Hello folks - wanted to pass along information which some might find interesting. Many of us are familiar with the popular shoredive site by Langley Marina on Whidbey Island (ie, the "Tire Reef"). As part of the region-wide effort to clean up tire reefs and creosote pilings, this site will lose much of its habitat (and thus, much of the diver interest). This is really the one site available to those of us in the northern reaches of Washington which has facilities and which is not exposed to the worst of our winter storms - ie, it is our last resort for a dive on many windy winter days/nights. Some of us had hoped that a plan could be hatched to replace the tires etc with a more environmentally friendly artificial reef.
A more recent complication though, is the transfer of the marina from the city to the port authority. The Port District of South Whidbey Island is working on a plan to expand the marina and add facilities for boaters - unfortunately, the working plan specifically excludes diver access. On January 23rd there will be a public hearing to discuss the plans.
Mike Racine of the Washington SCUBA Alliance has contacted the Port District to let them know that divers are concerned about losing recreational access, and that we'd all really appreciate some provision for dive access within the plan. The public hearing will be held at 7 pm, Wednesday January 23 at Trinity Lutheran Church in Freeland. If you would like to see some form of continued diver access at Langley, please consider attending the hearing (wear something dive-related if you can) to help us represent the diving community. Mr Kocian - that means you!
Pete
No more diving at Langley?
SEPA Agreements...
The State Environmental Policy Act is a review process that accepts public coments and reviews the impacts to the environment for proposals that meet a certain threshold.
As an example, there is an environmental mantra that dictates there be no net loss of wet lands for projects or developments that have the potential for affecting wet lands. For projects or developments that do, the proposal has to include building wet lands to compensate for the loss. That may mean building wet lands somewhere else at some other time and the resulting wet land may have absolutely no connection to the original proposal that caused the change.
So...
You may not actually be able to retain diver access to a recreational resource like a preferred dive site in the site development proposal, but you may be able to get another dive site built somewhere else in the future that may have better access and facilities associated with it.
If there is one thing that the Washington State Legislature needs to be petitioned for is to ammend the SEPA laws to include the no net loss of marine habitat and recreational dive sites and shore access in the development of proposals that meet a minimum threshold.
The removal of marine pilings around the Sound and this particular location specifically certainly sounds like a case study for such a proposal.
Good Luck!
As an example, there is an environmental mantra that dictates there be no net loss of wet lands for projects or developments that have the potential for affecting wet lands. For projects or developments that do, the proposal has to include building wet lands to compensate for the loss. That may mean building wet lands somewhere else at some other time and the resulting wet land may have absolutely no connection to the original proposal that caused the change.
So...
You may not actually be able to retain diver access to a recreational resource like a preferred dive site in the site development proposal, but you may be able to get another dive site built somewhere else in the future that may have better access and facilities associated with it.
If there is one thing that the Washington State Legislature needs to be petitioned for is to ammend the SEPA laws to include the no net loss of marine habitat and recreational dive sites and shore access in the development of proposals that meet a minimum threshold.
The removal of marine pilings around the Sound and this particular location specifically certainly sounds like a case study for such a proposal.
Good Luck!
Last edited by kjc on Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unfortunately, I will be out gone at the time of the meeting. But I am nudging our dive shop to attend and present photographic documentation about Lingcod nesting, schools of perch etc. Hoping to show the more powerful interests of fishermen and boaters, that it is in their interest to preserve habitat. To convince somebody to build a new habitat nearby before destroying old one might be a hard sell..
http://JanKocian.smugmug.com
I take photos because I like it, not because I'm good at it.
by Unknown
I take photos because I like it, not because I'm good at it.
by Unknown
Is there a (written) public comment period? I would think that letters describing why us out-of-towners come up to the Langely area to dive would be an asset.
Their #1 goal is economic development, promotion of recreation, tourism, and industry. I couldn't find detailed plans online but their master plan is available here:
http://www.portofsouthwhidbey.com/
Their #1 goal is economic development, promotion of recreation, tourism, and industry. I couldn't find detailed plans online but their master plan is available here:
http://www.portofsouthwhidbey.com/
Sorry to hear that you won't be able to make it Jan. FWIW, I'll likely do a couple of dives at Langley either before or after the meeting in Freeland if anyone is interested in joining me.
CaptnJack - I don't know about a public comment period, but I suspect that any letter written would be given some consideration. It'd be best if they received the letter before the meeting on the 23rd. If nothing else it would indicate that divers do care enough about the resource to sit down and write. The master plan you linked to is a very high level document covering all the Port's initiatives. There was another plan put together for the City back in 2004 - it can be found here...
http://www.langleywa.org/documents/harb ... r-plan.pdf
That document mentions that access to the present area by divers would no longer be allowed and suggests that a replacement reef could be located somewhere nearby if there were enough diver interest and willingness to assist. Since 2004 we've found out that the tire reef and creosote pilings will be removed. The plan for marina development has grown and changed significantly since the decision to transition the marina and nearby facilities to the Port, and there's been little or no further mention of providing for divers' interests.
Here are a couple of newspaper articles about the developing plan:
http://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/porta ... id=1098669
http://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/porta ... id=1114525
Hopefully there are enough divers willing to demonstrate interest to justify the Port making provision for diver access in their plan. It is hard to say whether the habitat argument would help or hinder us. While it is true that for example, many young rockfish find shelter in the tires and this might be helping rockfish recovery, it is also possible that the tire reef or any replacement artificial habitat might be drawing rockfish away from nearby natural habitats... and the tire reef is presently fished quite a bit (ie, the rockfish there aren't protected). So I think you are right about the #1 goal - we're better off mentioning that in winter (not prime boater season) Langley becomes more of a draw to divers, and divers often stop to eat in town. Maybe we can offer to provide photos for an information board by the divesite entry (something like at Keystone) to add a little value for the non-diving marina users.
CaptnJack - I don't know about a public comment period, but I suspect that any letter written would be given some consideration. It'd be best if they received the letter before the meeting on the 23rd. If nothing else it would indicate that divers do care enough about the resource to sit down and write. The master plan you linked to is a very high level document covering all the Port's initiatives. There was another plan put together for the City back in 2004 - it can be found here...
http://www.langleywa.org/documents/harb ... r-plan.pdf
That document mentions that access to the present area by divers would no longer be allowed and suggests that a replacement reef could be located somewhere nearby if there were enough diver interest and willingness to assist. Since 2004 we've found out that the tire reef and creosote pilings will be removed. The plan for marina development has grown and changed significantly since the decision to transition the marina and nearby facilities to the Port, and there's been little or no further mention of providing for divers' interests.
Here are a couple of newspaper articles about the developing plan:
http://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/porta ... id=1098669
http://www.southwhidbeyrecord.com/porta ... id=1114525
Hopefully there are enough divers willing to demonstrate interest to justify the Port making provision for diver access in their plan. It is hard to say whether the habitat argument would help or hinder us. While it is true that for example, many young rockfish find shelter in the tires and this might be helping rockfish recovery, it is also possible that the tire reef or any replacement artificial habitat might be drawing rockfish away from nearby natural habitats... and the tire reef is presently fished quite a bit (ie, the rockfish there aren't protected). So I think you are right about the #1 goal - we're better off mentioning that in winter (not prime boater season) Langley becomes more of a draw to divers, and divers often stop to eat in town. Maybe we can offer to provide photos for an information board by the divesite entry (something like at Keystone) to add a little value for the non-diving marina users.
“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” -- John Muir
Think Invertebrates!!!
The arguement that WDFW uses to justify not being interested in building artificial reefs, and effectively discourging building marine habitat is entirely based on their science.whatevah wrote: It is hard to say whether the habitat argument would help or hinder us. While it is true that for example, many young rockfish find shelter in the tires and this might be helping rockfish recovery, it is also possible that the tire reef or any replacement artificial habitat might be drawing rockfish away from nearby natural habitats...
Their science is about fish.
Fish are FISHED!
They don't care about building habitat for ANYTHING because they don't have to care about promoting the welfare of non harvested species. They use the arguement that fish just migrate from one habitat to the next to justify their belief that additional reefs aren't the answer because they don't want to build reefs!
The development plans concede recreational opportunity in the water to recreational water users and enthusiasts, but as far as them being concerned specifically about divers, NO! Its like; "Go ahead, get in the water and recreate!"
It would ba a more tactical political strategy to acknowledge honestly that, at the present moment, reef building and marine habitat development is not a present tense reality in the mainstream marine development masterplan, but that it is in the future interest of Washington State residents, and all marine life in Puget Sound to have no net loss of marine habitat as a result of change.
Ask for a percentage of the money in the development plan to be set aside for future marine habitat development in a similar way as to how there currently is money devoted to the no net loss of wet lands in the contemporary land development process.
Environmental advocacy groups were once at this very same juncture in their advocacy of wet land management as divers are now with the loss of dive sites and marine habitat management.
The problem with "Dive Site Advocacy Groups" is that divers are recreational marine users, as are boaters and fisherman.
Advocating a no net loss of dive sites puts divers in bed with boaters and fisherman and the disfunctional arguement continues, which is politically in favor of the defense. That arguement being, "Marine habitat???...nnneyah...We no wanna build no stink'n habitat!"
The "No Net Loss of Marine Habitat" arguement would work because the "No Net Loss of Wet Lands" arguement already has. It avoids the defense's political strategy of causing divers to be associated with other marine users like boaters and fishermen, which effectively dilutes the diver's interests, and it avoids the dysfunctional scientific rhetoric of the WDFW by associating the only species that matter are only those species that can be harvested.
To get marine habitat restored and built, the strategy divers must adopt is one of a proven, successful strategy of Marine Land Use policy similar to what got wet lands protected in contemporary land use policy.
Divers must disguise themselves as "Marine Land Use Advocates" and avoid associating themselves with other peripheral groups like boaters, fisherman, fish management regulatory groups or scientists.
Then, when the time comes to actually build the reef, we'll sneak in a few cost change add ons to the construction contract for stairs to the waterfront and "No Fishing" signs and "No Boats" signs!
:-)
This is politics!
Ya can't fight a heavy weight like a heavy weight!
Ya gotta duck n' weave, jab a little....
tap tap tap on papa's nose....
As a followup on this topic... I attended the meeting in Freeland on Wednesday night. The room was packed (probably 80 to 100 people) - the organizers were quite overwhelmed. The dive community was well represented - I think a quarter of the attendees or better were divers. Mike Racine of the Washington SCUBA Alliance was there and did a great job of summarizing our concerns. Rick Stratton of Northwest Dive News was also there. The short story is this: the planners have roughly marked in an area that they feel would be well suited for development of a replacement artificial reef and they feel that the dive community now needs to step up and make it a reality. However, there is really no place for shore entry in their plan (they suggest parking up the street and walking down to the marina, then 700' out along the walkways to take a giant stride into the water) and little thought given to reasonable access for divers and kayakers. So, there are positive signs but I feel there is much more work to be done if Langley is to remain a viable dive site.
“When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” -- John Muir