1. Project Title: Artificial Reefs in Lake Erie: A Habitat Enhancement Tool
2. Contact
David O. Kelch, District Specialist
Ohio State University Extension - Sea Grant 42110 Russia Road, Elyria, OH 44035, USA
Tel.: (216) 322-0127; FAX: (216)329-5351; E-mail: LORA@AGVAX2.AG.OHIO-STATE.EDU
Jeff Reutter, Director
Ohio Sea Grant College Program, 1314 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Oh 43212-1194, USA
Tel.: (614) 292-8949; FAX: (614) 292-4364; Internet: REUTTER.1@OSU.EDU
3. Agencies Involved
The Ohio State University Sea Grant College Program,
1314 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Oh 43212-1194, USA
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Wildlife, Building G - Fountain Square, Columbus, Ohio 43224
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo District, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, New York 14207
4. Restoration Goal
Enhance fish habitat in nearshore area.
Provide fish concentration sites for anglers and SCUBA divers.
5. Project Type
Construction of underwater artificial reefs using man-made materials (scrap concrete) strategically placed in nearshore areas.
6. Background and Rationale
Lake Erie is well known for its sport fishing. The shallow Western Basin, containing numerous islands, shoals and reefs, provide for excellent angling. The Central Basin is also a productive fishery, yet most effort is concentrated far offshore. Although deep water exists in close proximity to the shore, the rocky bottom is relatively flat and featureless. During 1982, in an effort to improve Central Basin angling and image, the North Central Sea Grant Extension Advisory Committee suggested the concept of artificial reefs. These structures were to be constructed of clean concrete, rock or brick, close to ports of shelter, so to create safe, productive fish concentration areas for small boat anglers.
We selected two locations to create demonstration artificial reefs. The Lorain site was located 1852 m west of Lorain Harbor and 1.2 km offshore. The Cleveland site was located 4,260 m west of Cleveland harbor, and 0.8 km offshore. These sites were selected due to close proximity to access and shelter and in depths that would appeal to a variety of fish species.
7. Regulatory Considerations
Construction permit issued by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Compliance with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water
quality standards/
EPA project approval.
Project approval by United States Coast Guard (Navigation obstruction).
Cooperation and approval by Ohio Department of Natural Resources/Division of Wildlife.
Permits from Department of Natural Resources if required (bottomlands permit).
Project approval by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Permits to place navigation aids (marker buoys) from U.S. Coast Guard.
Cooperation with Great Lakes Shipping Industry: Keeping clear of shipping routes.
8. Criteria
It is important to pre-determine the purpose for the reef and construct accordingly. Sport angling, recreational diving or fish spawning are examples of use. These demonstration projects were targeted specifically for sport angling usage. Other important criteria to assess prior to site location and construction include:
target fish species
bottom substrate hardness (penetrometer test) and composition
angler access and distance from port of shelter
water quality
seasonal dissolved oxygen (Hypolimnion) and thermocline location
water depth above substrate (safe navigation)
commercial conflicts; other recreational conflicts
potential ice scour damage
waves and currents
sediment plumes
adjacent shoreline property owners and potential
economic development and tourism opportunities
possible erosion or deposition effects
present use of site
9. Project Design
Our goal was to create fish habitat, conducive to fish species of angler importance, within the site locations. Ideally, we planned to develop habitat similar to natural reefs in western Lake Erie (Herdendorf and Braidech 1972).
As this project was dependent upon donations of dollars, materials and facilities from the private sector, we modified our plans to fit our budget.
During artificial reef construction, we attempted to create high profile substrate, while providing maximum substrate surface area for habitat enhancement and fish concentration.
10. Implementation
We began our efforts in 1984 with a small test project. Approximately 2 721 t of donated sandstone rubble was placed in 12 m of water at the Cleveland site. Reef material was placed in six separate, unconnected piles using a six compartment dump scow barge. Post project investigations revealed that the dump scow method scattered material resulting in reduced substrate height, which was only 1-1.5 m.
A 2-year research effort conducted during 1985-86 (Gerber 1987) and further literature review (D'Itri 1985; Mathews 1981) confirmed our structures needed to be larger, profiled, connected and in shallower water.
We began our demonstration projects in 1986 at the Lorain site with the placement of 1 814+ t of donated concrete rubble in 9 m of depth. Materials were placed using a barge/crane operation; providing more exact material placement and control of substrate height. Materials were placed in one long, irregular shaped line, parallel to the shoreline, with the height of piles ranging from 2 to 4.5 m. Piles of material were placed side by side, in a connecting manner, to form the reef 'chain'.
During 1987, over 3 447 t of donated concrete rubble was placed, using the same method described above at the Cleveland site, again, in 9 m of water. This formed an artificial reef approximately 243 m in length, with widths varying from 6 to 12 m, and height of material piles from 2 to 4 m. This exhausted our funding for Cleveland.
We returned to Lorain in 1988, placing an additional 2 268+ t of donated concrete rubble, in the above described method, to the existing reef structure. This created one reef with an approximate length of 450 m, widths varying from 6 to 12 m and profiles (height) of 2-5 m.
During 1989, we exhausted our funds for the Lorain site by placing
2 268+ t of donated concrete rubble. This material was placed
approximately 90 m north of and parallel to the existing reef
structure, so that more fish habitat 'area' would result. This
resulted in a new reef structure
approximately 167 m in length, with similar widths and heights.
Donated concrete, brick and stone rubble was utilized at both sites. Material sources were from highway and bridge projects, sidewalks, driveways and buildings, providing for a diversity of sizes and shapes. All materials were free of asphalt, oils and attached non-concrete building products. Rebar stabilizing rods were cut off to a maximum length of 30 cm to reduce angler gear and anchor fouling and SCUBA diver injury.
Scheduled days and times for materials donation, in addition to volunteers checking materials, prevented unwanted or contaminated materials at collection sites. These waterfront dockage 'material collection sites' were donated at both locations by private industry; providing a substantial cost savings.
The use of barge/crane operators appears to be essential for exact placement of materials. This was the only phase of the project that had a cost involved. It is imperative to have displacement calculations conducted on each barge to insure both amount of material placed and accurate costs per load of material placed.
Full-time supervision of the contractor is also essential to insure proper placement, adequate profiles of materials, and compliance with permit regulations/restrictions.
11. Degree of Environmental Intervention
No negative environmental impacts were expected or observed for this project. No modification of existing bottom substrates occurred prior to reef material placement. No negative biological or social impacts have been noted since project completion.
12. Cost
Unfortunately, exact costs for this project are difficult to determine due to donation of material, dollars, services and labor. Funding donations exceeded $100 000, the majority of which was used to pay marine contractors for materials placement. Cost of placement per tonne varied from $6.15 - $13.23 per tonne, (based on 1984-89 costs) depending upon the contractor. Small, non-union contractors fees averaged $8.27/t, making this option attractive.
Dockage and materials collections sites were donated, as was materials and material transport to the collection sites. Materials were not difficult to obtain; this project was highly publicized and had a high level of public acceptance. Also, most contractors needed a place to dispose of concrete scrap and rubble materials.
Much of the project supervision, fund raising and donation procurement
and materials site
inspection was conducted by volunteers from the North Central
Sea Grant Advisory Committee, further reducing project costs.
Overall project supervision and monitoring was the responsibility
of the Sea Grant
District Specialist. As this effort was included in his job description,
no direct costs to the project were realized.
We recommend the involvement of local private interest groups (fishing clubs, charterboat associations, environmental groups) to assist in fund raising and securing donations for materials and services. As projects of this nature can be highly visible in the community, and of great interest to specific organizations, securing donations and volunteer services can result in a very high benefit: cost ratio.
13. Biological Assessment
Anecdotal angler reports from both artificial reef sites (1987 - present) indicate high angler use, success and acceptance. SCUBA diver use, since water clarity improvements (due primarily to the zebra mussel) has also become a popular recreational activity at the reef sites.
Formal evaluation began during 1992 with two research efforts; one to determine fish concentration ability and the other to identify social and economic values.
During 1992 and 1993, underwater VHS video assessment was conducted monthly at the Lorain Artificial Reef site (Kelch and Snyder 1994; Snyder et al. 1994; Kelch and Snyder 1995). Dives were conducted monthly (May-October) at both the reef site and a non-reef control site to identify and enumerate fish and determine habitat differences. Total seasonal numbers of fish were significantly higher (t-test: p=0.01) at the reef site than at the control site for both 1992 and 1993. Total fish numbers were also significantly higher in spring and fall than mid-summer, suggesting seasonal patterns for preference of artificial structure.
During 1992, names and addresses of anglers were randomly collected at various launch sites and marinas for an economic and social research evaluation of the Lorain County artificial reef (Glenn et al. 1994). Surveys were mailed to 850 individuals during 1993, with 466 completed surveys returned (55% response rate). Respondents were asked numerous questions regarding recreational use and expenses on Lorain County waters; including questions specific to the artificial reef. 87% of the respondents indicated they knew about the reef, while 64% of these individuals indicated using the reef during 1992. The respondents indicated they like the reef because it was A) close to shore, B) the catch was good, and C) it was a marked location. The typical respondent made 20 trips to Lorain County waters during 1992, of which 7.1 trips (36%) included going to the reef to fish for part of the trip. The reef accounted for the largest percentage of smallmouth bass harvest (13%) and catch-release (30%) by respondents. However, the walleye was the species targeted on the reef (78%) and harvested on the reef (39%) by the largest number of respondents. (Economic benefits forthcoming - 1995).
14. Measures of Success
The Lake Erie Artificial Reef Program has been an extremely successful project. The project has been highly visible and has generated much enthusiasm within the sport fishing community. The project was cost efficient, and has helped improve the image of Lake Erie's Central Basin.
Underwater VHS video research has indicated the reefs to be effective fish concentration devices (Cleveland's artificial reef is currently being assessed using the VHS video technique; preliminary results rival those found at Lorain). Social and economic investigation has revealed excellent angler use and success.
The ultimate measure of success will be the application of our knowledge in the construction of future artificial reefs.
Success Rating: 5+
15. Key References
D'Itri, F. [editor]. 1985. Artificial reefs - marine and freshwater applications. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI. 581pp.
Gerber, J.M. 1987. Fish use of artificial reefs in the Central Basin of Lake Erie. Masters thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Glenn, S.J., Kelch, D.O., and Hushak, L.J. 1994. Economic evaluation of the Lorain County artificial reef in 1992: an overview. Ohio Sea Grant College Program, Technical Summary OHSU-TS-022, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 9pp.
Herdendorf, C.E., and Braidech, L.L. 1972. Physical characteristics of the reef area of Western Lake Erie. Ohio Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. Geological Surv. Rep. 82: 90pp.
Kelch, D.O., and Snyder, F.L. 1994. The use of VHS video as an underwater assessment tool. Conference Proceedings, 34th Ohio Fish and Wildlife Conference, February 18, 1994. Columbus, OH.
Kelch, D.O., Snyder, F.L, and Reutter, J.M. 1995. Artificial reefs in Lake Erie: an evaluation of their effectiveness as a fish concentrating device. Conference Proceedings, 35th Ohio Fish and Wildlife Conference, February 17, 1995, Columbus, OH.
Mathews, H. 1981. Artificial Reef Site Selection and Evaluation. In Artificial Reefs: Conference proceedings. Univ. Florida Gainesville, FL. Florida Sea Grant College Program Report 41: 50-54.
Snyder, F.L., Kelch, D.O., and Reutter, J.M. Effectiveness of an artificial reef as a Lake Erie fish attractor. Conference Proceedings, 56th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, December 7, 1994. Indianapolis, Indiana.
Additional Non-Cited Reference
Seaman, W., Jr., and Sprague, L.M. [editors]. 1991. Artificial habitats for marine and freshwater fisheries. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA 92101. 285pp.
Correct citation for this contribution:
Kelch, D.O., and Reutter, J. 1995. Artificial Reefs in Lake Erie: A habitat enhancement tool, p. 243-249. In J.R.M. Kelso and J.H. Hartig [editors]. Methods of modifying habitat to benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem. CISTI (Can. Inst. Sci. Tech. Inf.) Occas. Pap. No. 1.