BASS BARN banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Our NJ reefs are only a total of 25.1 sq. miles with the top five(in order by size): Cape May, Atlantic City, Axel Carlson, Wildwood and Little Egg.

But what i find interesting is that CM + AC + LE < 2.5% of the total volume of reef materials deployed from 70-08'..The number increases, if you take away the large amounts of rock dumped up noth, to about 26%..

I guess what got me started is that Little Egg reef being the 5th largest and one of the easiest to access has the smallest deployment. Coming in at .09% of all deployed materials .9% of all non rock materials...Shark River is the big daddy with 52% of all matials and take away the rock thats been dumped and it still has the largest percentage...

Is the reef program is really for the fishermen and spiecies of fish or just a dumping ground for North Jersey and NY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
The reefs are for the RECREATIONAL fisherman to catch and the different species to thrive. It has been noted by several divers, the amount of different species that start to call new materials put on the sites home within weeks of being put there. The biggest problem are the netters and draggers that now are roaming the reef site areas. When I talk about Recreational fisherman, I include Party Boats and charter boats as well. The recreational fishermen is what the reef sites were originally developed for. It's not just about random dumping, but placing bridge rubble, tire piles(which are no longer done)reef balls, and ships to create habitat for different species.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
We are talking about two different things.. I am not discrediting the effectiveness of the program on the contrary i think it is great and it does work.. my problem is with the delegation of materials in regards to the location of reefs..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
We are talking about two different things.. I am not discrediting the effectiveness of the program on the contrary i think it is great and it does work.. my problem is with the delegation of materials in regards to the location of reefs..
Sorry for the miscommunication. That is a thought I have had also. What is the criteria for which reef site gets what material and when. It does seem that certain ones get more material than others. I would question the Artificial Reef people at Nacote Creek near Port Republic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
Jr,
There are alot of thing that go into the reef sites. Two major item is how deep the water is and the $$ amount to take the product to be dumped. Your are right in that LER is big and does not have alot on it. But it is also in the middle of the state. To get product there cost more then going form NY to NNJ. LER is not deep compared to some of the other dumping sites. We can not have Product that sits 20 to 40 feet off the bottom due to the boat traffic

Hope this helps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
whats up old friend.... :wave:

Thats why I asked, if the northern reefs were put in place so they could be used as an economial way to dispose of dredge rock and rubble.. or is that what they have become.... to me thats not effective management of the Reef Program when you see such lop-sided numbers...Not to mention the affect overloading a reef might have, if there even is one:huh:

Either way I think we are in agreement that LE needs a little more attention than its getting... Less than 1% of all NJ reef material c'mon..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Jr,
There are alot of thing that go into the reef sites. Two major item is how deep the water is and the $$ amount to take the product to be dumped. Your are right in that LER is big and does not have alot on it. But it is also in the middle of the state. To get product there cost more then going form NY to NNJ. LER is not deep compared to some of the other dumping sites. We can not have Product that sits 20 to 40 feet off the bottom due to the boat traffic

Hope this helps

^What he said!
Not to knock what your saying but everyone wants more reef material at the reef nearest to them! The Shark river guys want more stuff, the AC guys want more stuff too, the Del. Bay guys want a reef period! If it's was most economical and efficient to put this stuff right in everyone's back yard like they want... they would! LeR is pretty shallow as mentioned so alot of vessels simply can't be put there and it takes alot of time, effort, man power etc to get materials there, and where the things the program know they are going to get (ie reefballs, dredge rock etc) are deployed happens on a cycle. So if Le gets some reef balls it maybe X amount of years before they get more because the following years batches go to Ge, then GsN, thenGsS, so on and so forth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I understand about the depth for navigation purposes but you mean that out of the almost 4 million cubic yards of rock deployed on the Shark River reef they couldn't come up with a way to budget a barge to either GSN,
GSS or LE? The volume of rock dumped on only 4 reef sites(Sandy Hook, SR, Sea Girt and Axel C) makes up 90% of ALL materials deployed on the 15 sites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
A vast majority if not all of that rock came from deepening NY harbor. So the program again is at the mercy of the organization sponsoring the material. Their rock, their barge, their tugs were used. If NY hadn't lost it's reef permits we might not have ANY of it! So the program can't necessarily order them to bring a barge down to LeR. Once and again they are able to convince them to bring a barge further south but they want to go the shortest distance possible for their bottom line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
whats up old friend.... :wave:

Thats why I asked, if the northern reefs were put in place so they could be used as an economial way to dispose of dredge rock and rubble.. or is that what they have become.... to me thats not effective management of the Reef Program when you see such lop-sided numbers...Not to mention the affect overloading a reef might have, if there even is one:huh:

Either way I think we are in agreement that LE needs a little more attention than its getting... Less than 1% of all NJ reef material c'mon..
The locations of the reef site were put in place so that every inlet would be able to tap into two to three location. When the sites were pick it I do not think it was about economics but now it is. Each site will get product as it become available and if there is money to move it to that site. LER did get reef balls on it last year. I think it was about 250 balls and they have already produced fish. I also think that GSS and GSN both go product this past year.

With 15 site I would not think that LER is top on the list since it just got some. Also LER is not deep. The are not able to pile it up as high on this site. Will the site is big it is LxW is is not deep.

This is why I have been making the trip to GSN and AC. This two site are much deeper water and will hold more product in the future.

Thing are good old friend:wave:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,832 Posts
A vast majority if not all of that rock came from deepening NY harbor. So the program again is at the mercy of the organization sponsoring the material. Their rock, their barge, their tugs were used. If NY hadn't lost it's reef permits we might not have ANY of it! So the program can't necessarily order them to bring a barge down to LeR. Once and again they are able to convince them to bring a barge further south but they want to go the shortest distance possible for their bottom line.
Right on the money.
If you want more product on LER you can pay to have reef balls made and request that the product go to that reef. It Has been done before get a reef book and look at who paid to that the product put there. If it is free from another state then what CSF said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
So NJ just says we'll let you dump your dredging free of charge?

I think our reef program is ok but why settle for that when it could be better along the entire coast.

Check out the Reef Site Statistics you might find the numbers interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
So NJ just says we'll let you dump your dredging free of charge?

I think our reef program is ok but why settle for that when it could be better along the entire coast.

Check out the Reef Site Statistics you might find the numbers interesting.
Yes NJ says you can dump your rock for free! Why? Because the end result is IT PRODUCES FISH IN NJ!!! All that rock that your worried about could've been somewhere else (NY waters if we weren't lucky) Then we'd be stuck moaning and groaning about why we don't have a reef program as good as NY or De! (<I laughed when I typed that)

We have one of the premiere programs in the country and as thus the world (without a saltwater license... but that's another debate). How are we settling by taking for free a material known the world over to enhance fisheries? Think about what could be there in place of those tons of rock for the same price.... sand!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,270 Posts
Its simple economics. You get most rock and concrete reef materials for free. It costs big bucks to deliver them to the site. You have to drop them as economical as possible to keep the donors from seeking other means. Some of the NYH rock is, and has been, spread on other reefs like AC, and some slated even for CM. LE is still a relatively new reef. I for one would love to see reef areas quadrupled with all of them getting the NYH rock. But money is tight and transporting 1000's of tons of rock and concrete is expensive. It would be great if NYH bedrock happened to be on the bottom of AC Inlet, but that is not reality. The NJ state reef budget is tiny compared to what is donated by even the commercial fishing companies. Hugh Carberry does a great job distributing it around for what little money is available.
The reef permits limit the height of structure above the bottom and what can be sunk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,147 Posts
The NJ state reef budget is tiny compared to what is donated by even the commercial fishing companies.
The reef permits limit the height of structure above the bottom and what can be sunk.
The "commercial fishing companies" have been paid by the program to tow and sink their "donations". And no doubt get a healthy tax deduction out of it as well. The Army Corp of Engineers set the maximum height on each reef site at low tide for clearance. Here is an excerpt from one of our permits:

In accordance with your request, the enclosed plans (Enclosures 1 - 4) are approved to supersede the previously approved plans identified as E-1, E-4, E-5, and E-9 in the permit document. The revised plans provide for the following:

1. Reducing the authorized minimum vertical clearances at the Sandy Hook Reef site from 40 feet to 30 feet at mean low water elevation;

2. Reducing the authorized minimum vertical clearances at the Axel Carlson Reef site from 50 feet to 40 feet at mean low water elevation;

3. Reducing the authorized minimum vertical clearances at the Barnegat Light Reef site from 50 feet to 40 feet at mean low water elevation;

4. Reducing the authorized minimum vertical clearances at the Great Egg Reef site from 50 feet to 40 feet at mean low water elevation.

This is a copy of the request:

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/cenap-op/regulatory/pn/pn200401135.pdf
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top