Artificial Reefing: Environmental Pros and Cons

[drbill]

I'm getting involved in projects to create artificial reefs here off Santa Catalina Island, CA. Years ago I was not in favor of artificial reefing due to environmental concerns, but with changes in the procedures to prep such vessels, I now see a number of benefits and far fewer concerns.

I performed a search on the subject here and did not find threads that specifically addressed the environmental pros and cons of reefing in general. The threads I did see were project-specific.

I would greatly appreciate it if Dive Matrix members would consider this thread an open forum to discuss both the pros and cons from their perspective. It could be very helpful in this effort. TIA.

[Grateful Diver]

As you probably have read elsewhere, I've been involved with the ARSBC for nearly two years, helping when I can on the HMCS Annapolis, which is planned for sinking sometime this year in Howe Sound, BC.

What surprised me was how much WORK has to go into prepping one of these ships for sinking. Everything that can potentially pollute has to come off ... which includes insulation, electronics, certain types of metals, valves, motors and pipes that might have contained oil or diesel fuel ... it's am amazing amount of effort. Anything too big to remove has to be stripped and/or cleaned. It's an effort that takes many thousands of man-hours.

Pros and cons ... depends on how you look at it. Our current effort is being opposed by some residents of the bay where the vessel has been targeted for sinking. They own expensive vacation homes, and simply don't want it in their back yard. Boaters who use the bay as an anchorage for summer week-end also don't want it going there, partly for fear of increased boater traffic that will make finding a good anchorage there more difficult. And there's currently a controversial ruling by one Canadian organization that's claiming it'll disrupt fragile habitat. As one of the divers who performed the site survey where she'll lie, I have to dispute that finding ... but I'm just a diver and not the marine biologist who made the claim.

What I do know is that, diver participation notwithstanding, structure provides shelter and that means habitat. The last major ARSBC ship that went down was the Cape Breton, in 2001. I've watched over the years as the cycle of life forms evolved on her hull ... first the metridiums took hold, then various sponges and other sessile life forms. That process took only a couple of years to get started. Once they were in place, other life forms started moving in ... both fish and inverterbrates. Today ... nearly nine years after her sinking ... she's a thriving marine habitat in a place that, prior to her sinking, was just a mud bottom. I'm sure that there were some mud-dwelling life that was displaced when she sank, but it would've been minimal and there is a lot of mud bottom surrounding the reef that continues to produce that type of life.

What is the value to the community? Divers coming to the area, spending money to support local charters, restaurants, motels, etc. Various types of fish that weren't there before ... rockfish, ling cod, and other species that attract fishing interests. And mostly, perhaps, just a small effort to help replenish some of what we humans take out of the water on a regular basis, by providing this whole part of the food chain a place they didn't previously have to grow and develop.

What I'm learning from all of this is that artificial reefing can have both planned benefits and side-effects that impact different groups in different ways. It is an awful lot of work ... you don't just sink something in the water and hope for the best, it takes a lot of cleanup, planning, expense, and regulatory compliance to sink a reef. There's a lot more to it than I had ever before considered.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[johnad]

My own experiences are limited to the ships sunk off the coast of Florida. In all the cases I have seen, the ships are lying on sand, with no indication that there was anything but sand there before. I see the same sort of life progressions that Bob mentions on these reefs.

I am also reminded of my trip to Chuuk. Obviously those wrecks were not sunk for that purpose, but I see a similarity nonetheless. It is wonderfully ironic to behold deck guns and depth charges covered with beautiful, colorful, living coral.

I have thus seen the positives, but I confess I have not seen the cases against artificial reefs in enough detail to judge their merits.

[Jack Hammer]

I think location is very important when it comes to artificial reefing. These days in order to intentionally sink a ship as an artificial reef one must get approvals from among others, local government, the EPA, the Dept. of Natural Resources, historic societies (ship itself may be considered historically important even if it's not in use and in a state of total disrepair), etc. Then there are the environmental lobbying groups who may think that no matter what you do it's a bad idea and think of it only as creating an underwater junkyard. There are great examples of how a well intended artificial reef becomes a huge mishap and these will get thrown out at you. Not sure the exact name but search for the used tire artificial reef from the 70's(?) in Florida to see a bad example of a well intended project.

I was surprised to hear some of the ridiculous statements backed up by "experts" that have been made against these projects. When the Underwater Archaeological Society of Chicago (UASC) was in final approval for the sinking of an artificial reef in the Chicago area in 2003 a last ditch effort by a group against the project had it successfully delayed by claiming the artificial reef site could block the migratory paths of fish heading to Chicago and thereby possibly cause damage to their populations. Nevermind that fish can swim around or over the site and that there was no evidence to show that their normal "path" went directly over that relatively small part of Lake Michigan.

As a pro the site is now home to several species of fish who enjoy the sites interior and exterior. I've see huge schools of fish in what was once a barren area comprised of sand and rocks. I'm all for artificial reefs in areas like this, barren underwater areas where the AR gives a home for colonies to move into and grow. I think it would be uneccessary to sink an AR in an area that already has an abundance of life. As long as the AR is properly cleaned of chemical and other contaminants and sank in an area needing homes for the sealife I'm ok with it. I think it will help those sea communities to thrive and offer another good site for both divers and fishermen to go to.

[Mo2vation]

It'd be good to hear from the San Diego folks - as they have probably the largest collection of artificial reef's along the SoCal shoreline.

From this diver's point of view:

• Talk talk talk talk. Year after year we hear about these - the next great artificial reef project. They just never happen along our California coastline. Seriously - its amazing. We have more divers here in concentration than anywhere else. I'm not ignorant to the staggering costs involved with preparing these rust buckets for a clean sinking - but geeze.

• Inventory can't be a problem. I don't for a moment believe there isn't suitable inventory, and willing sellers.

• I've personally poured thousands into the economy of San Diego diving their wrecks and artificial reefs over the last 10 years. Boat trips, hotels, gas, lodging, food, equipment, petrol, and who knows what else. I live a couple of hours up the road, and these artificial reefs are absolutely a destination location. Again - why we don't have more in the LA area, where the dive population is an order of magnitude greater than San Diego is beyond me.

• As a diver training facility, artificial reef's can be excellent. 10 years ago I did my first "deep" dive on the Yukon. I did my first Nitrox dive not long after that on the Yukon. The first time I was inside of a wreck was on the Yukon. I've learned tons about diving from that destination.

• Maybe our coastline isn't suitable. Maybe in most of the non-traffic spots the bottom drops to 600 feet 3 or 4 miles off shore. I dunno

• Maybe our LA area divers don't care. Could it be that the draw to Catalina is so great (people craving all that pink rock?) that charters to local dive sites along PV and the South Bay, when you mix in an artificial reef or two, wouldn't be economically sustainable? There are many, many sites just off shore I'd rather dive than hump to Hen Rock at Catalina. Again.

• The first time I dived the Yukon was about 15 or 16 days after it sunk its bad self. To see it then, and to go back every year or so (often many times each year) to see it change has been a real treat. Lots of great memories. Again - I wish we had something like that closer.

Is it purely economics that keep us from dropping 3 or 4 of these things around LA? The clean up and stripping them? As we've seen from the Yukon, even a ship that is cleaned up and stripped specifically for divers isn't immune from accidents. But is it simply the cost to prepare is too great and there are no sponsors or organizations capable of funding this?

Can politics be playing a part? I can't imagine who'd be against dropping some of these in LA - except maybe San Diego, Catalina and possibly Ventura / Santa Barbara. I dunno. What could be the political road blocks?

Environmental issues - again, are the demands too strict? Is the impact of a properly cleaned and stripped ship still to great for the fine people of my county to get behind this?


I'm just a diver. But I'd be pouring significant cash into the local economy if there was a new, fresh Yukon-type artificial reef just off shore here in SoCal. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

-Ken

[ptyx]

More life, more cash for dive operators - I'm all for it.
If the wreck-to-be is clean, and the site carefully selected, and the flow of divers controlled, I don't see many negatives.

The devil is in the details of course. An unclean wreck in a navigation channel, disturbing ecological balance and attracting so much tourism the local infrastructures (and dive sites) are overwhelmed can be a disaster. But that's why there are impact studies.

[Grateful Diver]

Politics definitely plays a huge role. Yanno what's preventing an artificial reef in Puget Sound?

Not resources ... the DOT just sold a couple perfectly fine ferries for scrap ... last I heard they were being towed to Mexico to be cut up and slagged.

Not interest ... lots of groups willing to provide the manpower and resources to make it happen.

Not financial incentive ... Puget Sound divers head north in large numbers and spend large amounts of money in British Columbia every year to dive on their AR's ... and we even donate large amounts of our time to helping them prep and sink more.

The reason is because of one person in a position of power at the Dept. of Natural Resources who believes that if nature didn't put it there, it doesn't belong there.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Jack Hammer]

Ken - Backing up what Bob said, it's not the diving community that prevents these things from happening. It's the non-diving extreme environmentalists who prevent AR's from happening by making all sorts of claims against them. Unfortunately these groups tend to have better experience lobbying and know what buttons to push to stall these projects long enough for the very limited funds to run out. The best way to get these projects approved is to do them as quickly and quietly as possible (no calls for public support and no media publicity) so as not to attract the attention of those extremists.

[mikemill]

Cons:
- No matter how well intention, humans have a way of ****ing shit up.
- There are creatures living in that sand patch you just dropped that hunk of metal. You've displaced one group of creatures for another.
- Wrecks are ugly (Opinion but still valid )

[JS1scuba]

Bill, I assume that artificial reefing is to be done with ships. To that end I have always been for it. Ships to reefs has a significant impact on an area that is far reaching. We know it usually creates a positive environmental impact by creating new homes for corals to grow and fish to spawn and become attracted to. The biodiversity that occurs when a ship is placed in the middle of nowhere is incredible. Granted when that ship hits the bottom it's going to destroy somethings that are on that sea bed, it's an unfortunate cost of doing these things. However what grows after I believe makes up for the small damage that gets done.

Once the arti-reef is in place it becomes a magnet for fishing, diving, boating, events, and later on colonies of new life. We have thousands of ships that are sitting in boat yards and navy yards around the world that ultimately need to end up someplace. Turning them into arti-reefs would open up many doors for our sport and our economy. The most recent big wreck to be sunk was the Vandenberg. My good friend Joe Weatherby worked on that for over 10 years in key west. This one big wreck has brought the diving economy back to life in Key West. The other ships in the keys have done so as well. Duane, Bibb, Spiegel Grove etc. But we have a lot of obstacles that get in the way of sinking these ships, the main ones are environmental protection and money.

Where I live in Lake Havasu City, AZ we share the Colorado river with the California border. The AZ Dept. of Game and Fish have installed over 900 acres of underwater fish habitats (artificial reefs) here in the "lake" over the last 15 years. It has supported fish life beyond their wildest dreams. I watch fish as I dive all the time here. Everything from juvies to 5 foot cats. These fish did not have the opportunities they have now with the "reefs". We also have "boat wrecks" that are life-stations for fish in areas that did not have structure, now they do and the fish thrive. If I could put bigger boats in the lake here I would. However we have to deal with more than 9 governing bodies and I just don't have the energy to do it. We just have to wait for them to sink in storms.


Catalina needs shipwrecks. It's amazing what has happened in SoCal over the last ten years since the Yukon was sunk by Dick Long. Wreck diving has become an activity and an industry. Add to that one single wreck all the other wrecks (that were out there) that Tyler Stalter and his guys have located and you can see how we can turn the California coast into a wreck diving mecca like the East Coast and Florida have.

Six carefully placed shipwrecks in 80 to 230 feet of water around Catalina would bring HUGE revenue AND biodiversity to the area. It's known how to sink ships and turn them into reefs. I believe it would have a positive impact on the environment and the area in general.

My 2 cents

cheers

[b1gcountry]

The biggest thing I dislike about artificial reefs is all the hoopla and politics associated with them. They are so controversial and political, I can't help but think there's a big money trail in there somewhere. Who's to know if the extreme environmentalist who complains about the paint causing harm to the environment isn't vying for the contract to remove the paint? It's just too many people, and they are all out for their own best interests above anything else. I can't stand career politicians.

I also dislike the idea of public funds being used to pay for them. I know not all of the projects use public funds, but I don't want someone to have to pay for me to be able to dive a new wreck.

Tom

PS, can we merge the two threads into one?

[GRA]

Since we've had a bunch of people from the Pro side, let me be the first on the Con. I've been a member (a card-carrying one) of some of the major environmental groups, although I'm more moderate than most environmentalists. I also like to dive wrecks. But to me, a ship which has been deliberately reefed isn't a wreck, it's more akin to an amusement park attraction, and holds no interest for me. It may well serve as a penetration training site for real wrecks, but that's it for me.

Environmentally, I grew up as a backpacker/mountaineer/cross-country skier, where the attitude was that you should take only photographs, and leave only footprints. In short, minimum-impact. An artificial reef is about as far away from that as it's possible to be. The environmentalist mantra is Reduce, Re-use, Re-cycle, not Reduce, Re-use, Dump it in the ocean. I've been to several CSTR presentations, among them ones by Dick Long and our local CSTR head, Harry 'Doc' Wong, both of whom I respect. But the presentations turned me off, as they were almost totally aimed at what I call the 'Chamber of Commerce' approach, i.e. jobs for locals, along with how neat it would be for divers. Any environmental benefit was strictly an afterthought, along the lines of "Oh, yeah, and it would be good for the environment."

Now, it may be that in some areas, with dead or dying reefs (especially coral), there is significant environmental benefit to artificial reefs. But for my local dive area, Monterey/Carmel, there's no shortage of healthy reef structure. The reasons that the fish populations have been so depleted in the northern California area is primarily due to unsustainable fishing practices, along with (in some cases) destruction of spawning habitat, pollution and maybe global warming. Lack of bottom structure isn't the problem. The MPAs and more restrictive fishing regs in general, along with stronger enforcement, are going to do far more to bring the fish populations back than any number of artificial reefs, which are essentially treating symptoms instead of causes.

The environmental impact of all those extra divers who are supposed to start flocking to the area to dive new artificial reefs seems to me likely to far outweigh any possible environmental benefit that's likely to ensue, supposedly because more people will become sensitized to environmental issues. I don't see it, as these people are _already_ divers. And while CSTR was primarily concentrating on reefing ships, they were also floating the idea of reefing things like old AFVs, for which there can be no environmental rationale whatsoever; this is purely a case of 'let's add some slides in the playground', no different than putting cars or what have you in a quarry. But a quarry needs stuff like that because it's so devoid of anything else interesting to look at; anyone who's dived in MoCal knows that's not the case in our part of the ocean.

Guy

[Jack Hammer]

Not all AR's create a throng of divers flocking to the area to visit them. However, they all do create a more protected habitat for fish and other sealife in an area where none was previously available to them. This is why location is important. More life is likely killed by spraying antifungal on ones feet than by dropping an AR onto a barren sand patch. I can't speak for other areas but for the AR sunk in Chicago in 2003, to the best of my knowlege, no public funds were spent on the project other than the time to hear both sides and grant permission for the sinking. The work itself was done by mostly by unpaid volunteers with most the materials donated. Like most things in life there are many variables and each AR project should be looked at and considered on a case by case basis to see the merits of whether or not it is a worthy project and whether it will/won't benefit the sealife of the proposed area and then how much/little it will benefit.

[Mo2vation]

Since we've had a bunch of people from the Pro side, let me be the first on the Con. I've been a member (a card-carrying one) of some of the major environmental groups, although I'm more moderate than most environmentalists. I also like to dive wrecks. But to me, a ship which has been deliberately reefed isn't a wreck, it's more akin to an amusement park attraction, and holds no interest for me. It may well serve as a penetration training site for real wrecks, but that's it for me.

Environmentally, I grew up as a backpacker/mountaineer/cross-country skier, where the attitude was that you should take only photographs, and leave only footprints. In short, minimum-impact. An artificial reef is about as far away from that as it's possible to be. The environmentalist mantra is Reduce, Re-use, Re-cycle, not Reduce, Re-use, Dump it in the ocean. I've been to several CSTR presentations, among them ones by Dick Long and our local CSTR head, Harry 'Doc' Wong, both of whom I respect. But the presentations turned me off, as they were almost totally aimed at what I call the 'Chamber of Commerce' approach, i.e. jobs for locals, along with how neat it would be for divers. Any environmental benefit was strictly an afterthought, along the lines of "Oh, yeah, and it would be good for the environment."

Now, it may be that in some areas, with dead or dying reefs (especially coral), there is significant environmental benefit to artificial reefs. But for my local dive area, Monterey/Carmel, there's no shortage of healthy reef structure. The reasons that the fish populations have been so depleted in the northern California area is primarily due to unsustainable fishing practices, along with (in some cases) destruction of spawning habitat, pollution and maybe global warming. Lack of bottom structure isn't the problem. The MPAs and more restrictive fishing regs in general, along with stronger enforcement, are going to do far more to bring the fish populations back than any number of artificial reefs, which are essentially treating symptoms instead of causes.

The environmental impact of all those extra divers who are supposed to start flocking to the area to dive new artificial reefs seems to me likely to far outweigh any possible environmental benefit that's likely to ensue, supposedly because more people will become sensitized to environmental issues. I don't see it, as these people are _already_ divers. And while CSTR was primarily concentrating on reefing ships, they were also floating the idea of reefing things like old AFVs, for which there can be no environmental rationale whatsoever; this is purely a case of 'let's add some slides in the playground', no different than putting cars or what have you in a quarry. But a quarry needs stuff like that because it's so devoid of anything else interesting to look at; anyone who's dived in MoCal knows that's not the case in our part of the ocean.

Guy

Backpacker/mountaineer/cross-country skier types (the take only photographs, and leave only footprints guys) are about as diverse as they come. No self respecting mountaineer would allow himself to be confused as merely a backpacker. XC types don't need no freaking chair lifts.

But they all share one thing: they depend on the mountains for the enjoyment of their sport.

The ocean really is no different. And while an OW diver/wreck diver/cave diver are about as diverse as they come (no self respecting wreck diver would allow himself to be confused as merely an "OW diver") - they do all share one thing: they depend on the water for the enjoyment of their sport.

The thing is: the mountains are prettier when there are trees. When there are squirrels scampering about, when there are meadows and deer and birds. Nobody hikes in a desert. Miles of sand in every direction. No sane person, at least. So Backpackers/mountaineers and XC skiers don't go to the desert. They go where things are lovely.

Same with the ocean. The ocean is a lot prettier when there are fish, and kelp, and metridiums and nudi's scampering about. And nearly all of the offshore SoCal ocean floor that is within diveable depths is barren sand. No sane person would dive that (and we don't.) And the thing is this: An artificial reef can transform that underwater desert. Want to take pressure off of many of the other dive sites around SoCal? This is how you do it.

Like a spring busting up in a desert, creating a beautiful oasis, an artificial reef, dropped in the right place can turn acres and acres of barren sand (something we have an awful lot of here in SoCal) into an oasis for thousands of people to enjoy every year.

Turning acres of unsightly, unused, unseen, uncharted, undisturbed, unremarkable, uninhabited sand unto an unforgettable oasis where fish can hang out, where algae can grow, where people can dive and enjoy, where other people can learn and profit from - man! I'm really finding a hard time locating the down side.

You made both sides of the wreck / reef argument yourself. Sure, its not a 'wreck' wreck - just about as much as a reservoir isn't a 'lake' lake. But you know, we fish from both of them and the trout taste great from either one.

Reduce, recycle, reuse? Are you kidding me. This is the very best thing about an artificial wreck. A ship, long past its useful life begins a second life recycled as an artificial reef. We get to reuse the thing as we reduce the eye sore of this leaky, rusty POS sitting forgotten in some backwater dock someplace. And slowly, over the decades, the sea will reclaim it until before long you won't even know there was once anything "artificial" about it. It just becomes a reef.

I'm not a wreck diver - I'll never warm to the "its not a real wreck" side of things, and glance askew at something like the Yukon. Its a big boat in the water - and like any big anything in the middle of the sand (be it desert of ocean) its going to attract a crowd.

Here's to people that actually dive these things and don't sit in municipal offices pushing their personal aesthetic clothed in the pop environmental science of the moment.

I'm a SoCal, and I support carefully considered, thoughtfully created Artificial reefs sunk for the pleasure of divers and for the abundance of sealife life they attract and support.


-Ken

[mikemill]

Not all AR's create a throng of divers flocking to the area to visit them. However, they all do create a more protected habitat for fish and other sealife in an area where none was previously available to them. This is why location is important. More life is likely killed by spraying antifungal on ones feet than by dropping an AR onto a barren sand patch. I can't speak for other areas but for the AR sunk in Chicago in 2003, to the best of my knowlege, no public funds were spent on the project other than the time to hear both sides and grant permission for the sinking. The work itself was done by mostly by unpaid volunteers with most the materials donated. Like most things in life there are many variables and each AR project should be looked at and considered on a case by case basis to see the merits of whether or not it is a worthy project and whether it will/won't benefit the sealife of the proposed area and then how much/little it will benefit.

It might look barren to you but it is very likely not barren at all.