Rescue Boats Removed from Lock and Dams

Heads up! The Corp of Engineers have decided to remove the rescue craft from all the lock and dams from #2 to #10.

The first step is to make sure you never need to be rescued the second step is to hold on until a water patrol or other LEO can launch and get to you. Just like the police and fire fighters, you’ll need to wait for their aid.

The response I received from the Chief of Locks and Dams

“Captain Klawitter,
Thank you for the questions. I understand your concerns with this decision, however, the risk to Corps of Engineers staff cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level for supervisors to allow staff to conduct restricted area rescues. Our internal safety monitoring and evaluation process highlighted the urgency to reevaluate our restricted area rescue process. As a result, and to make rescues more efficient, our efforts need to be focused on mitigating hazards related to the dam and provide rescue assistance from the structure, while on the water response will be performed by trained local emergency responders.

To date and across the 13 lock sites within St Paul District, we have communicated our need to be more efficient in restricted area rescues with more than 30 agencies consisting of approximately 175 emergency personnel. During these onsite meetings we explain the drowning machine created by turbulent waters works. We show the change in water conditions from swift water to slack water conditions once the dam gates are sealed. We also highlight past scenarios and subsequent lessons learned. We have held on the water rescue scenarios with local responders at Lock and Dam 4 and have another scheduled at Lock and Dam 7 where we walk through the entire rescue process in a controlled environment.

Lock and Dam operators are the only ones who can mitigate hazards at the dam. Mitigation requires sealing the dam gates and depending on the flow, the process can take up to 15 to 20 minutes, meanwhile local responders will be mobilizing to the site. A similar analogy would be a confined space rescue, for example a manure pit. An individual who responds too quickly without mitigating hazards could quickly become incapacitated as well, aggravating the situation.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have questions or would like to discuss further.
Thanks
Jim Rand
Chief, Locks and Dams
651-290-5140”

I don’t know, I wouldn’t jump into a manure pit without having some type of breathing aid with me and the lock staff won’t be jumping into the water without a BOAT.
Stay safe on the River and more so around the Dams folks. You’re on your own.

So instead of having trained personnel who know the risks/dangers, you’ll have good samaritans who likely don’t know the dangers risking their lives to help someone in trouble? Sounds like an idea that only .gov and lawyers would come up with!

I can’t imagine it’s an immediate response with a sheriff/fire rescue boat? Why wouldn’t they leave them in place so at least first responders could use them when needed?

With the used boat market so insanely high, they can probably fund pay raises for all staff by selling them off

The Corps of Engineers doesn’t want their personnel involved in launching watercraft for rescues. There’s clearly risk involved with this process as the response cites. There are also other factors involved with training, cost, etc. They’re choosing to focus on other things to help the rescue or make the area as “safe” as possible – as a relative term.

This doesn’t mean they won’t work to help people by radioing for help, throwing lines or floatation aids, manipulating locks/rollers, etc. I appreciate this notice and it serves as a great reminder that if you indeed need to rely on someone else to keep you safe or rescue you…that’s a risky proposition. Use common sense and keep your distance from lock and dams unless you are using them to appropriately navigate between pools.

I’ve been preaching for years that the restricted area beneath dams should be extended significantly. Not only would this prevent the death of thousands of dinky saugers and walleyes each year, but it’d also be proactive to safety.

buckybadger wrote:

There are also other factors involved with training, cost,

So they are spending that same money to train 30 agencies and 175 personnel?

OH! I got it! One time training will save them money instead of annual staff training.

I just can’t get past the fact that they have taken away >any chance< of an immediate boat rescue.

I don’t agree with it, rather was restating their alleged stance. The cost savings or shift of costs is peanuts compared to what the Corps of Engineers deals with financially and it seems to be a controversial decision. I do appreciate them at least putting it out there (and you sharing it) rather than just quietly eliminating it though.

People need to ultimately be responsible for themselves first and foremost. Recreating near a dam carries significant risks. A person who ignores those risks, isn’t prepared, or makes poor choices cannot look to blame someone else for not being there to help or if their help is not enough. I’m generally anti legislation…but extending the distance from a dam that people cannot fish, boat, or approach from would cost exactly $0 outside of some signage (that could probably be recovered via citations) and save more lives than even them having a boat to deploy.

buckybadger wrote:

I do appreciate them at least putting it out there (and you sharing it) rather than just quietly eliminating it though.

The background here is that I noticed the rescue boat had been removed a few weeks ago. I was chatting with a lock operator and they said they had been removed. Which in turn is why I sent the email to the Corp and received the response. There wasn’t a notice.

The people that have lost their lives at a dam did not ask for a dam. If the Corp is going to run and maintain the dam, why wouldn’t they offer some type of safety net?

It takes 6 to 10 minutes for a person to die from drowning. More in colder water… I’m going to guess that unless the Water Patrol or Sheriff is at the dam, it’s going to take at least 15 minutes for help to arrive.

It’s the reason I have fire extinguishers near by in my home, garage, boat and car. In the case I do something stupid, I’ll have a chance while waiting for someone trained comes to my aid.

buckybadger wrote:

People need to ultimately be responsible for themselves first and foremost.

Totally agree, but $hit happens to the best of us.

Do we know how many times they have had to deploy a boat for rescue? Maybe they just sit there un-used for years??

-J.

I’m not sure where I could get creditable information but I did do a google search this morning looking for lock operators using rescue boats. I would be happy to hear they were never used.

Google:
Miracle on the Mississippi: Lock and Dam workers rescue man from sinking vessel

A rescue boat from the Rock Island Arsenal pulls two boats away from the roller dam at Lock and Dam 15, Rock Island.

Boat rescued from Lock and Dam 21

Disabled pontoon sweeps through Lock and Dam 3

Boaters Rescued On Osage River After Pontoon Gets Stuck In Lock-And-Dam System

With pages and pages more where lock operators used the rescue boats to save people in distress.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

The people that have lost their lives at a dam did not ask for a dam.

?? HUH ??

Brian Klawitter wrote:

If the Corp is going to run and maintain the dam, why wouldn’t they offer some type of safety net?

They do, it’s called a restricted zone.

The HWY Dept. does not provide ambulances, they just paint the lines, outside the lines is same as a restricted zone. You shouldn’t be there, and again, if you end up there the Hwy Dept. does not provide ambulances.

Huntindave wrote:

?? HUH ??

But the city and state does, amongst others.

Look, the lock operators are there 24/7.
If it’s unsafe for them to rescue you, sucks to be you…you drown.

There’s a large area that a person can be safely rescued from…if there was a boat there.

I would GUESS that most people that go into the restricted zone were not planning on it and for whatever reason found themselves there.

PS you’ll be paying the same amount of taxes anyway.

buckybadger wrote:

I don’t agree with it, rather was restating their alleged stance. The cost savings or shift of costs is peanuts compared to what the Corps of Engineers deals with financially and it seems to be a controversial decision. I do appreciate them at least putting it out there (and you sharing it) rather than just quietly eliminating it though.

People need to ultimately be responsible for themselves first and foremost. Recreating near a dam carries significant risks. A person who ignores those risks, isn’t prepared, or makes poor choices cannot look to blame someone else for not being there to help or if their help is not enough. I’m generally anti legislation…but extending the distance from a dam that people cannot fish, boat, or approach from would cost exactly $0 outside of some signage (that could probably be recovered via citations) and save more lives than even them having a boat to deploy.

Dam 6 used to be 300′ years ago,can’t remember when it was changed to 150′?They removed the worded signs in favor of the international symbols,which MANY do not know what it means.Diamond/cross means boats keep out.It got so bad that they reinstalled an old sign from 20 years ago.

Dam 6’s lower rescue boat was removed from service this spring because the flotation was waterlogged,and was replaced with a smaller jon-style boat.So maybe a lot of the rescue boats have/are nearing the end of their service life,and the USACE does not want to reinvest in new equipment?

Attachments:

1. 

   20210416_151857.jpg
   

Brian Klawitter wrote:

There’s a large area that a person can be safely rescued from…if there was a boat there.

Where do you draw the line tho? How close is too close not to rescue? Seems subjective to each person doing the rescuing, and if they aren’t getting paid or in their job description to risk their life why would they be obligated to?

milemark_714 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>buckybadger wrote:</div>
I don’t agree with it, rather was restating their alleged stance. The cost savings or shift of costs is peanuts compared to what the Corps of Engineers deals with financially and it seems to be a controversial decision. I do appreciate them at least putting it out there (and you sharing it) rather than just quietly eliminating it though.

People need to ultimately be responsible for themselves first and foremost. Recreating near a dam carries significant risks. A person who ignores those risks, isn’t prepared, or makes poor choices cannot look to blame someone else for not being there to help or if their help is not enough. I’m generally anti legislation…but extending the distance from a dam that people cannot fish, boat, or approach from would cost exactly $0 outside of some signage (that could probably be recovered via citations) and save more lives than even them having a boat to deploy.

Dam 6 used to be 300′ years ago,can’t remember when it was changed to 150′?They removed the worded signs in favor of the international symbols,which MANY do not know what it means.Diamond/cross means boats keep out.It got so bad that they reinstalled an old sign from 20 years ago.

Dam 6’s lower rescue boat was removed from service this spring because the flotation was waterlogged,and was replaced with a smaller jon-style boat.So maybe a lot of the rescue boats have/are nearing the end of their service life,and the USACE does not want to reinvest in new equipment?

I’d support doubling the original distance of 300′ to 600′ for all dams. Make the fines sting a bit more and enforce them. The fastest way to save lives is to prevent situations where they may be lost. There’s plenty of space to recreate on rivers that isn’t within 600′ of a dam.

It may even help fishing if the local scour holes are off limits in the Spring

I wonder if they received new training on vocal rescues, I can hear it now just hang in there help is on the way, just keep treading water..
stuff happens on river period, I compare this move to the highway department painting over a dead animal along the roadside.. Not my problem attitude.

gregory wrote:

I wonder if they received new training on vocal rescues, I can hear it now just hang in there help is on the way, just keep treading water..
stuff happens on river period, I compare this move to the highway department painting over a dead animal along the roadside.. Not my problem attitude.

Stuff happens on the road too. Should we line every inch of highway with guardrails? Should it be the job of road construction workers to also have full EMT training in a completely unrelated field to do unpaid rescues and save lives in the event of an accident on the road?

I agree completely that the idea of training people to help without having the boats available is dumb – period.

I also see the angle where we cannot expect the Corps of Engineers to be available, ready, and willing at a moment’s notice to dive in and become trained rescuers. Is it in their job description to risk their lives in hypothermic waters because someone ignored signs and regulations about where they should recreate?

It really doesn’t matter now what, a staff persons morals, values or job description is. The choice to help is taken out of the equation and their hands.

And that’s my point. Staff are guaranteed safety now since they haven’t been trained or aren’t smart enough to know when they can safely use a rescue boat. (sorry L&D Staff, that’s what it sounds like to me)

Bantering here, will not change the Corps policy, but it would of been nice to know this coming from them and not from and old cranky river rat like myself.

BTW a Wabasha fire fighter commented that they were aware of this change. He was also aware that the Corp isn’t kicking in for the fire departments rescue boat maintenance fund. Go figure.

buckybadger wrote:

I agree completely that the idea of training people to help without having the boats available is dumb – period.

Bucky, I believe the training is on how they can help from the structure. Might be ropes, floatation devices ect. That’s what I picked up anyway.

Yeah if you want help to show up October through April, good luck. Boats are put away.

Use at your own risk. Bring your dam anchor (pun intended) with enough rope for the dam thing

I wish we could fish closer to the dams personally. But, I don’t focus solely on walleye and never fish them tight to the dam.

We need to remember this isn’t only #3, it’s all the way to #10.

Once the lock closes in Nov/Dec, normally there is only one person working security at #3.

To compare highways to a few structures on a waterway is not the same, and actually they do have highway helpers in the metro. Like Bk said they took and option away from staff to help others or themselves. Bets are they got a new chief in Corp and they want to save money. More of a line item expense on paper to them, then a hey it’s actually a good idea to have these boats around for a just in case situation. Who knows definitely a unfortunate decision.

Appreciate the head’s up on this BK.

The most interesting part of this thread to me was his response to you:

“Captain Klawitter”

Captain?

Really? Dang it. Give a guy a Tuna Boat and he starts calling himself, Captain.

Respectfully,

Private Shockers, USS Sheepshead

FYI I spoke to a Captain at the Rock Island Arsenal Fire Department yesterday. (back ground: L&D #15 doesn’t have rescue boats and relies on the Fire Department)

They average 3 boat rescues per year along with 3-4 body recoveries per year (body recoveries are not just at the dam).