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

[Penopolypants]

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.

$23 million total to sink the Oriskany. Of course there were bumps in the road that can hopefully be avoided here....we don't have a hurricane season, after all.

Mike, is the plan to go through the scoping letter items, conduct the feasiblity study, use that to complete the SEPA checklist, and then do an EIS? It's clear that the scoping letter is trying to address a highly detailed SEPA or a future EIS. I can't see this NOT triggering an EIS...why not shave a few years off and go straight to it?

I know most questions that start with "Why?" can be answered with "Money", "Time", or "Bureaucracy". I'm simply curious if that approach has been put forth to the lead agency based on the information in the scoping letter.

BTW, Mike, welcome to NWDC!

[CaptnJack]

23mill / $1200 per diver. So that's roughly 20,000 diver trips to break even. I can't imagine the Mackenzie Class Ships have even come close to 20,000 dive trips yet, 10+ years out on their sinkings. Sure they didn't take 23 mill to clean and sink but the Saskatchewan has what maybe 10,000 dive trips on her. Definately not the Columbia which probably has 1,000 trips to her.

[kjc]

Washington State already has a history of creating artificial reefs.

They are mostly concrete slag and quarry rock that were deposited for the belief that they would be a resource for hook and line fisherman by developing habitat for game fish. If you get a simple fishing map from a boating supply store or sporting supply store you will easily find them. Usually these maps just list them all.

Concrete slag and other demolition debris does not promote habitat growth well. We all know that as divers. The specific placement of anything for habitat enhancement also contributes to marine life growth, because of the unique ways water moves and enriches and flushes Puget Sound.

If you want to make an artificial reef, you have to pick the right stuff to use, and you have to place it in the right locations. Then you have to monitor the changes over time and document it with field surveys and photography to prove it can be done.

We all have seen what Les Davis looks like underwater. That is an artificial reef built by dumping concrete demolition debris for fisherman. It was placed in the sediment deposition path of flood currents that plow into Commencement Bay, but ebb currents do not flush.

Wrong stuff...wrong place.

Dive Misery Point Artificial Reef in Seabeck in Hood Canal.

Same thing, even worse.

Compare the growth of what is on the Saskatchewan in Nanimo and where it is located with respect to tides and currents and other physical parameters and the Chartiere in Seachelt which has beed down longer, but in a location that doesn't flush well. (The Oriskany was sunk by the US Navy for no other reason then to get rid of it.)

Washington State has a history of making poor political decisions regarding artificial reef choices by allowing the dumping of construction demolition debris in the wrong place for the suppossed benefit of boaters and fisherman.

Boeing Reef and Alki Reef are entirely quarry rock, and are in better physical areas for habitat enhancement. Compare the growth on them to other reefs!

Dive other Wa State Artificial Reefs that have a composite mixture of quarry rock and concrete slag like the south side of Blake Island, Seattle Fishing Pier, (do you know where that is?) Heyer Point, (how about that one?) or Toliva Shoals which was recently dove, but missed by our beloved CaptnJack'r.

Does anyone think Washington State will consider sinking a vessel the size of a Washington State Ferry in Puget Sound that will promote habitat enhancement for the benefit of recreation to include boaters, fisherman and divers that will be out of the way of marine routes without making an informed decision?

Why lust for sinking a big boat? Why lust for the political fight or mock politicians?

I would prefer to have a program that included grant money an individual diver or dive club could apply for to build our own, small "artificial reef" habitat enhancement monitoring stations where the marine growth could be documented over time so that locations and materials that actually do promote habitat enhancement in Puget Sound could be determined. (And then choose to call them something better then the "Alki Junkyard"!)

Collectively, we've got all of the infrastructure already in place, the dive skills and interest, the photography and documentation skills, the marine life identification ability!

Wouldn't you want to work for it and prove it first?

[CaptnJack]

You will never win the productivity arguments. Cause WDFW is convinced (and there is some literature to suggest this) that artificial reefs just serve as 'attractants' to fish, they don't increase overall productivity. So you'd need to somehow document that adjacent areas weren't losing fish. Not very easy at all. That said, Edmonds has an active sinking program and all the permits in place. Go forth and demonstrate those structures work.

The completely opposite approach is to cease the unwinable science arguments with WDFW. Big ships = big tourism = big dollars. If the sinking of a Navy ship appears to generate enough moola it will happen regardless of its iffy habitat benefits.

[kjc]

You will never win the productivity arguments. Cause WDFW is convinced (and there is some literature to suggest this) that artificial reefs just serve as 'attractants' to fish, they don't increase overall productivity.

OK, well...whatever! :-)

Why do vertebrates always have to be the focus of everyone's imagination?

Think smaller!

Build artificial reefs that you and your dive buddies can build.

Attract invertebrates!

They would be DIVER Artificial Reefs!

Not mondo marine boater-fisherman and then diver maybe Artificial Reefs.

Pick stuff to build it with, pick designs that you think might work and that are feasible to construct, pick spots to build it based on parameters that you think would promote habitat enhancement and take a shot at it.

Document it over time.

Let it be everyone's personal pet project things.

Marine growth does work!!!

The documentation will prove habitat enhancement microcosms are feasible. I'm sure the WDFW will like the pictures!

Besides, the ideas will stimulate diver creativity and help develop purposeful interpersonal interaction and will be interesting to follow as a topic of interest over time.

Give divers some money to prove it!

[Nwbrewer]

You will never win the productivity arguments. Cause WDFW is convinced (and there is some literature to suggest this) that artificial reefs just serve as 'attractants' to fish, they don't increase overall productivity. So you'd need to somehow document that adjacent areas weren't losing fish. Not very easy at all. That said, Edmonds has an active sinking program and all the permits in place. Go forth and demonstrate those structures work.

You don't have to prove other areas aren't losing fish if the surrounding area fisheries increasse. It looks like this article somewhat refutes the theory that more fish in one spot does not equal more fish in other areas-

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3 ... ine13.html

Of course fishing would have to be closed at any large artificial reef to make the surrounding populations come up.

Also, if WDFW is so convinced that having suitable habitat for fish in an area just draws fish out of other areas and has no impact on overall local population then why have marine preserves all around the Sound in the first place?

To me their logic doesn't make much sense. (But I wouldn't really expect it to, they are part of the state Gov't)

Jake

[kjc]

WDFW logic does make sense, if your think politically.

They manage the fisheries so it can be harvested sustainably, meaning there can be a harvest, and the marine stock is sustainable.

Those 2 things occur at the same time.

Divers are other recreational persuits that are not really part of their focus. (They regulate the harvest that divers would take of course, but that fits into their logic.)

The reason there are Marine Preserves is because those locations represent political decisions based on their data of where spawning habitats are located for their preferred target species like salmon. MPA's are a no harvest zone.

OK, that's fine, but if you locate them on maps, (their locations are listed in the Fishing Regulations Handbook!) and find where they are located, divers know they are also lousy dive sites!

Building a "reef" is counter intuitive to WDFW logic in that if you build a reef and you either increase the population of marine life or marine life moves over to it, then they would have to defend their harvest quotas against requests to adjust them to reflect the increased potential to take more vs sustainability.

If you want to build a reef of any kind, size or shape with the idea that it will add habitat for a potentially harvestible marine species, then divers will not only have to share the reef with fisherman, but play ball with WDFW to get it built. Politically, reef building in that context will be extremely challenging. I think wanting to sink a ship the size of a Washington State Ferry is foolish.

My idea of building small, pilot reefs specifically for non harvest target species just for the recreational benefit of divers avoids the argument, is non political and is more logical. Besides, the fish you want to see will most likely show up anyway! It would be a diver reef, not a fisherman reef.

It represents opportunities for diver focused design creativity, constructability, material selection and location siting criteria. It would be kind of like home ownership groups that are allowed to take responsibility for their own neighborhoods.

[Nwbrewer]

Sounds like what kjc is proposing are a lot of small EUP style area around the Sound.

That sounds good to me, but I'm guessing that it'd be a political nightmare to get approval for that either, since the local municipaities don't generally control the shore area. Isn't it controlled by DNR?

Also wouldn't WDFW's arguments about pulling fish from one area to these areas still apply as there would be "non-native habitat" that would attract the fish?

I guess to me it just seems to make sense that having a (or several) large structures in Puget Sound that could support large amounts of marine life by providing breeding areas and being a protected site would result in more juvenile fish surviving. I guess I figure more little fish = more big fish. Isn't that the point of the current marine preserves? Wouldn't more fish in the Sound contribute to sustainable fisheries in a manner that is more natural than something like salmon or tuna farming?

If the amount of fish goes up in the Sound, what would be wrong with increasing the current quotas? It seems like that was the genaral idea behind what the Spanish are doing. They want to be able to harvest fish in the future, and the best way to do that is to increase the total numbers of fish.

What am I missing?

Jake

[Pez7378]

What am I missing?

Jake

The simple idea of cleaning a ship, sinking a ship, and DIVING a ship........

[kjc]

What am I missing?

Jake

The simple idea of cleaning a ship, sinking a ship, and DIVING a ship........ #-o

That would be...

YES!!!


So, if you want to sink a big ship, go ahead, sink one. Good luck!

To accomplish that, I think politically the strategy would be best served to divorce yourself from the concept of "reef building". Big ship aren't "reefs". The wrecks in BC prove that.

In BC, the big ships are dive destinations.

Here, they would be for the benefit of divers, of the dive service and tourism industry and the hotel/motel restaurant correlation that divers would have to SHARE with fisherman, because it inevitably would be considered more for their benefit then for divers.

If you want to build reefs for FISH, then you will fight politically with the scientific circular argumentativeness of the permitting authorities like WDFW on their terms, which is all about harvest and kill quotas. And then, if you get one, you will have to share it with fisherman! Do you want that?

Politically, thats a dead end road! WA State already has that. Go out and dive them. They are built of poor material, sited in poor locations and support minimal growth.

To build a reef for DIVERS, the political strategy of building small, non harvest target invertebrate structures out of specifically selected material in specifically selected locations that are built, maintained and documented by divers for divers is a more winnable political arguement because it would be solely about habitat development for the sake of habitat development, and they would be dive destinations on the side! :-)

A pilot program to support this should be considered with the money that is earmarked for the reefing study the State will undertake.

Edmonds Underwater Park is a PARK that was all about building a shore access divers park. The City of Edmonds supported it.

OK, thats cool, but its not a reef.

A small, diver reef pilot program need not align itself with a municipality for shore access, or be built of randomly selected stuff. The siting criteria and material for building the the reefs should be based on what is for the benefit of where a reef would grow, and for supporting marine growth. Before there can be big structures that support small fish that big fish can eat at the higher, more narrow end of the food chain pyramid, there has to be more available structure that will support the biodiversity of the bigger, lower end of the food chain.

Go out and dive more non diver destinations in Puget Sound! Develop an opinion about what it is based on your own observations. Everyone's opinion matters.

My opinion is that by and large, Puget Sound is a big sandy, muddy, deep estuary devoid of structure or habitat that doesn't clense itself very well from the detritus of seasonal shallow plankton blume die off.

The discussion of what constitutes an actual reef, their design and what to build them out of and where they should be cited has not occurred yet!