New video - Sweepstakes as tour boat passes over head

Video demonstrating the water currents along the edge of the Sweepstakes hot off the press! You'll need the sound up to hear when the tour boats pass over. Notice on the closest stake in the video the ribbons have different weights; bottom ribbon is heaviest. Most of the 'action' begins around the 6 minute mark.

Check it out:

https://youtu.be/fdmATfQivZ4?t=5m35s

GoPro video of the Sweepstakes as tour boats pass overhead

The tour boats pass over at the very start and end of this video. The currents from the second tour boat really heave the deck of the shipwreck! Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipzi2Su3dIw

Big Tub Harbour Citizen’s Committee

Parks Canda arranged mediated discussions between the concerned residents (namely the Big Tub Harbour Citizen's Committee) and the tour boat operators. These discussions resulted in only increased frustration with no progress towards a viable management plan to address concerns. The following was written by the Big Tub Harbour Citizen's Committee (with some minor edits by myself) following these discussions to convey their views and concludes with a proposed solution.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizen's Committee (BTHCC) is a committee that was formed in 2010 whose primary purpose is to represent the interests and concerns of the property owners located around Big Tub Harbour in Tobermory.

Concerns were raised by the BTHCC resulting from increasing numbers and size of tour boats entering the harbor during the summer months. The BTHCC understands that Tobermory and the surrounding area are heavily reliant on tourism and wants to encourage the industry, however they are concerned that the increasing number of tour boats are detrimentally impacting the natural and social environment, and degrading the shipwrecks.

In 1987 Parks Canada initiated the process to form Fathom Five National Park. During that process concern was expressed about the resulting impacts of increased tourism. Potential impacts identified included degradation of the natural environment and the loss of use and enjoyment of the waterfront due to increased boat traffic in Big Tub Harbour. Additionally, the BTHCC is concerned about traffic causing silting in the shallow waters at the end of the harbour. 

The Provincial-Federal agreement (negotiated when the Fathom Five National Park was established) guaranteed buffering from development and increased tourism would be taken into consideration. In late 1991 an operational plan for Big Tub Harbour was drafted and it reiterated to residents the rights to privacy. The shoreline residents were also promised ongoing monitoring of the harbour to ensure that the increasing use of the harbour by tour boats did not result in any environmental degradation. 

 The Parks Superintendent at that time was Mr. Bob Day who in the Parks Response to Public Comments-February 1991-was adamant that prop wash was an ongoing problem and this led to the environmental study that was conducted in 1993/1994. The 1991 Operational Plan also recognized that there were dangerous conflicts between the dive boat and tour boat operators and it set out separate hours of operation for these two stakeholders for that reason.

Unfortunately Parks Canada has deviated from its original discussions and the Big Tub Harbour residents are observing an increase in tour boat traffic. Currently there are over 1000 tour boat excursions per season, which is not a trivial impact. The BTHCC are concerned that their use and enjoyment of the waterfront is becoming increasingly diminished. Properties in the area are becoming much less desirable resulting in decrease in property values. Area residents who rent out their properties are finding it more difficult to rent during the tour boat season. The BTHCC members at the west end of the harbour have observed a noticeable increase in silting problems and are concerned that this is due to prop wash. 

Furthermore, the BTHCC feels that the concerns it raises are being trivialized to support the tour boat operators. The BTHCC members are concerned that tour boat operators are refusing to change their operating and scheduling procedures because it is not convenient for them. Environmental concerns are being dismissed while tour boat traffic increases and remains uncontrolled, with many of the tour boat excursions entering the harbour at less than 50% capacity.

Unfortunately, the disconnect between the BTHCC, tour boat operators and Parks Canada is leading to increasing anger and frustration. Maintaining the status quo or worse, increasing the number of sparsely occupied boat seats coming in to the harbour is not a viable solution, nor does it protect the
environment for future generations. 

The BTHCC recommends that Parks Canada charge a fee of $10 for every boat seat per trip. This would result in tour boats being filled closer to capacity and may result in a reduction in the number of boat trips. It would generate revenue for Parks Canada to conduct the environmental investigations necessary to determine what measures are required to protect Big
Tub Harbour. The BTHCC will consider any solution that takes their concerns into account.

Research on scouring around the Sweepstakes

In my last post I finished off by stating that the fact that there is an environmental concern in the west end of Big Tub Harbour has been established. The question that remains is “what is causing the damage?”. This post will dig into the existing research that exists to address that question.

Twenty years ago, the tour boats operating in Big Tub Harbour included the True North II, the Seaview III, and the Blue Heron V (shown below).

                                                     

Now, the True North II and the Seaview III are gone. The Blue Heron V remains, and in addition the Blue Heron Zodiacs, Bruce Anchor Zodiacs, and Great Blue Heron (shown below). All jet drive boats which allow them to have the benefit of shallow hulls and powerful engines.

    

Ok, I'll stop distracting you with pretty pictures and get to the point. Twenty years ago, is when the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) completed the report entitled “Water Movements at the West End of Big Tub Harbor, Ontario:  What is Causing the Scouring of Sediments in the Vicinity of the Wreck of the Sweepstakes?”. It is this report that is repeatedly referenced and cited in support of the current tour boat operations when environmental concerns are voiced.

I am sure it is apparent from the start of this post that I suspect that the conditions twenty years ago, when the study was conducted, are greatly different from the conditions today. Further, if we delve into the report there are additional causes for skepticism that this report is at all relevant to the current discussions.

First, a quick summary of the report; Parks Canada identified scouring of sediment around the shipwreck of the Sweepstakes in Big Tub Harbour and because this wreck is of economic importance as a tourist attraction they engaged NWRI to study the cause of the scouring which was felt to be hastening disintegration of the wreck. Water currents and sediment were measured in the vicinity of the Sweepstakes over the summer and fall of 1993 and 1994. The study found that "tour boat propeller wash can produce transient currents capable of stirring up bottom sediments but only if the boat is handled aggressively using full-power bursts of thrusts" the study further concluded that "the surf beat phenomenon seems the most likely source of erosional energy".

The study's conclusions were with regard to stern-drive tour boat propeller wash . There is no reference to the impacts of jet-drive tour boats (because none were operating at the time the study was conducted) which comprise the majority of those operating today.

The definition and impact of 'aggressive full-power bursts' was determined based on a single-event experiment with the Blue Heron V in which the tour boat operator was to mimic 'normal' and 'aggressive' operations. The influence of the tour boat operators potential bias towards the study outcome was not considered.

The correlation of surface effects to the sediment was based on weather data from Wiarton; a town about 80 km south. While the study concluded that water movement associated with surface waves seemed to be the main agents for sediment movement, the confidence in the findings appears to be weak. Additionally, the study also recognized that boat traffic was capable of stirring up sediment.

A simple study was completed by Ralph Suke on July 29, 2014 that demonstrated the jet wash from tour boats could generate enough current in the deep area adjacent to the Sweepstakes to move objects placed on the bottom.  The objects chosen were a pot brush and soup ladle sank gently to the bottom when released. The objects moved in a predictable pattern when large tour boats passed over. Photographs were taken (see below).

It is important to note that these findings occurred only for tour boats with jet drives. The largest of the new Bruce Anchor propeller driven boats, which produce a much smaller wake, did not move the same objects on the same day.  

Before

After 

Note the brush and the pink plastic pieces displaced away from the wreck with the brush handle turned away from the wreck, indicating that jet wash is being deflected down the side of the wreck and out. This is consistent with the silt patterns being seen.

After shot taken from a different angle

The NWRI study is being used as evidence by the current tour boat operators to argue that scouring of sediment around the Sweepstakes is not caused by their operations. However, as discussed in this post, that argument is weak at best. The study is out of date, was completed under conditions that no longer exist, and needs to be updated by an independent third party. We need to determine what actions are conclusively causing the scouring so these effects can be mitigated. Without a clear cause it is impossible to mitigate the effects. Simply continuing on with a disregard for the impacts of our actions (or inaction as the case may be) is irresponsible and negligent.  

Is there an environmental problem in Big Tub Harbour?

This is taken from the "Big Tub Working Group, Environmental Considerations, November 2014" report prepared on this issue (not work I can take credit for). A large amount of the observations were made by Ralph Suke.

Aerial photographs show a white ring around the Sweepstakes that represents a dead zone of silt that has been shifting (see photo from my last post). This phenomenon is not occurring around other wrecks and is not seen in aerial photographs taken before 1970 which is when boat traffic in this area began to increase in both number and size.

There is also a bank of gravelly, sandy deposit about 5 feet out from the port side of the wreck that is now heaped up about 1 foot high. This deposit has had the silt component “winnowed away” by the scouring current.

An NWRI Study describing Parks Canada monitoring from 1994 to 1998 describes measurements of silt depths taken by sinking calibrated stakes into the lake bottom around the wreck. These measurements indicated that silt was accumulating on the west side and being lost on the east side [of the shipwreck]. My own measurements indicate that the differential between silt depth on the east side of the Sweepstakes compared to the west side of the Sweepstakes has increased by 2.5 feet in the last 2 years alone (from 2012 to 2014). One can now reach right under the hull of the wreck into a shallow cave that has been scoured out under the ship. The structural integrity of the Sweepstakes is clearly in jeopardy.

The following are observations of the problem from the early 1990s:

“The historic vessels…which as a result of many factors continue to deteriorate in a much more rapid manner than would normally occur in nature”- Superintendent of FFNMP Mr. Bob Day in the 1991 Big Tub Operational Policy document.

“Bottom sediments immediately adjacent to the wreck have been scoured away leaving a depression of the order of a meter in depth”- NWRI study of 93/94

“Fine sediments are being selectively eroded on the east side (of the Sweepstakes) and settling out on the other side.”- NWRI STUDY of 93/94

The fact that there is an environmental concern in the west end of Big Tub Harbour is established by these observations. The question that remains is “what is causing the damage?”

Plans and Policies to Protect... But actions speak louder than words

The Great Blue Heron over the shipwrecks in Big Tub Harbour (image from http://www.lacamomille.com/videopage/on/ZlwkbMMFSSM.html)

So these shipwrecks are at the end of Big Tub Harbour (part of Fathom Five National Marine Park). And as such, the tour boats (as shown above) drive down the harbour, spin in circles over the shipwrecks providing views for the tourist(s) on board and then leave the same way they came in resulting in a steady stream of boat traffic along the same pathway and spinning circles in the same location all summer. Concerns have been raised regarding the large jet-drive boats and the sediment that is stirred up by these actions. What are the environmental impact of these activities? Shouldn't Parks Canada be working to find out?

Parks Canada states that "By law, they [national parks] are protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained in an unimpaired state for future generations." So from this, one would assume that in a National Park such as Fathom Five, Parks Canada is ensuring that the tourism industry is not 'impairing the state' of the environment.

Further, in the Parks Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Policy (Section 2.0 Management Planning),  Parks Canada goes further to say that “maintaining the structure and function of marine ecosystems will be the first priority when considering zoning and management…”. However, there is essentially no management of the tour boat traffic in Big Tub Harbour, other than restricted use on Sunday mornings to allow for divers to view the shipwrecks. But none out of regard for the structure an function of marine ecosystems in a high-traffic area.

Under the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act there is an interesting statement that reads: "Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to adopting the precautionary principle in the conservation and management of the marine environment so that, where there are threats of environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing preventive measures.”. Essentially, ignorance is not bliss. Is a high volume of boat traffic in and out of the harbour and over the shipwrecks not a threat to environmental damage?

It would appear, that Parks Canada has the support of federal law to manage the activities in the national park in order to protect the marine environment. In order to adequately manage and mitigate impacts, it is imperative to first understand the potential impacts. So why have the tour boats been able to operate, business as usual, with no management from Parks Canada?

These are questions that were asked by the residents of Big Tub Harbour. The response they eventually received after being brushed off numerous times, will be detailed in later blog posts.

Introduction

I was born and raised in Tobermory, Ontario, a small town on the tip of the Bruce Peninsula. Our house on Big Tub Harbour was a beautiful setting and off our dock were two shipwrecks; the City of Grand Rapids and the Sweepstakes. A very cool part about Tobermory is that it is surrounded by not one, but two, national parks. Bruce Peninsula National Park covers much of the land and Fathom Five National Marine Park protecting the water and islands.

Now, growing up in a tourist town you learn that sharing your incredible back yard with others is just part of the deal and I learned to embrace the enthusiasm of visitors and enjoyed the company. Tour boats would come in and out of Big Tub Harbour on a regular basis, dive boats on Sunday morning, and as the industry grew we eventually saw kayaks and then more and more tour boats. It seems everyone is keen to glimpse the sunken ships at the end of the harbour.

And so it began. Slowly, it crept upon the residents of Big Tub Harbour. The boat traffic grew from a background activity to a parade of boats. The boats grew in size and in frequency and the residents of Big Tub Harbour became concerned.

Through this blog, I hope to share the concerns raised in regard to the uncontrolled boat traffic in Big Tub Harbour (part of Fathom Five National Marine Park) and the events that unfolded.