July 23, 2008
Mr. Robert Brudnicki, Publisher
Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
Subject: Letters to the Editor - Underwater Oasis misinformation
Dear Mr. Brudnicki:
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine's July 2008 State of the Gulf of Mexico issue very convincingly conveys the beauty, value, and natural wonders of the Gulf of Mexico. It also documents that the Gulf is one20of Texas's most under appreciated treasures. Unfortunately, the issue’s Underwater Oasis rewrites portions of Texas’s offshore history. Significantly rewritten.
I have absolutely no expectation that any portion of this letter will appear in any future issue’s Letters to the Editor. Nor that any current procedures of TPWD that caused the under appreciation of the Gulf’s treasures or the rewrite of history will be voluntarily altered in the future. However, I would hope that someone at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine would identify, as a matter of professional pride, any of the “corrections” I make below as being incorrect and so inform me.
The real purpose and intent of this letter is to identify some of these historical rewrites in hopes that the Gulf's future will be better than it’s past. Specifically, I hope that some of the other recipients of this letter will use their position to convince Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to comply with appropriate law. Texas’ offshore is too valuable to be ignored and mismanaged any longer.
Underwater Oasis and Dr. Larry McKinney’s The State of the Gulf of Mexico give the strong impression that TPWD has always been a leader in enhancing the Gulf's environment and fisheries. The facts show just the opposite. TWPD has a long and substantial history of shortchanging offshore fishers and divers, ignoring laws, and opposing Rigs to Reefs, Ships To Reefs, and Causeway Conversions. Despite the boastfulness of TPWD, Texas maintains its strong contention of being the worst of all coastal states in protecting, restoring, and enhancing their offshore habitats and fisheries.
In Underwater Oasis, TWPD takes credit for converting about 16 vessels and 100 platforms into artificial reefs since 1989. Twelve of these 16 vessels are the Liberty Ships that TPWD refused to accept when first offered by MARAD in the early 70's. Fortunately, the Texas Coastal and Marine Council saw the merits of the offer, accepted them, and converted these vessels into Texas’ first permitted artificial reefs. When the Council was sunsetted, TPWD reluctantly accepted the five Liberty Reefs containing the 12 vessels.
Dr. Larry McKinney states in his The State of the Gulf of Mexico article: "More than 45 percent of all saltwater anglers fish in gulf waters. Texas and Florida dominate all statistical categories of saltwater fishing, and each year anglers generate billions of dollars in economic benefits for their states." Sounds like Texas and Florida are equals. In contrast to TPWD’s 100 converted platforms and 16 vessels, Florida has created about 2300 artificial reefs including 240 converted vessels, 400 tanks, and airplanes. Florida adds about 100 artificial reefs eac h year. Florida's reefs generate about $11,000,000,000 in economic activity each year.
The article Fishing for Dollars focuses on Texas’ commercial and recreational fishing activity and their economic impact. The estimated dockside value of the 2006 landings of 41.6 million pounds of shrimp is placed at $100 million. Using the economic multiplier of 3, this direct impact was increased to $300 million. No value was placed upon the 31.5 million pounds of menhaden caught offshore Texas, probably because they were processed in Cameron, Louisiana. The value of commercial finfish landed in Texas in 2006 was placed at $11 million. “The economic impact of recreational saltwater fishing in Texas was $1.8 billion last year, according to the American Sportfishing Association.“ Clearly, the $11 billion generated offshore Florida is in a different league than the $2 billions generated offshore Texas. If Florida and Texas "dominate all statistical categories of saltwater fishing, the unasked and unanswered question is: Why the 5 fold economic difference between the two states?
When Alabama initiated their artificial reef program, they had little or no offshore fishing activity. This was because most of their offshore environment was similar to Texas‘s - described by McKinney as “...nothing but a big, flat mud plain.“ Now, Alabama’s A-reefs generate some 40% of the annual rec reational red snapper catch in the Gulf. Their reefs generate some $40 -$60 million each year in economic activity. By comparison, the recreational catch of red snapper taken offshore along the entire Texas coastline is only 6%. Most of this snapper catch comes from around platforms that are still producing and not from TPWD’s artificial reefs.
Contrary to Dale Shively's claim in Underwater Oasis that "the Rigs to Reefs concept came together in 1989, when TPWD began working on an Artificial Reef Plan", the concept actually originated in 1971. It occurred during the first descent on a platform by three divers. I know because I was one of the three divers. The first conversion occurred in 1979 when Exxon donated a submerged production system unit to Florida in 1979 offshore Pensacola. The concept became formalized in 1984 when then Representative John Breaux introduced a bill that led to the National Fishing Enhancement Act. Two years later, Louisiana followed with its version, the Louisiana Fishing Enhancement Act. Shortly thereafter, Louisiana made its’ first two Rigs to Reefs conversions. These conversions occurred when two Exxon platforms located in the High Island area offshore Texas were removed and towed over to Louisiana. These platforms left Texas waters because TPWD refused to accept them and convert them.
The departure of these two Exxon/Texas platforms, along wit h Exxon’s accompanying monetary contributions, were among the many reasons then Senator Buster Brown and Representatives Ed Wiley and Eddie Lucio wrote the first draft of the Texas Fishing Enhancement Act in 1986. Of the approximately 1000 Presidents, Governors, Senators, Representatives, trade associations, environmental organizations, fishing organizations, fishers, divers, environmentalists, etc., involved in the creation, commenting, and approval of the Federal, Louisiana, and Texas Fishing Enhancement Acts, there was only one entity that totally opposed these bills promoting habitat enhancement. This entity opposed the proposed legislation not once, but twice. This entity was TPWD. TPWD twice testified against the proposed Texas legislation claiming something to the effect that artificial reefs only "...concentrate fish and make them more vulnerable to angling pressure." After the Texas legislation was enacted into law, TPWD’s total opposition to artificial reefs morphed into a strategy of “Kill it with faint praise”. Now, in Underwater Oasis, McKinney says, "Artificial reefs are not just attracting, but also growing fish -- lots of fish." Now that the benefits of enhancing the marine environment are becoming more and more evident, the current issue of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine makes it appear that TPWD has totally reversed its position and deserves full credit for accomplishments they have opposed for 20 years.
Dale Shively also states in Underwater Oasis, "Once the program was in place we began accepting platforms. We put the first one down back in 1994." This statement is, among other things, in stark conflict with the data presented by Janet Edwards in her Rigs to Reefs article in the May 1992 issue of Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine. In January 1990, Transco's High Island 492 became Texas' first Rigs to Reefs conversion. This, despite considerable TPWD opposition. I know about this opposition because I was retained to convert it. By 1994, approximately 17 artificial reefs had been created.
In Underwater Oasis, TPWD takes pride about converting 100 Rigs to Reefs over the last 19 years (about 4 per year). Besides comparing to other state’s accomplishments with various reef materials, TPWD's rig conversions should be measured against potential conversions. About a third of the Gulf's fairly stable population of approximately 4000 platforms in the OCS is offshore Texas. Approximately 100 platforms are removed each year and another 100 platforms installed. Thus, about 630 platforms have been removed from the Federal OCS offshore Texas and some additional platforms from Texas’s territorial waters. Thus, TPWD's batting average in converting redundant platforms is about 160. A conversion rate of 160 in a win- win situation is nothing to take pride in. Even Florida, which still won’t allow any active platforms within 50 miles of their coast, conver ted three petroleum structures into reefs before 1986. They now have a total of 5. There are 10 platforms offshore California that can’t be removed for fear of destroying habitat.
TPWD does lead all other states in one regard. This is the number of employees involved in the program and their associated employment costs. Florida has 1 full time and 2 part time workers. Louisiana’s single employee has accomplished two or three that of Texas’s five workers. Why is TPWD so unproductive and so expensive?
For several years, TPWD has acknowledged the conclusion reached by other Gulf states that each cubic yard of artificial reef material placed offshore generates some $41 per year for the local communities and state for each year of the reef's existence. Despite the very significant potential economic benefits to Texas’ coastal and state economies, TPWD repeatedly prevented portions of the Baytown Tunnel, a segment of the Pt. Isabel Causeway, and both the entire 8000 foot long North and 8000 foot long South I-45 Galveston Causeways to be converted into reefs. The recovered Humble Bridge has been sitting shore side near Corpus for about 8 years awaiting deployment and conversion.
TPWD has given both “scientific” and “economic” reasons to prevent these conversions. TPWD opposed converting segments of the=2 0Baytown Tunnel claiming that 100’ foot waves created in 100’ water depths during hurricanes would cause the Tunnel segments, despite their low center of gravity due to the roadbed, to roll to shore and cause considerable damage. They also expressed fears that the barges carrying the Tunnel segments were unreliable, that portions of the Tunnel would roll off the barges, and the Houston Ship Channel would be blocked for days. The fact that decades earlier the same Tunnel segments were created in the Golden Triangle area and then barged to Baytown using most of the same waterways was irrelevant to TPWD.
TPWD's persistent demands on processing of Galveston Causeway rubble essentially caused the voiding of the contract Texas Department of Transportation had with the contractor to create rubble reefs. TPWD insisted that all causeway rubble had to transported to shore, 2000 pound and heavier rubble segments sorted out, and then the top 5 inches of roadbed of the greater than 2000 pound segments be removed. Only then could the individual rubble blocks be barged offshore and methodically placed into structures. TPWD claimed that all concrete rubble weighing less than 2000 pounds each would be susceptible to currents, would migrate outside of the permitted reef area, and interfere with shrimping and other ocean activities. They also insisted that the top 5” of old roadbed be removed to prevent weathered motor oil drippings from polluting the20Gulf. They expressed no concern of fresh motor oil drippings running into constrained portions of Galveston Bay after each rain while the Causeways were in use. Despite earlier contractual prohibitions that prevented the use of explosives and resultant in place deposition of rubble, TPWD then allowed repeated use of explosives with no requirement to recover rubble.
As another method to prevent conversions, TPWD focused only on costs. They refused to address the resulting economic benefits to Texas of habitat enhancement. The Department always claimed that they had no funds available for conversions. These claims of lack of funds were made despite the availability of funds from at least two sources. The Artificial Reef Fund, created by the Texas Fishing Enhancement Act, has received some $13,000,000 from the donations of the oil companies participating in Rigs to Reef conversions. These funds, as specified in Parks and Wildlife Code 89.042, “...are dedicated to the department for the purpose of carrying out this chapter, including the siting, designing, construction, monitoring, and otherwise managing an artificial reef or artificial reef system.” While millions from this Fund have been expended, there is very little to show in results. Realistically, how much does one need to spend to monitor or manage a sunken ship or converted platform? Also, why does TPWD insist on keeping very expensive lighted buoys on certain reefs long after the Coast Guard has identified them on their navigation charts? Especially after the CG has repeatedly informed TPWD that no bouy, lighted or not, is needed. What have these expended funds accomplished other than that of financing five workers benefits?
TPWD has also ignored the intent and mandates of the Federal Sports Fish Restoration Act (SPRA). For over 60 years, the Act’s basic tenet has been "user pay/user benefit". These funds are reimbursements of taxes, including motor fuel taxes, paid by fishers and divers. Supposedly they are held in trust by TPWD. The funds are to be distributed to states for up to 80% compensation of projects previously approved by the Department of Interior. TPWD has received over $250,000,000,000 since the Act’s enactment. TPWD has expended very little, if anything, on any projects that restore, enhance, or improve habitats or fisheries in the Gulf. Despite repeated FOIA requests, they have refused to provide detailed data on both grant applications and the actual expenditures of these funds. As have the Albuquerque Regional Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service which distributes these funds to TPWD and other southwestern states. As have the Department of Interior in Washington DC. After four FOIA requests seeking information on TPWD’s SFRA expenditures in the Gulf, the final response was that no documents exist of any kind for any year at either the Texas or Federal level.20This response was bewildering since the Act requires applications for project grants, annual state audits, and biannual Federal audits of approved grants. Why is TPWD exempt from these requirements? Where is the transparency in Government?
If TPWD has never spent any SFRA funds from the beach seaward, where did the user pay/user benefit apportionment of this quarter of a billion dollars go? What was accomplished with this portion of these funds? What benefits have the Gulf fishers and divers ever obtained from the taxes they have paid over the last 60 years?
Questions like this were evidently asked of TPWD during the last Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. Apparently not fully satisfied with TPWD's responses, the Commission specifically directed the Department to enhance the marine environment offshore Texas by creating artificial reefs. The current Commission, reviewing TPWD some 6 years earlier than normal, will decide whether converting the Clipper satisfies their earlier directives and those added by the Legislature.
As noted above, Dr. McKinney claims "More than 45 percent of all saltwater anglers fish in gulf waters.” If he is correct, it is obvious that some of the SFRA funds should have been expended on Gulf projects to benefit these anglers. TPWD claims that 30% of SFRA funds are devoted to saltwater fishermen (bay and marine) since 30% of all fishing licenses sold are salt- water licenses. In making this allocation, TPWD is incorrectly concluding that expenditures by fresh water fishers and salt-water fishers are equal. Or that the fresh water fisher with a jon boat spends as much in motor fuel taxes as the fisher going offshore to the Flower Gardens. TPWD also totally disregards the taxes paid by Texas divers. The significance of omitting diver’s contributions could be substantial since more SCUBA divers are registered in Texas than any other state Clearly, more than $2,000,000 (45% * 30% * $15 M) should be invested from the beach outward annually. Why does TPWD misappropriate SFRA funds? Despite the absolute importance of SFRA to Texas, there is absolutely no mention of it in the entire July issue of Texas Parks and Wildlife magazine. Do you agree that an article about SFRA in a future issue of the TPWD magazine would be most appropriate?
Unfortunately, Underwater Oasis also gives strong hints that TPWD’s past questionable activities (or non activities) will continue in the future. More specifically, this article indicates that the Texas Clipper will be the last Ships to Reefs off Texas. After describing the inept sinking of the Texas Clipper, (which was delayed the greater part of 12 years by TPWD’s anchor dragging), Shively states “Future sinkings of this sort will hinge largely on public contributions, monies garnered from sport fishing, diving and other user groups.” &nb sp; It does not appear he is referring to SFRA funds. He adds that the public needs to assist “... us with reefing materials to progressively enhance these locations...” Shively fails to point out that to participate in near shore reefing projects, reef materials offered by the public must first be stored, then pass TPWD’s strict approval criteria, have an ID placed on each reef item accepted by TPWD, and then provide a donation of $25 for each reef item accepted.
These conditions should severely limit contributions. If a person wanted to enhance a favorite "fishing hole" with 100 cinder or concrete blocks, he would have to give the Department $2500 before he could take the cement blocks offshore. This is assuming the Department will not disapprove these cement blocks as appropriate reef material since they weigh less than 2000 pounds each. Remember, TPWD refused causeway rubble less than 2000 pounds each on fears that currents would cause them to drift out of the permitted area. Most potential reef material donors will understand that TPWD’s near shore reefing program is merely another Kill it with faint praise tactic. The Department’s near shore reefing program is really double taxation on fishers and divers without representation.
Lastly, there was no mention anywhere in this issue of the magazine of the Texas Artificial Reef Advisory Committee. Without its Chairman, Jim20Morrison or its dedicated members, it is highly doubtful that Texas would now have any more artificial reefs than the 12 Liberty ships created by the Texas Coastal and Marine Council almost 35 years ago. While the Council’s accomplishments of preserving 100 reefs may be small in comparison to other states‘ reef preservations, creations and enhancements, these same reefs mean everything for their preserved marine life including 10,000 to 30,000 fish per platform. Like the SFRA and the findings of the two Sunset Advisory Commission, the accomplishments of the Advisory Committee would be a most interesting article in a future issue.
Again, this issue did a wonderful job in sharing some of the Gulf’s beauty, value, and wonders with its many readers. However, these attributes existed long before TPWD took credit for them. Hopefully, the recipients of this letter will do something to ensure that in the future these Gulf's attributes are better protected, restored, and enhanced. One of the simplest ways to accomplish this objective is to have the TPWD simply comply with the mandates of the Sports Fish Restoration Act and the Texas Fishing Enhancement Act. I further believe that any recipient of this letter can initiate these improvements merely by requiring the TPWD to provide detailed and accurate data as to where and how the past SFRA and TFEA funds have gone, what these expenditures have accomplished, and their current SFRA grant applications.
The Gulf and its resources should receive its due.
Yours truly,
Dana Larson
182 Lilac Ridge
The Woodlands, TX 77384
936-273-084
rigs2reefs@aol.com
Governor Rick Perry
Sunset Advisory Commissioners
Sunset Advisory Commission members
Senate Natural Resources Committee
The Honorable Eddie Lucio
The Honorable Robert Nichols
The Honorable Carter Smith
Ms. Denise S. Francis, States Grants
Mr. Shannon Tompkins, Houston Chronicle
Mr. Jim Morrison, Chairman TARAC
Mr. Irby Basco, TARAC
Ms. Sharron Stewart, TARAC
Mr. George Clark, Gulf Coast Diving
Other concerned Texas citizens
Mr. Robert Brudnicki, Publisher
Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
Subject: Letters to the Editor - Underwater Oasis misinformation
Dear Mr. Brudnicki:
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine's July 2008 State of the Gulf of Mexico issue very convincingly conveys the beauty, value, and natural wonders of the Gulf of Mexico. It also documents that the Gulf is one20of Texas's most under appreciated treasures. Unfortunately, the issue’s Underwater Oasis rewrites portions of Texas’s offshore history. Significantly rewritten.
I have absolutely no expectation that any portion of this letter will appear in any future issue’s Letters to the Editor. Nor that any current procedures of TPWD that caused the under appreciation of the Gulf’s treasures or the rewrite of history will be voluntarily altered in the future. However, I would hope that someone at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine would identify, as a matter of professional pride, any of the “corrections” I make below as being incorrect and so inform me.
The real purpose and intent of this letter is to identify some of these historical rewrites in hopes that the Gulf's future will be better than it’s past. Specifically, I hope that some of the other recipients of this letter will use their position to convince Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to comply with appropriate law. Texas’ offshore is too valuable to be ignored and mismanaged any longer.
Underwater Oasis and Dr. Larry McKinney’s The State of the Gulf of Mexico give the strong impression that TPWD has always been a leader in enhancing the Gulf's environment and fisheries. The facts show just the opposite. TWPD has a long and substantial history of shortchanging offshore fishers and divers, ignoring laws, and opposing Rigs to Reefs, Ships To Reefs, and Causeway Conversions. Despite the boastfulness of TPWD, Texas maintains its strong contention of being the worst of all coastal states in protecting, restoring, and enhancing their offshore habitats and fisheries.
In Underwater Oasis, TWPD takes credit for converting about 16 vessels and 100 platforms into artificial reefs since 1989. Twelve of these 16 vessels are the Liberty Ships that TPWD refused to accept when first offered by MARAD in the early 70's. Fortunately, the Texas Coastal and Marine Council saw the merits of the offer, accepted them, and converted these vessels into Texas’ first permitted artificial reefs. When the Council was sunsetted, TPWD reluctantly accepted the five Liberty Reefs containing the 12 vessels.
Dr. Larry McKinney states in his The State of the Gulf of Mexico article: "More than 45 percent of all saltwater anglers fish in gulf waters. Texas and Florida dominate all statistical categories of saltwater fishing, and each year anglers generate billions of dollars in economic benefits for their states." Sounds like Texas and Florida are equals. In contrast to TPWD’s 100 converted platforms and 16 vessels, Florida has created about 2300 artificial reefs including 240 converted vessels, 400 tanks, and airplanes. Florida adds about 100 artificial reefs eac h year. Florida's reefs generate about $11,000,000,000 in economic activity each year.
The article Fishing for Dollars focuses on Texas’ commercial and recreational fishing activity and their economic impact. The estimated dockside value of the 2006 landings of 41.6 million pounds of shrimp is placed at $100 million. Using the economic multiplier of 3, this direct impact was increased to $300 million. No value was placed upon the 31.5 million pounds of menhaden caught offshore Texas, probably because they were processed in Cameron, Louisiana. The value of commercial finfish landed in Texas in 2006 was placed at $11 million. “The economic impact of recreational saltwater fishing in Texas was $1.8 billion last year, according to the American Sportfishing Association.“ Clearly, the $11 billion generated offshore Florida is in a different league than the $2 billions generated offshore Texas. If Florida and Texas "dominate all statistical categories of saltwater fishing, the unasked and unanswered question is: Why the 5 fold economic difference between the two states?
When Alabama initiated their artificial reef program, they had little or no offshore fishing activity. This was because most of their offshore environment was similar to Texas‘s - described by McKinney as “...nothing but a big, flat mud plain.“ Now, Alabama’s A-reefs generate some 40% of the annual rec reational red snapper catch in the Gulf. Their reefs generate some $40 -$60 million each year in economic activity. By comparison, the recreational catch of red snapper taken offshore along the entire Texas coastline is only 6%. Most of this snapper catch comes from around platforms that are still producing and not from TPWD’s artificial reefs.
Contrary to Dale Shively's claim in Underwater Oasis that "the Rigs to Reefs concept came together in 1989, when TPWD began working on an Artificial Reef Plan", the concept actually originated in 1971. It occurred during the first descent on a platform by three divers. I know because I was one of the three divers. The first conversion occurred in 1979 when Exxon donated a submerged production system unit to Florida in 1979 offshore Pensacola. The concept became formalized in 1984 when then Representative John Breaux introduced a bill that led to the National Fishing Enhancement Act. Two years later, Louisiana followed with its version, the Louisiana Fishing Enhancement Act. Shortly thereafter, Louisiana made its’ first two Rigs to Reefs conversions. These conversions occurred when two Exxon platforms located in the High Island area offshore Texas were removed and towed over to Louisiana. These platforms left Texas waters because TPWD refused to accept them and convert them.
The departure of these two Exxon/Texas platforms, along wit h Exxon’s accompanying monetary contributions, were among the many reasons then Senator Buster Brown and Representatives Ed Wiley and Eddie Lucio wrote the first draft of the Texas Fishing Enhancement Act in 1986. Of the approximately 1000 Presidents, Governors, Senators, Representatives, trade associations, environmental organizations, fishing organizations, fishers, divers, environmentalists, etc., involved in the creation, commenting, and approval of the Federal, Louisiana, and Texas Fishing Enhancement Acts, there was only one entity that totally opposed these bills promoting habitat enhancement. This entity opposed the proposed legislation not once, but twice. This entity was TPWD. TPWD twice testified against the proposed Texas legislation claiming something to the effect that artificial reefs only "...concentrate fish and make them more vulnerable to angling pressure." After the Texas legislation was enacted into law, TPWD’s total opposition to artificial reefs morphed into a strategy of “Kill it with faint praise”. Now, in Underwater Oasis, McKinney says, "Artificial reefs are not just attracting, but also growing fish -- lots of fish." Now that the benefits of enhancing the marine environment are becoming more and more evident, the current issue of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine makes it appear that TPWD has totally reversed its position and deserves full credit for accomplishments they have opposed for 20 years.
Dale Shively also states in Underwater Oasis, "Once the program was in place we began accepting platforms. We put the first one down back in 1994." This statement is, among other things, in stark conflict with the data presented by Janet Edwards in her Rigs to Reefs article in the May 1992 issue of Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine. In January 1990, Transco's High Island 492 became Texas' first Rigs to Reefs conversion. This, despite considerable TPWD opposition. I know about this opposition because I was retained to convert it. By 1994, approximately 17 artificial reefs had been created.
In Underwater Oasis, TPWD takes pride about converting 100 Rigs to Reefs over the last 19 years (about 4 per year). Besides comparing to other state’s accomplishments with various reef materials, TPWD's rig conversions should be measured against potential conversions. About a third of the Gulf's fairly stable population of approximately 4000 platforms in the OCS is offshore Texas. Approximately 100 platforms are removed each year and another 100 platforms installed. Thus, about 630 platforms have been removed from the Federal OCS offshore Texas and some additional platforms from Texas’s territorial waters. Thus, TPWD's batting average in converting redundant platforms is about 160. A conversion rate of 160 in a win- win situation is nothing to take pride in. Even Florida, which still won’t allow any active platforms within 50 miles of their coast, conver ted three petroleum structures into reefs before 1986. They now have a total of 5. There are 10 platforms offshore California that can’t be removed for fear of destroying habitat.
TPWD does lead all other states in one regard. This is the number of employees involved in the program and their associated employment costs. Florida has 1 full time and 2 part time workers. Louisiana’s single employee has accomplished two or three that of Texas’s five workers. Why is TPWD so unproductive and so expensive?
For several years, TPWD has acknowledged the conclusion reached by other Gulf states that each cubic yard of artificial reef material placed offshore generates some $41 per year for the local communities and state for each year of the reef's existence. Despite the very significant potential economic benefits to Texas’ coastal and state economies, TPWD repeatedly prevented portions of the Baytown Tunnel, a segment of the Pt. Isabel Causeway, and both the entire 8000 foot long North and 8000 foot long South I-45 Galveston Causeways to be converted into reefs. The recovered Humble Bridge has been sitting shore side near Corpus for about 8 years awaiting deployment and conversion.
TPWD has given both “scientific” and “economic” reasons to prevent these conversions. TPWD opposed converting segments of the=2 0Baytown Tunnel claiming that 100’ foot waves created in 100’ water depths during hurricanes would cause the Tunnel segments, despite their low center of gravity due to the roadbed, to roll to shore and cause considerable damage. They also expressed fears that the barges carrying the Tunnel segments were unreliable, that portions of the Tunnel would roll off the barges, and the Houston Ship Channel would be blocked for days. The fact that decades earlier the same Tunnel segments were created in the Golden Triangle area and then barged to Baytown using most of the same waterways was irrelevant to TPWD.
TPWD's persistent demands on processing of Galveston Causeway rubble essentially caused the voiding of the contract Texas Department of Transportation had with the contractor to create rubble reefs. TPWD insisted that all causeway rubble had to transported to shore, 2000 pound and heavier rubble segments sorted out, and then the top 5 inches of roadbed of the greater than 2000 pound segments be removed. Only then could the individual rubble blocks be barged offshore and methodically placed into structures. TPWD claimed that all concrete rubble weighing less than 2000 pounds each would be susceptible to currents, would migrate outside of the permitted reef area, and interfere with shrimping and other ocean activities. They also insisted that the top 5” of old roadbed be removed to prevent weathered motor oil drippings from polluting the20Gulf. They expressed no concern of fresh motor oil drippings running into constrained portions of Galveston Bay after each rain while the Causeways were in use. Despite earlier contractual prohibitions that prevented the use of explosives and resultant in place deposition of rubble, TPWD then allowed repeated use of explosives with no requirement to recover rubble.
As another method to prevent conversions, TPWD focused only on costs. They refused to address the resulting economic benefits to Texas of habitat enhancement. The Department always claimed that they had no funds available for conversions. These claims of lack of funds were made despite the availability of funds from at least two sources. The Artificial Reef Fund, created by the Texas Fishing Enhancement Act, has received some $13,000,000 from the donations of the oil companies participating in Rigs to Reef conversions. These funds, as specified in Parks and Wildlife Code 89.042, “...are dedicated to the department for the purpose of carrying out this chapter, including the siting, designing, construction, monitoring, and otherwise managing an artificial reef or artificial reef system.” While millions from this Fund have been expended, there is very little to show in results. Realistically, how much does one need to spend to monitor or manage a sunken ship or converted platform? Also, why does TPWD insist on keeping very expensive lighted buoys on certain reefs long after the Coast Guard has identified them on their navigation charts? Especially after the CG has repeatedly informed TPWD that no bouy, lighted or not, is needed. What have these expended funds accomplished other than that of financing five workers benefits?
TPWD has also ignored the intent and mandates of the Federal Sports Fish Restoration Act (SPRA). For over 60 years, the Act’s basic tenet has been "user pay/user benefit". These funds are reimbursements of taxes, including motor fuel taxes, paid by fishers and divers. Supposedly they are held in trust by TPWD. The funds are to be distributed to states for up to 80% compensation of projects previously approved by the Department of Interior. TPWD has received over $250,000,000,000 since the Act’s enactment. TPWD has expended very little, if anything, on any projects that restore, enhance, or improve habitats or fisheries in the Gulf. Despite repeated FOIA requests, they have refused to provide detailed data on both grant applications and the actual expenditures of these funds. As have the Albuquerque Regional Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service which distributes these funds to TPWD and other southwestern states. As have the Department of Interior in Washington DC. After four FOIA requests seeking information on TPWD’s SFRA expenditures in the Gulf, the final response was that no documents exist of any kind for any year at either the Texas or Federal level.20This response was bewildering since the Act requires applications for project grants, annual state audits, and biannual Federal audits of approved grants. Why is TPWD exempt from these requirements? Where is the transparency in Government?
If TPWD has never spent any SFRA funds from the beach seaward, where did the user pay/user benefit apportionment of this quarter of a billion dollars go? What was accomplished with this portion of these funds? What benefits have the Gulf fishers and divers ever obtained from the taxes they have paid over the last 60 years?
Questions like this were evidently asked of TPWD during the last Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. Apparently not fully satisfied with TPWD's responses, the Commission specifically directed the Department to enhance the marine environment offshore Texas by creating artificial reefs. The current Commission, reviewing TPWD some 6 years earlier than normal, will decide whether converting the Clipper satisfies their earlier directives and those added by the Legislature.
As noted above, Dr. McKinney claims "More than 45 percent of all saltwater anglers fish in gulf waters.” If he is correct, it is obvious that some of the SFRA funds should have been expended on Gulf projects to benefit these anglers. TPWD claims that 30% of SFRA funds are devoted to saltwater fishermen (bay and marine) since 30% of all fishing licenses sold are salt- water licenses. In making this allocation, TPWD is incorrectly concluding that expenditures by fresh water fishers and salt-water fishers are equal. Or that the fresh water fisher with a jon boat spends as much in motor fuel taxes as the fisher going offshore to the Flower Gardens. TPWD also totally disregards the taxes paid by Texas divers. The significance of omitting diver’s contributions could be substantial since more SCUBA divers are registered in Texas than any other state Clearly, more than $2,000,000 (45% * 30% * $15 M) should be invested from the beach outward annually. Why does TPWD misappropriate SFRA funds? Despite the absolute importance of SFRA to Texas, there is absolutely no mention of it in the entire July issue of Texas Parks and Wildlife magazine. Do you agree that an article about SFRA in a future issue of the TPWD magazine would be most appropriate?
Unfortunately, Underwater Oasis also gives strong hints that TPWD’s past questionable activities (or non activities) will continue in the future. More specifically, this article indicates that the Texas Clipper will be the last Ships to Reefs off Texas. After describing the inept sinking of the Texas Clipper, (which was delayed the greater part of 12 years by TPWD’s anchor dragging), Shively states “Future sinkings of this sort will hinge largely on public contributions, monies garnered from sport fishing, diving and other user groups.” &nb sp; It does not appear he is referring to SFRA funds. He adds that the public needs to assist “... us with reefing materials to progressively enhance these locations...” Shively fails to point out that to participate in near shore reefing projects, reef materials offered by the public must first be stored, then pass TPWD’s strict approval criteria, have an ID placed on each reef item accepted by TPWD, and then provide a donation of $25 for each reef item accepted.
These conditions should severely limit contributions. If a person wanted to enhance a favorite "fishing hole" with 100 cinder or concrete blocks, he would have to give the Department $2500 before he could take the cement blocks offshore. This is assuming the Department will not disapprove these cement blocks as appropriate reef material since they weigh less than 2000 pounds each. Remember, TPWD refused causeway rubble less than 2000 pounds each on fears that currents would cause them to drift out of the permitted area. Most potential reef material donors will understand that TPWD’s near shore reefing program is merely another Kill it with faint praise tactic. The Department’s near shore reefing program is really double taxation on fishers and divers without representation.
Lastly, there was no mention anywhere in this issue of the magazine of the Texas Artificial Reef Advisory Committee. Without its Chairman, Jim20Morrison or its dedicated members, it is highly doubtful that Texas would now have any more artificial reefs than the 12 Liberty ships created by the Texas Coastal and Marine Council almost 35 years ago. While the Council’s accomplishments of preserving 100 reefs may be small in comparison to other states‘ reef preservations, creations and enhancements, these same reefs mean everything for their preserved marine life including 10,000 to 30,000 fish per platform. Like the SFRA and the findings of the two Sunset Advisory Commission, the accomplishments of the Advisory Committee would be a most interesting article in a future issue.
Again, this issue did a wonderful job in sharing some of the Gulf’s beauty, value, and wonders with its many readers. However, these attributes existed long before TPWD took credit for them. Hopefully, the recipients of this letter will do something to ensure that in the future these Gulf's attributes are better protected, restored, and enhanced. One of the simplest ways to accomplish this objective is to have the TPWD simply comply with the mandates of the Sports Fish Restoration Act and the Texas Fishing Enhancement Act. I further believe that any recipient of this letter can initiate these improvements merely by requiring the TPWD to provide detailed and accurate data as to where and how the past SFRA and TFEA funds have gone, what these expenditures have accomplished, and their current SFRA grant applications.
The Gulf and its resources should receive its due.
Yours truly,
Dana Larson
182 Lilac Ridge
The Woodlands, TX 77384
936-273-084
rigs2reefs@aol.com
Governor Rick Perry
Sunset Advisory Commissioners
Sunset Advisory Commission members
Senate Natural Resources Committee
The Honorable Eddie Lucio
The Honorable Robert Nichols
The Honorable Carter Smith
Ms. Denise S. Francis, States Grants
Mr. Shannon Tompkins, Houston Chronicle
Mr. Jim Morrison, Chairman TARAC
Mr. Irby Basco, TARAC
Ms. Sharron Stewart, TARAC
Mr. George Clark, Gulf Coast Diving
Other concerned Texas citizens