[Coral-List] Artificial Reefs
Shark
shortfin_mako_shark at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 18 17:29:06 EDT 2013
I believe NMFS also uses the term artificial substrate.
Juan C. Levesque
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Artificial Reefs
From: John McManus <jmcmanus at rsmas.miami.edu>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-2013 13:44
To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
CC:
Clearly a major issue is that people confuse 'artificial reefs' with coral
reefs. They are always enormously different than natural coral reefs.
I suggest we stop using the term 'artificial reefs'.
Let us use the following:
1. 'artificial underwater structure (AUS)' for any underwater structure one
builds or deploys. These will always support some kind of marine life,
either intentionally or incidentally.
Or, more specifically:
2. 'artificial underwater barrier (AUB)' for an AUS aimed at altering water
(including waves) and/or sediment (including rubble) movements.
3. 'artificial underwater habitat (AUH)' for an AUS aimed at providing
habitat for underwater organisms beyond that already found at a site.
4. 'multipurpose underwater structure (MUS)' for an AUS which is for a
combination of these purposes.
We really have to stop being misleading.
Cheers!
John
John W. McManus, PhD
Director, National Center for Coral Reef Research (NCORE)
Professor, Marine Biology and Fisheries
Coral Reef Ecology and Management Lab (CREM Lab)
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science (RSMAS)
University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, 33149
jmcmanus at rsmas.miami.edu http://ncore.rsmas.miami.edu/
Phone: 305-421-4814
"Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often
vague,
than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made
precise."
--John Tukey, Statistician, National Medal of Science and IEEE Medal of
Honor
-----Original Message-----
From: coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of Dennis Hubbard
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Thomas Le Berre
Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Artificial Reefs
Thomas:
I disagree with your assessment at my core. However, a satisfactory response
will take more time than I have right now, so watch this space.
Dennis
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Thomas Le Berre <thomas at seamarc.com> wrote:
> Dear Dennis Hubbard,
>
>
>
> Thanks for sharing your experience of your past restoration success. I
> fail to understand why you now seem to be considering this effort as a
> youth mistake. I agree with you that any types of structure will
> attract fish (in fact I even saw recently an exhibit at the Monterey
> Bay Aquarium where fish inhabit different pieces of junk on the bottom
> of the tank, which I thought was quite daring). I also agree that
> there may be a lot of things we don't know about the impacts of the
> artificial reefs. But I would also say that there is a lot of things
> that we do know and observe. You empirically determined the physical
> effects your rocks were having on wave propagation currents etc. and
adapted to achieve what seems to be a desirable result.
> Physical effects are of course more direct to observe than ecological
> ones, and even though in time they may alter considerably an area
> (large events etc.), a good balance seem to have been restored through
luck or skill.
>
>
>
> Change in the ecological factors of course take longer to be felt, but
> it seems that 20 years after, there were more fish and more corals. I
> would think that there is a necessary spill-over effect, more fish,
> more corals, more larvae, etc.(and if this is used for tourism purpose
> and not fished, that's again a bonus I guess). I won't go into whether
> fish were attracted or recruited to your structures. I have seen both
> depending on sites and species. Anyway, we will agree that on the
> ecological point of view, your project was also beneficial and
> certainly that the situation now is better than what is was before you
> started your project (or at least that any decrease in diversity,
> productivity cannot be assigned to that activity, but maybe global
> changes or other "unknown factors").
>
>
>
> Having been successfully through a major storm, we could also say that
> the area is more resilient and adapted to climate change. (The storm
> on the dump would definitely have been a disaster). In addition, there
> is a better recreational value, possibly keeping the crowds away from
> the natural reef.
>
>
>
> What other major unknown factors could there have been that would
> condemn your project?
>
>
>
> Now, imagine that this project didn't occur, do you think this would
> have prevented the developer to do whatever to try and improve their
> situation, regain a beach etc.probably given it to a contractor with
> no feeling whatsoever for the marine life (yes, this is almost always
> the case), cheap and easy, but which would constant recurring works
> and meddling with the environment, never letting it settle, etc... In
> developed countries maybe the legislation prevents developers to take
> the situations into their own hands without the necessary guidance and
> knowledge, but in many places, trial and error prevails.and the
> ecological side of things is always disregarded.
>
>
>
> At the stage we are at, I am wondering if the shortsightedness would
> not be to deny this reality, acknowledge "their" shortsightedness as a
> fact. We need to develop better solutions to the problems caused by
> coastal developments. Of course: there will be more people, there will
> be more tourists, there will be more pressure to have more
> infrastructure. I don't believe that wisdom will suddenly sink in
> politicians brains overnight, and even then they all have their crowd
> of voters to please. Yes, it may be that not only your project, but
> the human race as a whole is doomed to failure at the start, and yes,
> we are going to have to display last minute (in geological terms)
> reactions to the discovery of petrol engines and penicillin. I would
> say that this is more tragic than pathetic.
>
>
>
> Minor successes after minor successes is already going forward. And it
> does develop a know-how that can be shared, developed etc... It
> eventually develops an economy and more environmentally minded people
> can find related jobs and help change the present dynamic. I can think
> of many people educated in marine fields not finding any opportunities
> to work, what a waste of possible effort. If there is more employment
> in the sector, surely all the associated research funding will grow as
> well.Right now, I feel that taking a refuge behind the "unknown
> factors" is the root cause for many bank funded developments to
> altogether do nothing at all for the ecology in coral reef areas,
> thereby saving dollars that would otherwise do very well into this
> part of the economy. Eager contractors are at times being discouraged
> to even think about it by local authorities as a result.
>
>
>
> Far from being a failure that you seem to be ashamed of, I feel your
> project should be a case study (and I am quite sure that you would
> love to have yearly monitoring data of the site). I don't question
> your verdict about your own work and accept your experience, but
> sincerely, I fail to be convinced that development of a practical
> know-how to successfully "meddle"
> with the ecological side of things during coastal developments needs
> to be altogether written off. In fact, I find it quite appealing and
> possibly necessary. Finally, I am wondering if the denegation of your
> own work and success story is the result of rational thinking and
> field observations or intense peer pressure.
>
>
>
> This is a long mail, thanks for reading this far.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Le Berre
>
> Managing director
>
> Seamarc Pvt. Ltd.
>
> www.reefscapers.com, www.marinesavers.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu>
>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Artificial Reefs
>
> To: "Rachel D'Silva" <rachdsilva at yahoo.com>
>
> Cc: "coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov" <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
>
> Message-ID:
>
>
> <CAFjCZNZP011hzEJDtrhr=fpQ7HiveuQQZPnkDcPTPqFnHXwoQA at mail.gmail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
>
> I think there are two extremes to this discussion. First, if you put
> ANY
>
> topographic structure on an open bottom, it will attract fish (they
> don't
>
> care - look at all the fish around those deep-water nuclear disposal
>
> sites). Also, corals will grow on it. However, the other side of the
> coin
>
> is that any structure you place into the environment will have some
impact.
>
> Some of that will respond to the laws of physics (diffraction,
> diversion of
>
> flow, etc.) but much of it will respond to factors we largely do not
>
> understand. So the question is whether we should take the time to
> learn
>
> those factors so we can engineer the environment.
>
>
>
> About two decades ago, we placed ca. 100 rocks (5-7,000 lbs each) onto
> a
>
> terrace that had been the site of a flourishing *Acropora palmata*
> reef in
>
> the 60s (we didn't know this when we started the project). It had been
>
> killed not by disease but by dredge pipes that were raked across the
> reef
>
> to move sediment from the bay to cover the municipal dump for this
> island
>
> of St. Thomas (it was being decommissioned). Ironically, the owner of
> the
>
> dump who wanted to sell the land for development purposes was also the
>
> first director of the newly created Department of Conservation and
> Cultural
>
> Affairs (talk about irony.... and I can't lay out the half of it here).
>
> When we were called in, a huge hotel complex had just been built and
>
> someone suddenly realized, "We have no beach!" This reflects a common
>
> development perception that the natural system can be engineered so
> all
>
> they have to do is throw money at a consultant like they do for
> financial
>
> issues.
>
>
>
> In this case, historical research revealed that this site had always
> had a
>
> wide beach and we could identify no realistic reason for it to not be
> there
>
> today. Further research into DPNR records revealed the bizarre
> situation I
>
> just laid out.... the reef had been mechanically destroyed and the
> loss of
>
> protection caused a wholesale exit of beach sand back into the hole).
> We
>
> ultimately decided that, while we could not replace the biological
>
> function, we might replace the physical function by very carefully
> placing
>
> these large stones in a way that allowed wave energy to pas through
> (i.e.,
>
> it was not an impermeable structure but rather large boulders that
> broke up
>
> incoming waves and partially protected the shore). We also set it up
> so
>
> that strong unidirectional flow persisted behind the ridge (all that
> water
>
> coming in between the blocks had to exit - creatinf strong
> shore-parallel
>
> flow. The net result was that the new artificial beach persisted even
> after
>
> Hurricane Marilyn) and water quality remained acceptable behind the
> loosely
>
> scattered rocks. Our ultimate decisions on rock placement were based
> on
>
> climbing up on the hotel roof and looking at how the 10 rocks we'd
> placed
>
> each day affected wave refraction and diffraction patterns (very
>
> empirical). To keep them in place, e had 3-inch holes pre-drilled in
> the
>
> rocks and then pinned them to the bottom by drilling into the
> underlying
>
> substrate and inserting steel rods and marine cement into the rocks
> and the
>
> underlying substrate).
>
>
>
> When I visited the site years later, corals (even *Acropora palmata*)
> had
>
> colonized on the rocks - and the fish had moved in. The corals we had
>
> transplanted to the fron of thi area were still doing better than the
>
> natural ones nearby. This had become a reasonably popular snorkeling
> spot
>
> due to the easy access from the adjacent beach.
>
>
>
> Having set up this rosy scenario, I do not advocate the sense that
> physical
>
> structures are anything more than last-minute reactions to poor
> decisions
>
> in the past. While our structure created protection and made the hotel
> more
>
> viable, this was not a substitute for even a mediocre natural
> structure
>
> and, while the history of the area is amusing, it is also pathetic.I
> have
>
> always wondered how much these kinds of minor "successes" just feed
> the
>
> perceptions of developers that they can rely on the
> engineering/ecological
>
> community to come in and move things around a bit to cover their
>
> shortsightedness. I consider our project as one that was doomed to
> failure
>
> from the start even though the financial picture was improved and the
>
> ecological side was at least made no worse. I vowed to never do one of
>
> these projects again and can happily report that the slate is still clean.
>
>
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Rachel D'Silva <rachdsilva at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey Coral List,
>
> > I'm looking for articles/papers with design and engineering options
> > for
>
> > major functioning breakwaters (shallow) combined with reef
> > restoration. I
>
> > like the idea of sections of the breakwater having a design
> > component
> that
>
> > can be head started with coral fragments as well as functioning as a
>
> > potential dive/snorkel site. The standard designs and structures
> > will
>
> > function as FADs...but in over fished waters.. this really isnt enough.
>
> >
>
> > I really appreciate any ideas/info you might have.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rachel
>
> > 'Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going
> > to get
>
> > better. It's not'.- The Lorax
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Coral-List mailing list
>
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dennis Hubbard
>
> Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
>
> (440) 775-8346
>
>
>
> * "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
>
> Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>
--
Dennis Hubbard
Chair, Dept of Geology-Oberlin College Oberlin OH 44074
(440) 775-8346
* "When you get on the wrong train.... every stop is the wrong stop"*
Benjamin Stein: "*Ludes, A Ballad of the Drug and the Dream*"
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list