Artificial Reefs

[Stu]

Does anyone know where I could find information regarding material sutable (and not) for use as artificial reefs?

I don't want to sink anything that may do more harm than good.

[whatevah]

Stu - take a look at artificialreefs.org. You can find your way to full details on how to make reef balls, including the correct type of concrete mix.

[Gill Envy]

I began a small project years ago that resulted in about 10 reef balls being put into Edmonds under water park. I was suprised at how difficult it is to produce a significant amount of substrate, how hard it was to deploy and how next to impossible it is to do it legally without gobs of cash. I got a lot of help from the SPARS project folks http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/protocol/spars/.

My conclusion was that for the substrate, both artificial and natural in WA state, we are in no shortage of it...but rather preserving what we have will get you a lot more bang for the buck. There are a very few people on the planet with the life long devotion the likes of Bruce Higgins has, creating a major park takes tireless devotion.

We need way more research done on the effect of various materials, when and where to put them depending on current, depth, etc, and when and where to remove existing structures if they are truly being harmful and we need some real legal teeth behind MPA's... and then last in line is the recreational diver who is willing to go look at just about anything if only given a short distance to walk/swim.

g

[Stu]

Thanks for all the information regarding reef balls. I am not intending to create the next EUP; I just have a lot of stuff I think would make a good reef off of a private beach. I was not envisioning creating substrate (i.e. concrete reef balls), but rather using things that I have currently, mostly metal items such as car bodies and frames. I was also thinking of ceramic items (kitchen sinks toilets), fiberglass (old boats), etc.

Specifically I was curious to learn about paints, enamels, and finishes that may be harmful to the environment so that I may prep the material or not use the material at all.

[whatevah]

Thanks for all the information regarding reef balls. I am not intending to create the next EUP; I just have a lot of stuff I think would make a good reef off of a private beach. I was not envisioning creating substrate (i.e. concrete reef balls), but rather using things that I have currently, mostly metal items such as car bodies and frames. I was also thinking of ceramic items (kitchen sinks toilets), fiberglass (old boats), etc.

Specifically I was curious to learn about paints, enamels, and finishes that may be harmful to the environment so that I may prep the material or not use the material at all.

Personally I wouldn't put any of those types of items into the water. It is still garbage, and an eyesore. There's a lot of good arguments to suggest that it actually harms the existing natural environments - not because of the materials, but because of the change it causes to current (shifting the substrate over time, and perhaps affecting eel grass beds etc) and the possibility that it might draw young critters from nearby structure, only to be snapped up by predators. Not sure if I'm alone in this, but I personally am not drawn to shore diving at sites where I can see old toilets. I'd sooner go somewhere and see a natural environment, and I think that people should focus on preserving what was there rather than trying to affect the delicate balance by adding artificial inputs. It may not look like much at first, but there is an existing environment in place at the private beach you mentioned, and there are a bunch of critters depending on it being left as it is.

[Stu]

Are you against all artificial reef programs? Aren't reef balls and wrecks just nicely formed garbage by that definition?

EUP habitat or land fill?

[coachrenz]

I think the big issue is when regular old joes think that it is ok to just throw stuff into the water. I commend you, Stu, for at least asking about the possible issues with paint, etc, and talking about properly preparing the items for placement. There are other who just take whatever they have as garbage, and put it under the water in the name of "artificial reef" building.

If I am not mistaken, the costs involved in sinking a ship, is not in the original purchase price of the ship, but in the preparation of that ship to be ready to put it under the water. We have a couple of groups right now working very hard to get a ship actually sunk in Puget Sound. They are going through the proper channels and hopefully, they will be successful in time for me to be able to dive on it.

Taking it upon oneself to put things into the water illegally is a risky proposition. There are amazing fines that are associated with it. You mention a "private beach" that you were thinking of as a place for your artificial reef, I might suggest that you think about what part of the beach is private and what the land ownership rights entitle you to. It isn't like you are just keeping rusting out body of a car in your backyard, which in many places is illegal as well.

I am all for artificial reefs, especially ships sunk as artificial reefs, but I am also for it being done legally. I do dive sites that are substantially better because of artificial stuff being placed there, but, am annoyed at people who think they can just add to it whenever they have some garbage to get rid of.

Like whatevah said, I would prefer to dive a natural site. There are lots of really great "natural" sites in the area and if some yahoo were to decide to add artificial stuff to those sites, I would hope that there would be some repercussions from the dive community and the legal one, as well.

[Stu]

"There are lots of really great "natural" sites in the area and if some yahoo were to decide to add artificial stuff to those sites, I would hope that there would be some repercussions from the dive community and the legal one, as well."

I agree completly. I found this:

A reading of the literature shows that the majority of successful artificial reefs have several common characteristics:

they are specifically designed for the purpose
they are placed on relatively flat seabeds where there was previously little or no fish habitat
they have a depth of 80 - 120 feet
they are in a location where strong ocean currents provide good water exchange

http://www.georgiastrait.org/?q=node/604

[Stu]

I am all for artificial reefs, especially ships sunk as artificial reefs, but I am also for it being done legally.

Any advice where to start?

I might suggest that you think about what part of the beach is private and what the land ownership rights entitle you to. It isn't like you are just keeping rusting out body of a car in your backyard, which in many places is illegal as well.

We are aware of what part of the beach is private, and to what rights the land ownership provides us. We are also familiar with the applicable land use regulations.

[whatevah]

Are you against all artificial reef programs? Aren't reef balls and wrecks just nicely formed garbage by that definition?

EUP habitat or land fill?

No, I'm not against all artificial reef programs, I just don't buy the argument that they somehow enhance the natural environment. In my opinion they create a completely different environment than was naturally present. A few places like EUP are okay, and just the price to be paid for recreation - same thing as mooring buoys, docks, etc. The impact of those kinds of structures (underwater parks, docks, mooring buoys etc) should be minimized using good design and clean materials - and of course, if you want critters to inhabit the structure you should use materials that critters like to attach themselves to (tires, toilet bowls, PVC pipe, etc are not what critters like).

As for ships placed as artificial reefs, they just don't interest me I'm afraid. Steel does not attract critters very quickly, and the reef wrecks tend to be located in dirty, low-current locales too. I was horribly disappointed with the Saskatchewan and Cape Breton - all covered in silt with minimal life present - much greater diversity and density of life can be found on local shore dives. The Diamond Knot is another story entirely, but it wasn't placed intentionally

[Stu]

Are you against all artificial reef programs? Aren't reef balls and wrecks just nicely formed garbage by that definition?

EUP habitat or land fill?

No, I'm not against all artificial reef programs, I just don't buy the argument that they somehow enhance the natural environment. In my opinion they create a completely different environment than was naturally present. A few places like EUP are okay, and just the price to be paid for recreation - same thing as mooring buoys, docks, etc. The impact of those kinds of structures (underwater parks, docks, mooring buoys etc) should be minimized using good design and clean materials - and of course, if you want critters to inhabit the structure you should use materials that critters like to attach themselves to (tires, toilet bowls, PVC pipe, etc are not what critters like).

As for ships placed as artificial reefs, they just don't interest me I'm afraid. Steel does not attract critters very quickly, and the reef wrecks tend to be located in dirty, low-current locales too. I was horribly disappointed with the Saskatchewan and Cape Breton - all covered in silt with minimal life present - much greater diversity and density of life can be found on local shore dives. The Diamond Knot is another story entirely, but it wasn't placed intentionally

Cool. Thanks.

[Stu]

*illegal duplication*

[Dusty2]

I know I will get flamed for this but flame away.

Unfortunately I fear we need some middle ground that just doesn't exist. In an ideal world there would be no need for artificial reefs but that doesn't exist. In a slightly less ideal world the state and national governments would create more realistic and doable standards and would be willing to with those interested to create good sustainable reefs instead of against them but this doesn't exist either. The agencies placed in charge are run by bureaucrats who seem to think that their only job is to create roadblocks and barriers to prevent anything from happening.

There is nothing wrong with creating habitat as long as it is done properly by informed groups and not just randomly dumping garbage. Witness the every popular sites here at present. Almost every popular dive site in the south sound is there because of artificially placed structure. Redondo, Seacreast, Three tree, KVI tower, Les Davis, alki all would be open desolate mudflats were it not for human intervention.

We all just need to be willing to flex and work for a solution. Sad to say I don't see that happening in the northwest. It is happening in places like florida and some others but not here.

[Metal man]

I'm with Dusty2 on this one, it's one thing to throw an old and stove off the side of a boat, but to make an atificial reef that would bring life, where there was little to none before, doesn't sound like a bad thing to me... as long as the material wasn't horribly detrimental to the environment.
Changing currents? Were not talking about building a dam or diverting a river.

[Gill Envy]

they are in a location where strong ocean currents provide good water exchange

From what I have seen this is the over arching influence, current, current, current. the reef balls I put down did not grow much, even after a few years as they were placed in shallow water and where there was virtually no current. the ones placed in the SPARS project had a dizzying array of inverts growing on them in a few short years and impressive schools of fish. What makes the edmonds pier so amazing, is the heavy currents that sweep over it... well and the fact that you can get to is from shore and it's close to the city.

[Dusty2]

Reef balls phooey take that big pile of rocks off of chukanut drive and dump them in 40 to 60 feet of water at Redondo or 3 tree and it wouldn't be long at all before the increase of life would be dramatic. We talk so much about what to build to encourage life when mother nature has provided the best structure material of all, ROCKS and I don't mean gravel. When I say ROCKS I mean ones that can form nooks and crannies and caves for the critters to call home. The best sites I know of are where the rocks are. And as a bonus it's totally natural. Haul them from a local quarry and they will even match the natural rock structures in the area. No pollution, no deterioration over time just plain old natural rocks.

The places where they have done this are full of life. unlike concrete and steel structures. And one hell of allot more cost effective than any man made product. A barge load dropped in the right location hs got to be way cheaper than sinking a ship or building reef balls.

[Metal man]

Aye!! Boulder gardens!

[whatevah]

Changing currents? Were not talking about building a dam or diverting a river.

You might be surprised at how little it takes to upset an eel grass bed, and they're a valuable commodity.

I am not at all opposed to a few underwater parks. What I find weird is the assertion that there's a shortage of diving possibilities in Washington just because people don't want to leave the the Seattle/Tacoma area. The next illogical step is clearly the attempted reconstruction of San Juans habitat using toilet bowls and rusted out cars at the nearest neighborhood beach. We don't need to do a lot of enhancement - if people would expand their horizons a little (yes, push yourself beyond diving Cove 2 over and over again) there is a seemingly endless wealth of fascinating natural dive sites in Washington.

[Stu]

Changing currents? Were not talking about building a dam or diverting a river.

You might be surprised at how little it takes to upset an eel grass bed, and they're a valuable commodity.

I am not at all opposed to a few underwater parks. What I find weird is the assertion that there's a shortage of diving possibilities in Washington just because people don't want to leave the the Seattle/Tacoma area. The next illogical step is clearly the attempted reconstruction of San Juans habitat using toilet bowls and rusted out cars at the nearest neighborhood beach. We don't need to do a lot of enhancement - if people would expand their horizons a little (yes, push yourself beyond diving Cove 2 over and over again) there is a seemingly endless wealth of fascinating natural dive sites in Washington.

What?

I don’t think anyone made the assertion that there was a shortage of diving possibilities in Washington. I believe you made that assumption about the people involved in this thread.

The next illogical step is clearly the attempted reconstruction of San Juans habitat using toilet bowls and rusted out cars at the nearest neighborhood beach. .

](*,)

No, I asked for advice as to what materials might be good/bad for the creation of a reef. If the materials I have are no good then I don’t intend to use them.

I believe this is what was asked/said:

"Does anyone know where I could find information regarding material sutable (and not) for use as artificial reefs?"

"...so that I may prep the material or not use the material at all."


"I am not intending to create the next EUP; I just have a lot of stuff I think would make a good reef off of a private beach."

The materials/reefs potential danger to the enviornment is the basis for the question. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, it made me laugh.

[whatevah]

I don’t think anyone made the assertion that there was a shortage of diving possibilities in Washington. I believe you made that assumption about the people involved in this thread.

I was referring to Dusty2's post above, when he says "Almost every popular dive site in the south sound is there because of artificially placed structure. Redondo, Seacreast, Three tree, KVI tower, Les Davis, alki all would be open desolate mudflats were it not for human intervention." It's a popular way to see things I guess. Personally I think those sites would still be there, people could dive them and see their natural environments. Open "desolate" mudflats are habitat too and we should leave them alone if we can. Not to say that an occasional underwater park isn't a worthwhile trade-off... I just don't get why so many people want to keep building artificial habitats all over the place and modify their local environment when they can get in their car or boat and within a reasonable time find a whole variety of different natural habitats to explore.

In Australia, there are a bunch of impossible environmental problems today which were caused by the best intentions of people trying to modify things to suit their needs 30 years ago. My general view is shaped by that realization; I think that people should not kid themselves into thinking they understand natural environments well enough to control them. While adding structure to muddy sea floor seems like a good idea now, we might regret it later when we've learned more. To my mind, the best strategy has to be: leave it alone unless there's no reasonable alternative.

The next illogical step is clearly the attempted reconstruction of San Juans habitat using toilet bowls and rusted out cars at the nearest neighborhood beach. .

](*,)

No, I asked for advice as to what materials might be good/bad for the creation of a reef. If the materials I have are no good then I don’t intend to use them.

I believe this is what was asked/said:

"Does anyone know where I could find information regarding material sutable (and not) for use as artificial reefs?"

"...so that I may prep the material or not use the material at all."


"I am not intending to create the next EUP; I just have a lot of stuff I think would make a good reef off of a private beach."

The materials/reefs potential danger to the enviornment is the basis for the question. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, it made me laugh.

Stu - your question about materials was already addressed. I don't know if you're somehow seeing the topic absent of all the latter discussion, but it divolved to the pluses/minuses of artificial reefs and my response was to the general discussion, not your original question specifically. You don't find the mix of life at that beach to your pleasing, so you want to completely change up the mix of critters living there. I'm glad you asked about the materials, but what makes you think that the environment there needs to be changed? If you want to see the kinds of critters that live around structure, why don't you go see them in their natural environment?

[CaptnJack]

No copper, no oil, no grease, no lead, the list is long...

While I doubt your reef site is on private land, that is if its actually divable, I mostly noticed you have not mentioned its location. Since you are comfortable with the legality of your plans, please post the applicable County tax ID number. We will help you further when we can confirm private ownership and appropriateness + particulars of your location (e.g. not in an MPA)

[Stu]

Why is an occasional underwater park a worthwhile trade-off?

[Stu]

No copper, no oil, no grease, no lead, the list is long...

While I doubt your reef site is on private land, that is if its actually divable, I mostly noticed you have not mentioned its location. Since you are comfortable with the legality of your plans, please post the applicable County tax ID number. We will help you further when we can confirm private ownership and appropriateness + particulars of your location (e.g. not in an MPA)

Thanks I finally found a lot of information via the EPA's website.

I never said the reef site was on private land, I was refering to the access. Yes it is divable.

"please post the applicable County tax ID number. We will help you further when we can confirm private ownership and appropriateness + particulars of your location"

No thanks; don't really need the help. I didn't say what I was doing was legal either. It's not within an MPA.

[whatevah]

Why is an occasional underwater park a worthwhile trade-off?

People need recreation and for some people some of the time, that means an underwater park. People like public boat launches, too, and they're not necessarily great for the local environment. There's an impact involved so ideally you don't want them popping up at every possible location. Enough to meet the need with minimal impact.