Proposal to Discontinue certain Aids to Navigation

[Blissboat]

USCG District 1 (New England) is requesting public comment on its proposal to discontinue w long list of AtoNs (Aids to Navigation) throughout its district. Each aid proposed for removal is listed separately, in alphabetical order, within a lengthy LNM (Local Notice to Mariners) published on April 15, here: https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/lnms/LNM01162025.pdf

Reportedly the list includes more than 300 aids, including buoys, lights, etc. Each AtoN is listed individually, with the details followed by this explanation:

"Coast Guard is modernization (sic) and rightsizing the buoy constellation, whose designs mostly predate Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), Electronic Navigation Charts (ENC), and Electronic Charting Systems (ECS), for long-term reliability and serviceability. This effort will result in the most sustainable navigation risk reduction to support and complement modern mariners, today's much larger ships, ECS system availability and requirements, and powerful smartphone navigation subscription apps affordably accessible to virtually all waterway users. The Proposed buoy constellation changes are intended to: • Support the navigational needs of the 21st century prudent mariner, vice mid-20th century (pre-GPS, AIS,
e-charts, mobile device apps, improved radar, etc.), • Deliver effective, economical service--manage vessel transit risk to acceptable levels at acceptable cost, • Best maintain the most critical risk reducing buoys for the long-term, and • Provide resilience against AtoN discrepancies, GNSS disruptions/ECS failures. Interested Mariners are strongly encouraged to comment on this in writing, either personally or through their organization. All comments will be carefully considered and are requested prior to 13 June 2025 to complete the process. To most effectively consider your feedback and improve the data collection, when responding to this proposal, please include size and type of vessel, recreational or commercial, and distance from aid that you start looking for it, and if and how you use the signal. Please do not call the Coast Guard via telephone or other means, only written responses to this proposal will be accepted."

I am trying hard to be a 21st century boater, instead of being an old-fashioned geezer who fears change, but man I dislike this. Here on the Trawler Forum the debate over paper charts vs. electronic is a perennial, but eliminating the aids themselves is taking things to a whole new level. It seems to put all mariners in the US coastal waters of New England more fully at the mercy of the GPS satellite constellation. That's fine until there is a technological hiccup in the GPS signal, or until one of our global adversaries decides to amuse themselves by messing with the system.

 

[Wtrguy]

I absolutely love modern navigation tools, but removing redundant visual aids is just asking for trouble, IMHO.

 

[tiltrider1]

I understand the budget pressure, fewer aids, smaller maintenance expense.

I could care less about VTS marks but not real comfortable about the removal of narrow channel marks.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I understand the budget pressure, fewer aids, smaller maintenance expense.

I could care less about VTS marks but not real comfortable about the removal of narrow channel marks.

It is probable the narrow channel marks that will be removed. The change from raster to vector charts makes it clear the emphasis is to support large commercial traffic. IMHO.

 

[twistedtree]

I took a look through the list to see what changes are called for around Cape Ann since that's the area that I am really familiar with. They are basically proposing to remove a handful of outer markers for river and harbor entrances. My preference would be to have them converted to Electronic AToNs. That way they remain on charts and will show up on a chart plotter as well, but there is no physical gear to maintain. Also, and EAToN will still show up even if GPS has failed, which is sort of the disaster scenario.

 

[psneeld]

I took a look through the list to see what changes are called for around Cape Ann since that's the area that I am really familiar with. They are basically proposing to remove a handful of outer markers for river and harbor entrances. My preference would be to have them converted to Electronic AToNs. That way they remain on charts and will show up on a chart plotter as well, but there is no physical gear to maintain. Also, and EAToN will still show up even if GPS has failed, which is sort of the disaster scenario.

There may be a small bit of overlap between ship and toy boat requirement for certain aids....

.... but we are the point in navigation electronics that can land a rocket hurtling towards Earth at supersonic speeds and land on an X not much bigger than a couple parking spots.

Do we really need as many buoys these days as 20-30 years ago?

I remember the big push to reduce aids back in the late 1980"s. I sat down with the local supervisor of the Aids to Navigation Team in NJ and we hammered out places that could safely reduce aids without really changing much. In inland waters, many aids in a couple years need moving anyhow as the channels shift naturally. Some years that can easily signal a safe reduction in aids and other years may mean the necessity for a temporary mark,

Either way, both the improvement of electronic aids and navigation positioning can easily reduce physical aids without reducing overall maritime safety.

Let's face it, many boaters can't navigate well with or without physical aids...ask any assistance tower.

 

[FWT]

Right

So in the next breath there will be complaints no one can navigate without electronic assist, and have lost basic navigational skills.

Check out the numerous stories on FB where newbies plug in "Bobtracks" into an autopilot route and won't deviate even when it takes them out of their "lane" in traffic in narrow spots.

 

[psneeld]

So?

Many boaters who don't bother to do what's right or safe... get'em off the water.

I don't go on FB for that very reason. Too many people post/browse Facebook instead of learning how to get along in the real world. Bad enough they are on the water, but I am not going to read about them.

 

[FWT]

So?

Many boaters who don't bother to do what's right or safe... get'em off the water.

I don't go on FB for that very reason. Too many people post/browse Facebook instead of learning how to get along in the real world. Bad enough they are on the water, but I am not going to read about them.

Sorry, but they ARE on the water and a part of the conditions faced.

 

[psneeld]

Sorry, but they ARE on the water and a part of the conditions faced.

You mean the thousands of clowns who really don't understand ATON systems?

The people who know buoys and nav will do just fine as I saw through many changes in the USCG systems through the years.

 

[FWT]

You mean the thousands of clowns who really don't understand ATON systems?

The people who know buoys and nav will do just fine as I saw through many changes in the USCG systems through the years.

Yeah. Those thousands who need to be dodged

 

[psneeld]

You mean DOGEd?

I guess dodged works since they can't nav or follow the rules.

Just passing along what I experienced in the USCG and assistance towing.

Time marches on.

 

[Mischief Managed]

I looked carefully at the ATONs they want to remove near me and they are all pretty useless for recreational boating, other than being great radar targets.

 

[Blissboat]

I looked carefully at the ATONs they want to remove near me and they are all pretty useless for recreational boating, other than being great radar targets.

Just for context, in what region or waters of the United States does Mischief Managed II operate?

 

[Mischief Managed]

Just for context, in what region or waters of the United States does Mischief Managed II operate?

Thought it was in my signature/profile, huh... I boat out of Hampton, NH.

 

[CaptTom]

...useless for recreational boating, other than being great radar targets.

Isn't that kinda the point? When running in fog or at night, having that nice, big radar target to confirm your location is a great way to confirm where you think you are.

I'd say that's really my only concern. I like having the buoys, but I'm not sure the cost of maintaining them is justified by that warm fuzzy feeling they give me when I see the one I was aiming for come out of the fog.

 

[Mischief Managed]

Isn't that kinda the point? When running in fog or at night, having that nice, big radar target to confirm your location is a great way to confirm where you think you are.

I'd say that's really my only concern. I like having the buoys, but I'm not sure the cost of maintaining them is justified by that warm fuzzy feeling they give me when I see the one I was aiming for come out of the fog.

I think the ATONs they plan to get rid of are more for the ships that come up or down the coast and go into Portsmouth, NH. They do mark shoal areas, but they are either not shallow enough to be a problem for recreational boats or they are fairly far from the shoals and we just ignore them since we know where the shoals are and can safely cut "inside". They seem to be planning to leave the important ATONs that mark channels and such.

 

[CaptTom]

It's not just ships which go up and down the coast. Having those "sea buoys" is a great way to confirm your position while transiting. They're also strategically placed so that if you find them, you'll line up on the channel entrance. This is helpful in places like Rye Harbor, NH, where the break in the jetties may not be clearly visible from a different angle.

That said, I'm sure I'll learn to live without them, just as I learned to live without all the detail which was removed when they digitized the old raster charts to vector charts.

 

[rslifkin]

It's not just ships which go up and down the coast. Having those "sea buoys" is a great way to confirm your position while transiting. They're also strategically placed so that if you find them, you'll line up on the channel entrance. This is helpful in places like Rye Harbor, NH, where the break in the jetties may not be clearly visible from a different angle.

That said, I'm sure I'll learn to live without them, just as I learned to live without all the detail which was removed when they digitized the old raster charts to vector charts.

They're certainly handy for lining up to entrances, but if some get removed, I expect I'll do what I do in places that don't have a sea buoy or other good starting point for the channel and have the first channel marks pretty close in (potentially very close to not-safe water). I plot and navigate to a waypoint in empty water some distance (can be anywhere from 1/4 mile to significantly more depending on the situation) offshore of the first channel marks. Then make my turn to align with the channel and run straight in towards the first channel marks from there.

 

[mvweebles]

Question - are "Sea Buoys" really on the list to be decommissioned? I suppose there are some small inlets where local knowledge is required anyway so removing the sea buoy makes sense as they are largely ignored anyway, but sea buoys remain an important function for safe navigation.

Sea buoys align a vessel for approach and serve as rendezvous for pilotage. They are a reliable boundary from open water navigation to marked channel. Whether actual buoy or electronic AToN, they serve a very important safety function. Hard to imagine they'd be removed.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

A big question to me is what are people considering a "sea buoy"? Mo (A) buoys?

To me it was the red/white vertical safe water buoy that marked the entrance to a inlet, but I am afraid that may be too old and regional to still be accurate. Still common for major shipping inlets and some small vessel inlets, probably those with a lot of commercial traffic.

After the rise of GPS and decent small boat radar which many declare a must for cruising boats along with AIS.... I find curious how people find a sea buoy (which is often a pass on either side as it is in "safe water") a necessary ATON. Assuming my historical conception of what a "sea buoy" is still accurate.

Some inlets no longer have sea buoys that I remember from years past. Once a storm took them out, they were no longer replaced. Remember the USCG is funded and many inlets/sections of the ICW dredged by the ACOE are based on COMMERCIAL traffic, not recreational. Many times local politicians have voiced concern that recreation monies have probably exceeded commercial, but to no avail to change budgetary and mission direction for these agencies.

In good vis, one can most likely find the first pair or singular channel aid to start an approach. One just needs a good channel bearing from either paper or electronic charts and a GPS waypoint or even just an eyeballed turn point on a plotter.

To me, if I need a sea buoy to confirm my location above radar and GPS, I would start to question my experience with the modern approach to navigation. Buoys in confined waters are different and I don't think are up for removal.

As the USCG improves its electronic aids, and more people swear they need AIS, it's a marriage made in heaven for the bean counters.

 

[Bud]

That is 124 pages of "Aids to Navigation" to be eliminated. There is no way thats is going to help the safety of mariners. Especially new mariners still trying to figure it out. If they want to save money, lose the side arms and the steel toe boots.

Bud

 

[rslifkin]

I'd expect that by the time the comment period ends, the actual list that gets trimmed will be smaller.

And yes, there are some sea buoys for various channels and inlets on that list. Exactly the buoys Psneeld is thinking of.

Not having them removes the easy alignment point to start from for an entrance, but it doesn't preclude you from plotting a course as if there's a virtual sea buoy where you turn to align with the channel and start inbound. I do that all the time here on the Great Lakes where many channels have the first set of marks pretty close in.

Here's an example of how I plot an entrance like that. The channel in question has a few buoys (more than are shown on the chart) and a range. But there's some iffy water pretty close to the channel, and underwater obstructions right on both sides of the channel. So you really want to be lined up. In this case I shoot for a waypoint about a half-mile from the outer set of channel marks that has plenty of clear water around it, then turn to align with the channel. As I head inbound after the turn, the range and buoys get used to confirm alignment to the channel and it's all visual from there.

 

[Gdavid]

This crew would like to see them all removed.

 

[boomerang]

That is 124 pages of "Aids to Navigation" to be eliminated. There is no way thats is going to help the safety of mariners. Especially new mariners still trying to figure it out. If they want to save money, lose the side arms and the steel toe boots.

Bud

I'm anxiously awaiting Scott Neeld's reply!

 

[psneeld]

I'm anxiously awaiting Scott Neeld's reply!

Here ya go!

Having taught 15 years of boating safety and 6 years of USCG captain's licensing, the vast majority of new boaters have no clue about navigation or navigation aids except following their chart plotters and other boaters. Heck, even seasoned skippers and a few pro captains and mates had little clue how the whole ATON system was set up. Many had started with GPS plotters and that's what they relied on.

Sea Buoy for small vessels are meant to keep mariners offshore of traffic and alert them to where they are (to a point).

Since GPS and decent radar, beginning boaters have substantial info to find an entrance channel that locating a Mo (A) buoy doesn't do much for. Shipping that needs miles to turn and align to a channel, different story, but only in the days before GPS, electronic buoys, and really good radar.

Sorry.... but large offshore buoys that were meant for large commercial shipping don't or really shouldn't affect small vessel skippers. Even they don't seem to need them any more, or at least their input will be the deciding factor, I doubt our little boat flotilla will attract much attention.

The steel toed boots and sidearms are for their protection, not yours. Yours comes in the form of a guy in a dry suit jumping out of a helo in the middle of a storm. Let the pros handle this, as much as I know there is always a side show with bureaucracies, be thankful we are allowed to boat and there's people willing to risk their lives for the safety of our country AND our sorry butts. They probably will listen to reason in many cases but jabs at the agency just pisses them off if you haven't walked a mile in those steel toes boots.

 

[Uisce Beo]

I'd expect that by the time the comment period ends, the actual list that gets trimmed will be smaller.

And yes, there are some sea buoys for various channels and inlets on that list. Exactly the buoys Psneeld is thinking of.

Not having them removes the easy alignment point to start from for an entrance, but it doesn't preclude you from plotting a course as if there's a virtual sea buoy where you turn to align with the channel and start inbound. I do that all the time here on the Great Lakes where many channels have the first set of marks pretty close in.

Here's an example of how I plot an entrance like that. The channel in question has a few buoys (more than are shown on the chart) and a range. But there's some iffy water pretty close to the channel, and underwater obstructions right on both sides of the channel. So you really want to be lined up. In this case I shoot for a waypoint about a half-mile from the outer set of channel marks that has plenty of clear water around it, then turn to align with the channel. As I head inbound after the turn, the range and buoys get used to confirm alignment to the channel and it's all visual from there.

View attachment 164800

I’m guessing your waypoint is a virtual, electronic one? From your chart plotter? The old school way we would do that in pre GPS days is deliberately miss to one side or the other. You would then be certain which way to turn and follow a contour line until you crossed the channel markers.
My coastal navigation days started with a chart, a compass, a protractor, a watch, a knot meter and a depth sounder. Didn’t really even know anyone with Loran or RDF which were the only electronic nav aids at the time.

 

[rslifkin]

I’m guessing your waypoint is a virtual, electronic one? From your chart plotter? The old school way we would do that in pre GPS days is deliberately miss to one side or the other. You would then be certain which way to turn and follow a contour line until you crossed the channel markers.
My coastal navigation days started with a chart, a compass, a protractor, a watch, a knot meter and a depth sounder. Didn’t really even know anyone with Loran or RDF.

Exactly. I create a pair of waypoints ahead of time, 1 right at the channel entrance (typically placed mid-channel) and 1 some distance offshore of that, placed to keep me in safe water on approach and so that when I turn at the "outer" waypoint to head to the "inner" waypoint I'll be well aligned for the channel. And in low visibility or at night I know I'm on a good track until the point when I'm visual with the channel marks regardless of how close in I am before I get a good visual.

I definitely remember the "deliberately miss the buoy" method of setting waypoints as a kid with a Loran where it just wasn't accurate enough for you to be super precise with it.

 

[mvweebles]

Since GPS and decent radar, beginning boaters have substantial info to find an entrance channel that locating a Mo (A) buoy doesn't do much for.

This is what I was calling the sea buoy. @psneeld is right - correctly called Mo(A) light.

I'll push back a bit on the notion the sea buoy is a bit anachronistic. I'm likely in the upper half of users on a forum like this who enter/exit inlets where I have zero experience and only notional local information. When there is a sea buoy, it's always my first and/or last waypoint on a route. Panama to Key West, whatever. I often jump beyond or skip past this waypoint when I get close and can establish visual awareness and comfort, but it's my safe place for route navigation planning.

Why? Especially when running along the coast, the #1/#2 buoy channel entrance may be flanked by obstructions such as shoaling. Attached screenshot of Johns Pass, Madeira Beach FL and the inlet I use most, is a decent example (screenshot attached). Approaching from the south risks charted shoaling but I can also tell you there is significant shoaling on the north side too. If you look closely there is a dredged channel that is essentially a straight shot on. Except it no longer exists - there are temporary buoys that make a detour to the south that get moved fairly frequently. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it's hard to cleanly and quickly correlate what I see on a chart and what I see on the water - those two temp buoys are somewhat easy to miss because theyre low and small compared to the bus-sized buoys of the main channel.

If it was my first time in or out, the JP sea buoy would be my guiding light - I know I have the best chance of making a safe approach (or exit) from this point. It's a pretty useful AToN in my opinion.

Peter

 

[Uisce Beo]

Exactly. I create a pair of waypoints ahead of time, 1 right at the channel entrance (typically placed mid-channel) and 1 some distance offshore of that, placed to keep me in safe water on approach and so that when I turn at the "outer" waypoint to head to the "inner" waypoint I'll be well aligned for the channel. And in low visibility or at night I know I'm on a good track until the point when I'm visual with the channel marks regardless of how close in I am before I get a good visual.

I definitely remember the "deliberately miss the buoy" method of setting waypoints as a kid with a Loran where it just wasn't accurate enough for you to be super precise with it.

In a nutshell, I guess that validates the decision to remove some buoys.
At least some of us remember the basics anyway!