Northwest Dive Club

So I have always heard that this was a grey area and finally decided to look into it. I emailed the Edmonds City Council and am going to share the correspondence here. It seems that getting Scooters ok'd for the park would be quite the uphill battle...

If you don't have the attention span to read this, diving your DPVs at EUP is against the law and you could be fined. It seems that doing so is in direct violation of the park rules...

Sucks ass too as I would really love to scooter that park.

Hello my name is Rick Norris,
I am an avid diver of the Pacific Northwest and have extensive training in technical diving, mixed gases, and many other areas. I have been diving Edmonds Underwater park for many years and have really enjoyed the work put into the park. I come to you as a proxy for a few very large diving groups in the area to please help me shine a light on a grey area in a particular law.

I am not sure if anyone on the Council is a diver or has dived the Underwater park. The park is very large and there is a LOT to see. Part of the problem is that in order to dive it many of us need to surface swim with quite a bit of gear on all the way to the closest buoy to the jetty. This is a LONG swim but the reason we do this is to reserve our tank air for actual underwater exploring. Otherwise we would breath down our tanks quite a bit by the time we reached the actual structures to see.

The park rules state the following –
* No boats (including submersibles) allowed inside the park.

Advanced SCUBA divers tend to own what’s known as DPV’s (diving scooters). Generally speaking a diver would not even own one of these until they have advanced in the sport for quite a while (they are thousands of dollars). I state that as it seems that having a bunch of inexperienced divers scooting around a protected area might not be the best idea.

I digress, the reason I am asking is that after some conversations with local law enforcement it seems they are not inclined to ticket an individual they witness leaving the water having used a DPV. Having spoken to more than one officer it seems that it is a grey area.

My main reason for writing this email is that being a DPV owner and LOVING the park as I do, I would be able to enjoy so much more of it having the ability to travel a little more efficiently. I also have many diver friends that no longer dive EUP that definitely would should they be able to explore it with a DPV.

My questions are:
• Does this law/rule include these low powered DPV’s?
• If it does, could you please tell me what process I could follow in order to plead a request to remove this, or at the very least add some contingencies to the restriction?

Here is the response

Hi Rick ( bcc Council):

Thanks again for your email.

The easy answer to your two questions is as follows:
1. Does this law/rule include these low powered DPV’s?
Yes the rules apply to all DPVs. It applies to all motors of all shapes and sizes.

2. If it does, could you please tell me what process I could follow in order to plead a request to remove this, or at the very least add some contingencies to the restriction?
You would need to request that the City consider this change, which would include a change in the City’s Code. The Parks Director ( myself) would evaluate the request and make a recommendation to Council to either keep the rules in force or change City Code. The Council would make the decision whether to change city code or not.

Because this seemed like a request, I did reach out to our UWP stewards, and the Park Maintenance Manager, and considered this.

The reason we have this rule, and the harder answer is as follows:

1) The rules are about providing a safe place to dive. They are not about specific users and all that much specific gear. Diving is not unduly restricted currently.
2) The basic logic for this rule is the same for not allowing motorcycles in other city parks. The use of power devices scare and disrupt the wildlife as well as the peaceful setting of the Underwater Park. In keeping with general city policy about having a peaceful experience, motors/engines are not allowed in city parks.
3) The Underwater Park’s target users are the intermediate diver and this is not intermediate use or piece of equipment. If the diver uses the scooter and ranges beyond their ability to do a self-rescue then the emergency response is called into question.
4) We have had continual discussion with WSDOT ferries, and the perimeter of the Dive park with the new Homeland Security rules. Allowing diver propulsion devices to the park could be threatening to the ferries. With no way to enforce these under the water, this could threaten the existence of the dive park so close to the ferry system. We currently work harmoniously with WSDOT ferries, and would not want to jeopardize the dive park.
5) People poach in the Park and having a way to move poachers about is not the goal of conservation and having a no harvest area. These devices would enable a diver to anchor a boat outside the Park – then come in and hunt and then return to the boat with his catch/harvest. There would be no recourse.
6) The Park’s setting is for recreation and not all equipment is suitable for all sites. The current rules have worked well in protecting the resource and being a reasonable way to manage diving.
7) It is too difficult to classify these motorized devices. In the 1970’s there were ones powered by converted chainsaw motors which were far from quiet but could not be excluded. It is too complicated to administer which devices are allowed and which are not. Therefore all are excluded.

The Park is quite large, 27 acres, and for some people that can be a long swim. In talking with some of our dive stewards, if an intermediate diver swims 100 feet in a minute and has a 30 minute dive they could travel 3,000 feet to any corner of the Park and back to their starting point. The Park’s diagonal is about 1,800 feet (from the north side of the jetty where divers should be entering) into the advanced northern section. The northern Park has been classified as advanced for a reason of distance.
There is a LOT to see, as you mention, but it does not have to be seen all on one dive. There is over 2.5 miles of trails underwater and that does not translate into the need to see it all at once or within some specific time limit.
The city is not saying you can’t use a DPV, just not at the Underwater Park. There are no restrictions to their use in other areas underwater. You could realistically enter into the Puget Sound with a DPV off of Marina Beach Park.

Rick, I know this is not the answer you were looking for. But, given the above reasons, I would not recommend that this City change this rule.

Thanks.
Carrie

Well there ya go.

Like I said,a suit filed on an ada violation, or just the threat would wake them up.

It would at least be a foot in the door, allowing limited use there.

But you'd need a disabled diver with a dpv

Jeff Pack wrote:Like I said,a suit filed on an ada violation, or just the threat would wake them up.

It would at least be a foot in the door, allowing limited use there.

But you'd need a disabled diver with a dpv

And to be fair, that would then only open the park to dpv's if you have the required documentation as a disabled diver, not to all dpv's.

ADA access for development projects and recreation facilities are my professional specialty. I am VERY pro-ADA access.

ADA requirements in regards to recreational water facilities apply to access to and usage of pools, spas, and wading pools. They do not apply here. Beach access requirements are covered under the Architectural Barriers Act for projects developed by the federal government (not projects developed by others using federal funds) but they only cover access to the water.

There is nothing to violate, so such a lawsuit would be frivolous at best.

Mostly, though, it is repugnant to attempt to use someone's disability in an attempt to get what you (as an able-bodied person) want.

I find it equally repugnant and in addition insulting that dpvs are as discriminated as they are at eup, the only site in the entire nw, and probably the one dive site they would be most valuable at.

The reasons they give are so lame, as to not even merit acknowledging. I'd love to see someone that can swim 30 minutes at 100 ft per minute with gear on.

That list would be exceptionally short.

If it took a dancing, one legged diver with a motorcycle and a dpv to overturn even part of such a thing, so be it.


With that said,I could care less about diving at eup, as I've never been there, nor have any intention of ever diving there with such an environment.

I vote with my time and dollars, and go elsewhere more diver friendly.

Personally I would fear that a ADA suit would be solved by just saying OK no park diving the place is closed to all divers. That is a heck of a risk.

I could have told you this was the answer you'd get, Bruce hates DPVs

Unfortunately now we can't plead ignorance anymore.

So much for my 1970's era DPV with a chainsaw motor.

PS: what happened to the sarcasm font?

While some of the 7 reasons listed in the original post are a stretch, if you step back and look at it dispassionately they make sense for the site. Thanks Norris for looking into this and making the response available here.

CaptnJack wrote:I could have told you this was the answer you'd get, Bruce hates DPVs

Unfortunately now we can't plead ignorance anymore.

Did you see how long my post is? Can still totally plead ignorance due to lack of commitment to reading a LONG post.

Norris wrote:

CaptnJack wrote:I could have told you this was the answer you'd get, Bruce hates DPVs

Unfortunately now we can't plead ignorance anymore.

Did you see how long my post is? Can still totally plead ignorance due to lack of commitment to reading a LONG post.

post? what post?

No entiendo ingles

4ster wrote:While some of the 7 reasons listed in the original post are a stretch, if you step back and look at it dispassionately they make sense for the site. Thanks Norris for looking into this and making the response available here.

Disagree. You could shut down Cove 2 to scooters using the same arguments.

As long as Bruce hates them and the parks director is hanging to his wishes, and considering she said she would automatically disapprove the request it would be a hard battle. If someone was to drive it, I would show up at council meetings. I was at the one for lighthouse park and that went pretty well.

They aren't going to alienate their 20+ yr free maintenance guy over scooters.

The fact that they are citing scooters driven by combustion engines, a technology which can't possibly work and was understood not to work since before WW2 illustrates how they have no idea about what scooters even are, how they work, or anything else propulsion related for that matter. The maintenance crew could save a shitton of effort by towing ropes and other supplies out there with a scooter, but they don't. Perhaps if one of them has a heart attack dragging gear out 1,000ft into the park by kicking they will reconsider their position. Until something dramatic happens, you will get nowhere on this issue.

Y'all need to improve your SAC rate. I've gone from the dry dock, all the way to the far NW of the park and back on a single steel 72. I find the beauty of the park is that it does take several dives to explore the site, and every visit is different.

Yeah, but all that stuff they put out on the north side makes it a perfect playground for scooters. I don't agree with the rule, but I will respect it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

CaptnJack wrote:Unfortunately now we can't plead ignorance anymore.

It's going to take A LOT more than this post to prevent me from pleading ignorance.

too bad i do not surf the internet or read forums, otherwise i could have been informed of rules prohibiting DPV in EUP

I want to take a stab at the responses one by one.

1) The rules are about providing a safe place to dive. They are not about specific users and all that much specific gear. Diving is not unduly restricted currently.

"unduly" is obviously a vague and subjective term.

2) The basic logic for this rule is the same for not allowing motorcycles in other city parks. The use of power devices scare and disrupt the wildlife as well as the peaceful setting of the Underwater Park. In keeping with general city policy about having a peaceful experience, motors/engines are not allowed in city parks.

I think there is a big difference between motorcycles and DPV's. This part "The use of power devices scare and disrupt the wildlife..." makes me wonder, are they stupid? Or do they think we are?

3) The Underwater Park’s target users are the intermediate diver and this is not intermediate use or piece of equipment. If the diver uses the scooter and ranges beyond their ability to do a self-rescue then the emergency response is called into question.

I would certainly disagree, as the dive shop that I am associated with pushes DPV's for adventure/AOW diving.

4) We have had continual discussion with WSDOT ferries, and the perimeter of the Dive park with the new Homeland Security rules. Allowing diver propulsion devices to the park could be threatening to the ferries. With no way to enforce these under the water, this could threaten the existence of the dive park so close to the ferry system. We currently work harmoniously with WSDOT ferries, and would not want to jeopardize the dive park.

Is there anything interested to see at the ferries? No. So divers, on a DPV or not are not going to go there.

5) People poach in the Park and having a way to move poachers about is not the goal of conservation and having a no harvest area. These devices would enable a diver to anchor a boat outside the Park – then come in and hunt and then return to the boat with his catch/harvest. There would be no recourse.

They can still do this regardless of the ban.

6) The Park’s setting is for recreation and not all equipment is suitable for all sites. The current rules have worked well in protecting the resource and being a reasonable way to manage diving.

Wait, I thought they just said in #5 that poaching is a problem.

7) It is too difficult to classify these motorized devices. In the 1970’s there were ones powered by converted chainsaw motors which were far from quiet but could not be excluded. It is too complicated to administer which devices are allowed and which are not. Therefore all are excluded.

This isn't the 1970's. I call bullshit on this one. Even if such beasts exist today. Does it make appreciable noise? Yes -> not allowed. No -> allowed. How complicated is that? (Assuming one isn't classified as a moron).

How about the guy who's been giving the city thousands of hours of free maintenance and good will over decades doesn't like them? You and I are chopped liver until we put in 10,000 hours of community service and just maybe then they might be receptive (but doubtful).

Move on, get out, dive someplace else. Life is too short to fight city hall over this.

I'm imagining fining along at 2 ft per kick cycle in 5 to 10 ft vis when out of the darkness a squadron of high speed DPV's heading straight for me has to take evasive action to avoid running me over. Three of the scooters crash into the towers tructure knocking it over and scattering male Lings guarding eggs. But one guy distracted by a Cabbie bonking his DPV for getting too close to her eggs causes him to ram my head, knocking off my mask and totally ruining my day.
Quit whining and swim it like the rest of us, bitches. Put the comma where you want.

ohopdiver wrote:Quit whining and swim it like the rest of us, bitches. Put the comma where you want.

This made my morning.