DNR Lands Commissioner on artificial reefs on the radio

[4ster]

Washington State Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark was on "The Conversation" today on KUOW. The host fielded a call from a very informed diver named Ross asking about the possibility of sinking an artificial reef. The caller mentioned WSA as trying to get a program started in this state and the successful program in British Columbia. He also got to briefly describe the cleaning process when the Commish stated that he didn't want to add contaminants to the sound. The host seemed to side with the caller and pressed Goldmark on the issue.

Goldmark ended the topic with the statement that he would be open to a discussion with WSA about sinking a reef! Way to go Ross (whoever you are) for getting Goldmark to say he would be willing to consider sinking a reef if environmental impacts can be mitigated.

If you would like to hear the call go to the KUOW web site:
http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=18460
Download the podcast and go to about 27:25 to listen.

[Tangfish]

Very cool! Thanks for the heads up, I'll give it a listen.

[Curt McNamee]

That's great news, I hope it's not just pillow talk.

[Gooch]

I hope we can get the ball rolling on this one. Seems like a win-win for everyone.

[renoun]

Yep, that was me. My ipod broke yesterday so I was actually listening to the radio and managed to call in time to get on. I was glad that Ross Reynolds gave me a chance to follow up about cleaning/decon procedures. I just wish that I had a chance to harp on the economic development opportunity. Howard Robins from ARSBC gave a great presentation at Aug. Marker Bouy meeting so I was primed with all the correct information.

Who at KUOW produced the bit with Bob earlier in the year? I suspect that they might be interested in more dive or reefing related programming. Perhaps we could pitch them a story about about his trips up to work on the Annapolis.

I sent an email to some of the WSA folks suggesting that they take advantage of this opportunity to open a dialog. It is nice to think grandiose thoughts but even more projects on the scale of what happened at Salt Water State Park would be wonderful. To bad everything takes time and costs money.

Ross

[renoun]

Anybody got a good email for Mike Racine? The one at wascuba.org is bouncing and his profile here isn't linked to email.

[Gooch]

Nice job on the call in! We'll have to take away your Ipod more often I ran down an email for Mike a bit ago to inquire about this kinda thing. I never got anything back but it didn't bounce. I'll have to see if I can dredge it back up.

[John Rawlings]

Good job! Let's hope that it bears fruit!

[CaptnJack]

I don't think the email I have for mike is any different than the one you have. I sent him a link to this thread through facebook tho.

[Gooch]

I've left VM for Mike but I don't seem to have an email---Mike Racine: 425-830-9545

[Gill Envy]

right on Ross!! I hope this gets the ball rolling. Thanks 4ster for the OP!
g

[Gooch]

I sent him a message through his facebook account as well. It would be great if you could check up on the current state of this kind of thing via a website or some other broadcast from the WSA (or similar).

How about this for an idea: raise a wreck that is already sunk outside the sound and tow it to diveable depths in the sound to be resunk? You could dismiss all the environmental aspects since it was already submerged for years. Start with the USS Bugara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bugara_(SS-331)) a genuine WW2 U.S. sub which was accidentally sunk about 4 miles off Cape Flattery in mile of water while under tow in 1970. Sure, it will be a bear to get up, but we can apply for economic stimulus grants. Just kidding; sort of.

[CaptnJack]

raise a wreck that is already sunk outside the sound and tow it to diveable depths in the sound to be resunk?

Depending on your definition of divable, we have SCADS of wrecks in Washington already. Funny how everyone wants another one when they have yet to dive the dozens in recreational depths that are already out there. If you revise your definition to "recreationally accessible" at <200ft, there are probably 150+ extant, individual, known wrecks to dive between Puget Sound and Lake WA. And more targets being found every year.

[Grateful Diver]

Yeah, I think from a practical (recreational) perspective, something like the prepared wrecks would be more of an economic boon to the region.

Otherwise, the training and equipment gets out of the financial reach of the typical diver ... and real wrecks present some hazards that recreational divers would not be equipped to deal with ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Gooch]

Yeah, I think from a practical (recreational) perspective, something like the prepared wrecks would be more of an economic boon to the region.

Otherwise, the training and equipment gets out of the financial reach of the typical diver ... and real wrecks present some hazards that recreational divers would not be equipped to deal with ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

I think Bob has it right. As much as I think wrecks within technical diving limits are very cool (historical, "real" wrecks), you have to admit they are available to a pretty small, elite group. The basic idea is that wrecks that are within AOW limits and are somewhat safe (prepared) would really bring in the dive tourist $$$ which is exactly how it's working for Canada and other places where they have been placed. It has to have that win/win (divers/local biz) to really have a chance of support and hopefully, completion.

[CaptnJack]

You don't have to go to 200ft, there are dozens of wrecks that are shallower than 130ft as well. More than a half dozen between Commencement Bay and Blake Island alone.

I've been in alot of the Canadian artificial reefs and they are alot like Bob's pics of the Annapolis inside (and out). After a few years they aren't as diver friendly as you'd think. Here's some video of Limeyx's dual 50W video lights punching partly through the near zero vis in the engine room of the GB Church.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC8TJW6Aumg[/youtube]

In this one you can see the shitstorm of silt which has accumulated along Burma Road in the Mackenzie.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptepmvkGZEQ[/youtube]

Anything sunk in a populous, diver friendly depth here would probably be siltier. I am all for trying to sink one, but I think there are higher priorities as well.

[Gooch]

I would definitely agree with you on the silting/rust problems--it's an issue. I'm just saying that a man-made reef made from a ship would have big impacts and draw for the scuba community here as well as direct economic impact for the area near it. I think its important to have both historic and recreational wrecks---the recreational ones help take diving pressure from the more fragile (?) historic wrecks. Anyway, we will never have wrecks like the Great Lakes or the Eastern Seaboard but I'm hoping that we can get at least one rec-wreck sunk here before I have to give up the sport I'm thinking===carrier

[CaptnJack]

Anyway, we will never have wrecks like the Great Lakes or the Eastern Seaboard but I'm hoping that we can get at least one rec-wreck sunk here before I have to give up the sport

Ummm we already have comparable wrecks! Of significant historical interest and in various states of preservation. And that's not even counting the coast, aka the "Graveyard of the Pacific". AND there's a recent book (http://www.boydski.com/store/book.htm) describing alot of them with line drawings and coordinates. It would be a heck of alot easier and cheaper to promote our existing diving vs. trying to buy, clean, and sink a ship as a phony wreck. Cheaper means that more money and resources are available for other pressing needs, like removing derelict fishing gear, sediment cleanups (many sites are publically owned) and substantively reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff. I would take a few "wins" in these categories over a stripped carrier any day.

[Gooch]

That is a great book they made. I completely agree with your points and they are all valid. All I'm saying (and what I hear other folks saying) is that I support trying to get a artificial reef in the sound. I think the other projects you mentioned are also important and deserve time/money/efforts but I don't see why all those efforts can't co-exist. I think the existing diving highlights are already well known and promoted and are great. I still haven't heard anything from Mike Racine tho....anyone else?

[CaptnJack]

To me, its surprising how little funding has been raised to pursue a big artificial wreck sinking. Esp. consdiering how much sexier such a project is vs. something like derelict gear removal.

[Gooch]

Mike Racine of the WSA called me and we had a long talk today. I want to thank him for taking the time to outline the state of things to a lowly diver like me. I hope Mike doesn't mind me spilling the contents of our conversation with the divers on this board.

Essentially, he concurred with CaptnJack's comments that there are a lot of other pressing projects that need support and money, especially with the ships-to-reefs idea being eternally stuck on hold here. He felt the biggest thing that needs addressed is the loss of diver access to sites and the loss of good dive sites. These things have the most direct impact on the diving community and have at least some chance of positive change happening in our lifetimes.

He did feel that the ships-to-reefs idea could work in the Sound but it would need more than just the dive community pushing it of course. He felt it would take a heartfelt push by a local community that would stand to gain by creating an economic engine like having a Washington Ferry (or similar) as a reef. Communities that could be likely candidates could be like Brinnon, Port Angeles and others. They would have to be the ones to really invoke their local political delegations and make things happen by creating a critical mass for this. They would need to take the approach "Look, we going to do this unless you can really give out solid reasons we can't."

One look at Nanimo and how they have placed not one but three wrecks to augment their natural dives sites and created a regional diving destination to put their name on peoples "must-see" list. Mike and I both thought that once the first wreck was placed, it would become easier and easier to place more after seeing the direct economic benefits.

On thing that is missing is a good economic study to really lay out exactly how local communities would improve with the influx of dive dollars. Mike said some studies have been made but nothing really high quality.

He sounded pretty frustrated by being stonewalled for years by governmental red tape and general indifference to the issue. He is hopeful that this new commissioner will be a good change for the situation.

One final thought was that places like Florida have designated tracts of seafloor where artificial reefs (ships) would be
permitted so long as the ships were in compliance with clean-up rules. That could be another potential angle toward getting a designated "sinking zone" in the Sound.

I would say divers should try to act locally- if you are a member of a community that could be a potential site for a wreck placement, try to follow the local politics and see if you can start momentum for something like this. Where ever the first wreck goes, it will be in somebodies back yard and they will be the ones that will have to stand on tables to get it approved.

[CaptnJack]

Port Angeles or Port Townsend seem like the most likely communities to jump on an artificial reef tourism bandwagon. Although maybe someplace that has little diving opporunties might be interested as well, like Grays Harbor. Who on the board could float the idea to city councils? City residents have 10x the pull of out of towners. I wouldn't bother with someplace like Seattle or Olympia City Councils.

They would have to be the ones to really invoke their local political delegations and make things happen by creating a critical mass for this. They would need to take the approach "Look, we going to do this unless you can really give out solid reasons we can't."

Totally agree that the political dialogue needs to shift from "why should you to?" to "why not?"

[selkie]

Is floating the idea the correct term when we are talking about sinking things?

[CaptnJack]

Is floating the idea the correct term when we are talking about sinking things?

Yes!! They float, some Navy demo guy make it go boom, and down she goes!

(TWSS)

[pensacoladiver]

I'm thinking===carrier

I believe there are at least 2 sitting in mothballs pierside at Bremerton.