Ships to Reefs......Pay attention!

Pez7378 · Post by **Pez7378** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:46 pm

Four Washington State Ferry Boats shutting down operations? Apparently according to one of the spokespeople "These 80 year old boats are 80 years old and they're old." I say......

SINK 'EM!!

Here's the story: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200711 ... /711210061

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:46 pm

I second the Motion.

JDR · Post by **JDR** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:58 pm

Pez7378 wrote:Four Washington State Ferry Boats shutting down operations? Apparently according to one of the spokespeople "These 80 year old boats are 80 years old and they're old." I say......

SINK 'EM!!

Here's the story: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200711 ... /711210061

Hmmm, you sound like a volunteer to me.......Why don't you join WSA and propose this to the membership?

http://www.wascubaalliance.org/

Pez7378 · Post by **Pez7378** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:27 pm

JDR wrote:
Pez7378 wrote:Four Washington State Ferry Boats shutting down operations? Apparently according to one of the spokespeople "These 80 year old boats are 80 years old and they're old." I say......

SINK 'EM!!

Here's the story: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200711 ... /711210061
Hmmm, you sound like a volunteer to me.......Why don't you join WSA and propose this to the membership?

http://www.wascubaalliance.org/

Okay. I joined. Now what? Do I get a T-shirt? Hehehe. I actually tried to join up a few months ago when they were collecting sigs for the License plates. I guess I didn't get it right because I didn't hear anything from the organization.

Burntchef · Post by **Burntchef** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:27 pm

mattwave wrote:I second the Motion.

i third this motion.

now its a law right?....right?

Sounder · Post by **Sounder** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:15 am

JDR wrote:
Pez7378 wrote:Four Washington State Ferry Boats shutting down operations? Apparently according to one of the spokespeople "These 80 year old boats are 80 years old and they're old." I say......

SINK 'EM!!

Here's the story: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200711 ... /711210061
Hmmm, you sound like a volunteer to me.......Why don't you join WSA and propose this to the membership?

http://www.wascubaalliance.org/

Didn't WSA try to sink something before?

Tom Nic · Post by **Tom Nic** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:04 am

Sorry for the cynicism, but... I think Washington State environmental politics makes sinking a ferry or any other artificial reef such a royal pain in the patoot that folks just give up. Too much red tape.

Here's hoping that changes! Can you imagine a ferry sunk at a popular SHORE dive site or area (Ruston Way? Redondo? Three Tree? Some place Seattle or North?)? (I realize that finding a site with adequate parking could be an issue... but Ruston Way or Redondo could fit that bill, Three Tree would not. I was just thinking in terms of underwater topography. I'm sure those of you that dive Seattle and North could think of other areas.)

Do you think people would come from out of the area to dive it? Yes! And they would spend their money to do so. Folks drive to the sound for our diving from Oregon all the time now as it is, and some well publicized cool sunken ships would only increase that. We know how the sunken reefs are an attraction in the Vancouver area as well.

Wouldn't a FERRY be a no-brainer here?! What a great iconic symbol of the Puget Sound area.

Anyway, enough of my ramblings, and a special thanks to the folks at WSA who I know are working, willing to work within the system, and have a long term vision for this kind of thing.

Nwbrewer · Post by **Nwbrewer** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:40 pm

While I still believe there is NO WAY the gov. of washington state is gonna let a boat the size of a ferry get sunk in puget sound for an artificial reef is appears that the electric boats will be scraped.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... es13m.html

The other interesting thing in this article is that they are taking a good chunk of $$ from the funds for the Mukilteo ferry terminal. Bad news for folks who commute that way, but it might stretch out our days of diving the oil docks a bit longer.....

Post by **H20doctor** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:44 pm

they sunk the Possesion Ferry...? why not one of these boats..? They could sink it a the State Park in Mukilteo. Plenty of parking there

Sounder · Post by **Sounder** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:27 pm

Why wasn't the WSA able to sink a boat the last time they tried?

Nwbrewer · Post by **Nwbrewer** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:10 am

The Governer and DNR are currently against the use of artifial reefs.

They have cited many reasons, but the ones I remember were about the creating"unnatural habitats" that would theoretically draw fish away from other parts of the sound. Also the expressed fears about pollution due to the nature of water exchange in and out of puget sound not being sufficient to dissipate any potential pollution.

I'm sure there are folks here who know more than I do.....

Post by **Sea of Green** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:49 pm

Nwbrewer wrote:The Governer and DNR are currently against the use of artifial reefs.

They have cited many reasons, but the ones I remember were about the creating"unnatural habitats" that would theoretically draw fish away from other parts of the sound. Also the expressed fears about pollution due to the nature of water exchange in and out of puget sound not being sufficient to dissipate any potential pollution.

I'm sure there are folks here who know more than I do.....

Key word is "theoretically", IOW they are making it up. It's a rediculous argument with no scientific backing. In economics, it's known as the "zero-sum" theory. What that purports is that when someone becomes successful, somebody else is poor as a result. It's total nonsense, needless to say.

They might have an argument with the water exchange part, but again, show me the hard data, not idiotic theories.

mancub · Post by **mancub** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:51 pm

Okay, I would love to have a Wa-State ferry divesite.. Lets come together and make it happen. Do we need to contact WSA? or the Governor? I am sure that some of you NWdiveclub members could show that artificial reefs are great places for life to grow and thrive. Look at those eggs from TTN...in a pvc pipe or something. Maybe we should get the ARSBC to back us up and help out. (artificial reef society of British Columbia) they have around 7 wrecks 300+ft long!

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:37 pm

Forgetaboutit. The value of those ships even as scrap is too high. The State needs that money to reimburse the accounts/projects they had to rob to buy new boats for the Keystone run.

Sounder · Post by **Sounder** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:44 pm

CaptnJack wrote:Forgetaboutit. The value of those ships even as scrap is too high. The State needs that money to reimburse the accounts/projects they had to rob to buy new boats for the Keystone run.

This is a thought I'd had too. The state was NOT planning to buy several new ferries right now... the Coast Guard told them the boats had to be pulled and will not promise to allow them to sail again even when repairs. The boats being all metal are worth a lot and they'll need that money.

It would be uber cool to have a ferry wreck though. I thought the Kalakala (sp?) would have been perfect, but the citizens would have NEVER allowed that one to sink.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:05 pm

Yeah its not like the city of Mukilteo is real happy about having their dock project postponed to buy ferries for the Keystone run. Putting those projects off even further by actually sinking some of the money in the Sound is not gonna fly. It might be a good tourism investment, but since the State already delayed replacing the 80yo diesel electrics for decades they aren't about to miraculously discover long-term vision now LOL.

mancub · Post by **mancub** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:23 pm

That makes total sense. Suppose I just have to go to BC if I want some massive wrecks.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:40 pm

Unless you wanna clean one up for the Navy. They got some beauties right over in Bremerton.

lamont · Post by **lamont** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:08 pm

Sea of Green wrote: They might have an argument with the water exchange part, but again, show me the hard data, not idiotic theories.

I'd like to see the data on worst-case release of pollution from a hundred large ships sunk in puget sound over their entire 'lifetime' vs. the pollution from one year of runoff into the sound.

Tom Nic · Post by **Tom Nic** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:22 pm

lamont wrote:
Sea of Green wrote: They might have an argument with the water exchange part, but again, show me the hard data, not idiotic theories.
I'd like to see the data on worst-case release of pollution from a hundred large ships sunk in puget sound over their entire 'lifetime' vs. the pollution from one year of runoff into the sound.

Agreed. My guess is that they don't even come close. But then folks are wanting to remove creosote pilings, destroying years of existing life build up... then putting some kind of structure in thier place so that life can grow on it. I'd like to see the data on the harm pilings are doing... I support environmentalist goals, but quite frankly much of what I see is almost a religion run amock. Just my .02 PSI.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:25 pm

Most of the things living on pilings are the uber critters. The creosote and pentachlorophenol both easily kill the sensitive stuff. Ditto even the most contaminated Puget Sound sediments still have life on+in them, just a wacked out non-functional community.

Fishstiq · Post by **Fishstiq** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:01 pm

Typical PNW over-environmentalist attitude. People see a problem and overreact to it so that no one calls them insensitive to the plight of the environment... gimme a break. Next thing you know PETA will be donning drysuits and bc's to monitor the stressfull effects of divers on the fish or something. ](*,) How about looking at the big picture effect other artificial reefs have had on large scale u/w environments? Or maybe making up some of that revenue defecit by sinking a boat in a very public way and drawing a crowd, then dipping in to the profits from tourism, etc...?

Oh wait, nevermind. They'd just misspend the money anyway.....

MikeRacine · Post by **MikeRacine** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:07 am

Here's an update on the notion of placing vessels as dive attractions in WA waters.

Obviously, there is considerable support within the dive community. There is equally considerable concern on the part of various state agencies regarding whether that concept makes sense.

In the 2007 legislative session (the one that produced the 07-09 budget), WSA promoted a feasibility study to examine the issues surrounding the concept. These issues focus primarily on the physical, biological, and economic impacts that would be produced by such an undertaking. To make a long story short, what resulted was $50K to produce a scoping document that outlined what such a feasibility study would look at. We will be active again in the 2009 legislative session (which will produce the 09-11 budget) to promote funding of the full feasibility study. The scoping study indicated a fully-burdened cost of between $1.2M and $2.4M to examine these issues. Without any editorial comment on that cost, I believe the feasibility study could be conducted for less.

If anyone is interested, you can download a copy of the scoping document at http://www.wascuba.org/ships2reefs.htm

The (not surprising) abrupt retirement of the Steel Electric class ferries presents an opportunity to perhaps move a little more quickly on the feasibility study. There are only two choices for final disposition - placing as dive attractions or scrapping. We'll be working to convince the state to look objectively at whether it makes sense to place them as dive attractions.

Hope this helps.

Mike

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:05 am

We have no shortage of vessels around suitable for sinking without the kaput ferries. I am continually surprised by Washington's capacity to "study" rather than make decisions LOL. I'm not really into wrecks and fake ones even less so, but I'm pretty sure 1.2 to 2.4 million is quite a bit more than a thorough cleaning of virtually any ship would cost.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:44 am

Value per diver of the Oriskany...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/ ... enDocument

is pretty danged high. I wonder how much it cost to clean her and when the 'investment' will break even.

Northwest Dive Club

Ships to Reefs......Pay attention!

Ships to Reefs......Pay attention!

Re: Ships to Reefs......Pay attention!

Re: Ships to Reefs......Pay attention!

Re: Ships to Reefs......Pay attention!