Environmental pros and cons of artificial reefing
- Thread starter drbill
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
covediver
Contributor
I am generally in favor of artificial reefs.
The big debate is over the attraction versus production; that is, is an an artificial reef just a big barrel in which to attract and shoot fish or is it constructed in such a way as to increase biomass? I had a roomate in grad school who worked on the question for DFG. I don't know that there is a universal answer other than "it depends." Of course, in California, any project involving artificial reefs is automatically seen as a front for allowing oil companies to keep from removing the submerged components. In discussing ecological value of rigs as reefs, Linda Crop of the Santa Barbara Environmental Defense Center uses the analogy that dumps attract seagulls, but you wouldn't want to use it to increase the habitat of seagulls. While I think the analogy is flawed, it plays well in the press coverage of the debate.
Finally, some in the environmental community see artificial reefs as a mechanism for "faking nature".
A project a few years ago placed reef balls in Prince William Sound as an experiment to see if it could be used as a mitigation technique. I visit that reef a couple of times a year and it seems to have done pretty well. Not sure how long an artificial reef has to be in place before it is considered real?
The big debate is over the attraction versus production; that is, is an an artificial reef just a big barrel in which to attract and shoot fish or is it constructed in such a way as to increase biomass? I had a roomate in grad school who worked on the question for DFG. I don't know that there is a universal answer other than "it depends." Of course, in California, any project involving artificial reefs is automatically seen as a front for allowing oil companies to keep from removing the submerged components. In discussing ecological value of rigs as reefs, Linda Crop of the Santa Barbara Environmental Defense Center uses the analogy that dumps attract seagulls, but you wouldn't want to use it to increase the habitat of seagulls. While I think the analogy is flawed, it plays well in the press coverage of the debate.
Finally, some in the environmental community see artificial reefs as a mechanism for "faking nature".
A project a few years ago placed reef balls in Prince William Sound as an experiment to see if it could be used as a mitigation technique. I visit that reef a couple of times a year and it seems to have done pretty well. Not sure how long an artificial reef has to be in place before it is considered real?
covediver
Contributor
The question about ships is how "clean" they are before they are placed, the effect their placement will have on the physical and biological environment, social costs and benefits, and the price tag of reefing. Tire reefs turned out not to be such a good idea and now most of them get removed when money allows. They don't last as long as people thought. Almost any material can work, its the design that matters. Reef balls seem to work pretty well from what I have seen.
GratefulDiver69
Registered
I'm not against a few artificial reefs created here and there, but the problem I have is that they are not natural. I don't want the ocean floor littered with junk just to give people a place to fish and dive.
Maybe if we hadn't destroyed so much of the natural habitat we wouldn't have to sink ships on purpose.
Maybe if we hadn't destroyed so much of the natural habitat we wouldn't have to sink ships on purpose.
For all you California people, I just got word of this. It establishes a rigs to reef program for CA. Passed the state assembly 64 to 0 and now moves to the state senate.
The State Assembly edits didn't come through on my cut and paste job, but you can google the bill number to get the updates.
Chris
california legislature—2009–10 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2503
Introduced by Assembly Member John A. Perez
February 19, 2010
An act to repeal Section 6429.5 of, and to repeal and add Article 2
(commencing with Section 6420) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 6
of, the Fish and Game Code, and to add Division 37 (commencing with
Section 71500) to the Public Resources Code, relating to ocean
resources.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2503, as amended, John A. Perez. Ocean resources: artificial
reefs.
Existing law establishes a California Artificial Reef Program,
administered by the Department of Fish and Game, to include the
placement of artificial reefs, as defined, in state waters and a prescribed
study of existing successful reefs and new reefs to determine design
criteria.
This bill would repeal those provisions and, instead, would enact the
California Marine Life Legacy Act to establish a program of artificial
reef research and development, administered by the department. The
act would authorize the department to approve the conversion of an
offshore oil platform or production facility into an artificial reef, if
specified criteria are satisfied, including a finding that the alternative
of converting the decommissioned offshore oil platform or production
facility into an artificial reef provides a net benefit to the environment
compared to the alternative of removing the facilities from the marine
environment. The act would require the department, for purposes of
determining whether such a conversion provides a net environmental
benefit, to determine criteria for biological evaluation of an oil platform
or production facility for use as an artificial reef and to consult with
and advise the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands
Commission, and other responsible agencies as to those criteria. The
act would require the department to determine the cost savings of a
conversion, and would require the owner or operator, when all applicable
permits and approvals are granted upon conditional approval for
conversion, to apportion a percentage of the cost savings funds in
accordance with a prescribed schedule to the California Endowment
for Marine Preservation and the county immediately adjacent to the
location of the facility. The act would authorize the department to take
title to a decommissioned offshore oil platform or production facility
in either state or federal open coastal waters if a prescribed agreement
is reached requirements are met. The act, until January 1, 2014, would
establish an accelerated existing platform decommissioning program
with alternate provisions for the conversion of certain existing oil
platforms or production facilities, including into artificial reefs, which
would include expedited review and an alternate apportionment schedule.
The bill would establish the California Endowment for Marine
Preservation, subject to the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law,
in order to create a permanent source of funding for projects that will
conserve, protect, restore, and enhance the open coastal marine resources
of the state. The endowment would be governed by a board of directors,
with membership and duties prescribed by the bill.
The bill would require the endowment to coordinate its activities with
the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission,
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
the State Lands Commission, and appropriate federal agencies.
The State Assembly edits didn't come through on my cut and paste job, but you can google the bill number to get the updates.
Chris
california legislature—2009–10 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2503
Introduced by Assembly Member John A. Perez
February 19, 2010
An act to repeal Section 6429.5 of, and to repeal and add Article 2
(commencing with Section 6420) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 6
of, the Fish and Game Code, and to add Division 37 (commencing with
Section 71500) to the Public Resources Code, relating to ocean
resources.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2503, as amended, John A. Perez. Ocean resources: artificial
reefs.
Existing law establishes a California Artificial Reef Program,
administered by the Department of Fish and Game, to include the
placement of artificial reefs, as defined, in state waters and a prescribed
study of existing successful reefs and new reefs to determine design
criteria.
This bill would repeal those provisions and, instead, would enact the
California Marine Life Legacy Act to establish a program of artificial
reef research and development, administered by the department. The
act would authorize the department to approve the conversion of an
offshore oil platform or production facility into an artificial reef, if
specified criteria are satisfied, including a finding that the alternative
of converting the decommissioned offshore oil platform or production
facility into an artificial reef provides a net benefit to the environment
compared to the alternative of removing the facilities from the marine
environment. The act would require the department, for purposes of
determining whether such a conversion provides a net environmental
benefit, to determine criteria for biological evaluation of an oil platform
or production facility for use as an artificial reef and to consult with
and advise the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands
Commission, and other responsible agencies as to those criteria. The
act would require the department to determine the cost savings of a
conversion, and would require the owner or operator, when all applicable
permits and approvals are granted upon conditional approval for
conversion, to apportion a percentage of the cost savings funds in
accordance with a prescribed schedule to the California Endowment
for Marine Preservation and the county immediately adjacent to the
location of the facility. The act would authorize the department to take
title to a decommissioned offshore oil platform or production facility
in either state or federal open coastal waters if a prescribed agreement
is reached requirements are met. The act, until January 1, 2014, would
establish an accelerated existing platform decommissioning program
with alternate provisions for the conversion of certain existing oil
platforms or production facilities, including into artificial reefs, which
would include expedited review and an alternate apportionment schedule.
The bill would establish the California Endowment for Marine
Preservation, subject to the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law,
in order to create a permanent source of funding for projects that will
conserve, protect, restore, and enhance the open coastal marine resources
of the state. The endowment would be governed by a board of directors,
with membership and duties prescribed by the bill.
The bill would require the endowment to coordinate its activities with
the Department of Fish and Game, the California Coastal Commission,
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
the State Lands Commission, and appropriate federal agencies.
There have been a lot of studies over the years about the efficacy of artifical reefs as a restoration/rehabilitation tool, and as an "enhancement" to existing natural reefs. One of the first, most damning studies was by Polovina (1989) and squarely stated that artificial reefs do nothing but aggregate fish from natural reefs. Many of the comprehensive reviews (e.g. Grossman, Jones, and Seaman 1997; Baine 2001) have found that artificial reefs are moderately effective at best for achieving restoration/rehabilitation, and almost never effective for enhancement. Some of the latest, clearest studies (e.g. Burt et al. 2009) show convincingly that artificial reefs are inadequate replacements for natural reefs, and do not and can not serve the myriad ecosystem functions of intact reefs. Some of these studies show artificial reefs breaking even at best (e.g. Reynolds 2009)
The primary considerations for placing ships as artifical reefs are pretty consistently economic (e.g. Morgan 2009; Stolk, Markwell, and Jenkins 2007), with the ecological considerations simply tacked on as a presumed benefit. The primary ecological benefit of such reefs may be to draw divers away from natural reefs, reducing the damage that almost inevitably comes from such use.
From a primarily biological/ecological standpoint, sinking ships in productive waters is a losing proposition. Economically, it seems that as a restoration/conservation tool, these projects are shameful wastes of resources. The huge costs involved in prepping and sinking these vessels (often several millions of dollars. The real conservation and management actions that should happen are often left undone for lack of resources; is this really the best reflection of our priorities? Ships are clearly a diver-preferred material, even though the only artificial reefs that are biologically effective are those that mimic the natural substrate and structure (e.g. Dupont 2008; Lee et al. 2009) Are we (as a diving community) willing to say "it's more important for us to look at spooky old sunken vessels than vibrant, healthy reefs"?
The bottom line (thanks to Gef and Gomez 2009):
The primary considerations for placing ships as artifical reefs are pretty consistently economic (e.g. Morgan 2009; Stolk, Markwell, and Jenkins 2007), with the ecological considerations simply tacked on as a presumed benefit. The primary ecological benefit of such reefs may be to draw divers away from natural reefs, reducing the damage that almost inevitably comes from such use.
From a primarily biological/ecological standpoint, sinking ships in productive waters is a losing proposition. Economically, it seems that as a restoration/conservation tool, these projects are shameful wastes of resources. The huge costs involved in prepping and sinking these vessels (often several millions of dollars. The real conservation and management actions that should happen are often left undone for lack of resources; is this really the best reflection of our priorities? Ships are clearly a diver-preferred material, even though the only artificial reefs that are biologically effective are those that mimic the natural substrate and structure (e.g. Dupont 2008; Lee et al. 2009) Are we (as a diving community) willing to say "it's more important for us to look at spooky old sunken vessels than vibrant, healthy reefs"?
The bottom line (thanks to Gef and Gomez 2009):
Last edited:
Angry Turtle
Contributor
True, very true, but we can't do anything with what already happened, and natural reefs take a lot of time to recuperate.
It seems though, that ships might not be the best material, whereas concrete forms mimicing a natural reef would work better.
Not sure how clean they will be, but sometimes in the next 5 weeks RIMPAC will create 3 deep water artificial wreck/reefs. Can't find it in print but it was on last night's evening news that they will sink 3 ships during their war games.
War games return to isle waters - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
War games return to isle waters - Hawaii News - Staradvertiser.com
Interesting topic. Silly me. I do not know that CA needs any Artificial Reefs. I thought it just the developed country problem. Unfortunately, you do not mention the reason for build the AR.
I worked for 3 years for coral reefs rehabilitation and management program in north sumatra, Indonesia. Compared to what we face here, the root is what people defined as 'stomach' which should be satisfied with food. Due to the increasing number of population, the quota of food needed is increasing too. And it should be served faster and faster. Producer responded it by using bigger boats to drag larger nets; dynamite for faster and 'they said' abundant catch; and potassium to catch life fishes. The result, the fishes' living rooms are damaged, caused the fishes have to find others living room and mates . And now we must provide much more living rooms for the fishes to accommodate it to continue its life.
For that reason, I should put myself in pros side until alternative ways to satisfy the 'stomach' found.
OP
Of course a major reason for considering the creation of an artificial reef in our waters is to enhance the attractiveness of Catalina as a destination for divers, and thus positively affect our local economy. I just want to make sure that in doing so we are addressing the environmental questions properly, which is why I posted this question here. Thanks to all for your replies. Both the supportive and non-supportive posts are useful in evaluating the potential environmental impacts.
Similar threads
