Underwater features - placing them legally or not?

[Nwbrewer]

That's the Boeing pier. It's an active pier, though I don't know how often we get in stuff from Japan, every few days I think. They use it to barge in large airplane sections. I wouldn't recommend diving around it, things could end badly....

[sheahanmcculla]

Ok thanks for the heads up, I was about to check it out!

[Nwbrewer]

There's plenty of stuff around the T-dock and refueling pier. Have you been out into the bottle fileds? The AF didn't used to have such considerations as we seem to about what they put in the sound to create structure.

There's some interesting things out there, just watch your gas and try to surface back near the refueling pier to minimize your potential exposure to boaters.

[CaptnJack]

The refueling pier is quite divable. Its been out of commission for eons, ever since the Navy 'gave' the adjoining property to NOAA for their various fish experiments. Be careful walking onshore if you chose to do that. Last crabbing season a woman broke her leg getting tripped up in there. EMS cut off her drysuit

Note that none other than NOAA fisheries:
Rebuilt the small pier without using creosote treated piles
Removed the various broken pilings nearby
Has not tried to "enhance" the bottom there in any way, just restore it.
They know more about fish and fish habitat than those clamoring for more "habitat".

[Sounder]

Be careful walking onshore if you chose to do that. Last crabbing season a woman broke her leg getting tripped up in there. EMS cut off her drysuit

The way she was screaming, cutting it off was the only option. She was walking in the tidal zone, in about calf-deep water and twisted it between two small boulders. If I remember correctly, it was a broken fib.

... and concrete is definitely NOT the right structure to place in the water.

[sheahanmcculla]

... and concrete is definitely NOT the right structure to place in the water.

Why do you say that? When They make entire parks out of it like neptune or eternal reef, and reefballs. I understand we don't have to coral that attached to the reefballs but other stuff attaches to it. I don't remember the name but there is a concrete reef in the south end that was posted as a dive site, also there is onamac reef, which are great!

[Sounder]

... and concrete is definitely NOT the right structure to place in the water.

Why do you say that? When They make entire parks out of it like neptune or eternal reef, and reefballs. I understand we don't have to coral that attached to the reefballs but other stuff attaches to it. I don't remember the name but there is a concrete reef in the south end that was posted as a dive site, also there is onamac reef, which are great!

As I understand it, many types of concrete have additives that will leach into the water... and I do believe there are some concretes that do not. I'd be hesitant to pick up and haul away "free concrete" garbage and then put it in the water because I would have no idea what was in it. I'm no biologist though so perhaps my thinking is way off, but I would be hesitant to add "any ol' thing" with the good intention of creating habitat. I'd be more willing to provide labor and money for someone who knew what they were doing than to try to do something myself.

[CaptnJack]

Cause concrete has too basic a pH. Encrusting coraline algae will essentially never take hold. Barnacles hate the sandy tenture between the aggregate. Rock is (almost always) chemically neutral and will allow much more to grow on it.

Bottom line is:
Its not legal to place artificial structures without a hydraulic project approval from WDFW.
"Artificial habitat" is for humans not critters, don't kid yourself you ain't doing Puget Sound any favors and "improving" it.
Slowing down will provide you as much, if not more, enjoyment of critters at supposedly "barren" sites.

If you chose to technically break the law and place artificial materials at a dive site:
Please don't alter "natural sites" if you don't know what these are, you havn't been diving long enough
Keep it reasonably small scale to start, don't do anything tacky

[Sounder]

Cause concrete has too basic a pH. Encrusting coraline algae will essentially never take hold. Barnacles hate the sandy tenture between the aggregate. Rock is (almost always) chemically neutral and will allow much more to grow on it.

Bottom line is:
Its not legal to place artificial structures without a hydraulic project approval from WDFW.
"Artificial habitat" is for humans not critters, don't kid yourself you ain't doing Puget Sound any favors and "improving" it.
Slowing down will provide you as much, if not more, enjoyment of critters at supposedly "barren" sites.

If you chose to technically break the law and place artificial materials at a dive site:
Please don't alter "natural sites" if you don't know what these are, you havn't been diving long enough
Keep it reasonably small scale to start, don't do anything tacky

[Sea of Green]

A post on another online forum has raised this question in my mind and I wanted to know what you guys thought.

The topic is regarding creations of underwater 'features' that are brought down to create artificial reefs at our local dive sites. The post I read discussed in detail the creation and recent placement of a PVC pipe structure at a popular Seattle dive site.

As you're probably aware, dumping (or placement) of anything, much of which we see at local dive sites, is illegal.

Here's some things I can think of that are "attractions" at dive sites, that clearly did not get there 'naturally'. (like an accidental shipwreck)

- Toilets
- Ovens
- Sinks
- TV's
- Microwave ovens
- Bathtubs
- Plastic Milk Crates
- PVC Pipe structures
- Lampshades
- Stacks of pipes
- Statues
- Christmas Lawn Decorations
- Cars
- Sculptures

Having been around awhile, I knew of an artificial reef placement that took place at Pt Whitney Shellfish Lab years ago, by members of a prominent dive club, that was clearly illegal, and was discovered by some government agency, and the divers almost got in major trouble (not remembering the entire story) and it did set the reputation of the dive community back a few rungs.

• Do we as divers who LIKE to see fun things underwater promote creation and placement of things illegally?

No. That's like saying people who like a scenic drive promote pollution.

Do we just turn our heads the other way?

No, I look straight at it.

At what point is it considered underwater 'junk' - the kind of stuff many divers go and help clean up on Earth Day?

Tires make butt-ugly reefs and shouldn't be used as such.

Where do you draw the line?

With what? "Illegal" means "ILLEGAL", don't do it.

Are divers just not clear as to what is legal and what is not?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Or do they blatantly ignore the law since nobody can really see what they're up to.

I don't, neither does anybody I dive with. You're making an incorrect assumption that the "junk" you see underwater is placed there by divers. I disagree, the vast majority of the junk underwater is obviously dumped by non-divers.

Is it night when they place these items? [/list]

Don't know.

Lots of questions in my head...

Ideas?

- Janna

Environmentally/seawater friendly "stuff" placed legally is fine. Do not fight the powers that be and give us all a bad name. Tires, microwaves, and autos are not friendly. Ceramic stuff such as old tubs and sinks are.

[smike]

There's plenty of stuff around the T-dock and refueling pier. Have you been out into the bottle fileds? The AF didn't used to have such considerations as we seem to about what they put in the sound to create structure.

There's some interesting things out there, just watch your gas and try to surface back near the refueling pier to minimize your potential exposure to boaters.

Can you give directions to the bottle dump area? - maybe post in the dive sites list?

Thanks!

S'Mike

[sheahanmcculla]

Ya i was wondering the same thing. That would be cool to check out. I had also heard that there is a rock pile to the right of the oil dock in about 35'-45' of water. But I have not check ed it out yet.

Another question has anyone done the public park north of Mukilteo? Looks like a long walk but there is a nice park there.

[Nwbrewer]

Which park? I haven't, but if it look safe enough I'm up for it. You may want to check lamont's bathometry data to see if it's deeper then a few feet though.

Not much to directions to the "bottle field" (that's how I've always heard it refered to). Swim about half way along the Mukilteo refueling pier. Turn west. The bottom here is flat at 45-50 fsw and there are old bottles, beams, some pilings on the bottom, and other misc. crap from the days when the military used the pier.

It's a long swim, and the bottom is more silty than at the T-dock just a little south, so watch the silting. I've been there with 30' of vis, and I've been there with less than a foot. (which makes life intersting by the way). If you do it right, hitting it at the low end of a good exchange, on an incoming tide you can walk a long ways up there, and ride the current back to the T-dock.

I've never done the North end of the pier, I've always been too lazy to swim it, and the closed the drive in access before I got the opportunity to try from there.

Are you guys diving Muk tonight? I may see you there...

[sheahanmcculla]

Me and TCWestby will be there at about 3:45 for one dive. I have my regs in for service so it's just a "Lets get wet dive" nothing fancy.

[Nwbrewer]

If my buddy falls through I may join you guys if that's cool. If not I understand, diving in 3's can be a pain.

[sheahanmcculla]

Not a problem, though were no pros.

[Nwbrewer]

Me neither, no worries. :rr:

[Sea of Green]

... and concrete is definitely NOT the right structure to place in the water.

Why do you say that? When They make entire parks out of it like neptune or eternal reef, and reefballs. I understand we don't have to coral that attached to the reefballs but other stuff attaches to it. I don't remember the name but there is a concrete reef in the south end that was posted as a dive site, also there is onamac reef, which are great!

Not exactly. The concrete that Reef Balls are made of is specifically formulated to be seawater friendly. It is not the same stuff they use in construction. This is from the Reef Ball Foundation's website:

The Reef Ball Foundation, working closely with concrete experts, has developed a typical mix design suitable to create artificial reef modules in complex molds with a minimal pH and to enhance the settlement and growth of typical marine species such as hard corals. Specific biological goals, such as oyster settlement, may require specialized designs. If you can not find local materials to match these specifications because of admixture or cement type availability, there are several acceptable substitutions, contact us for information. In general, this starting mix design has the highest amount of Portland Cement to help insure that you don't break your Reef Balls when handling them. However, Reef Ball usually don't need this much Portland cement when handled carefully, and there are additional biological benefits of using less cement because this can further reduce concrete pH. If you are reaching your goal of 95% or better of your modules not being broken you might consider reducing your cement proportions. Remember that best concrete practices are required for good pH neutralization; primarily the use of fresh cement, complete mixing, and good curing conditions (high humidity for at least 30 days)....without good practices all the microsilica in the world won't prevent a high pH.

http://www.reefball.org/concretespecifications.htm

[diver-dad]

Folks, I realise I'm coming into this discussion late, but I feel compelled to add my own 2 psi...

I dive for the pristine areas, for self-discovery, the same as I hike in the back trails of the Olympics: to see nature - no neon, no billboards, no "art," no signs of mankind except for footprints of those who came before me (and I'm not really crazy about that either.)

One things I have not seen discussed is that most of these waters are also claimed as tribal fishing grounds by the local tribal nations. I think that should be respected too. (To be clear - I said "fishing," .... definately not "whaling!")

Lets keep the odds & ends, statues, cars, structures, and other things confined to the "underwater parks," or the freshwater quarries. It is fun to clown around with it there, but I really don't want to come across a commode in the middle of what should be untouched areas. The Sound & Hood Canal are much too precious to be scattering that stuff around willy-nilly. As some have pointed out, this can run you afoul of environmental regulations and do unintentional damage from leaching materials and other effects. That is why there is such an importance placed on properly performing the environmental impact studies that are necessary for any project that affects the Sound or its tributaries.

Thanks...

[Sea of Green]

Folks, I realise I'm coming into this discussion late, but I feel compelled to add my own 2 psi...

I dive for the pristine areas, for self-discovery, the same as I hike in the back trails of the Olympics: to see nature - no neon, no billboards, no "art," no signs of mankind except for footprints of those who came before me (and I'm not really crazy about that either.)

I'll go along with that, up to a point. As I stated earlier, most of the junk we see has obviously been dumped by non-divers. As far as divers putting stuff in the water, ships to reefs, ok, but not ugly monstrosities made of pvc. And I'm also in agreement with the earlier post saying that the EUP has enough crap in it already. The north end is almost unreachable except by scooter anyway, and you can almost walk from one buoy to the next. It's not one of my favorite sites because it's too tame and artificial. I'll take the Oil Dock down the road anytime over the EUP.

One things I have not seen discussed is that most of these waters are also claimed as tribal fishing grounds by the local tribal nations. I think that should be respected too. (To be clear - I said "fishing," .... definately not "whaling!")

You don't see it discussed because there's nothing to discuss. Which dive sites do they "claim", specifically? Alki? Edmonds? Titlow? Mukilteo? Day Island? 3-Tree? Keystone? They can "claim" all they want, but they don't own jack. The sites we dive in are PUBLIC waters, the "tribes" have no say over our right (yes Virginia, we have rights too!) to make use of them without having to kiss their ass or asking permiso.

[CaptnJack]

There are zero tribal issues here. Federally recognized tribes were granted 50% of the fish/shellfish harvest by 19th century treaties. Those rights were affirmed by the Bolt decision in 1974 and the US Supreme Court in 1978. Tribes don't own any waters per se. Surface waters and submerged lands beyond private boundaries (somewhere around extreme low water, but sometimes a little deeper) are publically owned by all of us.

The only applicable law to artificial reefs in WA is the "Hydraulic Code" http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.55

You may find a Hydraulic code FAQ here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/hpapage.htm

[sheahanmcculla]

So with all this grand discussion, I have a question of opinion. “Smike” and me were diving north of Mukilteo Wed. and this was the only group of life we saw during the whole dive. The rest of the time was just sand, sand, and more sand!
What do you think should be done with item such as this ring trap? Some people would say it is garage and should be cleaned up. Others might say it’s great for life, it provides structure on a sandy bottom, lets drop some more (not just ring traps). And others could say that yes it’s garbage that should not be there but…. Since it’s there and has life on it lets leave it. Just wondering what you think.

Thanks
Sheahan

[Nwbrewer]

I'm in the third group. I will rip open abondoned traps when I find them rather then waiting for the sting to rot. I have found at least two that were tied with nylon that I have opened up to stop them from "ghost fishing".

I'd rather not see stuff droped in intentionally just to make a barren site more interesting to divers. Read the link CaptnJack posted in the ships to reefs thread. Lots of stuff to think about when placing artificial structure. Some of the WDFW logic I can see, other parts I disagree with, but good info none the less.

[CaptnJack]

That ring trap I would just leave. Its not killing anything. The area will never be pristine anyway.

I question the motives of someone who chooses to dive a sandy or silty site, then gets bored and feels compelled to "improve" it with a bunch of junk. Why not just go somewhere more to your liking? Why interject human junk into a perfectly adequate habitat that you "feel" is boring? Or if you really feel that the site is not living up to its "habitat potential" why not work with the right (aka truly knowledgable) people to identify the deficiencies there and work to rectify them. Like by planting eelgrass or something like that?