Cape harbor masters urge Barnstable County to oppose Coast Guard buoy removals

Barnstable County delegates heard detailed warnings from local harbor masters and maritime officials on the U.S. Coast Guard’s proposal to remove navigational buoys across the First Coast Guard District and authorized a county letter opposing the plan.

The push to send a countywide letter followed testimony from Jason Holm, harbormaster for the town of Chatham, and Dave Condon, Yarmouth’s director of natural resources and president of the Cape and Islands Harbor Master Association, who said the Coast Guard’s “buoy modernization” could remove aids mariners rely on in fog and poor visibility and raise public-safety risks.

“Each area has their own, that could potentially be of severe consequence if they were removed,” said Jason Holm, Harbormaster, Town of Chatham. “I liken this to removing road signs on the road and just because you have a GPS in your car. However, it's a little different on the water.”

Why it matters: The Coast Guard’s First District, which runs from New Jersey to Maine, posted an email-only comment period with a June 13 deadline; local officials said the district-level modernization would affect a large number of buoys in Cape Cod waters and that past proposals in 2019 and 2015 were stalled after strong local opposition.

What presenters told delegates: Dave Condon, Director of Natural Resources and Harbormaster, Town of Yarmouth and president of the Cape and Islands Harbor Master Association, said the Coast Guard has legitimate maintenance cost pressures but that smaller recreational boaters—often without electronic navigation gear—depend on visual and audible aids.

“You can't rely exclusively on your chartplotter,” Condon said. “But to think that the Coast Guard would take away one of those options is quite alarming.”

Chatham and the Cape and Islands association have drafted letters of comment and planned coordinated filings. Holm said his local waterways advisory and select board were unified in opposition and that the association planned to submit a joint letter. Several delegates asked whether local Coast Guard stations and congressional offices had been contacted; presenters said they had been in touch locally and that select boards were copying congressional representatives on correspondence.

Discussion vs. decision: Delegates pressed presenters on details the Coast Guard had not provided, including any dollar estimates of savings from removing buoys; presenters said the correspondence they had seen described the effort as a “modernization” and did not include a cost-savings figure. Delegates and presenters also discussed whether municipalities could adopt federal buoys; presenters explained a practical limit in local capacity because many federal buoys and their mooring hardware weigh thousands of pounds and require specialized vessels.

Formal action: The assembly voted to authorize the clerk to draft a letter opposing the U.S. Coast Guard plan and to circulate proposed language and supporting local economic figures for inclusion. The motion was approved by roll call (affirmative: 14; negative: 0). The assembly asked that the county coordinate with towns and harbormasters on submissions and share the deadline and the Coast Guard’s public-comment link.

What remains open: Presenters encouraged broad public comment and emphasized that previous local comment in 2019 influenced the Coast Guard’s decision then; they said robust public input is likely the most effective tool to preserve specific navigational aids. Presenters also encouraged delegates to copy local congressional offices and to work with nearby coast guard stations so written comments are supplemented by local engagement.