DNR Lands Commissioner on artificial reefs on the radio

[Grateful Diver]

On the economic angle ... here's some info from Florida on the Spiegel Grove and Oriskany ...

Sunken ship an economic treasure
Thousands of divers worldwide expected to descend on reef
Originally published May 14, 2006

Polyana da Costa

The Oriskany is to divers what Mount Everest is to climbers.

The 888-foot ship -- soon to be the only aircraft carrier sunk as a man-made artificial reef -- is about to be on top of the list of diving magazines throughout the world. And so is the Pensacola Bay Area, which expects a substantial economic boost with its new attraction.

"Pensacola will become an international diving attraction," said Ed Schroeder, vice president of tourism for the Penscola Bay Area Chamber of Commerce.

Schroeder recently mailed about 3,800 flyers to sporting goods and diving stores throughout the eastern United States. TV stations from France, newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and some of the largest diving magazines in Europe have called Schroeder and other local officials about the Oriskany.

"I'm getting about 25 to 40 calls a day, from California to Georgia, Singapore, France -- all over," said Jim Phillips, co-owner of Pensacola-based MBT Divers.

Phillips already has a couple of hundred people signed up to dive as soon as permitted, about 48 to 96 hours after the sinking, which is scheduled to take place Wednesday.

Many of the callers said they plan to bring families and stay at least three days in the area, Phillips said. Some are hearing of Pensacola for the first time.

"There is a lot of opportunityfor the area to grow, providing that we do it right," Phillips said. "Our focus now should be: What can we do to keep these divers and their families here for a few days?"

It is still too early to gauge the economic impact the ship will bring to the area.

The closest comparison to the Oriskany is the Spiegel Grove, a 510-foot Navy Landing Ship that became the most popular artificial wreck in the Florida Keys, where there already was a mature dive market when it was sunk in 2002.

About 20,000 people dive the Spiegel Grove per year, bringing an estimated economic boost of about $14 million each year for the Upper Keys, said Jackie Harder, president of Key Largo Chamber of Commerce.

"It got a lot more attention in the first year," she said.

There are fewer than 4,000 divers, including locals and visitors, in Escambia County each year, according to a 1998 study by Florida State Universityand the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration.

Some expect Pensacola's diving community to grow and to attract others from theregion. Unlike the Keys, Pensacola is an easy drive from major metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta.

"The uptake is much larger here," said Anders Gustafson, who owned a dive shop in the West Palm Beach area and recently moved to start a new shop in Pensacola, even taking the shop's name from the Oriskany: Dive MightyO.

Gustafson recently launched the shop's Web site -- http://www.DiveMightyO.com -- and more than 100 small groups have already signed up on a priority list, Gustafson said.

Another local dive shop, Scuba Shack/Wet Dream Charters, is booked for every weekend through the end of the year, owner Gene Ferguson said.

Some area hotels already have arranged packages with dive shops.

"We have had a lot of inquiries about it," said Kathy Briske, general manager at the Comfort Inn at Pensacola Beach.

How much money will she bring in?

A 1998 study showed artificial reef activities, including fishing and diving, generated $92 million — the equivalent to $113 million now — in annual spending by locals and visitors in Escambia County, according to researchers from Florida State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Less than 3 percent of that was from diving.

A recent interpretation of the study by NOAA estimates the Oriskany by itself would generate an additional $11.3 million a year.

"These are just estimates based on a scenario in which activity increases by 10 percent," said Bob Leeworthy, leader of Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program at NOAA. "It could be much higher, but it’s hard to tell now because the Oriskany is a pretty unique thing in an area that didn’t have much of a diving industry before."

[whatevah]

Dude ... I don't know who you are, or why you choose to conduct yourself in such an insulting manner.

I don't know who you are either, or why you'd so easily take offense. All I did was call BS on the economic argument for sinking ships as artificial reefs in this region. Now I'm trying to understand your other arguments. Bad weather, equipment issues, unusual tidal conditions, bad visibility, all of these things are a reality here - if you want to dive (especially the compelling sites that really could bring in dollars from traveling divers) you have to take a chance on those things to some extent. It sounds like you want structure in places where some of those factors aren't so problematic, and you want it close by for your own convenience - well, the rewards will also be lower and fewer divers will spend their money to visit. There are a multitude of sites of that kind already available, and there are even wrecks to suit most diver skillsets and comfort levels. These old ships have value as scrap and they don't belong to the small group who want to dive on them. The natural environment that would be turned into a dumping ground is the concern of everyone - not just the few who'd choose to sink a ship there. I'm all for people being passionate about their own particular brand of recreation - and I recognize that sometimes natural resources have to give a little in that regard - that's not a problem. I suspect that a big proportion of those who'd support sinking these ships have not fully explored the existing options, and that does trouble me. Here is the point I am trying to make: the number of people who want these ships sunk regionally is very small but the cost is great. How do you reconcile this when there are so many alternatives which seem underutilized?

It's a friggen discussion board. Most of us here are friends, and like to assume we're talking to friends. If you can't do that, you're in the wrong place. Perhaps you'd be happier over at The Deco Stop.

Believe it or not, different people are attracted to different types of diving. That doesn't make them better or worse than you ... just different.

Now please, either tone down the insulting language or go post somewhere else. This ain't the place for it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Hrm. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here for honest discussion about diving in this area - it is hard to learn anything from conversing on a topic like this if everybody must be kept in their comfort zone and nobody wants to explain their reasoning. I'm not particularly interested in getting together with large groups for social dives, or in identifying myself by any kind of club affiliation. I think you are right - this board is not for me.

[whatevah]

none of the other divers in the group were interested in nearby alternatives to the "wrecks".

Find more adaptable buddies.

This was a charter with a group I don't usually dive with and the decisions were not mine to make. It was a one off thing - didn't like it, and won't do it again. At the time I didn't mind that much because I thought the ships would be more interesting than they turned out to be.

[Joshua Smith]

Hrm. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here for honest discussion about diving in this area - it is hard to learn anything from conversing on a topic like this if everybody must be kept in their comfort zone and nobody wants to explain their reasoning. I'm not particularly interested in getting together with large groups for social dives, or in identifying myself by any kind of club affiliation. I think you are right - this board is not for me.

It's entirely possible to have an honest discussion about diving in this area, and still be polite. You're coming off kind of harsh in this thread. Please dial it back just a little.

[Grateful Diver]

Hrm. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here for honest discussion about diving in this area - it is hard to learn anything from conversing on a topic like this if everybody must be kept in their comfort zone and nobody wants to explain their reasoning.

There's lots of useful information exchanged here ... we just prefer to do it in a friendly manner.

I'm not particularly interested in getting together with large groups for social dives, or in identifying myself by any kind of club affiliation. I think you are right - this board is not for me.

No worries ... like diving, we all get turned on by different things. If you need conflict and insult to make your point, there are plenty of other forums.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[whatevah]

Toss the BC dive industry a few bucks - why not?

Why not indeed ... it's my money, I worked for it, and I can spend it any way I damn well please. If Washington state doesn't offer the product I want to buy, I'll buy it elsewhere. That should be simple enough to comprehend.

So simple even I can comprehend it Your original comments were I think aimed at pointing out the economic loss to Washington when you go to dive in BC. You've assumed that my response was sarcastic but it wasn't - I really do agree that you should spend your money where you please and I think the folks in BC deserve your money and they have a lot to offer that isn't available in Washington (reverse is also true). People will dive where they want to dive and that's a situation I'm really quite okay with.

Sinking garbage to disrupt the natural environments that some of us appreciate is not going to resolve the problems of weather, visibility, etc.

How does a wreck, prepared and cleaned up for diving, differ from the ones you profess to love to dive? In truth they create a lot less disruption, because before they're sunk an awful lot of work goes into cleaning them up and removing anything that would pollute the water. I'd betchya the Diamond Knot made an unholy mess when it went down. At least the prepared wrecks don't put bunker fuel and other such pollutants into the water.

If I had the choice I'd prefer that the DK never went down Bob. It was a mess but it wasn't put there on purpose. It is an interesting site now but I can certainly live without it. A ship cleaned up and prepared for diving differs because it doesn't have the contaminants and doesn't have the history - it is a case of people thinking they know better than nature (and hindsight often shows that to be quite incorrect). It is the same because it disrupts the delicate balance of ecosystems where it rests and those surrounding it. People here are fond of referring to flat sandy/muddy substrates as though they were lifeless and valueless, and that is a long way from the truth. I am not fond of artificial reefs of any kind, I suppose - I don't automatically view them as a win-win.

If these wrecks are such "garbage" ... why do places like California and Florida spend big money lobbying to get ahold of them so they can sink them off of THEIR shores?

To try and make money. People do a lot of ugly and regrettable things with that in mind, and they don't always make the money they'd hoped for.

How many divers do you think fly to California and Florida each year to visit ships like the Yukon and the Oriskany? I know quite a few who have.

I'm sure many do. Those are very different places where it might actually make some economic sense, if not ecological.

[CaptnJack]

none of the other divers in the group were interested in nearby alternatives to the "wrecks".

Find more adaptable buddies.

This was a charter with a group I don't usually dive with and the decisions were not mine to make. It was a one off thing - didn't like it, and won't do it again. At the time I didn't mind that much because I thought the ships would be more interesting than they turned out to be.

Well if you are looking for an "interesting" wreck the ARSBC ships aren't for you. I put them in the "fun" jungle gym category. I've done most of them (except the RivTow and the 737) and they all feel remarkably similar to me - and kinda bland. The life is obviously different and a welcome change.

[lamont]

Sinking garbage to disrupt the natural environments that some of us appreciate...

I've scootered over many 1,000s of feet of flat muddy bottom around here that I would have appreciated a lot more if there was a big ship sunk right there. There are an awful lot of good dive sites in the sound, but in terms of sheer square miles there's a lot more of just about nothing out there. And even if that is a habitat for some kinds of critters who are hidden away or too small too see -- plopping a ship down in some of that isn't going to measurably reduce the amount of that habitat available to them in puget sound.

[Grateful Diver]

Toss the BC dive industry a few bucks - why not?

Why not indeed ... it's my money, I worked for it, and I can spend it any way I damn well please. If Washington state doesn't offer the product I want to buy, I'll buy it elsewhere. That should be simple enough to comprehend.

So simple even I can comprehend it Your original comments were I think aimed at pointing out the economic loss to Washington when you go to dive in BC. You've assumed that my response was sarcastic but it wasn't - I really do agree that you should spend your money where you please and I think the folks in BC deserve your money and they have a lot to offer that isn't available in Washington (reverse is also true). People will dive where they want to dive and that's a situation I'm really quite okay with.

Sinking garbage to disrupt the natural environments that some of us appreciate is not going to resolve the problems of weather, visibility, etc.

How does a wreck, prepared and cleaned up for diving, differ from the ones you profess to love to dive? In truth they create a lot less disruption, because before they're sunk an awful lot of work goes into cleaning them up and removing anything that would pollute the water. I'd betchya the Diamond Knot made an unholy mess when it went down. At least the prepared wrecks don't put bunker fuel and other such pollutants into the water.

If I had the choice I'd prefer that the DK never went down Bob. It was a mess but it wasn't put there on purpose. It is an interesting site now but I can certainly live without it. A ship cleaned up and prepared for diving differs because it doesn't have the contaminants and doesn't have the history - it is a case of people thinking they know better than nature (and hindsight often shows that to be quite incorrect). It is the same because it disrupts the delicate balance of ecosystems where it rests and those surrounding it. People here are fond of referring to flat sandy/muddy substrates as though they were lifeless and valueless, and that is a long way from the truth. I am not fond of artificial reefs of any kind, I suppose - I don't automatically view them as a win-win.

If these wrecks are such "garbage" ... why do places like California and Florida spend big money lobbying to get ahold of them so they can sink them off of THEIR shores?

To try and make money. People do a lot of ugly and regrettable things with that in mind, and they don't always make the money they'd hoped for.

How many divers do you think fly to California and Florida each year to visit ships like the Yukon and the Oriskany? I know quite a few who have.

I'm sure many do. Those are very different places where it might actually make some economic sense, if not ecological.

OK ... now you're talking at a level where we can exchange useful information. Thank you.

I see where you're coming from ... there are a cadre of people who believe that if nature didn't put it there, it doesn't belong there. I can recognize that as valid, whether or not I agree with it. We all have differences, and in order to live as any kind of society we have to be able to see those differences for the value they offer. I agree with that.

I have a different perspective because I'm involved in helping the ARSBC prepare a wreck for sinking. I've seen the effort and thought that goes into it. I was part of the team that surveyed the bottom where the ship is currently planning to go down. I know what's down there. As someone who, like yourself, enjoys taking underwater photographs, I DO know that even in muddy, barren places there is a treasure of life to be found. I understand that. I ALSO, however, understand what happens when structure is placed in such places. We have lots of evidence to go by ... from the piles of "reef" out around Hat Island to the Alki Fishing Reef, to Les Davis, to the recent structure placed by the Washington Scuba Alliance at Saltwater State Park. Each and every one of those displaced a certain type of life in favor of providing shelter for other types of life. Some were more successful than others. I can be pretty well assured that until the structures were dumped at Les Davis, wolf eels and red brotulas didn't live there. They do today. I can be pretty well assured that octopus didn't den in the mud flats at Saltwater ... but even though the reef has only been there for a few months, they're already moving in. Not all of the artificial reef efforts of the mid 70's were successful ... but not all were failures either. I would hope we've learned something in the interrim, and would be able to provide both recreation and habitat in a manner that does more good than harm.

Puget Sound has far bigger ecological issues ... like storm runoff and overdevelopment. We dump the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez worth of pollutants into it about every two years. That's doing FAR more damage than an artificial reef will. Fresh-water runoff and the resultant silt and pollution is killing eel grass beds at a staggering rate ... eliminating the nurseries that many of our native species need to live. And TONS of species simply don't exist here anymore because they were harvested out of existence.

THOSE are the environmental issues that concern me ... not dropping a cleaned-up chunk of metal down for a bunch of divers to play on.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Gooch]

Whatevah wrote:
"These old ships have value as scrap and they don't belong to the small group who want to dive on them."

The ARSBC showed in their paperwork that I referred to earlier that a ship could be scrapped and have a one-time payout. I think the example was for a ship like the Saskatchewan and it was something like 1.5 million at that time. But the tourism bump the area got was equal to something like 2 or 3x that...PER YEAR for that region. So it is really an investment in a economic engine that can last as long as the ship is safe to dive. BTW: that is partially why they prefer military ships- built stout. Private sector ships are a lot easier to prep I've read but also are missing the allure of being a warship.

[Grateful Diver]

Well if you are looking for an "interesting" wreck the ARSBC ships aren't for you. I put them in the "fun" jungle gym category. I've done most of them (except the RivTow and the 737) and they all feel remarkably similar to me - and kinda bland. The life is obviously different and a welcome change.

On the other hand, there's something alluring about the unpredictable ... like accidentally wandering inside the Al Ind Esk a Sea at 225 feet without realizing you just swam into an open hatchway ... gotta admit, that was interesting ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[CaptnJack]

If people took the amount of time, money, and resources that it takes to clean a ship and applied it towards:
reducing vehicle emissions & leaks
reducing pavement
public transit
giving up fishing for depleted species
(the list goes on and on)

Puget Sound would be alot more exciting for divers.

A big ship <might> be a tourist draw here, but ultimately its a short term + selfish objective.

[Joshua Smith]

I'm biassed, I'll admit it. I started diving in order to see shipwrecks. I love 'em. Anyone who's dived one will tell you what a riot of life a shipwreck will support. And as other people have pointed out, we're not exactly running out of flat,barren, muddy bottom. I don't see a downside to sinking a ship here or there. Ships have been sinking since there were ships.

[CaptnJack]

We already got a crapload of wrecks.
and a fair number of artificial reefs.
I don't get why the grass is so much greener with ARSBC.

[Grateful Diver]

We already got a crapload of wrecks.
and a fair number of artificial reefs.
I don't get why the grass is so much greener with ARSBC.

Kinda like asking why people go all the way to Canada to buy Cuban cigars ... because you can't get 'em here.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[lamont]

A big ship <might> be a tourist draw here, but ultimately its a short term + selfish objective.

Yep.

But i'm not opposed to selfish objectives.

So, when can we sink one?

[lamont]

We already got a crapload of wrecks.
and a fair number of artificial reefs.
I don't get why the grass is so much greener with ARSBC.

Where do we have a wreck the size of the Cape Breton which is at 100 fsw where we can practice overhead diving without being at 200 feet?

Sticking my head into the PBM mariner and then back kicking out doesn't really cut it...

[CaptnJack]

We do, try diving the Hauler or the Dawn, both are <120ft at the mud.

[Gooch]

If people took the amount of time, money, and resources that it takes to clean a ship and applied it towards:
reducing vehicle emissions & leaks
reducing pavement
public transit
giving up fishing for depleted species
(the list goes on and on)

Puget Sound would be alot more exciting for divers.

A big ship <might> be a tourist draw here, but ultimately its a short term + selfish objective.

I was looking at the documents for the ships the Canadians have already sunk. It looked like it was costing them less than $1 million each to do including everything (granted- these are late 90's $$) so that kind of money wouldn't go far toward other programs, IMHO.

[CaptnJack]

I was looking at the documents for the ships the Canadians have already sunk. It looked like it was costing them less than $1 million each to do including everything (granted- these are late 90's $$) so that kind of money wouldn't go far toward other programs, IMHO.

And yet people here whine about $3200 for a mooring bouy.

ARSBC costs do not account for the scrap value of the ships which were all(?) donated by Canada Defense (well $1CD) among many other things. I bet if you had a cleaned donated ship in hand, someplace like Port Townsend would take on the permitting and get it sunk for tourism. Absent the ship and the money you're just dreaming.

[Gooch]

The report was saying they paid $150K for 4 of the ships and $250k for 1 one of them. The non-profit had no funds but they were able to secure loans for some of the money through the government under an economic development clause. They had some help for funding via the local communities and dive ops as well as some scuba manufacturers but it sounded very ad-hoc. Their paper distills what they have learned and how to best use their good practices and avoid mistakes they have made.

[CaptnJack]

The report was saying they paid $150K for 4 of the ships and $250k for 1 one of them. The non-profit had no funds but they were able to secure loans for some of the money through the government under an economic development clause. They had some help for funding via the local communities and dive ops as well as some scuba manufacturers but it sounded very ad-hoc. Their paper distills what they have learned and how to best use their good practices and avoid mistakes they have made.

Are those the cleaning expenses? I might have gotten the $1 mixed up with a different ship like the Oriskany.

Regardless nobody in Olympia is giving loans or any other money away to anybody. Certainly not with continued ratching down of state revenues into negative growth territory.

No cities
No counties
No large 'flagship' business like Microsoft, Starbucks or Boeing
No State agency staff
No elected leader
supports using any public money, even as a loan, to sink a ship. And none of them read this forum either.

So is it any surprise that this is a non-starter? I mean seriously? Raise some money, build some political capital at the city or Chamber of Commerce level, hire some BC or FL speakers to come in and given cash register ringing presentations to a city council, persuade People for Puget Sound to at least be neutral about the concept. These are some of the things that need to be done. I would do them, but I'm not really all that motivated by artificial shipwrecks.

Talking about this here is mere venting.

[airsix]

Richard, are there other projects that you would be motivated about? If you could influence others to action, what projects would you undertake or like to see being done? I mean in the water, not the runnoff stuff. Don't get me wrong - I take runnoff very seriously. I just mean what if anything would you support being done IN the Sound? I'm asking for my own education. Thanks.

-Ben

[Gooch]

I think he has a good point. Without money and people standing on tables to make anything happen, it's all an exercise in the mind. Mike Racine and I had a long and interesting discussion where he tried to educate me on everything he has seen and done with new reefs in the sound and how he felt it would most likely happen (Mike, I really want to thank you for taking time to talk to me BTW- Thanks). Anyway, he felt the best chance would happen with a community that wants this kind of economic engine dropped in their backyard to get ahold of their governmental delegation (at all levels) and make the case that they really need this kind of thing. That could begin to make the political clout that could do things. He also indicated that his research has led him to believe a state ferry would be the best way to begin due to the relative ease of cleanup and strong local ties to ferries. However, there are a fair number of warships in Bremerton that have already been designated as possible reef donations by the military.

I don't feel that the "getting the community onboard first" is approach the ARSBC used: they seem like they paved the way first then got communities to raise their hand and participate as things got done.

Essentially, it will take people with time and clout, taking one of these approaches to get things started. I do believe a community that can stand to gain with a sinking would be best suited to try to make a pitch for this (Port Angeles, Brinnon, others) but working the other way with a ship cleared for sinking would work too. The Fed's have already established cleanup standards for ships to be used as reefs and the military has also begin designating which ships they will allow to be used as reefs (generally, ships that were in poor condition to start with when they went into mothballs and ships that have been heavily stripped for their sister ships).

It will take a lot of time from folks that don't have it to make it happen.

[CaptnJack]

Richard, are there other projects that you would be motivated about? If you could influence others to action, what projects would you undertake or like to see being done? I mean in the water, not the runnoff stuff. Don't get me wrong - I take runnoff very seriously. I just mean what if anything would you support being done IN the Sound? I'm asking for my own education. Thanks.

-Ben

I just saw this after being linked from a more modern incarnation of this topic (2 yrs late) sorry Ben...
Project which motivate me are not politically popular...

Remove dams blocking fish habitat (many of them)
Remove culverts blocking fish habitat (ditto)
Fishing moritoriums, it baffles me that NOAA has to prove the obvious, that Orca abundance is link to Chinook numbers (duh)
That's just the tip of the iceberg.