Coast Guard May Have Seasonal Presence in Ludington

[XLFD]

On April 6, 2016 the United States Coast Guard came to Ludington City Hall to give them what would likely be considered bad news, that the Ludington Coast Guard facility would likely be downgraded to seasonal use, operating primarily between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend. The City of Ludington Daily News had a couple of reporters there and did a fair job of coverage of this event in their paper.

I was also attendant at this meeting, along with various local officials, including Ludington officials Councilors Gary Castonia, Richard Rathsack and Kaye Holman (the Public Safety/Public Utilities Committee members), City Manager John Shay, Asst. City Manager Jackie Steckel, Police Chief Mark Barnett, his assistant Mike Harrie, Fire Chief Jerry Funk, and Community Development Director Heather Tykoski. Other notables in attendance were Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole, Former LPD Chief and current County Commissioner Wally Taranko, and a half dozen members of the Coast Guard (USCG).

Coast Guard Captain Amy Concanour, a regional commander of the USCG for Lake Michigan, related the news that was already dumped on the officials at Frankfort. She referred to a study the USCG commissioned which pointed to the reallocation of their resources being their best bet for their future. She made clear that this was not a move to save money, just to reorganize what they already had to a higher degree of efficiency. She never referred to any specifics of what was the focus and range of this study.

The move entailed making a new region comprising of the USCG ports of Ludington, Manistee, and Frankfort. Manistee due to its centralized location and bigger station, was chosen to be the only one to stay open throughout the year. Both Ludington and Frankfort would close sometime after Labor Day and reopen sometime before Memorial Day the next year starting this September. Furthermore, Manistee would field a crew of 46 during the year, with at least ten of those at each of the other two cities during the boating season. Manistee's station would also receive a second 45 foot boat, capable of handling worse conditions than the 25 foot boats the other cities have at their stations.

Manistee and Ludington's station commanders, Andrew Gyurscik and Mark Szoboszlay (illustrating that those with hard to spell and pronounce last names do well in the USCG), both voiced approval for the move and the operational flexibility it would give, and how Ludington could benefit during times when their port is extra busy. All USCG present voiced their general approval of the plan, despite how it would be received in this venue.  The addition of the 45' boat in 2017 and commitment to keeping Ludington's facility open and manned, albeit seasonally, was positive and forward-looking news to them.

And the officials of this venue present did voice their concerns. Chief Barnett made the point to show that during the off-season, a USCG response happening in the Ludington/Pentwater area would be pushed back by a half hour. Sheriff Cole, Chief Funk, and Commissioner Taranko in their own way, bemoaned the fact that more of the local resources would be tied up in ice rescue training and purchases. Captain Concanour brought to the table the statistic that there had only been one ice rescue incident in the Ludington area over the last seven years and the rescue was made successfully without any input from the USCG. The nine other off-season responses during that time were primarily assisting disabled vessels.

By the end of eighty minutes, the closest anyone came to making an impression on the half dozen coast guard personnel was citizen and former Guarder Todd Reed who brought up the limitations of the current 25 foot boat at Ludington during a water rescue six years back in rough waters. Like others, he would have been happy with the new larger boat being stationed in Ludington. While the USCG leadership noted early and often that this plan was not yet finalized, they did intimate at the end that there hasn't been anything contrary they have yet reviewed that would scrap it.

Four things I noticed at this meeting which you likely won't find reported elsewhere.  The first was that the proposed harboring of the rescue boats seemed to be inefficient towards accomplishing their goals.  The two 45' rescue-ready boats are tentatively scheduled to both harbor at Manistee, only being deployed to Frankfort or Ludington during times when those ports are particularly busy or for some emergency.  While this may be the smart idea in the off-season, it is much wiser to keep one in Ludington during the boating season. 

Why this arrangement and why Ludington and not Frankfort?  If any incident happens that requires deployment of the larger boats, it would take about an hour for deployment to both cities from Manistee.  If one of the boats was in Ludington, that time would be halved for the Ludington area, and remain the same for the other two.  Frankfort is a bit smaller than Ludington with a population just slightly bigger than Scottville.  Their port is less busy, they have a smaller number of tourists, and one would presume they have less emergency situations than Ludington over time.

Second, the study behind this change in protocol is shrouded in secrecy. It cannot be found at any of the regional USCG websites, nor was it referenced in any specificity other than its conclusions. The attending local officials never addressed any part of the study, probably due to ignorance of it until they were told about it. This lack of information about the particulars of the study makes the study effectively unassailable by the public and local officials. The USCG is not making the information available easily so that they can run this change through. If they wanted public opinion to make this decision, they would have made that study available.

Third, Sheriff Kim Cole was upset precisely because the public wasn't allowed to have more input, saying the Coast Guard could have brought this plan up a year ago and allow the public to review and comment on it. This was the same public official who has withheld an accident report for nearly a year based on the premise that the accident investigation is still open and that such release would interfere with the accident investigation. Five other FOIA requests containing mostly non-exempt information have been blocked by Sheriff Cole, so it is incredibly ironic to hear him speaking about other officials not giving information to the public and being incensed by their refusal to do so.

Fourth, John Shay weighed in towards the middle of the conference. The City of Ludington Daily News quotes him as saying: "For ice rescues it's hard for me to believe it's going to be an improvement coming out of Manistee. Every second counts. If the response must come from Manistee it may be for ice (body) recovery instead of ice rescue."

Nobody was saying there would be quicker responses for ice rescues in the new system in Ludington, however, Shay's words about rescue/recovery sounds a lot like words uttered by me and others on the Ludington Torch back in 2009 and 2010/2011. If you recall, the lifeguard program at Stearn's Beach was scrapped in 2010, and subsequently three people drowned at Stearn's Beach that year. Several at the Ludington Torch objected to the move prior to the drownings, bemoaning the waiver of water rescue personnel. After these terrible tragedies, when the city decided to put in rescue-untrained Beach Patrol in 2011 to effectively motor around the beach parking lot, it was John Shay, John Henderson and their crew of councilors choosing body recovery over water rescue. Even sadder, the police-oriented beach patrol costs even more each year to implement than fielding a squad of rescue-trained lifeguards.

So John Shay's statement reaches a higher irony threshold than Kim Cole's precisely because he has shown no preference for water rescue in his past recommendations and decisions, making body recovery much more likely should a water emergency unfold at Stearn's Park, and in so doing, showing that saving money wasn't the reason for his decision either.

What do you think of the USCG's decision here?

[Willy]

Very good points regarding the comments of local leaders. Hypocrisy is a cornerstone of Ludington's elites and it was alive and well at that meeting. The USCG representative said this move is for efficiency purposes and not financially motivated. How is this decision going to be more efficient? Closing the station down during the times the harbor is iced over would be a better idea than closing it from Sept. to May. If this is not for cost savings then why make the move? Limiting a rescue teams presence to 25% of it's original time does not scream efficiency. Has any consideration been given to two of the busiest boating times of the year namely the spring and fall fishing seasons. How can this plan be considered efficient If the response time is being diminished?

[XLFD]

The answers to your questions are in the study that the Coast Guard is holding close to their lifejacketed vests.  I'm planning on doing something I rarely do, make a FOIA request to a federal agency on a quest with the best zest to wrest from the breast of their vest that blest manifest.

[AQUAMAN]

It would be a darn shame if this new idea becomes reality. First the USCG wanted an extensive upgrade of the old facility, then wanted to abandon it, then build a new station, now they want to abandon it 3/4 of the calendar year. So, they have gotten their way on all but the last so far, now this too? Also, when you talk about lead times to get from one port to another, that isn't a fixed amount of time, like land travel. All depends on the seas, the speed and size of vessel, the amount of crew and equipment, all that factors into the equation. It could take several hours for Manistee help to get to either Lud. or Frank..  Of course now we have helicopters too, that's a positive, but they too have to come from TC. I don't favor the plan as presented to the public. I think the minimum months for service should be 9 months of the year, say March 15th-Dec.15th.

[shinblind]

Was there any discussion where the Coast Guard would dock the 45 boat that is supposed to arrive in 2017?
Did the CG retain access to the slips by the maritime museum? If they moor their 45 boat and there 25 foot inflatable where would the museum park their 44 motor lifeboat?
Did anyone question this?

[AQUAMAN]

I believe they said the second 45' boat would be in Manistee with the first 45'er. The USCG does retain the old docks. The old 44' steel roll-over boat will be on land to view and perhaps tour. Doesn't appear like our port will be very safe into the future, just the fudgie months, and that's NOT SAFE thinking.

[shinblind]

Thanks for clarifying that for me Aquaman.

With Muskegon only being staffed on weekends it seems the  run from Manistee to Stoney Creek could be lengthy  during the week, especially in inclement weather. It looks like they would be better served keeping one 45' boat in Ludington.

Do you happen to know what boats the CG will be running out of Grand Haven?  Will they also have two 45 ' footers?

[Willy]

I agree Aquaman. This just doesn't make any sense. And your right about the travel time especially if rough weather  conditions exist.

[AQUAMAN]

Of all the people that know safety, security, and response time as key factors on the water, this is the silliest idea they have come up with yet. If they do get another 45' vessel, it should definitely be in Ludington, esp. since Manistee already has one, getting sillier yet imho. CG Grand Haven station has many boats and personnel. They are the HQ on the west side of Michigan, have been for years. That's why GH has the CG Festival in July every year.

[stump]

I thought that the grand haven coast guard post was disbanded a number of years ago.