Kalakala declared hazard to navigation

ljjames · Post by **ljjames** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:40 pm

there is a poll on the site...

"Sink her somewhere off shore as part of a dive park" is way out ahead

http://today.seattletimes.com/2011/12/k ... nadequate/

raptor · Post by **raptor** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:25 pm

I vote for Redondo that would be so cool to have a ship that size you could shore dive.

cardiver · Post by **cardiver** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:33 pm

More room at Three Tree.

Mateo1147 · Post by **Mateo1147** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:42 pm

Sink her at MUK! She would be great to see at 100fsw!

Tom Nic · Post by **Tom Nic** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:49 pm

Any of those sites would be wonderful - well used, not overly current dependent.

Please don't sink it boat access only (pipedream, I know).

Please don't sink it someplace like Les Davis with Puyallup silt. If the Les Davis structure were at Three Tree it would be at least Pacific Northwest class if not world class.

Please don't sink it someplace like Saltwater State Park - great structure, but only diveable on slack, and now behind State Park fees to dive.

Again, just sink the darn thing and I'd be happy, but make it something that can be used by the majority of divers the majority of time.

OK I'll be quiet now.

coulterboy · Post by **coulterboy** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:06 pm

That would be a "Grand" idea to sink it. A structure like this would bring masses of divers to the site. But, as is the case with majority of our popular dive sites, we have run out of real estate on PARKING. Could you imagine the Kalakala sunk at Muk? It would not be at the Hotel side, no way for parking. It would have to be by the lighthouse side - and with that, even during summer time, parking space is hard to find.

EUP-forget it, not too deep, and not enough parking either.

TTN-you'll have the whole community up in arms.

Redondo - a good possibility

The rest, I don't know. It would have to be sunk where the only option is a boat dive.

Hell, sink it at Mr. Sund's (Sund Rock) backyard, it's deep enough. He'll just have to bulldoze his lot for more parking.

BASSMAN · Post by **BASSMAN** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:18 pm

How about Salwater State Park? Or even Owens Beach @ Point Defience in Tacoma!

He could even use volunteer/ local divers to make it ready for sinking.

H20doctor · Post by **H20doctor** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:50 pm

There is plenty of parking at muilteo.. Plenty.. Camano island works.. Kingston.. !!!

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:00 pm

You'd need at least 140fsw to provide enough clearance. She's probably 60-70ft from keel to bridge.

The Corps will be scrapping her though.

Geek · Post by **Geek** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:54 pm

CaptnJack wrote:You'd need at least 140fsw to provide enough clearance. She's probably 60-70ft from keel to bridge.

The Corps will be scrapping her though.

Not if we get to her first *insert evil laugh*

nwprodivers · Post by **nwprodivers** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:54 pm

Someone use there power of persuasion and get us a ferry

dwashbur · Post by **dwashbur** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:54 am

I'd lean toward Owens Beach on Point Defiance. Maybe there'd finally be something interesting to see there. And there's loads of parking. It's on a 90 degree hill, but it's there!

BASSMAN · Post by **BASSMAN** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:57 am

dwashbur wrote:I'd lean toward Owens Beach on Point Defiance. Maybe there'd finally be something interesting to see there. And there's loads of parking. It's on a 90 degree hill, but it's there!

That's What I was thinkin'!

Grateful Diver · Post by **Grateful Diver** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:24 am

Any of you who want to see how much time, effort, and money goes into sinking a vessel that's been prepared for a dive site, I encourage you to get involved with the ARSBC. I've been helping prepare the Annapolis for about 2-1/2 years now, and it's been a real education into how much dedication is required to get one of these big vessels down.

It would probably cost more to sink the Kalakala that it would cost to restore her. There's a bit more to it than just knocking a hole in the bottom of the ship over the place where you want to put it.

Besides removing every piece of insulation, and any material that could be considered a pollutant ... including all volatile materials that would release PCBs and other such things into the water once sunk ... you also have to jump through a complex permitting process, pass multiple inspections, pay to dispose of any hazardous materials removed from the vessel ... including the rags you use to clean the bilges ... and then deal with any legal issues that local residents or businesses might throw at you because they don't want the thing in their neighborhood. You will need an anchorage for at least a couple years while the work's being done preparing her for sinking. You'll need tools and heavy equipment to remove anything that would present an undue hazard to divers ... which includes diesel generators, hoists, welding equipment, power tools like drills, sawzalls and impact wrenches, and at least one plasma cutting torch. You also need a barge, crane, containers and trucks to haul all the stuff you've removed from the vessel to either a landfil, recycle center, or hazardous waste disposal area. And then you have to hire professionals to arrange for the sinking ... and there are only a few folks on the planet with the expertise to put it down where and how you want it to rest on the bottom.

My guess is that with a vessel like the Kalakala, you're looking at a minimum investment of a half million dollars ... and that's if you can get volunteer help to put in tens of thousands of hours of labor required to make her suitable for diving.

Then you've got to deal with the governmental hurdles. The major roadblock to putting a vessel in Puget Sound is the Department of Natural Resources, whose policy is more toward removing manmade debris from Puget Sound than it is toward encouraging more of it to be put down for recreational purposes. There's a significant resistance to using vessels for artificial reefs in our state. This is why the ferries that were retired a couple years ago ... which would have been significantly easier to turn into artificial reefs than the Kalakala ... were eventually sold for scrap. Overcoming those bureaucratic hurdles might be the hardest obstacle to overcome.

As for making it available for shore access ... ain't gonna happen, particularly in our litigious society. There's a reason why artificial reefs are all accessible only by boat, and it has everything to do with liability. How many of you who want this thing at Mukilteo or TTN are qualified to enter a wreck? How many of you think you wouldn't ... or some other unqualified diver wouldn't? How many have a clue what you must do to assure yourself you'll be able to find your way out before you drain all the air out of your tank? Then what ... you won't be able to do a CESA from inside the ship, after all. After a few body recoveries, the state will decide it's a public safety hazard ... and since they won't be able to remove the vessel at that point, the easier solution will be to simply make the shoreline around it off-limits to diving.

It's a nice dream ... and I would also love to see a significant prepared ship in Puget Sound for recreational diving. But put some thought into what it would take to make it happen ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

BASSMAN · Post by **BASSMAN** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:32 am

So then, what's your solution? What do you think they should do with it?

Grateful Diver · Post by **Grateful Diver** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:36 am

BASSMAN wrote:So then, what's your solution? What do you think they should do with it?

It's not what I think they should do with it ... but based on what happened to those other ferries, I think what they will do with it is send to Mexico to be cut up for scrap metal ... we simply don't have the infrastructure, expertise, or political muscle in Washington state to get something like this prepared and permitted as an artificial reef. That's why we all end up going to Canada, Florida or California when we want to dive on one ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

BASSMAN · Post by **BASSMAN** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:43 am

Grateful Diver wrote:How many of you who want this thing at Mukilteo or TTN are qualified to enter a wreck? How many of you think you wouldn't ... or some other unqualified diver wouldn't? How many have a clue what you must do to assure yourself you'll be able to find your way out before you drain all the air out of your tank? Then what ... you won't be able to do a CESA from inside the ship... Bob (Grateful Diver)

After all ###***%%% has been removed, cut the darn thing right down the center and drop it in two halves, like a big clam.
No, overhead enviroment there!

I really want to use the sarcasm thing again, but I will not.

ljjames · Post by **ljjames** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:15 am

hmm... it must be x.mas season

can't a person even dream a little?

here i was thinking how cool it would be to sink it out from cove 2 or maybe between cove 1 and 2.... at first i was kind of thinking I'd like to see it in a place with a _bit_ of current, but as we have seen from the ibeams and jackstraw piling, there is obviously enough there to grow an invert. community if we give it something to hang on to

Dusty2 · Post by **Dusty2** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:39 am

Sadly I must agree with Bob, There just ain't no way it's ever going to happen. Given the green front to deal with and the environmental types. It's far easier to just say no. We must remember that the biggest hurdle is the permitting process. No publicly elected official is going to put his job on the line to assist in any effort to sink a vessel of any type. It would be political suicide. We might be a very vocal minority but we are still a very exclusive minority.

We will just have to live with the reality that it ain't gonna happen! :angry:

FlyinV · Post by **FlyinV** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:59 am

Please please please .. Shore accessible dive site

Very doubtful :(

I am not interested to go inside it -- More then happy to see what would be living on the outside of it

Grateful Diver · Post by **Grateful Diver** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:18 am

Dusty2 wrote:Sadly I must agree with Bob, There just ain't no way it's ever going to happen. Given the green front to deal with and the environmental types. It's far easier to just say no. We must remember that the biggest hurdle is the permitting process. No publicly elected official is going to put his job on the line to assist in any effort to sink a vessel of any type. It would be political suicide. We might be a very vocal minority but we are still a very exclusive minority.

We will just have to live with the reality that it ain't gonna happen! :angry:

Well, find someone to commit a half million dollars to cleaning it up before it goes down, and the "environmental types" won't have much to complain about.

You can't just sink a dirty vessel ... you'll be killing the very things we go down there to look at.

Let's not turn this into a political issue. It isn't ... it's about resources, commitment, and money ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Mateo1147 · Post by **Mateo1147** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:24 am

I withdraw my proposal because I clearly had no idea what a pipe dream sinking that rotting shell of a vessel anywhere in Puget Sound was.

Day dream over.....

Matt

ljjames · Post by **ljjames** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:16 am

i think the only answer is to insure the dickens out of it and then uh... tow it north, like uh... near some public access points... and uh... oops, the power went out on the pumps keeping the water out of her hull... OMG! She's sinking! its a tragedy!

i mean like the tragedy of the Al Ind Eska Sea sinking

(rumor has it she was scuttled for insurance money)

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:11 pm

ljjames wrote: (rumor has it she was scuttled for insurance money)

Before or after her refrigerant caught fire for 3 days?

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:13 pm

Start raising money and political capital now to sink a vessel in say 2025-ish.

And no way it'll be shore accessible, the charter operators need to be behind this as bringing in out of state busine$$.

Northwest Dive Club