No more sunken ships for artificial reefs, diving?? How can this happen?

[kd3pc]

I noticed in this months Chesapeake Bay Magazine a short blurb that no longer can ships built before 1985 be sunk for artificial reefs and diving, while this is surprising.....neither of the dive magazines I subscribe to have any mention of this, nor have I read anything here.

How can this be? I understand the concerns, and as a sailboat owner, liveaboard months at a time.....but come on folks....how does this happen? Are the gains not worth the return of marine life and ......

GeoGarage: Rules halt program using 'ghost fleet' ships as artificial reefs

Chesapeake Bay Magazine November 2012 Pg 9

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Perhaps it has to do with the types of materials that went into building these ships. I've been helping to prepare an artificial wreck up in Canada for the past three years or so, and it's a LOT of work and expense to do it right.

Habitat is all well and good, and these ships definitely provide shelter for fish and structure for sessile types of life such as sponges and anemones. But what you DON'T want is something that creates a long-term pollution hazard ... because once it's down it's going to be there for a loooong time. We are continually learning how to take better care of our environment so that our kids and grandkids will have something to enjoy just as we did.

I'm all for artificial habitat in places where marine life and the local economy will benefit from it ... but let's not sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term gain ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[covediver]

environmental regulations have made the activity uneconomic and have pretty much scuttled the program, both on the east and west coasts. there are a few vessels that still might qualify, but nothing of the number hoped for by scuba enthusiasts and sport fishers and the commercial enterprises that support them. The creation of wreck alley in San Diego and the sinking of the aircraft carrier off Pensacola have spawned healthy local dive enterprises while giving the divers places to go without a long expensive boat ride. In San Diego, a small boat could do two trips per day to wreck alley/kelp beds without the long trek down the coast to Mexico's Coronado Islands. Seems anymore we love our oceans, we just want to despise the people who use them (sorry for the editorializing)

 

[Akimbo]

The trouble with modern ships (even warships) is they deteriorate at a much faster rate. Modern computer aided structural analysis, stronger steels, improved welding, and higher fuel costs has resulted in more use of aluminum and thinner steel plate. They also tend to have larger compartments, thus less structural reinforcing. Bottom line is they will collapse several times faster than ships in the pre-WWII era. Between faster deterioration and far fewer sinking due to modern navigation aids (a really good thing), wreck diving will become a lost art in the future. :depressed:

Dive wrecks while you still can. A collapsed pile of steel plate on the bottom is still an effective reef, but not nearly as much fun to dive.

 

[TMHeimer]

I recently started a thread in the Marine forum asking someone to explain to me how artificial reefs actually result in MORE of a species to exist than before, as opposed to simply re-locating those animals. I received a reply that pretty much explained it and was satisfied that the increase does occur. But part of my thread was to point out (IMO) that the main reason for artificial reefs was to get rid of junk. Now we see that it becomes too economically costly to build ships nowadays that are both safe and environmentally sound if sunk. What do you know-- it's not really about adding sea life (or even good dive sites--as is usually mentioned by the govt. before a sinking), but it is only about money. It's like the 1980s- "55 Saves Lives"-- except when it's no longer practical because there isn't actually an oil shortage.

 

[Akimbo]

…. But part of my thread was to point out (IMO) that the main reason for artificial reefs was to get rid of junk. Now we see that it becomes too economically costly to build ships nowadays that are both safe and environmentally sound if sunk...

It has been much more expensive to prepare a ship as a diveable artificial reef than to scrap it for decades. There are plenty of companies in the world that will take or even buy vessels for scrap. There are also much less expensive ways to dispose of a vessel in deep international waters.

It is dramatically apparent to anyone who has seen man-made structures on submerged sand or mud plains that the food chain expands almost immediately. For that matter, ask any commercial fisherman where the fish are.

 

[phoenix31tt]

no longer can ships built before 1985 be sunk for artificial reefs and diving

doesn't that mean that more modern ships CAN be sunk for artificial reefs?

 

[kd3pc]

likely yes, but the economics of doing so will really come in to play....most owners will still see value in a newer ship....and not want to release a serviceable ship for sinking

 

[covediver]

I recently started a thread in the Marine forum asking someone to explain to me how artificial reefs actually result in MORE of a species to exist than before, as opposed to simply re-locating those animals.

Actually, the do both aggregate (concentrate) and produce (increase biomass). NOAA did a recent study on the subject recently. You may find the info starting on page 4 of the report to be useful.

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/pdfs/artificial_reef.pdf

 

[RickyF]

The enviornmental issues with the old ships is that the paint, lagging, oil and wiring contains high levels of PCB's and lead which are highly toxic to the marine life. Even if you remove all the wiring (hundreds if not thousands of miles of wiring) and flush all the contaminants out of the piping systems, you still have all the toxic paint to contend with. How much is too much is a question that is hard to answer, but the scrap prices for steel and other metals makes it more profitable to scrap a ship rather than prepare it to meet the requirements for sinking.