that these estimates establish the significant value of the fleet’s contributions and provide materially relevant data to support future decisions at NOAA regarding the fleet.
We also learned that a number of factors complicate comparing the cost-effectiveness of contract vessels to NOAA’s fleet. When using contract vessels, contract costs alone may not account for the full cost to NOAA of completing a given mission. Furthermore, a day at sea aboard a contract vessel is not necessarily equal to a day at sea aboard a NOAA vessel. NOAA ships often collect multiple data streams and/or conduct multiple missions simultaneously. Although some contract vessels have similar multi-data stream/multi-mission capabilities, many such vessels are better suited for individual projects and a more limited set of data. These “economies of scope” mean that multiple contract vessels can sometimes be required to replace the output of a NOAA vessel.
NOAA ships also have greater endurance than many smaller contract vessels. Therefore, they can remain at sea for the duration of long projects without returning to port. In addition, NOAA ships often can be scheduled and positioned to transition directly from one project to the next without significant travel time. Therefore, the use of contract vessels can entail more transit days (i.e., at the start and finish of the discrete projects for which they are hired and, in some cases, to resupply during longer projects).
Given these factors, it is not appropriate to compare aggregate data on the cost of contract vessels to the cost of using the NOAA fleet. Instead, the comparison must account for mission-specific details. The case study approach we used here attempts to account for these factors and provide a one-to-one comparison of contract vessel costs to NOAA fleet costs.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
vii
Recommended Next Steps There are several ways that NOAA could further refine the value chain and monetary value estimates from this study. First, many of the value chains and quantitative study estimates could benefit from additional interviews with NOAA experts as well as external product users. These interviews would provide a better understanding of the decisions that users make based on the information that the products provide, as well as how the NOAA Fleet contributes to each product. Additional analyses could also be conducted to further refine our monetary estimates. However, this would require primary data collection. Finally, to further inform investment decisions and focus resources, NOAA may also want to expand this analysis to include more fleet-dependent products and/or additional observing systems.
To better examine the factors that determine the cost-effectiveness of contract vessels, NOAA could conduct additional case studies. If carefully selected, additional case studies could help isolate the factors that contribute to cost-effectiveness (e.g., geography, specific NOAA ships used, length of mission, time of year).
A more detailed assessment of existing and future contract vessel capacity and availability would also be useful. The voluntary interviews with vendors that we conducted for this study were limited in number and not geographically representative. A more thorough, perhaps statistically selected, survey incorporating more detailed questions about vessel availability and capabilities could provide a greater understanding of the industry. A detailed examination of NOAA’s contract records, beyond the limited descriptive data in USAspending, might also provide more comprehensive data on the industry’s size and capabilities.
NOAA Fleet So
1. IntrodThe National society througimportant socsignificant invOperations (Omonetize the bFleet, and asscollection effoStudy, which contract with
Backg1.1NOAA is respprotect the 3.4predict changwhich OMAOfor NOAA’s dcollection, wh
The NOAA Ffrom large ocfor charting thacross the Excagency’s progfisheries, hyd1). NOAA lininformation tostocks, and m
Per NOAA’s and/or the opeacross NOAAvital to the echydrographic navigation anof coastal areplanning and
Physical, chemspecies and reyear.3 These tset accurate c
gh its data collecietal benefits, avestments in its
OMAO) initiatebenefits associess the cost-eff
forts. This reporAbt AssociatesNOAA’s Offic
ground ponsible for co4 million squar
ges in weather, O supports. OMdata collection hen availability
Fleet, managed eanographic rehe nation’s coaclusive Economgrams. Many orographic, and
ne offices, othero keep U.S. por
make important
Office of Techerational platfo
A’s 26 mission onomy and heasurvey activiti
nd support the $eas also informd emergency m
mical, and biolesources, includtypes of observatch limits for
6. The NOAA Flmao.noaa.gov/sit
e of National Maies.noaa.gov/scie
Study, Final Rep
Atmospheric Adection activitieand meet grows fleet resourceed the NOAA Fiated with a subfectiveness of urt provides an os and Corona Ece for Coastal M
ollecting, sharinre nautical mileclimate, ocean
MAO maintainsinfrastructure.
y coincides with
by OMAO andesearch vessels astal waters (Tamic Zone and if the ships fulfoceanographicr U.S. governmrts open to mareconomic and
hnology Planninorms that the shservice areas. Aalth of the natioies to map and $4.6 trillion in ms tsunami inumanagement.
logical observading National M
vations also servthe $54 billion
T
eet Plan: Buildintes/default/files/
arine Sanctuarieence/socioecono
port
dministration’ss and the produ
wing demands foes. To inform itFleet Societal Bbset of key NOusing contract voverview and s
Environmental Management (B
ng, and utilizinges of ocean in os, and coasts. Ts and operates a NOAA also coh data collectio
d operated by Ncapable of exp
able 1).1 NOAAnternationally;
fill multiple misc data in suppoment agencies, critime commerpolicy decision
ng and Integrathips maintain, sAs described inon. For exampldevelop nauticeconomic acti
undation mode
ations from fleeMarine Sanctuave as the basis
n domestic fish
Table 1. NOAA
ng NOAA’s 21st
/documents/The%
s. 2015. Nationaomic/factsheets/w
1
s (NOAA’s) fleucts and servicefor environments investment d
Benefit Study. TOAA products a
vessels as a subsummary of keyConsulting (CoBPA EA-133C
g scientific infoour Exclusive EThis mission rea fleet of vesseommissions coon needs.
NOAA Corps, ploring the worA ships are stat they are specissions, enablin
ort of NOAA’s communities, ace, understand ns.2
tion for Observsupport the devn the 2016 NOAle, the Nationalcal charts, whicivity generatedling and storm
et vessels allowaries, which gefor fisheries st
A Fleet Comp
t Century Fleet. A%20NOAA%20
al Marine Sanctuwelcome.html. A
eet of ocean vees that these ac
ntal data collectdecisions, NOAThe purpose of and services thabstitute for NOy findings fromorona) conduct
C-14-BA-0039)
formation to helEconomic Zoneequires extensivels and aircraft ontract vessels
includes 16 resrld’s deepest octioned in homepially equipped ang the collection
long-term goaland businesses
d changes to the
vation (TPIO), velopment of 6AA Fleet Plan,
al Ocean Servicch in turn facilid by U.S. seapom surge predict
w NOAA to effenerate nearly $tock assessmen
position
Available: 0Fleet%20Plan_F
uaries and LocalAccessed 5/3/201
essels provides ctivities supportion, NOAA wi
AA’s Office of this study is toat are dependen
OAA’s ships form the NOAA Flted under Abt A), Task Order C
lp the U.S. unde, as well as to ve data collectithat serve as thand aircraft for
search and survceans to smalleports around thand designed ton of a wide varls and mission
s around the nate planet, monito
data collected 38 NOAA pro, these productce relies on fleeitate safe and eorts each yeartions, which ar
fectively manag$8 billion in locnts, which allow
Final_31OCT.pd
l Economies. Av17
significant valurt. To maintain ill need to makMarine and Av
o identify and nt on the NOAr some data leet Societal BeAssociate’s priC-007.
derstand, manaunderstand an
ion capabilitieshe mobile platfr some types da
vey ships, ranger ships responhe U.S. and opeo support the riety of atmospservice areas (tion rely on thior the health of
from NOAA sducts and servi
ts and services et charting and fficient marine
r. Accurate mare critical for u
ge and protect kcal economies w fishery mana
df. Accessed 5/3
vailable:
ue to these
ke viation
A
enefit ime
ge, and nd s, forms ata
ging sible erate
pheric, (Figure is f fish
ships, ices are
e apping urban
key each
agers to
3/2017.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
2
Ship Length Class Primary Mission1
Homeport Ship Age (years)
Rainier 231 ft. Ocean 2 Newport, OR 49
Fairweather 231 ft. Ocean 2 Ketchikan, AK 49
Oregon II 170 ft. Regional 1 Pascagoula, MS 49
Hi'ialakai 224 ft. Ocean 1, 2, 3 Honolulu, HI 32
Oscar Elton Sette 224 ft. Ocean 3 Honolulu, HI 29
Okeanos Explorer 224 ft. Ocean 1, 2 Davisville, RI 28
Gordon Gunter 224 ft. Ocean 1 Pascagoula, MS 27
Nancy Foster 187 ft. Ocean 1 Charleston, SC 26
Thomas Jefferson 208 ft. Ocean 2 Norfolk, VA 25
Ronald H. Brown 274 ft. Global 3 Charleston, SC 20
Oscar Dyson 209 ft. Ocean 1 Kodiak, AK 13
Henry B. Bigelow 209 ft. Ocean 1 Newport, RI 11
Pisces 209 ft. Ocean 1 Pascagoula, MS 9
Bell M. Shimada 209 ft. Ocean 1 Newport, OR 8
Ferdinand R. Hassler 124 ft. Regional 2 New Castle, NH 7
Reuben Lasker4 209 ft. Ocean 1 San Diego, CA 4
1. Mission 1: Assessment and Management of Living Marine Resources Mission 2: Charting and Mapping Mission 3: Oceanographic Monitoring, Research, and Modeling
Source: NOAA. 2016. The NOAA Fleet Plan: Building NOAA’s 21st Century Fleet.
harvest,5 directly affecting the $153 billion U.S. commercial fishing industry.6 In addition, NOAA ships and buoy systems collect oceanographic monitoring data that directly feed weather models, forecasts, and oceanographic circulation models. Without this data, weather and climate forecasts would be less accurate, resulting in adverse impacts related to severe storm and emergency planning, coastal management, and planning for the U.S. agricultural industry, which supported $992 billion of economic activity in 2015.7
The NOAA Fleet also serve as an important component of the nation’s ocean-related emergency and disaster response network. Fleet emergency response services include surveying commercial ports following hurricanes and major storms to ensure their channels are free from debris and other navigational hazards. These surveys must be conducted before affected ports can be re-opened. The ability of NOAA vessels to immediately provide these surveys can significantly reduce the amount of time ports remain closed, allowing
4 NOAA Ship Reuben Lasker did not start operations until 2014 5U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. Fisheries Economics of the United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-163, p. 6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 6 NOAA. 2016. The NOAA Fleet Plan: Building NOAA’s 21st Century Fleet. 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2016. Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy. Available: Accessed 5/3/2017. Value includes agriculture and related food sectors.
NOAA Fleet So
Figure 1. NO
for the deliveractivities incluresponse to mthreats. NOAA
While the NOeconomic secrequirementsrecapitalizatiby maximizinvessels, whenfleet-dependecomplement t
Overv1.2To demonstra638 NOAA p“value chain”decisions they
8NOAA. 2016.
NOAA Fleagency’s loNOAA’s N
NOA
ClimAn iresp
WeSocito w
HeaMarsust
ResCoaenvi
Ent
ocietal Benefits
OAA’s Next Ge
ry of emergencude locating an
major oil and chA ships are als
OAA Fleet andctors, OMAO s, aging ships, on.8 To addres
ng the socioecon appropriate. Aent NOAA prodthe NOAA Flee
view of Resate the societal roducts and ser
” (Figure 2), dey make based o
The NOAA Fle
eet data collectioong-term goals aNext Generation
AA Next Gener
mate Adaptatioinformed societyponding to clima
ather-Ready Niety is prepared
weather-related
althy Oceans rine fisheries, htained within he
silient Coastal Castal and Great ironmentally an
terprise-wide C
Study, Final Rep
eneration Stra
cy supplies andnd mapping debhemical spills, ao often called u
d associated dafaces several cevolving techn
ss these challenonomic benefitsAccordingly, Nducts and servicet’s data collec
earch Apprbenefits associrvices that the Nscribing how d
on the informat
eet Plan: Buildin
on activities are and 26 associate
n Strategic Plan,
ration Strategic
on and Mitigaty anticipating aate and its impa
Nation d for and responevents
abitats, and bioealthy and produ
Communities aLakes commun
nd economically
Capabilities
port
ategic Plan Lo
d important ecobris fields in thand surveying oupon to provid
ata collection challenges in mnologies, and
nges, NOAA des derived from
NOAA retained ces, and 2) asse
ction efforts.
roach iated with fleetNOAA Fleet su
data from the fltion the produc
ng NOAA’s 21st
critical to the ded mission servand the numbe
c Plan Goal
tion and acts
nds
odiversity are uctive ecosystem
and Economiesities are
y sustainable
3
ng-term Goal
onomic activityhe ocean for avour nation’s poe routine searc
activities provmanaging the limited resouresires to undersfleet data colleAbt Associateess the cost-eff
t data collectionupports. For ealeet support/feect provides, and
Century Fleet.
development of ice areas. The f
er of fleet-depen
Fleet
ms
s
ls
y to resume. Adviation disastersorts and waterwch, rescue, and
vide importantfleet, includin
rces available stand how to opection activitiess to 1) estimatefectiveness of u
n activities, theach of the 12 pred into the prodd how this resu
a 638 products following showsndent products th
t-Dependent Pr
dditional emergs, conducting sways in responsevacuation serv
t benefits to song expanding/cfor maintenanptimize the vals and leveragine the societal busing contract v
e project team froducts, we devduct, the users
ults in value to s
and services ths NOAA’s longthat directly sup
roducts
137
195
206
63
37
gency responsecientific surveyse to national srvices.
ociety and acrochanging missnce and lue of its marinng the use of cobenefits of a subvessels to
focused on 12 oveloped a qualof the product,society.
at support the g-term goals, perpport each goal.
e ys in ecurity
oss sion
ne fleet ontract bset of
of the litative , the
r
NOAA Fleet So
To select the iidentify produmeaning theywell-being foractivities acrovalue chains, hierarchical mline offices w
Next, the reseevaluation. Fothe portion ofmonetization
The
The
Datacontr
The with
Figure 2. Va
ocietal Benefits
initial subset oucts and service
y affect decisionr U.S. househo
oss NOAA linewe relied on in
model developewithin NOAA
earch team woror these producf this benefit thranked highest
product likely
product has a s
a are available tract
product has ouh additional mea
alue Chain Dia
Study, Final Rep
f 12 products fes that are highns made in impolds. In additione offices and minformation fromed by TPIO, an
rked with OMActs, we developat is attributablt among the fol
has significant
significant depe
to robustly qua
utput data that casures.
agram for NOA
port
for which we dehly dependent oportant sectors n, we aimed to ission service am the NOAA O
nd conducted in
AO and NOAAped monetary ele to the NOAAllowing criteria
t benefits for so
endency on dat
antify/monetize
can be validate
AA Products
4
eveloped valueon the fleet andof the economyselect a subset
areas. As descrObserving Systn-depth intervie
A’s Observing Sstimates of the
A Fleet. The pra (Table 2):
ociety
ta from the NO
e the societal be
d as being criti
e chains, we wod/or have a relay and/or result t of NOAA proribed in more dtem Integrated ews with subjec
Systems Counce benefits that throducts we sele
OAA Fleet
enefits of the p
ical for a specif
orked with OMatively large soin significant s
oducts that refledetail in SectionAnalysis (NOSct matter exper
cil to select fivethe product proected for furthe
product within t
fic use and sho
MAO and TPIOocietal benefit, savings or increct the many din 2, to develop SIA-II) Value Trts from the var
e products for fovides, and estimer evaluation an
the scope of th
ows improveme
O to
reased ifferent the Tree, a rious
further mated nd
his
ent
NOAA Fleet So
In addition to product -fish study, we leareffort, OMAO
The second coThis componeselected data available infousing the existhe study usesavailable at thwell as informproviders, bot
Rep1.3The remainde
Sect
Sectfurth
SectFleet
Sect
App
Appinclu
Appcond
Appaffili
ocietal Benefits
the five produstock assessmerned that NMFO will incorpor
omponent of thent of the studycollection activ
ormation on thesting capacity os cost data for the outset of thismation, both quth private and p
port Organier of this report
ion 2 presents t
ion 3 summarizher evaluation.
ion 4 summarizt and contract v
ion 5 provides
endix A contai
endix B contaiuding supportin
endix C providducted as part o
endix D providiations of the d
Study, Final Rep
ucts included inents conducted S recently initi
rate the results
his study is an ay includes sevevities using cone capacity and aof the NOAA Fthe NOAA Flees project. It also
uantitative and public sector.
ization t describes the g
the value chain
zes the results
zes and presenvessels for spec
a summary of
ins the full valu
ns the full repong details.
des a summary of the cost-effec
des the names odozens of NOA
port
n this study, theby the Nationa
iated research tof NMFS’ ana
assessment the eral quantitativentract vessels aavailability of cFleet to the costet for fiscal yeao relies on costqualitative, fro
general method
ns for each of th
of the economi
ts the findings cific data collec
key findings
ue chain write u
ort on the cost-e
of the project tctiveness analy
of the authors oAA subject matt
5
e project team aal Marine Fisheto estimate the lysis, when it i
efficiency ande case studies aas a substitute tocontract vesselt of using contrar 2015, the mot data from NO
om interviews w
dology and resu
he 12 products
ic valuation for
of the cost-effection activities
ups for the 12 p
effectiveness o
team’s intervieysis.
of this report, thter experts who
also recommeneries Service (Nvalue of this p
is completed, w
d cost-effectiveassessing the coo NOAA’s mals. The case sturact vessels. Asost recent year
OAA’s recent cwith NOAA su
ults of our rese
s and services th
r the five produ
fectiveness anals.
products we an
of using NOAA
ews with contra
he project teamo contributed to
nded monetizatNMFS). Howeroduct. To avo
with the finding
eness of the useost-effectivene
arine fleet. It alsudies compare ts a basis for anfor which comontracts with v
ubject matter ex
earch, as follow
hat the project
ucts and servic
lysis, comparin
nalyzed as part
A ships versus c
act vessel provi
m from OMAOo the report.
tion of a sixth Never, during thioid duplication gs of this resear
e of contract veess of conductinso summarizesthe marginal co
nalysis, this pormplete cost datavessel providerxperts and vess
ws:
team analyzed
ces we selected
ng the use of N
of this research
contract vessel
iders, which w
O, and the name
NOAA s of rch.
essels. ng s ost of rtion of a were s, as
sel
d.
for
NOAA
h.
s,
we
es and
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
6
Table 2. NOAA Products and Services Evaluated for NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study9
Value Chain/NOAA
Product Qualitatively
Assessed
NOAA Mission Service
Area
NOAA Line
Office/Owner
Societal
Benefits
Dependence
on ship‐
based data
collection
Value can
be
assessed
Output/
value is
validated
1. CORAL REEFS: Coral
Reef Status and
Trends Report
RESILIENT COASTS –
Res i l ience to
Coasta l Hazards and
Cl imate Change
NOS/Coral Reef
Conservation
Program
Med/High Medium Yes Yes
2. SEA LEVEL RISE: Sea
Level Rise Viewer
RESILIENT COASTS –
Res i l ience to
Coasta l Hazards and
Cl imate Change
NOS/Office for
Coasta l
Management
High Med/Low Yes Yes
3. BATHYMETRY/
HYDROGRAPHIC
SURVEYS: Nautical
Chart Products
RESILIENT COASTS –
Marine
Transportation
NOS/Office of Coast
SurveyMed/High High Yes Yes
4. SEASONAL
FORECASTS: El Nino
Southern Oscil lation
(ENSO) Outlook
CLIMATE – Cl imate
Predictions and
Projections
NWS/Nationa l
Centers for
Environmenta l
Prediction/Cl imate
Prediction Center
High Medium Yes Yes
5. ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEMENT:
National Marine
Sanctuary Conditions
Report
RESILIENT COASTS –
Planning and
Management
NOS/Office of
Nationa l Marine
Sanctuaries
Med/High Medium Yes Yes
6. FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT:
Fisheries Stock
Assessments
HEALTHY OCEANS –
Fisheries
Monitoring
Assessment and
Forecast
NMFS/Office of
Science and
Technology
Medium High Yes Yes
7. TSUNAMIS:
Tsunamis Inundation
Forecast Model
WEATHER READY
NATION ‐ Tsunami
OAR/Paci fic Marine
Environmenta l
Laboratory
High Med/Low Likely Yes
8. HARMFUL ALGAL
BLOOMS (HABS): HAB
Forecasts and
Mitigation Capability
(Gulf of Maine)
RESILIENT COASTS –
Coasta l Water
Qual i ty
NOS/Nationa l
Centers for Ocean
Coasta l Science
Medium Med/Low Likely Yes
9. HYPOXIA: Hypoxia
Watch (Gulf of
Mexico)
RESILIENT COASTS –
Coasta l Water
Qual i ty
NESDIS/Nationa l
Centers for
Environmenta l
Information
Med/Low High No Yes
10. OCEAN NOISE:
Ocean Noise Mapping
HEALTHY OCEANS –
Protected Species
Monitoring
OAR/ Paci fic Marine
Environmenta l
Laboratory
Medium Medium No Yes
9 Assessing the value of products with a “No” ranking would require original data collection beyond the scope of this project.
NOAA Fleet So
2. Value This section coservices that dchain, we desc
How Segm How The
bene
To develop theon how data frused informatiNOSIA-II is a mission servicunderstand theorganized base
The followingproduct, key udetailed value value.
Co2.1Product BackProgram (CRCother more detdevelopment, CRCP, while tsampling methnational pictur
Dependency oobservation sythe Status and NOAA projectclimate indicat
Using NOAA methodology tpersonal dive bcoral reef moncan cover the lProgram.
Users: The Stadecisions to alReport Card, athe ecosystemmaking spherepublic.
ocietal Benefits
of Producontains a summ
depend on data ccribe:
w data from the fments of society
w users make decoutcomes or va
efits that these p
e value chains, wrom the NOAA ion from TPIO’hierarchical mo
ce impacts. Basee impact of singed on NOAA’s
sections providusers, and the so
chain descriptio
ral Reefs: kground: NOAACP), is developintailed reports fothat will providthe more detailehodologies acrore of coral reef h
on NOAA Fleeystems over a w
Trends Report ts. Ocean profiltors.
ships and obserthat underpins thboats, are more
nitoring could nolong distances a
atus and Trendsllocate resourceand the more de’s health. Thesee, the data and in
Study, Final Rep
cts and Semary of the valuecollected from N
fleet feed into thy that use the procisions based onlues resulting frroducts provide
we conducted inFleet informs ths NOSIA-II Vaodel that documed on a survey ogle or multiple o
Strategic Plan G
de a summary oocietal benefits aons, as well as d
Coral ReA’s National Cong Coral Reef S
or local resourcede a summary ofed reports informss jurisdictions,health.
t: The Report Cide geographic Cards is heavily
le data collected
rvation systems he national statuexpensive and
ot be done withand access the re
s Report Card ws to coral reef p
etailed jurisdictioe management andicators also p
port
rvices Depe chain descriptiNOAA ships an
he product oduct n the informatiorom those decise to society.
n-depth interviehe product, the
alue Tree to bettments the relationof more than 50observing systemGoals and 26 as
f the value chaiassociated with diagrams that tr
ef Status aoral Reef MonitStatus and Trende managers. Thef standardized inm the managem, CRCP could n
Cards and underregion. The stray reliant on bend during NOAA
to perform dataus and trends rescarce, limiting
hout the use of Nemote locations
will be viewed bprotection. Educonal reports, to
actions protect cprovide useful in
7
pendent onions that the prod/or observing n
on the product pions. These dec
ews with NOAAusers of the pro
ter understand hnship between d0 NOAA subjec
ms on the key prsociated missio
ns for each of ththe product (sumace the flow of
and Trendtoring Program ds Report Cardse Status and Trendicators for all
ment of specific cnot roll-up indica
rlying indicatorsatified random s
nthic and other hA ship marine bio
a collection helpeport. Other shipg the timeframe NOAA vessels. Fs associated with
y U.S. Congrescators and local
monitor reefs acoral reefs and thnformation for a
n the NOAoject team devenetworks that th
provides cision outcomes
A subject matteroduct, and the prhow data from thdata sources, mct matter expertroducts and serv
on service areas.
he 12 products, mmarized in Tadata from the N
ds Report (NCRMP), as p
s for high-level ends Report Carl U.S. coral reefcoral reef areas.ators across site
s require the colsampling designhabitat mappingological survey
ps the CRCP adp-based data colfor critical samFor example, Nh the Pacific Re
ssional leaders aresource manag
and design eductheir associated academic and pr
AA Fleet loped for 12 NOhe ships maintai
s or values ultim
r experts, who product’s value the fleet support
mission requiremts, NOSIA-II allvices it supports.
including a briable 3). AppendNOAA Fleet thr
part of the Coradecision-maker
rds are a new prf jurisdictions m. Prior to this efes and therefore
llection of data n that NCRMP ug surveys, perforys also feed into
dhere to the stanllection options
mpling. Some effNOAA vessels aeef Assessment
and NOAA leadgers will use theation programs benefits. Outsidrivate researche
OAA products ain. For each val
mately represent
provided informto society. We ats each product.
ments, and respeclows NOAA to s. The model is
ef description odix A contains mrough to the pro
al Reef Conservrs, along with mroduct, currently
monitored by NOffort to standarde could not prov
by multiple uses to collect drmed in part by the report card
ndardized sampls, such as contraforts associated
are the only shipand Monitoring
dership as they me Status and Trethat further enh
de of the decisioers, as well as th
and lue
the
mation also
ctive
of the more duct’s
ation many y under OAA’s dize vide a
data for
’s
ling act
with ps that g
make ends hance on-he
NOAA Fleet So
ocietal Benefits Study, Final Repport
8
NOAA Fleet Soocietal Benefits Study, Final Repport
9
NOAA Fleet So
Benefits to Soopportunity fovalues (such ato-pay for thecoral reefs.
Several studiecommissionedstates and terrindicated that(2016 USD),1
LR viewer allowaluate potential t critical infrast
ted the costs oftimates that app00.13 And, the
me additional cough 2100 (disc
ydrographicAA’s National cover the coast
nd related hydrorovement Act otransportation aactivities, coastharts come in twe are two digita The RNC is a arn mariners of
eet: Four ships s to develop na
ers and crew usydrographers anduct described ihydrographic sund during these t right away. TMariners to en
ographic surveyOAA to contracmost appropriaces from qualifFederal PropertCommonly kno
se in situations pecialized technveys services coude the U.S. Arnd the U.S. Pow
nge and Housing
ch/climate-changin the United Sta
430-R-15-001. A
port
and engineerin
ws users to quiimpact on coa
tructure and mi
f sea level rise aproximately 1.U.S. EPA estimosts) associatedcounted at 3%).
c Surveys: NOcean Service
ts of U.S. statesographic informof 1998 (and amand commerce.al zone manag
wo forms, papeal formats for el
simple digital f dangers ahead
in the NOAA autical charts (sse special technnd cartographerin Section 2.2 aurvey data provsurveys that mhe U.S. Coast G
nsure that the pu
y data and othect for hydrograate and cost efffied sources in ty and Adminiown as the "Brwhere the profnical expertiseontractors and rmy Corps of Ewer Squadrons.
g: Will a Rising ge-underwater-hoates: Benefits of
Available: https://
11
ng groups, priva
ckly and easilystal properties itigate property
and coastal floo9 million homemates that natiod with sea level.14
Nautical Che (NOS), Offices and territoriesmation by the Cmendments). T. They also proement and plan
er and digital. Dlectronic chartsimage of the p
d and provide o
Fleet are dedicsee Table 1 fornologies to acqrs, who compiland the Tsunamvided by the N
might endanger Guard Navigatublic is made a
er information aphic services wfective methodaccordance wistrative Servicerooks Act" for Afessional nature. NOAA obtainfrom OCS’s N
Engineers (USA.
Tide Sink all Hoomes-12890/. Af Global Action. /www.epa.gov/c
ate entities, and
y visualize poteand associated
y damage.
oding. Zillow, es worth $882 onal costs of prl rise and storm
hart Producte of Coast Survs, as well as theCoast and Geod
The charts serveovide importantnning, and homDigital charts ars, Raster Nauti
paper chart, whother informati
cated to hydrogr a listing of eacquire and procele it into the nami Inundation F
NOAA Fleet). Cvessels to NOA
tion Center alsoaware of the ch
for nautical chwhen qualified d of conductingith its legal authes Act of 1949Architect/Engie of the servicens approximate
Navigation RespACE) surveys o
omes?” Zillow.cAccessed Februar
U.S. Environmecira/climate-actio
d NGOs who u
ential coastal fld resources and
using its propebillion are at riroperty abando
m surge will am
ts vey (OCS) proe Great Lakes.detic Survey Ae as navigationt information f
meland securityre more populaical Charts (RN
hile the ENC inion critical to a
graphic surveysch NOAA vessss data on boar
ation’s nauticalForecast ModeCrew members AA cartographo publishes this
hange.
harts from severd commercial sog these functionthorities, the Fe9 (40 U.S.C. 54ineering (A/E) es to be procureely half of its hponse Teams. Oof Federal chan
com. Available: ry 5, 2017. ental Protection on-benefits-coas
use the viewer a
looding due to d help focus
erty value databisk of being losonment and promount to $5 trill
duces over 1,0 NOAA is auth
Act of 1947 andnal aids, supporfor at-sea enginy efforts along oar, particularly NC) and Electrocludes much m
a safe passage.
s that provide sel and its primrd. They send t charts (note thl product descrimmediately r
hers, who updats information i
ral other sourceources exist, anns. NOAA procederal Acquisit41 et seq.), inclu
contracts, Titleed requires that
hydrographic suOther significannels and ancho
Agency, Office stal-property. Ac
and
future
base st due otective lion
00 horized d the rting neering, our among
onic more
mary the hat the ribed in eport te the in the
es. In nd cures tion uding e IX is t
urvey ant orages,
of ccessed
NOAA Fleet So
Users: FederaFor example, waters on eacthey operate. ENCs. Recreaor GPS mappcharts are alsoneed additionshoreline infr
Benefits to Sonavigate blindhazards with cproduct can btime is expens
Because of unvalue is to exaAuthorities, Uincome and loinformation.
In addition, byexpertise, whimaintain overresponsible.
Sea2.4Product Backtemperatures,describes a yewhich sea-surtemperatures in tropical raindroughts, hurrpublic and priClimate PrediEl Nino and Lprecipitation p
Dependency Atmosphere/Ooceanographineeded for theon TAO moor
tical charts are ndaries (e.g., EEucts and servicer. This includes, tsunami inund
ociety: By provdly and can chaconfidence, wh
be estimated basive, nautical c
nique use of naamine the valu
U.S. seaports suocal consumpti
y collecting hyich ensures tharall data quality
asonal Foreckground: The convective raiear in which serface temperatuaffect seasonalnfall affect wearicanes, tornadivate sector betiction Center (CLa Nina conditipredictions for
on NOAA FleOcean (TAO) ac and meteorole TAO buoys trings include w
ssociation of Porcating/content.as
Study, Final Rep
ional regulationst Guard requiruise lines, ferrie
regulated undeare not require
ns from third-paor the internatiol support. Nauthey enter ports
also the authorEZ). The informes, as well as prs products and idation modelin
viding the mosart out the safeshich in turn allosed on avoided
charts also prov
autical charts ine of U.S. ports upport nearly $ion (2014 USD
ydrographic datat it remains an y and provides
casts: El NinEl Nino – Sou
infall, surface aa-surface tempures are cooler l tropical rainfaather patterns t
does, and other tter prepare forCPC) creates anions. CPC usesthe U.S.
eet: One of the array. The TAOlogical data. Thto transmit the dwind speed, air
rt Authorities. Uspx?ItemNumbe
port
ns require manyres commerciales, tug boats) toer the Safety ofed to use NOAAarty software conal shipping intical charts are with which the
al shipping inducording the Amactivity, and ptly lower witho
A develops and ydrographic daepend on hydro
on Outlook cle represents acirculation oveerm average, wo and La Nina the west coast
ng the frequencell as temperatueach season, N
Outlook. The ENer tools to infor
utlook is data frmoored in the Pe TAO array inctronically throty, salinity prof
mic Growth. Av
arts and relatedvessels that tra
paper charts of required by fedhey often use m
NOAA’s nauticcontinue to inc
ws understand w
uding accidentts also directly r government abitat, placement
elps ensure thaton. They can als. Thus, much ory and possiblyt of time spent
ustry, one waymerican Associprovide $1.2 bilout up-to-date n
d maintains its hata that it purchographic data fo
annual changeser the equatoriawhile La Nina dyears, changest of South Amecy and severityure and precipi
NOAA NationaNSO Outlook drm seasonal tem
rom the TropicPacific Ocean tncluding the solough satellites.files, sea surfac
vailable: http://w
d NOAA produansit the same Uthe waters in w
deral law to usemobile chart plocal charts. Nautcrease in size, thwater depths an
t disputes) and informs severa
agencies and tht of marine
t ships do not lso avoid navigof the value of y death. Becausat sea.
y to understand iation of Port llion in personanautical chart
hydrographic hases. This helpfor which NOA
s in sea surfaceal Pacific. El Nidescribes a yeas in Pacific Oceerica. These chay of storms, floitation. To helpal Weather Servdescribes the stmperature and
cal that collect lar panels and r Basic measurece temperature
www.aapa-
ucts. U.S.
which e otters tical hey nd
al e
gational this se ship
their
al
ps AA is
e ino
ar in ean anges
oods, p the vice’s tatus of
radios ements
e, and
NOAA Fleet So
subsurface temNWS models
The ENSO Oprovides data Hurricane Oudependent dat
Users: The instakeholders. Department oagencies whomanagement Outlook to maproducts thereadverse effectthose related t
There are alsoagriculture, redecisions on wdecisions abopreparatory d
Benefits to Soepisode is critexample, Adaper year in ec$228 million gate value of
ENSO-relatedbillions of dolprepare for prOutlooks to m
Eco2.5Product Backthese protectesanctuaries suunderwater ar
National Marwithin marinetheir resourceupdated everymanagement r
16 Adams, R., KInformation. C
ocietal Benefits
mperatures. Octhat are also u
utlook also depon ocean subs
utlook product ita, the ENSO O
nformation provPublic sector u
of Defense, U.Sse operations oagencies, such ake decisions ae are informed ts from El Ninoto agriculture,
o many private etail, energy, fiwhich crops to ut quantities ofecisions (e.g., u
ociety: Severaltical in helpingams et al. (1995onomic benefit(2016 USD). Atotal crop prod
d forecasts of thllars in damageredicted eventsmake appropria
osystem Mankground: NOAed marine ecosyupport endangercheological sit
ine Sanctuary Ce sanctuaries fre protection andy five years to eresponses.
K. Bryant, B. Mcontemporary Ec
Study, Final Rep
cean profile infused to inform t
pends on data fsurface temperais also dependeOutlook relies o
vided in the ENusers of this infS. Agency for Inor decisions areas the Tampa
about reservoir by the ENSO O
o or La Nina. Owater resource
sector users ofsheries, and ouplant and when
f seasonal itemundertake main
l studies have sg farmers and o5) found that imts for the agricu
At the time the duction for the s
he potential fore costs. For exa, which can red
ate preparatory
nagement: NAA manages 1ystems encompered species andtes.
Condition Repom outside pred improvementexamine trends
cCarl, D. Legler
conomic Policy.
port
formation, whicthe ENSO Outl
from the ARGOatures, salinity,ent on the TAOon a variety of
NSO Outlook aformation inclunternational Dee impacted by sBay Water Autreleases. Emer
Outlook to prepOther state and es, transportatio
f CPC outlooksutdoor recreation to plant them
ms to stock. Indintenance to pre
shown that predther types of bu
mproving ENSOultural sector instudy was condsoutheast regio
r extreme climaample, nationalduce response cdecisions, resu
National Ma3 National Marpass more thand a variety of h
orts serve as anessures. The Cot goals, and infos, identify how
r, J. O’Brien, A. ISSN 1074-3529
13
ch is collected look.
O array, a glob and velocity. T
O and ARGO arin-situ and sate
affects the decisude NOAA, Feevelopment, Ushort-term climthority, use prergency managepare and allocalocal agencies
on and energy.
s that use the Eon/tourism. For
m. Private retailividual househoepare for anticip
dicting the life usinesses plan O forecasts by n the southeastducted, these e
on.16
ate episodes likl and state emecosts. Individu
ulting in avoide
arine Sancturine Sanctuarie 600,000 squar
habitats ranging
n important tooondition Reporform future man
the status of v
Solow, and R. W9. Vol XIII: 10 –
directly from N
al array of 3,80These floats arrrays – see Secellite data to de
sions and manaederal EmergenU. S. Departmenmate variations.edicted precipitement agenciesate resources to affected by EN
ENSO outlook ar example, CPClers or grocery
holds also use Cpated winter st
cycle and strenfor, avoid or m33% would re
t U.S., while a estimates repres
ke floods and dergency manageual households aed damage cost
uary Condies and two natire miles of marg from coral re
ol for managingrts help managenagement plan
various resource
Weiher. 1995. Va– 19.
NOAA vessels
00 free-driftingre deployed by ction 2.11) In aevelop predicti
agement actionncy Managemennt of Agricultur. For example, tation levels fos use informatioo areas that wilNSO-related co
as a prediction C outlooks canchains can use
CPC products totorms).
ngth of a Pacifmitigate potentiesult in $151 m100% accuratesented about 2
droughts can alers can use CPand businessests.
itions Reporional marine mrine and Great efs, to deep-sea
g and protectiners determine is for the sanctues has changed
alue of Improve
, is assimilated
g profiling floatthe NOAA Fle
addition to fleeton products.
ns of many diffnt Agency, re, and state anwater resource
orm the ENSO on from CPC ll likely experieonditions inclu
tool. These incn inform farmere the data makeo make approp
fic warm or colial losses. For
million (2016 USe forecast woulto 3 percent of
so save the U.SPC forecasts to bs can also use C
rts monuments. Tog
Lakes waters. Ta canyons, to
ng the resourcesf they are achieuary. The repord, and establish
d Long-Range W
d into
ts that eet (the t-
ferent
nd local e
ence de
clude rs’ e priate
ld
SD) ld yield f farm-
S. better
CPC
gether, The
s eving rts are
h
Weather
NOAA Fleet So
Dependency Reports. For eThey also colabundance, ansource of ocea
While most sabe critical for (i.e. they can NOAA vesselfor longer pernot accessible
Users: The pruses data frommanagement
The Conditionin the Conditithe public abothem. Universand to fill in g
Benefits to Soeducation proprovide. Natiorecreational aecosystem dirand indirectlynational marineconomies fro
Fish2.6Product Backstock assessmabundance of Marine Fisherwith data and
NOAA fisherregulations thFishery ManaConservation international oof fish stocks
Dependency abundance, caand to collect fishermen’s lofish stock data
17 NOAA Offichttp://sanctuari
ocietal Benefits
on NOAA Fleexample, NOAlect data througnd distribution.anographic dat
anctuaries havegathering datahandle weatherls also have sufriods. This alloe using the sanc
rimary purposem the Conditionactions related
n Reports are aion Reports helout resources insities and indepgaps that furthe
ociety: The Naograms related tonal Marine Sa
activities such arectly but who y to coastal econe sanctuaries om diverse acti
heries Manakground: NOA
ment involves cof fishery stocks ries Service (Nresources to as
ries managers phat prevent overagement CouncAct to set annu
organizations a.
on NOAA Fleatch, and biologbiological data
ogbooks, obsera is a primary p
ce of National Mies.noaa.gov/scie
Study, Final Rep
eet: The NOAAAA vessels colle
gh observation. NOAA weathta for the Cond
e access to on-sa in seasons andr and sea statesfficient crew tows sanctuary sctuary vessel b
e of the Conditin Reports to deto resource pro
also an importalp sanctuary stan the sanctuarypendent non-prer contribute to
ational Marine to marine sanctanctuaries provas fishing and svalue their exisnomies that sergenerate approivities like com
agement: FiAA conducts stollecting, analyand, to the ext
NMFS) managessess approxim
primarily use Nrfishing and prcils in the U.S.,ual catch limitsalso rely on NO
eet: NOAA usegical. NMFS ua that inform strvations from fpurpose for 10
Marine Sanctuarieence/socioecono
port
A Fleet provideect data throug
n stations and acher buoys, manydition Reports o
site vessels, thed locations whes during which o be able to contaff to spend mecause of the d
ion Reports is tevelop Sanctuaotection, conse
ant tool for the aff design site-
y, why they are rofit organizatioo management a
Sanctuaries Cotuaries, which
vide a range of snorkeling) andstence. Furtherrvice the activi
oximately $8 bimmercial fishing
isheries Stoctock assessmenyzing, and repotent possible, ps roughly 475
mately 200 stock
NOAA stock asrovide optimal , which are requs for their regioOAA’s stock as
es three primaryuses NOAA Fletock the assess
fishing vessels, of the 16 ships
es. 2015. Nationomic/factsheets/w
14
es key data thatgh seafloor mapcoustic surveysy of which are
of each sanctua
ey serve differeere conditions small craft wo
nduct operationmore days at seadistance from p
to inform sanctry Managemen
ervation science
sanctuaries’ edspecific educatimportant, andons often use thand protection
ondition Reporin turn helps tobenefits, includ
d benefits accrur, many on-site ities. For exampillion annually g, research and
ck Assessments to help manorting populatioredict future trfish stocks (theks each year.
sessments to seyield for commuired by mandaon based on besssessments for n
y types of dataeet vessels and ments. Catch dand telephone
s in NOAA’s fl
nal Marine Sanctwelcome.html. A
t supports manypping surveys ts on fish and mserviced by th
ary.
ent roles than thare too harsh f
ould be limited ns 24 hours pera, and reach de
ports.
tuary managemnt Plans, whiche, research, and
ducation and oution and outread what behaviohe Condition Rof marine reso
rts directly conto protect the imding on-site usuing to individue activities gene
mple, NOAA res(2015 USD) in
d recreation/tou
ent nage commercion informationrends in stock ae number has v
et catch limits amercial fishermate of the Magst available scinon-federal an
a to develop stacontract vesse
data typically ce interviews. Cofleet (see Table
tuaries and LocaAccessed 5/3/201
y conclusions ithat characteriz
marine mammalhe NOAA Fleet
the NOAA Fleefor the operatio
under a small r day, and can meeper parts of th
ment decisions.h guide future pd education.
utreach programach programs thoral changes areReports to identources.
tribute to regulmportant benefiser benefits (e.guals who do noerate income disearch indicaten local coastal aurism-related ac
ial and recreation to determine cabundance. NOvaried as new s
and to set and men. This includgnuson-Stevensientific data. Cond joint jurisdic
andard fish stocels to conduct acomes from docollecting abund1 for a listing
al Economies. Av17.
in the Conditioze sanctuary hal species diverst, also serve as
et. NOAA vesson of smaller ve
craft advisory)maintain operahe sanctuary th
Specifically, Nplanning and
ms. The informhat teach membe needed to protify research ne
lations, policiesits the sanctuarg., through ot use the marinirectly to partic
es that togetherand ocean depectivities.17
onal fish speciechanges in the
OAA’s Nationaltocks are added
enforce other des eight Regios Fishery oastal, state andctional managem
ck assessmentsabundance survckside monitordance and bioloof each NOAA
vailable:
on abitat. sity, a
sels can essels ). ations hat are
NOAA
mation bers of otect eeds,
s, and ries
ne cipants , endent
es. A
l d),
onal
d ment
: veys, ring, ogical A
NOAA Fleet So
vessel and its collection.
Users: Fish stnecessary to mdata, stock asestablished tamuch catch ismanage non-Fmanaged stoc
Fish stock assof fish populaand scientists products suchnational databfish species ar
Benefits to Sopopulations th($54 billion wRecreational s
NOAA’s fish status informamore than woworth $400 mwould have to
In addition, sespecies, reflecsustainable ca
Tsu2.7Product Backof tsunami floreal-time tsunand the site-spevents. They
Dependency for EnvironmDEMs map ouhow tsunamisNCEI relies o
NOAA Fleet, Ny private vesseer Level ObservNWLON is a nterritories. DARrently maintain
e Inundation Foand evacuationon plans for vare forecasted tsu
unities also useand TIMs to asar power plants also a large dher research on
ndation Forecahe impacts of tnecessary response practices , it is difficult td not been impamount of time
g system.
ponse actions anthe difference i
unami producedwhile a tsunamthe same locatirom having a reibuted to tsunamnning, as well acast is the inforsults of this resor deaths assoc
Blooms: Foae are simple pout of control cfish, marine m
ellfish toxicity,
th Rocky Lopes,
port
e Nautical Chary the NOAA Fl
NCEI also usesels to develop Dvation Networknetwork of 210RT is an array n the DART ne
orecast Modelsn. NOAA workrious tsunami s
unami wave hei
e SIMs and TIMssess inundatiots, water and wemand for the
n tsunamis, incl
ast Models helpthese events, inonse and evacuis still relativelto quantify the plemented. In ae available to im
nd mitigation ein damages assd by the 1964 G
mi produced by ion. These evenesponse plan inmi response, itas the value of rmation it provearch will imprciated with tsun
orecasts andplants that live icreating Harmf
mammals and biadverse public
National Tsuna
16
rts product desleet).
s coastal and mDEMs. To devek (NWLON) an0 long-term conof 39 buoy sys
etwork, NOAA
s directly informks with local emscenarios. Duriight will affect
MS to develop on risks and to mastewater infradata from SIMluding examini
p communities ncluding numbeuation costs avly unknown. Wdamages that w
addition, the exmplement resp
efforts can signociated with tw
Great Alaska Ethe 2011 Greatnts produced wn place, but thet does speak to information in
vides to academrove the effectinami events.
d Mitigationin both saltwatful Algal Bloomirds. There are c health effects
ami Hazard Mitig
scribed in Secti
marine LIDAR elop the inundand the Deep-Ontinuously operstems that detec ships have bee
ms communitymergency manaing an actual tst their commun
tsunami mitigamake decisionsastructure, and
Ms and TIMs froing ways to bet
better plan forer of lives lost, oided by more
While some studwould have occ
xtent of damageponse actions, th
nificantly reducwo tsunami eve
Earthquake caust Tohoku, Japa
waves with sime 2011 event dithe potential b
n models such amic researchersiveness of resp
n Capabilityter and freshwams (HABs), whseveral speciesincluding shel
gation Program A
ion 2.3 also dep
data, historic sation forecasts,
Ocean Assessmerating water levct and measureen charged with
y and regional pagers to conversunami, community, and take ap
ation plans. Fos about the locahospitals, and om U.S. univertter predict tsun
r and respond to property dama accurate forecdies have calcucurred if effectes depends on the accuracy of
ce the impacts oents that impacsed over $50 bian, earthquake r
milar amplitudesid.20 While thisbenefits associaas SIMs and TI, who are using
ponse/mitigatio
y, Gulf of Mater. In some cahich result in tos of HABs thatllfish poisoning
Administrator D
pend on the
soundings, and NOAA incorp
ent and Reportvel stations e tsunami waveh this task as re
planning effortsrt SIMs and siteunities referencppropriate resp
or example, planation of criticalimplement othrsities. Academnami threats.
o potential tsunage, and other casts. The valueulated the amoutive evacuationthe magnitude f the forecast, a
of tsunamis. Foted Crescent Cillion in damagresulted in $5 bs and duration. s significant deated with tsunamIMs. An additiog this data to im
on actions, furth
Maine ases, colonies ooxic or harmfult can lead to wig, and taste and
Deputy Program
porates ing of
es. ecently
s e-ce the ponse
nners l
her mics
nami
e of unt of ns and
and the
or City, ge and billion The crease mi onal mprove her
of l ild and d odor
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
17
HABs have occurred in all coastal areas of the U.S., with different species affecting different regions. This study focuses on HABs in the Gulf of Maine because NOAA ships contribute data that support HAB forecasts in this region and several studies have estimated the economic value of these forecasts. Blooms of the species Alexandrium fundyense in the Gulf of Maine have resulted in restrictions on commercial and recreational shell fishing. The toxins from Alexandrium fundyense can accumulate in shellfish, and if consumed by humans, can cause severe illness or death from paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP).
In response to HAB and hypoxia threats, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act in 1998, which led to the development and funding of integrated regional HAB and hypoxia research programs through NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (which is part of NOAA’s National Ocean Service). Today large regional ecosystem programs addressing HAB issues have been implemented in three areas of the U.S., including the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico (in Florida and Texas), and the Great Lakes. These programs make up the NNCCOS’s Harmful Algal Bloom Operational Forecast System (HAB-OFS).
The HAB-OFS forecasts assess and predict the extent of the algal blooms, allowing state and local managers to more effectively sample and monitor these areas. This allows managers to make decisions about beach closures, shell fishing restrictions, and other HAB-affected activities. In the Gulf of Maine, NOAA plans to transform the HAB-OFS from a pilot program started in 2008, to operational seasonal and weekly forecasts starting in 2017.
Dependency on NOAA Fleet: The HAB forecasts for the Gulf of Maine rely on several data sources that depend on the NOAA Fleet, including NOAA’s HAB cyst maps 21, Northeastern Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS) moorings, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center hydrographic surveys.
Aside from data collected by the NOAA Fleet, the HAB-OFS also relies on satellite imagery, other remote sensing data, atmospheric data, field observations, models, public health reports and buoy data to provide large spatial scale and a high frequency of observations required for these forecasts. Much of this data comes from NOAA or other federal sources.
However, institutions outside of government are also involved in research that supports HAB forecasts. In the Gulf of Maine, three universities help gather and analyze data. Canadian scientists have also been involved in research for HAB Forecasts in the Bay of Fundy, which borders both Maine and the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Users: Local authorities use HAB forecasts to guide management decisions and protect public health. In the Gulf of Maine, state shellfish managers are responsible for sampling and testing different areas of the coast to assess the toxicity levels of the water and the shellfish. These managers use the HAB forecasts to determine where they should sample and perform these tests. If toxic levels of shellfish poison are detected, state shellfish managers must determine how much of the beach or the intertidal and submerged lands will be closed to shell fishing until subsequent tests show that the HAB has dissipated. In Maine, weekly forecasts also help managers carve out exception areas where shell harvesters can work even when much of the coast is closed.
The aquaculture industry also uses HAB forecasts to make management decisions. In the event of a HAB, states may monitor the area more frequently and companies may try to harvest their shellfish early.
Benefits to Society: HAB forecasts allow state shellfish managers and public health officials to close fishing areas and beaches more selectively and precisely, minimizing economic impacts associated with lost landings, and lost tourism while effectively protecting against adverse public health outcomes. Several studies have estimated the socioeconomic impact of HABs. For example, Athearn (2008) estimates lost sales of soft-shell clams associated with a strong 2005 HAB event in Maine amounted to approximately $2.21 million (2016 USD).22 A separate study estimated the direct economic 21 Alexandrium fundyense forms toxic blooms annually, depositing seed-like cysts in the ocean bottom sediments in the fall that remain dormant in the winter and bloom again in the spring. NOAA maps these cysts, and uses these data to initiate HAB forecast models for the upcoming algal bloom season in the spring and summer. 22Athearn, K. 2008. Economic Losses from Closure of Shellfish Harvesting Areas in Maine. University of Maine at Machias. Available: http://www.machias.edu/ assets/docs/appliedResearch/eco_losses_shellfish_jan08.pdf.
NOAA Fleet So
impacts of theand $20 milliothe softshell c
Knowing the accurate HABportions of bethese closuresvalue of HABthe responses forecast is appfrequent, the fother year andannually. The(2016 USD),
Hyp2.9Product Backthe US, and thcause food weprogram (Hypfor the peak aresearchers, paddition, Hyp
Dependency Southeast Aretake measuremnorthwest Flocreate dissolvtransmit the la
Users: The inentering upstreducational toMexico Watenutrient reduchypoxic zoneAnnual NOAthe follow-upmodelers of GHypoxia WatNorthern Gulmodels used t
Benefits to SoGulf of MexicLouisiana and
23 Jin, D., E. ThNew England.”24 Jin, D. and Pthe Gulf of Ma
ocietal Benefits
e same event inon (2016 USDclam and musse
extent of past eB forecast can beaches to ensurs and cut the lenB forecasts in th
are highly effeproximately $7forecast is not d the responsese study estimatedepending on H
poxia: Hypokground: The he second largeeb alterations, fpoxia Watch) hannual hypoxic policymakers, fpoxia Watch ma
on NOAA Fleea Monitoring aments of DO anorida. Every onved oxygen mapatest data and m
nformation provream of the Guool for researchershed Nutrient ctions, relies on. In every year A/NGI (Northe activities stren
Gulf of Mexicoch data is also f of Mexico Ecto predict fishe
ociety: Hypoxico. The economd Texas accoun
hunberg, and P. ” Ocean and CoaP. Hoagland. 200aine.” Woods Ho
Study, Final Rep
n Maine and M) for Massachuel fisheries.
economic impabe. Before thesre public safetyngth of time thhe Gulf of Mainective. The resu795,000 (2016 U100% accurates are effective, ed the net preseHAB frequency
oxia Watch,hypoxic zone
est in the worldfaunal mortalit
has published nperiod. The m
fishermen, the paps and data pr
eet: Each year fand Assessmennd other water
ne to three daysps based on themaps to Gulf hy
vided in Hypoxulf of Mexico ohers, educators,
Task Force, wn Hypoxia Watsince 2010, Hy
ern Gulf Institungthen commun hypoxia, and tcritical to the s
cosystems and ries responses
ia impacts the fmy of the Gulf nted for approx
Hoagland. 2008astal Manageme08. “The Value oole Oceanograph
port
Massachusetts,23
usetts. These es
acts due to strose forecasts wery. However, as hat they are closne, assuming aults of this studUSD). This va
e, and the respothe total value ent value of they, accuracy of
, Gulf of Mein the Gulf of M
d’s coastal oceaties, and habitanear real-time, w
maps and data fopublic, and othrovide a 15-yea
from early Junent Program (SEquality variabl
s, they transmit ese data, publisypoxia science
xia Watch is usf the progress o, and decision-m
which has a goatch maps and dypoxia Watch pute) Gulf Hyponication and cothe users and stsuccess be usedHypoxia Assesto future scena
food supply foof Mexico incl
ximately $470 m
. “Economic impent, 51, 420-429of Harmful Algahic Institution Ma
18
at $2.7 millionstimates includ
ng HAB eventre available, puforecasts improsed, minimizin
a HAB occurs edy indicated thalue falls to $68
onses are not efof a 100% acc
e forecasts overprediction, and
exico Mexico is the lan. In addition t loss. Since 20web-based maporm an importa
hers base their uar baseline of th
e through mid-EAMAP), scienles near the seathe data to NC
sh the maps ande partners.
sed to inform mof their efforts.makers. For ex
al to reduce the data for informaproducts have
oxia Research Coordination bettakeholders, red in of three nessment Programarios of hypoxia
r commerciallyludes significanmillion, or two-
pact of the 2005. l Bloom Predicti
Marine Policy Cen
n (2016 USD) de lost revenue
ts, it becomes cublic health offove, decision-m
ng economic imevery 10 years,at the annual va8,000 (2016 USffective. Howevcurate forecast ir 30 years rangd responses.24
largest area of oto impacting fi
001, NOAA’s Gps and data on ant part of the sunderstanding ohe Gulf hypoxi
-July, as part ofntists aboard tha floor over theCEI scientists ad underlying da
managers that c. It also serves xample, the inte
size of the hypation on the caualso been used
Coordination Wtween physicalesulting in betteew projects supm, that are focua extent and se
y and recreationnt fishery and t-thirds, of total
5 red tide event o
tions to the Nearnter.
in economic imand associated
clear how valuaficials would hamakers can nar
mpacts. One stu, the forecast isalue of a 100%SD) per year if ver, if a HAB eincreases to ov
ges from $57.2
oxygen-depletefisheries, hypoxGulf of MexicoGulf region di
scientific basis of the Gulf Hyic zone.
f the combinedhe NOAA reseae continental shat Stennis Spaceata online for p
control the amoas an essential eragency Missipoxic zone throuses and season
d to inform procWorkshops. Thel, biological, aner planning for
pported throughused on advanceverity.
nally-importantourism activityl U.S. revenue
on commercial s
rshore Commerc
mpacts for Maid economic effe
able a timely anave to close larrrow the scope udy examined ts 100% accurat
% accurate HABf a HAB event ievent occurs evver $3 million
million to $1 m
ed coastal watexic conditions co Hypoxia Watssolved oxygenupon which
ypoxic Zone. In
d state/federal arch vessel Orehelf from Texase Center, MS, wpublic use, and
ount of nutrientbaseline datas
issippi River/Gough watershednal dynamics oceedings of theese workshops nd socioeconom
adaptive meash the NOAA cing ecological
nt fish species iy. For examplefor shrimp
hellfish fisheries
cial Shellfish Fish
ine, ects in
nd rge of the te, and B is less very
million
ers in can tch n (DO)
n
egon II s to who
ts set and Gulf of d of the e and
mic sures.
l
in the e,
s in
hery in
NOAA Fleet So
landings.25 Weconomists hacommercial ahas not yet behypoxic condhigher numbe
Oce2.10Product Backexploration ananimals use sooffspring. The
To better und(OST) develoconsists of twCetSound’s cpredictive envmigratory patspatial, and frbetter underst
Dependency data collectedheavily reliandata collectedservicing 10 otime and colle
Users: Resoureduce adversManagement,addition, CetSimpacts, knowProcedure. Boavailable undthrough the w
Benefits to Somating soundconducted numrehabilitationprograms thatoverall benefihousehold per
rricanes: Hukground: NOArricane Researcactivity for the u
major hurricaneslikely” ranges oe hurricane seaaccessed onlinemprove hurrican
on NOAA FleARGO arrays r a discussion o
d through the V
urces of globals. CPC synthesoming hurrican
than 80 millionderal agencies, g hurricane seaspanies make seaministration proFEMA with thublic on prepar
ociety: Since 1ses exceeding $utlook helps keyage, mortality
mieson and Drur0 and 1990 becrricane forecastecast informatioe would increasmmanuel et al.s in seasonal hu
et Emergen: NOAA ships
upon to provide
onal Centers for/www.ncdc.noaa., and Drury, C.
D.C. T., Jablonowski, ournal of AppliedK., F. Fondriest,(110 – 117).
Study, Final Rep
ecies preservatithat society pla
urricane OuAA’s CPC prodch Division andupcoming hurrs, and accumulof activity for tason), and updae NOAA produne preparednes
eet: The Hurric(note that the Eof the TAO and
Voluntary Obser
l temperature asizes data fromne season.
n U.S. citizens and members o
son. Members oasonal operatioomotes the Outheir ready.gov wring for these st
1980, 35 major $500 billion. Thy stakeholders and morbidity,ry (1997) deterause of improvt information toon helped to avse to more than (2012) also fourricane foreca
cy Responseare a key part
e the following
r Environmental a.gov/billions/ 1997. Hurricane
C., Posner, B., ad Meteorology, 4 and J. Kossin. 2
port
ion and habitat ces on them.
utlook duces the Atlan
d National Hurrricane season inated cyclone enthe upcoming sates it in early Aucts. Communitss.
cane Outlook reENSO Forecastd ARGO arrayrving Ship Pro
and weather datm these various
are potentiallyof the public usof the business
onal changes batlook and recomwebsite, the Natorms.
hurricanes (thohe average annbetter prepare
, societal costs rmined that losved hurricane foo oil and naturavoid $10 million $19 million (2ound potentiallyasts.32
e Services of the U.S. oceemergency res
Information (NC
e mitigation effo
and Bishop, C. 243, 1270–1281. 2012. Potential E
20
improvement.
ntic Hurricane ricane Center. Tn the Atlantic Rnergy. The Outseason. CPC reAugust (mid-seties, businesses
elies on data frot product also d
ys). The Hurricagram, which th
ta come from lasources and fee
y threatened by se the Hurricans sector also useased on the infommends preparational Hurrican
ose causing at nual losses fromfor the hurricanassociated withs of life associa
forecasts.30 Conal gas produceron (2016 USD)2016 USD) pery significant sa
ean-related emesponse services
CEI) U.S. Billion
orts at the U.S. F
2004. “Value of h
Economic Value
Society’s will
Outlook in colThe HurricaneRegion, includitlook is probab
eleases the Hurreason). The Hus, and other sta
om various soudepends on theane Outlook alhe NOAA Flee
and-based statieds it into clim
hurricanes eacne Outlook to fe the Hurricane
formation foundredness efforts ane Center, and
least $1 billionm these 35 stormane season, whih evacuation, aated with hurrinsidine et al. (2rs in the Gulf o) per year in unr year with a 50avings for the in
ergency and dis:
n-Dollar Weathe
Federal Emergen
hurricane foreca
e of Seasonal Hu
lingness-to-pay
llaboration withe Outlook serveing the numberbilistic in naturricane Outlook
urricane Outlooakeholders use
urces, includinge TAO and ARlso uses sea suret is a part of.
ions, weather bmate models to m
ch year. State afocus their resoe Outlook. Ford in the Outloofor small busin
d the Red Cross
n in damages) hrms is nearly $1ich can lead to and lost busineicanes exponen2004) estimatedof Mexico. Thennecessary evac0% improvemensurance indus
saster response
er and Climate D
ncy Managemen
asts to oil and ga
urricane Forecast
y to protect thes
h hurricane expes as a general gr of named store, which mean
k in late May (pok is one of thethe Outlook to
g data collectedRGO arrays; seerface and weath
balloons, and samake predictio
and local emergources and prepr example, coasok. The Small nesses. In addits, use this Outlo
have struck the16 billion.29 Threductions in ss activity. For
ntially decreased the value of y found that excuation costs, aent in forecast stry associated
e network, and
Disasters
t Agency, FEMA
as producers in th
ts. Weather, Clim
se
perts at guide rms, s that
prior to e most
d by e her
atellite ons
gency pare for stal
tion, ook to
e U.S. he
r ed
xisting and
with
are
A,
he Gulf
mate,
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
21
Survey our nation’s ports and waterway in response to national security threats, helping enable the ability to rapidly re-open ports after they have been secured
Deliver emergency supplies, conduct hydrographic surveys so that ports can be re-opened, and assess hazardous materials, during and after hurricanes and other major storm events
Locate and map debris fields in the ocean for aviation and shipping disasters Conduct a range of scientific surveys in response to major oil spills Perform search, rescue, and evacuation services.
Dependency on NOAA Fleet: NOAA vessels have unique technologies and experienced crew members that, when combined with their availability across an expansive geographic area, can provide superior, timely, and cost-effective response services in many emergency situations.
NOAA Fleet emergency response activities most commonly include hydrographic surveys/data collection and mapping. For example, after hurricanes and large storm eventsat the request of the U.S. Coast Guard, crewmembers on NOAA vessels conduct hydrographic surveys to ensure safe navigation and re-opening of affected ports. NOAA also uses ship hydrographic survey technologies, which include complete seafloor mapping systems, to map debris fields from aviation disasters. This enables the quick recovery of victims and flight recorders. In addition, many of fleet’s vessels are equipped with biological, chemical, and acoustic data collection equipment necessary for toxicity and water quality testing. NOAA is frequently called upon to employ these capabilities in response efforts for major oil and chemical spills and hurricanes, where a range of immediate testing is often required.
The vast geographic area across which the fleet operates also contributes to NOAA’s response capabilities, because it typically means that at least one NOAA vessel can respond to an emergency location in a timely manner. Fleet vessels can also enter areas that require military or security clearance (e.g., military ports), whereas most contract vessels cannot. Finally, as the administrator of all NOAA Fleet activities, OMAO can easily coordinate across line offices to ensure that NOAA’s other critical needs are being met throughout the emergency response period.
Together, these factors often make it much more feasible and cost-effective to utilize NOAA fleet vessels for emergency response activities, rather than having to pay contract vessels, which will likely charge premium prices (e.g., through time and materials contracts) for emergency situations, or other potential responders.
Benefits to Society: NOAA ships’ disaster response capabilities are often essential to subsequent efforts in each emergency scenario. For example, pre- and post-event hydrographic surveying allows major ports and harbors to reopen to commercial shipping after hurricanes and other disasters, as well as following national security threats. The ability of NOAA ships to immediately survey ports allows important economic activity to resume. In 2015 alone, 1.39 billion short tons accounting for $1.56 trillion worth of U.S. goods moved through U.S. ports. Imports and exports via water represented 71% of U.S. imports and exports by weight and almost 42 percent of cargo value in 2015.33
Debris field location and mapping helps other federal, state, and local groups tailor search and rescue operations for air disasters. Ships already designed for scientific data collection can easily be redeployed to help with critical sampling after major oil spills. These efforts save lives, allow for the continuation of commercial activities and the assessment of natural resource damages. In addition, crew members on NOAA Fleet vessels often perform relatively routine search and rescue activities as required by International Maritime law and provide relief supplies to affected populations during emergencies. These activities have saved many lives over the course of the fleet’s history.
The ability of NOAA’s fleet to respond to emergencies also can result in cost savings relative to other potential responders. As noted above, NOAA Fleet vessels have unique technologies and are staffed with scientists and engineers
33 Foxx, A., Perez, T. and Pritzker, P. (2016, March 7). U.S. Ports: Investing in Engines of Economic Development and American Competitiveness [U.S. Department of Transportation Blog]. p.1. Retrieved March 14, 2017 from https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2016/03/us-ports-investing-engines-economic-development-and-american-competitiveness. Statistics available at North American Transportation Statistics at http://nats.sct.gob.mx/go-to-tables/table-7-international-merchandise-trade/table-7-1-international-merchandise-trade-by-mode/
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
22
with expertise in hydrographic and scientific data collection, which accounts for a large majority of response activities, thus gaining significant efficiencies compared to finding vessels and forming crews specifically to respond to emergencies. In addition, NOAA ships are typically relatively easy to reroute with minimal impact to normal program activities. Thus, NOAA vessels can often provide superior, more cost-effective and timely response capabilities compared with other potential responders that may first need formal contractual authorization from the government.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
23
3. Monetized Benefits of Select Products and Services As detailed in Section 1, we worked with the NOAA/OMAO project team, TPIO, and the National Observing Systems Council, to select five NOAA products for further evaluation and quantification:
Coral Reefs: Coral Reef Status and Trends Reports Sea Level Rise: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer Bathymetry/Hydrographic Surveys: Nautical Chart Products Seasonal Forecast: ENSO Outlook Ecosystem Management: National Marine Sanctuaries Conditions Reports
For these five products, we estimated the monetary value or benefits that the product provides to society, and the percentage of this value that can be attributed to the NOAA Fleet. To estimate the benefits associated with each product, we relied on estimates from existing studies and literature, and applied these estimates (or range of estimates) to the relevant product. Collecting primary data to support an original valuation analysis was beyond the scope of this contract.
To estimate the percentage of the products’ value that can be attributed to the NOAA Fleet, we relied on data provided by TPIO from the NOSIA-II model, as well as input from NOAA subject matter experts. Our estimates for the contribution of the NOAA Fleet are based on “denial of service,” which is intended to capture the percentage decrease in performance that the product would experience if the NOAA Fleet was not available to provide necessary data inputs. Section 3.1 provides additional detail on the methodology we used to assess the contribution of NOAA ships to the value of individual products.
Table 4. Societal Benefits of Select NOAA Products and Associated Value of NOAA Fleet1
SEASONAL FORECASTS: El Nino Southern Oscillation Outlook
$0.560 - $1.300 $0.026 - $0.270 4.6% - 20.0%
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: National Marine Sanctuary Condition Reports
$2.420 - $5.180 $0.610 - $1.800 25.0% - 35.0%
Annual Anticipated Benefits Attributed to NOAA Fleet
Annual Anticipated Benefit of Product
Value Chain/Product
1. Benefits of El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Outlook represent benefits associated with U.S. crop
agriculture only. However, many other sectors benefit from ENSO information
NOAA Flee
M3.1As noted aattributed tcontains inproducts. Tspecific proBased on ascore.” A sall expecta
TPIO also NOAA Flecontributinreduced prproducts is
TPIO adjusstreams onscores. Forthese scoreus with rawWe used thindividual
In additionexperts. Wfully reflecexperts to ebuoy systemperformanc
The unweiof estimatesociety.
The data uquantificatand broadeextensive rthis work hanalysis). Iand compleNOAA fleewhich, if p
34 NOAA N(NOSIA-II)https://nosc.35 When devsum of a prothe interdepproducts. Thmission serv
et Societal Benef
Methodologybove, we reliedto the fleet: thenformation on hTo develop thisoducts, asking a scale of 1 to 1score of 1 indications and excee
asked the subjeeet) from produng to a given product score cor
s known as “sw
sted the swing n NOAA’s missr this study, wees provide a betw “unweighted”he unweighted products.
n to the unweighWhen interviewi
ct the impact orestimate the pems it supports.ce that would o
ghted swing sces for assessing
sed as inputs toions are based
er applicability.research and anhas its own limIn short, the resete estimates oet. A more scieerformed comp
National Environm
Methodology R.noaa.gov/tpio/dveloping the swinoduct’s swing scendency of data his adjustment revice areas.
fits Study, Final R
y for Estimad on two source NOSIA-II mo
how individual s data, TPIO suthem to rate ho
100, the averagcates that the preds some.
ect matter expeuction of the prroduct, the “prorresponding to
wing weighting”
scores providesion service aree were interestetter assessment” swing scores swing scores to
hted swing scong experts at thr value of NOAercentage of the We also asked
occur if data fro
cores and informg the contributio
o this analysis rwere often few. Estimates of tnalysis by NOAitations and thesulting values rf the value of N
entifically rigorprehensively, w
mental Satellite,
Report. NOAA Tdocs/NOSIA-II-Mng scores for indores across all dasources. To addr
esulted in “weigh
Report
ating Value es of data to es
odel and input fdata sources a
urveyed more thow well their pe rating across roduct provides
erts to considerroduct, and howoduct delta” is tremoval of the
” in NOSIA-II.
ed by the subjeceas, rather thaned in using the ut of the ship’s ffor NOAA shi
o help us determ
ores, we also rehe product leve
AA ships on theeir product’s tod the subject mom the fleet wa
mation from suon of the NOA
represent the bw in number anthe contributionAA’s Technoloe results have nrepresent an emNOAA productrous analysis wwould be cost-p
, Data, and InforTechnical ReportMethodology-Redividual data streata sources, amoress excessive tohted” swing scor
24
of NOAA Fstimate the percfrom NOAA suand observing shan 500 NOAAroducts meet usubject matter
s no value, whi
r the impact of w that would afthe difference be data source. C. The product d
ct matter expern individual prounadjusted scofull impact on pips and the obsmine the contri
elied on input gel, some expreseir individual potal data inputs
matter experts toas not available
ubject matter exAA Fleet as a pe
est available innd, as with any n of the NOAAgy, Planning annot been indepempirical first stets and services
would require aprohibitive. Thi
rmation Service. t. doi:10.7289/Veport-v1.93-NOSeams, TPIO founounted to greater otal product deltares, which provid
Fleet centage of totalubject matter exsystems contribA subject matteusers’ and staker experts represile a score of 1
removing indivffect the status between the prCharacterizatiodeltas are also r
rts to better refloducts.35 This rores from NOAproduct performserving systemsibution of the N
gathered directlssed concerns tproducts We the
that comes froo estimate the pe.
xperts allowed ercentage of th
nformation. Hostudy, limited
A fleet to final pnd Integration endently verifieep in the directand the share o
additional primahis study does e
2015. NOAA OV52V2D1H. AvaSC.pdf. Accessend that the “total r than 100% for mas, TPIO adjusteded a better asses
l product benefxperts. The NObute to the perfer experts with eholders’ needssents the produ00 means that
vidual data souquo score. For
roduct’s status on of data sourcreferred to as “
flect the impact resulted in “wei
AA subject mattmance. Therefos they support NOAA Fleet to
ly from NOAAthat the TPIO serefore asked t
om the NOAA percentage decr
us to develop he product’s ove
owever, the studin their accuraproducts and sefor Observatioed (as with a “dtion of developof that value atary data collect
establish a scien
Observing Systemailable: ed 5/25/2017.
product delta,” wmost products, wed the swing scorssment of the da
fits that can be OSIA-II model formance of speknowledge of s and expectati
uct’s “status quothe product me
urces (such as tr a given data squo score and
ce impacts to “swing scores.”
t of various datighted” swing ter experts becaore, TPIO prov(e.g., buoy sys
o the value of
A subject matterswing scores dithe NOAA prodFleet and/or threase in produc
a reasonable raerall value to
dies upon whiccy, completeneervices are bas
on office (TPIOdenial of data”
ping more accurttributable to thtion and analysntifically sound
m Integrated An
which representswhich is indicativres for individualata streams on NO
ecific
ions. o eets
the ource the
” 34
a
ause vided tems).
r id not duct
he ct
ange
ch the ess, sed on O) but ” rate he sis d
nalysis
s the ve of l OAA’s
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
25
process for assessing the societal benefits of the NOAA fleet and identifies critical information requirements that should be used to inform future research agendas.
3.2 Coral Reefs: Coral Reef Status and Trends Report Monetary Value of the Coral Reefs in the U.S.: Coral reefs provide the U.S. with valuable goods and services including food, coastal protection, and opportunity for recreational activities. These goods and services in turn provide different types of economic benefits, including: recreational use values and associated tourism benefits; non-use values, such as willingness-to-pay for the existence of coral reefs; and amenity values, which can be measured by increases in value of properties located near coral reefs.36,37
Brander and van Beukering (2013) summarized studies of the benefits of coral reefs for U.S. states and territories with coral reef areas, including American Samoa, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.38 Across all locations and benefit categories, the authors estimated the total economic value of coral reefs in the U.S. to be approximately $3.954 billion per year (2016 USD, Table 5).
Table 5. Annual total economic value of coral reefs in the U.S. (2016 USD)
State/Territory Area of coral reef
value (ha) Total value (millions)
American Samoa 22,200 $13
Florida 36,000 $201
Guam 7,159 $161
Hawaii 165,990 $2,022
Puerto Rico 12,642 $1,265
North Marina Islands 6,494 $75
U.S. Virgin Islands 34,400 $217
U.S. 284,885 $3,954
This estimate does not completely cover all coral reefs in each geographic location – for instance the study for the North Mariana Islands only covered Saipan, for Puerto Rico, the study only covered the reef areas in the eastern part of the territory, and for Hawaii, only the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are covered. Brander and van Beukering (2013) do not expect the underestimation of total value due to lack of geographic coverage to be large. However, the studies also do not cover all of the ecosystem service values in each location. For instance, Florida only covers direct use values but not non-use values, which can be significant.
Value of Report Cards and NOAA Fleet Contribution: The Status and Trends Report Cards will inform decisions by U.S. Congress and NOAA leadership regarding the allocation of resources to protect coral reefs, while the associated jurisdictional-level reports will play a significant role in the direct management of these resources. For
36 Non‐use values reflect the fact that many individuals who do not use a specific resource (e.g, National Marine Sanctuaries, national parks, Great Lakes) for recreation or other purposes still value their existence. Individuals may value these resources for the ecosystem services they provide, because they may want the option to use them in the future, or because they recognize their importance for future generations. Economists often use willingness‐to‐pay studies to assess the non‐use value of specific resources and environmental goods and services. 37 Brander, Luke and Pieter van Beukering, 2013. “The Total Economic Value of U.S. Coral Reefs: A Review of the Literature”. Coral Reef Conservation Program. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. Available: https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/other/other_crcp_publications/TEV_US_Coral_Reefs_Literature_Review_2013.pdf. Accessed 1/20/17. 38 Ibid.
NOAA Flee
purposes obe attributeapproxima
Based on TReport Carestimate thattributableto $711 mi
Value of co
Percent of Status and
Value of S
Percent of value attrib(billions)
Total Ann(billions)
Sea3.3Value of Pand are proby the U.Samplified bmeasures cshorelines value of abstudy also approxima
The Valueestimates thto $810 bildivide this to 2016 US
To estimatassociated can use as
39 Melillo, JAssessment40 U.S. EPAhttps://www41 This studyaccounts for
et Societal Benef
f this report, wed to these prodtely $0.593 to
TPIO’s unweigrds can be attribhat 60% of the de to the NOAAillion (2016 US
oral reefs (billi
coral reef valuTrends Report
tatus and Trend
Status and Trebutable to NOA
nual Benefits o
a Level RisePotential Damaojected to rise 2. EPA estimateby sea level riscan reduce this could reduce th
bandoned propeindicate that mtely $790 billio
e of the Sea Lehat implementillion by 2100 (2value over 86
SD, total annua
e the value of twith adaptationa first step in a
., T. Richmond, . Appendix 5: Sc
A. 2014. “Climatw.epa.gov/cira/cly applied a 3% dr the time value
fits Study, Final R
we estimate thatducts. Thus, the$1.185 billion
hted swing scobuted to the NOdata used in the
A Fleet is estimaSD) of the valu
TabCoral Reefs
ons)
ue attributable tt Card
ds Report Card
ends Report CarAA Fleet
of NOAA Fleet
e: Sea Level ages in the U.S2 to 6 or more fes that sea levele will total $5 timpact. For ex
he impacts assoerty, residual st
mitigation measuon, if these mea
evel Rise Viewing effective ad2014 USD),41 ayears from 201
al avoided costs
the SLR Viewen planning and
assessing vulne
and G. Yohe, Ed
cenarios and Mote Action Benefilimate-action-bendiscount rate to eof money.
Report
t between 15% e value of the Cper year.
ores from NOSOAA Fleet. One report cards cated to be 15%e of the Report
ble 6. Annual Bs Status and T
Lower-bo
o
d
rd
t
Rise VieweS. From Sea Lfeet by 2100, dl rise impacts ftrillion for the
xample, the studociated with setorm damages, ures to reduce asures are adop
wer and NOAAdaptation optioa savings of $414 to 2100 to gs associated wi
er, we need to ad implementatioerability and de
ds. 2014. Climatdels. U.S. Globaits: Coastal Propnefits-coastal-prestimate the valu
26
and 30% of thCoral Reef Stat
IA-II, 15% of tn the other handcomes from NO
% at the lower ent Cards can be
Benefits of NOrends Report
ound estimate
$3.95
15%
$0.593
15%
$0.090
er Level Rise: Glodepending on thfrom inundationcoterminous Udy estimates th
ea level rise to $and costs of prgreenhouse ga
pted.40
A Fleet Contribons will reduce 4.19 trillion, incget an annual vaith adaptation m
account for howon. The SLR viciding on actio
e Change Impacal Change Researperty”. Coastal Aroperty. Accesseue of damages in
he $3.954 billiotus and Trends
the value of Cod, NOAA subjeOAA ships. Thnd and 60% at directly attribu
OAA Fleet, Cards (2016 U
Upp
obal sea levels he emissions scn of coastal pro
U.S. by the yearhat protective c$810 billion throtective adapt
as emissions co
bution. The EPthe impacts/co
cluding the cosalue of $48.7 bmeasures amou
w it contributesiewer is a mapp
ons to mitigate
cts in the United rch Program. DO
Action Benefits Red February 5, 20n future years in
on coral reef vas Report Cards
oral Reefs Statuect matter expe
herefore, the pethe upper end.
uted to the NOA
USD)
per-bound est
$3
30
$1.
60
$0.7
have risen by 8cenario modeleoperty and fromr 2100 (2014 Ucoastal measurehrough 2100. Thtation measures
ould further red
PA study of seaosts of sea levest of adaptationbillion (2014 Uunts to $49.4 bi
s to the reductiping product thimpacts. Based
States: The ThirOI:10.7930/J0Z3Report. Availabl017. 2014 USD. The
alue for the U.Samounts to
us and Trends erts in coral reeercent of valuab. Thus, $90 milAA Fleet (Tabl
timate
.95
0%
185
0%
711
8 inches since ed.39 A 2014 stum storm surge t
USD). Adaptatioes such as armohis includes thes. Results of th
duce total costs
a level rise impl rise from $5 t
n measures. WeSD). Escalatinillion.
ion in avoided chat decision mad on input from
rd National Clim31WJ2. le at:
e discount rate
S. can
efs ble llion le 6).
1880, udy that is on oring e
he to
pacts trillion e g this
costs akers
m
mate
NOAA Flee
subject maViewer’s c
In additionViewer canthe data usthe data in to NOAA suse the 2%from the SLapproxima
Annual VaAdaptationPercent of Viewer Value of SPercent of attributableTotal AnnFleet (billi
Bat3.4Value Estination’s poplanning anprotection NOAA Offbased on a containing by users).43
charts, the including $commerciaapproximabetween 20
While this it serves ascommercia
42 The 3% eproject teathe SLR Vie43 Kite-PowOffice of Co44 Leveson, Consulting. 45 Values foPrice Index.
et Societal Benef
atter experts andcontribution to
n, data from then be attributed ed in the vieweVDATUM comships (50% of t
% TPIO estimateLR Viewer attrtely $30.0 mill
Table 7
alue of Sea Levn (billions) value attributab
LR Viewer (biSLR Viewer ve to NOAA Fle
nual Benefits oions)
thymetry/Himates for Nauorts and throughnd analysis, incof the marine e
ffice of the Coasurvey asking specific charac
3 Assuming a mauthor estimat
$15.3 million/yal users, and $2tely $57.9 mill007 and 2016.4
study providess a lower boundal fishing vesse
estimate is basam believes thiewer in terms o
well, H. 2007 Useoast Survey. I., (2012). Sociop. 47
or recreational an.
fits Study, Final R
d our understanthe overall valu
e NOSIA-II moto the NOAA Fer comes from mes from NOAtotal data from e as the low enributable to NOlion to $556 mi
7. Annual Bene
vel Rise
ble to SLR
illions) value eet of NOAA
Hydrographiutical Chart Phout U.S. watecluding hazardenvironment, aast Survey to es
users what thecteristics identiminimal differeed that the com
year in consume2 million/year ilion/per year (245
s an order of md estimate, largels, or marine re
sed on our undis represents aof reducing poe and Value of N
o-Economic Stud
nd commercial c
Report
nding of the proue of adaptatio
odel indicates thFleet. On the oVertical Datum
AA ships. TherVDATUM * 7
nd of the range OAA ships. Thiillion (2016 US
efits of NOAA
Lower-b
$
ic Surveys: NProducts: NOAerways. Nauticaous material spnd coastal zone
stimate the beney would be wiified ence between thmbined benefitser surplus for rn producer surp
2016 USD), acc
magnitude estimgely because thesource manag
derstanding of a conservative otential impactNautical Charts a
dy: Scoping the
onsumer surplus
27
oduct, we use 3on and associate
hat approximatther hand, NOA
m Transformatirefore, 37.5% o75% ships sharand 37.5% as tis yields an annSD, Table 7).
A Fleet, Sea Le
bound estimat
$49.4
3%
$1.48
2%
$0.0296
Nautical ChAA’s nautical cal charts also supill response, ae managementefits of nauticalling-to-pay fo
he nautical chas of nautical chrecreational useplus. We estimcounting for th
mate of the value study did not
gers, among oth
how stakeholdestimate of ths of SLR.
and Nautical Cha
Value of NOAA
s and producer s
3% as a rough ed avoided sea
tely 2% of the bAA subject maion (VDATUM
of the value of tre of VDATUMthe upper end onual benefit est
evel Rise View
te
hart Produccharts support support improve
as well as effort. In 2007, Kite
al charts for recor ‘ideal’ nautic
arts that were avharts amounted ers, $27.5 milli
mate that today,he increase in fo
ue of nautical cht include militahers. In addition
ders use the pre value of the
art Data in the U
A’s Coastal Map
surplus increased
value represena level rise impa
benefits associatter experts estM), and that appthe SLR VieweM). For estimatof the range of timate for the N
wer (2016 USD
Upper-boun
$49
3%
$1.
37.5
$0.5
cts safe and efficieed environments related to ho-Powell condu
creational and ccal charts (i.e.,
vailable at the to $47.5 millio
ion/year in con, this value amooreign flag ship
harts, the authoary and other fen, since the stu
roduct to makedata and tools
United States. Pre
pping Program F
d to 2016 USD u
nting the SLR acts.42
iated with the Stimate that 50%proximately 75er can be attribtion purposes, w
f the percent of NOAA Fleet of
)
nd estimate
9.4
%
48
5%
556
ent navigation antal/ecological meland securit
ucted a study focommercial venautical charts
time and ideal on (2007 USD)
nsumer surplus ounts to ps visiting U.S
ors acknowledgederal users, udy was conduc
e decisions. Ths incorporated
epared for NOAA
inal Report. Lev
using BLS Consu
SLR % of 5% of buted we value f
at our
ty, or the ssels,
),44 for
. ports
ge that
cted in
he into
A
veson
umer
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
28
2007, digital nautical charts have become even more popular, now allowing for weekly updates that provide additional value to users.46
In a more recent study, NOAA (2013) evaluated the benefits associated with the Physical Oceanographic Real Time System (PORTS), a decision support tool that combines nautical charts and other data critical for navigation (e.g., information on water levels, currents, waves, water temperature, bridge heights, winds, visibility, atmospheric pressure, and air temperature) to provide mariners with accurate and reliable real-time information about environmental conditions in seaports. This “coastal intelligence” helps mariners make better safety and economic decisions. PORTS was first introduced in Tampa Bay in 1991 and as of 2013, was available at 58 of the nation’s 175 major seaports (which account for 75% of the total tonnage that passes through U.S. seaports). NOAA estimates that the value of PORTS amounts to more than $238 million per year at the 58 major seaports where it is available, in terms of reduced marine accidents, increased marine transportation efficiency (including increased cargo capacity and reduced transit delays), and oil spill reduction and containment benefits (Table 8).
Table 8. Value of NOAA PORTS to the U.S. Economy
Benefit Annual Benefits at 58 Ports
w/access to PORTS ($, Millions)a,b
Potential Annual Benefits from 117 Ports without
access to PORTS ($, Millions)
Total current and potential benefits
($, Millions)
Commercial traffic – increased cargo capacity $131.6 $44.8 $176.4 Commercial traffic – reduced delays in transit $ 84.1 $31.7 $ 115.8 Oil spill reduction and containment $3.9 $1.9 $5.7 Reduction in commercial marine accidents Property damage Morbidity and mortality $ 18.7 $10.8 $29.5 Reduction in recreational boating accidents Property damage Morbidity and mortality $0.3 $0.3 $0.7 Total $238.6 $89.5 $328.1 Source: Wolfe, K. and McFarland, D. 2013. An Assessment of the Value of the Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS) to the U.S. Economy. NOAA National Ocean Service. a. Benefits associated with enhanced commercial and recreational fishing experiences were excluded from this table because
they mostly relied on data/information that was not derived from nautical charts.
b. All values updated from 2010 USD using Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. Value of Nautical Chart Products and NOAA Fleet Contribution. While the NOAA PORTS 2013 study included benefits associated with the entire PORTS system and associated data inputs, PORTS is heavily reliant on nautical charts. For this analysis, we assumed that 50%, or $119.4 million (2016 USD), of the $238.6 million value of PORTS can be attributed nautical charts; we used this estimate as an upper bound value for the benefits of nautical charts for marine transportation. As a lower end of the range, we used the willingness-to-pay estimate of $57.9 million per year.
Based on information from TPIO and NOAA subject matter experts, approximately 30% (TPIO estimate) to 40% (subject matter expert estimate) of the value of nautical charts can be attributed to the NOAA Fleet. Thus, the annual value of the NOAA Fleet contribution to nautical charts amounts to between $17.4 million and $47.8 million per year (Table 9). While we provide a range of estimates, we believe they both represent a lower bound for several reasons. First, they reflect benefits associated with marine transportation only; they do not reflect the other benefits and uses of nautical charts, such as those related to coastal zone management, homeland security, and ecological management. In
46In addition, because survey respondents knew how much they paid for nautical charts, this could have resulted in an anchoring bias, leading to more conservative estimates of value.
NOAA Flee
addition, thwith nautic
Annual valuMarine TranPercent of nattributable Total Annu(billions)
S3.5Value of EENSO foreaccuracy a informationmakers in sadvantage decisions aand gas if tdistributorsmerchandi
In additionforecasts topotential bsoutheastermillion anddeveloped savings we
In additionoutbreaks. in nature. Eproactive mexample, pemergencyheavy rain.$3.2 billionactions werstorminess preparedne
Value of Ecrop agricuincrease ec 47 Available48 Weiher, R49 Sharda, VSmall to Mi50 NOAA Ncontent/uplo
et Societal Benef
he value of PORcal charts at the
Tabl
ue of Nautical Chnsportation (billinautical chart valto NOAA Fleet
ual Benefits of N
easonal ForENSO Informaecasts, and can year before th
n and other toosectors affected(Table 10). For
about what cropthe coming wins and consumerse to anticipate
n to private induo make decisioenefits of usingrn U.S. Using Ad $490,000 in aa drought man
ere associated w
n, ENSO can reIn the absence
Emergency manmitigation stratprior to the 199y management a. Actual storm n (2016 USD) ire taken. Althoduring each E
ess.50
ENSO Outlookulture. Several conomic gains,
e at: http://citeR. and H.L. Kite-V. and P. Srivasta
d-Size CommunNational Weatheroads/PPI-Weathe
fits Study, Final R
RTS focuses one remaining 117
le 9. Annual B
Lharts for ions) lue
NOAA Fleet
recasts: ENSation: Over thnow predict they occur.47 Sea
ols. ENSO is thd by seasonal vr example, farmps to plant. Simnter is forecast rs.48 Private ret
e shifts in seaso
ustry sectors, dns that result ing ENSO forecaAuburn, Alabamavoided water pnagement plan bwith more seve
esult in a range e of any forewanagers and othegies and alloc7-1998 El Niñoagencies and Flosses in the 19in damages res
ough portions ol Niño, NOAA
k and NOAA Fstudies have shrelative to a “n seerx.ist.psu.e-Powell. 1999. Aava. 2016. Valuenities. Dollar year Service. 2011. Ver-Econ-Stats-10
Report
n 58 of the nati7 major ports,
Benefits of NOA
Lower-bound
$0.0
$
SO Outlookhe last 40 years,hese events, andasonal outlookshe largest drivervariations in temmers can use semilarly, energy
to be colder thtailers or groceonal needs.
decision-makern significant soasts to manage ma as a case stpurchases durinbased on seaso
ere drought con
of natural disaarning of near fuher decision macate resources ao, NOAA’s Na
FEMA spent an997- 1998 El Nsulting from theof the $1.6 billiA believes that a
Fleet Contribuhown that indivno forecast” sce
edu/viewdoc/dAssessing the Ecoe of ENSO-Forecar not reported. Value of a Weat0-13-11.pdf
29
ion’s major seaor elsewhere w
AA Fleet, Nau
estimate
0579 million
30%
$0.0174
k , NOAA and otd their expecteds of temperaturr of climate varmperature and easonal forecasdistribution co
han usual, thereery chains can u
s working in thocietal benefits.water resourcetudy, the researng 1999-2000 anal forecast inf
nditions.49
asters, includingfuture climate cakers can use seaccordingly, whational Weathern estimated $24Niño were closee intense 1982-on difference aa significant po
ution: In the Uvidual farmers enario (e.g., by
ownload?doi=onomic Impacts casted Drought In
ther-Ready Natio
aports – it doeswithin the U.S.
utical Charts (
Upp
thers have drasd impacts on dre and precipitariability on theprecipitation to
sts of precipitatompanies can ineby avoiding shuse seasonal cl
he public intere. For example, es in small to mrchers found thand 2007-2008formation. Stud
g severe drougconditions, mitieasonal climatehich can result r Service (2011
45 million (201e to $1.6 billion-1983 El Niño,are due to diffeortion of the sa
U.S., one of the can use foreca
y planting crop
=10.1.1.210.38of El Niño and Bnformation for th
on. http://www.p
s not capture beExclusive Eco
(2016 USD)
per-bound esti
$0.1
40
$0.0
stically improvdifferent regionation make use e seasonal timeo help turn climtion and tempencrease stockpihortfalls that arlimate forecasts
est can use seasa 2016 study a
mid-sized commhat the city cou8, respectively,dy results also
ghts, floods, wiligation optionse forecast infort in significant c1) reports that C6 USD) preparn (2016 USD),, for which littlerent intensitiesavings came fro
sectors most imasts to maximizs that perform
1&rep=rep1&tBenefits of Imprhe Management
performance.noa
enefits associatonomic Zone.
imate
119
%
478
ved the accuracns, with 70% to of ENSO scale. Decision
mate events to trature to makeiles of heating re costly to boths to rearrange
sonal climate analyzed the munities of the ld have saved $ if they would showed that hi
ldfires, and diss tend to be rearmation to devecost savings. FCalifornia’s ring for storms, compared to ole preparatory s and durationsom heightened
mpacted by ENze revenues or best under exp
type=pdf roved Forecasts.
of Water Resou
aa.gov/wp-
ted
y of o 80%
n-their oil h
$1.2 have igher
sease active elop For
s and over
s of
NSO is
pected
urces of
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
30
ENSO conditions). Chen et al. (2002)51 estimated the value of ENSO forecasts for both U.S. agricultural producers and consumers, accounting for changes in supply and demand, and the associated impact on prices for agricultural goods. Assuming farmers optimize their decisions based on forecast information, the authors estimated that the total economic benefits of ENSO forecasts ranged from $295 and $700 million per year (1996 USD) for crop agriculture,52 depending on forecast accuracy and ENSO phase definition.
51 Chen, C., B. McCarl, and H. Hill. 2002. Agricultural Value of ENSO Information Under Alternative Phase Definition. Climatic Change. 54:305-325. 52 Including wheat, sorghum, corn, and soybeans.
NOAA Fleeet Societal Beneffits Study, Final RReport
31
NOAA Flee
et Societal Beneffits Study, Final RReport
32
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
33
The authors also estimated that ENSO forecasts resulted in an additional $54 - $104 million (1996 USD) in benefits to foreign producers and consumers, due to global nature of the agricultural markets.
Agricultural yields for the crops assessed in Chen et al. have increased by 90 percent since 1996, the year assessed in their study.53 For this reason, we increased the figures in Chen et al. by 90 percent, reflecting the assumption that the additional crop production would also benefit from the use of ENSO forecasts. This yields an estimated value of ENSO information for U.S. crop agricultural producers and consumers of between $560 to $1,328 million per year (2016 USD). Including foreign surplus, total annual benefits amount to between $719 to $1,410 million (2016 USD), with higher foreign surplus associated with lower U.S. benefits.54 However, benefits to foreign nations are not a strong argument for U.S. investments in the NOAA Fleet. For this reason, we did not include benefits accruing to foreign nations in our benefit estimates for this product.
The unweighted TPIO swing score representing the NOAA ship impact on the ENSO Outlook is 4.6%. This estimate includes the TAO and ARGO arrays, which the fleet support. NOAA subject matter experts estimated a much higher dependence on the NOAA Fleet, indicating that the ships and observing systems they support account for approximately 50% of the Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS), which supports ENSO prediction and monitoring reflected in the Outlook. In addition, the subject matter experts indicated that there is no substitute for the data collected by the TAO array, and therefore, by maintaining the TAO buoys, the NOAA Fleet contributes significantly to the value of the Outlook. Recognizing that GODAS accounts for only a part of the total production of the Outlook, we attributed 20% of total benefits of the ENSO Outlook to the NOAA Fleet as the upper end of our range. Given that NOAA data serve as the primary resource for ENSO forecasts/publications in the U.S. (not just the ENSO Outlook), we did not attempt to separately value the Outlook as being distinct from other forecast products.
Based on existing studies we know that seasonal climate forecasts that are dependent on ENSO information can result in $560 to $1,328 million dollars in benefits each year in the U.S. agricultural sector alone. Approximately $26 to $266 million (2016 USD) of this total can be directly attributed to the NOAA Fleet (Table 11).
Table 11. Annual Benefits of NOAA Fleet, ENSO Outlook (2016 USD)
Lower-bound estimate Upper-bound estimate Annual value of ENSO Forecast for U.S. agricultural (crop) producers and consumers, and associated foreign surplus (billions)
$0.560 $1.33
Percent of forecast value attributable to the product
100% 100%
Percent of value attributable to NOAA Fleet 4.6% 20% Total Annual Benefits of NOAA Fleet (2016 USD)a
$0.0258 $0.266
a. Represents benefits for U.S. crop agriculture sector, including U.S. producer and consumer surplus
3.6 Ecosystem Management: National Marine Sanctuaries Conditions Report Background: The National Marine Sanctuary Conditions Reports directly contribute to regulations, policies, management actions, and education programs related to marine sanctuaries, which in turn helps to protect the important benefits that the sanctuaries provide, including: 53 The 90% increase in production value accounts for price changes from 1996 to 2016 for each of the four crops included in the study, which included inflation-related effects, increases in the acreage cultivated, and increased productivity (output per acre). 54 Foreign surplus updated to 2016 values based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
34
Market benefits, which reflect the positive local economic impacts associated with sanctuary-related activities, such as tourism, recreation, and commercial fishing
Non-market benefits, including benefits for individuals and recreators who directly use and/or passively enjoy sanctuary resources, as well as benefits for those who do not visit or use the sanctuaries, but who value the important habitat and species protection services they provide.55
The market benefits associated with National Marine Sanctuaries represent the direct spending/revenues generated by sanctuary-related activities, and the additional economic activity (i.e., sales, income, employment) that this spending creates as it ripples through the local economies in which the sanctuaries are located.
NOAA and others have conducted several studies to examine the market benefits associated with individual sanctuaries. Most of these studies have focused on tourism and recreation because these activities account for the largest portion of sanctuary-related economic activity. In total, NOAA estimates that spending on coastal tourism and recreation in areas adjacent to all National Marine Sanctuaries amounts to $5.2 billion (2015 USD) per year. After accounting for multiplier effects in the economy, this spending generates more than $7.3 billion in total economic activity (i.e., sales/output).56
In addition, NOAA estimates that commercial fishing activity associated with the sanctuaries generates approximately $463 million (2015 USD) in total economic activity per year. This estimate includes revenues associated with commercial fish landings, as well as for businesses that supply the fishing industry, and spending by individuals (e.g., fishermen) that benefit from the increase in commercial fishing revenues. Finally, NOAA estimates that spending by the federal government, educational institutions, and non-profit groups for sanctuary-related research generates approximately $200 million (2015 USD) in economic activity per year.57
In total, NOAA reports that tourism, recreation, commercial fishing, and research activities associated with the sanctuaries generate more than $8 billion (2015 USD) per year in economic activity in adjacent local economies.58
In addition to positive economic effects for local economies, National Marine Sanctuaries provide benefits to individuals who directly use sanctuary resources for recreational activities such as boating, fishing, snorkeling, or other more passive beach activities. The values associated with these activities result in what economists refer to as “use benefits.” There are also many individuals who may not use the sanctuaries directly, but who value their existence for various reasons. The values that these individuals derive from National Marine Sanctuaries are known as “non-use benefits.”
Economists refer to use and non-use benefits as non-market benefits because there is no market in which their price, or value, is determined. For example, when users of sanctuaries go on a scuba diving trip, there is no cashier taking their money as they enter the water. Similarly, it is difficult to capture the value that individuals hold for the species protected by the sanctuaries. While there is no established price for these services, economists employ a variety of methods for measuring these benefits indirectly.
While NOAA has not conducted a comprehensive study of the nonmarket benefits associated with all marine sanctuaries, several studies provide insights into the magnitude of different types of use and non-use benefits at individual sites. For example, in 2012 NOAA conducted a national survey to assess how much households within the U.S. would be willing to pay to expand the boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Gulf of Mexico) from its current three banks to nine additional banks. Results of the study indicated that households were willing to pay $36 to $111 (2015 USD) per year to expand the sanctuary – a total of $4.1 to $12.7 billion (2015 USD)
55 Wiley, P. 2003. Valuing Our National Marine Sanctuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Ocean Service Office of Management and Budget - Special Projects 56 Personal communications, Bob Leeworthy, Chief Economist, NOAA/NOS/Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. April 11, 2017. Based on studies of market benefits at individual National Marine Sanctuary sites. 57Ibid. 58 NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. National Marine Sanctuaries and Local Economies. Available: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/socioeconomic/factsheets/welcome.html. Accessed 5/3/2017.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
35
across all U.S. households. Since most of the survey respondents did not use/visit the sanctuary, these totals represent non-use values.59
Another study estimated the use values associated with recreating on artificial and natural reefs in Monroe County (Florida Keys) for residents and visitors. Employing an on-site survey, the authors estimated that the total use benefits associated with these resources amounted to more than $69 million (2015 USD) per year at this site. This included values for residents and visitors for reef -related activities such as boating, fishing, scuba diving, and snorkeling.60
Total Value of National Marine Sanctuaries: The amount that individuals spend to participate in sanctuary-related tourism or recreation (or the amount that businesses benefit from these activities) provides an indication of how much they value these activities, and therefore how much they value the sanctuaries themselves. Similarly, commercial fishing revenues made possible by the sanctuaries provides an indication of sanctuary value for this industry. Thus, the $8 billion in market benefits associated with all sanctuaries serves as order-of-magnitude estimate for the sanctuaries’ total use value. However, the market benefits represent a lower-bound estimate of value for several reasons. First, individuals may be willing to pay even more to enjoy National Marine Sanctuaries – in this case, total spending is not equal to total value. In addition, NOAA’s market value estimates include only the money spent or revenues generated in the economies adjacent to the sanctuaries; it does not represent for example, the amount that tourists spend to get to the sanctuary location (e.g., on plane tickets, etc.).61
The market benefits associated with the sanctuaries do not capture non-use benefits. However, based on the study on the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, we know that U.S. households would be willing to pay $36 to $111 per year to expand just one site. This means that across the 116 million households in the U.S., total non-use values amount to between $4.2 and $12.9 billion per year (2015 USD) for the expansion of that Sanctuary. Thus, it is not hard to imagine that households would be willing to pay at least this much to maintain the non-use benefits associated with all 13 National Marine Sanctuary sites.
Based on the studies described above, the total use and non-use values of the sanctuaries amount to at least between $12.2 and $20.9 billion per year (Table 12).
59 Stefanski, S. F., and J. Shimshack. 2015. Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence form the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Resource Economics. 31(2): 211-232. 60 Johns, G. M., Leeworthy, V. R., Bell, F. W., & Bonn, M. A. Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida. NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 61 To estimate use value, economists use well-established methods such as travel cost models or willingness-to-pay surveys. Economic impacts/market benefits are not typically included in benefits analysis. However, due to limited available data, we are applying market benefits to provide an order of magnitude estimate of use value.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
36
Table 12. Annual Economic Value of National Marine Sanctuaries (billions, 2016 USD)
Lower-bound estimate Upper-bound estimate
Annual use value of National Marine Sanctuariesa
(based on market benefits) $8.0 $8.0
Annual non-use value of National Marine Sanctuaries
$4.2 $12.9
Total annual economic value $12.2 $20.9
a. Includes $8 billion in use benefits and $4.1 to $12.9 billion in non-use benefits per year.
Value of National Marine Sanctuaries Condition Reports and NOAA Fleet Contribution: NOAA and other stakeholders rely heavily on the National Marine Sanctuary Conditions Reports to make decisions about sanctuary management. Thus, they contribute significantly to the sanctuaries’ value by protecting the important benefits they provide. Based on input from subject matter experts, we estimate that 20% to 25% of the total value of National Marine Sanctuaries can be attributed to use of the Conditions Reports, which improve management actions that maintain the benefits associated with the Sanctuaries and prevent their future degradation. Thus, the total value of the Conditions Reports amounts to between $2.4 and $5.2 billion per year. Based on information from TPIO and NOAA subject matter experts, 25% to 35% of the value of the Conditions Reports can be attributed to the NOAA Fleet. Thus, the benefits associated with fleet inputs amounts to approximately $0.61 to $1.8 billion per year (Table 13).
Table 13. Annual Benefits of NOAA Fleet, National Marine Sanctuary Conditions Reports (2016 USD)
Lower-bound estimate Upper-bound estimate
Annual value of National Marine Sanctuariesa
(billions) $12.1 $20.9
Percent of National Marine Sanctuary value attributable to Conditions Reports
20% 25%
Value of Marine Sanctuary Conditions Reports (billions)
$2.42 $5.23
Percent of Conditions Reports value attributable to NOAA Fleet
25% 35%
Total Annual Benefits of NOAA Fleet (billions)
$0.605 $1.83
a. Includes $8 billion in use benefits and $4.1 to $12.9 billion in non-use benefits per year.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
37
4. Cost-Effectiveness of NOAA Ships and Contract Vessels for Select Data Collection Efforts
This project included an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of using contract vessels. Specifically, we examined several case studies to compare the cost-effectiveness of using contract vessels as a substitute for NOAA’s Fleet for certain data collection activities. We also examined available information on the capacity and availability of contract vessels. This section summarizes and presents conclusions from the cost-effectiveness analysis. Appendix B presents complete details.
4.1 Marginal Cost of Using the NOAA Fleet As a basis for the cost-effectiveness analysis, we used cost data for the NOAA Fleet for fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which complete cost data were available at the outset of this project. Specifically, we used these data to compare the marginal cost (as opposed to total cost) of operating the NOAA Fleet to the cost of using contract vessels to accomplish the same goals. This approach assumes that NOAA will not make dramatic changes to the overall mix of contract versus fleet ship time employed or radically alter the composition of its fleet in the immediate future. In other words, we assumed that substitutions would take place at the margins.
Given this assumption, it is not appropriate to account for the entire budget associated with NOAA’s marine operations in the comparison. Some elements of the budget (e.g., fixed maintenance costs, certain support and management costs) are not reduced when NOAA Fleet missions are accomplished using contract vessels. Some of these fixed costs would be reduced only by extreme substitution to the extent of eliminating one or more ships from the NOAA Fleet. Other fixed costs would still be required even in a hypothetical scenario where the NOAA fleet were completely replaced by contract vessels. These costs are associated with functions (e.g., safety and compliance) that would be required regardless of which vessels NOAA uses to acquire ocean observations.
With this approach in mind, we used data from OMAO’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer for fiscal year 2015 to estimate the variable (or marginal) operating cost for each ship in the NOAA fleet.62 We used data provided by OMAO on fiscal year 2015 days at sea for each ship to calculate the cost per day at sea (Table 14). These costs include only variable costs that are proportional to the level of effort expended. They exclude fixed costs that would not be reduced by substitution at the margins. Therefore, they are not comparable to costs for the NOAA fleet reported in certain other sources. For example, costs developed for the NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Team63 cover the total cost of all of OMAO’s observing systems, including fixed costs. Appendix B provides more details on the derivation of these costs.
62 “OMAO Ship Cost Effectiveness Combined Submission_022317.xlsx.” Spreadsheet received via e-mail from Linda Mallinoff, OMAO Office of Chief Financial Officer. February 23, 2017. 63 The NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Team was a team of senior subject matter experts from across NOAA established to summarize the relevant legal, policy and programmatic at-sea mission needs to describe the NOAA Fleet core capabilities to support NOAA’s missions. The Team documented the extent to which these needs are currently addressed and describe the capability gap that will exist absent fleet recapitalization. The Team developed a Fleet Plan, sequencing the planned end of service life of current vessels, and acquisition of new vessels (to include all phases of acquisition).
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
38
Table 14. Fiscal Year 2015 Marginal Cost of Using the NOAA Fleet
Ship 2015 Days at Sea Marginal Cost
Total ($) $/Day at Sea
Bell M. Shimada 190 8,803,356 46,333
Fairweather 136 8,027,114 59,023
Ferdinand R. Hassler 203 5,180,034 25,517
Gordon Gunter 175 6,290,749 35,947
Henry B. Bigelow 172 6,151,592 35,765
Hi’ialakai 202 6,332,617 31,350
Nancy Foster 166 5,345,956 32,205
Okeanos Explorer 168 9,722,189 57,870
Oregon II 191 5,079,373 26,594
Oscar Dyson 192 8,538,806 44,473
Oscar Elton Sette 145 5,366,281 37,009
Pisces 131 6,169,307 47,094
Rainier 141 8,100,746 57,452
Ronald H. Brown 233 8,427,715 36,170
Reuben Lasker 80 4,754,080 59,426
Thomas Jefferson 119 6,278,611 52,761
TOTAL 2,644 108,568,526 41,062
Note: The totals presented here include variable direct cost along with those indirect costs that are proportional to level of effort, but exclude fixed costs. Therefore, they are not comparable to costs derived elsewhere (e.g., for the NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Team), which cover the total cost of all OMAO observing systems, including fixed costs.
4.2 Cost-Effectiveness Case Studies NOAA currently uses contract vessels to support a variety of operations. Examples include fisheries surveys, deployment and maintenance of buoys, and collection of hydrographic data. Vessels employed by NOAA also include research vessels, both public sector and privately owned, for scientific data collection. NOAA also uses vessels from partner federal agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation. In some cases, this usage is a no-cost exchange of ship time. In other cases, NOAA reimburses the partner agency.64,65
In fiscal year 2015, NOAA used approximately 2,700 days at sea aboard contract vessels, roughly equal to the total days at sea executed by the NOAA fleet (2,644, as shown in Table 14). NOAA’s use of contract vessels has remained fairly stable during the last few years: contract vessel days at sea varied by 11 percent or less from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2016.66 Although data are also available on the total cost of these contracts, it is not appropriate to compare
64 NOAA. 2016. The NOAA Fleet Plan: Building NOAA’s 21st Century Fleet. V3.1. NOAA Internal Use Only – Pre-decisional. October 4. 65 O’Clock, Bill. 2016. “Charters.” Presentation at NOAA Fleet Independent Review Team Meeting and Supporting Spreadsheets. Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. May 10. 66 O’Clock, Bill. 2016. “Charters.” Presentation at NOAA Fleet Independent Review Team Meeting and Supporting Spreadsheets. Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. May 10. Data do not include no-cost exchanges of days at sea with partner agencies.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
39
these aggregate data to the cost of using the NOAA fleet. Factors that must be considered in comparing unit costs for NOAA ships and contract vessels include the following:
Data on contract vessel costs generally reflect the contract price only. Some contracts cover “bare boat” costs only, while others encompass a more complete scope of support for the mission (e.g., fuel, crew to operate deck equipment supporting the mission). Even when the contract covers more than “bare boat” costs, there can be other costs associated with the use of contract vessels that are not reflected in the contract price. Examples of these additional costs can include: costs for provisions for NOAA staff aboard the contract vessel, mobilization and demobilization of NOAA staff and equipment, and calibration of instruments used aboard the contract vessel. On the other hand, some contracts encompass other services in addition to use of vessels. In particular, NOAA contracts for hydrographic surveys are structured as data buys that purchase a quantity of data instead of a number of days at sea. In addition to providing ship time to collect the data, the contractor also provides quality assurance/quality control and data processing and formatting according to detailed specifications.67
A day at sea aboard a contract vessel is not necessarily equal to a day at sea aboard a NOAA vessel. NOAA ships often collect multiple data streams and/or conduct multiple missions simultaneously. Although some contract vessels, such as certain University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) ships,68 have similar multi-data stream/multi-mission capabilities, many vessels are better suited for individual projects and a more limited set of data. These “economies of scope” mean that multiple contract vessels can sometimes be required to replace the output of a NOAA vessel. In addition, NOAA uses NOAA ships for advancing technology through testing new equipment and procedures, maintaining and building expertise within the science field and marine operations.
NOAA ships have greater endurance than many smaller contract vessels. Therefore, they can remain at sea for the duration of long projects without returning to port. In addition, NOAA ships often can be scheduled and positioned to transition directly from one project to the next without significant travel time. Both of these factors mean that the use of contract vessels can, in some cases, entail more transit days (i.e., at the start and finish of the discrete projects for which they are hired and, in some cases, to resupply during longer projects).
Contract vessels used for missions with NOAA personnel aboard must meet certain safety standards.69 Aggregate data on contract vessel costs include missions without NOAA crew aboard. The vessels used for these missions might not meet these standards and, therefore, not be comparable to NOAA ships. In addition, some contract vessels provide services that the NOAA fleet cannot (e.g., data collection in shallow waters). The aggregate data include such missions.
Given these factors, a comparison of cost-effectiveness must account for mission-specific details. Accordingly, we used a case study approach to account for these factors and provide a one-to-one comparison of contract vessel costs to NOAA fleet costs. Table 15 identifies the example missions we examined, along with key mission parameters and estimated costs.
The case studies reflect missions that support three different NOAA line offices. Each of the cases studies involves a different NOAA vessel. Three of the case studies (TAO array maintenance, sanctuary ecosystem assessment surveys for Greater Farallones and Cordell Banks, and reef assessment and monitoring in American Samoa) are of missions that support NOAA products and services evaluated in detail in preceding sections of this report.
67 NOAA. 2016. NOS Hydrographic Surveys: Specifications and Deliverables. Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. March. 68 NOAA’s use of UNOLS ships includes both no-cost exchange of ship time and cases where NOAA pays the institution operating the UNOLS ship in a manner similar to a commercial charter. 69 “Vessel Chartering Info.” Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Available at: http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/headquarters/safety-environmental-compliance/vessel-chartering-info. Accessed January 12, 2017.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
40
For each case study, we estimated the cost of using the NOAA ship based on the marginal costs estimated in Table 14. The contract vessel cost estimates in each case study cover providing the same services and support as the NOAA ship and meeting the same mission requirements. The contract vessel cost estimates include adjustments necessary to make an equivalent comparison. Appendix B provides complete details of the cost estimates. It also includes further discussion of the results for each case study. The following paragraphs provide a summary:
1. The case study of TAO array maintenance covers two scenarios. The first scenario is a mission with scope limited to routine maintenance and servicing of the TAO array, along with deployment of Argo and surface drifting floats. The second scenario is a mission that also incorporates scientific research that is directly related to operating the array. If the scope is limited to the first scenario, a commercial contract vessel can complete the mission more cost-effectively than the NOAA ship Ronald H. Brown. The commercial contract vessel would not be equipped, however, to supply all the requirements of the second scenario. Substituting for the Ronald H. Brown in the second scenario requires the use of a UNOLS ship equipped to collect the underway ocean observations and support the related supplemental science. In this scenario, the Ronald H. Brown is more cost-effective than the alternative of using a UNOLS vessel.
2. The 2014 California Current Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey (CalCurCEAS) expedition was originally planned for the NOAA ship Reuben Lasker. When the Reuben Lasker did not come on line as scheduled, the expedition was instead conducted aboard the R/V Ocean Starr, a contract vessel that was formerly a NOAA ship. Even after accounting for certain adjustments required to make the comparison equivalent, the cost of using the Ocean Starr for CalCurCEAS 2014 was much lower than the estimated cost of using the Reuben Lasker. Although fiscal year 2015 marginal costs for the Reuben Lasker may not be representative of normal operations,70 more recent cost data are unlikely to change the conclusion. The cost per day for the Ocean Starr for CalCurCEAS 2014 was lower than the marginal operating cost for any NOAA vessel (even the Ferdinand R. Hassler, which had the lowest marginal cost in 2015, as shown in Table 14). Although the Ocean Starr reportedly is nearing the end of her useful life and not being maintained for longevity,71 she was still in operation as of July 2016.72 Information about the Ocean Starr’s future availability and price is not available.
3. The 2016 Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys (SEAS) project in the Greater Farallones and Cordell Banks National Marine Sanctuaries was conducted aboard the NOAA ship Bell M. Shimada. Commercial contract vessels available near the project location have endurance and/or berthing limitations such that multiple vessels or trips would be required to substitute for the Bell M. Shimada.73 The transit time involved in bringing in a more capable vessel from farther away could be significant, particularly compared to the relatively short nine-day project duration. Given these limitations, a NOAA subject matter expert suggested a vessel operated by the nearby Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) as a potentially efficient substitute if the Bell M. Shimada were not available.74 The MBARI ship Western Flyer could supply the mission requirements at a slightly lower cost than the Bell M. Shimada. MBARI, however, does not actively seek out research assignments for its vessels from other organizations, so the Western Flyer would be available only under specific, case-by-case circumstances.
4. The 2015 Pacific Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (RAMP) in American Samoa was conducted aboard the NOAA ship Hi‘ialakai. Given the remote location and length of mission, commercial alternatives to using the Hi‘ialakai are limited. Outside of the commercial sector, however, an alternative would be the R/V Tangaroa, operated by the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). The Tangaroa could supply the mission requirements, but the cost would be substantially higher than using the Hi‘ialakai. Scheduling the Tangaroa could also require substantial lead time.
70 The Reuben Lasker was at the start of her service life in 2015 and only executed 80 days at sea. 71 E-mail communication with Michael Gallagher, National Marine Fisheries Service. February 9, 2017. 72 “2017 Cruise Schedule.” California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. Available at: http://calcofi.org/cruises/561-cruise-schedule.html. Accessed March 8, 2017. 73 Ship Time Request for Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys: GFNMS and CBNMS v3. January 12, 2015. 74 Personal communication with Jan Roletto, Research Coordinator at the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. January 10, 2017.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
41
For the case study considering a mission of limited scope (the first TAO maintenance scenario, which excludes supplement scientific research), the commercial contract vessel was more cost effective. This result is not surprising, given that the NOAA ship included in the comparison is better equipped than necessary for the limited scope. The case studies also show, however, that even for the multi-disciplinary research missions to which NOAA ships are best suited, cost-effective contract vessel alternatives can sometimes be available. The case studies are not conclusive regarding the factors that determine cost-effectiveness for these research missions. The two case studies where contract vessels came out ahead (CalCurCEAS and SEAS) were for missions in U.S. coastal waters, while the research missions where NOAA ships were more cost-effective (TAO maintenance including research and RAMP) were in the more remote tropical Pacific, suggesting that region of operation is a key factor. This result, however, could be related to the specific NOAA ships examined instead of geography. CalCurSEAS and SEAS involved NOAA ships with marginal costs higher than the average for NOAA (Reuben Lasker and Bell M. Shimada). TAO maintenance and RAMP involved NOAA ships with marginal costs below NOAA’s average (Ronald H. Brown and Hi‘ialakai).75
75 See Table 14.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
42
Table 15. Summary of Cost-Effectiveness Case Studies
a. b.
NOAA Line Office
National Weather Service
National Weather Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Ocean Service
National Ocean Service
Year 2015 2015 2014 2016 2015
Mission
Mooring maintenance and servicing and float deployment
Mooring maintenance and servicing and float deployment, plus related scientific sampling and research
Study of cetacean species and their ecosystem, plus physical oceanographic and El Nino sampling
Assessment of National Marine Sanctuary conditions, resources, and ecosystem
Ecosystem monitoring and research in coral reef habitat, plus data collection on ocean acidification
Location Tropical Pacific Tropical Pacific U.S. West Coast U.S. West Coast Tropical Pacific
Days at Sea 40a 40a 120a 9b 103b
NOAA Ship Estimated
Costc
Ronald H. Brown : $1,446,800
Ronald H. Brown : $1,446,800
Reuben Laske r: $7,131,120
Bell M. Shimada : $416,997
Hi'ialakai : $3,229,050
Contract Vessel Estimated
Costd
Contract vessel: $955,560
University National Oceanographic
Laboratory System vessel:
$1,710,000
Contract vessel: $2,459,353
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute vessel: $403,300
New Zealand Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research vessel:
$5,404,185
Most Cost-Effective Option
Contract vessel (by 34%)
NOAA ship (by 15%)
Contract vessel (by 66%)
Contract vessel (by 3%)
NOAA ship (by 40%)
Vessel Actually Used
Contract vesselNOAA ship and UNOLS ships
Contract vessel NOAA ship NOAA ship
Other FactorsScope does not include related research
Not the top priority for UNOLS ship
Contract vessel may be near end of useful life
Contract vessel available only on a case-by-case basis
Foreign vessel
C a s e S t u d i e s
California Current Cetacean and
Ecosystem Assessment Survey
Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment
Surveys: Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank
Pacific Reef Assessment and
Monitoring Program: American
Samoa
Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Array Maintenance
a. Same mission length, including transit time, for NOAA ship and contract vessel substitute. b. Contract vessel cost incorporates additional days at sea for transit. c. Based on the marginal cost estimated in Table 14. d. Estimated costs to supply the same mission requirements as NOAA ship, including adjustments to make the comparison equivalent.
NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, Final Report
43
4.3 Capacity, Availability, and Other Factors Affecting the Use of Contract Vessels As part of the cost-effectiveness analysis, we also examined available data about the capacity and availability of contract vessels, along with other factors that could affect NOAA’s use of contract vessels. A primary source for this part of the assessment included a set of informal, voluntary interviews with nine contract vessel providers. We also used data downloaded from USAspending.gov, a publicly accessible U.S. government website that provides searchable, transaction-level information on federal contracts and grants.76 Appendix B provides more details on both of these sources. Observations from this part of the analysis, also discussed in greater detail in Appendix B, include the following:
Data are not available on the number of vessels with capabilities useful to NOAA that might be available under contract. Statistics, for example on the total number of research and fishing vessels, however, suggest that the overall size of the industry is large. NOAA successfully contracts with a variety of different providers. Data on vessel contracts filtered from USAspending show that NOAA had transactions with more than 130 individual vendors under approximately 200 unique contracts in fiscal year 2015.77
Individual vendors interviewed are generally willing and available to provide support, even to the extent of modifying their vessels to suit project needs. It is important to note, however, that the vessel availability is greater for smaller vessels with more limited capabilities. The individual vessels that are the most obvious substitutes for NOAA ships (UNOLS vessels) are also the least available.
Most of the vendors interviewed (six of the nine) reported that their availability is greater with more advance planning. The lead time required to access contract vessels varies depending on the length of the project and on the size of the vessel. For longer projects aboard larger vessels, more planning is required, however: often a year or more in advance. For context, the missions conducted by NOAA’s fleet in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 spanned a range of lengths (Figure 4), with an average of approximately 25 days at sea.78
A majority of the vendors interviewed (five of the nine) reported that their vessels are busiest during the summer months. In spite of competing priorities during the summer, however, the interviewees reported good availability, particularly with advance planning. NOAA ships execute missions year-round, but, like contract vessels, they are busiest during the summer (particularly June). The NOAA fleet, however, also executes a significant number of days at sea outside of summer (particularly March through April and October).79 These schedule data suggest there may be opportunities to utilize contract vessels when those vessels have greater availability.
Despite the overall size of the contract vessel industry and the reports from vendors interviewed of generally good availability, specific projects may have requirements (e.g., vessel capabilities, project scheduling, or location) that are not a good match for a very large number of vessels. The number of such NOAA projects could be significant, based on the available data about the number of vendors bidding on these projects. These data show that, of NOAA contracts for vessel services active in fiscal year 2015, just over half received only one offer and almost 70 percent had two or fewer offers.80 Data are not available on the number of solicitations that received no bids.
Figure 4. Length of Missions Conducted by NOAA Fleet
76 Data downloaded for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 2015 from https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/Pages/DataDownload.aspx. Accessed November 18, 2016. 77 See Appendix B for information on how we identified charter contracts in the USAspending data. 78 Based on data provided by OMAO. Excludes fleet services and program support activities (e.g., inspections, shakedowns, sea trials, and transit not assigned to a specific line office) and scheduled missions where actual days at sea were reported as zero. 79 Based on total days at sea in each month for the entire fleet, as derived from data provided by OMAO (Ibid). 80 Data downloaded for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 2015 from https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/Pages/DataDownload.aspx. Accessed November 18, 2016.
NOAA Flee
AfoinStinth
Inprhaprflwfa
81 Time seriAccessed M
et Societal Benef
All nine of the vor their servicesncreases (in thetatistic’s produ
ndustry have rehe exception of
nstitutional factrograms have cave the mechanrocess may creeet time availab
which they mustactors.
ies data downloa
March 7, 2017.
fits Study, Final R
vendors intervies. Outside of m
e range of two tucer price indexmained fairly s
f a 5 percent de
tors that differ contract vehiclenisms or budgeate an incentivble to the progt use contract v
aded for produce
Report
ewed identifiedmajor changes into three percentx for the water stable during thecrease in betw
across NOAA es in place thatet to access conve to use contraram (i.e., these
vessels). See Ap
er price index for
44
d fuel prices as n fuel prices, mt) in the prices transportation
he last five yeareen 2015 and 2
programs also t allow easy accntract vessels. Fact vessels for pe programs receppendix B for
r NAICS catego
the major factmost interviewe
for their servicindustry likewrs, changing by2016).81
affect the use cess to contractFor still other pparts of their meive a fixed allspecific examp
ory 483 from http
tor that would aees predicted oces. The U.S. B
wise shows that y less than 3 pe
of contract vest vessels. Othe
programs, the flmission by limit
ocation of NOAples of each of
ps://www.bls.go
affect future pronly small annuBureau of Laboprices in this
ercent per year
ssels. Some er programs do fleet allocation ting the total NAA fleet time athese institutio
v/ppi/data.htm.
rices ual or
(with
not
NOAA above onal
NOAA Fleet So
5. Summ
Conc5.1This study deproducts it supspecies, increthe five produapproximatelyfor NOAA ve
This study prostreams throurelied on datadevelop the v
While this stuUnder this cothe value of 5addition, we wexisting data awe conducted
In addition, thperformance oattribute an exproviding a reexperts.
Another sourcsubset of five to limitations assumptions e
The data usedquantificationbroader applicextensive resework has its oshort, the resuestimates of thscientifically comprehensivsocietal benefresearch agen
Despite these interviews wiestimates estadecisions at N
ocietal Benefits
mary of Le
clusions andmonstrates thepports. The NOased revenues
ucts that we moy $0.77 and $3essels.
ovides NOAA ugh the developa from the TPIOalue chains, an
udy represents antract the proje
5 products, that were not able toand estimates f
d with product e
hroughout the sof a given prodxact percentageeasonable range
ce of uncertainNOAA producand caveats. T
embedded in th
d as inputs to thns are based wecability. Estimaearch and analyown limitationsulting values rehe value of NOrigorous analy
vely, would be fits of the NOAndas.
challenges, whith subject mattablish the signifNOAA regardin
Study, Final Rep
ssons Lea
d Lessons Levalue of data c
OAA Fleet suppfor economic s
onetized as part.39 billion per
with a systemapment of value O NOSIA-II mond to inform ou
a significant firect team was onare dependent
o conduct origifrom the literatuexperts from w
study we learneduct, given the e of product vae of values usin
ty stems from tcts. While thes
To address this he studies.
his analysis repere often few inates of the contysis by NOAAs and the resultepresent an empOAA products asis would requcost-prohibitiv
AA fleet and ide
hich are inhereter experts estaficant value of ng the fleet.
port
rned and R
earned collection activports a wide rasectors, and inct of this researcyear, which is
atic process forchains for the podel as well as
ur valuation of f
rst step in demonly able to devt on data collecinal valuation aure. We were a
within NOAA.
ed that it is diffinterdependenc
alue to the NOAng Fleet data d
the studies thatse studies rely ouncertainty, we
present the best n number and, atribution of the’s Technology,s have not beenpirical first stepand services an
uire additional pve. This study dentifies critical
nt in most econablished a highlf the fleet’s con
45
Recomme
vities and otherange of benefitscreased safety ach, the benefitssignificantly g
r assessing the products and sestructured inte
fleet-dependen
onstrating the vvelop value chated from the fleanalyses; our malso only able t
ficult to isolate cy of data that
AA Fleet. We hdependency esti
t the project teaon standard ecoe have attempte
available inforas with any stue NOAA fleet t, Planning and n independentlyp in the directiond the share of primary data codoes establish al information re
nomic analysesly credible rang
ntributions and p
endations f
r services the Ns, including theand economic ps attributed to thgreater than the
value of indiviervices that deperviews with Nnt products.
value of the NOains for 12 of meet and/or the o
monetary estimato conduct a lim
the effect of inmost products
have attemptedimates provide
am relied on toonomic methoded to provide r
rmation. Howeudy, limited in tto final productIntegration for
ly verified (as won of developinthat value attri
ollection and ana scientifically equirements th
s, our use of puge of value estiprovide materi
for Next S
NOAA Fleet pre protection of prosperity for Uhe NOAA Flee
e annual OMAO
idual observingpend on them.
NOAA subject m
OAA Fleet, it imore than 600 pobserving systeates of value thmited number o
ndividual data rely on. Thus,
d to reflect this ed by TPIO and
o develop moneds and models, reasonable rang
ever, the studietheir accuracy,ts and services r Observation owith a “denial ong more accuraibutable to the Nnalysis which, sound process
hat should be us
ublished studiesimates. We areially relevant d
Steps
ovides throughkey resources U.S. residents. et amount to beO operating bu
g systems and dThe project tea
matter experts
is limited in scoproducts, and qems it supportsherefore dependof interviews, w
streams on the it is difficult touncertainty by
d the subject m
etary estimates they are also s
ges and describ
s upon which t, completeness,are based on
office (TPIO) bof data” analysate and compleNOAA fleet. Aif performed
s for assessing tsed to inform fu
s and extensivee confident thatdata to support
h the and For
etween udget
data am to
ope. quantify s. In d on which
o y atter
for the subject be key
the , and
but this sis). In ete A more
the future
e t these future
NOAA Fleet So
As part of thismarine fleet fcontract vessetwo types of vdata streams aships, have sima more limitedreplace the ou
To account foseveral case sa single purpovessel to be thare examples case studies wNOAA ships contract vessealso be relatedinvolved NOA
We also condcould affect Nvessel providerequirements of contract veoffer and almsmaller vesselships (UNOLof contract ve
Reco5.2There are sevquantitative stusers. These ithat the produconducted to However, thisNOAA may asystems (e.g.,
To better examcase studies. Ieffectiveness
A more detailvoluntary interepresentativeavailability ancontract recorthe industry’s
82 Data are not
ocietal Benefits
s research we afor certain data els is approximvessels are not and/or conductmilar multi-datd set of data. Tutput of a NOA
or these factors studies of speciose mission of he most cost-efwhere contract
were not concluappeared more
els appeared md to the specifiAA ships with
ducted a limitedNOAA’s use ofers and individ(e.g., vessel ca
essels. Of NOAost 70 percent ls with more lim
LS vessels) are aessels during pe
ommended Neral ways that Ntudy estimates interviews wouucts provide, asfurther refine os would requirealso want to exp OMAO aircra
mine the factorIf carefully sele(e.g., geograph
led assessment erviews with vee. A more thorond capabilities rds, beyond thes size and capab
available on the
Study, Final Rep
also examined tcollection activ
mately equal to idirectly compa
t multiple missita stream/multi
These “economiAA vessel.
and make equfic missions thlimited scope (ffective option.t vessels are m
d examination of contract vessedual vendors repapabilities, projAA contracts fo
had two or fewmited capabilitalso the least averiods when tho
Next Steps NOAA could fcould benefit f
uld provide a bes well as how thour monetary ee primary data pand this analy
aft).
rs that determinected, additionahy, specific NO
of existing andendors that we ough, perhaps scould provide
e limited describilities.
e number of solic
port
the cost-effectivities. In termsits use of own arable for a varions simultaneoi-mission capabies of scope” m
ivalent comparhat could be con(TAO maintena. The case stud
more cost effectig the factors tha
for the researcive for those cos examined. Thal costs than th
of the capacity els. NOAA sucport good availject schedulingr vessel service
wer offers.82 In ties. The indivivailable. Thereose vessels hav
further refine thfrom additionaetter understanhe NOAA Fleestimates, particcollection. Fin
ysis to include m
ne the cost-effeal case studies
OAA ships used
d future contracconducted for statistically sela greater underiptive data in U
citations that rec 46
iveness of usins of the numberfleet. In many riety of reasonsously. Althougbilities, many v
mean that multi
risons betweennducted by eithance without suies of multi-disive and others wat determine coch missions cononducted in U.She case studies whe average for N
and availabilitcessfully contrlability to prov
g, or location) thes active in fiscgeneral, contraidual vessels the may, howeverve greater avail
he estimates frol interviews widing of the dec
et contributes tocularly our esti
nally, to further more fleet-dep
ectiveness of cocould help isol
d, length of mis
ct vessel capacthis study wereected, survey inrstanding of the
USAspending, m
ceived no bids.
ng contract vessr of days at seacases, however
s. For example,gh some contracvessels are bettiple contract ve
n contract vesseher type of vessupplemental scsciplinary reseawhere NOAA
ost-effectivenesnducted in the rS. coastal watewhere contractNOAA’s fleet o
ty of contract vracts with a largvide support. Sphat are not a gocal year 2015, jact vessel availhat are the mostr, be opportunilability (i.e., ou
om this study. ith NOAA expcisions that useo each productimates for Nautr inform investmpendent product
ontract vessels,late the factorsssion, time of y
city and availabe limited in numincorporating me industry. A dmight also prov
sels as a substita executed, NOr, the missions, NOAA ships ct vessels, suchter suited for inessels can some
els and NOAA sel. The single cientific researcarch missions iships are moress. Geography remote tropica
ers. These result vessels were moverall.
vessels, along wge number of dpecific projectsood match for ajust over half rlability appearst obvious substities for NOAAutside of the sum
First, many of perts as well as ers make based . Additional antical Charts andment decisionsts and/or additi
, NOAA could s that contributeyear).
bility would alsmber and not g
more detailed qdetailed examinvide more com
tute for NOAAOAA’s current u
conducted by often collect m
h as certain UNndividual projecetimes be requi
ships, we examcase study inv
ch) showed a cindicated that the cost effective.could be one fa
al Pacific, whilelts, however, comore cost effec
with other factodifferent contras, however, maa very large nureceived only os to be greater ftitutes for NOA
A to make greatmmer months)
the value chainexternal produon the informa
nalyses could ad the ENSO Ou
s and focus resoional observing
d conduct additie to cost-
so be useful. Thgeographically questions aboutnation of NOAA
mprehensive dat
A’s use of these
multiple NOLS cts and ired to
mined volving contract there . These
factor. e ould ctive
ors that act ay have umber one for AA ter use ).
ns and uct ation
also be utlook. ources, g
ional
he
t vessel A’s ta on
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-1
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains for Select Products and Services
Appendix A contains the full value chain descriptions for the 12 NOAA products and services evaluated as part of the NOAA Fleet Societal Benefits Study, including:
Coral Reef Status and Trends Report Sea Level Rise (SLR) and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer Nautical Chart Products El Nino Southern-Oscillation (ENSO) Outlook National Marine Sanctuary Conditions Reports Fisheries Stock Assessments Tsunamis Inundation Forecast Models Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Forecasts and Mitigation Capability, Gulf of Maine Hypoxia Watch, Gulf of Mexico Ocean Noise Mapping Hurricane Outlook Emergency Response Services
1. Coral Pro1.1
The National the Coral ReeStatus and Trealong with mamanagers. Thcurrently undstandardized imonitored by more extensiv
The CRCP, a NESDIS and reefs to develconsolidated ajurisdictions adevelop 15 tothat reflect theindicators witthresholds, anto set fundingactivity that thnot roll-up indthe process of
NO1.2The report cargeographic reReport is heavthe Nancy Fomapping.83 Bucard’s climate
Using NOAAsampling metas charter persuch the PacifPacific IslandThe long distawith NOAA s
Pro1.3
83 “Two NOAANational Ocean11-26/two-noaa
Reefs: Cooduct Backg
Coral Reef Moef Conservationends Report Caany other more
he Status and Trer developmenindicators for aNOAA’s CRC
ve, tailored rep
matrix programheadquartered op status indicaand standardizeand presented ao 19 biologic (fie health of specthin each categnd presented in g priorities needhey support. Prdicators across f developing th
OAA Fleet Drd and underly
egion. The stratvily reliant on bster provide muoys and satelle indicators alo
A ships and obsthodology that sonal dive boatfic Reef Assess
ds Fisheries Sciances and remoships.
oduct Interm
A ships deployednic and Atmospha-ships-deployed
oral Statusground onitoring Progrn Program (CRards for high-lee detailed reporrends Report C
nt, that will provall U.S. coral reCP. In addition,orts for the juri
m spanning NOfrom the Natioators since the ed sampling mat the national lfish and benthiccific coral reef ory (e.g. fish, ba report card t
ded to ensure thrior to this effosites and there
he first two pilo
ata that Feeing indicators rtified random sbenthic and oth
multi-beam sonalites also collecong with ocean
ervation systemunderpins the nts, are more exsment and Monience Center anote locations of
mediaries an
d to Caribbean toheric Administratd-caribbean-map
s and Tren
ram (NCRMP)RCP), is developevel decision-mrts for local resCards are a newvide a summareef jurisdiction, the CRCP proisdictional leve
OS, NMFS, OAonal Ocean Serprogram was e
methodologies solevel. CRCP usc) and climate if attributes and benthic, climateo high-level dehe continued he
ort to standardizefore could not ot Status and Tr
ed the Produrequire the collsampling designher habitat mapar, echo soundect data on oceanprofile data co
ms to perform dnational status
xpensive and scnitoring Progrand funded by thf the Pacific co
nd Dissemin
o map coral reefstion. Accessed Ja
p-coral-reefs-expA-2
nds Repor
, as part of ping
makers, ource
w product, ry of s oduces el.
AR and rvice’s Office festablished in 2o that trends inses data from sindicators, and ecosystem serve, socioeconomecision-makersealth and produze sampling meprovide a natio
rends Report C
uct lection of data n that NCRMPpping performeer sonar, and otn acidification ollected during
data collection and trends repo
carce, limiting tam (RAMP) whhe CRCP, couldoral reef jurisdic
nation
s, explore deep sanuary 25, 2017
plore-deep-sea
Appendix
rt
for Coastal Man2000. Between n coral reef ecoships, buoys, c
d uses surveys tvices relative tomic) and regions such as the U.uctivity of thesethodologies aconal picture of
Cards.
by multiple obP uses to colleced in part by NOther capabilitieand thermal strmarine biologi
helps the CRCort. Other shipthe timeframe fhich is NCRMPd not be done wctions make so
ea”. Office of M: http://www.om
Product: CoraReport
Line Office: NReef Conserva
Mission ServiCoral Reefs
x A: NOAA Fle
anagement, has 2010 and 2013
osystems could charter ships, anto collect socioo a historical stn are then avera.S Congress anse resources ancross jurisdictif coral reef heal
bservation systet data for the SOAA cruises. N
es for coral reeftress, which feeical ship survey
CP adhere to th-based data colfor critical samP in the Pacificwithout the useome of these pr
Marine and Aviatimao.noaa.gov/fin
al Reef Status a
National Oceanation Program
ice Area: Prote
eet Data Value
monitored cor3 NOAA be compared a
nd satellites to economic indictandard. The aged, comparednd NOAA leadend the economicons, the CRCPlth. The CRCP
ems over a widStatus and TrenNOAA ships suf and fish habited into the repoys.
he standardized llection option
mpling. Some ec, conducted bye of NOAA vesrograms only p
ion Operations. nd/media/articles/
and Trends
n Service, Cora
ect and Monito
Chains
ral
across
cators
d to ership c
P could P is in
de nds uch as tat ort
s, such fforts y the ssels. ossible
/2015-
al
or
Appendix A:
NOAA contraNetwork (IANthen organize
The CRCP is and other fedeindividual basjurisdiction-le
ping its official rofit organizatioeef managers an
adership will usJurisdiction-levthe Status and he ecosystem’s a wealth of info
des decision-maxt of three genediversity, fish
uate managemehermal stress, obiological and c
indicators in p
valuable goodsse goods and sd associated toues (e.g., as mea
ese benefits for 1 presents the ecosystem serv
he ecosystem sfor presenting e CRCP createhe important ec
w healthy is youAccessed Januaryntal_report_card_economic Monitonuary 20, 2017: ces/ncrmp_socio_Tracking Biologicy 20, 2017: httpsMonitoring Climanuary 20, 2017: h13. “The Total End Atmospheric A/CRCP/other/oth
A-3
er for Environmegrates multiple report card’s
roll-out plan, aons, and the pund other manag
se the Coral Stavel decision-mTrends Report health.85 Outsi
ormation for ac
akers at all leveeral topics of inabundance, an
ent strategies inocean acidificatclimate indicatoparticular link th
s and services iervices in turn urism benefits; asured by increthe United Stasum of coral re
vices.
services they prcoral reef heal
es a product thacosystem servi
ur ecosystem?” Iny 25, 2017: _production/ oring Componen
_econ_onepagercal Trends”. Cor://www.coris.noate-Driven Impahttps://www.coriconomic Value oAdministration. her_crcp_publica
mental Science le datasets and audience.84
and the programublic for its repgement partner
atus and Trendmakers, includin
Card to effectiide of the decis
cademic and pr
els with a basicndicators: biolo
nd habitat compn response to fition, and variouors influence ththe economic v
including foodprovide differe non-use valueeases in propertates using standeef benefits by
rovide. Both thlth to various uat stakeholders ices they provid
ntegration and A
nt”. Coral Reef C
r.pdf ral Reef Informaaa.gov/monitorin
acts”. Coral Reef is.noaa.gov/monof U.S. Coral ReAvailable:
ations/TEV_US_
Integration andcompares the d
m targets the Uport card. NOArs to dissemina
ds Report to mang local resourcively monitor rsion-making sprivate researche
c understandingogical, climate,position allowsishing, climate,us ecological ihe value of cor
values of coral r
d, coastal protecent types of eco
es (e.g., values rty values due tdard economic U.S. state or te
he status and trusers. By incorp
can use to infode.
Application Netw
Conservation Pro
ation System. Nang/biological.htm
f Information Sysnitoring/climate.heefs: A Review o
_Coral_Reefs_L
d Application data to threshol
U.S. Congress, NAA works on anate the more det
ake decisions toce managers anreefs and desigphere, the data ers, as well as t
g of the status a, and socioecon
s researchers, , and pollution mpacts, identif
ral reefs, whichreefs to manag
ction, habitat, aonomic benefitpeople hold fo
to proximity to techniques. Ba
erritory, while
rends report andporating data frorm decision-m
work. University
ogram. National
ational Ocean andml stem. National Ohtml of the Literature”
iterature_Review
lds,
NOAA n tailed
o nd gn
and the
and nomic.
fy h we gement
and ts, r the coral
ased on Figure
d the rom
making,
of
Ocean
d
Ocean
”. Coral
w_2013.
State/T
Americ
Florida
Guam
Hawaii
Puerto
CNMI
USVI
UnitedSource:Coral R
Figure A.1. MNumber of vaSource: Brande
Figure A.2 deNOAA fleet a
Ta
Territory
can Samoa
a
i
Rico
d States Edwards, Peter
Reef Conservation
Mean ecosystealue estimates fer, Luke and Piet
emonstrates theand other sourc
able A.1. Total
Area
E.T. 2013. “Sumn Program.
m service valufrom the differeter van Beukerin
e value chain asces that it depen
l coral reef val
a of coral reef v
mmary Report: T
ues (2007 USDent studies are
ng, 2013
ssociated the Snds on, and how
A-4
lues for the Un
value (ha)
22,2
36,0
7,1
165,9
12,6
6,4
34,4
284,8The Economic V
D). provided in pa
tatus and Trendw it ultimately
Appendix
nited States (2
Total va
200
000
159
990
642
494
400
885 Values of U.S. Co
arentheses.
ds Report Cardprovides value
x A: NOAA Fle
2007 USD)
alue (millions,
oral Reefs, 2001-
ds, including the to society.
eet Data Value
US$)
$11
$174
$139
$1,747
$1,093
$65
$187
$3,416-2011”. NOAA
he data from the
Chains
1
4
9
7
3
5
7
6
e
Appendix A:
Figure A.2. N
NOAA Fleet D
NOAA Fleet D
Data Value Cha
Data Value Ch
ains
ain: Coral Re
A-5
efs Status andd Trends Repoort
2. Sea Pro2.1
Sea level rise most developLow-lying cohabitat loss, aFlooding Impof Coastal Maprovides coasvisuals, correslevel rise inunsocioeconomicommunity vuall coastal terrGreat Lakes r
Dat2.2NOAA ships areas. VDatumvessels into bDEMs, as wecoastal floodinew data inpufor San Francwith new postlevel rise scen
Several other Geological Suthe SLR Viewand Services cprovided blocHawaii Schooand the Univedata.
Use2.3The primary urepresentativeSeveral commplanning. Forimpacts of sea
90 “Climate Achttps://www.ep91 “Sea Level RAdministration92 “Coastal Louhttp://www.noa26, 2017. 93 “Sea Level Rhttps://coast.no94 City of Charsc.gov/Docume
a Level Rioduct Backg
threatens manyed, populous, aastal areas are
and seawater inpacts Viewer (Sanagement (OCstal managers, csponding data, ndation, flood fics91 This inforulnerabilities aritory in the Unregion, but data
ta that Feedcontribute to thm, a software tathymetric-topll as LIDAR anng thresholds,
uts become avacisco Bay, coast-Sandy LIDARnarios from the
federal agenciurvey, in additiwer, provides bconducts analyck group analysol of Ocean andersity of South
ers of the Prusers of the SLes who are intemunities in the Ur example, in 20a level rise on t
tion Benefits: C
pa.gov/cira/climaRise – Map Viewn. Available: httpuisiana added to aanews.noaa.gov
es have estimatndonment and pwill amount to $y 1.9 million h
m the field: Buildt.noaa.gov/digitaNew York, 2014
w York City’s Rem the Field: CreaAvailable at: httpm the Field: Undttps://coast.noaar – Outreach Cap
Action Benefits: Cpa.gov/cira/climahange and Housilow.com/researc
Data Value Cha
rks, and infrasteceived a coastIn another cas
a post-Hurricanworked with F
ed the city consode upgrades d
ities, scientific ersity of Floriddata and vulne
s local, non-exparios, including
use the data unfor example, arew uses the data e flood vulneraf OCM’s Digitas a variety of
e, along with sessistance for thstry, and metadrent groups throties, research agese entities creagain recognitio
its nners, emergencevel rise and unng decisions, whlations, and pre
ted the costs ofprotective adap$5 trillion throuomes worth $8
ding the Case foralcoast/stories/ch4. Background naesiliency Plan. Thating a Customizps://coast.noaa.g
derstanding Coma.gov/digitalcoaspture”. Doug MaCoastal Propertyate-action-benefing: Will a Risin
ch/climate-chang
ains
tructure to city tal resilience gre, the City of Nne Sandy comp
FEMA, the U.Ssider coastal anduring the post-
and engineerina, for example,erability indicepert planners in
g adaptation opt
nderlying the Se two private sto assess the vu
ability applicatialCoast platfor
f other coastal v
everal other coahe tool via Digidata is availableough workshopgencies, privatate apps that fuon through artic
cy managers, anderstand the pohich helps to aveserve or enhan
f sea level rise aptation actions (ugh the end of 882 billion are a
r a Comprehensiharleston-slr.htmarrative to suppohe Office of the zed Sea Level Rigov/digitalcoast/
mprehensive Floost/stories/beyondarcy, NOAA. Pe
y”. U.S. EPA. Cofits-coastal-propeng Tide Sink all ge-underwater-ho
A-7
planners and erant of $766,88
New York usedprehensive resil. Army Corps
nd emergency p-Sandy recover
ng groups, and , combined floos to develop a nn the Tampa Btions related to
SLR Viewer to ector companieulnerability of ion.98 While thrm, the SLR Vivulnerability to
astal analysis toital Coast. Usere in a separate dps and conferente companies, aurther dissemincles, presentati
and others to viotential impactvoid property dnce coastal eco
and coastal floo(plus some addthe century.100 at risk of being
ive Sea Level Riml. Accessed Febort New York CiMayor. ise Viewer to Asstories/tampa-vi
od Risk with NOd-floods.html. Acersonal communioastal Action Beerty. Accessed FHomes?” Zillowomes-12890/. A
engineers. The 87 on behalf ofd the SLR Viewlience plan. Thof Engineers, a
planning, coastry.96
NGOs who usod data from thnew SLR vieway area to prior
o transportation
develop their oes that use NO
f home values tohere are many aiewer, enables
ools, easily and
ools, on OCMrs can access udata catalog. Innces; these grouand non-governnate or use NOAons, and throug
isualize the loct on coastal prodamage, maint
osystems.
oding. The U.Sditional costs) a Zillow, using
g underwater by
ise Strategy in Cbruary 5, 2017. ity’s cooperation
ssist Planners iniewer.html. Acce
OAA Data”. NOAccessed Februaryication. January
enefits Report. AFebruary 5, 2017w.com. Available
Accessed Februar
City subsequenf the Charlestonwer to incorporhe city’s Officeand NOAA to dtal protection, c
e the SLR viewhe SLR viewer
wer specificallyritize adaptatio
n, institutional,
own sea level rOAA’s SLR dat
o sea level riseadditional toolsusers to accessquickly.
’s DigitalCoastunderlying datan addition, OCMups include fednmental and intAA’s data. Addgh social medi
al potential inuoperties and asstain critical infr
S. EPA estimatassociated withNOAA’s SLR y 2100.101
Charleston, South
n with the Feder
n Florida”. NOAAessed February 5AA Office for C
ry 5, 2017. 10, 2017.
Available at: 7. e at: ry 5, 2017.
ntly developedn Resilience Nrate coastal flooe of Long-Termdevelop the Sacritical infrastru
wer and underlyr with critical y for the Tampaon options undeand emergency
rise assessmentta or DEMs to e, while Syndess available to as a mapping too
t website. In ada through a dataM conducts ouderal, state, couternational ditionally, the Sa outlets.99
undation level sociated resourrastructure, min
tes that the costh sea level rise
R maps, estimate
h Carolina. Avai
ral Administratio
A Office for Coa5, 2017.
Coastal Managem
d a sea Network oding
m andy ucture
ying
a Bay er y
t tools.
ste, assess ol and
ddition, a utreach unty,
SLR
rces. nimize
ts of and es that
ilable
on
astal
ment.
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-8
The SLR viewer has enabled communities and areas to assess vulnerability in dollar terms on a local scale. An analysis performed by the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties (Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach), as well as the South Florida water Management District, local universities, NOAA and other federal agencies, revealed that a one-foot rise in sea level could yield $4 billion-worth of vulnerable homes, and a three-foot scenario could result in $31 billion in vulnerable homes in the Southeast Florida region102
Figure A.2 presents the value chain for the SLR Viewer, including the data from the NOAA Fleet and other sources that the tool depends on, and how the tool ultimately results in value to society.
102 Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Inundation Mapping and Vulnerability Assessment Work Group. 2012. Analysis of the Vulnerability of Southeast Florida to Sea Level Rise.
Appendix A:
Figure A.2. N
NOAA Fleet D
NOAA Fleet D
Data Value Cha
Data Value Ch
ains
ain: SLR View
A-9
wer
3. Bat Pro3.1
NOAA providinformation foengineering, sactivities.103 Ndata support sprotection of and economicService (NOSproducing a sof U.S. states
NOAA’s nautnavigation (informs, as papNOAA lithogto the public. printing operademand (PODchart from thepurchasing thpaper charts twebsite.
In today’s woformats for elsimple digitalwarn marinerinformation sy(ECDIS) to dithe mariner hamodeling andlike the Globacounterparts. Hydrographic
NO3.2The NOAA flCharts. Four oFerdinand R.
103 NOAA is reServices Improcontributor to UGuard chart car104 “NOAA’s Shttps://www.na105 “What is a N106 Personal Co11, 2017. 107 “What is a N
thymetry/oduct Backgdes nautical ch
for the safe navscientific and oNOAA’s nauticsafe and efficiethe marine envc prosperity forS), Office of Couite of over 1,0and territories
tical charts shoncluding locatioer charts and e
graph nautical cHowever, the F
ation as a cost-D) distributors. e NOAA websi
he most up to dahroughout the
orld, electronic lectronic chartsl image of the ps of dangers ahystems; they utisplay the chartas the most up
d other scientifial Positioning SElectronic cha
c Organization
OAA Fleet Dfleet conducts hof the ships in NHassler, Raini
esponsible for provement Act of 1U.S. commitmenrriage regulation
Suite of Nauticalauticalcharts.noaNautical Chart?”ommunication w
Nautical Chart?”
/Hydrograground arts and relatedigation of mari
other commercical charts and aent navigation, vironment, coasr the Nation. Noast Survey (O000 nautical ch, as well as the
ow water depthons of dangers lectronically. Pcharts in large rFederal Aviatiosaving measureThese distribu
ite. NOS updatate version of tworld. Individu
charts are mors, Raster Nauticpaper chart, whhead and providtilize a computt data and the sto date inform
ic activities. ThSystem (GPS) arts are the lega(IHO) and Inte
ata that Feehydrographic suNOAA’s fleet ier, and Thoma
roducing nautica1998 (and amendnts for nautical cns. l Charts.” NOAAaa.gov/mcd/learn” (2002). NOAA
with Rachel Medl
” (2002) NOAA
aphic Surv
d hydrographicitime commercial and industriassociated hydrhomeland secustal zone manaOAA’s NationCS) is respons
harts that cover Great Lakes. 1
s, shoreline of to navigation),
Paper charts areruns and sell thon Administrate on April 13, 2
utors take ordertes each chart othe chart the mouals can also p
re popular and mcal Charts (RNhile the ENC cade other informterized system ship's position.
mation to make ahe ENC and theand have differ
al equivalent ofernational Mari
ed the Produurveys that provare primarily d
as Jefferson. Ea
al charts pursuandments). NOAAcharts under the i
A Office of Coasnnc_chartsuite.ht
A Office of Coastley, Chief of Cu
Office of Coast A-10
veys: Naut
c ce, ial rographic urity, gement,
nal Ocean ible for the coasts
104
adjacent land, , anchorages, ae more traditionhem to commertion took over f2014. Instead, rs from the pubonline every weoment it is prinurchase and pr
mandated for cNC) and Electroarries a signific
mation critical tcalled an ElectThe ENCs dig
a safe passage.eir associated Erent capabilitief a paper chart iitime Organiza
uct vide some of th
dedicated to hyach of these shi
nt to the Coast anA’s mapping and
international Saf
st Survey. tml t Survey. https://stomer Affairs B
Survey. https://w
Appendix
tical Chart
prominent topoand other featurnal, and are lesrcial chart agenfederal chart prNOAA has for
blic and print theek. Thus, indinted.106 NOAArint charts for fr
certain commeronic Navigationcantly greater ato a safe passagtronic Chart Digital format allo This same da
ECDIS system es, and limitatioif the ENC andation (IMO) spe
he bathymetry ydrographic surips use full bot
nd Geodetic Survsurveying activ
fety of Life at Se
/www.nauticalchBranch of the Na
www.nauticalch
Product: Na
Line Office:Office of Co
Mission ServCommunitiesTransportatio
x A: NOAA Fle
t Products
ographic featurres.105 Nauticalss in use today.nts who would roduction in 19rmed partnershhe most up-to-dividuals can be
A-certified vendfree directly fro
rcial vessels. Tnal Charts (ENamount of inforge. ENCs are bisplay and Infoows quicker upata can also be urely on satellit
ons compared td ECDIS meet ecifications.107
data NOS usesrveying, includttom coverage
vey Act of 1947ities for safe navea Treaty, direct
harts.noaa.gov/mavigation Service
harts.noaa.gov/m
autical Charts
National Oceaast Survey
vice Area: Ress and Economion
eet Data Value
s
res, aids to l charts come i. NOAA used tthen distribute
999 and closed hips with print-date version of certain that thedors print and som NOAA’s O
There are two diC). The RNC rmation that ca
basically geograormation Systempdates, which mused for ocean te positioning sto their paper International
s to maintain Nding Fairweatheecho sounding
and the Hydrogvigation are a pritly sustaining Co
mcd/learnnc_chaes Division on J
mcd/learnnc_char
an Service,
silient Coastal ies, Marine
Chains
in two to print e them d the on-
f the ey are sell CS
igital is a
an help aphic m means
systems
Nautical er,
g
graphic imary
oast
art.html January
rt.html
Appendix A:
technology toalso have 2-6 data on boardshoreside pro
In addition, crvessels to NONavigation Cmade aware o
Com3.3NOS also receexample, Hyddevelop nauticonsist of 27-sonar capabilisearching for and can be usresponsible fo
A significant and underwatcartographersdredging in ch
Finally, NOAProgram withcan report any
Com3.4In addition to use electronicthe RNCs andto the NOAAinto Nautical
te agencies, as half of the hydros six Navigatiotamaran. Thesethe depths of these vessels canessels cannot gU.S. ports.111
Engineers, whicnchorages and y updates to nau
community thrAuxiliary. USPemed critical it
ndors, there areonal boaters. Tmation to their
OS is currently wvelopers to use.
uticalcharts.noaa
w.nauticalchartsnauticalcharts.no
er, Rainer, and and crew acquat the Office o
cal Charts.
hese surveys thway. The U.S. CMariners to ens
well as the privographic data t
on Response Tee vessels have mhe ever-changin
n be more econogo – for exampl
ch provides NOinland waterwautical charts be
rough a CoopePS members an
is applied to th
e several softwThe developers
users. Any timworking to form.
a.gov/hsd/survey
s.noaa.gov/nsd/noaa.gov/nsd/bayh
Thomas Jefferuire and processof Coast Survey
hat might endanCoast Guard sure that the pub
vate sector. Forthat NOAA useeams (NRTs) wmany of the samng seafloor andomically deplole, they are
OAA with surveays. NOAA ecause of shoal
erative Chartingnd the Coast Guhe nautical char
ware companiesof these apps r
me changes are mat the data th
yplatforms.html
nrt.html hydro.htm
rson s the y's
nger
ublic is
r es to which me d
oyed
ey data
ling or
g uard rt.
s that rely on made at goes
Use3.5Nautical Char“navigational Guard and the
Commercial aferries, tug anhave a large-sNOAA-certifiwith each chawith NOAA.1
18,695 public
Most users redownloads ofSOLAS class ENCs.118.
Recreational bnautical chartSystems (GPS
Nautical chartdraft and needrequired to uswhether their avoid U.S. po
In addition, NExclusive Ecoa record for reand other accinautical chartand the privatcharts.
3.6 Soc 113 Personal Co11, 2017. 114 “Print-on-D115 Personal Co11, 2017. 116 Leveson, I.,Consulting. p. 117 Ibid. 118 Personal Co11, 2017. 119 Ibid. 120 “What is a N
ers of the Prrts and their relcharts and pub
e by the interna
and light commnd tow vessels, scale, detailed pfied print-on-deart to ensure tha115 In 2011, direc sales of the C
ly on electronif ENCs totaled
(meaning they
boaters are not t products throuS) or mobile de
ts are also impd more logisticse NOAA nautiship can enter.
roduct and Rlated products hblications publiational maritim
mercial sector vrely heavily on
paper chart of temand vendors at it meets reguect users and voast Pilot chart
c Nautical Cha141.6 million,
y are regulated
required to useugh third-party evices.
ortant for the inal support to nical charts to un. If mariners ca
ewhere to unloa
al charts are thEEZ). Further, he event and asthat are used torm several othere A.3 presents
its
with Rachel Medl
harts.” NOAA Owith Rachel Medl
Economic Study
with Rachel Medl
” (2002) NOAA
Related Prohave many useished by the Na
me community.
vessels that trann NOAA Nautithe waters in wthat sell Nauti
ulatory requiremvendors downlot books.116
arts for navigatiwhile downloaunder the Safe
e NOAA nautisoftware appli
nternational shavigate new wanderstand wateannot rely on naad their cargo.1
he authoritative when a marine
ssigning liabilio reconstruct ther NOAA produ
the official NO
ley, Chief of Cu
Office of Coast Sley, Chief of Cu
: Scoping the Va
ley, Chief of Cu
Office of Coast A-12
oducts es. Federal reguational Ocean S
nsit the same Uical Charts. Th
which they operical Charts.114 Tments. There aroaded 210,843 p
ion purposes, inads of RNCs am
ety of Life at Se
cal charts by laications on elec
hipping industryaters. When a ner depths and thautical charts a19
source for mare accident occuty in a court of
hese incidents cucts, as well asOAA products
stomer Affairs B
Survey. https://wstomer Affairs B
alue of NOAA’s
stomer Affairs B
Survey. https://w
Appendix
ulations requireService.”113 Th
U.S. waters on ehe Coast Guardrate. This chartThe vendors prre 20 to 25 of tpaper nautical
including both mounted to 97.ea (SOLAS) co
aw. However, tctronic chart pl
y. Cargo ships new ship arrivehe port shorelinas an accurate a
ritime regulatiours, the Nauticaf law. These evcan also be useds products deveand services th
Branch of the Na
www.nauticalcharBranch of the Na
s Coastal Mappin
Branch of the Na
www.nauticalch
x A: NOAA Fle
e certain vesselhese regulation
each trip, such d requires each t can be printedrovide a Certifithese vendors tcharts from NO
ENCs and RN.6 million.117 Lonvention) are
they often indirlotters using G
continue to inces at an Americne infrastructurand up-to-date
on and politicaal Chart in use vents include grd for training peloped other gohat directly dep
avigation Service
arts.noaa.gov/podavigation Service
ng Program Fina
avigation Service
harts.noaa.gov/m
eet Data Value
ls to carry s are set by the
as cruise lines,of these vessel
d through any oicate of Authenthat work direcOAA, and ther
Cs. In 2011 Larger vessels inrequired to use
rectly use NOAlobal Positioni
crease in size acan port, they are to determineproduct, ships
al boundaries (eat the time servrounding, collipurposes.120 Finovernment agenpend on nautica
es Division on J
d/index.html es Division on J
al Report. Leves
es Division on J
mcd/learnnc_char
Chains
e Coast
, ls to of the nticity tly
re were
n the e
AA ng
and are e
may
e.g. ves as ision, nally, ncies al
January
January
on
January
rt.html
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-13
The greatest value that NOAA’s nautical charts provide is safety for navigators. By providing the most up to date information, ships do not navigate blindly and can chart out the safest and most efficient route to their destination. They can also avoid navigational hazards with confidence, which in turn allows them to avoid unnecessary slow-downs. Thus, much of the value of this product can be estimated based on avoided losses from collisions and grounding, injury and possibly death. Because ship time can be expensive, Nautical Charts also provide value in terms of savings in the amount of time spent at sea.
Because of its unique use in the international shipping industry, another way to consider the value of Nautical Charts is to examine the value of U.S. ports to the national economy. According the American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. seaports generate nearly $4.6 trillion in total economic activity, and provide $1.2 billion in personal income and local consumption.121 This would likely be significantly lower without up-to-date Nautical Chart information.
In 2007, Kite-Powell conducted a study for the NOAA Office of the Coast Survey to estimate the benefits of ideal nautical charts for recreational and commercial vessels, based on a survey asking users what they would be willing-to-pay for ‘ideal’ nautical charts.122 Assuming a minimal difference between the nautical charts that were available at the time and ideal charts, the author estimated that the combined benefits of nautical charts amounted to $47.5 million (2007 USD),123 including $15.3 million/year in consumer surplus for recreational users, $27.5 million/year in consumer surplus for commercial users, and $2 million/year in producer surplus. We estimate that today, this value amounts to approximately $57.9 million/per year (2016 USD), accounting for the increase in foreign flag ships visiting U.S. ports between 2007 and 2016.124
While this study provides an order of magnitude estimate of the value of nautical charts, the authors acknowledge that it serves as a lower bound estimate, largely because the study did not include military users, commercial fishing vessels, or marine resource managers, among others. In addition, since the study was conducted in 2007, electronic nautical charts have become even more popular, allowing for more frequent updates that provide additional value to users.125 The study also does not include the economic activity generated by value-added products that use ENC data as inputs. The development of these products creates jobs, wages, and additional economic output.
Figure A.4 demonstrates the value chain for nautical charts, including the data from the NOAA Fleet and other sources that the charts depend on, and how the charts ultimately result in value to society.
121 “Exports, Jobs & Economic Growth.” American Association of Port Authorities. http://www.aapa-ports.org/advocating/content.aspx?ItemNumber=21150 122 Kite-Powell, H. 2007 Use and Value of Nautical Charts and Nautical Chart Data in the United States. Prepared for NOAA Office of Coast Survey. 123 Leveson, I., (2012). Socio-Economic Study: Scoping the Value of NOAA’s Coastal Mapping Program Final Report. Leveson Consulting. p. 47 124 Values for recreational and commercial consumer surplus and producer surplus increased to 2016 USD using BLS Consumer Price Index. 125In addition, because survey respondents knew how much they paid for nautical charts, this could have resulted in an anchoring bias, leading to more conservative estimates of value.
Figure A.3. NOAA Key Products that Rely Directly on NOAA Nautical Charts
• Marine Cadastre: Political Boundaries; Marine Infrastructure, Habitat, Mammals; Renewable Wind/Tide Energy Potential
• Operational Response Services: National Marine Sanctuary
Source: TPIO (2017)
Figure A.4. N
Contra
NOAA Fleet D
acts for hydrog
Data Value Ch
graphic servic
ain: Nautical
es
A-14
Charts
Appendixx A: NOAA Fleeet Data Value Chains
Appendix A:
4. Season Pro4.1
The El Nino –to-year changsurface air prePacific. 126 Eltemperatures describes a yeaverage.127 DOcean temperIndonesia to ttropical rainfaincluding the as well as tem
To help the puNational WeaENSO Outlooinform season
NO4.2One of the maconsists of 70The NOAA flShips go to eabiological act
Basic measurand subsurfacradiation, barotemperature r
In addition to including conENSO Outlootemperature a
Com4.3A second sousubsurface temto a depth of a
126 “What is ENhttp://www.cpc127 Ibid. 128 “Project: Trhttp://www.om129 For examplehttp://www.om130 “TAO Refrehttp://tao.ndbc.131 Ibid. 132 “What is Ar
NOAA Fleet D
nal Forecaoduct Backg– Southern Oscges in sea surfacessure and atml Nino describeare above the lear in which se
During El Nino ratures affect sethe west coast oall affect weathfrequency and
mperature and p
ublic and privaather Service (Nok describes thnal temperature
OAA Fleet Dain inputs to th0 buoys mooredfleet maintains tach buoy once tivity, or local f
ements on TAOce temperaturesometric pressueadings and sa
data from the nductivity, tempok. The Voluntand weather dat
mplementarurce of data for mperature, saliabout 2 km and
NSO (El Nino/Soc.ncep.noaa.gov/
ropical Atmosphmao.noaa.gov/fin
e the Ronald H. mao.noaa.gov/finesh Sampling.” (.noaa.gov/proj_o
rgo?” Argo – par
Data Value Cha
ast: El Ninground cillation (ENSOce temperature
mospheric circules a year in whlong-term averaa-surface tempand La Nina yeasonal tropicaof South Amerher patterns thro
severity of stoprecipitation.
ate sector betterNWS) Climate e status of El Ne and precipitat
ata That Fehe ENSO Outlod (“moorings”)the TAO array a year to perfofisherman.
O moorings incs at 10 levels.13
re, salinity andlinity profiles f
TAO array, CPperature, and dtary Observing ta.
ry Data the ENSO outlnity, and velocd then come ba
outhern Oscillat/products/analys
here Ocean Buoynd/projects/3418-
Brown providednd/projects/2751-(2011). NOAA’soverview/sampli
rt of the integrat
ains
no – South
O) cycle repress, convective rlation over the ich sea-surfaceage, while La N
peratures are coyears, changes ial rainfall patterica. These chanoughout the wo
orms, floods, dr
r prepare for exPrediction Cen
Nino and La Nition predictions
eed the Prodook is data from) in the Pacific and transmits rm necessary m
clude wind spe30Additional sed ocean currentfrom the TAO
PC also relies odepth (CTD) an
Ship Program,
look is the ARGcity of the uppeack to the surfac
ion)?” (2012). Nsis_monitoring/e
y Service.” (2016-tropical-atmospd maintenance fo-tropical-atmosps National Data ing_ndbc.shtml
ted global observA-15
hern Oscill
ents year-rainfall, equatorial
e Nina ooler than in Pacific rns from nges in orld, roughts, hurrica
xpected ENSO-nter (CPC) creaina conditions. s for the U.S.
duct m the Tropical AOcean that colthe data from t
maintenance in
eeds, air temperensors can colles.131 The ENSarray.
on ocean profilnd expendable b, which the NO
GO array. Thiser 2000 meters ce to automatic
NOOA National ensostuff/ensofaq
6). NOAA Officphere-ocean-buoyor TAO Buoy in phere-ocean-tao-Buoy Center.
vation strategy. h
lation Out
anes, tornadoes
-related conditates and dissemCPC uses the E
Atmosphere/Ollect oceanograthese moorings
ncluding repairi
rature, relative ect data on rainO Outlook reli
e data collectedbathythermogra
OAA fleet is a p
s global array oof the ocean.13
cally transmit t
Weather Serviceq.shtml#ENSO
ce of Marine andy-service November 2015
-buoy-array-main
http://www.argo
Product: El Outlook
Line Office:Climate Pred
Mission SerPredictions a
tlook
s, and other we
tions in a givenminates the ENENSO Outlook
cean (TAO) araphic and meteos electronicallying any damag
humidity, sea nfall, short wavies on weekly s
d directly fromaph (XBT) datpart of, also pro
of 3,800 floats p32 The ARGO their data. They
e Climate Predic
d Aviation Opera
5. ntenance
o.ucsd.edu/
l Nino Southern
: National Weadiction Center
rvice Area: Cliand Projections
eather-related e
n season, NOAANSO Outlook. T
k and other too
rray. The TAO orological data
y through satelle caused by
surface temperve and long-wasea surface
m NOAA fleet vta, to develop thovide sea surfa
provides data ofloats go undery require much
ction Center.
ations.
n Oscillation
ather Service,
imate, Climate s
events,
A’s The ols to
array a.128 ites.129
rature, ave
vessels, he ace
on rwater
h less
maintenance tFleet.
The ENSO O
Data from theand the North
Pro4.4The ENSO Oand a blog. ThNino/La NinaNino/La Ninaoutlooks.133 C
CPC also issuClimate and Sand include p
Finally, CPC about ENSO amonthly ENS
Use4.5CPC providesstakeholders. users include term climate vfederal, state a
The ENSO blblog uses lessthe blog as m
The informatimanagement Bay Water Aureleases. Emeto areas that waffected by EN
There are alsorecreation/tou(USDA). Theexpected prec
133 “ENSO: ReEnvironmental134 “El Nino/SoCenter/NCEP/Nhttp://www.cpc135 “ENSO Blo136 Personal com
than the TAO a
utlook also use
e TAO array anh American Mu
oduct Dissemutlook is dissemhe ENSO weeka conditions in a conditions thrCPC updates thi
ues monthly ENSociety. These recipitation and
disseminates inand other short
SO updates.135
ers of the Prs information cInternal users oFEMA, DOD,variations. CPCand local stake
log is meant fors technical langeans of commu
ion provided inactions of manuthority may loergency managewill likely expeNSO-related co
o many private urism. For exame ENSO informcipitation levels
cent Evolution, Prediction. http
outhern OscillatiNWS/Internationc.ncep.noaa.gov/
og.”(2016). Climmmunication wi
array because t
es satellite data
nd other sourceulti-Model Ense
mination minated in fourkly updates, prothe world. Therough the ENSOis information
NSO Diagnostidiagnostic discd temperature p
nformation frot-term climate f
roduct and Rcontained in theof this informa USAID, and s
C provides brieeholders.
r the public andguage than the ounication from
n the ENSO Ouny different typook at predictedement agencies
erience adverseonditions inclu
sector users ofmple, CPC has
mation can infors and other fact
Status and Predi
p://www.cpc.ncepion (ENSO) Diagnal Research Ins/products/analys
mate Prediction Cith
there are no van
a on Outgoing L
es is incorporateemble. CPC us
r ways: throughovided by CPCe update containO Alert Systemevery Monday
c Discussions icussions providpredictions for
m the ENSO Oforecasts in a le
Related Proe ENSO weeklyation within NOstate and local aefings on the in
d is mostly useother products various stakeh
utlook and assoes of stakeholdd precipitation s use ENSO-re
e effects as a reude those relate
f the ENSO outa longstanding
rm farmers’ dectors. In Decem
ictions.” (2017).p.noaa.gov/prodgnostic Discussistitute for Climatsis_monitoring/eCenter. https://ww
A-16
ndalism issues.
Longwave Rad
ed into numericses the results o
h web disseminC, describe the rns a value for t
m Status, and Uy.
in partnership wde more technicthe upcoming
Outlook throughess technical an
oducts y updates and d
OAA include Nagencies whose
nformation cont
ed by people wiand is more re
holders.136
ociated dissemiders. For examplevels in the E
elated informatisult of El Nino
ed to transporta
tlook, including collaboration cisions on whic
mber 2016, the D
NOAA Climateducts/analysis_mion - 8 Decembete and Society.
enso_advisory/enww.climate.gov/
Appendix
. ARGO floats
diation (OLR) t
cal models throof these models
nation, weeklyrecent evolutiothe Oceanic Ni
U.S. seasonal pr
with the Interncal detail on cumonths.134
h its ENSO blond more readab
diagnostic discNWS weather foe operations ortained in the EN
ith an interest ieadable. NOAA
ination venues ple, a water res
ENSO Outlook ion to appropri
o or La Nina. Oation and energy
ng agriculture, rwith the U.S. Dch crops to plaDepartment of
e Prediction Cenmonitoring/laninaer 2016” (2016).
nsodisc.pdf /news-features/d
x A: NOAA Fle
are not suppor
to develop prec
ough the Climas to develop the
y presentations,on, status, and pino Index (ONIrecipitation and
national Researcurrent El Nino/
og. This blog gble manner. Th
cussions primarforecast officesr decisions are NSO Outlook
in short-term clA has received p
can affect the dsource managerand make deci
iately prepare aOther state and lgy.
retail, energy, fDepartment of
ant and when toInterior’s Clim
nter and Nationaa/enso_evolution NOAA Climate
department/enso-
eet Data Value
rted by the NO
cipitation predi
ate Forecast Sye ENSO Outlo
monthly discupredictions for I), the status ofd temperature
ch Institute for/ La Nina condi
gives informatiohe blog also pro
rily to governm. Other governimpacted by shto these variou
limate forecastpositive feedba
decisions and r, such as the Tisions about resand allocate reslocal agencies
fisheries, and of Agriculture o plant based onmate Hub hosted
l Centers for n-status-fcsts-wee Prediction
-blog
Chains
OAA
ictions.
ystem ok.
ussions, El
f EL
r itions,
on ovides
ment nment hort-us
ts. The ack on
Tampa servoir sources
outdoor
n d a
eb.pdf
Appendix A:
briefing in Wstakeholders uwhen to plantbenefit from t
Private retailewarmer winteparticipants frthe same infoquestions andsend many sn
The energy sebenefit from thave a large imexpected normdays or less h
Finally, the inthe 1-Month agreater numbe
Soc4.6For a forecastavailable. Sevcritical in helpincorporatingoutput and proof the forecasas high as $24ENSO-relatedsectors.
ENSO-relatedStates billionsto better prepahouseholds anavoided damaincrease in wiroofing contraaccelerated mduring heavy
Figure A.5 dedepends on, a
137 “Strong El Nhttp://www.eia138 Weiher, R. I139Solow, A.,et140 McNew, K.
NOAA Fleet D
est Texas with understand shot their winter wthe forecasting
ers or grocery cers may affect prom various grormation from t
d used this infornow shovels or
ector serves as the informationmpact on fuel mmal or below nheat days.
nformation in thand 3-Month Cer of users, the
cietal Benefit to have econoveral studies haping farmers plNOAA’s ENS
oduce benefits st.139 McKnew 40 million (200d predictions ca
d forecasts of ths of dollars in dare for predictend businesses cage costs. Tiesbinter precipitatiactors, as peop
maintenance is awinter storms.
emonstrates theand how this ult
Nino helps reduca.gov/todayineneImproving El Nit al. 1998. The v2000. The Valu
Data Value Cha
private stakehort-term climatewheat. Through
information pr
chains may useprivate retail stocery chains inthe Diagnostic rmation to adjuwinter coats to
another exampn provided in thmarkets due toormal temperat
he ENSO OutloClimate Outlook
reby increasing
its omic value, it mave shown that lan for, avoid oSO forecasts int
to the U.S. eco(2000) estimat
00 USD)—or oan result in sign
he potential fordamage costs. Fed events, whiccan also use theberg (2000) repion, prior to thele repaired or ra reduction in t
e value chain astimately results
ce U.S. winter hergy/detail.php?iiño Forecasting:alue of improved
ue of El Niño For
ains
olders and sciee forecasts inclthese briefings
rovided by the
e the data to reaock purchasing
ncluding WalmDiscussions an
ust their inventoo areas expected
ple of a private he ENSO Outlochanges in win
tures, the fuel m
ook feeds sevek, Sea Ice Foreg the value of t
must be true thapredicting the
or mitigate poteto planting deconomy of up toed that the valu
one to two percnificant benefit
r extreme climaFor example, nch can reduce re ENSO Outlooports that on the winter of 199replaced roofs ithe risk or exten
ssociated the Es in value to so
eating demand aid=25952 The Potential Ed ENSO predictrecasts in Agricu
A-17
entists to discusuding the ENSs, stakeholders CPC.
arrange merchag decisions. Th
mart on the recond Weekly Updory for seasonad to have mild
industry that isook. For exampnter heating demarket can adj
ral different NOecast, and climathis product.
at better decisiolife cycle and s
ential losses.138
cisions, farmerso $300 million pue to society ofent of the valuets for the water
ate episodes liknational and staresponse costs aok to make appe U.S. West Co
97-98, there wein anticipation nt of damage to
El Nino Outlookociety.
and fuel prices.”
Economic Benefiion to U.S. agricultural Commod
ss ENSO forecSO Outlook and
have the tools
andise based onhe CPC recentlyord El Nino fromdates. The partial products. Fowinters.
s affected by Eple, mild and wemand.137 If fueust depending
OAA productsate analysis too
ons can be madstrength of a P
8 For example, s in the United per year (1998f ENSO forecae of productionr, energy, trans
ke floods and date emergency mand avoid weatpropriate prepaoast, where El ere reports of hof predicted Eo the inside of
k, including the
(2016). U.S. En
its. NOAA. culture. Climaticdity Markets: Th
casts. The goal d use that infor necessary to g
n seasonal expey held a briefinm last year. Thicipants also as
or example, they
ENSO conditionwarmer wintersel market decison where there
s, including theols. These prod
de if a better weacific warm orSolow et al. (1States could in
8 USD), dependasts on corn ston.140 In additionsportation, retai
droughts could managers can uther-related dam
aratory decisionNiño frequentl
heavy demand fl Niño storms. structures due
e data from the
nergy Informatio
c Change 39:47-e Case of U.S. C
was to help rmation to deciget the maximu
ectations. Mildng with over 10he briefing inclusked specific y would not wa
ns, and that thes due to El Ninosion makers leae will be more
e Hurricane Outducts reach an e
eather forecast r cold episode i1998) found thancrease agriculding on the accrage decisions n to these sectoil, and tourism
also save the Uuse ENSO foremages. Individ
ns, resulting in ly brings a greafor the servicesThe benefit ofto leaking roof
e NOAA Fleet t
on Administratio
60. Corn Storage.
de um
d or 00 uded
ant to
erefore o can arn of heat
tlook, even
is is at by ltural curacy
can be ors,
United ecasts dual
at s of f this fs
that it
on.
Figure A.5. NNOAA Fleet DData Value Chain: ENSO Ou
A-18
utlook
Appendixx A: NOAA Fle
eet Data Value Chains
Appendix A:
5. Eco Pro5.1
NOAA’s NatiNational Marmonuments. Tmore than 600The sanctuariof habitats ranunderwater arpromote the rthrough conseoutreach, and
NMS Conditiprotecting thedetermine if thfor the sanctuthat threaten t
Individual sansanctuary releassessment ofcondition repoappropriate ma variety of tosanctuary anseducation and
NO5.2The NOAA flexample, NOAcollect data onbird and mamConditions Reinforms hypox
While most saFleet. The NOoperation of scomposition, spend more ddistance from
Ultimately, Nexample, for t 141 Gittings, S. Marine Sanctua142 “About.” (2143 “Frequentlyhttp://sanctuari144 Ibid. 145 Personal com10, 2017. 146 Ibid.
NOAA Fleet D
osystem Moduct Backgional Ocean Seine SanctuariesTogether, these0,000 square mies support thounging from corrcheological sitesponsible andervation, researcommunity en
ion Reports sere resources withhey are achievi
uary.143 Specificthese resources
nctuaries withineases an updatef sanctuary resoorts are meant
management resopics includingwers the questi
d outreach, and
OAA Fleet Dfleet provides kAA vessels parn species abun
mmal observatioeports include xia forecasts, a
anctuaries haveOAA research vsmaller vessels,so it is importaays at sea, and
m ports. They ar
NOAA vessels stheir 2010 Con R., Broughton, Karies., pp. 2
2016). NOAA Nay Asked Questionies.noaa.gov/scie
mmunication wi
Data Value Cha
Managemeground ervice (NOS) cs (NMS) and twe protected mar
miles of marine usands of endanral reefs, to deetes.141 The goald sustainable usrch and monitongagement.142
rve as an imporhin marine saning their resourcally, the repors, and the propo
n the NOS Offed Condition Rources and focuto examine tren
sponses. Towar keystone specions with the g
d management a
ata That Feey data that serrticipate in habdance, diversiton stations and information fro
and processed h
e access to a savessels are criti, such as April,ant to get measureach parts of
re also able to c
streamline the dndition Report t K. (2016). “Guid
ational Marine Sns.” (2015). NOence/condition/fa
ith Jan Roletto, R
ains
nt: Nation
urrently maintawo national marine ecosystemand Great Lakngered species
ep-sea canyons,l of the sanctuase of the oceanoring, education
rtant tool for mctuaries from orce protection arts summarize tosed managem
fice of NMS proReport every fivuses on charactnds, identify hords that end, allcies, keystone hgoal of relating actions.
eed the Prodrves as the basi
bitat characterizty and distribut
acoustic surveom water qualihydrographic d
anctuary vesselical for gatheri, May and Juneurements durinthe sanctuary t
conduct researc
data collection the Greater Far
de for Developin
Sanctuaries. httpAA National Ma
faq.html
Research Coordi
A-19
nal Marine
ains 13 arine s encompass
kes waters. s and a variety , to aries is to ’s resources n and
managing and outside pressurand improvemethe current conent responses t
oduce the repove years. The fiterizing the speow the status ol of the reports
habitats, humanthe report resu
duct is for many conzation for NMSion of fish and
eys. Other NOAity surveys (e.gdata from NOA
, these vessels ng data in sease.146 Some sancng each seasonthat are not accch in deeper are
process ensurirallones Nation
ng National Mar
://sanctuaries.noarine Sanctuarie
inator at the Gre
e Sanctuar
res. The Conditent goals, and i
ndition of resouto these pressur
orts, with suppoirst condition reecies and habitaof various resou answer the sam
n influences, anults back to san
nclusions in theS through seafld marine mammAA ship data thg., harmful alga
AA ship bathym
can be smallersons where the ctuaries see larg. NOAA vessecessible using teas of individu
ing that it is conal Marine San
rine Sanctuary C
oaa.gov/about/ es.
eater Farallones N
Product: NConditions
Line OfficOffice of N
Mission SeCommunitand Manag
ries Condi
tion Reports heinforms future
urces in the Sanres.144
ort from NMS heport serves asats in the sancturces has changme set of 17 qund climate channctuary-specific
e NMS Conditoor mapping su
mals within the hat are often inal blooms), oce
metry surveys.
r and less effecsanctuary vessge seasonal ch
els also allow sathe sanctuary vual sanctuaries.
omprehensive anctuary was abl
Condition Report
National Marine
National Marins Reports
ce: National OcNational Marin
ervice Area: Rties and Economgement
itions Rep
elp sanctuaries management p
nctuary, the pre
headquarters. E a baseline tuary. Subsequged, and establuestions that tonge impacts.145
c regulation,
tion Reports. Fourveys. They asanctuary thro
ncorporated intoean profile data
tive than the Nsel is too harsh anges in specieanctuary staff t
vessel because o
and timely. For e to complete
ts.” NOAA Nati
e Sanctuary on Ja
ne Sanctuary
cean Service, e Sanctuaries
Resilient Coastamies, Planning
ports
plans essures
Each
ent lish ouch on 5 Each
or also ough o the a that
NOAA for the
es to of the
onal
anuary
al g
sampling for tlike the Bell Meach Conditio
NOAA weathReports of eacthat contribut
Com5.3Some of the dchartered vessSanctuaries alcruises are abspecies and m
The Conditionexplored five projects withibottom profili
Use5.4The primary pmanagement Sanctuary MaCouncils comjurisdictional key resourcescases, NOS Nthreats describout the goals sanctuary.156 research, and
The ConditionReports notesneed to be donappropriate m
mplementardata used for thsels. For exampll use one sanct
bout 10 hours inmarine reserves
n Reports also National Mari
in each sanctuaing data.153 The
ers of the Prpurpose of the Nof the sanctuaranagement Plan
mprised of sanctpartners from
s in the sanctuaNMS will publibed in the repoand priorities fThe Managemeducation.
n Reports also s where the sanne. Together, t
management act
he sanctuaries athat use the da
mmunication wi
ar.”(2013). Montybay.noaa.gov/m
ilus Expedition.”
Councils.” (2016mmunication wi
ent 101.” (2015)y Asked Questionies.noaa.gov/scie
tuary in nine dahabitat charac
y of which are These buoys codition Reports.
ry Data he NMS Conditple, the Montertuary vessel, thn length.149 The.150 This data h
rely on data cone Sanctuaries
ary by collectinese data are als
roduct and RNMS Conditio
ries, in turn, benn Review Procetuary staff, memlocal, state, trib
ary, each Condish a manageme
ort.155 The Sancfor sanctuary, a
ment Plan affect
serve as an intnctuaries are achhe reports helptions.
also work closeata from the Co
ith Jan Roletto, R
terey Bay Nationmarineops/about/
” (2016). NOAA
6). NOAA Natioith Jan Roletto, R
. NOAA Nationns.” (2015). NOence/condition/fa
ays using the Bterization and s
serviced by thollect data on w
148
tion Reports is rey Bay, the Grhe R/V Fulmar.e vessel collect
helps inform ma
ollected on char in 2016 along
ng important daso often used in
Related Proon Reports is tonefits society bess. Aside frommbers of the pubal and federal ition Report alsent plan a few yctuary Managemand guides the fts all sanctuary
ernal reportinghieving resourc
p NOAA better
ely with organiondition Report
Research Coordi
nal Marine Sanc/fulmar/welcome
A National Marin
onal Marine SancResearch Coordi
al Marine SanctuAA National Ma
faq.html A-20
Bell M. Shimadspecies compo
he NOAA Fleetweather and oce
collected by otreater Farallon. The Fulmar gts baseline dataanagement dec
rtered vessels. the U.S. West
ata including spn the Condition
oducts o inform sanctuby []. The Conm sanctuary staublic that repreagencies.154 In
so describes preyears after theyment Plan sumfuture project p
y activities inclu
g tool for NOAAce protection anr understand the
izations, such ats in their indep
inator at the Gre
ctuary. e.html
ne Sanctuaries. h
ctuaries. http://sainator at the Gre
uaries. http://sanarine Sanctuarie
Appendix
da vessel.147 Thsition are used
t, also serve as ean conditions,
ther vessels, innes, and the Corgoes about 40 ma on emerging mcisions and Con
One such vesst Coast.152 The pecies surveys n Reports.
uary managemendition Reports aff, the process esent different in addition to suessures that thry develop a Co
mmarizes existinplanning and muding resource
A and the Depand improvemee state of the sa
as universities apendent researc
eater Farallones N
http://sanctuaries
anctuaries.noaa.geater Farallones N
nctuaries.noaa.goes.
x A: NOAA Fle
he data gatheredd to answer the
a data source f including ocea
ncluding sancturdell Bank Nat
miles offshore tmanagement isndition Reports
sel is the E/V NNautilus suppoand sonar bath
ent decisions. E serve as an imalso involves Sinterests and in
ummarizing thereaten these resondition Reportng programs an
management dee protection, co
artment of Coment goals, and wanctuary netwo
and independench projects. Th
National Marine
s.noaa.gov/scien
gov/managemenNational Marine
ov/management/
eet Data Value
d by NOAA ve17 questions w
for the Conditioanographic var
uary vessels andtional Marine to collect data assues such as ins.151
Nautilus, which orted a variety hymetry and sub
Effective mportant input iSanctuary Advndustries, and e current conditsources. In most that addressesnd regulations, cision-making
onservation scie
mmerce.157 Thewhere more woork, and develo
nt non-profit his research lea
e Sanctuary on Ja
nce/nautilus16/
nt/ac/welcome.hte Sanctuary on Ja
/mgt101.html
Chains
essels within
on riables
d
and its nvasive
of b-
into the visory
tion of st s the lays at the
ence,
e ork may op
ads to
anuary
tml anuary
Appendix A:
further undersprovides fundinformation gand state agenFor example, the Bell M. Shidentify feedinNational MarFrancisco Bayidentify when
Finally, the Cin the Conditithe public aboneeded to prosymposiums eUniversities a
Soc5.5The NMS Cofor the protecthey support.
NMSs are deswildlife viewea range of benor commerciawho value thebenefits, beca
Further, manyin coastal ecosuccess of mamarine sanctuannually in lorecreation/tou
In addition, thNOAA, and aresources, incgood exampleCoast Guard o
158 Ibid. 159 Personal com10, 2017. 160 “Whale Conservices/conser161 Personal com10, 2017. 162 Ibid. 163 NOAA. Untreasures! Avai164NMS Socioe
NOAA Fleet D
standing and beding to indepengaps identified incies to use thein the San Fran
himada (a ship ng hot spots.159
ine Fisheries Sy. The new lann NOAA should
Condition Reporion Reports helout what key reotect them.161 Eetc. with the ulalso support and
cietal Benefindition Reporttion of key reso
signated for theers and recreatinefits, includinal fishing) and ieir existence orause there is no
y of the on-site onomies that serany businesses,uaries. NMS reocal coastal andurism-related ac
he NMS Condiacademic and ocluding endange of this is the ron actions to re
mmunication wi
nservation.” (20rvation-science/ommunication wi
ndated. West Coailable: http://saneconomic Factsh
Data Value Cha
etter managemndent academicin the Conditio
e datasets from ncisco Bay arein the NOAA
9 Based on the ervice, and thees reduced oved install speed
rt is an importalp sanctuary staesources are in
Each site designtimate goal of d fundraise for
its ts directly contrources, the con
eir irreplaceablion seekers.163 g direct on-siteindirect benefitr enjoy them pao established pr
activities assorvice the activi, millions of dosearch indicate
d ocean dependctivities.164
tion Reports heother research oered species anresearch condueduce whale de
ith Jan Roletto, R
17). Point Blue: oceans-and-coasith Jan Roletto, R
ast National Marctuaries.noaa.go
heet: http://sanctu
ains
ment of importan researchers an
ons Reports.158 the Condition a, an organizatfleet) and the Fresults of this r
e U.S. Coast Guerlap of foraginadvisories to m
ant tool for the aff design site-the sanctuary,
ns classroom aninstilling a deg
r education and
ribute to regulantinued use and
le resources, mThe ecosystem
e user benefits ts accruing to iassively. Theserice for them in
ciated with maities – these areollars in sales, aes that togetherdent economies
elp to identify rorganizations. Tnd key habitat, ucted by Point Beaths by ship st
ome for busineFor example, Ny depend on thgenerate appro
commercial fish
ps, which are inrther protect ans that affect all
NOAA’s recomm
National Marine
//www.pointblue
National Marine
ught to you by A
ets/national-syste
r example, NM them tackle partner with fe
and regulation we has used data whales and krilluaries, NOAA ead into San esearch also he0
ams. The informhat teach membral changes are er camps, ach visitor.162 ies.
aries, which pronomic activity t
an lovers, mariaries provide rerograms, recreaystem directly bd to as non-mar
esses and indivNMS reports thahriving nationaloximately $8 bhing, research
n turn filled by nd maintain san
marine resourcmendations to
e Sanctuary on Ja
e.org/our-scienc
e Sanctuary on Ja
America’s underw
em.html
S often
federal work. from
l and
elped to
mation bers of
ovide that
ine esult in ational but rket
iduals at the l illion and
nctuary ces. A the
anuary
ce-and-
anuary
water
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-22
Finally, the educational value of the sanctuaries cannot be understated. As noted above, NMS uses the Condition Reports to inform sanctuary outreach and education programs. These programs serve to educate the general public about the sanctuaries, and marine resources in general. These efforts can further protection through education, and increase the value that society places on these resources.
Figure A.6 demonstrates the value chain associated NMS Condition Reports, including the data from the NOAA fleet that they depend on, and how this ultimately results in value to society.
Appendix A:
Figure A.6. N
NOAA Fleet D
NOAA Fleet D
Data Value Cha
Data Value Ch
ains
ain: National
A-23
Marine Sancttuary Conditioons Report
6. Fis Pro6.1
As part of fulocean resourcmanage comminvolves colledetermine chacommercial atrends of stoc(NMFS) manapproximatelyand TechnoloStock assessmAssessment, a
Fisheries manoverfishing anmanagement set annual catorganizations Stock assessmthe status of f
NO6.2NOAA uses tand biologicabiological datfishermen’s lofish stock datatechnologies acatch monitorsystems and rsampling, and
Data collectiomonitoring, aand robotic anelectronic fish
rdship of the nassessments tok assessment ic information tresponse to ssible, predict Fisheries Serviresources to asFS Office of Scessment enterpres Monitoring,
nts to set catchhermen. This inmandate of thelable scientificr non-federal as such as the Liase that helps i
duct ard fish stock ar vessels to concatch data typicand telephone
s in NOAA’s flt various data c
hed to traditionas, non-extractiv
y the sampling traditional sam
xtractive hydroa, and biologica
torical, current,
es Service Offics.noaa.gov/stock
d for Assessing U
sessment_101_pd for Assessing U
sessment_101_pFisheries Servic
nmfs.noaa.gov/st
Appendix
ssessment
nation's o help
to
future ice ssess cience rise.
h limits and othncludes each o
e Magnuson-Stc data. Coastal, and joint jurisdiivingOceans reinform consum
assessments, innduct abundanccally comes froe interviews. Cofleet. These shipcollection methal sampling geve hydroacoust
falls under, anmpling gear, vis
acoustic technoal data
, and forecast f
ce of Science andk-assessment/stoc
U.S. Fish Stocks”
part1.html. AcceU.S. Fish Stocks”
part1.html. Accece Office of Scietock-assessment
Pro
LinFish
MisOceAss
x A: NOAA Fle
t
her regulations tof the eight regitevens Fishery state and inter
ictional manageport, which inf
mers of the susta
ncluding abundce surveys, as wom dockside mollecting abundps are equippedhodologies, incear, visual survetic technology
nd can include esual surveys usology for abun
fish abundance
d Technology. Nck-assessment-p
”. NOAA Fisher
ssed March 22, ”. NOAA Fisher
ssed March 22, ence and Technot/stock-assessme
oducts: Fish St
ne Office: Natiheries Service
ssion Service Aeans Fisheries Msessment, and F
eet Data Value
that prevent ional fishery Conservation A
rnational ement of fish sforms the publainability of se
dance data, catcwell as to colle
monitoring, dance and biolod with special luding electroneys using imagfor abundance
electronic catching imaging sydance sampling
and fishing mo
National Oceanicprioritization. Ac
ries. National Oc
2017. ries. National Oc
2017. ology. National Oent-101. Accesse
tock Assessmen
ional Marine
Area: Healthy Monitoring, Forecast
Chains
Act to
stocks. lic of afood.
ch data, ect
ogical
nic ging
h ystems g, and
ortality
c and ccessed
ceanic
ceanic
Oceanic ed
nts
Appendix A:
Pro6.3NOAA dissemways. The Spconsumption.and results froindex that mecommercial aaffiliates are ivital informat
Additionally, with scientistsscientists and Fishery-Indepvessels.173 Ev
Fish stock assof the status oanalyses as wnational databof consumer i
sions and workcouncils. NOAapping and tabulected by NOA
U.S. fish stocks
s a more compreans Report. Thproduces FishW
as information
with the informsessments allowed targets, and determine how tion, states canly use the asses
nt councils to dn helps fishery p research prio
nd Atmospheric
ration. Available
e and Technologyt/reports. Accessof Science and Tdex. Accessed MSystem (FINSS)
nual%20V5.0_0e at:
ov/. Accessed MOffice of Sciencv/stock-assessme”. NOAA Fisher
ssed March 22, ment Improvemen
s. NOAA Techn
public in severta for public download sumility Index (FS
portance to d by NOAA ans with up-to-da
kshops it conduAA also provideular reporting.1
AA and charteres.
rehensive repohis includes res
Watch, a web-ban on various asp
mation necessarw scientists anadjust catch limmuch catch is
n use stock ssments to over
develop short-,management
orities.179
Administration.
e at:
y. National Oceased March 22, 20Technology. Nat
March 22, 2017. . National Marin
01182013.pdf
March 27, 2017. ce and Technologent/about ries. National Oc
2017. nt Plan: Report oical Memorandu
ral
mmaries SI), an
nd its ate and
ucts es 172 The ed
ort card source ased pects
ry to d mits
rsee
,
.
anic 017. tional
ne
gy.
ceanic
of the um
While the pubthe publicly-afish species ar
Soc6.5Effective manthem for foodimports) and fishing generain 2014.181
Even though oare under a cointernational fNOAA’s fish accurately setWhile some inassessments wfeel comfortabmanagers andexample, 3.1 bwithout the fiapproximately
Figure A.7 prdepend on, an
NMFS-F/SPO-States, 2014: EMemorandum N179 “Regional Fhttp://www.nm180 NMFS. 201https://www.stAccessed 5/3/2181 Ibid. 182 National OcSustainable FisPlan: Report ofMemorandum N183 National OcDepartment of
blic probably davailable informre overfished a
cietal Benefinagement of fisd consumption 1.4 million jobates $61 billion
only 20 of the onstant threat ofisheries, regiostock assessm
t catch limits, thnformation on
would not provble setting any
d scientists to mbillion pounds shery-independy 10%, resultin
resents the valund how the asse
-56. October, 20
Economics and soNMFS-F/SPO-1
Fishery Managemmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/
6. Fisheries Eco.nmfs.noaa.gov/
2017.
ceanic and Atmosheries; Nationalf the National MNMFS-F/SPO-5ceanic and AtmoCommerce. Oct
does not use themation throughand adjust their
its sheries is essenand recreation.
bs to the U.S. ecn in sales.180 Co
179 fish stocksof overfishing.1
onal managemements provide m
hereby allowinstocks would bide enough datthing other tha
more confidentlof Walleye Po
dent surveys, reng in a loss of a
ue chain for fishessments ultim
01; National Ocociocultural Stat163. May, 2016. ment Councils”. /management/coonomics of the UAssets/economi
ntial for the com. U.S. commercconomy each yommercial fish
s for which NO82 Given the hi
ent councils mamanagement coung commercial be available thrta for regional man conservatively estimate stocollock were lanegional fisheryapproximately
h stock assessmately result in b
eanic and Atmotus and Trends S
NOAA Fisherieouncils/ United States, 20
cs/publications/F
stration. 2016. 2tmospheric AdmService National
01. stration. 2016. T
A-26
ment data and rend the national or recreational
mmercial fishincial fisheries co
year (0.81 millihermen harveste
OAA determineistory of overfiay set overly struncils with stocfisherman to carough more limmanagement co
e catch limits. Ack status and thded in 2014, w
y managers wou$40 million do
ments, showingbenefits to soci
spheric Adminis
Series. National M
es. National Oce
14. NOAA NatioFEUS/FEUS-20
2016 Quarter 4 Uministration. 200l Task Force for
The NOAA Fleet
Appendix
esults as much FishWatch dafishing habits
ng industry, as ontribute $153 ion jobs withoued $5.5 billion
ed a stock statuishing for manyrict limits on cack status informatch more than
mited stock asseouncils and the
Accurate stock herefore set mo
worth $400 milluld have to red
ollars due to ov
g the different diety.
stration. 2014. FMarine Fisherie
anic and Atmosp
onal Marine Fish014/Report-and-c
Update through D01. Marine Fisher Improving Fish
t Plan Building N
x A: NOAA Fle
as fishery manatabase allow anaccordingly.
well as the pop billion ($54 bi
ut imports). Reworth (9.4 bill
us in 2016 werey fish stocks inatch to avoid stmation so that tn would otherwessments, it is leir scientific adassessments al
ore appropriate lion dollars. NO
duce their catchverly conservati
data sources tha
Fisheries Economs Service. NOAA
pheric Administ
heries Service. Achapters/FEUS-2
December 31, 20eries Stock Assesh Stock Assessm
NOAA’s 21st Ce
eet Data Value
nagers and scieny user to see w
pulations that rillion without creational saltwlion pounds) of
e overfished, fisn U.S. and tock depletion.they can more
wise be permittelikely that limitdvisory councilllow fishery catch limits. A
OAA estimatesh quotas by ive catch limits
at the assessme
mics of the UniteA Technical
tration. Availabl
Available: 2014-FINAL-v5
016. NOAA Fishssment Improvem
ments. NOAA Te
entury Fleet. U.S
Chains
entists, which
ely on
water f fish
sheries
.
ed. ted ls to
As an s that
s.183
ents
ed
e at:
5.pdf.
heries ment
echnical
S.
Appendix A:
Figure A.7. N
NOAA Fleet D
NOAA Fleet D
Data Value Cha
Data Value Ch
ains
ain: Fisheries
A-27
Stock Assessmments
7. Tsu Pro7.1
NOAA’s Tsunmodels that cacoastal regionmodels (SIMstsunami inund
SIMs, and thecommunity plResearch Cenof TIMs in paProgram (NTHagencies formtsunamis in th
NTHMP workTIMs are typiforecast scenainformation frresponse and planning, and
NOAA’s NTWthe SIMs that
NO7.2Tsunami Inunfor EnvironmThis informatinundation zolarge geograpbegun to deve
NCEI relies oNOAA vessel
To develop thvessels, as we
Com7.3There are manfrom bathymeand historic so 184 Personal co185 Wiley, P. CInundation Pro186 Ibid. 187 Personal comon January 27, 188 Ibid.
unamis: Toduct Backgnami Inundatioalculate the heins.184 These mos), are used in rdation maps (T
e site-specific Tlanning for tsun
nter (NTRC) crartnership with HMP).185 NTH
med by NOAA he U.S.
ks with local anically developearios and wavefrom the Nationkeep their com
d mitigation act
WCs also rely osupport these
OAA Fleet Dndation Forecas
mental Informatition is importanones and levels phic areas in selelop DEMS for
on high resolutils, to develop D
he Tsunami Forell as data from
mplementarny other data soetry data from toundings, as w
ommunication wi., Honeycutt, M
oducts and Servic
mmunication wi2017.
Tsunami Inground on Forecast Moight and extentodels, also knowreal-time tsuna
TIMs) for specif
TIMs, play an inami events. N
reates SIMs andthe National T
HMP is a consoat the direction
nd state officiaed for potential
heights. In thenal Tsunami Wmmunities safe. tions related to
on SIMs to devforecasts does
ata that Feest Model depenion (NCEI). DEnt for knowing in various comlect U.S. coastar select internat
ion bathymetryDEMs.188 The D
recast Inundatim the Voluntary
ry Data ources that feethe NOAA flee
well as bathyme ith Michael Ang., Rolleri, J., andces.” National O
ith Kelly Stroker
nundation
odels represent t of tsunami flown as standby
ami forecasting fic regions and
important role iNOAA’ s Natiod supports the d
Tsunami Hazardortium of federan of Congress i
als and communly affected area
e event of a tsunWarning Centers
The mapping tsunamis.
velop short-termnot rely on dat
ed the Produnds on Digital EEMs map out thow tsunamis
mmunities. The al regions to sutional locations
y data and hydrDEMs rely on t
on Model, NTRy Observing Sh
d into the DEMet, DEMs rely oetry data collect
gove, NOAA Tsud Huffer, H. (201Oceanic and Atm
r, Associate Scie
A-28
Forecast
a series of ooding in U.S. inundation and to create
d communities.
in long-term nal Tsunami development d Mitigation al and state in 1995 with th
nities to build eas, showing inunami, state ands (NTWC) and data from TIM
m tsunami foreta collected by
uct Elevation Modthe elevation ofof various wavNCEI produce
upport tsunami s at the request
ographic survethis data to acc
RC also uses ohip Program, wh
Ms and the Tsunon coastal and ted by private v
unami Program M13). “Towards a
mospheric Admin
entist at Coopera
Appendix
Modeling
he objective of r
evacuation mapundation levelsd local officialsthe pre-run TI
Ms also support
ecast informatioNOAA vessels
dels (DEMs) crf various featurve heights and es approximateforecasting an
t of the NTWC
eys, some of whcurately map ou
ocean profile dahich the NOAA
nami Inundatiomarine Light Dvessels.189
Manager, on JanBetter Understaistration.
ative Institute for
Product: Model
Line OffiAtmosphe
Mission SNation - T
x A: NOAA Fle
reducing the po
ps based on TIs associated wis use short-termMs to guide thcommunity ris
on. However, ts.
reated by NOAAres in a certain amplitudes wi
ely 200 DEMs nd modeling effC.187
hich is collecteut the areas of
ata directly collA fleet is a part
on Forecast MoDetection and R
nuary 5, 2017. anding of the Va
r Research in En
Tsunami Inund
ice: Office of Oeric Research
Service Area: WTsunami
eet Data Value
otential impact
Ms.186 A seriesith alternative tm forecast heir immediate sk assessments
the information
A’s National Cgeographic are
ill translate intothat cover smaforts. NCEI has
ed/conducted binterest.
lected from NOt of.
odel overall. ARanging (LIDA
alue of NOAA
nvironmental Sc
dation Forecas
Oceanic and
Weather Ready
Chains
ts of
s of tsunami
,
n from
Centers ea. o all and s also
y
OAA
side AR),
iences,
st
y
Appendix A:
To develop thand Reportingnetwork is antethered to a sprocess.190 Cuhowever, the from the Natideveloping SI
In addition to Database and The database functions at cresearchers stmodels, the D
Use7.4Information frrelated to tsunsite-specific Tsets guideline
During an actwould affect tNOAA’s Tsunsubsequent tsuan earthquakealong with the(banner alonglocal emergen
After the firston the predict
NTWC worksTIMs, scale bminutes.196
It is importanincluding partmanagers wil 189 Personal co190 “DART 4G Marine Enviro191 Personal com192 Wiley, P. CInundation Pro193 Ibid. 194 Ibid. 195 Personal com196 Ibid.
NOAA Fleet D
he Tsunami Forg of Tsunami (Darray of 39 bu
surface buoy. Turrently, a charNOAA fleet monal Water LevIMs because it
the DEMs, thethe Method ofis made up of ertain locationstudy tsunami be
DEMs, and info
ers of the Prfrom the Tsunamnami response TIMs into mitiges for how mitig
tual tsunami, cotheir communitnami Emergenunami, and pine occurs off thee first bulletin gg the bottom of ncy officials rec
t alert, emergented wave ampli
s to get out moback their respo
t to note that thts of Washingtol not have time
ommunication wDeep-ocean Asnmental Laborammunication wi., Honeycutt, M
oducts and Servic
mmunication wi
Data Value Cha
recast InundatiDART) networ
uoy systems. EaThis detects andrtered ship nam
maintained DARvel Observationis used to valid
e Tsunami Inunf Splitting Tsuna collection of s along known ehavior and ma
ormation from t
roduct and Rmi Inundation and evacuationgation and evacgation plans an
ommunities refty and related r
ncy Centers wornpoint the locate coast to the timgoes to Weathe
f the TV), and tceive this infor
ncy managers bitude and the re
re refined inforonse and take a
he time and dison and Oregon
e to adjust their ith Michael Angsessment and Re
atory. ith Michael Ang., Rolleri, J., andces.” National O
ith Michael Ang
ains
on Model overrk and the Natiach buoy consid measures tsun
med the Bluefin RT as recently n Network (NWdate the model
ndation Model nami (MOST) mtsunami propaand potential e
ake long-term pthe DART and
Related ProForecast Mode
n. First, NTHMcuation plans fond evacuation m
ference the TIMresponse actionrk as quickly ations most at risme that the firser Forecast Offthe National Wrmation from th
begin to executesults of their p
rmation in a sea more measure
tance from the n, the time to thr response base
gove, NOAA Tsueporting of Tsun
gove, NOAA Tsud Huffer, H. (201Oceanic and Atm
gove, NOAA Tsu
A-29
rall, NOAA alsional Water Levists of a bottomnami waves as conducts all neas 2014, and m
WLON) also faand can be use
also relies on tmodel. NCTR
agation model rearthquake zonpredictions aboNWLON, to u
oducts el directly infor
MP works with lfor various tsunmaps should be
Ms to understanns. For exampleas possible to assk. This processt amplitude nufices, NOAA W
Weather Service hese sources.
te their full resppre-run site-spe
econd and thirded approach, if
earthquake souhe coast can be ed on up-to-date
unami Program Mnami 4th Generat
unami Program M13). “Towards a
mospheric Admin
unami Program M
so relies on dataevel Observatiom pressure cente
they pass overecessary maint
may do so in theactor into the med in real-time
the results of twcreates and ma
runs that are prnes. The MOSTout tsunamis.193
ultimately creat
rms communitylocal emergenc
nami scenarios.e created.194
nd how NWTCe, after an earthssess the likelyss takes approxumbers and locWeather Radio, standard disse
ponse protocol ecific TIMs. M
d alert, which alwarranted. The
urce and the coas short as 20 e forecast infor Manager, on Jan
ation Tsunami M
Manager, on JanBetter Understaistration.
Manager, on Jan
a from the Deeon Network (NWer at the bottomr and plays a ketenance on DAe future. Tidal
models. This daforecasting.192
wo other modeaintain the Propre-computed foT numerical sim3 NCTR uses thte SIMs and su
y and regional cy managers to NOAA funds
C’s forecasted thquake of a cery wave height/aximately five mcations are publ, Emergency Aemination proce
and issue evacMeanwhile,
llows managerese alerts are u
oast varies by eminutes. In thermation and wi
nuary 5, 2017. Measurement Sys
nuary 5, 2017. anding of the Va
nuary 5, 2017.
ep-Ocean AssesWLON). The Dm of the ocean ey part in the fo
ART buoys;191 gauge observa
ata is important2
ls, the Propagapagation Datab
or tsunami sourmulation modehe results from
ubsequent TIM
planning efforo convert SIMs
these processe
tsunami wave hrtain magnitudamplitude of a
minutes from thlished. The aler
Alert System Needures.195 State
cuation orders b
rs to re-examinusually out with
event. In some ese cases, emerill have to rely
tem.” NOAA Pa
alue of NOAA
ssment DART that is
forecast
ations t in
ation base. rce l helps
m these s.
rts and
es and
height e,
he time rt etwork e and
based
e their hin 20
areas, rgency solely
acific
on the first wasecond and th
States and indevent occurs. decisions abohospitals, andinundation zoshelters for pe
There is also further researpeople face. T
Soc7.5The National thereby decrepotential livesdecisions relaresponse prepprovide for m
The value of tdamage causeand/or mitigatmitigation actresponse, prepcommunity hawarning syste
However, it issystem, can siassociated witEarthquake caTohoku, Japawaves with sibenefit from himpacts cannopotential beneinformation in
197 Personal comDeputy Program198 Ibid. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid; Wiley,Inundation Pro201 Personal comDeputy Program
arning. In otherhird alerts provi
dividual commuFor example, put the location
d implement othone, communitieople directly a
a large demandch on tsunamis
They also consi
cietal BenefiTsunami Inundasing the impas lost. In terms ated to the locatparatory actions
more effective e
tsunami mitigaed by tsunamistion actions hations). In additiparation, and eas to implemenem/communica
s clear that welignificantly redth two tsunamiaused over $50
an, earthquake rimilar amplitudhaving a responot all be attribuefits associatedn models such
mmunication wim Manager, on J
, P. C., Honeycuoducts and Servicmmunication wim Manager, on J
r cases, such asided by the em
unities also useplanners use inof critical infra
her preparatoryies can developaffected by inun
d for the data frs. In particular,ider the potenti
its dation Model h
acts of these eveof mitigation p
tion of critical s. In the event ovacuation proc
ation practices i, it is difficult td not been impion, the extent vacuation, but
nt response/evaation.
ll-planned mitigduce the impaci events that im0 billion in damresulted in $5 bdes and durationnse/evacuationuted to tsunami d with having a as SIMs and T
ith Rocky LopesJanuary 5, 2017.
utt, M., Rolleri, Jces.” National Oith Rocky LopesJanuary 5, 2017.
s Hawaii, the timergency center
e SIMs and TIMnformation fromastructure, suchy actions. In thp alternative resndation.198
rom SIMs and these users exial for tsunami
helps communients, includingplanning, havininfrastructure, of a tsunami, hcesses, reducing
is still relativelto quantify the plemented (or aof damages assalso on the ma
acuation action
gation efforts ats of tsunamis.
mpacted Crescenmage and 11 deabillion in daman, even though plan in place wmitigation, oucomprehensiv
TIMs provide.
s, National Tsuna.
J., and Huffer, HOceanic and Atms, National Tsuna.
A-30
ime to the coasr to modify thei
MS to develop m SIMs and TIMh as nuclear po
he event that crisponse actions,
TIMs from U.Sxamine ways to
threats in areas
ities to better plg property damang accurate TIMas well as the p
having the pre-rg damage to pe
y unknown. Wdamages that w
alternatively thesociated with tsagnitude and los, the accuracy
and response acFor example,
nt City, CA. Aaths in Crescenge and no deat
h they originatewhile the 2011 utreach & educave Disaster Resp
ami Hazard Miti
H. (2013). “Towamospheric Admin
ami Hazard Miti
Appendix
st is much longir response.197
appropriate tsuMs to assess in
ower plants, waitical infrastruc, such as the us
S. universities.o better predict s that are not ty
lan for and respage and other eMs allows complanning of effrun SIMs and Teople and prope
While some studwould have occe extent to whisunami events
ocation of the tsy of the forecas
ctions, combineexperts often c
A tsunami prodnt City. A tsunaths in the same ed in different l event did.201 Wation, and disasponse Plan in p
igation Program
ards a Better Undistration. igation Program
x A: NOAA Fle
ger so local offi
unami mitigationundation risksater and wastewcture is locatedse of alternative
. Academics usthe tsunami thrypically consid
pond to potentieconomic losse
mmunities to maficient evacuatiTIMs and assocerty.200
dies have calcucurred if effectich damages wnot only depen
sunami, the amst, and the effec
ed with an effecite the differenduced by the 19ami produced blocation. Thes
locations. The While this signister planning, iplace, as well a
m Administrator
derstanding of th
m Administrator
eet Data Value
icials can use th
on actions befos and to make water infrastrucd within an expe power source
se this data to creats that many
dered threat are
ial tsunami evees, and the numake more informion routes and ciated response
ulated the amoutive evacuationere reduced bynd on effective
mount of time a ctiveness of the
ective warning nce in damages964 Great Alaskby the 2011 Grse events produ1964 event didificant decreaseit does speak toas the value tha
he Value of NOA
Chains
he
ore an
cture, ected es or
conduct y eas.199
ents, mber of
med other e plans
unt of ns y e
e
s ka reat uced d not e in o the at the
AA
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-31
An additional value of the Tsunami Inundation Forecast Model is the educational value it provides to universities looking to learn more about tsunami threats.202 Using these data scientists can improve their forecasting abilities allowing emergency managers to improve their responses during these events. This in turn will lead to further future benefits in the form of avoided losses and injuries or deaths due to future tsunamis.
Figure A.8 demonstrates the value chain associated Tsunami Inundation Forecast Models, including the data from the NOAA fleet that they depend on, and how this ultimately results in value to society.
202 Wiley, P. C., Honeycutt, M., Rolleri, J., and Huffer, H. (2013). “Towards a Better Understanding of the Value of NOAA Inundation Products and Services.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Figure A.8. N
NOAA Fleet DData Value Ch
ain: Tsunami
A-32
Inundation F
Appendix
Forecast Mode
x A: NOAA Fle
eling
eet Data Value Chains
Appendix A:
8. HaMa
Pro8.1Algae are simfreshwater. Incontrol creatinwhich producmarine mammHABs that cashellfish toxicodor problemall coastal areaffecting diffeseven regionsand regional e
Flori Wes Lake Gulf Was Calif Ches
In response to(HABHRCA)coordinated bdetecting and local economand Texas), thOperational F
The HAB-OFoperational Hto more effectrestrictions, anthe HAB-OFS
oducts hom subscribe tre kept informeernment agencies, and CanadiaHAB sensors annterest due to try Council.223
ublic decision-mling and testingagers use the Hh poison are fouintertidal and sese closures arwith these clo
ublic health offimpacts due to
ogram Manager,
OS Projects Exploat Lakes HABs arl.noaa.gov/res/Hvironmental Rese
ogram Manager,
impact of the 20.
hich borders bo
ms during the pilates that provideB Bulletin). It i
hich regional mCOM (HYbrid Cset of models foS).
ders including suring a HAB evy provides bloocting its locatiocting the bloomsks to the local
to receive HABed via the NE Pes, research/ac
an scientists.222
nd toxin tests, atheir responsibi
makers to guidg different area
HAB forecasts tund in the sam
submerged landre motivated bysures when ma
ficials to close flost landings o
Prevention, Con
orer. Available aand Hypoxia.” NHABs_and_Hypearch Laborator
Prevention, Con
005 red tide even
oth Maine and
lot phase: 1) a e both a hindcais expected that
models are nesteCoordinate Oc
for the Gulf of M
state and local vent and once
om analysis incon within the n
m.221 This informl population.
B forecasts fromPSP Listserv. Scademic institut2 Industry subscand consultingility to regulate
de their efforts tas of the coast tto determine w
mpled shellfish, ds will be closey public health aking these dec
fishing areas anor lost tourism.2
ntrol, and Mitiga
at: NOAA Great Lakoxia/ ry (GLERL). Av
ntrol, and Mitiga
nt on commercia
the Canadian
seasonal forecast of the bloomt future forecas
ed in a global mcean Model) to Maine will be
coast resourcea week during
cluding informanext 3-4 days.22
mation is used
m NOAA. ubscribers incltions, industry cribers include
g firms. Federale food sources)
to protect publito assess the to
where they shoustate shellfish
ed to shellfishinconcerns and t
cisions.225
nd beaches mo226 In Maine, w
ation of Harmful
kes Environment
vailable at:
ation of Harmful
al shellfish fisher
ast m up to sts will
model. the
the ation
20 In by
lude a
e l users ), but
ic oxicity uld
ng until these
ore weekly
l Algal
tal
l Algal
ries in
forecasts alsois closed.227 Informer managLegislature to
Members of ta HAB is predleads to an increcurrently exon fish at indithe extent to w
Soc8.6HAB forecastselectively anadverse publistudy estimatelosses in Mainsame event inand other souThis estimate event led to anthe indirect imwere spatially
A more recenon commerciatemporary po
Knowing the accurate HABportions of bethese closuresshellfishing an
One study exathe accuracy operfect, and th$713,000. Th
227 Personal comBlooms (PCM 228 Ibid. 229 Personal comBlooms (PCM 230 Costa, P.R. Fish and Fishe231 Athearn, K.Available at: ht232 Jin, D., E. TNew England.”233 Ibid. 234 Evans, K. Sshellfish harve235 “Satellites SService. Availa
help managersn some cases, tger in the Maino budget enoug
the aquaculturedicted, harvestecrease in frequxposed to HABividual, populawhich HAB for
cietal Benefits allow state sh
nd precisely, thec health outcomed the impact one to be $1.98
n Maine and Marces. This studincludes lost rn increase in sh
mpacts of a HAy linked, meani
nt study examinal soft-shell clallution closures
extent of past eB forecast can beaches to ensurs and cut the lennd tourism.235
amined the valuof the forecast,he responses aris value falls to
mmunication wiHAB) Program,
mmunication wiHAB) Program,(2016). “Impact
eries, 17, 226-24, (2008). Economttp://www.mach
Thunberg, and P.” Ocean and Coa
., Athearn, K., Cst: The case of s
See Red, Blue anable at: https://w
s carve out excthese forecasts ne Department oh funds for mo
e industry can aers can use HAency, intensity
Bs. More effortsation, and commrecasts should
its hellfish managereby minimizimes. Several stuof lost harvestemillion for softassachusetts usy estimated the
revenue in the shellfish import
AB event on theing that shellfis
ned the impact am harvests in Ms contributed to
economic impabe. Before thesre public safetyngth of time th
ue of HAB for and the effectire highly effecto $61,000 per y
ith Dr. Quay Dor, on February 24
ith Dr. Quay Dor, on February 24t and effects of p
48. mic Losses from
hias.edu/ assets/d. Hoagland. (200astal Manageme
Chen, X., Bell, Koft-shell clams i
nd Green: Monitwww.nesdis.noaa
ception areas wcan help state of Marine Reso
onitoring for the
also use the HAAB forecast infoy, duration and s are being madmunity levels.23
influence fishe
gers and public ing economic iudies have esti
er sales of shellft-shell clams.23
sing data from ese impacts ransoftshell clam as to make up foe seafood indussh closures in M
of temporary pMachias Bay, Mo a loss of $3.6
acts due to strose forecasts wery. However, as hat they are clos
recasts in the Giveness of the rtive, the study fyear if HAB ev
rtch, Acting Pro4, 2017.
rtch, Acting Pro4, 2017. paralytic shellfish
m Closure of Shedocs/appliedRese08). “Economic ient, 51, 420-429
K. P., & Johnsonin Machias Bay, toring Harmful Aa.gov/content/sat
A-36
where shell fish officials secureources used thee season.228
AB forecasts to ormation to hargeographic disde to understan30 The results o
ery managemen
health officialsimpacts associamated the socifish due to a st31 A separate stthe NMFS, the
nged from $2.4and mussel fishor the drop in lstries. Finally, tMaine may resu
pollution closurMaine. Over th
6 million in forg
ng HAB eventre available, puforecasts improsed, minimizin
Gulf of Maine, cresponse. Assufound that the a
vents are less fr
ogram Manager,
ogram Manager,
h poisoning toxi
llfish Harvestingearch/eco_lossesimpact of the 20.
, T. (2016). MeaMaine. Ocean &
Algal Blooms frotellites-see-red-b
Appendix
harvesters cane resources to me seasonal HAB
make managemrvest their shelstribution of HAnd the longer-teof this researchnt actions.
s to close fishinated with lost laioeconomic imptrong HAB evetudy estimated e Division of M4 million in Maheries.232 The slocal supply. Ththe study foundult in price incr
res (either due heir nine-year sgone revenue,
ts, it becomes cublic health offove, decision-m
ng economic im
considering botuming a HAB oannual value o
requent, the for
Prevention, Con
Prevention, Con
ins derived from
g Areas in Mains_shellfish_jan0005 red tide even
asuring the impa& Coastal Manaom Space.”(2015blue-and-green-m
x A: NOAA Fle
n work even whmitigate the effB forecast to co
ment decisionslfish early.229 AABs, fish are merm effects of t
h may indicate t
ng areas and beandings, lost topact of HABs.
ent in 2005. Ththe direct econ
Marine Fisherieaine to $18 millstudy also founhis increase in d that soft-shelreases in New Y
to HAB eventsstudy period fro27.4% of total
clear how valuaficials would hamakers can nar
mpacts to many
th the frequencoccurs every 10of HAB forecasrecast is not per
ntrol, and Mitiga
ntrol, and Mitiga
m harmful algal b
ne. University of 08.pdf. nt on commercia
act of pollution cagement, 130, 195). NOAA Satell
monitoring-harm
eet Data Value
hen much of thefects of HABs.onvince the Sta
s. For example,As climate chanmore likely to bthe resulting toto fisheries ma
eaches more ourism, and/or For example, o
he study estimatnomic impacts es in Massachuslion in Massach
nd that the 2005imports may m
ll clam price inYork.233
s or sewer overom 2001-2009revenue.234
able a timely anave to close larrrow the scope y industries incl
cy of the HAB 0 years, the forsts amounts to rfect, and the
ation of Harmful
ation of Harmful
blooms to marine
f Maine at Machi
al shellfish fisher
closures on comm96-204. lite and Informat
mful-algal-bloom
Chains
e coast One ate
, when nge be oxins anagers
one ted of the setts husetts. 5 HAB mitigate ncreases
rflows) ,
nd rge of luding
event, ecast is
l Algal
l Algal
e fish.”
ias.
ries in
mercial
tion ms-space
Appendix A:
responses are value of a perof HAB forecresponses.236
Figure A.9 pr
Figure A.9. N
236 Jin, D. and Pin the Gulf of M
NOAA Fleet D
not effective. Hrfect forecast incasts ranges fro
rovides a diagra
NOAA Fleet D
P. Hoagland. (20Maine.” Woods H
Data Value Cha
However, if a Hncreases to oveom $51.3 millio
am of the value
Data Value Ch
008). “The ValuHole Oceanogra
ains
HAB event occr $3 million pe
on to $0.9 milli
e chain associat
ain: Harmful
e of Harmful Alaphic Institution
A-37
curs every otheer year. Resultsion, depending
ted with HABs
Algal Bloom F
lgal Bloom PrediMarine Policy C
er year, and thes indicate that t
on HAB frequ
s in the Gulf of
Forecasts in th
dictions to the NeCenter.
e responses are the net present uency, accuracy
f Maine.
he Gulf of Ma
earshore Comme
effective, the tvalue over 30 yy of prediction,
aine
ercial Shellfish F
total years , and
Fishery
9. Hy Pro9.1
The hypoxic zdepleted coasworld’s coastconditions canhabitat loss.23
Since 2001, N(Hypoxia Wamaps and dataannual hypoxthe scientific band others baaddition, Hypthe Gulf hypo
Hypoxia WatEnvironmenta
NO9.2Each year froAssessment Pother water quthree days, ththese data, puhypoxia scien
Use9.3Hypoxia Watof the hypoxicHypoxia Watof Gulf hypoxnot a forecast Watch DO dahypoxic zone
Pro10.3Members of CGIS files for COST subsequLight, and So
Both CetMapunderlying da
NOAA perforinterest in souapproximatelyconservation and impacts inNetherlands OEnvironment.
NOAA has a high-profile eorganizationsthese users.
Additionally, impacts.
Use10.4
255 “Habitat-BaLab. Duke Uni256 “What is Cehttp://cetsound257 “Phase 1 – Chttp://cetsound“Sound Field DAvailable at: ht258 National OcFinal Symposiuhttp://cetsound259 National OcModelling to In“http://cetsoun2017.
olina, and the Vstablished hierability of occuravailability, N
milarly utilizeddue to oil and
ults from the Bvides 2D and 3cing naval activise reference stservice these bical evidence o
oduct IntermCetMap’s workCetMap, both fently takes the und Research I
and SoundMaata (including G
rms outreach tound-producing y 170 representadvocacy groun 2014 that incOrganisation fo.259
close relationshemitter of ocean. Through prof
the Ocean Noi
ers of the Pr
ased Cetacean Diversity. AvailabetMap?” Cetacea
d.noaa.gov/cda-inCetSound”. Ceta
d.noaa.gov/cetsouData Availabilityttp://cetsound.noceanic and Atmoum Report of a T
d.noaa.gov/Assetceanic and Atmonform Managemd.noaa.gov/Asse
Virginia Aquarirarchy of informrrence models,
NOAA models o
d a variety of Ngas explorationeaufort Sea, anD seismic surv
vities such as actations are plac
buoys and may of man-made no
mediaries anking group fromfor new modelidata and maps
Inc. helps Soun
ap are web-baseGIS layers) and
o educate the gactivities. In 20tatives from go
ups.258 NOAA acluded the Interor Applied Scie
hip with the Un noise, the Bufessional relatio
ise Strategy gar
roduct
ensity Models fo
ble at: http://seaman & Sound Mapndex. Accessed Jacean & Sound Mund. Accessed Jay: Overview”. Ceoaa.gov/sound_dospheric AdminiTechnical Worksts/cetsound/docuospheric Adminiment of Cetaceanets/cetsound/doc
ium and Marinmation and modrecords of presor re-models de
NOAA and nonn, BP Explorat
nd the Resourcevey results fromctive sonar traiced throughout drop new ones
oise and its imp
nd Disseminm Duke Univering results as ws and develops ndMap generat
ed products avad metadata for b
eneral public a012, NOAA deovernment agenalso participaternational Whalentific Research
.S. Navy, who ureau of Ocean onships and wo
rners press cov
or the U.S. Atlanmap.env.duke.edpping. National OJanuary 30, 2017Mapping. Nationanuary 30, 2017etacean & Sounddata. Accessed Jastration. 2012. Mshop held May 2
uments/symp-docstration. 2014. “
ns and Anthropogcuments/Predicti
A-42
ne Science Centdeling types: hsence, and expensity primarily
n-NOAA data stion (Alaska) Ine Evaluation O
m the Gulf of Mining in HawaiiU.S. waters to
s or replacemenpacts, as oppos
nation rsity’s Marine G
well as previouswebsite portals
te the predictive
ailable to the puboth mapping t
and specific meemonstrated nencies, scientists
ed in an internating Commissioh, and the Neth
not only providEnergy Manag
orking groups N
verage that help
ntic and Gulf of du/models/Duke-Oceanic and Atm7. nal Oceanic and . And d Mapping. Natianuary 30, 2017
Mapping Cetacea23-24 in Washincs/CetSound_Sy
“Joint Workshopgenic Noise”. Apng%20Sound%2
Appendix
ter.255 NOAA shabitat-based deert knowledge.
ly using habitat
sources to map nc. and JASCO
Office of BureauMexico.257 The i. NOAA ships
o track changesnts. The Fleet ased to relying o
Geospatial Ecos model resultss that the publie models of an
ts/cetsound/docuanization. “Guidfe”. April 7, 201idelines%20Apr
ains
help NOAA achng of noise impfor assessment
noise impacts.26
duce adverse immanagement ofnot captured b
includes two ce life and habitology with higales off Southermework could nd study, a separoduced recommcommunicates tiding certain arThe team suggenic impacts in ated with federa, voluntary guidsess overlap of
policy acts sucress noise issue
he decisions thainfluence theses for voluntary UN agency that
riety of benefitidentify data gad activities anddMap similarly
. Cetacean & Socessed January 3
oadmap. Nationacetsound/docume
stration. “Spreadrategy Roadmap
uments/Roadmapdelines for the Re14. Available at: ril%202014.pdf.
A-43
hieve its’ four ppacts; integratint, planning, and60 Both mappinmpacts. The bref noise impactsby empirical so
case studies thatat through cetaher resolution rn California. Tbe used to evalarate team studmendations to pto relevant actireas or time perested that NOAacoustically senal actions and pdelines to quietf training activi
ch as the Endanes.263 Howeverat can reduce noe decisions. In 2underwater no
t creates regulat
ts to different uaps and necessa
d for alternativey provides a us
ound Mapping. N31, 2017. al Oceanic and Aents/Roadmap/O
dsheet of Potentip Appendix C. Sep/ONS_Roadmaeduction of Undhttp://cetsound.Accessed Janua
primary goals fng managemend mitigation of ng tools and dateadth of knowls on marine lifeound data collec
at highlight theacean and sounshipping data tThe scientists r
aluate the consedied the impactprotect these c
ion agencies thrriods to reduce
AA work with tnsitive federallpredicted growtt commercial sity with acoust
ngered Speciesr, organizationsoise impacts on2014, for exam
oise reduction fation and standa
users. CetMap pary specificatioe NEPA analysseful tool for oc
noise-making ta can help resoledge gained fre and habitat, inction.
e ability of oceand modeling. Into identify and recognized the equences of potts of noise on spcritical spawninrough consultae impact, waterthe U.S. Coast ly designated arth in East Coasships. These scitically sensitive
s Act and the Ms and entities oun critical marin
mple, the Marinfor member govards for the shi
products provions for data intsis, and improvcean planners t
c and Atmosphe
ministration. Sep_Final_Complete
e.g. Statutes, Ex. Available at: dixC.pdf. Acces
from Commercias/cetsound/docu
Noise Strategy:inimize effects activities; and ource managerom these two tn particular on
an managers ton the first, sciencharacterize noneed for uncertential shippingpawning groun
ng grounds. Thations, includedr noise monitorGuard and U.Sreas, evaluate st shipping trafientists also proe federally desi
Mitchell Act unutside of the fe
ne species and ne Environmentvernments in thipping industry
de current and tegration, provive current to predict noise
ric Administrati
ptember, 2016. e.pdf. Accessed
xecutive Orders)
ssed January 31, al Shipping to Aduments/MEPC.1-
: filling of
rs plan, tools
o ntists oise rtainty g nds ese d ring, S.
ffic, oposed ignated
nder ederal
t he y.264
ide a
e
ion.
January
to
2017. ddress -
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-44
impacts of proposed activities. In addition, it offers a more robust picture of the cumulative effects of noise on marine species and habitat and an improved tool for forecasting and scenario building.265
Private firms have created sound mapping tools in the past, but not on the geospatial scale achieved by SoundMap. SoundMap’s products provide a cost-efficient single web portal for ocean planners, decision-makers, and regulators to assess current and potential impacts on marine life and habitat.
Reductions in man-made noise can provide protection for and increase the population of species by allowing natural defense and mating sound cues to operate normally and by permitting normal migratory patterns. Economists and scientists have conducted numerous studies over the past couple decades to estimate economic values for similar species protection and rehabilitation. These studies use established survey methods to determine what people are willing to pay for particular ecosystem services related to specific species. This can include recovery or protection programs, improved status, and population increases. While these programs are not specifically tied to man-made noise, the overall benefits can be similar. This review of the studies have shown that households are willing to pay up to $80 per household or more 266 (in 2013 dollars) to benefit charismatic mammal species in US waters (such as right whales), which can add up to a significant value for species preservation and habitat improvement.
Figure A.11 shows the value chain diagram for ocean noise mapping.
265 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Mapping Cetaceans and Sound: Modern Tools or Ocean Management. Final Symposium Report of a Technical Workshop held May 23-24 in Washington, D.C. 83 pp. Available at: http://cetsound.noaa.gov/Assets/cetsound/documents/symp-docs/CetSound_Symposium_Report_Final.pdf 266 Lew, D.K (2015). Willingness to Pay for Threatened and Endangered Marine Species: A Review of the Literature and Prospects for Policy Use. Front. Mar. Sci. 2:96. Available at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2015.00096/full
Appendix A:
Figure A.11.
NOAA Fleet D
NOAA Fleet D
Data Value Cha
Data Value Ch
ains
hain: Ocean N
A-45
Noise Mappingg
11. Hu Pro11.1
NOAA’s NatiCenter (CPC)collaboration Research Div
The Hurricanactivity for thincluding the hurricanes, anactivity for anranges of acticlimate mode
Various stakeJune to Novemway through tmore than 3,0behind the an
NO11.2The Hurrican(TAO) array, Pacific Oceantransmits the researchers abair temperaturdata on rainfa
Ships go to eabiological actprovides on thAtlantic Ocea
The Outlook dtemperature aof.
Com11.3
267 “NOAA 20Center. http://w268 Ibid. 269 “Project: Trhttp://www.om270 For examplehttp://www.om271 “TAO Refrehttp://tao.ndbc.272 Personal comJanuary 5, 2017
urricanes: oduct Backgional Weather ) produces the Awith hurricane
vision and Natio
e Outlook servhe upcoming hu
number of namnd accumulatedny particular gevity. It is basedls that directly
eholders use thember, CPC relethe season. NO
000 reporters. Calysis and sum
OAA Fleet De Outlook useswhich is maint
n that collect ocdata from thesebout the state ore, relative humall, short wave
ach buoy once tivity or local fihe El Niño andan and the Cent
does rely on soand weather dat
mplementar
16 Atlantic Hurr
www.cpc.ncep.n
ropical Atmosphmao.noaa.gov/fin
e the Ronald H. mao.noaa.gov/finesh Sampling.” (.noaa.gov/proj_ommunication wi7.
Hurricaneground Service (NWSAtlantic Hurrice experts at NOonal Hurricane
ves as a generalurricane seasonmed storms, hurd cyclone energeographic area.d on predictionpredict hurrica
e Hurricane Oueases the Outlo
OAA publishes CPC also publis
mmarizes key fin
ata that Fees data from varitained by the Nceanographic ae moorings ele
of the ocean andmidity, sea surfand long-wave
a year to perfoisherman. The
d La Nina phenotral and Eastern
ome data collecta collected thr
ry Data and
ricane Season Ouoaa.gov/product
here Ocean Buoynd/projects/3418-
Brown providednd/projects/2751-(2011). NOAA’soverview/sampliith Dr. Gerry Be
e Outlook
) Climate Predcane Outlook in
OAA’s Hurrican Center.267
l guide on expen in the Atlanticrricanes, majorgy. It does not p The Outlook i
ns of large-scaleane activity.268
utlook to improook in late Maythe Hurricane shes a technicandings.
ed the Produious sources in
NOAA Fleet. Tand meteorologctronically throd the atmospheface temperature radiation, baro
rm necessary mdata from the Tomenon. El Nin Pacific Ocean
cted directly byrough the Volun
d Intermedia
utlook Issued: 1ts/outlooks/hurri
y Service.” (2016-tropical-atmospd maintenance fo-tropical-atmosps National Data ing_ndbc.shtml ell, Lead Forecas
A-46
k
diction n ne
ected c Region, r predict which ois probabilistic e climate factor
ove hurricane py, prior to start Outlook online
al write-up of th
uct ncluding data coThe TAO array gical data.269 Though satellites.ere. Basic measre, and subsurfaometric pressur
maintenance, inTAO array is piño and La Ninn.
y the NOAA flentary Observin
ate Products
1 August 2016.”icane.shtml
6). NOAA Officphere-ocean-buoyor TAO Buoy in phere-ocean-tao-Buoy Center.
ster and Meteoro
P
L
MP
Appendix
of these stormsin nature, whi
rs that influenc
preparedness. Wof season, and e and issues a phe Outlook, wh
ollected by theconsists of 70
he NOAA fleet270 Monitoring
surements on Tface temperaturre, salinity and
ncluding repairparticularly impna strongly influ
eet,272 includinng Ship Program
s
” (2016). Nation
ce of Marine andy-service November 2015
-buoy-array-main
ologist at the NO
Product: Hurr
Line Office: N
Mission ServicPredictions and
x A: NOAA Fle
s will make lanch means that ice hurricane ac
With the hurricad updates it in epress release abhich explains th
e Tropical Atmobuoys moored
t maintains the g data from the TAO moorings res. Additional d ocean current
ring any damagportant becauseuence the hurri
g ocean profilem, which the N
nal Weather Serv
d Aviation Opera
5. ntenance
OAA Climate Pre
ricane Outlook
National Weath
ce Area: Climd Projections
eet Data Value
ndfall or levels it states the “lik
ctivity, as well a
ane season spanearly August, mbout it, sendinghe science and
osphere Ocean(“moorings”) TAO array andTAO array tellinclude wind ssensors can cos. 271
ge caused by e of the informicane pattern in
e data and sea sNOAA fleet is a
vice Climate Pre
ations.
ediction Center o
her Service
mate, Climate
Chains
of kely” as
nning mid-g it to data
n in the d l speeds, ollect
ation it n the
surface a part
diction
on
Appendix A:
A second sousubsurface temto a depth of amaintenance tbut the floats from land-bas
Data from theinto climate ma long archivepredictions abOutlook incluClimate ForecDynamics LabWeather ForeMeteorology feeds into the Forecasters rebecause of thehurricane patt
Use11.4The Hurricanfor the hurricaAs shown in FapproximatelyAugust 2016 published, thestakeholders, federal departAtlantic Oceathe President,participate in public on socisessions, the minterviews anstakeholders fmillion U.S. cAgencies likeHurricane CenHurricane Ouhurricane seas
Members of tOutlook and rprovided in th
273 “What is Ar274 Personal comJanuary 5, 2017275 “NOAA 20Center. http://w276 Personal comJanuary 5, 2017277 Ibid.
NOAA Fleet D
urce of data for mperature, saliabout 2 km andthan the TAO aprovide import
sed stations, we
e TAO array, thmodels that syne of gridded mobout the upcomudes dynamicalcast System (Cb (GFDL), the
ecasting (ECMW(UKMET) offiEl Niño South
ely on the ENSe impact of La terns.
ers of the Pre Outlook is usane season andFigure A.12, thy 131,500 viewOutlook had 13e authors of theincluding state
tments such as anographic and and members interviews witial media throumost popular od other interactfocus on preparcitizens are pote FEMA with thnter, and the R
utlook helps ageson.
the business secrecommends prhe Outlook dire
rgo?” Argo – parmmunication wi7. 16 Atlantic Hurr
www.cpc.ncep.nmmunication wi7.
Data Value Cha
the Hurricane nity, and velocd come back toarray because ttant data used ieather balloons
he ARGO arraynthesize this datodel climate da
ming hurricane sl model predict
CFS), NOAA GEuropean Cen
WF), and the Uice.275 Data frohern OscillationO outlook to pNina and El N
roduct and Rsed by a varietyd is widely distrhe May 2016 Ows online (uniqu34,000 (uniquee Outlook hold e, local and emthe Hurricane
d Meteorologicaof the public. Th magazines an
ugh Reddit Askof which had 27tions with the predness. In gententially threateheir ready.gov
Red Cross, use tencies and deci
ctor also use threparedness effectly impacts bu
rt of the integratith Dr. Gerry Be
ricane Season Ouoaa.gov/productith Dr. Gerry Be
ains
Outlook is the city of the uppeo the surface to there are no vanin the Hurricans, and satellite m
y, and other souta. These modeata that is used season. The Hutions from the N
Geophysical Fluntre for MediumUnited Kingdomm the TAO arr
n (ENSO) outlopredict hurricanNiño on seasona
Related Proy of interests toributed and pub
Outlook garnereue visitors), whe visitors). Whebriefings with ergency managCenter and theal Laboratory, The authors alsnd interact withk Me Anything7,000 participanpublic and otheneral, more thanened by hurricawebsite, the N
this Outlook toision-makers to
he Hurricane Ouforts for small business decisio
ted global observell, Lead Forecas
utlook Issued: 1ts/outlooks/hurriell, Lead Forecas
A-47
V
A
s
SS
ARGO array. er 2000 meters automatically ndalism issues.ne Outlook. Othmeasurements.
urces feed els create to make
urricane NOAA uid m Range m ray also ook. ne activity al
oducts o prepare blicized. ed hile the en it is key
gers, e NOAA Congress, so h the question
nts. These er n 80 anes.
National instruct the puo better focus t
utlook. The Smbusinesses.277 C
ons. Nonetheles
vation strategy. hster and Meteoro
1 August 2016.”icane.shtml ster and Meteoro
Figure A.12. HViewership S
May 2016 Outnormal Atlantilikely this year
Unique visito
Page views -
Unique page
(82% of reade
August 2016 Ohurricane seasstrongest sinc
Unique visito
Page views -
Unique page
(76% of reade
Source: PersoSusan BuchanPublic Affairs, May 1, 2017.
This global arrof the ocean.27
transmit their d. The NOAA Fher sources of g.274
ublic on prepartheir resources
mall Business ACPC does not css, it is not hard
http://www.argoologist at the NO
” (2016). Nation
ologist at the NO
Hurricane OuStatistics
tlook. Headlinec hurricane ser
ors (users) - 1
158,271
views - 145,2
ers were new v
Outlook. Headson still expec
ce 2012 (Augu
ors (users) - 1
146,710
views - 133,9
ers were new v
onal Communinan, Acting Di National Wea
ray of 3,800 flo73 The ARGO data. They requ
Fleet does not sglobal ocean te
ring for these stwhen preparin
Administration collect data on d to imagine ho
o.ucsd.edu/ OAA Climate Pre
nal Weather Serv
OAA Climate Pre
utlook Online
e: Near-eason is most
31,517
274
visitors)
dline: Atlantic cted to be st)
24,581
956
visitors)
ications, rector of
ather Service,
oats provides dfloats go underuire much less support these flemperature dat
torms.276 The ng for the upcom
promotes the how the inform
ow the informa
ediction Center o
vice Climate Pre
ediction Center o
data on rwater
loats a come
ming
mation ation
on
diction
on
could significchanges based
Soc11.5Since 1980, 3losses exceedOutlook helpsdamage, mort
Several studiefor both sociedetermined thhurricane foreforecast informexisting hurriwhen this foreinsurance indu
f all cargo that p12 study by NOthan $1 trillionn reduce the nu
ume.
delivery of essevessels’ rapid sle subsurface oleviated a regio
Norfolk Naval B
: An all-hands ot: http://coastgua7, 2017. w Jersey. Availa
ional Oceanic anse12.pdf. Access
ontributes to Nn emergency lo
e.g., military poAO can easily coemergency resp
ctive to utilize Nl likely charge
government-owergency Manages that an arran
ster response seation disasters,
e activities thathurricanes and assess hazardo
to 48 hours bec in and aroundh as cars and shy changing the recreational, or
s partner agencomically signif
k after Hurricaf all goods in thmoves through passed through
OAA’s Nationan.287 By speedinumber of days
ential relief supsurveying and cobstructions. Thonal fuel shortaBase that were
on deck evolutionard.dodlive.mil/2
able at: http://ww
nd Atmospheric Ased February 7, 2
NOAA’s responocation in a timorts), whereas moordinate acros
ponse period.
NOAA Fleet vpremium price
wned vessels. Fogement Agencyngement be in p
ervices, and asoil spills, natio
t NOAA ships other major sto
ous materials, a
fore a hurricand ports by sinkhipping containnatural topograr government-o
cies, such as USficant waterway
ane Sandy, allowhe U.S. economU.S. ports. Th
h that port aloneal Ocean Servicng up the procea port is closed
pplies, such as fcharting responhis led to the Uage that occurre scrambled to s
n.” Coast Guard2012/11/opening
ww.panynj.gov/p
Administration. 2017.
nse capabilitiesmely manner. Nmost charter vess line offices t
essels for emeres (e.g., throughor example, y (FEMA) so thplace for each
sociated value,onal security, an
most commonorm events, NOand provide
ne strikes. Durinking harbored shners out to sea,aphy of the seaowned vessels SCG and USACys and ports.
wed commercimy come throughe Port of New e was greater thce (NOS) reporess of clearing d, allowing hun
fuel and food nse allowed the
USCG Captain ored in the days sea to avoid da
d Compass, Officg-u-s-ports-after
port/about-port.h
May, 2012.Ava
, NOAA essels to
rgency h time
hat
, that nd
nly OAA
ng the hips, , a floor. trying CE, to
ial and gh U.S. York han rts that
ndreds
e U.S of the
amage
cial -
html.
ailable
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-52
were able to return to port. Unnecessarily operating naval vessels at sea can be extremely expensive, not only monetarily but also operationally in terms of disrupting normal naval activities.
As part of the hydrographic data collection efforts associated with hurricane response, scientists and engineers on NOAA vessels work closely with mapping partners from sister agencies, such as USACE and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to coordinate mapping efforts using an Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping approach. The objective of this approach is to reduce redundancies and meet multiple missions with the same datasets. These datasets help state and federal partners with recovery from an event and to begin preparing for the next one.288
In addition to hydrographic surveys, the NOAA Fleet also provides scientific support to hazardous materials response efforts in the wake of hurricanes. For example, NOAA ships have conducted post-hurricane surveys to identify vessels or containers that may be leaking fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials. During Hurricane Katrina, NOAA ships collected data to assess potential seafood contamination from these sources. In many cases, NOAA Fleet crew members also conduct search and rescue activities and deliver emergency supplies during or directly following a hurricane event.
Figure A.14 provides several examples of emergency response activities that NOAA ships have provided for major hurricane events.
12.3.2 Aviation disaster search
NOAA Fleet vessels have assisted in aviation disaster searches by conducting hydrographic surveys and field scans, and developing detailed maps of the search areas. For example, after the 1996 TWA Flight 800 crash off the coast of New York State, NOAA Ship Rude, in conjunction with a shore-side NOAA team, created accurate maps of the debris field, allowing U.S. Navy divers to quickly recover the crash victims and the flight data recorder. After the Egypt Air Flight 990 crash in 1999 (31 October 1999), the NOAA ship Whiting scanned the seafloor south of Nantucket to find the primary debris field. NOAA’s efforts allowed a remotely operated U.S. Navy vehicle to complete the search. Finally, the NOAA ship Rude also played key roles in the 1999 plane crash involving John F. Kennedy, Jr, ultimately finding the wreckage using side-scan and multi-beam sonar.
288 Written Statement by Jeffrey L. Payne Ph.D., Acting Director, Office for Coastal Management, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency. November 21, 2014.
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-53
Figure A.14. Examples of Major Hurricane Response Activities by OMAO Fleet, 2005 – 2016
Hurricane Katrina (2005)
NOAA Ship Nancy Foster quickly outfitted with multi-beam and SSS technology to conduct seafloor surveys on approaches to Mobile, Alabama, helping to reopen the port. The ship then conducted environmental damage and toxic contamination surveys.
NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson diverted from its working grounds to conduct surveys around entrances to Pascagoula and Gulfport, Mississippi, helping to quickly reopen those ports. The ship’s crew also replaced lost and damaged tide gauges, which measure oceanographic and meteorological parameters.
Hurricane Irene (2011)
• NOAA Ship Ferdinand Hassler conducted 300 lineal miles of hydrographic surveys in Hampton Roads, Virginia in less than 48 hours to assess seafloor changes and search for underwater hazards, helping U.S. Coast Guard to restore port operations. The value of commerce through Hampton Roads amounts to $5 million per hour.
Hurricane Sandy (2012)
• NOAA Ship Thomas Jefferson surveyed for possible hazards to navigation throughout the Ports of New York and New Jersey before those ports were reopened, and later conducted surveys in Long Island Sound. In 2012, the value of cargo through the Ports of New York & New Jersey was $24 million per hour.
• NOAA Ship Ferdinand Hassler supported U.S. Coast Guard efforts to reopen Port of Virginia by surveying Chesapeake Channel.
Pacific Island Hurricanes (2015)
July 2015 – NOAA Ship Oscar Elton Sette delivered water and provided emergency transportation support to inhabitants of Agrihan and Pagan Islands, Northern Mariana Islands
August 2015 – NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer diverted track and evacuated four researchers from a monk seal camp on Tern Island, French Frigate Shoal ahead of Hurricanes Kilo and Loke.
August 2015 – NOAA Ship Hi’ialakai evacuated three researchers from Laysan Island, and 3 more from Pearl and Hermes Atoll, and 2 more from Lisianski Island ahead of Tropical Storms Kilo and Loke.
Hurricane Matthew (2016)
NOAA Ship Ferdinand Hassler rode out the storm in North Charleston, South Carolina. The day after the storm the ship conducted channel clearance operations in Charleston Harbor per request of the USCG Captain of the Port (COTP). As soon as the sea state permitted, the ship transited to Savannah, Georgia to conduct channel clearance operation also per request of the COTP.
Responses to (and maps) a search of the NOAA ships well as oil spiefficient searc
NOAA’s detaSafety Board localized searconduct and c
12.3.3 Oil s
NOAA vesselnotably, after quality, seafoship, the NancCurrent. Mandirectly suppoinjured by the
NOAA ships Valdez oil spi
12.3.4 Nati
The fleet’s disin the responsthe Oceanogrbaseline conddetection of ato major portsthis strategic cemployed by additional natwould have b
Based on the Survey beganpriorities of thrisks and thre
12.3.5 Rou
The dispersal operations foractivities are a
Soc12.4
289 “NOAA’s Hhttp://www.pub290 OMAO. Un
crash sites are debris field, tharea. Trajectoryin the search foill responses. Tch and recovery
ailed surveys pr(NTSB) and F
rches. These prcomplete the se
spill response
ls have providethe Deepwaterod safety, and cy Foster, invey of these shiported spill conte oil spill and to
also performedill, and oceanog
ional Security
saster responseses to the terrorapher of the Na
ditions as an inpany changes in s across the coucommercial routhe U.S. Navy
tional security teen required to
success of the n coordinating ihe USCG and Uats at major po
utine search an
of NOAA vesr stranded sailoa relatively rou
cietal Benefi
Hydrographic Sublicaffairs.noaa.g
ndated. NOAA F
typically joint he U.S. Navy cay analysis fromor floating debr
Tailored weathey operations. 28
rovide agencieederal Bureau
rocesses signifiearch and salva
ed sophisticatedr Horizon oil spother critical sc
estigated the ints were involveainment and clo compensate t
d hydrographicgraphic researc
e capabilities alrist attacks on Savy and the USput to a secure seafloor condituntry, such as tute survey in Bto sweep for mthreats in theseo provide an ac
commercial roits commerciallUS Naval Oceaorts.
nd rescue resp
sels throughouors, fishermen, utine occurrenc
its
urvey Ships Aid gov/grounders/d
Fleet Disaster Re
efforts with Uan send out remm the National ris, and NOAAer forecasts from89
s such as the Uof Investigatio
icantly increaseage mission.
d scientific datpill in 2010, secientific data, ateraction of oil
ed in this effort lean-up efforts,the public for it
c, biological, anch to study the
lso yield cost reSeptember 11, SCG, NOAA vUSN seafloor tions that mighthe Port of NewBoston one monmines. These efe areas. NOAAccurate assessm
ute survey in Bly valuable haranographic Off
onse
ut U.S. coastal wand recreation
ce.
the Nation Durindisasterresponse.esponse, PowerP
A-54
SCG, U.S. Navmotely operatedOcean Service
A has used this m the National
US. Navy, U.S Con (FBI) the reqe likelihood of
a collection capven NOAA shiand conducted , dispersants, afor six months
, as well as NOts’ lost use of r
nd sediment toxeffects of the 1
eductions and b2001. Immedia
vessels conductchange compar
ht indicate potenw York and Nenth after the 9/1fforts allowed t
A reports that wment of potentia
Boston followinrbor approach sfice, with the ob
waters makes thal boaters. Acc
ng Disaster Reco.html. Accessed
Point Presentation
Appendix
vy, and the NTd vehicles or di’s Hazardous Manalysis for bo
l Weather Serv
Coast Guard (Uquired informatdiscovery and
apabilities for mips collected fisubsurface oil
and tar balls wis or more. The
OAA’s efforts toresources.
xicity surveys i1990-91 Persia
benefits relatedately followingted hydrographrison database.ntial threats in
ew Jersey. The 11 attack, usingthe U.S. Navy t
without NOAA al threats near t
ng September 1surveys to meebjective of iden
them well-suitecording to NOA
overy Efforts”. NFebruary 6, 201n.
x A: NOAA Fle
TSB. Once a NOivers to performMaterials Respoth plane crashvice allow for s
USCG), Nationtion to supportreduce the tim
major oil spill reish habitat, ocemonitoring act
ithin the Gulf oDWH data colo assess and re
in response to tan Gulf War oil
d to national seg this event, in hic surveys to su. The intent wathe navigationNOAA vessel g similar technto ensure that tships, more exthe port.
11, 2001, NOAet the Maritimentifying potent
ed to perform sAA representat
NOAA.gov. Ava17.
eet Data Value
OAA vessel locm a more detailonse Division
h response plannafer and more
nal Transportatt focused and
me and effort to
esponses. Moseanographic wativities. An eig
of Mexico Loopllection activitiestore resources
the 1989 Exxonl spills. 290
ecurity, as witncollaboration wupply critical as to allow for
n approach chanWhiting perfor
nologies to thosthere were no tensive surveyi
AA’s Office of Domain Awartial national sec
earch and rescutives, these type
ailable at:
Chains
cates led aids ning as
tion
t ater ghth p ies s
n
essed with
quick nnels rmed se
ing
Coast reness curity
ue es of
Appendix A: NOAA Fleet Data Value Chains
A-55
NOAA ships’ disaster response capabilities are often essential to subsequent efforts in each emergency scenario. For example, pre- and post-event hydrographic surveying allows major ports and harbors to reopen to commercial shipping after hurricanes and other disasters. The ability of NOAA ships to immediately survey these areas allows important economic activity to resume. In 2015 alone, 1.39 billion short tons accounting for $1.56 trillion worth of U.S. goods moved through U.S. ports. Imports and exports via water represented 71% of U.S. imports and exports by weight and almost 42% of cargo value.291
Debris field location and mapping helps other federal, state, and local groups tailor search and rescue operations for air disasters. Ships already designed for scientific data collection can easily be redeployed to help with critical sampling after major oil spills. These efforts save lives, allow for the continuation of commercial activities and the assessment of natural resource damages. In addition, crew members on NOAA vessels often perform relatively routine search and rescue activities as required by International Maritime law (International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979) and provide relief supplies to affected populations during emergencies. These activities have saved many lives over the course of the fleet’s history.
The ability of the fleet to respond to emergencies also can result in cost savings for U.S. taxpayers. NOAA vessels have unique technologies and are staffed with scientists and engineers with expertise in hydrographic and scientific data collection, which accounts for a large majority of response activities. In addition, NOAA ships are typically relatively easy to reroute with minimal impact to normal program activities. As a result of these factors, and combined with their availability across a wide geographic area, NOAA fleet vessels can often provide superior, more cost-effective and timely response capabilities compared with other potential responders.
The benefits associated with emergency response by NOAA vessels can vary significantly depending on the nature and extent of the emergency or disaster. However, the fleet’s unique capabilities (particularly related to hydrographic surveying), geographic distribution, and skilled crewmembers contribute to its’ key role as part of the U.S. emergency response network.
Figure A.15 depicts the value chain associated with the NOAA fleet emergency response activities.
291 Foxx, A., Perez, T. and Pritzker, P. (2016, March 7). U.S. Ports: Investing in Engines of Economic Development and American Competitiveness [U.S. Department of Transportation Blog]. p.1. Retrieved March 14, 2017 from https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2016/03/us-ports-investing-engines-economic-development-and-american-competitiveness. Statistics available at North American Transportation Statistics at http://nats.sct.gob.mx/go-to-tables/table-7-international-merchandise-trade/table-7-1-international-merchandise-trade-by-mode/
Figure A.15. NOAA Fleet VValue Chain: Emergency R
A-56
Response Activ
Appendix
vities
x A: NOAA Fleeet Data Value Chains
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-1
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
1. Introduction This appendix provides the detailed analysis supporting the discussion in Section 4 of the main body of this report, which addresses the cost-effectiveness of using contract vessels as a substitute for NOAA’s marine fleet for certain data collection activities. This analysis includes several case studies that compare the marginal cost of using the existing capacity of NOAA’s fleet to the cost of using contract vessels. As a basis for analysis, it uses cost data for the NOAA fleet for fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which complete cost data were available at the outset of this project. It also relies on cost data from NOAA’s recent contracts with contract vessel providers, as well as information, both quantitative and qualitative, from interviews with NOAA subject matter experts and contract vessel providers, both private and public sector.
This appendix is organized as follows:
Section 2 presents data on the marginal cost of using the NOAA fleet
Section 3 discusses NOAA’s current use of contract vessels, including the aggregate cost of this usage
Section 4 presents several case studies that compare the cost of using NOAA ships to contract vessel substitutes for specific example missions
Section 5 discusses factors other than cost-effectiveness that can affect the decision between using NOAA’s fleet and contract vessels, including the capacity and availability of such vessels.
Section 4 in the main body of this report summarizes the results of the analysis.
Note that this Appendix repeats certain narrative and exhibits from the summary in Section 4 of the main body of the report. This repetition is so that readers can see the information presented in context with the complete supporting details without needing to refer back to Section 4.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-2
2. Marginal Cost of Using the NOAA Fleet The purpose of this analysis is to compare the marginal cost of operating the NOAA fleet to the cost of using contract vessels to accomplish the same goals. Underlying this comparison is the assumption that NOAA will not make dramatic changes to the overall mix of contract versus fleet ship time employed or radically alter the composition of its fleet in the immediate future. In other words, the assumption is that substitutions take place at the margins.
Given this assumption, it is not appropriate to account for the entire budget associated with NOAA’s marine operations in the comparison. Some elements of the budget (e.g., fixed maintenance costs, certain support and management costs) are not reduced when NOAA fleet missions are accomplished using contract vessels. Some of these fixed costs would be reduced only by extreme substitution to the extent of eliminating one or more ships from the NOAA fleet. Other fixed costs would still be required even in a hypothetical scenario where the NOAA fleet were completely replaced by contract vessels. These costs are associated with functions (e.g., safety and compliance) that would be required regardless of which vessels NOAA uses to acquire ocean observations.
Because the costs derived here reflect variable costs only, they are not comparable to costs for the NOAA fleet reported in certain other sources. For example, costs developed for the NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Team292 cover the total cost of all of the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations’ (OMAO’s) observing systems, including fixed costs.
To identify the appropriate variable costs, this analysis relies on a document provided by OMAO entitled “Proposal to Document 100% of OMAO Ship Lifecycle Costs”.293 This document identifies and categorizes the costs involved in operating the fleet. For those costs that are not directly attributable to a specific ship, it recommends a method of allocation. This analysis uses the recommended method of allocation to further categorize costs as variable or fixed. The variable costs appropriate for use in this analysis include:
Variable direct costs: direct operating and maintenance costs are those specifically attributable to a given ship. Variable direct costs are those that are proportional to level of effort and include, for example, fuel, supplies, and wages for personnel operating the ship.
Variable indirect costs: although not specifically attributable to a given ship, these costs can be allocated across the fleet in a manner that is proportional to direct operating costs. Therefore, they can be considered proportional to the level of effort expended and part of the marginal operating cost. They include, for example, engineering support costs, which are not directly attributed to a particular ship, but are proportional to the level of maintenance required to keep a ship operational.
The costs used in this analysis do not include:
Fixed indirect costs: like variable indirect costs, these costs are not specifically attributable to a given ship. Although fixed indirect costs can be allocated across the fleet, the recommended method of allocation (e.g., dividing evenly by the number of ships) is not proportional to operating costs. Therefore, unlike variable indirect costs, fixed indirect costs are not proportional to the level of effort.
Maintenance costs from the procurement, acquisition, and construction (PAC) account: although these costs are directly attributable by ship, they are fixed costs (i.e., not proportional to level of effort) based on information provided by OMAO’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer.294
Sunk capital costs or depreciation costs: these costs reflect the initial acquisition cost of the existing fleet. Because these costs have already been expended, they cannot be reduced by substituting contract vessels.
292 The NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Team was a team of senior subject matter experts from across NOAA established to summarize the relevant legal, policy and programmatic at-sea mission needs to describe the NOAA Fleet core capabilities to support NOAA’s missions. The Team documented the extent to which these needs are currently addressed and describe the capability gap that will exist absent fleet recapitalization. The Team developed a Fleet Plan, sequencing the planned end of service life of current vessels, and acquisition of new vessels (to include all phases of acquisition). 293 Draft, July 29, 2013. 294 E-mail communication with Linda Malinoff, OMAO Office of Chief Financial Officer. January 19, 2017.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-3
New ship acquisition costs: these costs are for acquisition of new ships and, therefore, not allocable to the existing fleet.
Exhibit B - 1 provides a more detailed listing of the specific costs included and excluded from this analysis. Given this categorization, OMAO’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer provided data for fiscal year 2015 for each of the costs to be included.295 This analysis focused on fiscal year 2015 because it is the most recent year for which complete cost data were available at the outset of the project. After allocating the variable indirect costs according to the methods recommended in Exhibit B - 1, Exhibit B - 2 shows the variable (or marginal) operating cost for the each ship in the NOAA fleet for fiscal year 2015.
295 “OMAO Ship Cost Effectiveness Combined Submission_022317.xlsx.” Spreadsheet received via e-mail from Linda Mallinoff, OMAO Office of Chief Financial Officer. February 23, 2017.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-4
Exhibit B - 1: Categorization and Allocation of Operating and Maintenance Costs
CPC: general operating budget Proportional to NOAA Corps salaries and benefits by ship
Not
Pro
port
iona
l to
Lev
el o
f E
ffor
t /
Not
Inc
lude
d in
this
Ana
lysi
s
MOC: Director’s Staff
Divide evenly by the number of ships
MOC: Safety, Training, and Environmental Compliance
CPC: Salaries and benefits for NOAA Corps officers assigned to MOC Shoreside billets
CPC: Salaries and benefits for NOAA Corps officers assigned to OMAO HQb
OMAO HQ Divisions other than Platform Acquisition
MOC: Atlantic Commanding Officer, Operations, and Health Services
Divide evenly by the number of ships assigned to given ports
MOC: Pacific Commanding Officer, Operations, and Health Services
MOC: Port Offices
CPC: Salaries and benefits for NOAA Corps officers assigned to other line offices
Not allocable to fleet
Maintenance (PAC) Not proportional to level of effort
Sunk capital or depreciation costs Already expended and not reduced by substitution
New ship acquisition costs Not allocable to existing fleet
OMAO HQ: Platform Acquisition Division
a. Per “Proposal to Document 100% of OMAO Ship Lifecycle Costs,” Draft, July 29, 2013. b. Some officers are assigned directly to CPC. In theory, the salaries and benefits for these officers could be allocated in the same manner as the CPC
general operating budget. Data are not available, however, to differentiate salaries and benefits for these officers from the total for those assigned to OMAO HQ.
Acronyms and Abbreviations: CPC = Commissioned Personnel Center; MOC = Marine Operations Center; OMAO HQ = Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Headquarters; ORF = Operations, Research, and Facilities; PAC = Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-5
Exhibit B - 2: Fiscal Year 2015 Marginal Cost of Using the NOAA Fleet
Ship 2015 Days at
Sea Variable Direct Cost
Variable Direct Plus Variable Indirect Cost
Total ($) $/Day at Sea Total ($) $/Day at Sea
Bell M. Shimada 190 7,251,994 38,168 8,803,356 46,333
Fairweather 136 6,640,315 48,826 8,027,114 59,023
Ferdinand R. Hassler 203 4,225,987 20,818 5,180,034 25,517
Gordon Gunter 175 5,192,584 29,672 6,290,749 35,947
Henry B. Bigelow 172 5,229,886 30,406 6,151,592 35,765
Thomas Jefferson 119 5,143,833 43,225 6,278,611 52,761
TOTAL 2,644 90,070,940 34,066 108,568,526 41,062
Note: Because the totals presented here only include those costs that are proportional to level of effort, they are not comparable to costs derived elsewhere (e.g., for the NOAA Fleet Recapitalization Team), which cover the total cost of all OMAO observing systems, including fixed costs
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-6
3. Aggregate Cost of Using Contract Vessels NOAA currently uses contract vessels to support a variety of operations. Examples include fisheries surveys and deployment and maintenance of buoys. Vessels employed by NOAA also include research vessels, both public sector and privately owned, for scientific data collection. NOAA also uses vessels from partner federal agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Science Foundation. In some cases, this usage is a no-cost exchange of ship time. In other cases, NOAA reimburses the partner agency.296,297
As an overview of the extent of NOAA’s use of contract vessels, this section presents data collected to inform the NOAA Fleet Independent Review Team.298 These data represent the best information available from OMAO’s databases associated with NOAA’s use of contract vessels. These data do not include no-cost exchanges of ship time with partner agencies. Exhibit B - 3 shows data on the use of contract vessels for fiscal year 2015.299 Note that the total days at sea for contract vessels (2,736.5) is approximately equal to the total fiscal year 2015 days at sea for the NOAA fleet (2,644, as shown in Exhibit B - 2).
Exhibit B - 3: Fiscal Year 2015 NOAA Use of Contract Vessels
Program
2015 Days at Seaa Cost
Days % of Total Dollars % of Total
NMFS 1,598 58% 13,231,360 30%
NOS Hydrographic Servicesb 610 22% 19,804,427 45%
Other NOS Programs 35.5 1% 278,000 <1%
NWS 286 10% 6,854,000 15%
OAR 198 7% 3,841,852 9%
NESDIS 9 <1% 257,300 <1%
TOTAL 2,736.5 100% 44,266,939 100%
a. Does not include no-cost exchanges of days at sea with partner agencies. b. Days at sea for hydrographic services estimated assuming 2 nautical square miles surveyed per day at sea. c. Acronyms and Abbreviations: NESDIS = National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; NMFS =
National Marine Fisheries Service; NOS = National Ocean Service; NWS = National Weather Service; OAR = Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Exhibit B - 4 shows the same fiscal year 2015 data as Exhibit B - 3 in comparison to equivalent data for fiscal year 2014 and planned data for fiscal year 2016. As shown in Exhibit B- 4, NOAA’s use of contract vessels has remained fairly stable during the last few years. Days at sea have varied by 11 percent or less from year to year and spending has changed by 16 percent or less.
296 NOAA. 2016. The NOAA Fleet Plan: Building NOAA’s 21st Century Fleet. V3.1. NOAA Internal Use Only – Pre-decisional. October 4. 297 O’Clock, Bill. 2016. “Charters.” Presentation at NOAA Fleet Independent Review Team Meeting and Supporting Spreadsheets. Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. May 10. 298 The NOAA Fleet Independent Review Team (IRT) was a senior-level team of outside experts established to assess the health of the NOAA Fleet of research vessels, requirements for recapitalization, and analysis of operational, maintenance practices and technology infusion. The IRT considered the compelling data-collection requirements that need access to the oceans; the applicable technologies and how they change the requirements; the appropriate fleet size and composition to meet needs; and best approaches to meet this need. 299O’Clock, Bill. 2016. “Charters.” Presentation at NOAA Fleet Independent Review Team Meeting and Supporting Spreadsheets. Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. May 10.
Appendix B:
It might be temcost per day awould not be contracts covefuel, crew to ocosts, there caExamples of tmobilization avessel. On thecontracts for hdays at sea. Incontrol and da
mpting to use tat sea for compcomplete or acer “bare boat” operate deck eqan be other costhese additionaand demobilizae other hand, sohydrographic sn addition to prata processing
the aggregate dabilities. Due tohow that unit c
om the aggregate substitutes foels include the
16. NOS HydrogDepartment of Con 5 for discussion
d Effectiveness
Exhib
the aggregate darison to the co
ccurate. Specificosts only, whiquipment suppts associated w
al costs can inclation of NOAAome contracts esurveys are struroviding ship tiand formatting
data presented o these differencosts (i.e., dollate data is not n
or NOAA shipsfollowing:
graphic Surveys: ommerce. Marchn of these data so
of Using Cont
it B - 4: Use of
data on NOAAost of the NOAically, the contrile others encomorting the miss
with the use of clude: costs for
A staff and equiencompass othuctured as data ime to collect thg according to d
here reflect a wnces, data collears per day at secessarily repr
s. Factors that m
Specifications ah. ources.
tract Vessels
B-7
f Contract Vess
’s use of contraAA fleet presenract vessel costmpass a more csion). Even whcontract vesselprovisions for ipment, and caler services in abuys that purchhe data, the condetailed specifi
wide range of cected from USAea) can vary byesentative, part
must be conside
and Deliverables
sels over Time
act vessels in Ented in Section ts presented hecomplete scope
hen the contracts that are not reNOAA staff ablibration of insaddition to use hase a quantityntractor also prications.300
contract vesselsAspending.gov y an order of mticularly for coered in compar
s. Office of Coas
Exhibit B - 3 to 2. Such a comp
ere are contracte of support fot covers more teflected in the board the contr
struments used of vessels. In p
y of data instearovides quality
s of differing tyv and interviewsmagnitude. Therontract vessels tring unit costs f
st Survey, Natio
calculate an avparison, howevt costs only. Sor the mission (
than “bare boatcontract price. ract vessel, aboard the con
particular, NOAad of a number y assurance/qua
ypes and with s with contractrefore, an averthat might be thfor NOAA ship
onal Ocean Servi
verage ver, ome e.g., t”
ntract AA of
ality
t vessel age he ps and
ice,
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-8
A day at sea aboard a contract vessel is not necessarily equal to a day at sea aboard a NOAA vessel. NOAA ships often collect multiple data streams and/or conduct multiple missions simultaneously. Although some contract vessels, such as certain University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) ships,302 have similar multi-data stream/multi-mission capabilities, many vessels are better suited for individual projects and a more limited set of data. These “economies of scope” mean that multiple contract vessels can sometimes be required to replace the output of a NOAA vessel. In addition, NOAA uses NOAA ships for advancing technology through testing new equipment and procedures, maintaining and building expertise within the science field and marine operations.
NOAA ships have greater endurance than many smaller contract vessels. Therefore, they can remain at sea for the duration of long projects without returning to port. In addition, NOAA ships often can be scheduled and positioned to transition directly from one project to the next without significant travel time. Both of these factors mean that the use of contract vessels can, in some cases, entail more transit days (i.e., at the start and finish of the discrete projects for which they are hired and, in some cases, to resupply during longer projects).
Contract vessels used for missions with NOAA personnel aboard must meet certain safety standards. The aggregate data in Exhibit B - 3 include missions without NOAA crew aboard. The vessels used for these missions might not meet these standards and, therefore, not be comparable to NOAA ships. Section 5 includes a more detailed discussion of safety standards.
Conversely, some contract vessels provide services that the NOAA fleet cannot (e.g., data collection in shallow waters). The aggregate data in Exhibit B - 3 include such missions.
Given these factors, unit costs calculated from aggregate data are not an appropriate basis for comparing cost-effectiveness. Instead, the comparison must account for mission-specific details. Section 4 uses a case study approach to compare cost-effectiveness while accounting for such details.
302 NOAA’s use of UNOLS ships includes both no-cost exchange of ship time and cases where NOAA pays the institution operating the UNOLS ship in a manner similar to a commercial charter.
Appendix B:
4. CoThis section eattempt to accNOAA fleet cAdditional daindividual con(BLS), and th
The four casemissions suppwhich are thedata buys for Ocean Servic(Sections 4.1,report describ
Tro4.1
Mission Desctropical Pacifiabove, at, anda number of Nmain body of observations.3
The NWS Namaintenance irelied on the Ndata availabiliused a combinarray and maiarray also rousurface driftinOceanic and A
In conjunctionto operating thas well as whResearch also
pecific basis usiand provide a od during discusws with contrac
v, price index dips estimated in
different NOAAS) and Nationalst amount of sphe other two ca a different NO
NOAA products
Array Maint
(TAO) array coteorological da
se data in real-tEl Nino Southy other U.S. an
sels to service tbiological activrray. After the Kto as low as 28 , UNOLS shipstarget perform
filing floats for d Meteorologic
ometimes incorgical and oceanin the cruise trasors, systems a
AA Office of Marphere-ocean-buoy
National Weath
A National Data rove.shtml. PageExceeds Targets.rticle&id=27:no
National Weath
Data Buoy Centee. Accessed Apri
ing selected caone-to-one comssions with NO
act vessel providata from the Un Section 2.
A line offices. l Marine Fisherpending on conase studies are
OAA vessel. Ths and services
tenance
onsists of 70 buata. Each of thetime via satellit
hern Oscillationnd international
the TAO array vity or local fishKa'imimoana wpercent in Mar
s, and commermance level.308,3
the Pacific Macal Laboratory (
rporate scientifn observations ack, to validateand, technologi
arine and Aviatioy-service. Acces
her Service, Nati
Buoy Center. Ae last modified A” Global Ocean aa-tao&catid=13
her Service, Nati
er. Available at: il 26, 2017.
se studies. Themparison of conOAA subject mders (see Secti
U.S. Bureau of L
The first two cries Service (N
ntract vessels otof missions su
hree of the fourfor which the m
uoys moored (“e moorings collte.303,304 The da
n Outlook, a prol organizations
by performinghermen.306 Priowas removed f
arch 2014.307 Sircial contract ve309 Cruises to marine Environm(both part of N
fic research thaduring the mai
e the sensors onies that could u
on Operations. Assed March 8, 20ional Data Buoy
Available at: August 5, 2014.
Observing Syst3&Itemid=247.
ional Data Buoy
ese case studiesntract vessel co
matter experts. on 5), data for Labor Statistics
case studies areNMFS), respectither than contraupporting the Nr case studies main body of th
“moorings”) in lects data fromata collected suoduct for which
s also use TAO
g necessary or to 2012, NDfrom service in ince then, NDBessels to servic
maintain the TAmental LaboratoNOAA’s Office
at is directly relintenance operan the mooringsultimately refre
Available at: 017. Center. January
em. Available atPublished March
Center. January
s osts to
s
e of ively, act
National
his
the m just upport h the
DBC 2012,
BC has ce the AO ory and e of
lated ations, . sh,
y 10 and
t: h 23,
y 10 and
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-10
upgrade, and/or replace the legacy moorings. In a typical year, NDBC requires that at least some of the TAO maintenance cruises incorporate this type of research.311
Mission Requirements: NDBC usually requires about 160 days at sea each year to support TAO servicing, typically using four discrete cruises of 40 days each, including transit.312 In a typical year, these cruises include some that accomplish maintenance only and some that also incorporate related scientific research. Therefore, this case study examines a typical 40-day cruise, given two different scenarios:
1. The cruise includes routine maintenance and servicing of the TAO array, along with deployment of Argo and surface drifting floats.
2. The cruise incorporates related supplemental science in addition to TAO maintenance and float deployment.
Under either scenario, the vessel used to support the mission must provide the following:
Global class endurance, capable of operating for 40 days at sea, including 10 days of transit time into the project area and 10 days of transit out of the project area.313
Accommodations and provisions for a NOAA scientific team of three to five people. Heavy lift capability and large (400 square feet) adjacent deck space for handling the buoys, moorings, and
anchors. Stowage for the deep-sea mooring components, buoys, and bridles (2,000 square feet and 100,000 pounds). Access to, and support in launching and recovering, one small work boat capable of carrying four passengers. Fuel for the voyage. Personnel to run the ship, navigate, and operate deck equipment.
Under the second scenario including related supplemental science, the vessel must also provide the following:314
On-board equipment including: real-time data acquisition and processing system, fathometer or multi-beam sonar with a maximum depth of 6,000 meters, salinometer, thermosalinograph, hull-mounted acoustic doppler current profiler with altitude control, dry lab, and dedicated chamber for conducting salinity measurements.
Additional stowage for additional equipment supplied by NOAA including: conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD) rosette, associated recording and processing system, and additional electronics (total 350 square feet and 3,200 pounds).
Equipment and personnel support for deployment and handling of the CTD rosette, salinometer, and thermosalinograph.
NOAA Ship Cost: The NOAA ship Ronald H. Brown can supply the requirements described above under either scenario (although she is better equipped than necessary for the first scenario involving TAO maintenance and float deployment only). For example, in fiscal year 2015, NDBC used approximately 80 days at sea on the Ronald H. Brown for TAO array maintenance.315 At the marginal cost of $36,170 per day estimated in Section 2, the cost of using the Ronald H. Brown for a typical 40-day TAO cruise under either scenario is $1,446,800.
Cost of Contract Vessel Substitute: NDBC has access to several commercial vessels that perform mooring maintenance (including TAO and other buoy systems) through its marine services basic ordering agreements. In fiscal year 2015, NDBC used one of these commercial vessels for TAO maintenance for 9 days at sea at a cost of $215,000, or $23,889 per day.316 Using this same cost per day, the cost of using a commercial contract vessel to substitute for the Ronald H. Brown on a typical 40-day TAO cruise would be $955,560. This cost, however, only covers supplying the requirements for the 311 E-mail and personal communication with Kathleen O’Neil, National Weather Service, National Data Buoy Center. January 10 and 12, 2017. 312 Ibid. 313 These operational and transit days are as recommended by the NDBC subject matter expert for a typical TAO cruise, regardless of the provider used (NOAA ship or charter vessel). 314 For example, see Ship Time Request for Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) Array RHB1 (subset of TAO 2015 O&M Primary request). May 9, 2014. 315 E-mail communication with Kathleen O’Neil, National Weather Service, National Data Buoy Center. January 18, 2017. 316 E-mail communication with Kathleen O’Neil, National Weather Service, National Data Buoy Center. January 18, 2017.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-11
first scenario involving TAO maintenance and float deployment. It does not cover a vessel equipped to supply the requirements of the second scenario that includes related supplemental science.
To substitute for the Ronald H. Brown in the second scenario would require the use of a UNOLS ship, such as the R/V Thomas G. Thompson or R/V Roger Revelle, which are equipped to collect the underway ocean observations and support the related supplemental science.317,318 In fiscal year 2015, NDBC used a UNOLS vessel for TAO maintenance for 40 days at sea at a cost of $1.71 million, or $42,750 per day.319,320 This cost would cover supplying the requirements discussed above for the second scenario.321
Discussion: Exhibit B – 5 compares the costs for a typical 40-day TAO cruise (including transit time) under the two scenarios discussed above. Under the first scenario, where the cruise only includes TAO maintenance and deployment of Argo and surface drifting floats, a commercial contract vessel is the less costly than the Ronald H. Brown. In the second scenario where additional equipment and support are required to complete scientific research that is directly related to operating the array, the marginal cost of using the Ronald H. Brown is 15 percent less than an appropriately equipped substitute in the form of a UNOLS vessel.
Exhibit B - 5: Cost-Effectiveness Comparison for Typical 40-Day Cruise Servicing the TAO Array
Scenario Vessel Used Cost ($)
Routine maintenance and float deployment only
Commercial contract vessel 955,560
NOAA ship 1,446,800
Maintenance, float deployment, and related supplemental science
NOAA ship 1,446,800
UNOLS ship 1,710,000
Notes: Commercial contract vessel and UNOLS ship cost based on 40 days at sea using the fiscal year 2015 data
from NDBC described in the text. NOAA ship cost based on 40 days at sea using the Ronald H. Brown at the marginal cost estimated in Section
2.
317 E-mail and personal communication with Kathleen O’Neil, National Weather Service, National Data Buoy Center. January 10 and 12, 2017. 318 Personal communication with Doug Russell, University of Washington and UNOLS Vessel R/V Thomas G. Thompson. February 23, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 319 This rate is slightly higher than approximate rate identified in the interview conducted with the captain of the Thomas G. Thompson (see Appendix C). The cost-effectiveness analysis here uses the data from NDBC because it is in fiscal year 2015 dollars and reflects the rate paid by NOAA, instead of the rate received by the University of Washington. The difference may be due to costs involved in transferring the funds through the National Science Foundation. 320 E-mail communication with Kathleen O’Neil, National Weather Service, National Data Buoy Center. January 18, 2017. 321 An UNOLS vessel would also be capable of supplying the requirements of the first scenario (maintenance and float deployment only), but it is unclear whether or not there would be a reduced cost if NOAA did not employ the vessel’s observational and scientific capabilities.
In addition to each scenario2015 is no lononly 42 days typical in the
As discussed different vendcases due to eclass vessels (matter expert industry, offshlack of availabmaintenance cnumber of bid
As discussed Navy and Nathowever, alsoyear. The R/Vmaintenance d
Mission Requup (total 120 322 Ibid. 323 E-mail and 12, 2017. 324 E-mail com325 Personal com23, 2017. See A326 NOAA. 201Marine Fisheri
the difference. The approximnger typical sinat sea to suppofuture.322
above, NDBC dors. Although ease of access a(and several smindicated that hore constructibility with thescruises for whids received for
in more detail tional Science Fo receive high pV Roger Revelleduring 2018, w
lifornia Cur
cription: The Cxpedition, cond
cies (whales, doAdditional objems (prey) and nrations conducty parts and birdcal sampling.326
uirements: Cadays), with 15
personal commu
mmunication withmmunication wiAppendix C for i14. Cruise Instrues Service, Sout
s in cost, there mately 80 days nce the Ronald ort TAO servici
accesses commthe commercia
and schedulingmaller vessels). these commercion, and marinese vessels. In faich it has issuedNOAA’s vess
in Section 5, scFoundation sompriority in the Ue, one of the tw
which will reduc
rrent Cetace
California Currducted by the Nolphins, and poectives includednon-protected ated included: vid specimens, pa6
alCurCEAS 20or 16 scientific
unication with K
h Kathleen O’Neith Doug Russellinterview notes.
uctions – Califorthwest Fisheries
App
are differencesat sea on the RH. Brown has
ing in fiscal yea
mercial vesselsal vessels are n.323 These agreIn addition to
cial vessels alsoe salvage. In spact, NDBC hasd requests for pel contracts in
cheduling UNOmetimes have hUNOLS scheduwo UNOLS shice her availabi
ean and Eco
rent Cetacean aNMFS in 2014orpoises) in the d characterizinapex predators isual surveys, bassive acoustic
14 consisted ofc personnel abo
Kathleen O’Neil,
eil, National Weal, University of W
rnia Current CetScience Center.
pendix B: Effic
B-12
s in availabilityRonald H. Brow
returned to its ar 2017, and th
through marinnot outfitted forements providesupporting NOo likely supporpite of these coms received multproposals (see Sgeneral).324
OLS ships requhigher priority uling process bips NDBC has lity.325
osystem Ass
and Ecosystem , with the primCalifornia Curg the ecosystem(sea birds), andbiopsy samplinc sampling to lo
f 117 days at seoard for each le
National Weath
ather Service, NWashington and
tacean and Ecosy July 17.
ciency and Effe
y for the vesselwn that NDBC Atlantic coast
his level of ava
ne services basir research, NDBe NDBC with a
OAA mooring mrt other uses incmpeting uses, N
tiple responses Section 5 for fu
uires a long leain the scheduli
because they arused for TAO
essment Sur
Assessment Sumary purpose of
rrent and studym within the std identification
ng, photographyocate and recor
ea in five legs, eg. The mission
her Service, Nati
National Data Bud UNOLS Vesse
system Assessme
ectiveness of U
ls suitable to prwas able to schhome port. She
ailability (or les
ic ordering agrBC prefers thisaccess to at leamaintenance, thcluding the offNDBC has notto support sev
urther informat
ad time (a year ing process. The consistently fservicing, is sc
rvey (CalCu
urvey (CalCurCf estimating theying factors thatudy area, resean of cetacean spy, opportunistird organisms, o
plus three dayn departed from
ional Data Buoy
uoy Center. Aprill R/V Thomas G
ent Survey: CalC
Using Contract V
rovide serviceshedule in fiscale is scheduled ss) may be mor
reements with ss mechanism inast six differenthe NDBC subjfshore oil and gt experienced aeral mooring tion in the typic
or more) and thhe TAO cruisesfunded from yecheduled for m
urCEAS)
CEAS) was a me abundance ofat affect their arch on mid-tropecies of specic retrieval of moceanography,
s of staging anm and ultimate
Center. January
l 26, 2017. G. Thompson. Fe
CurCEAS. Nation
Vessels
s under l year for
re
several n some t global ect
gas any
cal
he s, ear-to-
mid-life
multi-f
ophic al
marine and El
d set ly
y 10 and
ebruary
nal
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-13
returned to San Diego with additional port stops between legs in Newport, Oregon, and San Francisco. Requirements for the vessel used to support the mission were the following:327
Capable of operating for up to 24 days at sea. Accommodations and provisions for a NOAA scientific team of up to 16 people.328 Observation platform (e.g., flying bridge) with canopy for visual surveys. Access to, and support in launching and recovering, one small rigid inflatable hull boat. Hydrographic winch with minimum 2,500 meter cable for net tows. Lab space including freezer space for biological samples, refrigerator for cell culture, and fume hood. Stowage for equipment supplied by NOAA including: expendable bathythermograph (XBT) launcher and 18
boxes of probes, two bongo net frames, three pallets of sonobuoys (125 square feet and 1,200 pounds), two boxes of acoustics equipment, acoustic winch (36 square feet and 1,200 pounds), 75 cubic feet of sample jars, four boxes of mammal sampling equipment, five drifting autonomous spar buoy recorder (DASBR), and additional electronics.
Additional on-board equipment including: depth sounder, hydraulic power and connections for winches, power and global positioning system (GPS) connections for NOAA computers, deck hose with water supply, and grappling hook and line.
Fuel for the voyage. Personnel to run the ship, navigate, and operate deck equipment.
NOAA Ship Cost: CalCurCEAS 2014 was originally planned for the NOAA ship Reuben Lasker, which would have supplied the requirements described above.329 In 2015 dollars, at the marginal cost of $59,426 per day estimated in Section 2, the cost of using the Reuben Lasker for 120 days (including three days of staging and set up) would have been $7,131,120.
Cost of Contract Vessel Substitute: When the Reuben Lasker did not come on line as scheduled, the expedition was instead conducted aboard the R/V Ocean Starr, a contract vessel.330 The Ocean Starr was a formerly the NOAA ship David Starr Jordan, which was decommissioned and sold in 2010.331 During CalCurCEAS 2014, the 171-foot research vessel was owned and operated by Ocean Services LLC, a subsidiary of Stabbert Maritime.332,333 The Ocean Starr supplied all of the requirements described above for the cruise, including staging and ship setup, provisioning for the scientific personnel, and a crew willing to do everything asked of them to support the research.
Data from USAspending.gov show that, in fiscal year 2014, NOAA had three transactions with Ocean Services LLC for a west coast charter for a trawl capable vessel, totaling $2,343,280.334 A NOAA subject matter expert confirmed that the cost of using the Ocean Starr for CalCurCEAS was approximately $2.4 million. To escalate this 2014 cost to 2015 dollars, we used the producer price index (PPI) for the water transportation industry – specifically, for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) category 483.335 Applying the annual average values for 2014 and 2015 for this
327 Ibid. 328 This count includes up to two oceanographic science technicians, who were included as part of the NOAA scientific team on the mission as conducted. As discussed below, these additional personnel would not have been required had a NOAA ship been employed. 329 In addition, it would have required fewer NOAA personnel in addition to the Reuben Lasker’s permanent crew. As discussed below, the cost estimate of the charter substitute has been adjusted to accounts for this difference. 330 Personal communication with Annette Henry, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. December 15, 2016. 331 “David Starr Jordan.” Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Available at: http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/marine-operations/ships/decommissioned/david-starr-jordan. Accessed March 7, 2017. 332 NOAA. 2014. Cruise Instructions – California Current Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey: CalCurCEAS. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. July 17. 333 “Ocean Starr.” Stabbert Maritime. Available at: http://www.stabbertmaritime.com/vessels/ocean-starr/. Accessed March 7, 2017. 334 Data downloaded for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 2014 from https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/Pages/DataDownload.aspx. Accessed December 20, 2016. 335 Time series data downloaded for producer price index for NAICS category 483 from https://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm. Accessed March 7, 2017.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-14
industry-specific index to the contract cost results in an escalated cost of $2,350,048.336 Although this adjustment is small, it reflects the change between 2014 and 2015 in prices received by producers in the NAICS category to which Ocean Services LLC belongs, allowing a consistent basis for comparison to the 2015 data on the cost of the NOAA fleet.
The data collected aboard the Ocean Starr were the same as would have been collected aboard the Reuben Lasker. There were, however, certain trade-offs that included the following:337
1. The Reuben Lasker has its own dedicated oceanographic science technicians; the cruise as conducted aboard the Ocean Starr required additional oceanographic technicians among the NOAA personnel.
2. Small boat operations were acceptable aboard the Ocean Starr, but more difficult than they would have been aboard the Reuben Lasker, primarily due to crew training and familiarity.
3. The Reuben Lasker is quieter, so passive acoustic data collection would probably have been improved due to less noise interference.338
4. The Ocean Starr is more maneuverable and the bow deck is closer to the water; these factors improved NOAA’s ability to collect biopsy samples from animals near the bow.339
To account for the labor-related differences identified in items (1) and (2) above, we adjusted the estimated cost of using the Ocean Starr as discussed below. Data are not available to monetize the data collection/data quality differences identified in the other items. Because there are advantages to each ship, these latter items might offset one another to some extent.
The NOAA scientific team aboard the Ocean Starr for CalCurCEAS 2014 included one oceanographic technician. As noted in item (1) above, aboard the Reuben Lasker, the ship’s existing complement of oceanographic science technician would have supplied this labor, the cost of which is included in the marginal cost for the Reuben Lasker estimated in Section 2. Therefore, in using the Ocean Starr, there was an additional labor cost to NOAA, over and above the contract cost. Data are not available on salary and benefits for the specific NOAA oceanographic technicians employed during CalCurCEAS 2014. To estimate the value of the additional NOAA labor, we used a rate of $503 per person-day. This rate reflects the average salary and benefits for fiscal year 2015 for crew serving aboard the NOAA fleet, calculated from the same data underlying the marginal cost estimates for the NOAA fleet in Section 2. Applying this average rate to the 120 person-days of additional NOAA oceanographic technician labor required aboard the Ocean Starr, results in an additional labor cost of $60,360.340 Because this value is based on a 2015 labor rate, no escalation is required.
According to one NOAA subject matter expert, the difficulties with small boat operations aboard the Ocean Starr could have been alleviated by an additional contract deckhand. The subject matter expert estimated the cost of the additional deckhand would have been approximately $400 per day, based on an estimated salary of $200 to $250 per day and incorporating overhead and profit.341 Applying this rate to 120 days at sea results in a labor cost of $48,000 in 2014 dollars.342 Escalating this labor using the appropriate annual average employment cost index (ECI) increases the labor
336 The annual average PPI for NAICS category 483 was 138.5 for 2014 and 138.9 for 2015. Applying these values to the contract cost results in the following calculation: $2,343,280 x 138.9/138.5 = $2,350,048. 337 Personal communication with Annette Henry, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. December 15, 2016; and E-mail communication with Jeff Moore, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. February 15, 2017. 338 Although not a requirement for CalCurCEAS 2014, the Reuben Lasker also has side-scanning sonar, which is often useful for mid-water detection. 339 Note, however, that the Reuben Lasker does have observation decks of appropriate height. 340 120 person-days x $503/person-day = $60,360. 341 Personal communication with Annette Henry, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. December 15, 2016 342 120 days x $400/day = $48,000.
Appendix B:
cost to $48,94(2015 dollars)
Adding these $2,459,353 in
Discussion: EReuben Laskeusing the Oce
Vessel Used
Commercial c
NOAA ship
Notes: Cont
inco NOA
Sect
One explanatimaintained foJuly 2016, hoprogram.346 Oavailability an
Another explarepresentativeexecuted 80 ddramatic, they120 days at se
San4.3Ban
Mission DescBanks NationThe two sanctdesigned to codevelopment same as that wreport describ
343 This calculaextraction, farmaverage of this following calcu344 $2,350,048 345 E-mail com346 “2017 Cruiscruise-schedule347 Ship Time R
Efficiency and
46 in 2015 doll).
labor adjustmen 2015 dollars.3
Exhibit B - 6 coer. Even after aean Starr for Ca
Ex
contract vessel
tract vessel cosrporating the a
AA ship cost bion 2.
ion for the lowor longevity, acwever, when sh
Ocean Services nd price is not a
anation for the e of normal opedays at sea. Althy are unlikely tea even aboard
nctuary Econks Nationa
cription: The Snal Marine Sanctuaries were unollect data to idof managemen
which informs Nbes societal ben
ation uses the emming, fishing, an
ECI was 121.8 ulation: $48,000contract cost + $
mmunication withse Schedule.” Cae.html. AccessedRequest for Sanc
d Effectiveness
lars.343 Again, a
ents to the esca344 This estimat
ompares the coaccounting for talCurCEAS 20
xhibit B - 6: Co
l
st based on actadditional laborased on 120 da
w cost of the Occcording to onehe completed aLLC did not reavailable.
large differencerations for thehough more reto change the cthe NOAA shi
system Asseal Marine Sa
Sanctuary Ecosctuaries was a pndergoing an addentify nearshont plans and regNational Marin
nefits. Activitie
mployment cost ind forestry occupfor 2014 and 12 x 124.2/121.8 =$60,030 of addith Michael Gallagalifornia Cooperd March 8, 2017ctuary Ecosystem
of Using Cont
although this ad
alated contract ted cost accoun
st of using the the additional l014 was much l
ost-Effectivene
tual contract cor costs describeays at sea using
cean Starr may e NOAA subjeca cruise supporespond to a req
ce in cost may be Reuben Laskecent cost data fonclusion. Theip with the low
essment Suranctuaries
system Assessmproject for the dministrative pore or offshore gulatory actionsne Sanctuary Ces conducted du
index (ECI) for tpations download4.2 for 2015. Ap
= $48,946 tional NOAA labgher, National Mrative Oceanic F.
m Assessment Su
tract Vessels
B-15
djustment is sm
cost results in ants for supplyin
Ocean Starr folabor required tlower than the
ess Comparison
ost for the Oceaed in the text. g the Reuben L
be that she is nct matter expertrting the Califoquest for an inte
be that the estimer. The vessel wfor the Reuben e cost of the Ocwest fiscal year
rveys (SEAS
ment Surveys (NOS Office of
process for expapressures, chars in conjunctio
Condition Repouring the SEAS
total compensatided from https://pplying these va
bor + $48,946 ofMarine Fisheries Fisheries Investig
urveys: GFNMS
mall, it results i
a total cost for ng all of the req
or CalCurCEAto make the coestimated cost
n for CalCurC
C
an Starr, escal
Lasker at the ma
nearing the endrt.345 The Oceanornia Cooperatierview, so info
mated fiscal yewas at the start Lasker might cean Starr for C2015 marginal
S): Greater
SEAS) for the f National Maransion to the nracterize sensit
on with this exports, a product fS project includ
ion for private in//www.bls.gov/ealues to the 2014
f additional contService. Februar
gations. Availabl
S and CBNMS v
in a consistent b
using the Oceaquirements disc
AS 2014 to the comparison equivt of using the R
EAS 2014
Cost ($)
ated to 2015 d
arginal cost est
d of her useful n Starr was stilive Oceanic Fisormation about
ear 2015 margiof her service show the diffeCalCurCEAS 2l cost.
Farallones
Greater Farallorine Sanctuarienorth. The SEAtive resources, pansion.347 Thisfor which the mded bird and m
life and not bell in operation sheries Investigthe vessel’s fu
inal costs may nlife and only rence to be les2014 was less t
and Cordel
ones and Cordes conducted in
AS project was and support s type of data i
main body of thmarine mammal
in construction,rch 8, 2017. The
mate results in th
cofi.org/cruises/5
2015.
parison
he t of
353
120
eing as of gations uture
not be
s than
ll
ell 2016.
s the his l
e annual he
561-
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-16
observation, acoustic monitoring, habitat characterization, launch and recovery of CTDs, krill sampling during nighttime vertical migration of zooplankton, and corresponding sampling during daylight.
Mission Requirements: The SEAS project consisted of nine days at sea, departing from and returning to San Francisco, traveling into the northern expansion areas of the sanctuaries, distant from the nearest port. Requirements for the vessel used to support the mission were the following:348
Capable of operating for nine days at sea, remaining on station for day and night sampling. Accommodations and provisions for a NOAA scientific team of 10 people. Observation platform for bird and marine mammal observation. Hydrographic winch for CTD with secondary cable of 500 meters for net tows. Lab space including fume hood, refrigerator, and freezer. Stowage for equipment supplied by NOAA including: CTD, hoop net, tucker trawl net, and computer and
monitors (total 69 square feet and 1,600 pounds). Additional on-board equipment including: depth sounder and power and global positioning system (GPS)
connections for NOAA computers. Fuel for the voyage. Personnel to run the ship, navigate, and operate deck equipment.349
NOAA Ship Cost: The Greater Farallones and Cordell Banks sanctuaries share the use of the ONMS vessel, R/V Fulmar with the nearby Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The Fulmar, however, typically is limited to about 40 miles offshore and cruises of 10 hours in length.350 She berths a maximum of six scientists overnight.351 Therefore, the Fulmar was not capable of supplying the requirements discussed above, especially given the need to investigate the distant northern expansion areas.352 To meet the mission requirements, the project was instead conducted during nine days at sea aboard the OMAO ship Bell M. Shimada.353 In 2015 dollars, at the marginal cost of $46,333 per day estimated in Section 2, the cost of using the Bell M. Shimada for nine days is $416,997.
Cost of Contract Vessel Substitute: Commercial contract vessels available nearby share similar endurance and/or berthing limitations similar to the Fulmar, such that multiple vessels or trips would be required to substitute for the Bell M. Shimada.354 More capable vessels are generally located a greater distance away. For example, the UNOLS fleet in California does not currently include a regional class vessel.355 The transit time involved in bringing in a more capable vessel would be significant, particularly compared to the relatively short nine-day project duration.
Given the limitations and/or distance away of other options, a NOAA subject matter expert suggested that a vessel operated by the nearby Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) might be an efficient substitute if the Bell M. Shimada were not available.356 MBARI is a private, non-profit research institution that operates several research
348 Ship Time Request for Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys: GFNMS and CBNMS v3. January 12, 2015. 349 Although not part of the SEAS project as conducted in 2016 and examined in this case study, piggyback research conducted on this mission can include: ocean acidification studies and exploration for deep sea corals and sponges using an autonomous underwater vehicle, remotely operated underwater vehicle, or camera sled. Both the NOAA ship and the contract vessel substitute can accommodate these types of vessels, although the cost of supplying this requirement is not included in the cost estimates here. 350 Personal communication with Jan Roletto, Research Coordinator at the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. January 10, 2017. 351 “MBNMS: R/V Fulmar Specifications.” NOAA Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Available at: http://montereybay.noaa.gov/marineops/about/fulmar/specifications.html. Accessed March 8, 2017. 352 Ship Time Request for Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys: GFNMS and CBNMS v3. January 12, 2015. 353 “Project: Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys (GFNMS and CBNMS).” NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Available at: http://www.omao.noaa.gov/find/projects/3499-sanctuary-ecosystem-assessment-surveys-gfnms-and-cbnms. Accessed March 8, 2017. 354 Ship Time Request for Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys: GFNMS and CBNMS v3. January 12, 2015. 355 Sanctuary Advisory Council, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Letter supporting a new coastal research vessel for California. December 8, 2016. 356 Personal communication with Jan Roletto, Research Coordinator at the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. January 10, 2017.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-17
vessels, including the 117-foot R/V Western Flyer. MBARI’s Director of Marine Operations confirmed that the requirements of the SEAS project as described above are within the Western Flyer’s capabilities.357
MBARI’s current rate for using the Western Flyer is $31,100 per day.358 Although the website lists this rate as corresponding to a 12-hour day, the same rate would apply for extended voyages like that for the SEAS project.359 The rate would also cover all of the other requirements described above (e.g., including provisioning for the NOAA science party aboard). Although MBARI is located close to Greater Farallones and Cordell Banks sanctuaries, one day of transit time would still be required at both ends of the project. One day in port would also be required at each end for mobilization and demobilization.360 Therefore, using the Western Flyer would require a total of 13 days (11 at sea and two in port). Using MBARI’s current rates, the total cost for 13 days of using the Western Flyer would be $404,300.361
Discussion: Exhibit B - 7 compares the cost of using the Western Flyer as a substitute for the Bell M. Shimada for the SEAS project. Even with the additional days required to complete the mission, the Western Flyer would be slightly less costly (3 percent) than the Bell M. Shimada.
Exhibit B - 7: Cost-Effectiveness Comparison for SEAS: Greater Farallones and Cordell Banks National Marine Sanctuaries 2016
Vessel Used Cost ($)
MBARI ship 404,300
NOAA ship 416,997
Notes: MBARI ship cost assumes 13 days to accomplish the mission at MBARI’s current rates for the Western
Flyer. NOAA ship cost assumes nine days at sea to accomplish the mission using the Bell M. Shimada at the
marginal cost estimated in Section 2.
Although the results for this case study show the MBARI ship to be slightly more cost-effective, it is important to note that MBARI is not a commercial provider and does not actively seek out research assignments for its vessels from other organizations. MBARI does collaborate with staff from NOAA’s Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, who sometimes conduct piggyback research on MBARI vessels. The Institute has conducted two dedicated cruises for NOAA in the last decade, but usually only considers such missions on case-by-case basis, such as when the capabilities provided by MBARI not available elsewhere in the NOAA or academic fleet. Scheduling an MBARI ship would also require substantial lead time: approximately a year to guarantee availability for longer missions.362
In addition, budgetary constraints limit individual sanctuaries’ options with regard to the use of contract vessels. When a sanctuary program receives ship time on the NOAA fleet, such as on the Bell M. Shimada for the SEAS project, that
357 E-mail communication with Michael Kelly, Director of Marine Operations, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. March 6, 2017. 358 “MBARI: Rates for Vessels, Vehicles, MARS, Labor, Test Tank.” Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Available at: http://www.mbari.org/at-sea/mars-ship-rates/. Accessed March 2, 2017. 359 Personal communication with Michael Kelly, Director of Marine Operations, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. March 2, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 360 E-mail communication with Michael Kelly, Director of Marine Operations, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. March 6, 2017. 361 Note that this total is based on current rates, while the NOAA ship costs are in fiscal year 2015 dollars. It might be tempting to use the PPI for the water transportation industry, used elsewhere in this analysis, to de-escalate the MBARI costs to 2015 dollars for more accurate comparison. That PPI has actually decreased in in the last 12 months, however, whereas MBARI’s rates have recently increased slightly, according to the MBARI’s Director of Marine Operations. Therefore, applying this index would not be accurate for MBARI. Since MBARI is not a commercial organization, an appropriate industry-specific price index is not available. Applying a more general index of prices (e.g., the Consumer Price Index) to de-escalate the costs to 2015 dollars would result in a small decrease in the estimated cost for the MBARI ship, but would not change the conclusions about cost-effectiveness substantially. 362 Personal communication with Michael Kelly, Director of Marine Operations, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. March 2, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes.
allocation is pthe sanctuary
Pac4.4
Mission Desceffort with gocommunity.36
Office for Coand delivers aTrends Repor
The NCRMP specific vessequantitative cbelow, howevareas.
The example Program (whiProgram (RAthe Pacific Rebreathing apprecovery and samples, and supported NOecosystems.36
Mission RequOahu, Hawaiiwith an intermthe following
Glob Acco Stow
smalinclu
Acceseve
Multshall
Acce
363 Personal com10, 2017. 364 “NOAA's Nhttps://www.co365 Personal com366 “About: Hi’operations/ship367 “Multi-agenPacific Remotehttps://www.pi368 Ship Time RFebruary 13, 20
paid out of the ldoes not receiv
cific Reef As
cription: The Noals that include64 The NCRMPastal Managem
a variety of prort Cards, a prod
relies on vesseels that NCRMPost-effectivene
ver, also provid
mission considich is NCRMP
AMP) was to coemote Islands Mparatus (SCUBAreplacement ofcoral reef mapp
OAA’s ocean ac66,367
uirements: Thi, including a tomediate port be:368
bal class enduraommodations a
wage for equipmll boats and spauding spare comess to, and supp
en passengers wti-beam sonar flow waters. ess to on-board
mmunication wi
National Coral Reoris.noaa.gov/mommunication wi’ialaki.” NOAA ps/hiialakai/abouncy Team of Sciee Islands Marineifsc.noaa.gov/cruRequest for Ame014.
larger NOS buve additional b
ssessment an
National Coral e delivering hig
P is part of the Cment. The NCRoducts to suppoduct for which t
els to collect beP uses, howeveess comparisondes a qualitative
dered here was in the Pacific)
onduct ecosysteMarine NationaA) dives from sf biological andping using mulcidification pro
he 2015 Americotal of nine dayetween legs in A
ance, capable oand provisions ment supplied bare outboard (9mpressor (1,40port in launchin
with SCUBA anfor reef mappin
d hyperbaric de
ith Jan Roletto, R
eef Monitoring Ponitoring/. Accesith Justine KimbOffice of Marin
ut. Accessed Marentists Conducti
e National Monuuise/ha1501.phperican Samoa an
App
udget, not out obudget to replac
nd Monitor
Reef Monitorigh‐quality dataCoral Reef Con
RMP provides srt resource manthe main body
enthic and otheer, vary depend
n specifically foe discussion of
conducted in 2. The objective
em monitoring al Monument. Asmall boats, towd oceanographilti-beam sonar.ogram to monit
can Samoa RAys of transit to American Sam
of operating forfor a NOAA scby NOAA inclu
9,500 pounds to0 pounds), andng and recovernd survey gear.ng and access t
ecompression c
Research Coordi
Program.” NOAssed March 9, 20
ball and Susie Hone and Aviation Orch 9, 2017. ing Interdisciplinument.” NOAA P. Accessed Apri
nd Pacific Remot
pendix B: Effic
B-18
f the sanctuaryce that time usi
ing Program
ng Program (Na, data productsnservation Progscientific informnagers and decof this report d
er habitat mappding on the regor an example mf the NCRMP’s
2015 under the e of the Americand research inActivities condwed-diver survic sea-floor ins. In addition to tor and underst
AMP consisted oand from the stoa. Requireme
r 34 or more dacientific team ouding: a lab vaotal), SCUBA ad additional elering, three addi. o a mapping la
chamber for em
inator at the Gul
AA Coral Reef In017. olst, National CoOperations. Ava
nary Monitoring Pacific Islands Fl 13, 2017. te Island Areas -
ciency and Effe
y’s budget. If thing a contract v
m: America
NCRMP) is an is, and tools to tgram, which ismation requiredcision-makers, describes socie
ping data over agion of the worlmission in the Ps use of contrac
e Pacific Reef Acan Samoa Reen the coral reefducted includedveys of coral restruments, colle supporting thetand the effects
of 103 days at tudy area. The
ents for the vess
ays at sea. of 24 people. an (80 square feand survey geactronics. itional small wo
aunch capable o
mergency use.
lf of the Farallon
nformation Syste
oral Reef Monitoailable at: http://w
g of Coral Reef EFisheries Science
- Reef Assessme
ectiveness of U
he NOAA ship vessel or vessel
an Samoa
integrated and the coral reef cs headquarteredd to track the hincluding cora
etal benefits.
a wide geograpld.365 This casePacific. The dict vessels for A
Assessment andef Assessment f habitats of Amd: self-containeeef ecosystems ection and anale NCRMP, the s of ocean acidi
sea departing fvoyage was co
sel used to sup
feet and 8,000 par for the NOA
ork boats capab
of deploying m
nes National Mar
em. Available at
oring Program. Dwww.omao.noaa
Ecosystems in Ae Center. Availab
ent and Monitori
Using Contract V
time is not avals.363
focused monitonservation
d from the NOShealth of coral ral reef Status an
phic region. The study provideiscussion sectioAtlantic coral re
d Monitoring and Monitoring
merican Samoaed underwater and marine lif
lysis of water data collected ification on cor
from and returnonducted in thrport the missio
pounds), two 19A science team
ble of carrying
multi-beam sona
rine Sanctuary. J
:
December 21, 20a.gov/learn/mari
American Samoa ble at:
ing Program (RA
Vessels
ailable,
toring
S reefs nd
e es a on eef
g a and
fe,
also ral reef
ning to ree legs on were
9-foot m
g two to
ar in
January
016. ine-
and the
AMP).
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-19
Certified operator for hyperbaric decompression chamber. Wet and dry lab space. Personnel support for operation of multi-beam sonar and electronics interface. Fuel for the voyage. Personnel to run the ship, navigate, and operate deck equipment.
NOAA Ship Cost: The 2015 American Samoa RAMP project was conducted using the NOAA ship Hi'ialakai in conjunction with the RAMP program’s 25-foot mapping launch R/V AHI (Acoustic Habitat Investigator). With the exception of the mapping launch, the Hi'ialakai supplied all of the other requirements described above, including access to her three work boats and permanent hyperbaric chamber with dedicated operator.369 In 2015 dollars, at the marginal cost of $31,350 per day estimated in Section 2, the cost of using the Hi'ialakai for 103 days is $3,229,050.
Cost of Contract Vessel Substitute: In the Pacific, the NCRMP does not use contract vessels and relies solely on the Hi'ialakai to conduct its mission. The NCRMP subject matter expert was unable to identify a commercial alternative to using the Hi‘ialakai, given the remote locations and length of typical cruises.370 Outside of the commercial sector, however, an alternative might be the R/V Tangaroa, operated by the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA). The 230-foot Tangaroa has multibeam sonar and dive support capabilities and operates throughout the Pacific.371,372 Its listed endurance of 60 days is actually greater than the Hi‘ialakai’s (35 days).373,374 Personnel with NIWA confirmed that the Tangaroa could supply the requirements described above.375
NIWA provided a detailed cost estimate for using the Tangaroa to conduct the mission and supply all of the above requirements. For example, NIWA’s estimate includes the use of NIWA’s 22-foot survey boat Rukuwai to conduct mapping in shallow waters. It also includes supplying an approved hyperbaric decompression chamber housed in a 20-foot container with a certified chamber operator. In addition to the 103 mission days, using the Tangaroa would require an additional 34 days, including mobilization and demobilization, in transit between Wellington, New Zealand and Hawaii. NIWA’s estimate includes this additional transit, but it also includes a 20 percent discount, which NIWA would provide in the interest of continuing and strengthening its working relationship with NOAA. NIWA’s estimate to supply all of the requirements above using the Tangaroa, including the additional transit and incorporating the discount, is 7,399,840 New Zealand dollars.376
At the current exchange rate of 0.6834 U.S. dollars to New Zealand dollars,377 NIWA’s estimate coverts to $5,131,049 (U.S.). To convert this current cost to 2015 dollars, we applied the annual average values for 2016 and 2015 for the PPI for the water transportation industry.378 The resulting cost in 2015 dollars is $5,404,185.379
369 Ibid. 370 E-mail communication with Justine Kimball, National Coral Reef Monitoring Program. February 13, 2017. 371 Personal communication with Rob Christie, Manager – Marine Resources, NIWA. February 24, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 372 “Specifications and principal features.” NIWA. Available at: https://www.niwa.co.nz/vessels/rv-tangaroa/specifications-and-principal-features. Accessed March 9, 2017. 373 Ibid. 374 “Specifications.” NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Available at: http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/marine-operations/ships/hiialakai/about/specifications. Accessed March 9, 2017. 375 E-mail communication with Greg Foothead, General Manager – Vessel Operations, NIWA. April 19, 2017. 376 “Preliminary Proposal for Marine Survey in American Samoa and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.” April 25, 2017. 377 “NZD to USD Exchange Rate – Bloomberg Markets.” Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/NZDUSD:CUR. Accessed May 2, 2017. 378 Although NIWA is a governmental organization, it operates like a business and tries to maintain its rates in line with the rest of the industry, according to NIWA’s Manager of Marine Resources. Therefore, assuming that this industry-specific PPI could be applicable to NIWA’s prices is reasonable. The analysis applies the annual average index value for 2016 to the current total because 2016 is the most recent full year for which data are available. 379 The annual average PPI for NAICS category 483 was 131.5 for 2016 and 138.9 for 2015. Applying these values to the total cost results in the following calculation: $5,131,049 x 138.9/131.5 = $5,404,185. Note that prices in this sector actually decreased between 2015 and 2016, resulting in a higher cost in 2015 dollars.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-20
Discussion: Exhibit B - 8 compares the cost of using the Tangaroa as a substitute for the Hi‘ialakai for the 2015 American Samoa RAMP. The cost of using the Tangaroa would be substantially higher than using the Hi‘ialakai. Another factor to consider, if the Tangaroa were to be used, is scheduling. According to NIWA’s Manager of Marine Resource, NIWA’s vessels are committed to certain fisheries projects that have inflexible schedules.380 Any use of the Tangaroa might have to be scheduled around these projects. NIWA’s cost estimate further emphasizes that the Tangaroa has “a busy yet fluid schedule,” so that scheduling her would require advance planning.381 Thus, scheduling the Tangaroa could require substantial lead time for a mission of this length: possibly a year or more.382
Exhibit B - 8: Cost-Effectiveness Comparison for RAMP: American Samoa
Vessel Used Cost ($)
NOAA ship 3,229,050
NIWA ship 5,404,185
Notes: NOAA ship cost based on 103 days at sea using the Hi‘ialakai at the marginal cost estimated in Section 2. NIWA ship cost based on NIWA’s cost estimate to supply the mission requirements, including 34
additional days of transit time, converted to U.S. dollars and de-escalated as described in the text.
The quantitative analysis presented here is specifically for an example coral reef mission in the Pacific, where the NCRMP has historically relied on NOAA ships, not contract vessels. In comparison, for Atlantic coral reef areas, the NCRMP has primarily used small contract vessels to collect data. The NOAA ship Nancy Foster, however, could also be an option for this region if it were available. In fact, at the time of this study, the NCRMP was considering making a ship time request for the Nancy Foster to collect coral reef data near Puerto Rico. If the Nancy Foster were available, one to two weeks of ship time might replace three to four months of sporadic sampling using small contract boats, entailing multiple transits and multiple contracts.383 The NCRMP has not proceeded with the request for the Nancy Foster, however, because the program is allocated a limited budget for days at sea aboard NOAA ships. Using the Nancy Foster would take up part of that allocation and subtract from the days at sea available for the NCRMP’s other missions (e.g., using the Hi‘ialakai where options are scarce). The NCRMP subject matter expert has not yet identified the specific contract vessels that will be used as an alternative to the Nancy Foster in Puerto Rico or developed a cost estimate for them.384 Therefore, a quantitative comparison of the two alternatives is not possible at this time.
380 Personal communication with Rob Christie, Manager – Marine Resources, NIWA. February 24, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 381 “Preliminary Proposal for Marine Survey in American Samoa and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.” April 25, 2017. 382 Personal communication with Rob Christie, Manager – Marine Resources, NIWA. February 24, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 383 Personal communication with Justine Kimball and Susie Holst, National Coral Reef Monitoring Program. December 21, 2016. 384 E-mail communication with Justine Kimball, National Coral Reef Monitoring Program. February 13, 2017.
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-21
5. Capacity, Availability, and Other Factors Affecting the Use of Contract Vessels
This section discusses the capacity of contract vessels to support NOAA, including the factors affecting the availability of individual vessels. It also presents available information on future prices for contract vessel services. It concludes by touching on other factors that could affect NOAA’s use of contract vessels.
A primary source for this section is a set of informal, voluntary interviews with contract vessel providers conducted specifically for this study. Exhibit B - 9 identifies the providers interviewed, along with some summary information on the services they provide. Appendix C lists the questions that guided the interviews, along with detailed notes from each interview.
All of the providers interviewed have performed services for NOAA in the past. The interviewees are evenly split between commercial providers and research institutions. They represent a range of vessel capabilities, from small coastal vessels to large research ships with global range and multi-mission capabilities. A limitation is that the interviews only encompassed providers serving the U.S. west coast and Pacific Ocean. Providers serving the east coast, Gulf of Mexico, or Atlantic did not respond to requests for interviews. Note, however, that given the voluntary nature of the interviews and the small sample size, the interview process was not designed to be a statistical survey, only to collect qualitative information.
Exhibit B - 9: List of Contract Vessel Providers Interviewed
Organization Vessels Geographic Region Commercial Providers
Alaska Charter Boats Broker for fleet of research vessels Southeast Alaska
Auklet Charter Services R/V Auklet Southeast Alaska
Homer Ocean Charters Broker for fleet of research vessels Southeast Alaska
Miss Linda Charters R/V Miss Linda Oregon, Washington, and California
Research Institutions
MBARI R/V Western Flyer, R/V Rachel Carson, and R/V Paragon
Canada to Mexico and Hawaii (Western Flyer, Rachel Carson), Monterey Bay (Paragon)
NIWA R/V Tangaroa, R/V Kaharoa, and R/V Ikatere
Pacific and Indian Ocean (Tangaroa, Kaharoa), New Zealand coast (Ikatere)
Oregon State University R/V Elakha, R/V Pacific Storm, and UNOLS R/V Oceanus
University of Washington UNOLS R/V Thomas G. Thompson and R/V Clifford A. Barnes
Pacific Ocean
Acronyms and Abbreviations: MBARI = Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute; NIWA = New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research; UNOLS = University National Oceanographic Laboratory System
Another source used in this section is data from USAspending.gov, a publicly accessible U.S. government website that provides searchable, transaction-level information on federal contracts and grants.385 Specifically, this study uses data downloaded from USAspending for NOAA contracts for fiscal year 2015.386 To identify contracts specifically for vessels, the analysis examined contract descriptions in conjunction with the vendor’s NAICS code and the product or
385 “About: USAspending.gov.” Available at: https://www.usaspending.gov/about/usaspending/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed March 10, 2017. 386 Data downloaded for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 2015 from https://www.usaspending.gov/DownloadCenter/Pages/DataDownload.aspx. Accessed November 18, 2016.
service code iand was not athe USAspend
E
Program
NMFS
NOS Hydro
Other NOS P
NWS
OAR
NESDIS
TOTAL
Total exclud
Notes: Act NO
abo Spe
desAcronyms andMarine FisherAtmospheric
For NMFS anthan 90 perceapproach usednot unexpectemisses most cData, and Infopercent of NOTherefore, daNOAA’s vessdata allow exavendors used,
Cap5.1
Collection of available undtypes of fishinof internationhas a database
387 “Research Vhttp://www.res
identified in theable to identify ding data with
Exhibit B - 10:
graphic Servic
Programs
ding Hydrograp
tual spending is OS Hydrographic ove and beyond vending identifiedcribed in the textd Abbreviations:ries Service; NOResearch
nd NWS, the vant of the actuald to identify veed, given that thcontract vessel formation ServiOAA’s total speta derived fromsel contracts, esamining details, number of off
pacity and A
comprehensiveer contract wasng vessels. For
nal research shipe of vessels, by
Vessel Specificatsearchvessels.org
e system. Becaall of NOAA’sNOAA’s actua
Completeness
ces
phic Services
as presented in SServices contrac
vessel use. d in USAspendint from all NOAA: NESDIS = Nat
OS = National Oc
alue of contractl spending on cessel contracts ahese contracts spending by Oice. Even with ending on cont
m examining thspecially for Ns about NOAAferors).
Availability
e information os beyond the scexample, the O
p specificationy country of ori
tions Search.” Og/qryshipinfo.asp
App
ause USAspends vessel contracal spending on
s of Vessel Con
A
Section 3. cts are structured
g is the total basA contracts for fitional Environmecean Service; NW
ts identified in contract vesselsappears to missare structured a
Oceanic and Atmthese limitatio
tract vessels, anhe selected contNMFS and NOSA’s vessel contr
on the total numcope of this anaOcean Informas and scheduleigin, authorized
Ocean Informatiop.
pendix B: Effic
B-22
ding’s contract cts. Exhibit B -contract vessel
ntract Data from
Actual ($)
13,231,360
19,804,427
278,000
6,854,000
3,841,852
257,300
44,266,939
24,462,512
d as data buys in
e and all exercisiscal year 2015. ental Satellite, DWS = National W
the USAspends by each of thes most of the spas data buys inmospheric Reseons, however, tnd 80 percent otracts may be rS. This represenracting that are
mber of vesselsalysis. Databasation Center at tes.387 Similarly,d by their gove
on Center, Unive
ciency and Effe
descriptions ar- 10 compares tls presented in
m USAspendin
IdentifiUSAspend
0 12
7
0
0 6
2
0
9 19
2 19
nstead of tradition
sed options value
Data, and InformWeather Service
ding data for fisese programs. Fpending on hyd
nstead of traditiearch and the Nthe data extractof the total if hyreasonably reprntativeness is imnot readily ava
s with capabilites do exist thatthe University , the Inter-Ameernment to fish
ersity of Delawa
ectiveness of U
re brief, this apthe value of co
n Section 3.
ng for Fiscal Ye
ied in ding ($)
Pe
2,024,810
381,284
6,823,830
418,225
0
9,648,149
9,648,149
nal charters, cov
e of transactions
mation Service; Ne; OAR = Ocean
scal year 2015 For NOS, on thdrographic servional charters. TNational Envirted from USAsydrographic serresentative of thmportant becauailable elsewhe
ties useful to Nt identify reseaof Delaware m
erican Tropicalfor species und
are. Available at:
Using Contract V
pproach is impeontracts identifi
ear 2015
ercent Identifi
9
>9
1
4
8
vering services
filtered as
NMFS = Nationanic and
accounts for mhe other hand, tvices. This resuThe approach aronmental Satespending capturrvices are excluhe majority of use the USAspere (i.e., numbe
NOAA that migarch ships or cemaintains a datal Tuna Commisder the purview
:
Vessels
erfect ied in
ied
1%
2%
9%
1%
0%
4%
0%
al
more the ult is also llite, re 44 uded.
pending er of
ght be ertain abase ssion w of
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-23
the Commission.388 These databases, however, do not provide information regarding whether the vessels are available for use under contract or have capabilities suitable for NOAA’s purposes.
In addition to being suitable for the mission and available for hire, vessels used by NOAA under contract must meet certain minimum safety standards and regulatory requirements, particularly if NOAA staff are to be aboard as passengers. The process of determining the specific requirements applicable to a given contract vessel can be complex.389 Requirements can include that the vessel has a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Letter of Designation as an oceanographic research vessel, a USCG Certificate of Inspection, or a USCG Certificate of Documentation as a fishing vessel and Commercial Fishing Vessel Decal.390 These requirements may limit the pool of available contract vessels.
The data on charter contracts filtered from USAspending show that NOAA had transactions with more than 130 individual vendors under approximately 200 unique contracts in fiscal year 2015. Exhibit B - 11 shows data on the number of bids received for each of these contracts. Although a few contracts had a large number of bidders, just over half received only one offer and almost 70 percent had two or fewer offers.391 Therefore, while the overall size of the charter industry may be large, these data suggest that the number of vendors with the capability to support the specific requirements of a given project can be small (i.e., one or two).
Exhibit B - 11: Number of Offers Received for NOAA Charter Vessel Contracts Active in Fiscal Year 2015
Program Number of Contracts
Offers Received per Contract Percent of Contracts Average Range Only one offer One or two offers
NMFS 151 2.1 1 to 9 51% 70%
NOS 20 2.2 1 to 8 55% 70%
NWS 17 4 1 to 18 41% 53%
OAR 4 1.25 1 to 2 75% 100%
TOTAL 192 2.3 1 to 18 51% 69%
Acronyms and Abbreviations: NESDIS = National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NOS = National Ocean Service; NWS = National Weather Service; OAR = Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
The interviews with charter providers also addressed several topics related to capacity and availability. All of the vendors interviewed expressed interest in NOAA work and a willingness to continue supporting it. Nearly all of them predicted they would have very good availability to do so, both in the immediate future and in coming years.
A key exception to the generally high availability is among the larger ships of UNOLS fleet, where there are competing demands for limited ship time. In particular, the R/V Thomas G. Thompson just completed a mid-life maintenance overhaul that reduced her availability during the past year. The R/V Roger Revelle is scheduled for mid-life maintenance during 2018, which will likewise limit availability.392 A commercial vessel broker also indicated that, while overall availability is good, it is dependent on vessel capability, specifically size. Smaller vessels are always more available.393
Most of the vendors (six of the nine) reported that their availability is greater with more advance planning. The lead time required to access charter services varies depending on the length of the project and on the size of the vessel. Operators of
388 “IATTC Vessel Database.” Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Available at: https://www.iattc.org/VesselRegister/VesselList.aspx?List=RegVessels&Lang=ENG#United_States. 389 For example, see the Minimum Requirements Flowchart available at: https://www.omao.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Visio-Vessel%20Chartering%20Requirements%20Flowchart%20V4.pdf. 390 “Vessel Chartering Info.” Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Available at: http://www.omao.noaa.gov/learn/headquarters/safety-environmental-compliance/vessel-chartering-info. Accessed January 12, 2017. 391 Data are not available on the number of solicitations that received no bids. 392 Personal communication with Doug Russell, University of Washington and UNOLS Vessel R/V Thomas G. Thompson. February 23, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 393 Personal communication with Linda Kadrlick, Alaska Charter Boats. March 2, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes.
smaller vesselreport being avessels, more conducted by distribution o
The majority one of the intecompeting obfishing vesselsummer. EvenExhibit B - 13NOAA ships June). The NO
394 Based on datrials, and trans395 Personal com396 E-mail com
ls report that plable to respond
planning is reqNOAA’s fleetf these mission
of the providererviewees spec
bligation as partls.396 Based on n during summ3 shows the totaexecute missio
OAA fleet, how
ata provided by Osit not assigned tmmunication wi
mmunication with
lanning early ind very quickly wquired, howevet in fiscal yearsns by length.
Exhibit B - 12
rs (five of the ncifically mentioticularly importhe interviews,
mer, however, thal days at sea e
ons year-round,wever, also exe
OMAO. Excludeto a specific lineith Roark Brownh Michael Gallag
App
n the year for owhen needed, wer: often a years 2015 and 201
2. Length of M
nine) reported toned fishing seartant in the sche, research vessehe intervieweesexecuted by the, but, like chartecutes a signific
es fleet services e office) and schen, Homer Ocean gher, National M
pendix B: Effic
B-24
operations in thwithin a week or or more in adv6 was approxim
Missions Condu
that their vesseason.395 A NOAeduling of NMels, like fishings reported goode NOAA fleet iter vessels, theycant number of
and program supeduled missions Charters. Febru
Marine Fisheries
ciency and Effe
he summer is idor even a day. Fvance. For conmately 25 days
ucted by NOA
els are busiest dAA subject ma
MFS charters, mg vessels, also hd availability, pin each month y are busiest duf days at sea ou
upport activities ( where actual da
uary 15, 2017. SeService. Februar
ectiveness of U
deal. Some of tFor longer proj
ntext, the averags at sea.394 Exh
AA Fleet
during the summatter expert, how
most of which arhave greater avparticularly witof fiscal years uring the summutside of summ
(e.g., inspectionays at sea were ree Appendix C f
ary 9, 2017.
Using Contract V
these operatorsjects aboard large length of mi
hibit B - 12 sho
mer months. Owever, identifire commercial vailability outsith advance plan2015 and 2016
mer (particularlmer (particularly
s, shakedowns, sreported as zero. for interview not
Vessels
s also rger issions
ows the
Only ed this
ide of nning. 6. ly y
sea
tes.
Appendix B:
March througthose vessels
Most of the prproject requirevolved into irecommendatwilling to makengaging the
Examining thconclusions asuccessfully cprovide supporequirements of vessels. Th
397 Based on datrials, and trans398 Personal com399 Personal com
Efficiency and
gh April and Ochave greater av
roviders, particrements, more sits current reseations.398 One reke changes, thiservices of a m
he information fabout capacity acontracts with aort, even to the(e.g., vessel ca
he number of su
ata provided by Osit not assigned tmmunication wimmunication wi
d Effectiveness
ctober).397 Thesvailability.
Exhibit B - 13
cularly the comso for longer-tearch configuratesearch institutiis institution co
marine architect
from interviewand availabilitya variety of diffextent of mod
apabilities, projuch projects ma
OMAO. Excludeto a specific lineith Bob Pedro, Mith Monita Chee
of Using Cont
se schedule dat
3. Days at Sea E
mmercial vendoerm projects antion precisely bion, on the otheonsiders safety t when needed.
wees in conjuncy. The overall sfferent providerdifying their vesject schedulingay be large, bas
es fleet services e office) and scheMiss Linda Chartver, Oregon Stat
tract Vessels
B-25
ta suggest there
Executed by N
ors, also reportend contracts. Onbecause of moder hand, reportecarefully befor399
tion with the dsize of the charrs. Individual vssels to suit pro
g, or location) thsed on the avai
and program supeduled missions ters. March 6, 20te University. Fe
e may be oppor
NOAA Fleet by
ed a willingnesne commercialdifications baseed a more consre making majo
data from USAsrter vessel induvendors are genoject needs. Sphat are not a goilable data abou
upport activities ( where actual da017. See Appendebruary 28, 2017
rtunities to util
Month
ss to modify thel vendor even ned on customerservative approor modification
spending suggeustry is large annerally willing pecific projects,ood match for aut the number o
(e.g., inspectionays at sea were rdix C for intervi7. See Appendix
lize charters wh
eir vessels to sunoted that his vr oach. Althoughns, including
ests the followind NOAA and available t, however, maya very large nuof bids receive
s, shakedowns, sreported as zero. iew notes. x C for interview
hen
upport vessel
h
ing
to y have umber ed.
sea
w notes.
Fut5.2
All of the chaservices. Chanof such chang
Outside of maonly small incpercent annuachanged substtransportationreceived by Uindustries andcategory 483,changes with specifically mcurrent value PPI for 2016 w
Exhibit B - 14With the exce
Oth5.3
Three of the cThese factors it to access comeet the missthem.402 Othean individual budget, not ouadditional budprocess may c
400 “Producer PAccessed May 401 Time series March 7, 2017402 E-mail and 12, 2017. 403 Personal com10, 2017.
ture Prices
arter providers inges in fuel pri
ges on relative c
ajor changes increases in the pal increase. As tantially recent
n industry, usedU.S. producers od groups of pro, which is the crespect to a ba
measures price cof the index anwas 131.5, it m
4 shows annualeption of a mod
Exhibit B
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
her Barriers
case studies prediffer across N
ommercial vesssion requiremener programs, homarine sanctuaut of the sanctudget to replace create an incen
Price Index Frequ
24, 2017. data downloade
. personal commu
mmunication wi
interviewed ideices would, of cost effectiven
n fuel prices, mprices for their a point of refertly. These stated elsewhere in tof goods and seducts. In this category to whi
ase period, for wchanges in reland 100 reflects means that price
l average valuederate decrease
B - 14: Produce
s and Incent
esented in SectiNOAA programsels to perform nts (e.g., ancill
owever, do not ary receives shuary’s budget. Ithat time using
ntive to use char
uently Asked Qu
ed for producer p
unication with K
ith Jan Roletto, R
App
entified fuel prcourse, affect bess would be li
ost intervieweeservices. The mrence for their pements are genethis analysis. Pervices. The U
case, we examinch many of NOwhich the indexation to a base p
the percent ches in 2016 were
es for the PPI foe in 2016, price
er Price Index
Annual Av
tives
ion 4 identifiedms. For exampl
mooring mainary science is nhave the mech
hip time on the NIf the NOAA shg a charter vessrters. Specifica
uestions.” U.S. B
price index for N
Kathleen O’Neil,
Research Coordi
pendix B: Effic
B-26
rices as the majboth charter veimited to some
es, including almost common ppredictions, twerally consisten
PPIs measure th.S. Bureau of Lned the PPI forOAA’s contractx is set to 100. period of Decemange in prices e, on average, 3
or the water traes in this indust
(PPI) for the W
erage Index V
136.4
135.1
138.5
138.9
131.5
d institutional fle, the NDBC hntenance. Becaunot required), Nanisms or budgNOAA fleet, thhip time is not sel or vessels.40
ally, the NCRM
Bureau of Labor
NAICS category
National Weath
inator at the Gul
ciency and Effe
jor factor that wessels and the Ne extent.
ll of those williprediction was
wo of the intervnt with the trenhe average chanLabor Statisticsr the water trant vessel providThe PPI for thmber 2003. Thsince Decembe31.5 percent hi
ansportation indtry have remain
Water Transpo
Value
factors that affehas a marine seuse of this mecNDBC finds it get to readily ahat allocation iavailable, the
03 For still otheMP did not proc
r Statistics. https
483 from https:/
her Service, Nati
lf of the Farallon
ectiveness of U
would affect fuNOAA fleet. Th
ing to make a p in the range of
viewees noted thnds observed innge over time is publishes PPInsportation induders belong). PPhe water transpohus, the differener 2003.400 So, igher than in D
dustry for the lned fairly stabl
ortation Indust
Change from
2
-1
2
0
-5
ect NOAA’s uservices contractchanism, when easy to access
access charters.is paid out of thsanctuary does
er programs, thceed with a ship
://www.bls.gov/
//www.bls.gov/p
ional Data Buoy
nes National Mar
Using Contract V
uture prices for herefore, the im
prediction, predf a two to threehat prices have
n the PPI for thein the selling pIs for various ustry (NAICS PIs measure prortation industrnce between thif the annual a
December 2003
last five years.4
e.
try
m Previous Yea
.2%
1.0%
.5%
.3%
5.3%
se of charter vet vehicle that alcontract vesseand schedule For example, he larger NOS s not receive
he fleet allocatiop time request
/ppi/ppifaq.htm.
ppi/data.htm. Ac
Center. January
rine Sanctuary. J
Vessels
their mpact
dicted e e not e water rices
ice ry
he average .
401
ar
essels. llows ls can
when
on for the
ccessed
y 10 and
January
Appendix B: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Using Contract Vessels
B-27
Nancy Foster, because using the Foster would take up part of the program’s ship time allocation and subtract from the days at sea available for the NCRMP’s other missions.404
From the vendor perspective, the charter providers interviewed did not identify major barriers to working for NOAA. A few interviewees identified paperwork requirements as a minor issue that they have learned to handle. They specifically mentioned difficulties with invoicing procedures that can require additional effort and result in delays in payment of up to several months.405,406 One vendor noted that they account for this effort and the potential delays in their pricing.407
Several interviewees identified incentives to working for NOAA. Most frequently identified was the detailed planning that NOAA does in advance of its projects. Two of the interviewees specifically noted that this planning is better than that of other science parties or organizations, making it easier to work with NOAA.408,409
404 E-mail communication with Justine Kimball, National Coral Reef Monitoring Program. February 13, 2017. 405 Personal communication with Monita Cheever, Oregon State University. February 15, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 406 Personal communication with Roark Brown, Homer Ocean Charters. February 28, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 407 Ibid. 408 Personal communication with Doug Russell, University of Washington and UNOLS Vessel R/V Thomas G. Thompson. February 23, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes. 409 Personal communication with Bob Pedro, Miss Linda Charters. March 6, 2017. See Appendix C for interview notes.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-1
6. Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers As discussed in Appendix B, this project included informal interviews with charter providers in order to gather information capacity within the contract vessel industry to support NOAA and the cost of that support. The following substantive questions guided each of these interviews:
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past? 2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA
might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of? 3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic
winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support? 7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have
other priorities)? 8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA? 9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past? 10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)? 11. What factors drive these prices? This appendix provides the detailed notes from each of the interviews.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-2
Interview with Roark Brown, Homer Ocean Charters, Homer, Alaska
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past?
Homer Ocean Charters owns/operates a fleet of vessels up to 60 feet and contracts out for additional vessels, including larger ships. Some example projects for NOAA have included deployment of tidal current meters and deployment of a weather buoy. The weather buoy project used a 100 foot vessel when NOAA had difficult scheduling time using a USCG vessel. Projects usually involve at least one NOAA person aboard.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
Willing to do just about any type of mission.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
They often make modifications. For example, they installed a hull-mounted acoustic Doppler current profilers. This definitely depends on the duration of the contract. For a one-day project, they are not likely to make extensive modifications, but they are willing to “saw the boat in half” if the contract is long enough.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Good, they are almost always able to find an appropriate vessel.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
[This question was not answered]
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support?
Their vessels operate in Cook Inlet and throughout the Gulf of Alaska.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
June to August is always busy in the region because of salmon season. There are also Navy exercises that have engaged a large number of private vessels during late June for the last few years.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA?
Not really, although Federal government contracts are always a paper shuffle, although state contracts are sometimes worse. Changing invoicing procedures can result in months of delays in getting paid. They often anticipate this and build a premium into their pricing because of it.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past?
Varies depending on the project, but $3,000 to $8,000 per day is typical, including for the buoy deployment project.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-3
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Expect small annual increases, but nothing significant unless there are substantial changes in fuel prices.
11. What factors drive these prices?
See above regarding fuel prices.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-4
Interview with Captain Doug Russell, University of Washington and UNOLS Vessel R/V Thomas G. Thompson, Seattle, Washington
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past? The Thompson has supported NOAA extensively over the last few years through the UNOLS ship time request process. Projects have included dedicated NOAA cruises, as well as smaller NOAA projects that piggyback on other cruises. The NOAA exclusive cruises include 40 day mooring maintenance projects (primarily TAO buoys). On these cruises, the University supplies two marine technicians to do the actual maintenance, in addition to the ship time. There will also be a NOAA science team of up to ten people aboard to do ancillary science. When supporting piggyback projects, the University ends up charging NOAA for a portion of the total cruise costs (e.g., one to two days of a 20 to 40 day cruise). The University’s partnership vehicle with NSF makes the charge-back process easy.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
The University also has a smaller (55 foot), older vessel (the Barnes) that NOAA has occasionally used. They are partnering with NOAA on design of a new smaller vessel to support fisheries projects and hope for a contribution from NOAA on the construction costs through UNOLS. They also have a pool of scientific equipment available and often consider potential NOAA uses when investing in new equipment.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
They have made modifications, albeit minor, for NOAA in the past. They are more than willing to do large modifications. For example, they added large through-ports to support NASA projects during the recent overhaul. It all depends on lead time and funding.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
The Thompson is just coming out of a major, mid-life maintenance overhaul which reduced her availability during the past year. Her sister ship, the Revelle, will be in her mid-life maintenance during 2018. This means there will be high demand during 2018-2019. NOAA is involved in the UNOLS ship time process, although it sometimes comes to the table later in the process. The prioritization process is complex. The Navy and NSF get a slightly higher priority in the process, but as a federal agency NOAA also has high priority over other competing organizations. The TAO (and DART) cruises get high priority, in particular, because they are consistently funded from year-to-year.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
Ideally, requests are made in February, and firmed up during March and April, for operations during the following year (e.g., requests in early 2017 are made for cruises during 2018). The ship scheduling process is dynamic and changes during the course of a year, but plans made earlier in the calendar year have the best chance for the following year. The lead time, however, can depend on the length of the project. Small projects may be piggybacked in, if the opportunity is there once the major projects have been decided.
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support? The Thompson operates primarily in the Pacific, sometimes the Indian Ocean. The Revelle operates more frequently in the Indian Ocean. Of the other class UNOLS ships:
The Atlantis travels back and forth between the Atlantic and Pacific The Kilo Moana (University of Hawaii) is primarily near Hawaii in the Pacific The Sikuliaq is in Alaska in the summer and fall, the rest of the Pacific during the remainder of the year The new ocean class vessel planned for UNOLS will support the northern Pacific. It won’t have quite the endurance of the Thompson.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-5
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
Summer, really May through October, is jam packed and the Thompson operates mostly in the Washington and Oregon region during this period. In November, it is usually dedicated to student cruises in the same region -- the ship spends a total of 45 days a year, of its usually 260 to 300, supporting University of Washington research. During other parts of the year, the Thompson operates farther out of the region.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA? NOAA is easy to work for, because their detailed planning is often better than that of other science parties. The only barrier can be uncertain funding (especially early in the planning process), but the TAO and DART cruises have been consistently funded.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past? Rates for the TAO cruises are around $35,000 per day for the ship plus $4,500 per day for the marine technicians (a total of $39,500 per day). Because NOAA requires day rates to be set up front, instead of adjusted at the time of billing (which is the practice NSF employs), there is a 5 percent markup included in what we charge NOAA. Also, there is some fee involved in passing the money through NSF.
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)? The prices were high this past year because the Thompson was out of service for a time, meaning increased demand. However, typical increases are in the 2 to 3 percent range per year.
11. What factors drive these prices? Fuel is the key factor. For UNOLS in general, there are differences because of the overhead of the different university systems and the geographic regions of operation. The Revelle is more expensive, for example, both because of the University of California system and costs in California in general.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-6
Interview with Rob Christie, New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington, New Zealand
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past?
NIWA is a government-owned organization, but operates like a business. Their research includes atmospheric, marine, freshwater, fisheries, geophysical science, etc. About the only thing they don’t do is deep sea geology; in New Zealand, that particular capability is held by a different organization. NIWA consists of about 605 people in 14 offices. About half of their work is through contracts with organizations in New Zealand and the other half with organizations throughout the rest of the world.
NIWA operates three vessels: the 70-meter (330-foot) R/V Tangaroa, the 28-meter (92-foot) R/V Kaharoa, and a smaller, coastal vessel, the R/V Ikatere. NIWA has had very few direct contracts with NOAA, but NOAA has accessed its vessels through subcontracts with the University of Washington and Scripps. NIWA’s vessels have conducted 19 previous cruises for NOAA. They are currently planning the next cruise for NOAA, 15 percent of which will be funded by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s equivalent to NOAA. NIWA meets annually with NOAA leadership and attends the International Research Ship Operators’ (IRSO) conference to talk about collaborating on research worldwide.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
NIWA’s ships have permanent crews of their own employees, not contractors. Their crews have long-standing tenures with the organization, an average of 15 years. Their crews are not unionized, so they are quicker to deploy and more responsive. NIWA potentially has a new 35-meter (115-foot) vessel in the pipeline, which will add the capability to deploy ROVs. They currently have a cost-effective drone that can get seabed imagery, but the new ship will add full ROV capability. They also have warehouses of equipment with their own technicians, so they can provide turnkey services.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
NIWA modifies its vessels all the time, sometimes extensively, but financial viability is the bottom line. For big modifications, it’s necessary to have a long-term contract or be reimbursed directly.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Both the Kaharoa and Tangaroa have about 150 to 160 days a year available. The limitations are a couple of voyages that are set in stone and unmovable, usually fisheries work set around repeated trawling. Most other projects are not time-specific, which offers some flexibility.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
Lead time depends on the complexity of the voyage. NIWA is pretty agile. The geographic region requested and the number of permits required are big factors in determining lead time. This year they already have quite a few months tied up. Ultimately, lead time could be a year for a longer or more complex voyage, two months for less complex trips.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-7
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support?
NIWA’s ships can travel across the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, as far west as Mauritius, including voyages of 45 days at sea without returning to port. They have done about 13 voyages to the Antarctic. They would not rule out working in the Atlantic, but this would require considering the next projects on the schedule because of transit time.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
Except for the set fisheries voyages, they are available year-round. Each ship has two crews that alternate months on and off, year-round.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA?
No real barriers. NIWA has a lot of respect for NOAA. Working for NOAA is seen as a prestige job that offers good exposure, so there is an incentive to do it.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past?
Prices are dependent on the project. The last subcontracted project for NOAA on the Kaharoa was deploying ARGO floats and the rate was 11,500 New Zealand dollars per day including fuel. The Tangaroa has not worked recently for NOAA, but has in the past. Their current target day rate for the Tangaroa is 57,500 New Zealand dollars per day including fuel. These prices are ship rates only. Additional science support and equipment would increase the price, possibly up to 80,000 New Zealand dollars per day.
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Prices will change in line with the rest of the industry. The new 35-meter vessel would probably replace the Kaharoa and be more expensive.
11. What factors drive these prices?
Fuel and demand from other missions/cruises.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-8
Interview with Monita Cheever, Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past?
Oregon State owns and operates the 84 foot R/V Pacific Storm and the 54 foot R/V Elakha. It also operates the UNOLS R/V Oceanus. NOAA has used all of these ships for many different projects, including trawls, CTD deployment, water flow measurement, buoy deployment (including DART buoys), and equipment recovery. The vessels have supported both daytime and nighttime operations for NOAA.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
The University is not planning any major vessel acquisitions. They are, however, enhancing the Pacific Storm to install a flow-through seawater system for sampling like that on the Oceanus and Elakha. They are installing interface systems that will allow equipment to be transferred and used across vessels. They are installing a new crane at their jetty to support equipment loading. They also have another small vessel (17 foot).
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
Modifications are possible, but safety is the key factor. In the past, when major modifications were requested, they have engaged a marine architect to evaluate the proposal. Thus, modifications require careful planning; they are not done in a day. But the University is willing to make modifications, subject to this planning, particularly if there is a long term contract involve or the installed equipment could be of future benefit to other projects. For example, after evaluation, they have added major equipment in the past to support a project for researchers from another college.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
There is currently availability on their ship schedules and that availability is not expected to change that much. Weather is a bigger challenge than competing demands. The availability of the Elakha has actually increased over the last five years, due to certain projects ending or losing funding. The Pacific Storm also now supports year-round operations.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
The Pacific Storm and Elakha are normally ready to go, since they do maintenance during bad weather. The University has even supported projects on one-day notice in the past. And they are willing and able to reschedule projects, even long-term ones, for example, when there are weather delays. Ideally and typically, though, a couple of weeks lead time is required. For NOAA specifically, it is typical to plan and schedule, for example, in January or February for operations in May or June.
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support?
The Elakha supports coastal operations (out to 50 nautical miles) close to home, from the Columbia River to Coos Bay. The Pacific Storm has travelled from Baja, Mexico up to Alaska. The Oceanus is global, although it stays on the Pacific side for the most part, because other UNOLS vessels support the Atlantic. Voyages have included South America and the Galapagos Islands, west of Hawaii, the Orient, Dutch Harbor, and Mexico.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-9
For the larger vessels, summer (April through August) is busy. The Pacific Storm is mostly scheduled for long blocks starting in April, but has open availability for short periods (4 to 5 days) here and there. November through January are less busy, weather permitting. The Elakha has availability all year round, currently scheduled for no more than 15 days a month.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA?
NOAA is easy to work for, and provides cruise plans in advance. Paperwork and invoicing can be challenging with the federal government in general. There are varying invoicing procedures for different groups within NOAA, and some make post-cruise invoicing smoother than others. There can sometimes be delays in payment (a worst case has been six months), which require follow-up effort.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past?
Oregon State’s rates for the Pacific Storm and Elakha are available at: https://fees.oregonstate.edu/. NOAA uses the external rates.
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Fuel drives pricing, so it is difficult to forecast. The University’s marine operations are not meant to make huge profits or support the expansion of services, so prices are meant to reflect what the market will bear.
11. What factors drive these prices?
See above.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-10
Interview with David Janka, Auklet Charter Services, Cordova, Alaska
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past?
Auklet Charter Services provides vessel support for extended periods of time throughout the Pr. Wm. Sound region of Alaska. Licensed captain, cook/crew, meals & snacks, bunking w/bedding, skiff use, open deck with hydraulic boom and block, shuttle crews ashore, communications, navigation, general assistance and logistical support. See www.auklet.com for further descriptions and photos.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
Possible portable wet lab on deck. Additional hydraulics on the boom. Possibly a transducer well.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
I have done this for the Pr. Wm. Sound Science Center and would be more than willing to do it for NOAA. Long-term contracts: definitely.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Our charter season is made up of about 80 percent research/work trip support trips. I try to keep the vessel available throughout the year and always look forward to working with federal agencies especially those I have worked with in the past; NOAA, NMFS, USFWS, USGS, USFS, NRCS, USCG.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
If available, very little, less than a week.
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support?
Prefer inland waters, especially within Pr. Wm. Sound but depending on the nature, time of year and duration of the charter - Kenai Fiords, Kodiak Is. area, Southeast Alaska, Glacier Bay, Yakutat Bay, Icy Bay. Again, prefer inland waters.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
We operate year-round although winter does have its limitations.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA?
Not really. Paperwork is paperwork.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past?
Basic rate is $1200.00 per day with up to 4 passengers. $100.00 per day each additional passenger. Six passenger maximum. Possibly more if a great deal of running time is required, if odd hours are required, if extra assistance is needed on my or my crew’s part, if any special, if location is distant from our homeport of Cordova or additional
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-11
equipment is needed for me to purchase. More Sept-March (off season for regular insurance). An additional $300.00 per day if more than 12 hours of running time is required (second captain required). Possibly more.
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
We expect prices to change very little unless fuel prices rise substantially or inflation sets in.
11. What factors drive these prices?
Fuel, food, insurance, location, time of year, nature of work.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-12
Interview with Linda Kadrlick, Alaska Charter Boats, 907-523-0897, Juneau, Alaska
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past?
Alaska Charter Boats owns and operates one vessel, but primarily represents a fleet of vessels, including research vessels, fishing vessels, and pleasure vessels, as a broker. Their fleet has worked for several groups within NOAA. Alaska Charter Boats watches the federal procurement process and prepares bids for the vessels they represent.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
Alaska Charter Boats replies to specific requests for proposals. If nothing in their fleet matches the requirements, they sometimes try to locate a vessel for specific projects, although this is not typical of the process for NOAA. A key advantage of the vessels they represent is that their captains and crews are knowledgeable of local waters.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
Most of the time, Captains are willing to modify their vessels, if the changes are not too radical. There is definitely more willingness with longer-term contracts.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
There’s always availability for the types of vessels NOAA uses. Vessel size is key, though. The smaller vessels are more available. It is hard to predict, though, what the makeup of the fleet of vessels they represent will be in the future.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
Alaska Charter Boats reacts to the requirements of the specific request for proposal. More lead time is better, though. Four or five months is ideal for planning, longer for longer jobs.
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support?
They represent vessels that serve Prince William Sound, Kodiak, and southeast Alaska waters.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
The primary determinant is weather, so obviously there are limitations to going to sea in winter.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA?
Most of the time, the contracting process works well. The specificity of the contracts is helpful in finding the right vessel.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past?
Prices depend greatly on the specific vessel. For the larger research vessels it is around $5 to $6 thousand per day dry rate (without fuel).
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-13
Prices have remained stable over the last few years. It’s difficult to predict the future, but prices might go up a little.
11. What factors drive these prices?
Fuel.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-14
Interview with Michael Kelly, Director of Marine Operations, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), Moss Landing, California
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past? MBARI owns and operates the 117 foot R/V Western Flyer and the 135 foot R/V Rachel Carson. It also operates the smaller (32-foot) near-coastal vessel R/V Paragon under lease from the University of California, Santa Cruz. MBARI collaborates with NOAA’s Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, so there are sometimes one to two NOAA staff from the Sanctuary conducting piggyback research on MBARI cruises. NOAA has used the MBARI ships for dedicated cruises only twice in the last decade, in 2006 and 2010. The more recent project supported mapping a wreck using an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
With the exception of collaborating with the Sanctuary, MBARI usually only supports NOAA when they have capabilities that are not available elsewhere in the NOAA or academic fleet. The Institute does not actively seek out dedicated research missions for other organization.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
MBARI’s existing vessels have some adaptability in configuration. More extensive modification would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
If NOAA requested support from MBARI ships, short-term availability would be questionable. Their schedules do include contingency days, so shorter projects (5 to 6 days) might be feasible in the short term. For longer cruises, a one year lead time would be best.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
See above.
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support? The Western Flyer and Rachel Carson support research along the entire West Coast from Canada to the Gulf of California in Mexico. Occasionally, they have travelled as far west as Hawaii.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
Winter would be more available.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA? Not to note.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past? MBARI's rates for the Western Flyer and Rachel Carson are available at: http://www.mbari.org/at-sea/mars-ship-rates/. These rates have been very recently updated (in the last several days). Note that although the rates for the Western Flyer are listed as for a 12 hour day, these same rates would apply to extended time at sea without returning to port and could include some nighttime work, subject to crew rest regulations. The rates for the Rachel Carson do reflect a 10 to 12 hour day.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-15
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)? The recent update to their prices did not incorporate a large change, maybe a 3 percent increase. MBARI would not anticipate huge changes in the future unless there are dramatic changes in fuel prices.
11. What factors drive these prices? See above.
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-16
Interview with Bob Pedro, Miss Linda Charters, Charleston, Oregon
1. Can you provide a brief description of the services that you have provided for NOAA in the past? The Miss Linda is 76 foot charter research vessel. Her biggest projects for NOAA have involved the deployment and retrieval of current measurement devices (upwelling and subsurface) in the San Francisco Bay and adjacent rivers. With a NOAA scientific team aboard, she deployed the devices and retrieved them after a few weeks to change batteries, download data, and redeploy them at new locations.
2. Do you have additional current or planned capabilities (e.g., additional vessels, other services that that NOAA might not have used in the past) that you’d be interested in making NOAA aware of?
The Miss Linda has also done research charters for Oregon State University, the Navy, and the States of Oregon and California. She has bid on additional work for NOAA in the Puget Sound region. She is well configured for the deployment and retrieval of remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). For example, she just recently finished a project deploying and testing wave gliders for a private company.
3. How willing would you be to modify your vessel (e.g., adding hull mounted transducers, adding oceanographic winches, etc.) to make it more suitable for NOAA charter work? Would the possibility of long term contracts (multi-year) make you more amenable to modifying the vessel?
Absolutely willing: modifications to better support customers are how the ship has evolved to its current configuration. For example, the A-frame was installed to support the Navy. Existing davits and winch were based on customer recommendations.
4. Given competing requirements or requests for your services, what do you predict your availability and capacity to support NOAA might be in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)?
The ship is dedicated to supporting research projects, so is generally available as needed. There aren’t competing uses (e.g., fishing) and no current long-term research commitments.
5. What is the lead time required for NOAA to access your services (i.e., from initial scheduling through issuance of a contract to actually going to sea)?
NOAA typically plans early in the year for operations in the summer and this is ideal; the earlier the better. The ship is not always totally booked, though, so there is the potential for quick turnaround.
6. Are there limitations on the geographic region in which you can provide support? Oregon, Washington, and California.
7. Are there specific periods of the year when you can or cannot provide support (e.g., seasons where you have other priorities)?
Winter is not busy because most users don’t want to put their equipment in jeopardy, although Miss Linda has done and is currently doing projects during winter. Spring and summer are busier.
8. Are there other barriers to or incentives for working with NOAA? NOAA projects are well organized and the NOAA science teams are professional. This makes them much easier to work with than some other organizations.
9. What are typical prices of the services you’ve provided NOAA in the past? The Miss Linda has standard day rates for a minimum of 6 hours with hourly rates beyond that. However, for multi-day projects like NOAA’s, they typically incorporate a discount, especially on transit days.
10. How do you expect these prices to change in the future (i.e., in the next year, in the next five years)? There haven’t been major price changes recently because fuel hasn’t changed much. Miss Linda’s standard fuel rate (about $20/hour) is not likely to change much unless there’s a major spike in fuel prices (e.g., $1/gallon).
Appendix C: Interviews with Charter Providers
C-17
11. What factors drive these prices? See question 10 above.
Appendix D: Acknowledgements
D-1
Appendix D: Acknowledgements
This report was developed for NOAA Office of Marine & Aviation Operations (OMAO) by Janet Clements and Jim Henderson, Senior Economists at Corona Environmental Consulting, and Patrick Ransom, Senior Engineer at Abt Associates. Abt Associates team members Christina Cornejo and Michael Duckworth also contributed significantly to the development of this report, and the research and analysis presented herein.
The authors would like to thank the NOAA project team for the support, input, and significant contributions they provided throughout this project:
Charles Alexander, Office of Marine Aviation Operations, project director Cecilé Benigni, OMAO project manager and technical lead Jeffery Adkins, Office of the NOAA Chief Economist, lead economist,
This study relied on extensive input and review from subject matter experts and product support teams across NOAA Offices. We would like to extend our thanks to the following individuals who made it possible to evaluate the benefits associated with a small subset of NOAA products and services that depend on the NOAA Fleet (as indicated), and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using contract vessels for some data collection activities.
Coral Reef Status and Trends Report Susie Holst, Management and Program Analyst, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Justine Kimball, National Coral Reef Monitoring Program Coordinator
Sea Level Rise Viewer Doug Marcy, Coastal Hazards Specialist at NOAA Office for Coastal Management Maria Honeycutt, Coastal Hazards Specialist at NOAA Office for Coastal Management
Harmful Algal Bloom Forecasts Quay Dortch, Program Coordinator, Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
Program Steve Ruberg, Acting Supervisor, Observing Systems and Advanced Technology Branch Kimberly Puglise, Oceanographer, NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Appendix D: Acknowledgements
D-2
Tsunamis Inundation Models and Forecasts Rocky Lopes, Deputy Program Manager, NWS Tsunami Program Michael Angove, Tsunami Program Manager Kelly Stroker, Leader, Coastal Sciences Team/Natural Hazards, NOAA National Centers for
Environmental Information
Ocean Noise Mapping Products Jason Gedamke, Director, Ocean Acoustics Program
Hypoxia Forecast, Gulf of Mexico Angela Sallis, Outreach Coordinator, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information Kirsten Larsen, Coastal Data Development Science Advisor, NOAA National Centers for
Environmental Information Alan Lewitus, Branch Chief, Ecosystem Stressors Research Branch, Center for Sponsored Coastal
Ocean Research Kimberly Puglise, Oceanographer, NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Hurricane Outlook David DeWitt, Director, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center Gerry Bell, Lead Forecaster, Meteorologist, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center
Emergency and Disaster Response Megan Greenaway, Technical Advisor, Hydrographic Surveys Division Richard Brennan, Chief, Hydrographic Surveys Division Mike Aslaksen, Chief of NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey’s Remote Sensing Division Sam DeBow, OCS Market Manager, Vice President, Lynker Technologies,
Oil Spill Response and Research (Deepwater Horizon Incident Data Collection) Scott Cross, East Coast Regional Science Officer, NOAA National Centers for Environmental
Information
Endangered Species Support, Mammals Annette Henry, Survey Coordinator, Marine Mammal and Turtle Division, NOAA Fisheries
Technical Support for NOAA Data Streams and Associated Products Martin Yapur, Director, NOAA’s Technology, Planning and Integration for Observation Program
(TPIO) David Helms, Technical Support, NOAA’s Technology, Planning and Integration for Observation
Program Robert Reining, Principal Economic/Business Analyst, MITRE Corporation, TPIO Integrated
System Analysis Team Brant Priest, Research Scientist, Riverside Technology, Inc, TPIO Observation Team Amanda Mitchell, Research Scientist, Integrity Applications Incorporated , TPIO Requirements
Team Matthew Austin, Physical Scientist, Requirements, Planning & Integration Division, TPIO Louis Cantrell, Consultant, Profitable Weather, LLC, TPIO Integrated System Analysis Team Vincent Ries, Senior Analyst, Integrity Applications Incorporated, TPIO Integrated System
Analysis Team
Appendix D: Acknowledgements
D-3
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Linda Maillinoff, NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Jeff Moore, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center
Contract Vessel Providers Roark Brown, Homer Ocean Charters Doug Russell, University of Washington and UNOLS Vessel R/V Thomas G. Thompson Rob Christie, New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Greg Foothead, New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Monita Cheever, Oregon State University David Janka, Auklet Charter Services Linda Kadrlick, Alaska Charter Boats Michael Kelly, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Bob Pedro, Miss Linda Charters
NOAA Observing Systems Council The authors also wish to extend appreciation to the NOAA Observing Systems Council (https://nosc.noaa.gov/), which provided important feedback on criteria used for selecting value chains to evaluate and quantify.