Environmental pros and cons of artificial reefing

[drbill]

Hurray... the "bump" worked. Thanks.

If this project gets off the ground (or under the water), the vessel would be sink at a depth allowing recreational divers to easily visit it (although probably no penetration potential). Outer parts would be for teach training with possible penetration.

 

[sea_ledford]

Environmental pros and cons depend on many variables. Primary considerations are how close is it to an existing reef? Is the material to be use going to last long enough to be worth putting down? Is it inert? What is the goal of reefing the material? It could be fishery or habitat enhancement, or as an underwater attraction.

I actually just started working for the Artificial Reef Program in Texas, so I'm fairly familiar with our conditions and regulations, but I know California is an animal unto itself as far as environmental regs go. There is a fairly extensive permitting process here, but we've been doing it for a while and we have some standing permits. Most of our ARs are rigs-to-reefs donations from oil and gas companies, but we also have a nearshore reef program that is more of the granite blocks and construction materials of opportunity type thing. That is more aimed at fishery enhancement as the vis is horrible in the gulf 9 miles off shore.

The main argument in ARs is the attraction vs production debate. If they are just attracting fish to a specific area, it makes them easier to catch and is therefore detrimental to the fish stocks. If it is providing additional habitat allowing for more reproduction (if the amount of habitat is the limiting factor), then production goes up and it's good for the fish stocks. That is an oversimplified version but gets the point across. That argument has nothing to do with wether it's a good dive or not though.

The other big issue is making sure it is a reefing program not an ocean dumping program.

Ships are a different thing too. I don't know off the top of my head a good example of a ship-to-reef project that everyone is happy with or that went to plan and stayed legal. That's not to say there aren't any, I just don't know of them. When we sank the Texas Clipper (and when I say "we" I mean the program, that was before my time), it cost millions more than expected and took years longer than expected due to removing all of the hydrocarbons. And few people are happy with the result because of where it is along the coast and the fact that is is on it's side. Can't win for losing I guess... Then the Oriskany was completed in just a couple years, but apparently not so... environmentally friendly.

And before anyone jumps on me about the Mighty O, I don't know the details, just the rolling of eyes the program biologist gives me anytime the subject is brought up. We won't be doing another ship anytime soon though.

You can read more about the Texas program here: TPWD: Index Artificial Reefs Program

Chris

 

[drdiver1952]

I have to disagree with you there.

Watch this then decide if you think it is better to clean them up and sink as a reef or 'recycle' them.

The Ship Breakers - 60 Minutes - CBS News

It's an eyeopening article and thanks, but a lot of ships are scrapped here in the States and in Europe so I don't know how relevant it is for the fate of many vessels. Given the enormous energy and carbon production of producing steel, recycling is still a better fate for a vessel than dumping it in the ocean.

 

[Scott L]

It's an eyeopening article and thanks, but a lot of ships are scrapped here in the States and in Europe so I don't know how relevant it is for the fate of many vessels. Given the enormous energy and carbon production of producing steel, recycling is still a better fate for a vessel than dumping it in the ocean.

A valid point but a good well thought out sinking for the purpose of creating a marine life habitat would seem to trumph the benefits to society of supplying a marginal amount of recycled steel IMO...

 

[Scott L]

sea Ledford, excellent post!

 

[ktomlinson]

I dont know enough about the pros and cons to the environment of sinking ships to weigh in on the issue. I do think its a bad idea to create tire reefs though, such as in South Florida. Concrete SEEMS like a good idea to me, and I wouldnt scrap the idea (pun intended) because of a screw up in Hawaii. Even with tremendous amounts of red tape, we will still have screw ups, after all to err is human.

 

[burna]

Ok. I've got an "out there" question for you.

Does anyone know if there have been any studies (or even if anyone has seriously suggested) that there is a link between artificial reefs and the incidents of shark attack?

I know what you're thinking!! I only ask because the NIMBYs opposing the reefing of the Ex HMAS Adelaide just north of Sydney are now trying to suggest that there is.

First they were saying that all the PCBs that they claim were left on the ship in some government conspiracy were going to poison the water. Now they say the abundant fish life will attrack man eating sharks that will come to eat the local children.

It's scaremongering at its best and is preying on Average Joe's fear of sharks, but I'm just wondering if anyone [credible] has suggested there is a link??

 

[Scott L]

Concrete SEEMS like a good idea to me, and I wouldnt scrap the idea (pun intended) because of a screw up in Hawaii. Even with tremendous amounts of red tape, we will still have screw ups, after all to err is human.

I agree. The $2-4 million required to sink a ship will buy a whole lot of concrete, steel rebar, last much longer and pollute very little, if any...

 

[TheWetRookie]

These people are in the process of sinking a ship locally where I am. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

ARSBC

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Ok. I've got an "out there" question for you.

Does anyone know if there have been any studies (or even if anyone has seriously suggested) that there is a link between artificial reefs and the incidents of shark attack?

I know what you're thinking!! I only ask because the NIMBYs opposing the reefing of the Ex HMAS Adelaide just north of Sydney are now trying to suggest that there is.

First they were saying that all the PCBs that they claim were left on the ship in some government conspiracy were going to poison the water. Now they say the abundant fish life will attrack man eating sharks that will come to eat the local children.

It's scaremongering at its best and is preying on Average Joe's fear of sharks, but I'm just wondering if anyone [credible] has suggested there is a link??

I can assure you that yes, shipwrecks definitely tend to attract sharks. If you compared an open sand desert with a shipwreck, there is no doubt that the accumulation of fish and structure will tend to attract sharks. Now if this attraction translates to increased danger for swimmers on the beach, I wouldn't know.