The waters of the Santa Barbara Channel are a majestic, mysterious, and often dangerous place to work and play. Luckily, for the boaters, surfers, divers, and fishers who find themselves on the frontlines of this open water landscape, a patchwork of data buoys bob at strategic points throughout the channel and the waters north. They stream real-time data about ocean, wind, and weather conditions to prevent any nasty surprises from catching mariners off-guard. However, if a recent funding decision by the federal government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stands, two of these valuable stations-specifically the West Santa Barbara Channel buoy and the Pt. Arguello buoy-will be decommissioned in coming months and removed by the end of the summer, leaving a potentially treacherous information hole at the northwestern gate of the Channel.
In an average year, 7,000 vessels weighing 300 tons or more traverse the Santa Barbara Channel, as well as countless smaller vessels. All of them-whether they be merchant maritimers, wave-hunting surfers, oil barges, urchin divers, or yacht-driving pleasure cruisers-must keep one eye out for the ever-changing weather conditions of the channel. Known the world over for being able to switch from calm to chaotic in mere minutes, the Santa Barbara Channel is “a tricky place to forecast,” said Mark Jackson, the NOAA National Weather Service’s Southern California honcho. He lamented the likely loss of the offshore buoys, instruments that he said play a fundamental role in his agency’s forecasting and issuing of marine advisories and warnings. “When the north winds pick up, you can get some real strange and nasty effects real fast at the start of the islands,” he said. “The more tools we have to monitor this, the better.”
And with the geography of the islands and the South Coast working essentially as a massive funnel, all of these ill developments have very serious implications for boaters who find themselves “downstream.” Known simply as Buoy 23 (17 nautical miles northwest of Pt. Arguello) and Buoy 54 (38 nautical miles west of Santa Barbara), the two stations slated for shutdown are located at the aforementioned “start of the islands,” thus providing a critical stream of information via radio and Internet that ocean-goers can use to predict disaster even when they’re several miles from safety. Summing up the significance of NOAA’s decision, Santa Barbara Harbor operations director Mick Kronman was distraught, saying “This is very disconcerting for the boating public. Information from those buoys is crucial to recreational and commercial boater safety alike.” In slightly saltier terms, one longtime fisher put it this way during an anonymous phone call this week: “It’s simple, man. Lose those buoys and there’s a good chance somebody will die eventually,” he said.
The current situation is almost identical to one that occurred in 2005, when the approximately $60,000-per-year that keeps these buoys afloat dried up. At that time, the seafaring data collectors were supported financially by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) as part of a longterm research project with San Diego’s Scripps Institute. When MMS decided to pull the plug, NOAA stepped in and wrote a $160,000 check meant to bankroll the buoys for two more years. With that kickdown now all but gone, Jackson explained the current plan: “The buoys will be disestablished and removed early this fall. However, if anything happens to them between now and then-like they break down or malfunction-they won’t be fixed.” Hoping to stop the action and solicit another last-minute save, Kronman said that both the National Weather Service and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary have begun a letter-writing campaign to their supervisors, as has the City of Santa Barbara. Calls to the National Data Buoy Center in Mississippi, the headquarters for NOAA buoy operations, were not returned.
The Arguello and West Santa Barbara channel devices are just two of nine total buoys in and around the channel, in addition to several other data recording devices in both near- and off-shore waters. With this in mind, Jackson said that another possible solution, though “certainly less than ideal,” would involve relocating one or two of the remaining buoy stations, likely the Pt. Conception buoy, closer to the West Santa Barbara Channel location.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Myspace


Previous Month



Comments
It is disappointing that we lose any buoys but as a person who regularly checks the buoys everyday for surf and wind conditions, these two are for SB users the two most easily expendable. Extremely important that we stress the importance of the buoys here in general but I seriously doubt that these two buoys will significantly affect the accuracy of the local Marine Forecasts from NOAA and the NWS. Without more research let's make sure we are not compromising the overall local buoy program by trying too hard to preserve these two.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sbreader, you could not be more incorrect. As a retired boater, I began crossing the channel back in the days before the internet became the source of our weather information. The marine weather was only available through the a.m. radio, aka weather band. By relying on those forecast I can personally testify that the information was very lacking. Sbreader, if all you need is to determine the local surf conditions, just walk to the beach. That is a no brainer. But these islands create a meteorological anomaly of their own that can only be known by physically being out there or by clicking on the buoy's link. What would you want to do? Scare the heck out of you and your crew by venturing out in the channel, or clicking on the buoy's link?
Binnsb4tyrs (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Binnsb4tyrs: You have been retired too long. I stress the importance of the buoys in general. As the article states these are 2 out of 9 buoys and I would definitely fight all out to preserve the rest. I have been sailing, power boating out to the islands from San Miguel, Rosa to Santa Cruz and Anacapa, and yes surfing the islands and this area from Jalama to Oxnard, for 40 years and still do regularly and will continue, God willing for another 40. My point is that what's important is the buoy array to provide good info. Yes it would be good to have all 9 but in the overall scheme of things it may in fact be better to have 7 well maintained and funded buoys, than have all 9 suffer from a lack of funding. That was my very informed and currently experienced point.
sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is one more sad symptom of the drain on federal resources attributable to the occupation of Iraq. Education cutbacks, economic recession, California National Guard not available to protect this nation, healthcare shortages for returning veterans, and now ocean safety buoys decommissioned: all resulting from sending $3 billion a week out of the country to fund Bush-Cheney's boondoggle.
green_helmet (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I agree with green_helmet's anti-war position, I disagree that it is neccesarily the cause of the budget cuts. Even before this war, it seemed as though I was reading about underfunded schools and so forth so I think the problem is that when there IS $$$ available, it gets mis-spent.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 21, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nearly 60% of the federal tax $$ you pay is given to the defense industry. The pentagon is the world's largest bureaucracy.
So yes, the $$ is mis-spent, we lose federal buoys, and pay fees to go into our own national parks. But hey, we elected the federal govt. You reap what you sow.
The recession is partly the effect of sending our $$ out of the country and the bad home loans that lenders were able to get away with because the Federal Reserve was asleep at the wheel during both Bush and Clinton's terms in office.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
March 22, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)