Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 7, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:06 p.m. to examine and report from time to time upon the matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are continuing tonight on matters relating to fish habitat. We are very fortunate to have from the Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia, ARSBC, Mr. Jay Straith, who is the past president.
I am quite sure members of the committee will be very interested in what you have to say and questions and answers afterwards.
Mr. Jay Straith, Past President, Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I want to give you a short history of the plan of artificial reefs in Canada, how it has evolved and how it can evolve further as an ocean stewardship tool.
The original plan for artificial reefs in British Columbia came about for a number of reasons. There was a particular problem with the recreational divers using historic shipwrecks. There had been a noticeable deterioration due to diver interaction with some of these historical shipwrecks, which were in rather fragile consideration. A group of us who were principally out of the Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia came up with the idea of setting up an artificial reef program. We talked to people in the Habitat Management Branch at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, who were aware of the concept had never seen it done in Canadian waters as of the late 1980s.
We looked at a number of reasons for doing this. First, we felt that a properly set up artificial reef program would attract divers to the region. The divers would not come there to fish on these artificial reefs but to observe the fish that would tend to develop and colonize these artificial reefs. There were also educational aspects because the entire question of how an artificial reef would work in cold waters was not well known. To date, this has not been well documented in the academic community.
There was also the aspect of training divers to dive safely on artificial reefs to monitor these reefs. There were also the environmental questions relating to sinking large ships in the cold waters in Canada. The concept of artificial reefs had been well known around the world for many years. These include places such as Truk Lagoon in Micronesia or off the Great Barrier Reef where you go on ships like the SS Yongala. They were very spectacular reefs in a natural sense in their own right.
In Canada at that point we had what we call SPARS — spontaneously placed artificial reefs, which had ended up where they were as a result of accidents. This caused them to be rather delicate and dangerous places for people to be scuba diving. These historical wrecks — many of which had gone down in the last century — were dilapidated as a result of wave and weather action on them after they had sunk. They were usually in very dangerous places.
The shipwreck usually occurred in the first place because it got caught in wild weather or currents at the wrong time. It would sink in a situation in which you would not want to send a lot of recreational divers down. The ships had also deteriorated over the years. An outfit called the Divers Alert Network keeps very close statistics on how diving fatalities occur. In many of these old shipwrecks, a lot of divers were killed as a result of having only one way into a compartment on a ship and therefore only one way out. If anything went wrong in that dive, and they were not able to access the same means out, there would be a fatality.
The archaeological community, which is actually quite active in the underwater archaeological sense in Canada, was interested in trying to do something take pressure off historical shipwrecks. There is a ship off Porlier Pass in British Columbia, called the Del Norte, which was a great example of a paddle wheeler that had sunk in 1868. Unfortunately, recreational divers had done a great deal of damage to that relic of another time and we looked at a way of trying to relieve pressure on these ships to make sure further damage did not occur.
Our first ship, the G.B. Church, was seized through an action in the Federal Court of Canada in 1991. At that time, nobody had ever sunk a large ship of its type on the West Coast. We had discussions with the Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans, B.C. Parks, and Environment Canada about the approach to be taken with that ship.
She was sunk in August of 1991 after a lot of volunteer hours were put in on that ship and she very rapidly became very heavily colonized. We found very large examples of octopus, ling cod and rockfish moving on that ship within the first year. By the fifth year, the ship was completely covered with various marine animals, such as plumose anemones. There was a good cross-section of marine life, from juvenile to adult rockfish. Some of the largest ling cod seen on the West Coast were found on this ship, and it still remains a refuge for the species, which has been threatened in this area. West Coast
Over the years, we had noticed a great increase in the stability of the population of this. Their initial seasonal fluctuations had flattened out, and the ship's original habitat had gradually matured and we are now seeing a lot of ling cod egg masses being laid on that ship on a seasonal basis.
It became clear that if we picked the right location, the fish did not care whether it was a planned artificial reef or a spontaneously placed artificial reef. They would orient themselves to the ship's structure and take advantage of it.
Now, thanks to efforts by former Senator Ray Perrault and at the time the Honourable Mary Collins and Paul Dick, we were able to obtain the first of a number of destroyers on the West Coast for the royal sum of $1. Mary Collins in particular had a lot of faith from what we were doing and her staff worked closely with us on this initial project. We learned a lot of tough lessons on the Chaudière project, simply because no one anywhere had undertaken this large a ship sinking program.
We had to do a lot of ``thinking out of the box'' and the people at Environment Canada were excellent to work with in helping interpret both the letter and the spirit of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Ocean Disposal Act. At that time, we were working under the old Ocean Dumping Act. We looked at the statutory scheme to try to find a way to turn it into something positive — a new reef as opposed to the tool to regulate ocean disposal.
We made lot of mistakes. We ended up a problem with the First Nations in the Sechelt area as a result of not really understanding the whole process at that time. In any event, the Chaudière was sunk December 7, 1992. It quickly became commercial success from the standpoint of divers using it. We worked over the next couple of years with Environment Canada to do some follow-up studies to see if our initial assessments as to what would work and would not work with an artificial reef actually made sense.
Studies were done in 1993 and 1995 to follow-up on things as to what would happen with asbestos that was on the ship and determine as to whether or not any improper particulate matter was being resolved. Throughout this whole program, Dixie Sullivan from the Ocean Disposal Unit of Environment Canada in British Columbia and her staff have been absolutely fabulous in providing us with assistance.
Mr. Rick Welsford from the Nova Scotia Artificial Reef Society is here today. He and I have had a number of meetings to set up a similar program in Nova Scotia with the HMCS Saguenay, which is now coming up on the 10th anniversary of its sinking off Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. We were able to pass on a lot of lessons we had learned during the Chaudière project to help them avoid similar pitfalls. We explained to them how to work the issues on salvage. It turned out there was a lot of salvageable items that could be saved from the shipments. We worked with him to establish a water community involvement, which we felt was the problem that we had run into on the Chaudière program.
Following this we approached a number of members of British Columbia caucus, particularly, again with the former Senator Perrault leading the way with assistance from the Honourable David Anderson and Hedy Fry, to negotiate an option on the next four decommissioned Canadian ships on the West Coast.
A program was set up through a compilation of loans from Western Economic Diversification and funding from the Employment Insurance Program to obtain labour. We came up with a program to work on the next four ships. We knew we had a large number of ships, and knew what the economics of the salvage operations would be. The Canadian navy now knew what we wanted when we had a shipped turned over to us, and we were able to work with them to avoid some of the problems that had occurred with Chaudière.
The environmental issues were set. We had a standard and we knew what we had to achieve in order to have that ship environmentally safe for sinking purposes. We knew we could do it better for both diver and fish habitat, which we found were obviously very compatible. By making the ship structure more complex for divers to have access to all levels, we also provided more habitat for fish. We also had a production line going — originally in New Westminster, British Columbia and later North Vancouver — with cleanup and recovery of salvage and scrap from those ships. We also developed smarter and quicker sinking techniques. We found a more aggressive use of chemical cutters that allowed us to place the ship exactly where we wanted it and position it on its keel without allowing a ``free surface effect'' to kick in. We also able to put the ships exactly where we wanted them, without any difficulties due to wind and wave action at the time. We also could use the sinking process to establish diver access even lower in the ship and thus ensuring that there was no way that a diver would ever get trapped.
Now, this was done on the HMCS MacKenzie, HMCS Columbia and the HMCS Saskatchewan. By the time we got to the Saskatchewan project, we had the entire community around Nanaimo, British Columbia, completely involved. Our program had received a lot of international attention and the late Captain Cousteau had become involved with us. The right to push the button to sink the HMCS Saskatchewan was used as first prize in a raffle by the Cousteau Society as part of their fund raising efforts to raise funds to build Calypso II.
Unfortunately, Captain Cousteau passed away shortly before the sinking of the Saskatchewan, but we very much treasured his involvement and his endorsement of our approach to artificial reef creation.
The diver safety plan had very much reached a full maturity at this point. We really had a strong handle on how divers were behaving on these ships and how to ensure it was done with the least risk divers as possible. We were pleased with the Canadian navy and, in this instance, the Coast Salish Aboriginal Band was fully involved in the entire process. Chief Raymond Good, a former chief of the Salish band, had served on the HMCS Saskatchewan and had passed away about nine months before the project started. We were approached by the Indian band, and Chief Good's ashes are interred in the engine room of HMCS Saskatchewan where he had served a number of cruises as chief petty officer. We actually gave the Saskatchewan a formal burial as a warrior. One captain from the navy said it was the next best thing to a Viking's funeral.
This project had some spectacular economic results in Nanaimo. I will show you some pictures from a fishery aspect in a couple of minutes. The sinking of the Saskatchewan marked a turning point for the Nanaimo diving community. It was the largest event ever held on the waters of British Columbia and received both national and international attention. It put Nanaimo on the international diving map.
As a result, businesses in Nanaimo reported annual increases of 40 per cent the first year, 50 per cent the second year and the rise has continued. The diving community, and the hotels and restaurants recognize that these ships are bringing in significant numbers of divers.
They are also drawing attention from around the world and magazines in the United States and elsewhere. They figure that in the first 18 months, 15,000 divers dove on the Saskatchewan — at a $100 per person just for the diving. If you add the amount that they spent in hotels and restaurants, you know that by placing this ship in the waters, we contributed to the entire economy in the Nanaimo area. The Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce estimates that this ship brings in $4 million to the community each year and they say that this is increasing annually.
We had done four Canadian navy destroyers in a relatively short period and our experience with the society was that our diver safety plan had worked well. There were no ship-related fatalities involving entanglement or entrapment on the ship. There was also a noticeably low incidence of decompression illness, because people were able to get in and out of these ships exactly when they planned to.
These pictures of the Saskatchewan, taken in the fall of 2002, give you an idea as to how that ship evolved. During the Saskatchewan program, groups from Australia approached us. There were also people from Environment Canada working closely with the Australian EPA to train their people on the concept of taking what everyone now calls ``Canadian-style'' artificial reefs to Australia and setting up a similar program.
A group from Geographe Bay in Western Australia was assembled to sink the HMAS Swan. We had a number of meetings with them and worked with them on establishing a proper sinking plan for that ship. The whole concept of siting the ship and keeping in mind the fact they would be changing very much the ecology of that bay, which had a flat, sandy bottom — they type of environment we generally to put these artificial reefs. The Australian navy worked on this program and liked it. The Swan has been, economically, the strongest performing artificial reef bringing in 15,000 divers in its very first year.
The Australians have continued on with the program and are now sinking their entire old fleet of Adams class destroyers. Members of the Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia were involved in the sinking of the HMAS Perth and Hobart. One of our team members will be down there for a month in November to help prepare the Brisbane, which is going to be sunk at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef in early 2004.
We have also been involved with groups in New Zealand. In 2000, we sank HMNZS Waikato on the north island of New Zealand in the Poor Knights group of islands. We are also involved with New Zealand groups planning to sink the Wellington and Canterbury.
On of our oddest stories is how a Canadian navy ship, HMCS Yukon ended up being sunk off the navy base at San Diego, California. It literally was a story of ``carrying coals to Newcastle,'' but illustrative of how the Canadians involved could think outside the box in putting this kind of program together. Regulations and politics in the State of California prohibited them from using a United States navy ship to sink in their wreck alley. They approached us and through negotiations with Mr. Richard Long of the San Diego Oceans Foundation we made arrangements to obtain the Yukon and prepare it to about the 80 per cent level in Canada. We then transferred it to the United States, where they finished it and sunk it in Mission Bay off San Diego.
During this program we ended up dealing with the California Coastal Commission. When I hear people criticize our government for being too bureaucratic and political, I remind them of our experience in dealing with the California Coastal Commission, which I would describe as one of the worst political nightmares I have known. I have learned that in Canada we do things a lot more efficiently than they do in many parts of the United States.
At the time of the sinking of the Yukon, the Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia and the San Diego Oceans Foundation jointly organized a conference on the concept of using ships as artificial reefs. This symposium drew participants from Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and Europe. attending it to study and discuss the entire concept of using ships as artificial reefs. Among our speakers we had Dr. Sylvia Earl from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Dixie Sullivan from Environment Canada, Tex Enemark from the Artificial Reef Society. This program that we developed also attracted the attention of the RAND Corporation, which prepared an extensive report looking at what we had done in Canada as part of their options for disposing of the ``ghost fleet'' in the United States. They came to the conclusion that the Canadian approach was the most economic and environmental approach for disposing of some of the U.S. government's old ships.
Members of the society have also been active internationally. There is a group called the Conference on Artificial Reefs and Related Aquatic Habitats, CARAH, which meets every few years. We have presented papers on our approach at the international conferences. This has resulted in more networking, particularly in Europe. The Europeans are looking at the approach we have set up as a means of trying to solve some of the problems that have evolved around Great Britain and, in particular, the northern parts of the Mediterranean.
Economically these ships have been very successful. When we started this program in Canada, there was little recognition of British Columbia diving. We did not even register in the initial surveys done by some of the diving magazines in 1990. All the natural factors that make British Columbia spectacular existed but there were no ratings of our marine life, wall diving or advanced diving and no mention at all of shipwrecks.
However, by 2001, British Columbia rated as the number one diving destination in North America. Many people are quite startled to hear that. I have been in Truk Lagoon, Papua, New Guinea, Great Barrier Reef; best diving in the world is actually British Columbia. It is now rated as first in marine health, best value, best places to return to, best advanced diving and wall diving and only rates in the top five for wreck diving.
The artificial reefs brought international attention to British Columbia diving. Writers coming to study the artificial reef program, started to notice the spectacular diving we have in places like Port Hardy and the Gabriola Pass. I have often argued that you cannot protect something that nobody knows about. As word has spread about how spectacular our diving is, the cause of marine protected areas in some of these strategic locations has been very much advanced.
Our most recent largest project in British Columbia was the HMCS Cape Breton, which has been prepared over a couple of years. She was the last of our World War II victory ships. Parts of her were used for a museum and she was actually sunk in October 2001. We were pleased to see that our program had legs when a group from Rimouski, Quebec — the Federation for the Artificial Reefs in Eastern Quebec — approached the society for help. A great deal of volunteer time has been put in to work with the group in Quebec for sinking the HMCS Nipigon off Rimouski, Quebec, near the old ship, the Empress of Ireland.
One disturbing thing has happened in this program. DFO's habitat management branches on both the East and West Coasts of Canada had viewed that artificial reefs were, at the very worst, ``habitat-neutral.'' Generally, they felt that they were habitat-positive. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Quebec took the position that compensation had to be paid to DFO for sinking a ship in the St. Lawrence because it was going to be crushing some kind of worms that lived in the bottom of the St. Lawrence.
From what we were able to establish, this group in Quebec was required to pay $120,000 to DFO for a rehabilitation project that turned out to be on a Radio Canada transmission facility. It was $120,000 they could ill afford and they are now in a bind because of it.
We did some research and found out that they were the first group in the world ever required to pay financial compensation to their government for placing an artificial reef. That is something I have mention to the minister's staff and I am going to provide a brief to them and they are going to look into it. It should not have happened and it should not happen again. I would like to see that reversed with the Rimouski group because is a terrible precedent.
However, the Nipigon was a good example of how Canada worked. Volunteers from British Columbia helped them with a lot of technical aspects.. They hired two members from the artificial reef society to be there for the last six weeks of the project, to put the sinking plan together. On July 23 of this year, the Nipigon went down exactly where she was supposed to go down and the group in Quebec is very pleased with their first artificial reef project.
However, if we cannot resolve this issue of DFO and Quebec having a policy that differs from anywhere else in Canada, I do know if anyone will be inclined to try this kind of project again.
We are now involved with groups in Key West, Florida that are preparing a ship called the General Vanderberg, as an artificial reef off Key West. The U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA have decided to follow the Canadian standards that were established by Environment Canada, because they are good. That gives you a sense of the impact that Canadian activities have had internationally; we have set the world's standard for these kinds of projects. In addition, the diver safety standards that we have established have been very much in everyone's mind.
This next slide gives you an idea how big the General Vandenburg is. We have to sink this in 160 feet of water in order to have the 30-foot minimum clearances required. People from Key West came to Rimouski during the Nipigon project. People also came from Great Britain. We will be going there in the latter part of this year and to start work on the first artificial reef in Great Britain — HMS Scylla. The Scylla is it is the test case for the European Union for this type of project. Much attention will be paid to how this project works during the monitoring and the preparation phases.
Historically, these programs in Canada were carried out under the ocean dumping provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Earlier, the program was done under the former Ocean Dumping Act. The cleanup guidelines were established over earlier projects to ensure appropriate environmental protection. Generally, these have now been consolidated to a set of regulations that are very clearly known and quite reasonable. With a couple of minor exceptions, they are extremely workable.
Both the habitat management branches of DFO on both coasts appear to recognize that these artificial reefs are, at the very least, neutral and likely quite positive. We have also been able to work effectively with regional expansion programs and the unemployment insurance program to provide the labour for doing these programs.
Generally, they have been confined to near shore projects. We have not seen deep-water artificial reef projects attempted in Canada yet. Generally they are being done by non-profit groups. As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian standards have very much become the international standards.
Interestingly, in Canada we are still treating this as ocean disposal under the definitions under section 122 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There is an argument that under section 122(h) of the London Convention, this is considered a ``reuse'' of the ship as opposed to a disposal, therefore it does not have to be reported as a disposal under the London Convention. I have contacted people at both the Australian and the American environmental protection agencies. They have confirmed that although they are signatories to the London Convention, Australia, New Zealand and the United States do not report any of their artificial reef creations as ocean disposals. The British have also indicated they will take the same approach.
Canadians have been involved involvement in programs in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom and we anticipate that will continue. Canadian artificial reef projects are continuing along; many of which are being done on a local basis. A project has been initiated in Nanaimo, British Columbia; another project is set for Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia, this coming year. As matters currently remain, Environment Canada is the lead agency, with DFO and the Coast Guard being consulted as part of the process.
We do feel that DFO should take more initiative to identify areas that would be practical and appropriate to use for artificial reefs, so that we can avoid trying to establish new reefs in areas that are technically for ocean dumping, when we are trying to do something positive for the environment.
Primarily, artificial reefs have been used in Canada as a recreational tool. In places such as the State of Florida, they have been used as fishery tools. The groups with which we have dealt in the Southern United States, the Gulf of Mexico, and on the eastern seaboard have been interested in placing these in deeper and deeper water. They do not configure them necessarily with divers in mind and they are doing a good job of monitoring these ships with biological growth in mind.
There are obvious habitat issues involved, but the biological feedback we have in Canada is on the anecdotal level. We do not have the scientifically defensible materials in regard to the behaviour of artificial reefs in Canada. There is an acknowledged need for research on the whole issue of colonization and productivity of these artificial reefs.
Internationally, the fisheries coastal management groups or, in some instances in the United States, the immediate state for the first 12 miles, are the lead agencies in artificial reef creation. Again, these states do not use them for ocean disposal purposes. However, in most jurisdictions, no one considers these artificial reefs as a negative for the environment. No one would dream of asking a group that is creating down an artificial reef to pay compensation as was the group in Quebec. The environmental agencies in those states are ensuring the standard established in Canada are met when these ships are prepared and sunk.
I was asked to provide some suggestions for policy, changes to and legislation. We suggest a lot of this could simply be done through reinterpretation of the statute to bring it in line with the other signatories to the London Convention and to stop treating artificial reef creation as ocean disposal. If we acknowledge that artificial reef creation is a reuse, we could avoid a lot of jurisdictional and technical issues that have come up in recent years.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans could encourage communities that are interested in artificial reefs to work with them to establish appropriate locations for putting down artificial reefs. We need cooperation from the Coast Guard to ensure that questions about navigable waters are addressed upfront so that we can come up with a more positive long-term way of managing these projects. This would be preferable to the ad hoc situations that we have dealt with over the last 10 years.
We could either come up with a statutory scheme for artificial reef creation or we can continue to work within the current provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, simply by reinterpreting the definition sections to take artificial reefs out of the ocean disposal provisions.
There are a couple of areas in which government leadership is absolutely necessary. We should have a consistent approach within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about artificial reefs as habitat. We should never run into a situation one group in Quebec is told one thing and other groups in Western Canada and Atlantic Canada are told something else. As a Canadian, I am upset that that happened; it should not have happened. We should take a few steps to minimize the amount of red tape that is going to come along when these projects become available and find a way to fast-track them. Ask the environmental questions that need to be asked about establishing an artificial reef in an area, long before a ship is even considered to be available.
Increasingly, a coast guard will seize derelict ships and approach the artificial reef programs about their interest in these ships. It would be much better if we already knew where we could place the ship before it is seized by coast guard. Currently, we find ourselves in situations where the ship is available but and we are going all the habitat approval process while the ship sits at the dock.
It may also be appropriate to direct the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to start doing work on scientifically defensible studies about what is happening with these artificial reefs. We see quite a bit about the colonization of these ships. As soon as we can fix this projector, I will show you some videotape footage of what has occurred on the HMCS Saskatchewan in the five years that it has been down. There is spectacular marine life that has colonized the ship — both at the macro and micro stages. There is everything from very small marine animals to our large Pacific octopus, ling cod, cabizon and wolf eels.
This is an opportunity for a private/public partnership. The government and the non-governmental organizations can work together to develop artificial reefs as a full ocean stewardship tool in Canada. We have had a very good track record with this over the last 10 years and have learned some tough lessons. If we take time now to think about what has occurred and what we really want to with this tool in the future, we can forward in a much more positive means.
I would be glad to entertain any questions you have at this point.
The Chairman: I should like to mention that this past July, one of the federal government departments was refusing to release the HMCS Nipigon in Rimouski, from the berthage.
Mr. Straith: Yes.
The Chairman: The refused unless the berthage fees were paid. Even thought the berthage fees were being guaranteed by another federal government department, the Coast Guard branch refused to release the vessel.
Mr. Straith: That was most absurd because that ship was in such an advanced state of preparation as an artificial reef that, had they arrested the ship and kept it at the dock, it would have sunk in that spot over the winter.
We have had remarkable success on a completely ad hoc basis in doing artificial reefs in Canada, largely because we have had a couple of key politicians and bureaucrats who have very much believed in the process. However, when you run into people who do not really understand what we are all about, situations such as that which occurred in Rimouski, Quebec arise. We need some very clear direction at the political level that this is what should be done.
Before that political direction can be given, we need some more scientific backup. For example, when the Cape Breton went down with a very large grid study set up on various surfaces of the ship. Everything was nicely set up: We had proper grids and identification tags on each one of them. Unfortunately, the habitat management branch's budget was cut and they cannot do the follow-up study. Members of our society have been going down and taking photographic evidence on a lot of these grids to show what is occurring but it is not the same as having the trained eye of a marine biologist looking at this.
There are interesting things occurring on these ships and we should take the time to understand these processes. We can make them better. Every one of our projects has improved because we took note of what had been done on the previous ship. Perhaps we can do a few things — such as make the ship a little more complex to improve the fish habitat.
Senator Cook: Thank you for a very comprehensive presentation that has helped me to understand the principle. I am trying to see a reef in my mind's eye. How far offshore are you with your current program and in what depth water?
Mr. Straith: The deepest keel placement is 135 feet. The Cape Breton and Saskatchewan are about three miles from shore but they are actually near another island called Snake Island. Because of the physics of the West Coast, we have not done anything in a deep-water situation.
The Saguenay in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia was also in waters that are more protective. Down in the Gulf of Mexico, there are ships that are a hundred miles offshore. This has been done with a great deal of success, in an offshore manner, down in the Gulf states in the Atlantic coast, but it has yet to be tried in Canada, simply because we have been mainly recreationally based.
Senator Cook: Is the reef subject to wind and tide or is it stationary once it goes down?
Mr. Straith: The ships we placed are very stationary. In British Columbia, we are subject to very large tidal exchanges, but the ships do not move. We work with DFO to make sure that that ship is not going to move when we sink it.
Senator Cook: From a habitat perspective, what evidence-based information has your association or group gathered from the reefs out there?
Mr. Straith: Now that the projector is working, I will show you with this video presentation, which may give you a clearer idea of what we are talking about. This footage was taken both at the time of the sinking of the Saskatchewan and most recently in September. This is a picture of the ship sinking as recorded by onboard cameras in June of 1997. This is a picture from a forward anchor locker on the Saskatchewan as she flooded. Now, the Saskatchewan sank over bare sand, there was no life there. You can see from these pictures, taken in September 1997, that there is a bare hull. There is an upper deck; there is the forward gun on the ship. At that point, all you have is algae assembling on the shipment.
When we looked at the same area this past September, rockfish had colonized the nooks and crannies on this ship. Particularly at the juvenile stage, they settle out on the ship and grow well towards maturity in little compartments on the ship.
The ship is generally covered with plumose anemones. There is everything from rockfish living in the gun barrels of the ship. You can see that the upper deck you saw earlier is now completely covered with marine life. The mast is completely swarmed by rockfish, which have oriented to the ship. We find rockfish number in the hundreds and thousands.
The larger creatures such as wolf eels have also moved on to the ship. They are harvesting the swimming scallops that are growing on the ship. Ling cod are found in abundance and they are laying eggs. Here we have the giant Pacific octopus, which harvest the crabs and scallops that have settled on the ship.
One hundred feet away from the ship, there is nothing. This is a little oasis that has developed on that side of the island and it has been quite noticeable. This gives you idea what is happening with the mast. It has evolved into a garden over the five years that that ship has been down.
I brought that video to give you a sense that you cannot get from still photos alone as to what has occurred on this ship. There are also a lot more interesting things happening at the macro biological level on this ship. We regularly see grunt sculpins and a lot of smaller critters living on this ship.
What is frustrating is that exactly how and why they are colonizing that ship are well not well understood. Groups such as Florida Sea Grant College in the United States, and people such as Professor Mel Bell have done a very detailed study on how that happens down there. They have a good handle on how they are placing their ships and what works and does not work for them. However, this is unknown in Canada.
Senator Cook: I hear you say there is an oasis of life where your reef is and out from your reef there is nothing.
Mr. Straith: Yes.
Senator Cook: Therefore, the hypothesis would be, if there is marine life at your reef and it is prolific, it would move beyond to where there is nothing, out to where they would find suitable habitat to breathe and grow?
Mr. Straith: They probably do. For example, the ling cod eggs that are laid there and hatch, obviously go elsewhere in the water colon. The ling cod are not particularly territorial nor are the rockfish.
The ability to track how that is happening is not known. That is what it comes down to. When choosing locations for our artificial reefs, we pick areas that are already ``habitat deficient.'' There is no structure to which marine life can attach itself. Most of the life that moves on to these ships is coming on board as spawn. The first ship — the G.B. Church — was done with the cooperation of B.C. Marine Parks. That was one hundred yards south of an existing reef. We noticed very mature rockfish showing up on that ship within six months of it being sunk. From that we learned the lesson that we do not want to get too close to neighbouring existing reefs, because we do not want adult fish to move in, we would rather have a complete colonization process take place.
Senator Cook: I gather from your vision for those reefs, you are looking for a dedicated science program — that is, under the sponsorship of DFO.
Mr. Straith: I will give you an example. The San Diego Oceans Foundation has done a much better job on following up with the academic community. Working with the Script Institute of Oceanography and the California Department of Fish and Game, they have established a program for training recreational scuba divers to monitor the Yukon as an artificial reef so they are building up more scientific data for the experts at Scripts use for research.
I would like to see such program pursued aggressively in Canada. However, I think DFO would have to commit to have long-term, dedicated funding to make it work. We had a start and then it died in Canada. We need to know that that funding is going to be there for a number of years to really give it legs.
Senator Cook: You are looking for is dedicated funding. What about organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation and Sierra Club? How do they view your operation and would you not go there and look for answers?
Mr. Straith: The Sierra Club has not had any problem with us. Groups such as the Georgia Strait Alliance are adamantly opposed to artificial reefs. They have a philosophy and they have not changed it. At their Web site, they are still asking people to write letters in protest of the sinking of the HMCS Saskatchewan from 1997.
People who are proponents of artificial reefs are very much involved in what is called ``parametric management,'' which is an act of human participation in managing the ocean environment or any environment. However, people who work from a strictly conservation-based philosophy will be vigorously opposed to those kinds of actions.
Our view is that our coastal environment has been so badly compromised, we have to start doing things like artificial reefs because so much damage has been done by establishing by our coastal communities.
Senator Cook: Is it fair to say that the lead government agency on this would be the department of the environment as opposed to DFO or would they work in partnership?
Mr. Straith: Currently the lead agency is Environment Canada, but if you take a look at what we are trying to do in the long run, it makes no sense. It really should be DFO.
Senator Adams: I have heard witnesses tell us a horror stories about dumping bombs and so on from ships. Your story is a lot more positive.
You work with the people at Environment and DFO. There must be a lot of concerns relating to the sinking of such a big ship. You have to clean out the keels and the engines and make sure there are no chemical, oils or paints that can leach out. What kind of work is involved before you sink the ship?
Mr. Straith: I will give you an example. In the United States, if you will take a similar ship, like one of these destroyers, the U.S. government will pay you $1.2 million. They are trying to get rid of some of their old ships.
In Canada, we have had local communities buy it. That made sense because the Canadian navy was doing so much of the decommissioning themselves, and taking care of most of the bulk of the fuel oils and items that were environmentally dangerous. Generally, we found ourselves having to clean residual fuel from lines and the fuel tanks, but there was not a great amount of fuel to deal with.
We also found ways to take out the lube oil and re-sell it. The best way to describe these destroyers is that they are build like welterweight fighters. They are designed to take a lot of hits. Its guts are brass and bronze. We have been very efficient at recycling those. Members from the artificial reef society spoke at a recycling conference in Philadelphia a couple of years ago, and people were quite surprised to find how efficient we are at finding markets for wire.
We have an extensive program of cutting open hatches for diver safety on these ships. We do not just cut them open; we take them away because a lot of them end up being resold. A lot of creativity has gone into this. One of the reasons we have done so much work with groups in the United States in looking problems with their old ships, is because they do not have a creative element down there. However, they find that we are always coming up with rather innovative ways of solving their problems.
Senator Adams: You have been monitoring the ship that was sunk in 1997. Have there been any effects on the habitat?
Mr. Straith: There is no indication of any adverse effects from any of this. On the Saskatchewan, for example, we made a point of cleaning all the paint off certain sections of the ship to see the paint was actually retarding the marine growth on the ship. From what we have seen, we are quite satisfied that that is simply not happening.
We have taken samples of the sediment around some of the ships to see if there was any leaching of any contaminants off the ship. We have also done follow-ups with Environment Canada to take samples from bioaccumulators such as scallops that are growing on these ships, to see if anything was moving about inside the ship.
We are satisfied that we have got a handle on it. Revisions were made to the ship preparation guidelines that came out in August of 2001. They picked up on a couple of things about which we had concerns. We felt, out of abundance of caution, that we should head a few things off down the line.
The biggest issue related to PCBs on wire. There are serious concerns about PCBs on any navy ship that was either built or refitted between 1965 and 1978. Because of this concern, they are taking all the wire out of the ships that are available on the East Coast — the Gatineau and the Terra Nova.
Senator Adams: I recall one of our witnesses mentioned that at one time there were no regulations pertaining to the dumping of cargo in the sea. However, I think since 1970, there have been regulations that disallow such dumping.
Does your organization need a permit to sink these ships? Do you have to meet certain requirements? How do the regulations work now?
Mr. Straith: There was no Ocean Dumping Act prior to 1970. That year, the legislation was in enacted that mandated how this was done. Under current regulations, you must apply for an ocean disposal permit under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to sink a ship.
However, the form reflects ocean disposal; it does not reflect artificial reef creation. Therefore, when we select an area, we have to have it designated as a dump site..
When you show up in the Gulf Island and tell people you want to designate and area near their cottage community as a dump site, you do not exactly get many hearts and flowers. We have had some rather emotional issues raised in the Gulf Islands from time to time. We had one letter — which I still treasure — a gentleman on Gabriola Island who claimed if we sank the ship a mile north of his property, we would ruin his view. His vision is better than mine.
The problem is that because it is an ocean disposal regulation, Environment Canada refers the matter out to various government departments — particularly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — and we go through all the process with them. When you have a ship that is in rough shape and has been seized, it costs money to keep it on the surface — for insurance purposes, for moorage. We are suggesting that there should be an approved process — either statutory or through some government initiative — whereby if one wants to designate an area for an artificial reef, there would first be habitat studies, approval through DFO, work with DFO and with the coast guard in navigable waters to get the area approved before you even get your ship. Then, the final preparation and approval process would be done with Environment Canada. The process will be faster and the goal of ensuring that there is no environmental harm will be met.
Senator Phalen: How did you fund your start-up?
Mr. Straith: We paid for it out of our own pockets. The group of people that were involved in this had a great deal of determination to get this thing going. There was a fundraising drive in the diving community to get the G.B. Church done.
We were able to pay for the Chaudière out of the salvage. We used to call the Chaudière the ``HMCS Such A Deal,'' because everything from the propellers on that ship to the monel in the boilers, to the boiler tubes, to the wire in the ship all had value. It was a question finding where it was valued.
Senator Phalen: You mention that the charge for a dive is $100.
Mr. Straith: Average.
Senator Phalen: You said that on one ship this year you had 1,400 dives.
Mr. Straith: Yes.
Senator Phalen: Is that commercial or does that go back into the society?
Mr. Straith: No, that is a commercial operation. We decided that a good way to help finance this kind of thing would be to charge people for diving on the ships. A good example of that idea is at the John Pennekamp Marine Sanctuary in the State of Florida. Because it is a marine sanctuary, they are able to charge divers an annual fee of $20. You get a tag that you put on your regulator that allows you to dive on their artificial reefs and that is how they have paid for large projects down there.
Unfortunately, in Canada we do not have that regulation yet. We consider the open ocean as free territory and there is no statutory way we can actually regulate it.
Senator Phalen: You do not have any right on that ship after you sink it?
Mr. Straith: No. Under the Shipping Act, two years after that ship sinks, it is goes back to Her Majesty.
Senator Phalen: Does the temperature of the water have any effect on the growth of the region?
Mr. Straith: That is a very good question. When we first started, people were skeptical that artificial reefs would work in cold waters. It is not so much the temperature of the water; the nutrients in the water are key. In British Columbia, the waters are rich in nutrients and that is why these ships have done as well as they have.
Senator Phalen: Is there any difference between British Columbia and down in Lunenberg, Nova Scotia?
Mr. Straith: There is some difference.
Senator Phalen: Is it slower growth in Nova Scotia, in Lunenburg?
Mr. Straith: I do not think so. There was one fellow from Dalhousie University, who has been doing regular monitoring on the Saguenay and it is doing very well, biologically speaking.
Senator Phalen: In the areas around Nova Scotia where there are a lot of sunken ships, are you allowed to have these artificial reefs?
Mr. Straith: There is no reason why not. You have to find the right depth and check your 50-year storm data to make sure your artificial reef does not end up on your beach. You also have to find the right ship to put an artificial reef in that area.
Senator Hubley: I take it that the primary reason for sinking these vessels has been the recreational aspect?
Mr. Straith: That has been, but it does not necessarily mean it should end there from what we have seen.
Senator Hubley: What would be the other reasons?
Mr. Straith: I know Paul Watson from the Sea Shepherds Society has maintained that artificial reefs would make great ``sleeping policemen'' as far as stopping dredging or dragging operations are concerned. If you had an area where you were getting a lot of that activity, simply cleaning up and sinking a number of coastal freighters is going to be the best deterrence to unauthorized dragging operations. It can be done.
The State of Virginia has found a number of different ways of using artificial reefs. The Carolinas are using artificial reefs in a number of creative ways. It is a tool for our ocean stewardship. To date, the tool has been very well defined in the recreational sense. However, we ought to be exploring the more creative uses of it with respect to helping police a fishery or rebuilding certain stocks.
It has obvious potential, but we have not had the resources to start asking and answering those questions.
Senator Hubley: I would like to discuss the scientific evidence and the studies that you would have had to do. I get a little nervous when one project is in and then you have learned from that project — the PCBs was one incident.
How much scientific evidence would you have now gathered through all your of your projects toprovide assurance that it is being done in a safe and reasonable manner?
Mr. Straith: The follow-up stage with Environment Canada have been very good. I showed you a slide of one. They have been taking sediment samples with us to make sure that nothing was getting into the sediment. They have taken water quality samples to make sure nothing was happening. They have also taken tissue samples from animals that have grown up on those artificial reefs to make sure they are not different from those half a mile or a mile away. That data have been very well assembled and vetted from groups from agencies in Australia, California, and other jurisdictions. We are in good shape as far as that is concerned.
We have got good documentation on all ``defensive issues'' to make sure environmental harm is not being done. However, we do not have good documentation on the whole colonization process: how things are, why they are happening and how we can do them better. Ten years into this, I am disappointed that we do not have more of that but it has been a financial issue as much as anything.
Senator Hubley: Another level of government should probably get into those studies to answer a few of those questions that you have.
Mr. Straith: Yes. The Artificial Reef Society in British Columbia has done creative fund raising over the years. We are just trying to finish off some fundraising, which we hope will establish a pool of money to start talking to some students at University of British Columbia to find someone doing some post-graduate work on this. That would be an obvious way to start.
Diving on these ships is an expensive proposition. Ian Hall and his group at Ocean Explorers Diving in Nanaimo have advised the university that if they want to start a proper monitoring program, they will volunteer their boat so many days a month towards it.
It is worth looking at this over the long term, to see how we can do it better.
Senator Hubley: I get a message from you that it is more for a fisheries or an improvement to the fisheries.
Can I talk a little bit about the recreational aspect, like the numbers? I am not very familiar with diving. Do we dive all year round?
Mr. Straith: In British Columbia we can dive all year round. In particular, on Southern Vancouver Island the economy benefits from the dive operators going year round in Nanaimo.
This is result of how we have located the ships. We looked at the winter weather patterns when we located those ships. We have had a great deal of success in that area.
In Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, they do not dive year round. When we did the Saguenay project in 1994, the lobster fisherman were our largest opponents. They claimed it would be the end of lobster fishery off Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. By 1995, in the winter you could tell where the Saguenay was, even when they took the marine buoy off it, because you could see all the lobster traps, a big circle around where the ship had been. By 1997, the lobster fishermen were organizing the next artificial reef that was done out at Port Mouton, Nova Scotia. Now, the Saguenay is considered the best place to catch lobsters off Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, simply because the ship has become a big lobster hutch.
Senator Hubley: I am familiar with that. When they built the Confederation Bridge, we went through the same studies, which indicated it was probably around the basis of the structure that held up the bridge. The rock formation probably provided an advantage to the lobster fisherman in the long run. Now, we did lose some other things, but I guess we would have to feel we gained.
I have some difficulty in calling it an ``artificial'' reef because we are referring it to a fishery, where it is really a recreational and I do not know we do not call the sites by the name of the boat that is there, Saguenay site. We should have an idea of what exactly we are dealing with.
Mr. Straith: From time to time I have referred to them as DADs, Diver Attraction Devices, which is different from the traditional concept of artificial reefs that you get in some parts of the Gulf States. We have just taken it to a completely different level.
Senator Hubley: When I watched your videos and saw some of the underwater shots, I noticed that a lot more had gone down than I would have imagined. I would have thought that everything would have been absolutely cleaned off, but there were doors, hinges and guns.
Mr. Straith: You were very impressed with the ``guns.'' About two years ago, somebody from the U.S. navy looked at that and said that he did not realize that the Canadian navy was cruising around with five-inch guns.
This is actually sewer pipe, but it has impressed a lot of people over the years. The guns structure on the shell is there but their interior mechanisms are gone. There is nothing greasier and more hydraulic fluid than the automatic guns on these destroyers and those are very thoroughly dismantled. The biggest nightmare on that ship is dismantling the ammunition-handling system. I describe it as the ``pop machine'' that is inside for transferring ammunition.
Senator Mahovlich: Are there any locales to which an amateur diver can go and investigate some of these sinkings? Are they all experienced divers?
Mr. Straith: We design the ships with the anticipation that a complete cross-section of divers will come to them. In particular, the most advanced level of preparation is in the upper parts of the ship, so a fairly green diver can go down on the Saskatchewan.
Senator Mahovlich: I did some snorkelling in Australia. You had to be very careful because a lot of that stuff is very sharp down there.
Mr. Straith: The coral. We are very careful about that. We go through and assess it to try to take away any potential snag points. As Senator Hubley mentioned, we are always in a balancing act, because the more complex a structure you have down there, the better the animals like it.
It is like coral. Staghorn coral draws the little critters in. Where there are hatches with the wheels, there are all sorts of juvenile fish and hatchlings hiding in that structure. It is a careful balancing act of trying to mitigate the risk on the ship as much as possible but leave these little things that actually end up making very good habitat.
On the Saskatchewan, we started a system that we call the ``cookie cutters.'' We would cut numerous little holes in part of the super structure. We have found there are three-inch fish that live just around that because of the venturi effect of the current hitting that part of the ship. When predators come along, they simply move to the other side of the structure.
That is all anecdotal information that we have built up over the years. I find it frustrating; we do not have the hard science that I think we are going to need so that this kind of program can move.
Senator Mahovlich: I think it is a good idea to get the universities interested and have them do some studies. It would be a great idea.
Mr. Straith: If we were more in the black, the society would be able to show more initiative. I think that a government-societies-university partnership is the way it is going to have to go.
The Chairman: I was listening to your comments in respect of having only anecdotal evidence that the reefs are producing as they should. I can sense your frustration because there are no studies being done.
Yet, the concept of artificial reefs is nothing new. I remember back in 1987, I made a trip to Cuba with the then fisheries minister for Canada and met with the minister from Cuba. He was telling us of little structures called ``reef balls.'' These are cement structures — the fishermen build these things themselves — that are thrown out on the reefs or at sea. They make little homes for the lobsters. These guys go out when they want lobsters, they go out with a pole, they tap on the top of the reef ball and the lobsters come out; easy prey.
There is a lot of common sense. However, you cannot use common sense and anecdotal evidence to back up what you are trying to say.
Obviously, as your video showed us, within three or four years, the area is teeming with fish life that would otherwise not be there.
Mr. Straith: Correct. You are right; it is frustrating. At the CARAH Conference we saw papers presented from California, the Carolinas, and the Gulf States. There was also a presentation on some initial work that has been done on parts of the Mediterranean on artificial reefs. However, the coldwater people have just not turned up yet, despite the fact that one of the groups we are talking about is up off Scotland, and they know that areas where ships have been sunk, are incredibly productive for their fisheries. Some of their best fishing is off their old ships, but it has not been studied.
I do not know what the problem has been. We have similar waters in the southern part of Australia where some of the Hobart and the Perth have been sunk. The University of New South Wales is actively pursuing a very detailed study there that we hope will evolve and attract academic attention.
The Chairman: In respect of the question of places for fish to hide and to reproduces, as things currently stand, we have left very few places for fish to hide or reproduce because the draggers do ply those waters. I have heard of incidents where the draggers all line up in a highly productive area. One after the other, they scrap through the vicinity so that very little fish are left. Now, if there were a few obstructions — what Paul Watson calls ``sleeping policemen'' — it might be helpful in those areas to leave a few fish out there.
Mr. Straith: I agree, senator. One of our frustrations — which we have experienced on the HMCS MacKenzie artificial reef many times — is that an area can be literally covered with swimming scallops. In such cases, the octopus move in. However, unfortunately it is not a marine-protected area.
We have had dive boats tied up there and a commercial fisherman comes along and vacuums the swimming scallops off the ship and takes out the octopus. We are absolutely helpless to do anything to try to protect it and any scientific evidence we would have is completely out the window.
I feel very strongly that if we are going to be able to get fisheries to look at this thing properly, we should have these areas at least a limited closure within a hundred metres of an artificial reef for a minimum period of five years to allow proper studies to be done as to what is happening there. Unfortunately, we sink these — with the exception of one ship that is in a provincial marine park — it has set up a season for the commercial fishing industry. Therefore, a lot of our data is hopelessly skewed.
The Chairman: Some months ago we were studying the straddling stocks off the continental shelf of Newfoundland, the Grand Banks. At the time, one of the suggestions was the possibility of dumping old car carcasses, ships, airplanes and so on, in strategically placed areas of the Grand Banks to create artificial reef areas for fish habitat.
A number of people scoffed at such suggestions. Some called it dumping at sea. What would be your take on the possibility of protecting some areas of the Grand Banks?
Mr. Straith: I think it could be done. We have worked with one gentleman from the Virginia Artificial Reef Program who is not big on sinking rail cars or airplanes, simply because the steel in them is too light and it does not have the longevity. However, they use a lot of creative materials in regard to that. It has been very effective in reducing dragging off, in these areas off the Coast of Virginia.
I could put you in contact with people from that coast who have been involved in using these kind of things as part of a deterrent process to discourage people from doing dragging in certain locations. It has proven to be very effective. In one area off Louisiana they take great delight in the fact that they go down there every once in a while and find somebody has $200,000 worth of fish net hung up on a ship. They know it is more effective than any fine that the court do and the enforcement provision are relatively cheap once the ship is down.
The Chairman: We will certainly be taking you up on the offer for those contact names, definitely. How far offshore would these structures have been placed?
Mr. Straith: In the States of Virginia and Carolinas they are placed up to one hundred miles off shore.
The Chairman: When I first heard about the concept of placing obstructions in the Grand Banks, I recalled that one of the members of Parliament had said that it is too far and deep from the Grand Banks. Obviously if it is too deep the draggers will not drag there. We are looking for is those areas in which the draggers do drag.
I imagine the depth is not all that great where these reefs would be placed. Which leads me to the question, would these structures appear on navigation charts and such?
Mr. Straith: You would have to talk to the people at Navigable Waters and Hydrographic Service of Canada about that. It would be up to them, I think.
Senator Cook: Are your reefs on the B.C. coast charted?
Mr. Straith: Yes, we file with the coast guard as soon as they go down. In some instances, we actually have artificial reef buoys so they are clearly marked so there will not be any conflicts.
The Chairman: With respect to the structures that are placed off the Virginia coast, you have said that these are not necessarily vehicles or boats or ships or anything. You can use other structures?
Mr. Straith: It can be other structures. The State of New Jersey has gotten quite creative. The Japanese have a very advanced form of artificial reef, which looks like a virus, it has got so many different tongues to it. They actually have a foil that they anchor to the sea bottom that caused an up welling in an area, as part of their artificial reef program. There have been some hugely creative things done with artificial reefs that have just never even been thought of in Canada.
The Chairman: I want to thank Mr. Welsford for also being a guest this evening as well. My understanding is that Mr. Welsford is chair of the Lunenburg ACAP program. We had an opportunity last week to visit some ACAP sites in Atlantic Canada. They were most impressive. We were very pleased to see what you people are doing with very limited funds and still producing some marvellous work in Atlantic Canada.
I understand the same types of programs in conjunction with Environment Canada are taking place all over Canada. We look forward to seeing more of them.
The committee adjourned.