Underwater features - placing them legally or not?

[Nwbrewer]

I forget the amount and the "objectives" of the study. Call me cynical, but I think a major objective is to procrastinate.

What are you talking about? They got right on fixing the viaduct, the 520 bridge, and I-5, and... oh, nevermind.....

Maybe the can use the rubble from the viaduct when it finally falls down to create a nice reef....

Jake

[Sounder]

With global warming... it may become a "swim through" before they tear it down!!

[Nwbrewer]

If they build that tunnel we'll be able to go cave diving! You know that stupid thing with flood.

Jake

[CaptnJack]

Turns out WDFW has issued an HPA for the habitat work at EUP (I asked). I'm amazed there are boats with copper paint, etc. on them out there. Maybe that took place by "others"?

[CaptnJack]

Maybe the can use the rubble from the viaduct when it finally falls down to create a nice reef....

If it tips over just right (in the middle of the night) maybe it'll create a nice ferry wreck too? ](*,)

[kwbyron]

I have heard of reports from issues with plastics, but nothing definitive... Plastic is used for everything at the marine lab I am studying at. If fact Porshe, my plumous anemone, seems to enjoy sitting on the standpipe. I have found a few articles that reference older plastics during the 70’s and issues with IV bags.
From an ecological aspect, additions of artificial reefs should not be placed in inappropriate environments (rock reef in mud flat), but places like EUP, even with less then desirable features, do promote awareness and appreciation for marine life, which is critical to conservation efforts.
I don't know a whole lot about the WSA, but I would think one of the major goals would be to coordinate between Divers, Biologists, and Gov't over the additions to dive sites so they are appropriate and wholly beneficial. Maybe start with volunteer projects to work with WDFW on re-establishing eelgrass habitats, ext...
A few of my thoughts...

[Rack]

I have heard of reports from issues with plastics, but nothing definitive... .

I'd really be interested in seeing some hard data on the rate of which chlorides leech chlorides into the water. Then again isnt salt water full of chlorides?

Tap water going into the sound puts chlorides into the water.

What are aquaruims plumbed with? Fish thrive in them.

What is our dive gear made out of?

I'd be more worried about how many petroleum products that go into the water every time a dive boat starts up.

If building reefs is a bad thing, I think taking fish from the water is even worse.

[Joshua Smith]

Yeah, I'm pretty suspicious of the claim that PVC is leeching toxins into the water- actually, I just flat out don't believe it. Not that I'm advocating putting PVC into the water- I think metal, wood, and stone are the best things for artificial reefs- in places that are enlightened enough to allow such things, that is.

[CaptnJack]

It has nothing to do with chloride (ions of which are everywhere in seawater)

Approximately 35% of PVC is phtahlates, a plasticizer. When exposed to air they volatilize, attach themselves to organic carbon particulates, and end up in stormwater. When the PVC (new) is put into water, they also leach out and associate themselves with sediments. One of the top 3 contaminants affecting urban sediments. So much so and they are so ubiquitous that WA/Ecology, the only state with a phthalate sediment standard in their administrative code has to date ignored exceedances of that particluar standard.

You want me to get into their toxicity too?

Human tox-wise, phthalates are considered an anti-androgen, suspected in causing alterations in sperm count, changes in girls menarche, and altering neonatal uro-genital distance (although no one knows what this means yet). The main one, di-2ethylhexyl-phthalate is also a B2 carcinogen by IARC.

Society used lead in paint, water pipe solder, and gasoline for over 50 years after it was a known neurological toxin. If you think established products are tested safe, you should do some reading. We have a long track history of chasing after toxic horses after they've left the barn and are all over the environment.

[Joshua Smith]

OK, that's way outside of my area of expertise, but it certainly sounds persuasive. Also, the first explanation of the toxicity I've seen, here or anywhere else. I remember the lead-based solder- I've actually used the stuff. But they eventually banned it- is there any move towards banning PVC? Surely some environmental org has taken up the cause? I mean, seriously, it's currently legal to plumb a house out of PVC- drinking water, everything.

[lamont]

If they don't setup someway for divers to construct reefs legally, they'll just do it illegally and use whatever junk volkswagen bugs they have lying around without bothering to clean them... If its either illegal or too onerous to get it done, people will just subvert the law. If there was a process for reefing that was legal and not too onerous then it could be followed and the environmental impact of what got reefed could be minimized.

The WDFW stance that you don't want to modify the habitat at all because you'll disrupt it is also laughable... What's the percentage of flat sandy bottom in the sound which is disrupted by dropping a reef down the size of the al-ind-eska-sea? 0.001% or so?

I'm pretty sure the bigger issue with the WDFW is just that if it backfires on them at some point in the future after we know more, like tire reefs or creosote pilings, then they don't want to be responsible for making the decision. Political fear. And they're happier with people who reef breaking the law and polluting the environment because then its not something they 'did'. They're cowards -- but I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to put up with them and have the patience to deal with them "politically" since I'd just blow a gasket...

[Joshua Smith]

If they don't setup someway for divers to construct reefs legally, they'll just do it illegally and use whatever junk volkswagen bugs they have lying around without bothering to clean them... If its either illegal or too onerous to get it done, people will just subvert the law. If there was a process for reefing that was legal and not too onerous then it could be followed and the environmental impact of what got reefed could be minimized.

The WDFW stance that you don't want to modify the habitat at all because you'll disrupt it is also laughable... What's the percentage of flat sandy bottom in the sound which is disrupted by dropping a reef down the size of the al-ind-eska-sea? 0.001% or so?

I'm pretty sure the bigger issue with the WDFW is just that if it backfires on them at some point in the future after we know more, like tire reefs or creosote pilings, then they don't want to be responsible for making the decision. Political fear. And they're happier with people who reef breaking the law and polluting the environment because then its not something they 'did'. They're cowards -- but I have a lot of respect for anyone willing to put up with them and have the patience to deal with them "politically" since I'd just blow a gasket...

Well put. Bureaucracy makes me crazy. It's a lot like Prohibition, or the "War on Drugs." We all know how well those worked.

[lamont]

Well put. Bureaucracy makes me crazy. It's a lot like Prohibition, or the "War on Drugs." We all know how well those worked.

Yeah, another thing bugging me about that is the idea that the creatures that are there have the 'right' to be there and not be killed by having a reef dropped on them.

I can see how that would ruin a particular bivalves day.

At the same time this seems to be an attitude derived from the idea that the environment is static and/or should be static to the greatest degree possible. And that just isn't reasonable. The Earthquakes that we get around here every 50-100 years cause landslides that make the change in the underwater environment caused by reefing something the size of the Al look tiny.

And how many orders of magnitude more damage does fertilizer/lawn runoff, stormwater runoff and all the prozac in the water cause compared to the environmental damage cause by the Al going down with all of its wiring intact (and by products of the fire that sank it, etc)? The fuel is probably the worst thing, but nobody would deliberately reef a tanker full of fuel...

Prioritization.

Somehow it should be possible to show that reefing a ship a year in the sound (cleaned up, no fuel, etc) would be below the background noize of natural environmental impacts like tsunamis, earthquakes, underwater landslides, etc... At that point why are humans held to a standard where we have to cause less change to the environment than the earth naturally changes itself? Will the WDFW make earthquakes illegal next because of the environmental damage?

[Rack]

It has nothing to do with chloride (ions of which are everywhere in seawater)

Approximately 35% of PVC is phtahlates, a plasticizer.
You want me to get into their toxicity too?
.

http://www.phthalates.com/pressrelease/ ... .asp?id=20

EU report on phthalates. Most of the countries that have banned some phthalates are in the EU.

Pvc can be made without phthlates, commonly known as uPVC. I don't believe that pvc water pipe contains 35% Maybe some of the more flexible pipe like the ones used in hot tubs.

The dangers of products like lead, and asbestos were far more obvious than pvc or phthalates.

Just about every material used for drinking water pipes has been at times assumed to have health risks. Copper, Steel, galvanized steel, lead, PE, cpvc, pvc, and now PEX.

[Rack]

Double post.

[lamont]

do my scooter tubes leach phthalates into the sound every time i go diving?

[CaptnJack]

Yes its entirely legal to plumb a house in PVC. And side it too. Here's a synopsis of DEHP's toxicity.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/iris/quickview.cfm ... _nmbr=0014

Most of what is getting into Puget Sound comes from the off-gassing of vinyl siding and similar products. Not a couple hundred feet of PVC tubes UW. For years I couldn't figure out why new motor oil doesn't have DEHP in it but used motor oil does. Its basically removing it from air and its getting trapped by the oil - its very hydrophobic. And incredibly ubiquitous.

Anyway, I saw the geo-dome a couple weeks ago. Its not exactly attractive IMO.

[CaptnJack]

Oh and I agree that WDFW's head in the sand approach to a reef is cowardly BS. If they have evidence that its harmful they should just cite it and say no. But that would require decision making.

[Nwbrewer]

So who knows what the extension cord tied to one of the NOAA dock pilings at Mukilteo is there for? It runs Northwest from one of the dock pilings. Anybody?

Jake

[CaptnJack]

It leads to a set of PVC pipes in a metal rack labelled "NOAA research"

[Rockfish]

What about moving objects that are already on the bottom (like logs or tires) to create a "reef"?

[lamont]

What about moving objects that are already on the bottom (like logs or tires) to create a "reef"?

When I helped out at EUP we moved a ton or two of rocks around. I don't think they were leaching anything into the environment at their new location that they weren't at their old...

Tires should really get taken out and disposed of, i guess, although they're fun to send up like lift bags....

[JDR]

What about moving objects that are already on the bottom (like logs or tires) to create a "reef"?

When I helped out at EUP we moved a ton or two of rocks around. I don't think they were leaching anything into the environment at their new location that they weren't at their old...

Tires should really get taken out and disposed of, i guess, although they're fun to send up like lift bags....

IN an average year at the park we dig about 30 to 40 thousand lbs of rock from out of the near shore sand and put it out into the park below the low tide line. This provides a great hard structure for invertebrates and more....

[mcguiver]

I would have thought that Pipes designed to be burried in the ground and facilitate the dispersal of runoff water into the soil would be environmentally friendly. After more than a year and a half in the water the Geodome seems to be supporting a good ammount of life wich is an encouraging sign as the original one didn't last long enough to see much growing on it. From talking to instructors who frequient the structure as an atraction for their students I understand it is quite popular with both new and old divers alike. I to perfur the look of a natural reef or a manmade reef mede to look natural. However the Geodome was the product of a couple of teenagers who just liked the idea of a project to challange them in their underwater prowess, the materials chosen were understood to be harmless to the environment and the goal was to create both a habitat for the animals we all love to see as well as an attraction for divers in what was otherwise a rather blank section of sand in the middle of a popular dive sight......... Sorry.

[Grateful Diver]

Interesting to resurrect an old thread. Just a thought to add ... I was scootering Three Tree North with a friend a couple months back. After the dive he made the comment ... "I never realized before that without all that trash down there this place wouldn't be worth diving".

For many of our urban sites ... Les Davis, Redondo, Cove 2, EUP ... that's really the case. If it were not for the things that people have put down there, it'd be nothing but a featureless bottom.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)