The Charleston Deep Reef: Creating an Artificial Reef Marine Protected Area to Enhance Fisheries Resources

Home , Anthiinae, Graysby, Hyporthodus, Hyporthodus nigritus, Reef butterflyfish

Robert M. Martore* and Melvin Bell South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29412, USA

Abstract.—In support of the Magnuson–Stevens Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, which tasked regional fisheries management councils with ending overfishing of numerous marine finfish species, the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council established 8 deepwater (90–150 m [300–500 ft]) type II marine protected areas (MPAs) along the coastline of the southeastern United States. At the request of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), one of these MPAs was established on an undeveloped sand-bottom area previously permitted by SCDNR for artificial reef development. After monitoring the production potential of unfished artificial reefs for several years on shallower experimental reef sites, SCDNR staff proposed that a deeper location had the potential to become a highly productive spawning site, particularly for deepwater grouper species. Development of this permitted site began in 2014 when two 79-m (260 ft) barges with nearly 30 m (100 ft) of added profile were deployed. Subsequent monitoring of the site through remotely operated underwater vehicle video revealed colonization by several target species, including Warsaw Grouper Hyporthodus nigritus, Snowy Grouper H. niveatus, and Misty Grouper H. mystacinus. Due in part to the success of this deepwater MPA, the SCDNR was also granted spawning special management zone designation for its two previously established, undisclosed experimental artificial reef sites in federal waters off South Carolina in 2017.

Introduction developing fishery management plans to pre- vent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conserva- (U.S. Department of Commerce 2007). The tion and Management Act, first enacted in act was strengthened with the passage of the 1976, is the primary law governing marine Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. This act established eight regional fishery This amendment added new requirements management councils that are responsible for on regional councils to establish annual catch * Corresponding author: [email protected] limits and accountability measures to achieve 187 188 martore and bell species-specific goals to eliminate overfish- SAFMC designate an additional site consist- ing. In 2007, to assist in meeting the manage- ing primarily of flat, featureless sand bottom ment goals of these new requirements, the as a type II MPA. This site, called the Charles- South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council ton Deep Reef, was previously permitted for (SAFMC) established eight deepwater type II deepwater artificial reef development by the marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Atlantic state. After monitoring the production poten- Ocean along the southeastern United States tial of unfished artificial reefs for several years coast, specifically to protect populations and on shallower experimental artificial reefs, spawning sites of deepwater snapper and SCDNR staff believed that a deeper location grouper species (Figure 1). had the potential to become a highly produc- Designation as a type II MPA prohibits tive spawning site, particularly for deepwater bottom fishing or the possession of snapper/ grouper species of management interest. This grouper species while within the designated belief was also supported by the experiences boundaries of the MPA; however, surface of numerous commercial fishermen over the trolling for pelagic species such as dolphin years who have encountered large populations or billfish is allowed. Most sites designated as of grouper on newly discovered shipwrecks. MPAs encompassed areas of naturally occurring hard/live-bottom or rocky ledges inhab- Background ited by populations of snapper and grouper South Carolina Department of Natural Re- species of management interest. Consequent- sources staff began researching the poten- ly, the South Carolina Department of Natu- tial benefits of developing artificial reefs as ral Resources (SCDNR) requested that the

Figure 1. Deepwater marine protected areas (MPAs) established by the South Atlantic Fish- eries Management Council in 2007. the charleston deep reef 189 marine reserves with the creation of an un- compared to 21 m (70 ft) for Area 51. In ad- disclosed research reef in 1998. The experi- dition to dart tags used in Area 51 to track mental artificial reef site, designated “Area fish movement and site fidelity, acoustic tags 51,” was initiated to investigate the feasibil- were also implanted in numerous fish of sev- ity of using artificial reefs as small-scale but eral species on Area 53. Receiver arrays were potentially valuable MPAs. By monitoring established on all four corners of the experi- and documenting the fish populations of mental site to better monitor site fidelity on an unfished artificial reef area over time and the reef over time. comparing their population parameters to Observations from Area 53 were similar those on regularly fished artificial reef areas to those from Area 51, indicating the total of identical design, the potential value of abundances of Black Sea Bass, Gag, Scamp nonexploited artificial reef MPAs as a sup- Mycteroperca phenax, and Gray Triggerfish plement to traditional methods of utilizing Balistes capriscus, were significantly greater at artificial reefs could be evaluated. To more unfished sites. Also, spawning activity within accurately measure the productivity potential the reef complex was observed as well as of this newly created reef, it was necessary to an indication of high site fidelity for some eliminate unmeasured public fishing pressure species. In addition, protected reef sites had on it by limiting public awareness and, con- significantly larger-sized individuals and fast- sequently, public use of the site during the er growth rates for some species (Kolmos study period. The U.S. Army Corps of En- 2007). Both sites clearly demonstrated that gineers allowed SCDNR to utilize a special artificial reefs could be designed, permit- permitting process to bypass the standard ted, and deployed to function specifically as public comment period normally required MPAs and that this concept could be par- for artificial reef permitting. Several years ticularly useful in increasing the reproductive of monitoring revealed that MPA reef sites potential of designated species of manage- indicated significantly higher abundances of ment concern. commercially and recreationally important While neither experimental reef site had species (i.e., Black Sea Bass Centropristis stri- governmental regulatory protection from ata, Gag Mycteroperca microlepis), recruitment fishing during the study periods, the general of juveniles and subadults, spawning activ- public was unaware of the reef sites or the ity in several species, and minimal movement ongoing research activities. Although exploi- among nearby sites once populations became tation of the areas was certainly possible, established (Gold 2001; Kauppert 2002). there were no indications of public discovery Due in part to the results obtained from of the sites from normal indicators of fish- investigations at Area 51, the SAFMC pro- ing activity, as evidenced by unexpected de- vided funding in 2003 to replicate that study creases in fish abundance, lost fishing tackle, design in deeper water to specifically target or fouled boat anchors. other species of interest within the SAFMC’s Snapper Grouper Management Unit. The The Charleston Deep Reef permitting process and all reef parameters Observations from the Area 51 and Area 53 for the new site, designated “Area 53,” were research sites led SCDNR staff to conclude identical to those from Area 51 except that that much deeper artificial reefs that excluded water depth for this site was 32 m (105 ft) fishing might successfully function as habitat 190 martore and bell for large numbers of deepwater species and off the central South Carolina coast (Figure potentially serve as supplemental spawning 2). The construction permit was approved in locations to assist in the rebuilding of stocks March 2005. deemed overfished. Additionally, there have The original permit application for the been documented experiences of commer- Charleston Deep Reef indicated that the reef cial fishermen harvesting large numbers of construction materials would be the steel deepwater grouper species from previously trusses of two major bridges that spanned undiscovered shipwrecks offshore. For ex- Charleston Harbor. The Grace Memorial and ample, a large shipwreck found 195 m (640 Silas Pearman bridges were scheduled for ft) deep off North Carolina was estimated to demolition at this time, and the steel spans, have an initial biomass of 31.3–32.9 metric each nearly 2 mi (3.2 km) long and more than tons (mt; 34.5–36.3 tons) whole weight of 30.5 m (100 ft) high, were specifically recom- Snowy Grouper, with an estimated density mended for offshore reef deployment in the of 11 kg/m2 over the entire ship. Following bridge demolition study (Dial Cordy and As- its discovery by commercial fishermen, 17.2 sociates 2001). mt (19 tons) of Snowy Grouper were har- As the time for actual bridge demoli- vested in approximately 3 months (Epperly tion neared, the South Carolina Department and Dodrill 1995). This information suggest- of Transportation (SCDOT) recouped as ed that there might be value in developing much funding as possible by selling the steel similar-scale artificial reefs specifically for the trusses for scrap metal rather than allow- purpose of maintaining unexploited biomass ing their use as reef material. This left the of key species for spawning potential and Charleston Deep Reef project with a per- stock enhancement. mitted site but no significant material with From its inception, the objective of the which to construct the reef. Still intending Charleston Deep Reef was to be designated to eventually deploy on the site, SCDNR a special management zone (SMZ), and this proceeded with its request to the SAFMC objective was stated in the reef construction for MPA designation and the site was in- permit application to the U.S. Army Corps cluded in the SAFMC’s Amendment 14 to of Engineers. This objective was also made the Snapper/Grouper Fishery Management known to the SAFMC prior to the site selec- Plan submitted to NOAA Fisheries in 2007 tion process for the specific area to be per- and established as federal regulation in 2009. mitted, and SAFMC staff assisted in select- South Carolina now had a legally established ing the actual deployment site. All previous artificial reef MPA but no actual reef mate- bottom surveys of offshore South Carolina rial for the site. waters on file with SAFMC, along with those Attempts were made throughout subse- conducted by SCDNR, were reviewed to quent years to procure a steel-hulled vessel locate a suitable region devoid of hard- or large enough to provide significant profile at live-bottom habitat. After selecting a site, the reef site’s depths. Because there was no side-scan sonar confirmed that substrate at dedicated funding for the Charleston Deep the site was, in fact, flat sand bottom. The Reef project through the SCDNR, there were site selected was a 4 × 6 mi (6.4 × 9.7 km) no available vessels within the scope of the region with water depths between 91 and South Carolina Marine Artificial Reef Pro- 122 m (300–400 ft), located 83.7 km (52 mi) gram’s budget. Around the same time frame, the charleston deep reef 191

Figure 2. Location of the Charleston Deep Reef marine protected area. a group of offshore fishermen approached remained too expensive to procure, clean, SCDNR with the idea of raising funds to sup- and deploy. port a memorial reef to honor deceased off- Eventually, a local marine transportation shore anglers. After numerous discussions, it company offered two large but relatively low was decided that the Charleston Deep Reef profile steel-hulled deck barges, 79 × 16 m MPA would be an appropriate location for (260 × 52 ft). These vessels were purchased such a memorial. Consequently, an organiza- and their vertical profile increased by add- tion called the South Carolina Memorial Reef ing various steel structures donated to the (www.scmemorialreef.com) was formed to project by local individuals and businesses. raise funds to support the Charleston Deep Among the contributed steel structures Reef project. Donations of money and ma- were a derelict derrick crane, steel I-beams, terials were received from individuals and 20- and 40-ft steel shipping containers, truck businesses to support the project. Over sev- chassis, and radio and cell towers. Plans for eral years, the South Carolina Memorial Reef the design of the modified barges were ap- conducted numerous fundraising activities proved as per the permit requirements and that including fishing tournaments and auc- all structures were welded into place, creating tions. Even with this newfound source of nearly 30.5 m (100 ft) of profile on each of funding, most available larger vessels simply the barges (Figure 3). 192 martore and bell

Figure 3. The Charleston Deep Reef barges with added profile.

The first barge was deployed on May to begin documentation of the newly cre- 4, 2014 and the second 3 weeks later on ated sites. Upon reviewing the data, it was May 25. One month later, June 25, 2014, noted that although both barges remained the NOAA vessel R/V Pisces, on its first re- upright, the first barge had lost much of its search cruise to examine each of the des- added profile when it landed on the ocean ignated MPA areas, used multibeam sonar bottom (Figure 4). The second barge re- and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) video mained intact. The only fish found on the

Figure 4. Multibeam image of barge 1 showing detached container boxes beside the upright barge. the charleston deep reef 193 barges at this time were amberjacks Seriola could, in fact, become inhabited and poten- spp. tially utilized for reproduction just as any Two years later, June 13, 2016, a second other naturally occurring substrate. It is an- survey of the Charleston Deep Reef was un- ticipated that future site monitoring will con- dertaken by the R/V Pisces. Video from one tinue to show increases in fish biomass with ROV dive on each of the barges revealed nu- concomitant spawning activity. merous species of interest on each, includ- Colonization on the deployed reef ma- ing Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus, Scamp, terials at the Charleston Deep Reef by grou- and Yellowedge Grouper Hyporthodus flavolim- per species designated as overfished, coupled batus on barge 1 and Red Snapper, Scamp, with the fishing success experienced by rec- Warsaw Grouper (Figure 5), Misty Grouper, reational anglers trolling for pelagic and high- Snowy Grouper, and Yellowedge Grouper ly migratory species in the waters overhead, on barge 2 (Table 1). led all involved with the reef ’s creation to There was no indication of spawning continue its expansion through the addition activity during these surveys. However, colo- of more reef materials. The South Carolina nization of the barges by multiple targeted Memorial Reef Fund and the South Carolina species indicated that an artificial reef MPA Governors Cup Billfishing Series provided a

Figure 5. Warsaw Grouper on the Charleston Deep Reef. 194 martore and bell Table 1. Fish abundances of all species observed on the two barges comprising the Charles- ton Deep Reef marine protected area. (From Harter et. al. 2016.) Barge 1 Barge 2 Species abundance Species abundance Anthiinae 50 Bank Sea Bass Calamus spp. 2 Centropristis ocyurus 2 Bank Sea Bass Jackknife-fishEquetus Centropristis ocyurus 3 lanceolatus 2 Halichoeres spp. 7 Red Barbier Baldwinella Graysby Cephalopholis (also Hemanthias) vivanus 350 cruentata (also cruentatus) 1 Yellowedge Grouper Reef Butterflyfish Hyporthodus flavolimbatus 2 Chaetodon sedentarius 5 Misty Grouper Hyporthodus Halichoeres spp. 10 mystacinus 1 Red Barbier Baldwinella Warsaw Grouper (also Hemanthias) vivianus 150 Hyporthodus nigritus 5 Blue AngelfishHolacanthus Snowy Grouper bermudensis 3 Hyporthodus niveatus 26 Yellowedge Grouper Red Snapper Lutjanus Hyporthodus flavolimbatus 1 campechanus 1 Wrasse Basslet Liopropoma Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 15 eukrines 2 Pareques spp. 18 Red Snapper Lutjanus Roughtongue Bass campechanus 6 Pronotogrammus Scamp Mycteroperca phenax 16 martinicensis 2 Mycteroperca spp. 4 Red LionfishPterois volitans 22 Cubbyu Pareques umbrosus 7 Vermilion Snapper Bank Butterflyfish Rhomboplites aurorubens 30 Prognathodes aya 1 Seriola spp. 35 Red LionfishPterois volitans 52 Saddle Bass Serranus Seriola spp. 15 notospilus 3 Saddle Bass Serranus notospilus 3 Unknown 1 mechanism to initiate additional fund-raising in one piece and place it on a barge at the activities if appropriate materials could be bridge site. With the bridge welded into place identified for the site. In late 2016, a poten- on the barge, the entire structure, approxi- tial source of materials was located when the mately 52 m (170 ft) long and 15 m (50 ft) tall, SCDOT announced plans to replace a steel would be towed and sunk on the Charleston swing bridge over the Wando River near Deep Reef MPA site. The truss was removed Charleston, South Carolina with a fixed span in August 2017 and brought to the reef site bridge. Discussions with the general contrac- in October (Figure 6). Underwater footage of tor for the demolition of the bridge pro- this latest structure has not yet been obtained, duced a plan to remove the entire steel truss but future ROV monitoring is planned. the charleston deep reef 195

Figure 6. A steel bridge truss welded to a deck barge deployed on the Charleston Deep Reef marine protected area.

Early indications were that the Charles- trolling for other pelagic species is allowed. ton Deep Reef MPA would be successful South Carolina is now the first state in the in attracting deepwater species of manage- USA with three artificial reefs deployed and ment interest and that the site could be le- maintained exclusively for the protection gally afforded protection through federal and enhancement of its reef fish fisheries regulation. Consequently, SCDNR asked resources. the SAFMC for similar protected status for With the successful precedent of artifi- its original two research reefs, Areas 51 and cial reef deployment specifically to enhance 53. This request was included in the coun- fisheries, it is hoped that additional support cil’s Snapper Grouper Amendment 36, went can be obtained for long-term monitoring, through an extensive public review process, research, and evaluation activities on these received final approval in March 2016, and and new MPA and SSMZ reef sites. These was implemented as federal regulation in artificial-reef-enabled MPAs and SSMZs are July 2017. These two research sites are now necessary to further explore the potential designated as spawning special management benefits from developing artificial reefs spe- zones (SSMZs). Like the type II MPAs in cifically for the purposes of fisheries stock deeper water, fishing for or possessing spe- enhancement and to rebuild and maintain cies from the Snapper Grouper Management healthy populations of reef fishes along the Unit is prohibited within these areas while coast. The concept of using artificial reefs 196 martore and bell primarily for stock enhancement and limit- port prepared for U.S. Army Corps of En- ing or prohibiting fishing on them may seem gineers, Charleston District, Charleston, somewhat alien to many anglers. Neverthe- South Carolina. less, the very successful Charleston Deep Epperly, S. P., and J. W. Dodrill. 1995. Catch Reef–South Carolina Memorial Reef part- rates of Snowy Grouper, Epinephelus nive- nership has resulted in a clearly beneficial sit- atus, on the deep reefs of Onslow Bay, uation for both fishery managers interested southeastern U.S.A. Bulletin of Marine in conservation and rebuilding of deepwater Science 56:450–461. grouper populations and blue water anglers Gold, H. 2001. Impact of the removal of Black interested in enhancing their pelagic and Sea Bass (Centropristis striata) from artificial reef structures in the South Atlantic Bight. highly migratory fishing activities. Master’s thesis. College of Charleston, The ability to provide protection for ar- Charleston, South Carolina. tificial reef sites through the fishery manage- Harter S., J. Reed, S. Farrington, and A. Da- ment council process and federal regulation vid. 2016. NOAA CIOERT cruise report: allows the biomass and spawning potential of South Atlantic MPAs and Oculina HAPC: deepwater grouper species to increase. These characterization of benthic Habitat and increases could potentially rise to the levels biota, NOAA Ship Pisces Cruise 16–02, seen on newly discovered deep shipwrecks, UNCW Mohawk ROV, June 7–22, 2016. such as the “snowy wreck” off North Caro- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- lina (Epperly and Dodrill 1995), and could ministration (NOAA), Cooperative Insti- allow a reef complex of strategically located tute for Ocean Exploration, Research & and protected artificial reefs to serve in the Technology (CIOERT), Florida Atlantic rebuilding of overfished stocks of concern. University, Boca Raton, Florida. To accomplish this, other states within the Kauppert, P. 2002. Feeding habits and trophic range of these species should also invest in relationships of an assemblage of fishes and develop similar artificial reefs and seek associated with a newly established arti- appropriate regulatory protection for this ficial reef off South Carolina. Master’s purpose. Eventually, the development of thesis. College of Charleston, Charleston, a wider series of protected reef sites along South Carolina. the coast or around the nation may, in time, Kolmos, K. 2007. Succession and biodiversity aid in the rebuilding of overfished stocks of of an artificial reef marine protected area: many species. a comparison of fish assemblages on protected and unprotected habitats. Master’s References thesis. College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina. Dial Cordy and Associates. 2001. Cooper River U.S. Department of Commerce. 2007. Mag- Bridges Demolition Section 206 study: nuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and environmental benefits analysis. Final Re- Management Act. Public Law 94–265.