Underwater features - placing them legally or not?

[nwscubamom]

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?
  
  Do we just turn our heads the other way?
  
  At what point is it considered underwater 'junk' - the kind of stuff many divers go and help clean up on Earth Day?
  
  Where do you draw the line?
  
  Are divers just not clear as to what is legal and what is not?
  
  Or do they blatantly ignore the law since nobody can really see what they're up to.
  
  Is it night when they place these items?

Lots of questions in my head...

Ideas?

- Janna

[thelawgoddess]

my gut response is that the underwater world shouldn't be much different than the above-water world. as in, it's not okay for us to go around willy-nilly putting structures on other people's (or "public") property just because we think it's cool or funny. there are exceptions, of course, but i think it comes down to the simple notion of respect - for the environment and for others.

i enjoy seeing the occasional established artifact at sites, but when i come across "real" junk or things that are out-of-place i tend to view it somewhat negatively. i think areas developed specifically as artificial reefs or underwater parks are the appropriate place for people to express such creativity, and they have their appeal, but nothing is as appealing as being able to dive in the pristine natural underwater areas that we are fortunate to have around here.

[Grateful Diver]

Janna ... you forgot a biggie ... the VW bug that's been the major attraction at Redondo for a a few years now ...

Somehow I doubt it got properly "cleaned" before going down, although I suspect they at least emptied the gas tank before sinking it.

Interesting topic ... someone just started a similar thread on ScubaBoard, although it focuses more on how local marine life often adopts our trash as habitat ...

(edit) ... ok, I see that you DID say "cars" ... missed it on the first read.

To answer the questions ...

Do we as divers who LIKE to see fun things underwater promote creation and placement of things illegally?
Only if it can't be done legally ...

Do we just turn our heads the other way?
Only when there's something equally interesting to see on the other side ...

At what point is it considered underwater 'junk' - the kind of stuff many divers go and help clean up on Earth Day?
When it's moveable, and we are sure it hasn't been "adopted" for occupancy by a local.

Where do you draw the line?
At stuff that will harm the environment or threaten the critters ...

Are divers just not clear as to what is legal and what is not?
In this state? Hell, I don't even fish here because the regs are so convoluted that you need an attorney to determine on any given day whether you're legal or not ...

Or do they blatantly ignore the law since nobody can really see what they're up to.
Ignoring the law is something that Americans are particularly good at. It's a cultural thing ... why should divers be any different?

Is it night when they place these items?
Usually ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[CaptnJack]

Altering the bed of any of our state waters is illegal without an HPA, permission from the US Army Corps, and a shoreline development permit. This includes placement of "habitat" and "debris" (depending on you viewpoint).

I have yet to report anyone for violating these statutes, although I am considering it for the situation I believe you are thinking of Janna. Mostly because PVC leaches toxics into Puget Sound, (phtalates and vinyl chloride) will never mature like rock, wood, or steel wrecks or debris do over time.

The illegal placement of materials will generate ill will when discovered. Making it harder to work with WDFW, Ecology, and even the Governor's office on Puget Sound issues.

"Hydraulic project" means the construction or performance of work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or freshwaters of the state.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.55

That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or inclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same.

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmen ... ion_10.pdf

The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58

[dsteding]

I have yet to report anyone for violating these statutes, although I am considering it for the situation I believe you are thinking of Janna. Mostly because PVC leaches toxics into Puget Sound, (phtalates and vinyl chloride) will never mature like rock, wood, or steel wrecks or debris do over time.

The illegal placement of materials will generate ill will when discovered. Making it harder to work with WDFW, Ecology, and even the Governor's office on Puget Sound issues.

I think these two points are the most important ones. Being fairly familiar with the laws on this matter, the bottom line is that there is ample authority under a wide variety of regimes for the state to argue that such practices are illegal. The more salient question may be one of will to enforce, although if this popped on the radar screen of either the City of Seattle or Ecology, they may be willing to pursue enforcement options given the current political climate and efforts to clean up Puget Sound.

More important, to me, at least, is Richard's second point regarding the potential damage such actions could have in terms of good will with agencies. I know there is a lot of effort put in to preserving and enhancing dive sites around here, I'd hate to see that undermined by individuals that take it upon themselves to "enhance" habitat using things such as PVC pipes and the like.

[nwscubamom]

Interestingly enough, I never hear divers speak of new 'junk' underwater in negative terms. It's always more along the lines of "Cool!! Somebody put a new such-and-such out at Redondo! You gotta come see it!"

Diving in many locations all over the state, I've observed that the Seattle dive sites are the most susceptible to the placement of 'underwater features'. Perhaps it's the number of divers that go to these sites. Perhaps it's because their natural habitat leaves a lot to be desired in terms of critters to look at.

Sites that seem most popular for the placement of stuff:
Les Davis
Sunnyside Beach
Redondo
Three Tree
Mukilteo
Alki Cove 2

So I think we've pretty well established that it's quite illegal to place things - yet where do we go from here?

Is the mindset of most divers like this?: Hey, I know it's probably illegal, and I'd never do it, but I'm REALLY glad someone else did, because it gives me something to look at on my dives!

I'll admit that years ago before starting to investigate creating some underwater features at Sunnyside Beach, I thought it must be OK to do, because there's so much stuff down there already!

I can totally see where many divers could think the same thing, and think they were providing a service and doing a good thing for the dive community.

- Janna

[gcbryan]

I know a lot of divers like that stuff. For the most part I don't especially toilets and tires or anything that looks totally out of place and isn't completely covered with sealife.

I don't even like every feature at some dives sites being connected with ropes. Learning to navigate would eliminate the need for that except for boundry rope lines.

Just my opinion.

[CaptnJack]

I'm ok with stuff which isn't toxic. Maybe not super attractive but at least non-toxic. I would prefer not seeing toilets and milk crates, but those are tolerable.

Toilets, rope, steel, rock, old concrete, raw wood = OK

Tires, PVC, treated wood, new concrete, oily/greasy cars and boats = not OK

If we as a dive community always say "cool" to any old garbage its hard to be convincing that we have Puget Sound's best interests in mind when we lobby for an artificial wreck.

Richard

[Nwbrewer]

Is the mindset of most divers like this?: Hey, I know it's probably illegal, and I'd never do it, but I'm REALLY glad someone else did, because it gives me something to look at on my dives!

Too be honest, I think a lot of folks fall into this category. Structure on the bottom provides cover for the life we all go down to see. Would Cove 2 be as popular a divesite without the honeybear, the pilings, or the I-beams? I kind of doubt it. Think about how many sites are divesites BECUASE of the structure that's been placed there.

Don't get my wrong, I don't approve of illegally dumping or placing things at divesites, but I can see why people are doing it.

I think this illustrates why organiziations such as Washington Scuba Alliance are important to our sport. Hopefully they can achieve a workable mechanism for developing divesites through the LEGAL placement of structure that is good for the divers and the marine ecosystem.

From CaptnJack's post it seems as though an act of congress is required to place some structure at a divesite, so how do the folks who maintain EUP add features to the park? I know they are out there every weekend placing and/or moving stuff around. So how do they get around the HPA and permission from the army corp of engineers? Or was that all part of the initial park creation process? I'm just trying to understand, as maybe there is an opportunity to work within the system to "enhance" more divesites through legal means.

Just my 2psi.

Jake

[CaptnJack]

From CaptnJack's post it seems as though an act of congress is required to place some structure at a divesite, so how do the folks who maintain EUP add features to the park? I know they are out there every weekend placing and/or moving stuff around. So how do they get around the HPA and permission from the army corp of engineers? Or was that all part of the initial park creation process? I'm just trying to understand, as maybe there is an opportunity to work within the system to "enhance" more divesites through legal means.

I have never understood that. WDFW actually dives there on their Ling and Cabezon surveys - they are clearly aware of it. Who's given permission and when is a mystery to me.

Permitting reef placement is such a hassle that unless WDFW and the other agencies are proponents for their own reasons I don't see it happening.

Richard

[Grateful Diver]

Why not just go spend a day working with Bruce and ask him? He's always looking for help, and it might be a way to get some first-hand information on how it's done ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Nwbrewer]

I haven't kept up with it as well as I should, but it seems that there are forces in our state government who for whatever misguided reason are vehemently opposed to the creation of ANY artificial reefs in state waters. Lot's of talk about pollution and the cost of all sorts of environmental studies. I wonder how other states have managed to get this done, as well as B.C.?

Standard Washington State procedure, spend the whole budget studying the problem to ensure nothing ever gets done..... (yeah, I'm cynical.)

Jake

[CaptnJack]

Why not just go spend a day working with Bruce and ask him? He's always looking for help, and it might be a way to get some first-hand information on how it's done ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Because I don't believe EUP needs more junk. And lots of what they put down is toxic junk. Many of the boats still have copper paint on them, there are tons of wires and rubber hoses in some, etc. And some of their latest creations are just "unnatural", like corrogated HDPE sewer pipes.

Overall, EUP's "habitat" efforts are not something I'm particularly keen on supporting.

[gcbryan]

I was beginning to think that I was the only one who wasn't impressed with the EUP project. The drydocks and the Triumph are great but the rest is, well, just junk and it keeps growing.

[CaptnJack]

I think putting something substantive down, like the Triumph, every once in awhile (say every other year) is worthwhile. Spend the intervening weekends properly stripping and cleaning it. That I would support, esp. now that the dry dock is off-limits and pretty much gone anyways.

[nwscubamom]

A little history. Edmonds has been around a LONG time and it's all done very officially and legally.

My understanding is that DNR owns all the subtidal land. The reason that so much can get done at EUP is because it's managed by the City of Edmonds, who leases the land from DNR.

From a document found here:
http://www.psat.wa.gov/shared/volume2/recreational.pdf

The Underwater Park was established in 1970 when the City of Edmonds enacted harvest restrictions for the Edmonds Underwater Park as part of its coastal zone management planning.

Adjacent Brackett’s Landing Park was established prior to 1970. The City leased the subtidal lands included in the Underwater Park’s boundaries from DNR for recreational diving and conservation purposes (Higgins 1995).

The City’s harvest restrictions prohibited the take of any kind of marine life to protect the area. Many years later, harvest closures for the site were adopted by WDFW. The Underwater Park has been noted as the longest established “no-take” marine protected area in the Pacific Northwest.

- Janna

[CaptnJack]

Actually I can find no record of a HPA, US Army COE section 404 or section 10 permit, shorelines permit, really anything regarding the disposal of materials onto DNR owned lands nor anything else potentially applicable for the work at EUP.

For instance, the activities there do not qualify for Nationwide permit #27 "Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities" and there are no exemptions in the other statutes and rules for these kinds of structures. I have searched the applicable public records and notices the best I can.

Despite longstanding practice the habitat features and new placements are not "grandfathered". The MPA management plan does not discuss ongoing/future enhancements.

Therefore, I suspect the placement of "habitat"/debris is being done under the regulatory radar screen. I would ask the regulatory compliance office (affiliated with the Govenor), but I'd rather not tip them off if there is something amiss.

[Sounder]

I can totally understand the law surrounding manipulation of marine habitat. If every diver in the Sound started making "contributions" the dive sites would become a total cluster-f.

At the same time, I appreciate most of the structures which have been placed and must admit that it has had a positive effect on my diving experience. I agree that dumping/placing/adding items with toxins is awful and I wish they were not there, but I have also enjoyed artificial habitat such as the VW, the "large pipe," and the "pipe boat" at Redondo. If I want to show someone gunnels, there is no better place. I would, however, not be upset if someone or a group were to make additions to local sites in good taste (realizing that there are a MILLION different ideas of what "good taste" is) which includes non-toxic considerations. If someone wanted to spend all the time, energy, and money in cleaning and stripping an old boat, I don't know that I, personally, would have a problem with that either.

What I DO have a problem with is how difficult it is to get a ships-to-reefs structure here. Without major political pull and bucks, it just seems as though it won't ever happen. WSA is working very hard to increase its political capital, but with so many local active divers who aren't members yet, it's hard to muster any kind of united support. I wish there was a process to sink ships or make additions that wasn't full of locked doors, but rather was full of feasible criteria which would allow for the sinking of really great attractions/habitats... if that were possible, I'm sure it still wouldn't prevent local "maverick" (no offense bro! ) divers from placing their own additions, but I believe it would decrease the frequency and certainly educate folks on what is safe to place and what isn't.

So I guess I have the issue of it being ILLEGAL to make such additions keeping me from making my own addition, but morally I don't have a problem with other folks making non-toxic tasteful additions... especially memorials.

I'm also very glad we have Mr. Steding to weigh in on this - we're very lucky to have his expertise here.

My 3000 psi.

[nwscubamom]

Recently, a diver built a replacement PVC geodome and has placed it at Mukilteo. This is to replace a previous one he built there in 2002, but was vandalized, and is in tribute to a close friend of his, Ben Giard, who died at Mukilteo several years ago while on a night dive at the original geodome.

http://www.northwestdiver.com/showthread.php?t=19841

If you read the thread, it's pretty clear that these divers don't seem to know that it's illegal to put something out there, and that PVC is harmful to marine waters. It's also pretty clear to me that there is no intention of harm, but rather wanting to create something neat to make habitat for sealife, as well as create a tribute in memory of his friend.

It's too new to have anything growing on it yet.

So....what would you do, or want seen done in this case?

Just more questions...

- Janna

[Joshua Smith]

Anybody gonna tell this guy PVC is harmfull to marine life?

http://www.northwestdiver.com/showthread.php?t=19841

I had no idea- I thought if it was ok to pipe potable water in, then it was stable and non-toxic- I know the manufacturing process makes all kinds of toxins, but I thought the end result was harmless enough.....

[Pinkpadigal]

I think the reason many divers put stuff in the water as an attraction in the first place is because of the assumption that there is a lack of interesting things to see, and because no one is there at night to tell them no. Also, who is going to "clean up" the underwater junkyards? The Redondo bug has been down for years. No one has gone out to fish it out.

WSA is working to let our elected officials know that there is a need for more underwater parks and accessable shore diving. Jim Trask has tried to get several different shore diving spots in Tacoma going for years. Look how long it took to get stairs put in at Les Davis?

Divers are tired of waiting for government red tape. So, many of them have just put their own plan into action. Most know that it is illegal. Most don't care. We like the results of their actions.

[Zen Diver]

Jim Trask has tried to get several different shore diving spots in Tacoma going for years. Look how long it took to get stairs put in at Les Davis?

Divers are tired of waiting for government red tape. So, many of them have just put their own plan into action. Most know that it is illegal. Most don't care. We like the results of their actions.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head Amy.

-Valerie

[CaptnJack]

Agree. I hope that too many "do-it-yourselfers" don't make other efforts more difficult.

I'm not sure I would classify the geo dome as in good taste. But even more bizarre is the diver vandalism of the previous incarnation. What's up with that?

Richard

[Sounder]

I agree with you. I also don't know that I would consider the geo-dome "in good taste" but again, everyone has their own idea of what "good taste" is. Then again, in my last post I supported memorials and I've read the dome being a tribute to his friend. I just wish the memorial did not have toxic characteristics.

Amy's point that folks are tired of government red tape so they just do it on their own makes sense. I also agree with Capt that I hope there aren't too many do-it-yourselfers making additions.

From another angle, if you're going to place stuff in an illegal manner, DON'T POST IN PUBLIC FORUMS, EMAIL ANYONE (email is forever), OR TALK ABOUT IT!!! Obviously this guy doesn't know it's illegal, but it would be awful if he got in trouble after all the hard work he put into this memorial to his friend.

[John Rawlings]

Obviously this guy doesn't know it's illegal, but it would be awful if he got in trouble after all the hard work he put into this memorial to his friend.

Actually, the original Geodome was put up by this guy and his friend prior to his friend's death. The Geodome itself isn't a memorial to his buddy. There IS, however, a memorial at Mukilteo to his friend, but it is a statue of an angel with a plaque affixed to it.

Personally, I dislike the Geodome and would prefer that more "natural-appearing" habitat enhancements be put down there....such as rocks, boulders, etc., but I realize that others do not share my viewpoint.

- John