Jamestown Bridge Artificial Reef Update

[OceanOpportunity]

what should have been done on the short term was place the russion sub in Providence next to the U-boat. Would have been a no-brainer...already clean hull so no enviro- problems, beautifully in tact, etc. Instead-nope, gets raised, then scrapped for steel...such a shame. With this being a free bee that was passed up, I'm pretty confident that the carriers will never be sunk.

 

[Sean222]

what should have been done on the short term was place the russion sub in Providence next to the U-boat. Would have been a no-brainer...already clean hull so no enviro- problems, beautifully in tact, etc. Instead-nope, gets raised, then scrapped for steel...such a shame. With this being a free bee that was passed up, I'm pretty confident that the carriers will never be sunk.

Not in RI at least. I am on an artificial reeef comittee in a Club that I belong to. The way I understand the current situation here in RI with regard to artificial reefs is this: The Locations for building reefs has long been approved. This was done to facilitate the disposal of the debris from the bridge. Any furthur additions to the approved sites(vessels/debris) cannot be done until DEM(Dept of Environmental Management) generates an Artificial Reef Management plan. With the current state budget woes, this action is way down on the priority list.

 

[OceanOpportunity]

The bridge debris plan was a separate item for the DOT and DEM, not part of any greater conservation, management, or reef-building plan. It is true that the DEM would have to be involved in creating any wrecks/reefs, but as you state this is not likely to be a State initiative. A motivated body in the community would need to lobby hard to make something happen. My point is that the russian sub was a missed opportunity for this. The vessel was slated for the junkyard, and this is after a significant government investment to clean it up for museum purposes. At this stage, the pitch to sink versus scrap would have been better received than at any other time, as the enviro impact versus enhancement could easily be quantified.

We have 3 yesrs left in monitoring the bridge debris reefs, at which point, I think the State will have a better understanding of the ecological value of such things, and be more receptive to future articial reef programs. I hope there are groups out there with a sharp interest in pursuing this, because the effort is well worth it, and timing is good.

 

[AfterDark]

Not in RI at least. I am on an artificial reeef comittee in a Club that I belong to. The way I understand the current situation here in RI with regard to artificial reefs is this: The Locations for building reefs has long been approved. This was done to facilitate the disposal of the debris from the bridge. Any furthur additions to the approved sites(vessels/debris) cannot be done until DEM(Dept of Environmental Management) generates an Artificial Reef Management plan. With the current state budget woes, this action is way down on the priority list.

If it could be shown to be profitable to the state general fund it would get approved in a heartbeat. This maybe the time to make it happen, when they're looking for new sources of revenue. The tourism angle would seem the most logical approach. They need to see a big enough pile of money to be able to in vision getting some for themselves.

The sub would have been ideal for attracting divers. The ideal spot(s) would be the ones least affected by the weather we get here. I've been skunked a few times trying to dive the U853. There are spots right in the bay that would make a challenging dive without exposure to extreme weather. That sub could have been sunk in 100fsw right off Ft W could have a rock hop!

 

[OceanOpportunity]

I think the tourism pitch for RI is a tough sell. RI will never be a sport wreck dive destination like FL or NC. Our season is too short, water is cold, vis is bad... Yes, there is some great diving here, but the reality is that most sport divers (the large population that is needed to make up the #'s for profitability - 1000's annually) aren't going to look at RI diving as too attractive. The folks that are out there are serious locals with a few friends from out of town.

After working with the DOT and DEM on the bridge work, I really think the appeal is an environmental one, epecially as it stands to affect commercial species. Anything that will draw more lobster, blackfish, cod, etc, and thus increased productivity by our local fisherman (who very much do contribute to RI economically) will be given the attention it deserves.

 

[AfterDark]

I think the tourism pitch for RI is a tough sell. RI will never be a sport wreck dive destination like FL or NC. Our season is too short, water is cold, vis is bad... Yes, there is some great diving here, but the reality is that most sport divers (the large population that is needed to make up the #'s for profitability - 1000's annually) aren't going to look at RI diving as too attractive. The folks that are out there are serious locals with a few friends from out of town.

After working with the DOT and DEM on the bridge work, I really think the appeal is an environmental one, epecially as it stands to affect commercial species. Anything that will draw more lobster, blackfish, cod, etc, and thus increased productivity by our local fisherman (who very much do contribute to RI economically) will be given the attention it deserves.

The same is said for beaches but we have many of them and people flock to them.
I don't disagree it's a hard sell but not impossible. You or someone mentioned how nice the reefs are, pictures? No one has ever really pushed RI as a dive site when in reality it is a beautiful place to dive. How about some night diving pictures on the reef? I'll bet that would attract some attention. If we had some attractions to make up for the tough conditions people may be more inclined to dive here.

Seems to me the local fishermen are being driven out of business. I'm not sure how much longer these species will be contributing to the RI economy. I think the day is coming when others, rather than local fishermen will be fishing our waters and selling us the fish. Remember the family farmer?

 

[OceanOpportunity]

people flock to the beaches for the aesthetics of a new england summer. as you well know, summer diving here comes with green water and poor visibility (within sport depths anyway). I'd rather dive a wreck in winter, but then you contend with the discomfort, and the high chance of getting blown out.

RI's diving business is in a world of hurt. I've seen more than a handful of shops close in the past 10 years or so, and most dive boats are lucky to fill up on any given weekend - and that is with one of the biggest historical attractions on the east coast-the u853. Not to be a naysayer, but the volume just isnt there for New England diving. Anyone who goes through NC or FL sees a VERY different scale of operation - weather, suitable u/w conditions, and the ability to take early career divers on their sites makes all the difference.

Our inshore and nearshore fisherman seem to be doing ok, the problem is declines in target species, so their strategies are forced offshore, where there are regional and international competitors. Bring the fish back, the fisherman come back, then tax $ comes back.

 

[Sean222]

The bridge debris plan was a separate item for the DOT and DEM, not part of any greater conservation, management, or reef-building plan.

Understood

It is true that the DEM would have to be involved in creating any wrecks/reefs, but as you state this is not likely to be a State initiative.
A motivated body in the community would need to lobby hard to make something happen.
I would suggest that anyone with an interest in this, contact the Artificial reefs comittee chairman at RISAA (Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association). They are well over 5000 members strong and have been doing this very thing for a while now.


My point is that the russian sub was a missed opportunity for this. The vessel was slated for the junkyard, and this is after a significant government investment to clean it up for museum purposes. At this stage, the pitch to sink versus scrap would have been better received than at any other time, as the enviro impact versus enhancement could easily be quantified.

I couldn't agree more. We missed out on the Brenton Reef Tower years ago as well.
It went to NJ to help their Artificial Reef Program.

We have 3 yesrs left in monitoring the bridge debris reefs, at which point, I think the State will have a better understanding of the ecological value of such things, and be more receptive to future articial reef programs.

I hope this turns some heads and someone realizes the opportunity that is there.

 

[veriqster]

Any chance somebody could post a location sketch to the two reefs that are already in place, i didn't even know we have something like this around.

 

[OceanOpportunity]

Hi folks,

Just an update on the Jamestown Bridge reef project...

The team was working with a film production student intern from NE Tech who put together a short film about the project. The project has been completed, and is now available here: https://www.createspace.com/281459

The piece is intended as an educational classroom film, or intro piece for a presentation, and I believe works well for this. 100% of sales proceeds goes towards helping us make copies available for local RI educators.

Our 2010 field season is close to ramping up on the reef sites. Should be need volunteer help, I will post info here.


cheers,
Mike