Still more Derelicts in the news

Photo by Keith Thorpe/Peninsula Daily News
As reported today in the Peninsula Daily News: (in Washington state)

PORT ANGELES -- A boat that was marooned in Port Angeles Harbor for eight weeks is finally high and dry.

The badly-damaged 36-foot Montana Drifter was towed from its partially-submerged state near the Rayonier property to the Port Angeles Marina on Saturday afternoon.

Jay Ketchum, owner of Affordable Services of Sequim and a professional diver, was hired by the state Department of Natural Resources to raise, secure and tow the grounded vessel to the marina, where it will be disassembled and taken to dumps and scrap yards.....

DNR contacted Ketchum about moving the boat about week ago, he said. They agreed to a contract ranging between $4,000 and $6,000 to move the boat, Ketchum said....

Gasper [the owner] was being fined $8.11 per day by the DNR, which was set to declare the Montana Drifter derelict on Feb. 16.

A couple of points, and a few of questions.

• Its nice to see gov't agencies actually declaring boats as derelict.
• I'm glad to see the DNR contracting out to private firms for the work.
• What are Mr. Ketchum's qualifications to be a professional diver?
• Is that reported fine amount correct? $8/day ???
• Was that contract put out to competitive bidding?
• Once the boat is on dry land, who is paying for the disassembly and transportation to the dump? Who will dispose of the hazardous materials still in the boat?
  

Weather, relatively speaking

My post on the sailors who where towed by the USCG after departing into some lousy weather received a number of comments, and I was surprised that most of the comments were to scold me for "being to harsh" in my criticism of the MOONSHINE's crew. (No one challenged the idea that the USCG might charge for services in cases like this.)

Too harsh?!? I should have gone on more about how astounding (arrogant? ignorant?) it was for a sailboat crew with plans to cross from Rhode Island to Puerto Rico to claim that some misfortune of bad weather had abruptly ended their voyage. The weather they encountered was a winter gale, with winds 35-40kts and seas 8-12'. Those conditions are certainly not enough to end the voyage of anyone who's planning includes even the most basic understanding of what one might be expected when, you know, you are planning to cross the ATLANTIC FREAKIN' OCEAN!

To put some perspective on the weather encountered by those sailors, I present the following video, taken by Steve and Linda Dashew [CLICK HERE TO WATCH]. As you listen to Linda's narration, you will hear her say that they have been waiting for gale force conditions, so they could shoot some video and test their boat. Their weather? Steady 35kts, gusting 50, seas averaging 15'-20' with larger swells. Watching this video, you might imagine that a nice hot lunch was about to come up the companionway ; knowing the Dashews, I'll bet it did.

Please don't bother to point out the differences between the WINDHORSE at 83' and the MOONSHINE, at 45' -- both boats are ocean capable -- the difference that separates the two stories is the crew. I don't think the crew of the MOONSHINE would even have been able to get the WINDHORSE to Puerto Rico. Had video of a Nor'east snow storm been their objective, I dare say the Dashews would have no problem sailing the MOONSHINE south on the very same day that caused the MOONSHINE's actual crew to call the USCG.

In some respects, bad weather is relative. Once you've sailed in 45kts of wind, 25kts is just another day sail; once you've been in 60kts, 45kts is just another gale. Weather that caused one crew to activate their EPIRB is an just an opportunity to shoot some good footage to a different crew. It is their experience that allows the Dashews to confidently wait for a good gale before heading into the Tasman Sea to take some video of gale force conditions. The MOONSHINE crew were completely out of their league and had to call for rescue just 25 miles into their 1600 miles voyage. It wasn't a "bad storm" that caused the problems for MOONSHINE, it was that relative to their experience, the conditions seemed like a bad storm to them.

The apologists point out that the MOONSHINE's engine failed and the sails were ripped. I believe that those issues are a matter of poor maintenance and lack of seamanship rather than a direct result of a fresh gale. A photo of the boat after she was towed clearly shows the mainsail furled on the boom, and it doesn't appear to be damaged.

Look, we all know what happened: this skipper's bad weather strategy was to lower the sails and motor. We see this all the time from inexperienced coastal cruisers. They either don't understand how to or are not equipped to reef, and can't control the boat under full sail, so they motor. Well, with 10' seas, its likely that the fuel was stirred up, fouled the filters with sludge and that was all she wrote. Remember, this boat was heading south with NE winds. You are telling me that he couldn't make way with a reefed main?

Here is where my ire surfaces: the fact that the captain of the MOONSHINE didn't have enough experience to understand what he was in for does not give him a pass. To say "Aw, shucks Doug, give the guy a break" implies that what happened was somehow beyond the control of the captain. To cut this guy any slack is to ignore the facts; that captain chose to leave a safe port, so he placed himself in circumstances that were completely within his control. He flagrantly ignored or disobeyed every tenet of prudent seamanship and to excuse his behavior as a landlubber is to insult the truly lubberly.

My brother has done a fair bit of ocean sailing, and when the subject of getting caught in bad weather comes up, he says "You can only pick your weather on the first day of any crossing."

Sunk Costs - by David Axe

Here a rather lengthy but well reasoned summary of the overall state of the USCG, and particularly the Deepwater Program: click here for Sunk Costs - David Axe (one quick quote)

The ultimate result of Deepwater’s travails is that a well-respected agency—the only one, in fact, to perform admirably during Hurricane Katrina—is now finding it increasingly difficult to carry out its core mission. Even before Deepwater sprung leaks, the Coast Guard was struggling to be both an overseas counterterror force and a domestic safety and law enforcement agency.

This is a pretty long article, but definitely worth the time.

Harbor Patrol funding in new economy

A recent item in The Log Newspaper (So. Calif's major marine news source) caught my attention. It's a story about officials of Orange County thinking that it may be time for some local cities to ante up tax money to cover the costs of operating harbor patrols. The news of budget cuts by the county supervisors scared the hell out of the Sheriff's department:

Shocked representatives from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department voiced their opposition to the county’s plan to abandon harbor patrol funding, emphasizing that move could interfere with the department’s ability to secure federal grants to ensure homeland security in the county’s harbors.

Read that part again: the sheriff department is worried that a lack of county funding will mean the loss of federal funding from DHS. OH NO! we can't have that. How telling that nothing is mentioned about actually helping boaters, or saving lives, or enforcing boating laws. Nah, it's just about justifying the funding.

Lest you think I have just cherry picked one quote to overstate my point, I urge you to read the entire story.

In fact this issue isn't new. Here is an LA Times story from back in 2006 about the very same issue. The difference now is that the all the local funding agencies (state, counties, cites) are out of money, having bet their future budgets on increasing tax revenues which have now disappeared. The one agency that may still have some funds is the DHS, which explains the OC Sheriff's quote.

Note to East Coast readers: In California, Sheriff Departments are funded and operated by counties. Many of the largest harbors in SoCal are patrolled by Sheriff Departments, even though the actual harbor is owned by a city...

You see, if the OC Sheriff isn't actually patrolling those harbors, then they don't qualify for harbor security funds. The DHS doesn't care a rat's patoohty about drowning surfers and boaters with dead batteries. Oh no, they give grants for side arms and .50 CAL tripod mounts and night vision equipment.

The county tax collectors (supervisors) are out of money, and can't continue their traditional subsidizing the city harbors that are within their boundaries, so they're attempting to force the cities to pay their fair share by either sub-contracting with the county for harbor patrol service, or face the costs of creating a city owned/funded harbor department.

BUT, if either of those things happen, then the county will loose the opportunity to apply for DHS funds. Obviously, if a city starts their own harbor department, then they are the agency that would apply for DHS security funds. But even if the city like Newport Beach sub-contracts to Orange County for harbor service, wouldn't it be the city who would is the overriding authority, meaning the DHS grants go through the city coffers first?

The OC Sheriff seems to imply that if they don't get DHS money, no one will, thus leaving the harbor unprotected. What nonsense. I don't for a second think that the DHS will stop the flow of harbor security money out to whatever agencies are responsible for patrolling each harbor. The money will just go to a city, or the state, or whoever is the authority in that locale. But, gee, the OC Sheriff may not get that new armored personnel carrier now...

I've been harping on this funding issue for years, asserting that the way to reduce the competition from the MUNIs and LEOs is to attack their funding sources, rather than trying to convince them to change their operational policies. Now, it seems, may be the perfect time to remind the politicians (not the sheriffs) that a private industry remains ready to help distressed boaters, and that a few less county boats and patrol personnel does not necessarily lead to more boater tragedies.

Derelict Boat Issue Hits the Big Time

....as in Time Magazine, which printed an article titled America's Underwater Junkyard this week. Here is a snippet from that article:

Legislation is slowly beginning to change. Since 2003, Washington State's vessel removal program has led a crackdown on derelict boats, using ramped-up boat-registration fees as funding for the program, which has so far cleared 188 boats. "It gave us financial capability plus the legal hammer if we needed to use it," says Doug Sutherland, the state's commissioner of public lands. Other state officials have expressed interest in Washington's model. In September, the California legislature passed a bill to increase fines to owners of derelict vessels. And last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an act that
gives NOAA funds and authorization to remove abandoned vessels damaging coral reefs.

I've been harping about this issue since the second blog I ever put up way back in February of 2007: Derelict Boats create income opportunity.

So, two thoughts from me today:
A) I hope that C-PORT keeps abreast of this issue, as I predict that federal money earmarked for this kind of work will probably flow through the USCG, and we should ask that the funds be spent through competitive bidding to private industry, rather than just federal grants passed down to local and state authorities. If a few million dollars for derelict vessel removal ends up in the hands of places like Orange County, CA, you can bet our industry will never see a nickle of it.

B) I predict that in the next 10 years, derelict vessel retrieval and disposal will become a multi-million dollar industry, fueled almost entirely with public funds. A large portion of abandoned vessels are under 60' in length, and our industry has the resources to retrieve a bunch of those.

However, getting this kind of work will require determination and active particpation on your part, rather than just waiting around for the phones and radios to announce a job opportunity.

All indications are that next year will be a slow one for recreational boating, and that will mean less towing. If you have boats and pumps and divers and lift bags and manpower, you should begin planning to find alternative ways to keep those resources busy.

Here is one idea that I might try if I knew where there were derelicts in my AOR. I would go out and find these boats, take pictures, record the LAT/LON and the physical particulars like length, construction and condition. I would put all that into a database. Then, I would create a document that summarizes all this information and get that document into the hands of every single agency I could find.

Two things might happen. Someone might actually want the details, and I would offer to sell my data for a fee. Even better, decision makers at the agencies will probably view my company as one of the experts in this field, and that increases my chances of getting some of the work.

USCG Commander keeps his job after collision with BI Ferry

Text of official USCG press release today:

BOSTON - The commanding officer of Coast Guard Cutter Morro Bay will remain in command today following the review of an administrative investigation regarding the collision between the Morro Bay and a Block Island ferry July 2, 2008.
Admiral Dale Gabel, the commander of the First Coast Guard District, presided over an Admiral’s Mast in which he determined that Lt. Douglas Wyatt will remain in command.
“After reviewing all of the facts of this case, I have confidence in Lt. Wyatt’s ability to command the Morro Bay and carry out the Coast Guard’s missions,” said Gabel.


http://coastguardnews.com/morro-bay-commanding-officer-to-remain-in-command-after-investigation/2008/09/05/

....hmm, I wonder if they exonerated the captain of the ferry?

USCG Buoy Tender collides with Block Island Ferry

Wow, this is not the kind of news we expect to be hearing during this age of modern electronics - radar, AIS, GPS....

Earlier this afternoon, in dense fog, the passenger ferry BLOCK ISLAND (first photo) collided with the 140' USCG cutter MORRO BAY. (second photo) Preliminary reports are that there were no injuries, and minimal damage. [See new story here].

I spoke with one eye witness who saw the ferry after it arrived at Block Island, and he described a large, 3' dent/gash/gouge in the bow of the ferry.

Initial information indicates that the MORRO BAY was heading west, and the BLOCK ISLAND was southbound. My mental chart says that these boats were in a classic "crossing" situation, and once in visual sight of each other, rules 15, 16 & 17 would apply, with the MORRO BAY as the "give way" vessel. The waters this incident occurred in are international, so the COLREGS apply.

Complicating all that is the fog, which I can tell you gets as thick as pudding out here. So, until the final few moments, neither vessel had any "right of way", because they were not in visual contact.

But wait a minute. Where are the radar observers? The AIS, and ARPA? I know the captains on the ferries have 16oo ton licenses. I can't speak to what the qualifications of the operator on the buoy tender are; but one would assume he's not a junior coxswain. These are not amateurs out there; these guys are some of the most professionals that stand a wheel watch, and somehow, they managed to completely mangle a foggy crossing situation.

The ferry travels at about 16kts, and I would guess the buoy tender at 12-15kts. They should have had plenty of time to sort out some passing arrangements and avoid a collision.

The investigation into this incident will drag on, but the results should be fascinating. Stay tuned.

Lifeguards, Harbor Patrol perform salvage in California

Can you imagine if this was your contract area? The story below is from the SoCal boating newspaper The Log, and you can read it by clicking here, but I have pasted the entire story below.


Lifeguards, Harbor Patrol Officers Save Boat
Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:26:00 PM
Last updated: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:26:00 PM

NEWPORT BEACH – Orange County Sheriff’s Harbor Patrol officers and Newport Beach Lifeguards worked to rescue a boat that drifted ashore April 30 on Corona del Mar State Beach.
Strong winds caused a 27-foot sailboat, one of many vessels anchored off Corona del Mar State Beach, to drag anchor and eventually be blown into shallow water and become grounded. By the time Newport Beach Lifeguards and Harbor Patrol officers reached the vessel, its keel was stuck in the sand. “With the lifeguards’ approval, we waited for the tide to come up, put a line on it, and it floated,” said Harbor Patrol Deputy Joel Monroe. Officers then impounded the vessel, which is required when a boat runs ashore, since it is considered a hazard, he explained. The vessel, Salubrious, currently has a broken rudder. Michael Juneau, a liveaboard who owns the boat, is in the process of getting the rudder fixed.

I love how the HarPats get the lifeguards' approval to wait for the tide. I wonder if anyone contacted the USCG? Did the HarPats have to provide a salvage plan to the USCG? Is it USCG policy to exempt Harbor Patrols from having and following a salvage plan?

If they waited for the tide (which is what they said they did), then how can this be anything other than a salvage? Unless CPORT gets deeply involved with this issue, I fear SoCal is a lost cause.

DHS Small Vessel Security Strategy - Good News/Bad News?

Well, we have suspected this was coming along now for some time. We worried, we speculated, we conjectured...we wondered. Finally, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a one hundred percent positively, absolutely sure, here is what the DHS might kinda sorta think about doing but we're not really sure but here is our best guess - strategy about small vessels.

You can start by reading this press release which says in part,

As the U.S.S. Cole attack vividly demonstrated, there is a clear need to close security gaps and enhance the small vessel security environment. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Small Vessel Security Strategy (SVSS) addresses these concerns, providing a coherent framework to improve maritime security and safety. It envisions a coordinated effort of federal, state, local and tribal authorities, together with international partners, private industry, and the recreational users of the waterways.

If you are having trouble sleeping, try reading the entire SVSS in PDF format. Be warned, it is filled with forward thinking solution based frameworks that provide stakeholder strategic options for multi-platform leveraged partnerships focused on risk adverse implementation plans to enhance maritime domain awareness....you know, stuff like that.

In other words, 58 pages of BS that basically say, "We don't want any trouble, so everyone should be keeping an eye out for trouble."

The Good News? There will be money to be made "keeping an eye out", especially by companies with small, fast boats and local knowledge.

The Bad News? They want to register every recreational boat, and every recreational boater, and that will drive more people out of the recreational boating market.

USCG SAR Meetings

All the commercial salvors and assistance providers should be attending twice annual meetings with their local USCG units. The meetings are intended to provide a forum to discuss operational issues between the Coast Guard and private enterprise, and to foster cooperation between all those acting within the local SAR system, like local fire, police & sheriff departments, and any other agencies that regularly respond.

These meetings are generally scheduled for the spring and fall, so perhaps yours is coming up soon. One item that inevitably appears on the agenda is a review of the Coast Guard MARB proceedures. The Maritime SAR Assistance Policy (MSAP) is the actual document that articulates the MARB concept.

The opening sentence of the MSAP reads:

This section sets forth policy and procedures for handling requests for any type of Search and Rescue (SAR) assistance from the Coast Guard and defines Coast Guard relationships with other possible sources of assistance.

The text of the MSAP then opens with the very first section (4.1.1):

The MSAP is the result of an effort enacted by Congress in 1982. It directed the Commandant to “review Coast Guard policies and procedures for towing and salvage of disabled vessels in order to further minimize the possibility of Coast Guard competition or interference with...commercial enterprise.” The review was directed because of congressional concern that Coast Guard resources were being used unnecessarily to provide nonemergency assistance to disabled vessels that could be adequately performed by the private sector.

The MSAP represents more than a decade of development of relationships among the Coast Guard, Congress, the commercial towing industry, and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Each iteration of the MSAP has received close scrutiny. It has been a give-and-take process that has culminated in a policy that is equitable to all stakeholders.

Those are perhaps the two most important paragraphs ever written about commercial marine assistance.

The first is a reminder that the U.S. Congress recognized that CG resources were being used unnecessarily (i.e. wasting tax payer dollars), and I think that fact sometimes eludes the local agencies who continue to spend tax dollars on tasks that "could be adequately performed by the private sector."

The second paragraph refers to an equitable relationship to all stakeholders. The equity, however, is directly dependant on all the parties striving to follow the MSAP as rigorously as possible. If the local Lifeguards, for instance, ignore or discount the spirit of the MSAP, or otherwise refuse to recognize the validity of the concepts the MSAP embodies, then a situation of inequity will probably exist.

So, back to the meetings. I think that you should ask that your CG meeting begin with a reading of the above quotes. Heck, its their policy, so they shouldn't balk at saying it outloud. Maybe the local agencies (hopefully in attendance) were not aware of this policy, or the reason for its existance. With the regular promotions and career changes inside the CG, its a good bet that many of the junior USCG staff attending the meeting have never heard those two paragraphs either. Furthermore, the "close scrutiny and give-and-take process" is the reason for the meeting in the first place, and I can think of no better words to explain what the meeting is for than those two paragraphs.

Two Ends of the Spectrum

Two items today show how far evolved some communities can be, and how far some communities have to go. First off we have this announcement from the pacific northwest: [see article in Whidbey News Times].

At Tuesday evening’s North Whidbey Fire and Rescue board of commissioners meeting, after several months of negotiations, a cooperative agreement for water rescue between the fire district and Marine Rescue Services was approved and signed..... Under the plan, [Marine Rescue Services] only charges to the fire district would be $30 per hour to compensate one of Aydelotte’s captains plus the cost of fuel for the boat.

John Aydelotte of Marine Rescue Services (Vessel Assist Whidbey Island) has truely broken some new ground here. He is going to get paid by a gov't agency to take up their slack. This is a sign of the evolution that years ago came to the ambulance industry, which I have argued we are similar to. Many communities around the country contract out ambulance service through a competitive bidding process. Officials of the North Whidbey Fire District recognized that paying Marine Rescue Services an hourly fee was a far better use of the tax payer's money, rather than bearing the cost of maintaining a 24/7 boat of their own.

Which brings us to the second item, which is a letter to the editor of The Log Newspaper. I blogged here a few days ago about this article. Now comes a reader's response, which reiterates the same tired arguments of free towing by a gov't agency (there is no free towing, just taxpayer funded towing and user funded towing).

So, one part of the west coast has embraced the commercial assistance industry so deeply that the community is willing to use taxpayer dollars to hire a private firm, while down south, the entrenched tax collectors of the Orange County Sheriff continue to tow every boat they can to justify their annual budgets.

Orange County Calif. Sheriff gets an ear full

How timely is this??: The Log.com News

NEWPORT BEACH — Representatives from Sea Tow and Vessel Assist membership towing companies came together in a Dec. 5 meeting to discuss their concerns with the Orange County Sheriff’s Harbor Patrol that boaters might be getting “free tows” in cases that are not emergencies..

When you read this and contrast it to yesterday's post about a city charging for police response to vehicle accidents....well, its night and day.

Here is my suggestion; don't try and get the OC Sheriff to stop towing, just convince them to start charging for it....say, $200/hour? Hey, they are just rich boaters, right? I mean, this is recreational boating. Its not like the guy with a dead battery 2 miles offshore was commuting to work. If the Sheriff was to charge (and they can by law), I think they would see a drop off in the amount of calls they respond to.

Look, contrast this situation to offroad recreation. If a guy runs out of gas 20 miles out in the desert with his ATV, is the Sheriff gonna tow him home? Sure, they might give the guy a ride to the nearest gas station, but more than likely, they will call a tow truck for the guy. How is a boat any different?

Here is my other pet peeve. When the Sheriff does tow a disabled boat, do they conduct a safety boarding? Almost never. Spend an afternoon at the launch ramp and ask the boaters who get towed in. The issue here is that Orange County gets most of their marine safety money to buy boats and stuff from the state. And that money is earmarked for boater safety.

KY City to charge for vehicle accident response

The first two paragraphs in this story in kypost.com sure got my attention...

The Erlanger City Council voted Tuesday to bill non-residents for the cost of crashes within the city limits. \\ The new municipal order will allow the city to bill insurance companies $154 for every Erlanger police car that responds to an accident and $7 for every 15 minutes an officer is at the scene.

I urge you to read the entire story, as I believe that this kind of progressive fiscal thinking should be strongly endorsed by those of us in the marine assistance industry. Indeed, one of the arguments I repeatedly made to the LA Lifeguards, who liked to remind me that boaters somehow deserved a free tow to the harbor because they were taxpayers, and I would remind them that there was no way to know if the boater being towed was a Los Angeles county taxpayer.

Additionally, Earlanger has come to the realization that insurance companies are the largest single beneficiaries of public agency response to traffic accidents. And, that these insurance companies are not paying into the local coffers. The city of Erlanger has found a way to get the insurance companies to ante up at least a portion of the costs. The new law applies only to non-residents of the city. I don't know if that is legal or constitutional, but I do think its smart.

Under the be careful what you wish for category, I am a little surprised that they only think their officers are worth $28/hr. Perhaps that is the actual average hourly wage for the local gendarmes, but I doubt that it will defray all the costs of a law enforcement officer, which must include health insurance, retirement benefits etc.

Anyway, can you imagine if your local harbor master of sheriff patrol adopted this strategy? Suddenly, the true value of our private service goes up, and the value of a towing membership goes way up.

Gov't getting involved with derelict disposals

Saw this today:

How to Solve the Growing National Problem of Abandoned Boats

... the state governor signed a law allowing the sinking boats to be removed by
DNREC officials. Now if a boat is abandoned or adrift for more than 30 days, the
state can take possession and remove the obstacle. (Source: Delmarvanow.)

Yet more signs that derelict disposal is becoming an alternate income source for guys like us. But, who is persuing it? If we don't, will the state just have their agencies actually do the work?

Florida pays to dispose of derelict boats

Two different press releases today about removing derelict boats from Florida waters:

County hauls derelict boats floridatoday.com Serving Brevard County and Florida’s Space Coast

Capt. Kevin Miller of Absolute Marine Towing and salvage is under contract for $275,000 to remove nearly 70 boats from the Indian and Banana rivers, along with the Barge Canal. His work for the county will take him from the Sebastian River to Titusville.

UpdateFlorida: Project to clear waterways

Brevard County recently awarded the $275,000 job to Melbourne-based Absolute Marine Towing and Salvage Inc., which will start the project in late June or early July, pending approval from commissioners.

A $200,000 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission grant and FEMA reimbursements will cover the contract cost. The county is expected to contribute about $30,000 in matching funds, including the cost of monitoring the project.

Ranging from a 131/2-foot sailboat to a 72-foot yacht, the boats were declared "derelict vessels" after owners couldn't be identified or found

If the boats range from 13.5' to 72', would it be safe to say that the average is 40'? Lets see, 70 boats divided by $275,000 comes to $3928 per boat; an average of almost $100/foot. If you have some derelict disposal work in your area, now you have a general price range that your state and federal authorities might consider fair. I used to charge $100/ft to strip old derelicts and have them trucked to the county dump.