Here is a link on the ACOE deepening project and proposed plans to use limestone from project to build reefs. http://www.postandcourier.com/archives/army-corps-looks-■■■■■■■■■■■■-on-what-to-do-with/article_8f08c0aa-6657-58ca-80fc-e28b2fdb733f.html
Here are links to two things related to the secret reefs. One is a general presentation on reefs in south atlantic. The studies on the secret reefs are briefly touched on in the last 12 or so slides.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/documents/2-south-atlantic-martore.pdf
The second is a preview of a masters thesis unfortunately it is not all there but could give you some idea of what was done. The C of C library should have the complete thesis although not sure its available in digital format.
I have had a plan for many years and have had informal discussions with people in the know. I have discovered I can get a burial at sea covered by the “feds” and there are supposed to be a artificial reef style casket. My plan is to be buried this way and for all the years after I die people could come fish off the reef and “eat my Arse one more time” for eternity. Just hope I don’t head out there for 50 years from now. That is the best way I feel I can do my part and give back to the sea.
Where do we sign up?
Here is my thought on the topic… First of all, as I have been saying for the last 15 years, the Alabama “private” reef program is the ONLY valid long term solution. PERIOD… Currently, it’s the best way to entice private capital into reef building. Anything else is just not cutting it because it cannot scale (financially) meet the demands on the resources.
Next, people should be OUTRAGED that the DNR secret reefs are being made into MPA’s. Before someone corrects me and calls them “SMZs”, I will proactively remind you that you won’t be able to bottom fish on Area 51, Area 53 like the other 50 “SMZs” in the neighborhood. Calling them “SMZs” is nothing more than trickery and word-smithing because of the horrible stigma that MPAs have attached to them. They act, look, smell just like MPAs. They are MPAs with a more publicly palatable name.
So, why should you be OUTRAGED? These reefs were built in 1997 and 2003. So, 14-20 years ago. They have never had any formal protection status over them before and they are THRIVING. Let’s think about what this tells us if we look at this evidence OBJECTIVELY. This is DIRECT EVIDENCE that MPAs are NOT NEEDED. People have been lying to us for years. “To MPA or to not MPA?” That’s a FALSE DILEMMA. There is a perfectly valid and superior alternative → SECRET REEFS. What these prove is that SECRETS work. DNR did studies on this to see if MPAs were an answer, but they didn’t create MPAs. They created SECRET reefs (unprotected).
The answer is clear. We don’t need a polka-dotted map of areas that we can and can’t fish. What we need is for 2 things to happen:
- DNR needs to create dozens more SECRET REEFS. They need to get rid of the mentality that every reef that they create needs to be documented publicly. They should have 50% SECRET reefs and 50% public accomplishing BOTH goals of “fish factories” and “creating fishing opportunities”
- They need to create a nice big blue square out there (100 square miles or more) where private individua
quote:
Originally posted by natureboyquote:
Originally posted by longbearded1Natureboy-I assure you it is true. Realfin- every color tag ended up on every corner after a good period of time. Did take a considerable amount of time for all corners to resemble each other after knocking the population down on two. The unfished sites were truely remarkable, meaning that sites left alone do work, which a lot here will not like to hear. Always ranckels my feathers when statements like above are just randomly thrown out there questioning DNRs integrity.
I’m not sure everything bought with the public’s tax dollar is also automatically available for public use and consumption. Certain research projects like this reef one are just that, for research and sustainability of the resource. If those numbers were made public, those 4 reefs would be fished out by August. I’m OK with fish having some secret hiding spots.
You have completely avoided answering my question. When will the public that paid for the reef and pays for the research & fishing by state employees be allowed to use what we have paid for? ? It rankles my feathers when holier that thou gov employees assume ownership of our publicly owned natural resources .
2014 Key West 203DFS
1987 Landau
Sorry for the delay I’ve been on vacation and I had to request the final info from the Army COE.
So, the harbor dredging is going to be really great for fishermen. Several miles offshore they are going to have to cut through limestone to deepen the channel, plus they need an area to contain some of the looser, smaller dredge material. To mitigate costs, they are relocating it nearby the channel.
First, there is a large square to contain the smaller stuff. It’s called the ODMDS and its roughly 3 MILES on a side. So 9 sq miles. It will have berms rising approx 10 ft above the sea floor. The actual berm will be in a U shape, so the up current side will not have a berm (I think this is why).
Second, there are going to be eight (8) sites, 4 on the north side of the channel, and 4 on the south side of the channel. Each will be 33 ACRES in size. Each site will have sixteen (16) 300 x 300 foot cells to make a patch reef 600 ft wide and 2,400 ft long. The relief for each patch will be 4 to 10 ft. Location is between 6 and 10 miles offshore adjacent to the shipping channel.
Lastly, at the request of SCDNR, approx 240,000 cu yds of material will be deposited at the Charleston Nearshore reef.
So, this is what I know about it. I’m just a messenger and the plans may differ slightly, but the gist of it is there is a chit ton of material that will be dredged and used as reefs and its pretty exciting for the future of fishing here IMO.
1966 13’ Boston Whaler w/ Merc 25 4 stroke “Flatty”
www.eyestrikefishing.com #predatorsstriketheeye
quote:
Originally posted by OptikerSorry for the delay I’ve been on vacation and I had to request the final info from the Army COE.
So, the harbor dredging is going to be really great for fishermen. Several miles offshore they are going to have to cut through limestone to deepen the channel, plus they need an area to contain some of the looser, smaller dredge material. To mitigate costs, they are relocating it nearby the channel.First, there is a large square to contain the smaller stuff. It’s called the ODMDS and its roughly 3 MILES on a side. So 9 sq miles. It will have berms rising approx 10 ft above the sea floor. The actual berm will be in a U shape, so the up current side will not have a berm (I think this is why).
Second, there are going to be eight (8) sites, 4 on the north side of the channel, and 4 on the south side of the channel. Each will be 33 ACRES in size. Each site will have sixteen (16) 300 x 300 foot cells to make a patch reef 600 ft wide and 2,400 ft long. The relief for each patch will be 4 to 10 ft. Location is between 6 and 10 miles offshore adjacent to the shipping channel.
Lastly, at the request of SCDNR, approx 240,000 cu yds of material will be deposited at the Charleston Nearshore reef.
So, this is what I know about it. I’m just a messenger and the plans may differ slightly, but the gist of it is there is a chit ton of material that will be dredged and used as reefs and its pretty exciting for the future of fishing here IMO.
1966 13’ Boston Whaler w/ Merc 25 4 stroke “Flatty”
www.eyestrikefishing.com #predatorsstriketheeye
Well done D
This was discussed some time ago in another thread, but if you’ve been on the upper Wando, before you go under the power lines near the boat yard (before the 41 bridge heading N), there’s an area over on the northside that houses several cranes and big construction equipment as well as what looks like an old casino boat or something like that. It’s a really big boat, not even sure how they get it in there, but that thing would create some incredible habitat sitting on the bottom in 100 feet of water.
Anyone know the story?
2014 Key West 203DFS
1987 Landau
My biggest fear would be that if were given a 100 sq mile area where we can build reefs , How long will it be before its declared an MPA?
quote:I think that the "issue" is that when "they" (DNR) sinks a reef, they go through mounds of cleanup and remove anything from the boat that has any sort of environmental impact (plastic wires, oil from tanks, paint removal, wood removal, fiberglass removal, etc). My understanding is that the cleanup of these ships\boats is the more expensive part. Then, to tow them out there and sink them, depending on the distance, they are looking at $30K-40K per drop (give or take). So, while on the surface, to us, it seems like an easy solution to round up old boats and drag them out and sink them, it turns expensive very quickly because of environmental concerns and towing\demolition expense.
Originally posted by bonecrusherThis was discussed some time ago in another thread, but if you’ve been on the upper Wando, before you go under the power lines near the boat yard (before the 41 bridge heading N), there’s an area over on the northside that houses several cranes and big construction equipment as well as what looks like an old casino boat or something like that. It’s a really big boat, not even sure how they get it in there, but that thing would create some incredible habitat sitting on the bottom in 100 feet of water.
Anyone know the story?2014 Key West 203DFS
1987 Landau
quote:A couple of points: 1) My intent is to have an area that has no existing live bottom (or close to none). There are big expanses off of our coast that are literally just hundreds of square miles of sand. So in that case, nothing lost except any capital put in. 2) I don't think they could pull that off and there has been no precedence set to do this. The reason that they are getting away with it on A51, A53 is because a large portion of the money used to build those reefs was with "federal money" (even though the feds forget where that money comes from). 3) The psuedo-"private" reef program in Alabama is super popular and has sprung up a new economy that wasn't there before. So, there would be a lot of firepower to stop such an action.
Originally posted by natureboyMy biggest fear would be that if were given a 100 sq mile area where we can build reefs , How long will it be before its declared an MPA?
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejHere is my thought on the topic… First of all, as I have been saying for the last 15 years, the Alabama “private” reef program is the ONLY valid long term solution. PERIOD… Currently, it’s the best way to entice private capital into reef building. Anything else is just not cutting it because it cannot scale (financially) meet the demands on the resources.
Next, people should be OUTRAGED that the DNR secret reefs are being made into MPA’s. Before someone corrects me and calls them “SMZs”, I will proactively remind you that you won’t be able to bottom fish on Area 51, Area 53 like the other 50 “SMZs” in the neighborhood. Calling them “SMZs” is nothing more than trickery and word-smithing because of the horrible stigma that MPAs have attached to them. They act, look, smell just like MPAs. They are MPAs with a more publicly palatable name.
So, why should you be OUTRAGED? These reefs were built in 1997 and 2003. So, 14-20 years ago. They have never had any formal protection status over them before and they are THRIVING. Let’s think about what this tells us if we look at this evidence OBJECTIVELY. This is DIRECT EVIDENCE that MPAs are NOT NEEDED. People have been lying to us for years. “To MPA or to not MPA?” That’s a FALSE DILEMMA. There is a perfectly valid and superior alternative → SECRET REEFS. What these prove is that SECRETS work. DNR did studies on this to see if MPAs were an answer, but they didn’t create MPAs. They created SECRET reefs (unprotected).
The answer is clear. We don’t need a polka-dotted map of areas that we can and can’t fish. What we need is for 2 things to happen:
- DNR needs to create dozens more SECRET REEFS. They need to get rid of the mentality that every reef that they create needs to be documented publicly. They should have 50% SECRET reefs and 50% public accomplishing BOTH goals
quote:
Originally posted by TheMechanicquote:
Originally posted by skinneejHere is my thought on the topic… First of all, as I have been saying for the last 15 years, the Alabama “private” reef program is the ONLY valid long term solution. PERIOD… Currently, it’s the best way to entice private capital into reef building. Anything else is just not cutting it because it cannot scale (financially) meet the demands on the resources.
Next, people should be OUTRAGED that the DNR secret reefs are being made into MPA’s. Before someone corrects me and calls them “SMZs”, I will proactively remind you that you won’t be able to bottom fish on Area 51, Area 53 like the other 50 “SMZs” in the neighborhood. Calling them “SMZs” is nothing more than trickery and word-smithing because of the horrible stigma that MPAs have attached to them. They act, look, smell just like MPAs. They are MPAs with a more publicly palatable name.
So, why should you be OUTRAGED? These reefs were built in 1997 and 2003. So, 14-20 years ago. They have never had any formal protection status over them before and they are THRIVING. Let’s think about what this tells us if we look at this evidence OBJECTIVELY. This is DIRECT EVIDENCE that MPAs are NOT NEEDED. People have been lying to us for years. “To MPA or to not MPA?” That’s a FALSE DILEMMA. There is a perfectly valid and superior alternative → SECRET REEFS. What these prove is that SECRETS work. DNR did studies on this to see if MPAs were an answer, but they didn’t create MPAs. They created SECRET reefs (unprotected).
The answer is clear. We don’t need a polka-dotted map of areas that we can and can’t fish. What we need is for 2 things to happen:
- DNR needs to create dozens more SECRET REEFS. They need
quote:That's it. You are banned again...
Originally posted by mdaddyCareful what you ask for…He’s already a moderator…
quote:
Originally posted by OptikerSorry for the delay I’ve been on vacation and I had to request the final info from the Army COE.
So, the harbor dredging is going to be really great for fishermen. Several miles offshore they are going to have to cut through limestone to deepen the channel, plus they need an area to contain some of the looser, smaller dredge material. To mitigate costs, they are relocating it nearby the channel.First, there is a large square to contain the smaller stuff. It’s called the ODMDS and its roughly 3 MILES on a side. So 9 sq miles. It will have berms rising approx 10 ft above the sea floor. The actual berm will be in a U shape, so the up current side will not have a berm (I think this is why).
Second, there are going to be eight (8) sites, 4 on the north side of the channel, and 4 on the south side of the channel. Each will be 33 ACRES in size. Each site will have sixteen (16) 300 x 300 foot cells to make a patch reef 600 ft wide and 2,400 ft long. The relief for each patch will be 4 to 10 ft. Location is between 6 and 10 miles offshore adjacent to the shipping channel.
Lastly, at the request of SCDNR, approx 240,000 cu yds of material will be deposited at the Charleston Nearshore reef.
So, this is what I know about it. I’m just a messenger and the plans may differ slightly, but the gist of it is there is a chit ton of material that will be dredged and used as reefs and its pretty exciting for the future of fishing here IMO.
1966 13’ Boston Whaler w/ Merc 25 4 stroke “Flatty”
www.eyestrikefishing.com #predatorsstriketheeye
So do you f
I want these scattered throughout our sand deserts offshore here.
http://www.reefmaker.com/artificial-reefs/florida-limestone-artificial-reef
Maybe I’ve missed it, but is it not true that ANY reef, regardless of who builds it, that is outside of three miles is under federal control?
quote:That's a very broad brush. What, specifically, are you asking?
Originally posted by RealfinMaybe I’ve missed it, but is it not true that ANY reef, regardless of who builds it, that is outside of three miles is under federal control?
If the feds say that black sea bass or lizard fish or whatever are being overfished and have exceeded their ACL (Allowable Catch Limit), they have the authority to close those fisheries based on the best available science. In other words, we could build private secret reefs or more public reefs, and they might be covered with fish, but if he feds say we can’t bring them home, what have we accomplished?