BACK WHEN MEN WERE MEN!

Early chart of Detroit Harbor, from 1928 Light List,
courtesy of Eric Bonow. At that time, wooden ferries
crossed the harbor to land at the shipyard.

Washington Island, Wisconsin -

We've been awaiting word from the U. S. Coast Guard Aids to Navigation representatives in Cleveland regarding our request for them to reconsider their policy for the intended, permanent removal of several steel floating aids to navigation in Detroit Harbor.

Late this summer we learned that all of the steel "ice hull" buoys would be pulled and then replaced with lighter, floating aids on a seasonal basis.  This action would mean no floating aids to rely on for approximately five months of the year, including winter, and full reliance would necessarily shift to the two newly constructed cylinders and the long-established "tripod" entrance marker.

We had the opportunity to discuss our point of view in a phone conference with three Coast Guard officers who represented Ninth District Aids to Navigation, Cleveland, two weeks ago. We're hoping the intervening period of time brought about a change of policy regarding those buoys, aids that we consider critical for year around, daily ferry operations.

Boiled down, we requested that buoys #2 and #6 be reset for year around use.  Such steel buoys are superior radar targets in fog or snowstorms over the smaller foam buoys, we said, and they always provide important visual reference for our ferry captains.  We offered to assist with buoy setting using one of our ferries, if that were helpful, but we learned that there is a policy to not rely on such civilian help, or mix private aids with approved federal aids.

Of concern to us was that we had to repeatedly make our case, in several different ways, to be clear that those buoys are not just a nicety but critical to repeated, safe transit of the channel in varied conditions.   Those new, large cylinders will provide strong visual and radar targets, we agreed, but there is nearly a 1/3 mile gap between entrance mark and the first cylinder, a time when an operator, attentive to his compass course, depth, GPS, radar and throttles, must use all of his senses at once to maintain safe course.  Those floating buoys provided excellent visual reference when nothing else was available.  This was certainly true for #2 buoy, but equally important for #6 that marks the reef opposite the ferry dock.   Our ferries need to avoid this rock pile (now only several feet beneath the surface) each time the captain squares away on an outbound course.  High winds, occasional current, and ice in the channel can add difficulty to what is essentially a visual piloting exercise.

We got the impression though our prolonged discussion that we needed to toughen up and get used to relying on the Colusus of Rhodes columns that stand tall over our harbor. We regret having sounded argumentative during the 75-minute phone conference, but when it turned into a debate on what the purpose of a buoy is, and how we ought to be able to safely navigate the channel without floating aids, was there a better way we could have gotten our points across?

The two buoys (#6 and #2) that we described as essential for our safe operations are already here on the island with their sinkers.  The vessel that services them from Muskegon, and the sailors who man that vessel, are available and have already been funded.  That leaves the cost of fuel and the orders to sail a 46-foot vessel across the lake every two years for buoy maintenance as the sole "obstacle," apparently.  That vessel has limitations placed on its scope of service that make such a voyage in open water a violation of its intended use in protected waters.

It may indeed be time to toughen up.

In this photo the C. G Richter was still the winter
ferry, but it does point out the rather small, constricting
basin in which  to turn around or maneuver.  At the
top right of the oval is the red nun #6, marking
the shallow reef.

Others used to do it!  Why can't we?

Back in the days of sail and small mechanized freight boats, called hookers, there were but a few channel aids to assist them. That channel was natural, like a river, and not mechanically dredged.

Eric Bonow, as he has done many other times, sent along information in the form of a chart of the Detroit Harbor entrance from the 1928 Light List.  It may be one of the earliest that depicts buoys marking the West Channel.  At the outer end is the gas buoy with bell which then marked the south end of the shallow reef (rather than sitting on top of the north end as does the present day entrance buoy.)   A bit farther in was a black can where the channel took a slight dipsy-doodle.

Another aid, called the "elbow light" on the old chart where the channel crooked off to the east, marked what Nathan Gunnlaugsson called the "false channel."  A crib of stones marked this naturally deep route, and the mark's remains, a rock pile with a single, upright timber protruding from it, still shows itself to this day east of the dredged channel.  To the west of that crib and the false channel is a two-foot shoal, presently marked by the #6 red nun foam buoy.

From my perspective, the channel then was minimally marked, and it must have been a tense time when vessel masters entered or left port.  Maybe they produced greater testosterone than we do today.
The frequency of modern day ferry travel to and from Detroit Harbor, and the consequences for striking bottom (which includes reporting such incidents to the Coast Guard, and the possibility of haul-out for repairs) won't be satisfied by an old-fashioned spit of plug juice over the side or the vow to do it better the next time.

If we read our regulators' remarks correctly, now is the time for us to toughen up, sharpen our boat handling skills, and be thankful for all we've been given from our federal government!

We hope to bring good news to our readers when such news is available. - Dick Purinton

A few additional thoughts...

Several comments have already been received by direct communication regarding the above essay, and one of them was a comment on the Coast Guard's preference for the installation of "gated" buoys whenever possible.  And while in general this practice may be a proven benefit to navigation, providing a guide for both sides of the waterway, in the case of Detroit Harbor there were only the red floating buoys, for decades, in addition to the green entrance buoy.  (And also the exception of #9 placed at the north end of the channel in the turning basin, now replaced with a white and red striped buoy).   Later, about the year 2001- which happened to coincide with a completed, major dredging project in front of our island ferry terminal - green can #5 was installed.   It proved beneficial as a turning mark for our ferries, marking the shallows along the west side of the channel much in the same manner #6 now marks the hump on the east side of the channel.  But, cost and engineering overkill aside, that new cylinder #5 does not appreciably aid navigation because even though such a "gate" of cylinders may look good on paper, it becomes an immovable obstacle both for vessels and for ice.  And when you're coming into the harbor in low visibility, by the time you're near #5 you've already got a visual bead on the end of the ferry pier.   We're hoping winter ice will not be held back by that cylinder.

The other comment had to do with the new, foam buoy #6A placed approximately one month ago at the north end of the "hump," opposite the ferry landing.    This buoy #6A was installed as a response to several groundings by sailboats as they cut #6 too close to starboard and headed directly for #8 buoy over the top of the hump, with the intention of motoring into the harbor itself.   We don't object to #6A being added, if it helps recreational boaters.  But when asked our opinion during our conference call, we suggested moving #8 further west, so that navigators of recreational craft could, more or less, continue on course beyond #6 to #8 and thereby miss the shallows.  Instead, it appears the Coast Guard proposes the reposition #6 (thus "saving" another foam buoy, #6A).  This proposal, we emphasize, is an entirely wrong and is a potentially dangerous move as it will expose the south end of the shallow hump, which our ferry captains depend upon for visual positioning as they come into or leave their landing area, in both instances while engaged in a major turn.

We spoke up, and we hope notes were taken in Cleveland, because we did not acquiesce on this point regarding the importance of #6 being where it now is, for here and evermore, winter and summer, using a steel "ice hull" buoy.   -  DP

NAVIGATION PUZZLEMENT

Detroit Harbor buoys and sinkers offloaded at the Potato Dock August 8th.

DETROIT HARBOR, WASHINGTON ISLAND, WISCONSIN -

As a ferry operator, my greatest tension came when entering the Detroit Harbor Channel in heavy fog or blinding snow.   Finding the entrance mark, knowing I was where I was supposed to be in relation to the dredged channel, was an enormous relief.

A most reassuring moment was the visual sighting of buoy #2 by a crew member, followed by buoy #4.  We considered ourselves "home" once we were inside the end of Kap's Marina dock, and from there, the outline of the ferry dock was generally visible.

If the Coast Guard's long range plan for Detroit Harbor's navigational aids proceeds, then in cold weather months we'll have no floating buoys to help us.  The Coast Guard will remove temporary, seasonal buoys made of lightweight foam sometime in November, resetting them again in spring, so that they won't have to deal with the steel buoys, ground tackle and heavy sinkers.  In the interim, we'll have to learn to split the difference between the new cylinders that bracket the channel like the Colossus of Rhodes.  There will be a gap between cylinders #4 and #5 and the entrance tripod where no aids will mark the 150-foot wide channel.

This plan was revealed by the Coast Guard Tuesday through questions asked of the crew who came from Muskegon in their specialized aids-to-navigation maintenance craft.  By Wednesday morning they  had already pulled #6 buoy opposite our ferry dock.   (The crew is shown in the photo above depositing steel buoys 2, 4 and 6, along with sinkers on our Potato Dock property, where, I was told by Bosun Mate Chief Barra, the cutter Mobile Bay would moor to remove them from Washington Island.)

What will replace them, I asked?  Chief Barra, following orders to remove the steel "ice hull" buoys until told otherwise, said that foam-filled buoys would replace them until the late fall.

What will we do then, I asked?  Chief Barra said we would have the new navigation poles (the 20-foot poles atop the cylinders) to help us, and that "we've done the best we could."

If the plan to construct the two new cylinders in the harbor, aids #4 and #5, came to us as a surprise and  a curiosity in June, this new revelation caused even more surprise, along with consternation.   Why would the Coast Guard build two very expensive cylinders (at a cost approximating a half-million dollars), and then proceed on a plan to pull the steel "ice hull" cylinders on which we, as primary user of this dredged federal channel, depend for safe navigation in winter months, we wondered?

Their answers, we think, come from institutional decision making in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and perhaps Washington, based upon projected long term costs to maintain buoys in Detroit Harbor and the (perhaps) limited life of the Muskegon specialized nav aids maintenance craft. This vessel  powers across the lake each summer - as it has for the past number of years - to lift and inspect buoy chain, anchor fastenings, repaint buoys and reset the aids.  A presumption on our part is that the efforts made to save money on the annual District budget, coupled with the practical matter of lifting and maintaining the heavier steel buoys led to the solutions now evident:  permanent structures and seasonal, lighter foam buoys.

What is missing?

It is impossible to fault any single individual for a decision made over time because input has doubtless come from numerous, expert sources within the Coast Guard organization.  Rather, these decisions seems to us, frequent users of this waterway, an institutional failure to include the opinions of those upon whom such decisions can make a huge impact.

We have no idea of the cost involved in maintaining the old floating steel aids, life as we knew it for so many years, versus the cost of building new cylinder bases with light poles (at half a million dollars), and so it is hard for us to compare costs, one way or another, other than to say, that was a huge chunk of taxpayer money spent on cylinders.   And one of those cylinders, #5, is nearly useless in terms of its importance to channel navigation because of its position.  It would have been far superior had it replaced buoy #2, so that a line of marks could be used for navigation.  Had this been done, we would have less reason to squeal now about the pending loss of floating aids for six months of our operating year.

Only a few years back, the Commandant of the Coast Guard ADM Thad Allen, in his annual statement on  Coast Guard operations, admonished his organization to "Honor the Mariner." By this he meant: to listen; to engage in dialog; to not make hasty assumptions that might make matters worse for the maritime community.

We've seen great improvements since his statement was publicly made, most notably in mariner licensing where six months to get a license renewed was standard practice and mariners were advised to begin their renewal process for a five-year license a good year in advance of the expiration date, just in case.  Rich Ellefson told me just the other day that his renewal application had been approved, along  with official notice to him, within one week of his mailing!

Our frustration with the buoy change-out is coupled with our difficulty to communicate our concerns to someone in the Coast Guard - anyone - with authority to listen and address the Detroit Harbor situation.   It seems that the various names and phone numbers we had led to messages announcing personnel on vacation, on family emergency leave, on temporary duty elsewhere, and in the case of one officer I had met and knew, his voice mail box was full and I was unable to leave a message.

It was only after many calls were made that a call was finally returned to Hoyt Purinton of WIFL.  By this time, our greatest hope was to simply keep the removed buoys here, stacked on Washington Island's shore, so that if resetting is approved, the Coast Guard will not have to go to Sturgeon Bay or somewhere else to retrieve them.

And, if cost is a major consideration in Detroit Harbor's plan, as it must be, why not consider privatization of navigational aid maintenance?  I suppose there may be some Federal Code that limits service of navigational aids to the U. S. Coast Guard, but maybe it't time to reconsider that policy.

I observed the seven-man Coast Guard crew struggling to off-load buoy and sinker on our Potato Dock, and I found it hard to believe this could not be achieved locally with a barge and backhoe or other more specialized, private marine equipment, with greater economy.  It wasn't but a few years ago our company got chewed out for resetting harbor buoys to positions where they did us the most good, so far were they from their proper and useful positions.  Given frequent winter buoy drift in ice, our actions were essential to avoid running them over with our propellers, or running ourselves aground to avoid them.  We didn't mind the inconvenience of the task, and we believed we saved the Coast Guard an unnecessary trip to Washington Island, or so we thought.


Given today's GPS instruments and available commercial lift equipment, surely it is possible for a contract to be privately let that will specify annual maintenance and placement of buoys and sinkers.

As of late Wednesday, August 8th, Ferry Line President Hoyt Purinton was told by a Ninth Coast Guard District Waterways Management representative that the Detroit Harbor situation would be discussed via phone conference on August 20th.  There is no guarantee that a change in plans will result, but we're hoping that common sense will prevail.  We've made an assumption here that as a ferry transportation company, we also speak for those who rely on our services and our reliability to make ferry trips safely in all weather conditions, and that "improvements in navigation," whether viewed up close or from afar, should not pose greater risk to those dependent upon water transportation.

- Dick Purinton