Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-12-05

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Science Review of Artificial Reefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries August 2012
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS) 

administers the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Its mission is to identify, 

designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational, 

historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal and 

marine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural and 

historical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size from 

less than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelp 

forests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats, 

segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.

Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marine 

sanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research, 

monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of these 

programs is fundamental to marine protected area management. The Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing a forum for 

publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the sanctuary system.

Topics of published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions of 

educational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and results of 

scientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates integration of natural 

sciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development to 

accomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate. All publications 

are available on the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Web site 

(http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov).
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Science Review of Artificial Reefs

Kathy Broughton

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Silver Spring, Maryland

August 2012

U.S. Department of Commerce

Rebecca Blank, Acting Secretary

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Ocean Service

David M. Kennedy, Assistant Administrator

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Daniel J. Basta, Director
Disclaimer

Report content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

Report Availability

Electronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries web site at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov.

Cover

The U.S.S. Spiegel Grove was scuttled as an artificial reef in 2002 in the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary. Photo courtesy of elmark.net.

Suggested Citation

Broughton, K. 2012. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Science Review of Artificial 

Reefs. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-12-05. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 42pp.

Contact

Kathy Broughton

NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

1305 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Kathy.Broughton@noaa.gov

301-713-3125
1

Table of Contents

Overview........................................................................................................................2

Attraction Versus Production.........................................................................................4

Range Expansion ...........................................................................................................8

Invasive Species...........................................................................................................13

Disease Introduction or Acceleration...........................................................................17

Toxicological Impacts..................................................................................................17

Impacts to the Physical and Chemical Attributes of the Ecosystem............................22

Longevity and Structural Integrity...............................................................................23

Human Use and Economic Impacts.............................................................................27

Cited Literature ............................................................................................................29

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................42
2

Overview

Artificial reefs are human-made structures that are either deliberately or unintentionally 

submerged underwater, commonly with the result of mimicking some characteristics of a 

natural reef. Artificial reefs alter local habitat by providing hard substrate and complex 

vertical relief where typically none previously existed (Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985, 

Sheehy and Vik 1992, Sheehy and Vik 2010). They may be created from a variety of 

sources and materials including the intentional sinking of ships and barges, rubble, 

concrete, rocks, stone, boulders, steel, and metal, etc. (Baine 2001). They may also be 

created through unintentional means (e.g., shipwrecks that can become historical in 

nature) and through structures built for other purposes (e.g., decommissioned oil and gas 

platforms, breakwaters1, jetties, bridges, offshore lighthouses, air force towers, 

navigational aids, marine data buoys, etc.). These various materials have benefits and 

drawbacks when used in artificial reef construction (see Table 1 for examples).

The establishment of an artificial structure influences the surrounding underwater 

ecosystem by creating new habitat that can potentially change the abundance and 

distribution of living resources. Artificial structures can provide similar ecological 

functions as natural habitat, including developing epibiotic communities that create 

microhabitat for motile species, locally concentrate planktonic and pelagic food 

resources, alter current flows to provide sheltered areas, provide visual reference points, 

and create spawning sites (Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985, Sheehy and Vik 2010). 

Because of their ability to create habitat for a variety of marine life they are often popular 

destinations for divers, snorkelers, and fishermen. Therefore, their creation can also alter 

human use by shifting recreational diving and fishing patterns (Leeworthy et al. 2006, 

Leeworthy 2011).

General agreement exists in the scientific community that artificial reefs can effectively 

accumulate fish and other organisms (Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985). Somewhat less 

understood are the effects of artificial reefs on living resource production, their ability to 

act as stepping-stones that facilitate native and non-native species dispersal, how they 

affect disease frequency in fish and invertebrates, toxicological impacts, their long-term 

structural integrity, and changes to the socioeconomic conditions of adjacent coastal 

communities. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the scientific literature and 

findings on these subjects.

 1 Submerged breakwaters as a means of shoreline stabilization, coastal erosion mitigation, and 

enhancement of local surfing conditions are also sometimes referred to as “artificial reefs.” These structures 

have received increased attention in recent years (ESA PWA 2012); however, because they are not 

intentionally deployed in marine environments to perform habitat-enhancing roles, discussion of artificial 

reefs as shoreline protective devices is beyond the scope of this document.
3

Table 1. Comparison of various materials that have been used in the development of underwater 

artificial reefs in the United States. Although used historically, material types in shaded rows are 

currently prohibited for use as artificial reefs by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers due to past 

negative performance (Source: modified from AGSMFC 2004).

Material Type Benefits Drawbacks

Concrete, secondary use 

materials (culverts, storm water 

junction boxes, etc.) 

Cost effective; material is 

compatible with marine 

environment; material is highly 

durable and stable; readily 

available; can be cast into many 

forms; provides surfaces for 

settlement and growth of 

encrusting organisms.

Heavy weight; higher cost 

needed for deployment. 

Waterfront staging area is 

needed for long term 

accumulation of donated 

materials.

Steel Hulled Vessels

Make for interesting diving 

locations and as such can 

generate economic 

contributions to coastal 

communities; durable at certain 

depths; attract both pelagic and 

demersal fishes; provide surface 

area for epibenthic colonization.

Stability during hurricanes is 

variable; durability can be 

compromised due to salvage; 

removal of hazardous materials 

is expensive. 

Oil and Gas Platforms

Provide habitat for a variety of 

species; durable and stable; 

readily available.

Could pose obstructions to 

navigation; expensive to move 

or remove structures; potential 

to attract invasive species. 

Concrete designed structures

Can be engineered to address 

specific goals and objectives of 

an artificial reef program; 

standardized modules provide 

valuable opportunities for 

research monitoring; can be 

readily available if vendors are 

local; long-term stability.

Can be limiting due to lack of 

funding and module 

manufacturers; deployment can 

be more expensive in 

comparison to secondary use 

materials.

Natural materials (e.g., rock, 

shell) Can be readily available. 

Excavation of natural materials 

may have terrestrial 

environmental trade-offs.

Automobiles Readily available; easy to 

handle.

Require a great deal of 

preparation prior to 

deployment; not durable or 

stable. 

Tires 

Easy to handle; readily 

available; low cost; long lifespan.

Leaching of petrochemical or 

heavy metal toxicants is 

possible; un-ballasted tires are 

unstable; properly ballasted 

tired are more expensive and 

difficult to handle. 

Wood Can be readily available. Short-term stability and life 

span. 
4

Attraction Versus Production

Artificial reefs have been purposely deployed in coastal and offshore habitats, including 

some national marine sanctuaries, to enhance the production of reef-associated species 

(e.g., macroalgae, invertebrates, and fish). Often, this increased production has 

historically been aimed to mitigate the losses from overfishing and other anthropogenic 

pressures (e.g., pollution, habitat destruction, etc.). For example, in Thunder Bay within 

Lake Huron artificial reefs have been established to mitigate aquatic habitat degradation 

and loss that has resulted from cement kiln dust deposition (a waste by-product of cement 

production) by creating approximately two acres of new habitat for spawning fishes. 

Artificial reefs are also created to enhance the convenience and efficiency of fishing for 

reef-associated species, which in turn may reduce fishing pressure on natural reefs 

(Ambrose 1994, Carr and Hixon 1997). More recently, engineering more difficult to 

detect small low-profile reefs and developing reefs aimed at reducing fishing pressure at 

natural sites have been implemented with greater emphasis to integrate artificial reef 

construction with fisheries management objectives. Today, critical questions during the 

planning process include contemplation of the impacts that artificial structures have on 

living resource production. For example, perhaps the most commonly asked question 

with regards to artificial reef development is if they primarily increase fish production or 

aggregate fish. The production hypothesis suggests that reef habitat is a limiting factor 

and that artificial reefs increase fish production by providing a habitat that would 

otherwise not be present. The attraction hypothesis proposes that fish are simply attracted 

to artificial reefs, and questions whether fishes that recruit to artificial reefs could have 

instead recruited to natural reefs. If so, do artificial reefs impact growth, mortality, and 

emigration (Carr and Hixon 1997)?

Attraction is the net movement of individual organisms from natural to artificial habitats 

(Carr and Hixon 1997). Production, somewhat more difficult to observe, is best 

quantified as a change in biomass through time. It reflects births, immigration, growth, 

death, and emigration (Carr and Hixon 1997). Several scientists and research managers 

have addressed the attraction-production issue in research and literature, but the relative 

levels of each, and the factors affecting them, have yet to be unequivocally resolved 

(Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985, Bohnsack 1989, Bohnsack et al. 1991, Bohnsack et al. 

1997, Lindberg 1997, Herrnkind et al. 1997, Grossman et al. 1997). As a result, today it 

is widely acknowledged that artificial reefs function both in attraction and production.

Some findings suggest that artificial reefs allow for secondary biomass production 

through increased survival and growth of new individuals by providing additional food 

sources; shelter from predation and shelf currents; a point of physical orientation; 

increased recruitment habitat for settling individuals that would otherwise be lost to the 

population; and vacated space in the natural environment that allows replacement from 

outside the system (Randall 1963, Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985, Bohnsack 1989, Meier 

et al. 1989, Carr and Hixon 1997, Love et al. 2006, Otake and Oshitani 2006, REEF 

2007, Shipp and Bortone 2009). Other study results suggest that by aggregating existing 

scattered individuals, artificial reefs can have deleterious effects on exploited populations 

by making remaining fish too easy to catch, especially if overfishing is a problem 

(Bohnsack 1989, Meier et al. 1989, Grossman et al. 1997). Concentrated fishing effort 
5

and catch at artificial reefs can increase the potential for over exploitation. In addition, 

recent analysis of natural mortality and fishing mortality estimates show the 

overwhelming influence fishing pressure has on fish stocks, regardless of the presence of 

artificial reefs (Patterson et al. 2009). One component of mortality related to fishing is a 

result of release mortality caused by barotrauma and/or hook injuries. Recent efforts 

towards reducing release mortality include implementation of de-hooking and venting 

tools, recompression devices, and circle hooks. By giving consideration towards 

placement of artificial reefs intended for fishing opportunities at depth locations to 

minimize barotraumas injuries artificial reefs could potentially play a role towards the 

effort to reduce release mortality. Thus, artificial reef design and fisheries management 

on artificial reefs, both under the authority of resource managers, may influence the 

levels of attraction and production (Pickering and Whitmarsh 1996). 

Studies have shown that the materials and design of artificial reefs impact their relative 

value as a fisheries enhancement tool. Historically, most artificial reefs consisted of 

manufactured materials (see Table 1), such as metal or concrete. Studies have shown 

higher species abundance with increasing structural volume and complexity of artificial 

reefs (Potts and Hulbert 1994, Spieler et al. 2001, Quinn 2009) with larger, more 

structurally complex reefs (e.g., structures with holes, overhangs, and shadows) providing 

more opportunity for animals to recruit and thus may lead to a higher local biological 

diversity (Menge 1976). Brock and Norris (1989) compared four artificial reef designs 

and found that reefs composed of haphazardly dumped scrap materials (automobile shells 

and surplus concrete pipe) provided the poorest enhancement, while reefs composed of 

modules of scrap automobile tires set in concrete bases and dumped haphazardly showed 

moderate enhancement that varied with the degree of module dispersion. Significantly 

greater enhancement effects (e.g., mean standing crop, mean size per fish and mean 

number of species) were attained on an artificial reef constructed in an open framework 

of concrete cube modules that were arranged to provide maximum refuge space for 

fishes. Their data suggest that haphazard deployment of materials provided significantly 

poorer enhancement relative to a reef constructed of designed modules assembled into a 

specific configuration. 

Carr and Hixon (1997) suggested that placement of artificial reefs also largely determines 

how much attraction and/or production occur. They presented three possible scenarios 

that were tested in field studies. In the first, they concluded that a management area with 

only an artificial reef would increase regional production. In the second scenario, a 

management area included an artificial reef located offshore from a natural reef with a 

strong long shore current present. They concluded that the current would preclude larval 

or migratory transport between the natural reef and the artificial reef and that if the 

artificial reef did not exist, the larvae that settled on it would be lost from the 

management area. That artificial reef, therefore, would increase production in the 

management area. In the final scenario, an artificial reef was located up current from a 

natural reef in a management area. They concluded that attraction dominated in this case 

because intercepted larvae grew less well on the artificial reef than they would have on a 

natural reef. Total growth and production would have been higher if the larvae 

intercepted by the artificial reef could have settled on a natural reef. A more recent study 
6

by Love et al. (2007) further examined this premise. Their examination of daily growth 

rates of young-of-the-year (YOY) blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus), through parings 

from natural and artificial reefs, demonstrated that juvenile blue rockfish living at the 

artificial habitat of oil and gas production platforms grew at least as well as those at 

natural reefs, and in one case grew more productively than those at natural reefs. By Carr 

and Hixon’s definition, production is occurring from these artificial habitats and Love et 

al.’s results further imply that some artificial reefs may benefit regional fish populations.

Another study by Emery et al. (2006) further supported the potential importance of 

artificial reefs in larval recruitment. Results from this oceanic current study indicate that 

most of the YOY bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis; a species of concern as determined by 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, and a fishery stock determined to be depleted 

and overfished by the Pacific Fishery Management Council) that settled around Platform 

Irene (located west of Point Conception, California) during two separate years would not 

have survived in the absence of the platform. Instead, prevailing currents would likely 

advect the YOY’s offshore where they would have a very low probability of survival. 

Although it is possible that some individuals would encounter acceptable nursery habitat 

on offshore banks or islands, it is likely that most would perish. This study demonstrated 

that the presence of Platform Irene almost certainly increases the survival of YOY 

bocaccio in the Point Conception–Point Arguello region off California. Further, the study 

also shows that knowledge of regional ocean circulation patterns is essential for 

evaluating the effects of oil production platforms or other artificial habitats on dispersal 

pathways. Location of artificial habitat, oceanographic current patterns and 

presence/absence of suitable natural habitat and its distribution determine the balance 

between settlement on an artificial reef and settlement on natural habitat.

Further complicating the attraction-production issue is the question of whether the 

communities that form at artificial reef sites mimic natural reef communities. Many 

studies have shown that artificial reefs have a higher abundance and biomass than 

randomly selected bottom control areas, however, natural and artificial reefs generally 

have similar fish community structure (see Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985). It has been 

found that the structural complexity provided by artificial reefs contributes to the greater 

density of fishes on artificial reefs in comparison to natural reefs (Smith et al. 1979, 

Bohnsack et al. 1994, Eklund 1996). As an example, a study by Walton (1982) found that 

the density of fish on artificial reefs was eight times greater in comparison to natural 

reefs. In addition, a study in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that the deployment of 

thousands of petroleum platforms transformed the region from a relatively unproductive 

area for the habitat-limited red snapper to one of the most productive red snapper areas in 

the Gulf of Mexico (Shipp and Bartone 2009)2

. However, it should be noted that in most 

cases (particularly areas with relatively fewer artificial reefs) although fish density is 

usually higher on artificial reefs than natural reefs, the actual total abundance of fishes on 

artificial reefs can be trivial compared to natural reefs because most artificial reefs cover 

 2 It should be noted that Cowan et al. 2010 discounts this study because they contend Shipp and Bartone 

provide little information on red snapper life history or ecology, nor do they provide a mechanistic 

explanation for the thesis that artificial reefs have increased red snapper stock-specific productivity.
7

a much smaller total area. Therefore, in these instances, the contribution of artificial reefs 

to total fish abundance is trivial (DeMartini et al. 1989).

A key issue is habitat limitation and whether or not artificial reefs provide critical habitat 

for increased production that would not otherwise be possible. Reef fish abundance has 

traditionally been considered limited by habitat or space partly because reefs are a patchy 

resource, limited in geographical coverage and separated from other reefs (Bohnsack 

1989). Habitat can be limiting primarily by the availability of food or shelter from 

predation (Bohnsack 1989). Studies have shown that the transformation of low-relief 

habitats (e.g., predominantly sandy mud habitats) to one having increased areas of high 

relief (and hard bottom) can increase fish abundance (Shipp 1999, Osenberg et al. 2002, 

Shipp and Bortone 2009). Bortone (2008) presented a model that demonstrates that not 

only do artificial reefs attract fish but, in addition, they may also provide increased 

habitat that relieves a “bottleneck” in the life history that previously restricted population 

abundance. However, some fishery scientists argue that habitat is not limiting (Lindberg 

1997, Cowan et al. 2010, Lindberg et al. 2006). One reasoning is that before reef fishes 

were heavily exploited, the existing natural habitat supported an abundance of reef fish, 

presumably at or near carrying capacity. Fishing mortality later reduced stocks, yet the 

amount of natural habitat remained the same. With fish stocks substantially below 

carrying capacity, they reason that the amount of habitat could not be the factor that 

limits population size. An alternative is that instead most adult reef fish populations are 

limited by recruitment variability (Doherty and Williams 1998, Doherty and Fowler 

1994, Booth and Brosnan 1995). In the cases of heavily exploited species with depleted 

populations, a lack of spawning adults may limit recruitment success and population 

replenishment. Some scientists note that some species are habitat-limited while others are 

recruitment-limited (Bohnsack et al. 1991). Results from a study by Lindberg et al. 

(2006) suggest that the attraction–production issue is a false dichotomy in that high 

densities of fish result from processes such as density-dependent habitat selection rather 

than behavioral artifacts, and that whether or not artificial reefs are ecological traps 

depends on associated fishing mortality.

The discussions surrounding artificial reefs need to evolve from the single issue of 

attraction versus production to an evaluation of the overall ecological performance of 

fishes at natural versus artificial reefs (Love et al. 2006), and how these dynamics change 

over time. Comparisons of natural versus artificial reefs should examine: 1) survival rate 

of young fishes at the two habitat types, 2) the density of recruiting juveniles at an 

artificial reef versus surrounding natural reefs, 3) the possibility that an artificial reef is 

attracting fishes from nearby natural reefs, and 4) the source of fishes found on an 

artificial reef (Love et al. 2006).

The above questions on the performance of artificial reefs are complex; one cannot be 

answered without considering the others. 
8

Range Expansion

Artificial structures may provide habitat that can directly or indirectly support 

recruitment and range expansion for various organisms including sponges, bryozoans, 

barnacles, hydroids, corals3, and associated fish communities (Shinn 1974, Rooker et al. 

1997, Sammarco et al. 2004, Atchison 2005, Love and York 2005, Sheehy and Vik 

2010). Artificial structures provide hard substrate, which may increase the supply of prey, 

shelter, and spawning sites that could alter the local distributions of species and 

potentially contribute to range expansions (Rooker et al. 1997, Casell et al. 2002). Studies 

have shown that algae, invertebrates, and fishes are capable of colonizing new reef 

structures rapidly (Fager 1971, Bohnsack and Talbot 1980, Bohnsack and Sutherland 

1985). As such, artificial structures, particularly offshore oil and gas platforms, have been 

described as potential stepping-stones for the expansion of various living resource 

communities. It should be noted that the majority of fish and invertebrate species that are 

observed on both artificial and natural reefs do not spend their entire life in these habitats. 

Different stages of development may have different habitat requirements and population 

limitations. For these reasons, organisms observed on an artificial structure are 

ecologically part of a number of interconnected populations. Therefore, an artificial 

structure can affect other populations across regions and habitats (Schroeder and Love 

2004). 

Studies have examined recruitment and succession on artificial reefs. Oil and gas 

platforms have been shown to support the expansion and growth of sessile invertebrate 

communities (Shinn 1974, Sammarco et al. 2004, Atchison 2005, Sheehy and Vik 2010). 

Much of the northern Gulf of Mexico region is characterized by mud substrate with low 

habitat diversity, thus making it unavailable to sessile, epibenthic hard bottom organisms. 

When oil and gas platforms were introduced in the Gulf of Mexico they provided 

additional hard structure for benthic colonization and represented one of the few shallowwater (less than 20 meters depth), hard substrate habitats in the region. Since the 1940s,

approximately 7,000 oil and gas platforms have been installed in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Today there are approximately 3,300 oil and gas platforms in federal waters in the Gulf 

of Mexico (D. Peter, Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Artificial Reef Program, 

pers. comm., 2011)4

. One study estimated that the presence of about 3,800 oil and gas 

 3 In an attempt to restore coral reefs by propagating coral species that have witnessed dramatic population 

declines due to stressors such as hurricanes and disease coral gardening techniques have been employed. 

Coral gardening consists of growing corals in-situ at a nursery site, and then transplanting these coral 

fragments back onto both natural and artificial reef environments once they have grown to an appropriate 

size. Coral gardening has been undertaken using varied methods of fragment or nubbin attachment such as 

mid-water wire frames, floating platforms, limestone, concrete, and suspended lines (Herlan and Lirman 

2008). These structures are sometimes considered to be “artificial reefs;” however, because they are not 

intentionally deployed in marine environments to perform habitat-enhancing roles, discussion of coral 

gardening techniques is beyond the scope of this document.

4 In the past, most decommissioned oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico have been removed and 

recycled. However, forty percent of these structures were single pile caissons, and not considered 

substantial structures for artificial reef use. Approximately 10% of all platforms have been "reefed" in 

designated artificial reef sites (see Rigs-to-Reef section). Occasionally platforms have been reinstalled and 

reused in other offshore locations and continue as petroleum production facilities. 
9

platforms provided approximately 12 km2 of additional hard substrate, or about a 0.4% 

increase in hardbottom habitat over naturally occurring reef (LGL Ecological Research 

Associates 1998). Primary benthic organisms associated with oil and gas platforms in the 

Gulf of Mexico include bivalve mollusks, barnacles, hydroids, and sponges. For example, 

a study of petroleum platforms near the Louisiana coast by Lewbel et al. (1987) found 

that the main habitat-forming species were barnacles and pelecypods, which accounted 

for over 99% of their samples.

Studies have shown that these platforms can also act as hard substrate upon which reef 

organisms can recruit and grow, including sessile algae, anemones, sponges, corals, and 

other attached organisms (Shinn 1974, Sammarco et al. 2004, Atchison 2005). Genetic 

analyses conducted by Atchison (2005) showed that oil and gas platforms facilitate the 

spread of coral larvae by acting as stepping stones where larvae that have been dispersed 

from the Flower Garden Banks or other natural reefs can settle and eventually spawn, 

thus dispersing corals further to additional platforms. Sammarco et al. (2004) found that 

oil and gas platforms are capable of supporting coral growth in areas where none 

previously existed, suggesting that they can extend species ranges. Their study also 

showed that many coral community variables are correlated with platform age, 

demonstrating that as the platforms age, coral abundance, species diversity, and colony 

size increase. As a result of these findings, the researchers determined that the oil and gas 

platforms in the Gulf of Mexico may provide beneficial environmental value with respect 

for some species of corals (Sammarco et al. 2004, Atchison 2005). However, it is 

important to note that the orange cup coral (Tubastraea coccinea), an invasive coral 

species, was one of the most abundant coral species observed in the Sammarco et al. 

(2004) study. In general, benthic communities that are found on platforms in the Gulf of 

Mexico are not representative of natural coral reef communities, but do contain some 

coral reef species (G. Schmahl, FGBNMS, pers. comm., 2012).

Artificial structures have also been shown to allow some species to increase their ranges 

into areas where they did not previously exist — a form of range extension referred to as 

“island hopping” (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Pattengill 1998). Various environmental 

factors contribute to fish attraction to artificial reefs, including visual cues of size, shape, 

color, and light; sound; touch; and pressure (Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985). In addition, 

species type, fish age, season, and artificial reef age, structural characteristics, and 

location also influence recruitment rates (Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985). Pattengill 

(1998) proposed that the introduction of sergeant major (Abudefduf saxatilis) to the 

Flower Garden Banks was the result of “island hopping.” Sergeant major, a species 

known to require shallow habitat for settlement, historically was absent from the Flower 

Garden Banks. However, she found that with the introduction of artificial shallow habitat 

(mooring lines and nearby oil and gas platforms), juvenile recruits were seen near the 

surface on these structures, and subsequently populations eventually became established. 

Rooker et al. (1997) also found reef fish expansion to have occurred at an oil platform in 

the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (HI-A389A, located in 125 m of 

water, and approximately 2 km and 22 km from the high diversity reef zones of East and 

West Banks, respectively). He found a similar faunal composition at the platform as on 

adjacent natural communities on East and West Flower Garden Banks, although higher 
10

numbers of species were observed on the natural reefs than on platforms due to greater 

habitat area available on the natural reefs.

Love and York (2005) conducted a study in southern California that compared fish 

assemblages of a platform and associated pipeline with that of the adjacent, natural 

seafloor. Their research strongly suggests that platforms, and their adjacent shell mounds, 

provide considerable hard substrate that can allow for fish range expansion by providing 

important habitat and nursery grounds for a variety of juvenile and diminutive fish 

species, particularly rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus). They 

found that many of the species that were found on the pipelines, particularly rockfish, 

were absent from the seafloor. They also found that the fish assemblages found on the 

pipelines were similar to those that occupy low-relief habitats such as cobble, small 

boulders, and shell mounds. The pipeline they studied appeared to also act as a nursery 

for a number of fishes, some of which (e.g., blackgill, flag, greenspotted, and splitnose 

rockfishes) recruit directly to the pipeline as young-of-the-year. 

Rigs-to-Reefs

Offshore platforms, acting as artificial habitat, can play very different roles in ecosystem 

function. Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are concentrated in the north-central and 

northwestern regions, where, in some cases, particularly in the nearshore and mid-shelf 

zones, natural reefs are not abundant, and as such they typically harbor unique 

communities that bear little resemblance to those in the natural surrounding habitat. It has 

been suggested if these platforms were to instead remain undisturbed their associated 

communities would be permitted to develop fully (Atchison 2005, Scarborough-Bull et 

al. 2008, OST 2010). In addition, it has been suggested that retired platforms would also 

provide recreational diving and fishing opportunities, and to a lesser extent, benefits to 

the commercial fishing community as well (OST 2010, Scarborough-Bull et al. 2008). A 

study by Scarborough-Bull et al. (2008) provides evidence that the artificial habitat 

supplied by the platforms in the Gulf of Mexico has increased the regional carrying 

capacity for economically important reef fish species such as red snapper (Lutjanus 

campechanus). Platforms in the Gulf of Mexico are customary destinations for both 

commercial and recreational fishing. Their study results showed that when the number of 

offshore platforms increased over decades, the production of reef fish also increased 

within the system and commercial fisheries for red snapper relocated to coincide with the 

geographic patterns of platform installation. In addition, recreational fisheries increased 

concomitantly with the increasing number of platforms.

Contrary to the Gulf of Mexico experience, California platforms are concentrated in the 

Santa Barbara Channel area among natural reefs and offshore islands. They typically 

harbor fish assemblages that resemble those found in nearby habitats. Off southern 

California, increased production of rockfish at platforms when compared to populations 

found on nearby natural reefs may be attributed, in part, to platform nursery function, 

larval production (Love et al. 2006), juvenile growth rates (Scarborough-Bull et al. 2008) 

and minimal fishing efforts at platforms. Observations by Scarborough-Bull et al. (2008) 

at natural reefs and platforms off California found that platforms have become harvest 
11

refugia for increasingly rare and overfished species, which is thought to be a direct result 

of continual fishing pressure at natural reefs and a lack of fishing pressure at platforms.

Significant differences in fishing pressure on natural versus artificial sites causes 

southern California platforms to act as de facto “no-take” marine protected areas. Thus, 

Scarborough-Bull et al.’s study demonstrates that there is a continuum along the full 

spectrum with attraction at one end and production at the other for any artificial reef or 

reef system and Rigs-to-Reefs are thought to increase and/or maintain production for a 

number of reef-related species in the Gulf of Mexico and in the southern California bight 

on local to regional scales.

The oil and gas industry is faced with hundreds of aging platforms that are approaching 

the end of their production capability. Estimates are that one thousand rigs in the Gulf of 

Mexico will be retired over the next decade (Salcido 2005) and 275 will be 

decommissioned in California’s state tidelands and off the outer continental shelf (OST 

2010). Federal legislation requires that all oil and gas platforms in U.S. waters must be 

removed within five years after they are considered to be no longer useful for operations 

(BOEM 2010). Cost estimates for the removal of a platform range from $50,000 for short 

platforms in very shallow waters to $15 million for tall platforms in the deepest waters 

(Salcido 2005). From 2000 to 2010 approximately 150 platforms were decommissioned 

each year (D. Peter, Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Artificial Reef Program, 

pers. comm., 2011), thus causing the loss of hard substrate, which could reduce fish 

populations and encrusting organisms that depend on the hard substrate for survival.

For this reason, the Rigs-to-Reefs program, administered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM, formerly part of the Minerals Management Service), was 

developed to permit platforms scheduled for decommissioning to either remain either on 

site or be brought to another site to be used as artificial reefs (Sammarco et al. 2004, 

Atchison 2005). The ownership and responsibility of the platform is then transferred to a 

public agency, which accepts title and responsibility for the structure as a permanent reef. 

Initially established in the 1980s, the program is funded by cost savings from this less 

expensive disposal option. Rigs-to-Reefs projects avoid some of the more costly 

decommissioning activities such as transportation, onshore dismantling, and payment of 

disposal fees (Salcido 2005). To date, 378 platforms in federal waters of the Gulf of 

Mexico have been reefed since 1973 (D. Peter, Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries 

Artificial Reef Program, pers. comm., 2011). Because a substantial number of the Gulf of 

Mexico platforms are scheduled to be decommissioned in the near future and hundreds of 

platforms and/or rigs were damaged or destroyed during hurricanes Rita and Katrina, 

there has been a recent increase in Rigs-to-Reefs applications (Sammarco et al. 2004, 

Sheehy and Vik 2010). The oil industry is a common proponent of the Rigs-to-Reefs 

program, simply because such a program reduces operating costs. Recreational fishermen 

and divers are also strong supporters of Rigs-to-Reefs because they believe artificial reefs 

 5 An independent cost estimate for removal of the 27 federal platforms off California was completed for the 

Department of the Interior (Proserve Offshore 2010) which estimated that it would cost approximately $1.3 

billion to remove the 27 platforms in federal waters. In addition, the review also shows that, in most cases, 

the cost of decommissioning continues to increase over time. 
12

provide fishing and diving opportunities. Both groups also argue that decommissioning 

offshore platforms can have detrimental environmental impacts through air, water, and 

land pollution. In addition, habitat and marine life in the vicinity of the platforms is often 

lost to due to impacts from the large equipment and explosives that are required for their 

removal (OST 2010). 

Conflicting opinions exist about the value of artificial reefs and the possible benefit that a 

Rigs-to-Reefs program could have on the marine environment. Critics argue that the 

goals of Rigs-to-Reef projects are more to subsidize oil production than improve 

fisheries, and as such, they reject these projects as ocean dumping rather than as an 

approach to enhance marine resources (Salcido 2005). It is also argued that artificial reef 

science is insufficiently developed and significant scientific uncertainty still remains in 

the attraction-versus-production debate, thus calling into question the value of converting 

a rig to a reef and having such a program be endorsed at a policy level. Groups such as 

the Ocean Conservancy and the Natural Resources Defense Council suggest considerably 

more evaluation of artificial reefs is necessary, and they point out that little restoration of 

failing marine health can be achieved by recreational use of artificial reefs (Salcido 

2005). In addition, opponents also suggest that Rigs-to-Reefs programs also perpetuate 

the practice of ocean dumping of wastes. Some even go as far as to state that “these 

projects are nothing more than legally-approved garbage dumping that attracts fish away 

from valuable fisheries habitat” (Salcido 2005).

In California the government and industry are planning to decommission 27 offshore 

platforms (Salcido 2005, OST 2010) at an estimated cost of $1.09 billion for their 

complete removal (OST 2010). A Rigs-to-Reefs program was instituted in California in 

September 2010. The law (AB 2503) allows for the partial removal of a decommissioned 

oil platform as an alternative to complete removal, but only if the conversion would result 

in a net benefit to the marine environment. The bill also created the California 

Endowment for Marine Preservation, which receives the cost savings and uses it to fund 

marine protection projects and programs in perpetuity. Compared to the Gulf States, 

California has limited experience and infrastructure in decommissioning obsolete oil 

production facilities, and unlike the Gulf of Mexico, California stakeholder views are 

highly polarized. Therefore, it will be critical to define the social and ecological goals of 

these decommissioned platforms as artificial reefs. Studies by Schroeder and Love (2004) 

demonstrated that a pipeline in southern California (the Gail-Grace pipeline) is an 

important habitat and nursery ground for a number of juvenile and diminutive fish 

species, including some exploited species, such as cowcod, blackgill, and vermilion 

rockfishes. The extent of this significance as habitat will play an important role in 

determining preferred options in future decommissioning activities once oil production 

ceases (Schroeder and Love 2004).
13

Invasive Species

Non-indigenous species are recognized worldwide as a major threat to ecosystem 

integrity if they become invasive. Non-indigenous species in the marine environment can 

alter community composition by competing with native species for food and space, 

reducing the abundance and diversity of native marine species, interfering with 

ecosystem function, introducing diseases, altering habitats, disrupting commercial and 

recreational activities, and in some instances causing extinction of indigenous plants and 

animals (Olden et al. 2004, Clavero and Garcia-Berthou 2005, Ruiz-Carus et al. 2006). 

Local extinction of native species can occur either via non-indigenous species preying on 

them directly or by out-competing them for food or space. Once established, nonindigenous species can be difficult, if not impossible, to control or eradicate. 

Artificial structures may facilitate invasive species introductions and establishment by 

transporting attached fouling communities, providing new unoccupied habitat for 

establishment, and creating corridors for further dispersal and expansion (Glasby et al. 

2007, Sheehy and Vik 2010, Figure 1). Invasions by non-indigenous aquatic species are 

increasingly common worldwide due to shipping traffic, world trade, and intentional or 

accidental releases of aquarium animal and plants. Though the most significant global 

mechanism for the introduction of aquatic species is ship ballast water, biofouling 

communities on ships or oil and gas platforms and the placement of human-made 

structures that provide new habitat are also identified as probable vectors for the spread 

of invasive species (Wasson et al. 2005, Glasby et al. 2007, Tyrrell and Byers 2007, 

Sheehy and Vik 2010). Artificial reefs with extensive vertical hard substrate provide 

large amounts of surface area, creating habitat for marine organisms, including invasive 

species. Because artificial reefs are often located in areas that lack hard bottom habitat, 

they typically provide unoccupied or novel substrate for colonization (Wasson et al. 

2005, Tyrrell and Byers 2007, Sheehy and Vik 2010). 
14

Figure 1. Cause and effect diagram illustrating how constructing reefs may result in the 

establishment of non-indigenous species (Source: Sheehy and Vik 2010).

Most studies on the role of artificial structures in facilitating marine invasions involve 

attached fouling organisms or invertebrates with relatively limited dispersal ability. 

Studies in Elkhorn Slough, an estuary in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 

Central California, have demonstrated that novel, hard artificial structures (e.g., pilings, 

gravel bars, jetties, rip-rap, docks) are much more heavily fouled by marine invertebrate 

invasive species in comparison to soft substrate (Wasson et al. 2005). Additional studies 

(Glasby et al. 2007, Tyrrell and Byers 2007) found greater numbers of nonindigenous 

epibiotic species than native species on artificial structures than on natural reefs. An 

explanation for the propensity for artificial, hard structures to attract invasive species in 

estuaries is that estuaries are typically dominated by soft sediments with the exception of 

oyster beds and driftwood. As such, there are few competitive, native, estuarine, sessile 

hard substratum species (Wasson et al. 2005). Also, because these structures are novel, 

there is no evolutionary history for native species on such surfaces (Wasson et al. 2005, 

Tyrrell and Byers 2007, Glasby et al. 2007). 

In the Gulf of Mexico, invasive invertebrate species have been reported on artificial reefs 

and oil and gas platforms (Sammarco et al. 2004). They include the proliferation of coral 

(e.g., orange cup coral Tubastraea coccinea), two species of mussel (the brown mussel 

Perna perna and the green mussel P. viridis), a tunicate (Didemnum perlucidum), and 

jellyfish (Australian spotted jellyfish Phyllorhiza punctata). 

As a case study, the orange cup coral (Tubastraea coccinea) (likely introduced in the 

1940s), has now invaded the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, and Florida (Fenner and Banks 

2004, Ferry 2009, Shearer 2010). Observations in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico 

show that this species can cause tissue necrosis and partial mortality of native corals 

(Creed 2006). It primarily appears on artificial substrates such as submerged steel wrecks 

dispersal
15

and oil and gas platforms (Fenner and Banks 2004, Ferry 2009, Shearer 2010). It is 

suspected that in addition to dispersal vectors such as attachment to boats and drifting in 

currents, these artificial structures play a major role in the spread of this species (Fenner 

and Banks 2004). By 1999, Tubastrea sp. was commonly observed on Gulf of Mexico oil 

and gas platforms, located in federal waters off the coast of Texas (J. Embesi, FGBNMS, 

pers. comm., 2011). In 2002 the species was first documented on natural substrate at the 

East Flower Garden Bank, suggesting it had begun to invade the sanctuary, most likely 

from nearby oil and gas platforms (e.g., an active gas platform, HIA389A, located one 

mile from the reef cap of East Flower Garden Bank, has extensive colonies of orange cup 

corals) (Hickerson and Schmahl 2005). In 2011, orange cup coral was identified for the 

first time at the West Flower Garden Bank during monitoring surveys (E. Hickerson, 

FGBNMS, pers. comm., 2011). It has also been documented to be well established on 

Geyer and Sonnier Banks located in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico (Schmahl et al. 

2008). A study by Ferry (2009) indicates that orange cup coral has not yet become 

established in the lower Florida Keys, but it is present in high abundance on the surfaces 

of the Aquarius underwater habitat off Key Largo in the upper Florida Keys. Large 

populations have also been reported on the U.S.C.G. Duane and U.S.S. Spiegel Grove

(Shearer 2010). The potential for this species to impact reef communities in this region is 

high due to a lack of natural predators, high proliferation rates, and the ability to outcompete native species for limited available substrate.

Structural habitat is an important resource for mobile taxa like reef fishes as it provides 

refuge from predation, and reproduction and foraging sites. Few studies have examined 

whether artificial reef availability facilitates the introduction and establishment of 

invasive reef fishes. It has been suggested that artificial structures can contribute to the 

dispersal and establishment of the lionfish (Pterois spp.). Lionfish, native to the western 

Pacific, Red Sea, and eastern Indian oceans, were first reported in the 1980s along south 

Florida and are now well established in the Caribbean and along the Southeast U.S., 

including the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Ruiz-Carus et al. 2006, Morris et 

al. 2009). In July 2011, lionfish were observed for the first time in the Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Lionfish have been observed on eight oil and gas 

platforms in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico region. One of these sightings was made 

on March 24, 2012 on a platform (HI-A-376-A) within 2 nautical miles of the East 

Flower Garden Bank boundary; it was removed by divers (M. Johnston, FGBNMS, pers. 

comm. 2012). The remaining platforms in which lionfish were observed are located 125-

230 nautical miles east of the sanctuary. In addition, six lionfish were observed and 

removed on the Texas Clipper, a sunken merchant marine vessel approximately 200 

nautical miles southwest of the sanctuary, on October 13, 2011 (M. Johnston, FGBNMS, 

pers. comm. 2011).

The increasing abundance and wider distribution of lionfish in the South Atlantic Bight, 

Bermuda, Florida, and the Bahamas indicates that lionfish are the first marine fish species 

in recent times to successfully establish a breeding population in the tropical western 

Atlantic. Lionfish are ambush predators, and can threaten local ecosystems by altering the 

structure of native reef fish communities by out-competing local species and reducing 

forage fish biomass (Morris and Whitfield 2009). Impacts from lionfish could include 
16

direct competition with groupers and other carnivores for food, and increased predation 

on reef fish and crustaceans (Ruiz-Carus et al. 2006, Albins and Hixon 2008, Morris and 

Akins 2009). Also, lionfish pose a danger to divers and fishermen – stings from the 

venomous spines of the fish may result in pain, swelling, numbness and sometimes more 

severe effects including paralysis and systemic effects. 

Smith (2006) suggests from research conducted in the Bahamas that lionfish are capable 

of invading natural patch reefs in the absence of artificial structures, but the presence of 

artificial reefs facilitates colonization of marginal habitats like sand-seagrass and to a 

lesser extent, hard bottoms. This pattern suggests that artificial structures represent a 

resource subsidy to lionfish. Sand-seagrass is marginal habitat for lionfish due to the lack 

of suitable substrate, but adding artificial structures facilitates lionfish dispersal, thus 

allowing it to support similar abundances as those found in more structurally complex, 

higher-quality natural habitats such as on coral reefs and hard bottoms. This pattern has 

implications for lionfish local persistence and rates of regional spread. Sand-seagrass may 

naturally function as sink habitats for lionfish in which local populations are maintained 

by continued migration from more productive sources such as coral reefs. Adding 

artificial structures may promote a transition from a sink6 to a source habitat in which the 

formation of self-sustaining populations allows for the net export of individuals or larvae 

to new areas. 

Smith (2006) also demonstrated that lionfish are slow to colonize artificial reefs, 

especially in comparison to most native Atlantic fishes, thus suggesting that the rapid 

range expansion of lionfish in the Atlantic is not due to superior colonizing ability. 

Therefore, removing or preventing the placement of artificial structures may slow the 

spread of lionfish, particularly in marginal habitats; however, it is unlikely to prevent 

their expansion. Instead, their rapid invasion may more likely be linked to their novel 

predation strategies, unique reproduction, lack of predators, ability to maintain fine-scale 

positioning in the water column, and superior defense mechanisms.

In order to avoid and/or slow the introduction, establishment, and proliferation of 

invasive species it has been suggested that resource managers should consider removing 

or minimizing the addition of submerged artificial structures in coastal and estuarine 

habitats since they will likely increase the biomass and perhaps the diversity of invasives 

in these systems (Wasson et al. 2005, Smith 2006, Glasby et al. 2007, Tyrrell and Byers 

2007, Sheehy and Vik 2010). 

 6 In some instances where artificial reefs are popular dive attractions (e.g., regularly visited by dive 

operators), some dive operators have taken the approach of “adopting” the reef and regularly remove the 

invasive lionfish. For example, the U.S.S. Vandenberg, a submerged vessel in the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary, is visited by multiple dive boats each day and lionfish are regularly removed. As a 

result, the density of lionfish on the U.S.S. Vandenberg is significantly lower in comparison to adjacent 

natural reefs. As anecdotal evidence, one dive master from Dive Key West, Inc. stated that during the 

lionfish derbies they specifically avoid the public artificial reefs to collect lionfish as time is better spent 

over natural reefs where lionfish densities are greater. Therefore, it is possible that artificial reefs such as 

the U.S.S. Vandenberg may act as a ‘sink’ for the local lionfish densities (K. Mille, FWCC, pers. comm., 

2012).
17

Disease Introduction or Acceleration

Artificial structures may also affect ecosystem function by increasing disease frequency 

in fish and invertebrates. The normal soft muddy sand bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is 

considered poor habitat for the dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus toxicus that causes ciguatera 

fish poisoning in humans. However, the elevated hard substrate provided by constructed 

reefs or platforms supports corals and other components that do provide appropriate 

substrate. Villareal et al. (2007) reported that the increased availability of hard substrate 

provided by the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico has contributed to the 

proliferation of G. toxicus. Constructed reefs are actively used by fishers, providing a 

connection between fish consumers and potentially toxic fish (Villareal et al. 2007). 

Although a clear linkage between oil and gas platforms or artificial reefs and ciguatera 

has not yet been demonstrated, these findings suggest that the provision of reef hard 

substrate in areas commonly devoid of this habitat may have unintended consequences 

for human health.

Toxicological Impacts

Deployment of artificial reefs containing PCBs, heavy metals, oil and fuel residues, and 

other toxic chemicals could pose a potential risk of contamination to the underwater 

environment, especially in sensitive coastal ecosystems. Therefore, prior to deployment, 

structures are typically stripped of potentially hazardous materials in order to make them 

environmentally safe in accordance with the EPA Best Management Practices for 

preparing vessels intended to create artificial reefs (EPA MARAD 2006). The removal of 

petroleum products, hazardous materials, paint cans, batteries, plastics, oil and fuel is 

specified on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Ocean Disposal/Artificial Reef Inspection form.

Additionally, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to gather data on and regulate chemical 

substances and mixtures imminently hazardous or presenting an unreasonable risk of 

injury to public health or the environment. Still some materials of concern below EPA 

thresholds may potentially remain on vessels permitted to be scuttled as artificial reefs.

Such materials include asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), iron, lead paint, and 

antifouling paint. As such, biological communities associated with artificial reefs are 

potentially exposed to pollutants emanating from these structures; therefore, resource 

managers should consider the risks associated with materials remaining on vessels to be 

used as artificial reefs (Boland et al. 1983).

Asbestos is the name given to six naturally occurring minerals that are effective as 

insulators and fire retardants. Its fibers are resistant to heat and chemicals and do not 

dissolve in water. Asbestos was used in spray-on insulation, ceiling tiles, floor tiles, and 

fire doors among other things until it was banned in 1989. Friable asbestos, that which is 

easily crumbled, releasing fibers, is the most hazardous. Sprayed on asbestos is an 

example of highly friable asbestos. Floor tiles containing asbestos are not highly friable 

and will release asbestos fibers only when damaged or disturbed. Several studies have 

investigated the effects of friable asbestos on fish (Batterman and Cook 1981, Belanger et 

al. 1990, Belanger et al. 1986, Woodhead et al. 1983). Findings indicate that asbestos 
18

concentrations on the order of 106 to 108 fibers/L may cause epidermal lesions, epithelial 

hypertrophy, kidney damage, decreased orientation and swimming ability, degradation of 

the lateral line, reduced growth, and mortality in fish. Asbestos has also been found to 

decrease the survival rate of the brine shrimp Artemia salina (Stewart and Schurr 1980).

Friable asbestos is required to be properly removed and disposed of during the process of 

preparing an artificial reef. Scientific studies utilizing non-friable asbestos plates and 

cement to investigate successional patterns of fouling communities and collection of 

oyster spat, respectively, illustrate the relative harmlessness of undisturbed, non-friable 

asbestos (Montoya et al. 1985, Garcia and Salzwedel 1995).

PCBs have been used in water-tight gaskets, cable insulations, paints, transformers, 

capacitors and other components of ex-Navy vessels (Eisler and Belisle 1996). They are 

lipophilic, highly persistent chemicals. PCBs have been implicated in: reduced primary 

productivity in phytoplankton; reduced hatchability of contaminated fish and bird eggs; 

reproductive failure in seals; altered steroid levels and subsequent reproductive 

impairment in fish and sea stars; reduced fertilization efficiency in sea urchins; and 

reduced plasma retinol and thyroid hormone levels potentially leading to increased 

susceptibility to microbial infections, reproductive disorders and other pathological 

alterations in seals and other marine mammals (Adams and Slaughter-Williams 1988, 

Brouwer et al. 1989, Clark 1992, den Besten et al. 1991). The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission sampled reef fish at Oriskany Reef, a decommissioned former 

aircraft carrier that was deployed by the U.S. Navy as an artificial reef in May 2006 in the 

Gulf of Mexico, southeast of Pensacola, FL. The Navy applied for and received a PCB 

risk-based disposal permit from the EPA (EPA 2005) to allow certain PCB materials to 

remain onboard vessels based on the results of leachate and toxicological monitoring 

studies and the conclusions of an independent science advisory board panel (Page 2006, 

SPARWAR 2006a, b, c, d). The results of the first five years of post-deployment 

monitoring of reef fish from the Oriskany Reef found a declining trend in PCB levels for 

sampled reef fish. Initially, and of concern, the mean PCB levels for sampled fish within 

the first two years of deployment exceeded both the Florida Department of Health 

(FDOH) and EPA screening values. Between years two and three the PCB level 

measured decreased to below the FDOH value and slightly above the EPA value. After 

three years, the mean PCB levels were below both the FDOH and EPA thresholds 

(Dodrill et al. 2011).

Vessel hulls are typically painted with antifouling paints. Copper and tributyltin (TBT) 

are the two most common active ingredients in antifouling paints, and typically have an 

effective life span of five years or less. TBT has been found to be toxic to non-target, 

non-fouling organisms at ng/L levels and efforts to establish a world-wide ban have been 

made by the International Maritime Organization since 1998. TBT is banned in many 

nations and was banned in the U.S. in 1988. Its most marked effects have been the 

induction of shell thickening and growth anomalies in oysters and imposex (development 

of sexual organs of the opposite sex) in the dogwhelk (Nucella lapillus) potentially 

leading to sterility. Sterility in N. lapillus has been noted at concentrations as low as 3-5 

ng Sn/L (approximately 7.5-10.5 ng TBT/L) (Gibbs et al. 1988). Oysters exposed to TBT 

concentrations >2 ng/L have displayed progressive increases in chambering and at levels 
19

above 100 ng TBT/L severely abnormal shell morphology (Laughlin 1996). At higher 

concentrations (0.5-1.8 g TBT oxide/L), TBT-based paint leachate has been found to 

elicit polyp retraction, pigmentation loss, and death in corals. The discovery of the highly 

toxic nature of TBT-based paints has led many countries to ban the use of these paints for 

non-aluminum hulled vessels less than 25 meters in length. In the case of large steel 

vessels proposed as artificial reefs, typically by the time artificial reefing is considered as 

an option the vessels have effectively exceeded their life expectancy and the active 

ingredients in antifouling paint are no longer effective. Furthermore, the target upright 

deployment of steel vessels results in the hull being located underneath the ship, and not 

exposed for epibenthic colonization, assuming deployment occurs as planned (K. Mille, 

FWCC, pers. comm., 2012).

Heavy metals can be divided into nonessential elements (lead, mercury, and probably 

cadmium) and essential elements with relatively well-defined roles and functions 

(copper, iron, selenium, and zinc) (Thompson 1990). In the case of essential metals, body 

concentrations of metabolically available metal must obtain a minimum concentration 

(Rainbow 1990). The accumulation of metal in organisms will depend on mechanisms of 

accumulation and methods of detoxification.

Copper, though an effective antifoulant, has not shown the extensive effects on non-target 

organisms. At low concentrations, copper is a minor nutrient for both plants and animals 

involved in biological processes such as oxygen transport and enzyme activity. When 

present in high concentrations, however, copper can be toxic to aquatic life. In fish, it has 

been found to cause histological alterations, reduced egg production, abnormalities in 

newly hatched fry and reduced survival of young (Sorensen 1991).

Steel hulls on vessels scuttled as artificial reefs potentially contribute iron to the marine 

environment. Iron is an essential component of electron transport in almost all living 

organisms (Ferreira and Straus 1994). As an essential element, iron levels will tend to be 

closely regulated by organisms, and thus, it is unlikely that any pollution-derived effects 

will be observed except in severe and localized cases (Thompson 1990). Corals living in 

seawater with high concentrations of iron have been found to incorporate the metal into 

their skeletons (Brown et al. 1991). Elevated iron concentrations have also been found to 

lead to a loss of zooxanthellae from coral tissues (Harland and Brown 1989). This 

response is diminished in corals regularly exposed to iron, suggesting corals can alter 

their accumulation and detoxification pathways to adapt to iron exposure. However, it has 

also been documented that the unnatural presence of an iron source to an ecosystem can 

lead to a phase shift in species composition of coral reef ecosystems. For example, the 

steel hull of a shipwreck in 1991 at the remote Palmyra Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean 

is believed to be the primary driver behind a phase shift from coral to corallimorpharians 

(Work et al. 2008). Phase shifts such as this can have long-term negative impacts on coral 

reefs, and eradication of the organisms responsible for phase shifts in marine ecosystems 

can be difficult. Therefore, the researchers of this study ultimately suggest that 

shipwrecks in coral reef ecosystems be immediately removed to mitigate the potential of 

reef overgrowth by invasives (Work et al. 2008). Studies on phytoplankton and 

macroalgae indicate that in areas where plant nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate are 
20

abundant the availability of iron is actually a limiting factor in growth and biomass 

(Matsunaga et al. 1994, Wells et al. 1995 Coale et al. 1996, Frost 1996, Takeda 1998).

The addition of iron has been seen to increase primary productivity and shift nutrient 

ratios in such areas. Hence, the concern of unnatural iron inputs from artificial reefs 

seems not to center on the occurrence of adverse toxicological effects in marine 

organisms but rather on the alteration of the composition of natural assemblages of algae 

and species that compete with algae. 

Lead based paint was banned in the 1970s and therefore will likely only present as a 

problem in older ships that have sunk. Lead has no biological function and, therefore, is 

not metabolized and can accumulate in organisms (Thompson 1990). Corals have been 

found to incorporate lead into their skeletons (Dodge and Gilbert 1984). In general, 

marine fish, mammals, and birds exhibit low levels of lead, although bird bones have 

been shown to concentrate lead compared to other tissues (Thompson 1990). Unicellular 

algae and sea urchins seem to be the most sensitive marine organisms (Bernhard 1980).

Growth inhibition has been observed in the algae species Thalassiosira pseudonana and 

Porphyridium marinum exposed to 200 g Pb/L. Sea urchins are sensitive at similar levels. 

Oil and gas reserves are frequently located near natural reefs and the reef fish associated 

with the oil and gas platforms support a significant commercial fishery. It has been 

suggested that fish can be directly exposed to contaminants from the platform discharges 

(pollutants come from drilling muds which are frequently discharged from the structures), 

and therefore, the possibility may also exist for contaminant exposure to humans through 

consumption of the contaminated fish (Boland et al. 1983). However, a recent study by 

Love et al. (2009) compared elemental metal concentrations in platform-dwelling fishes 

to those same species from natural sites, focusing on a large suite of elements likely to be 

released during platform operations. The natural reefs, which served as reference sites, 

were located at distances far enough away to be uninfluenced by contaminants 

originating from platforms. Although there was substantial variability in concentrations 

of a number of heavy metal elements among fishes, there was no consistent pattern of 

higher concentrations of any element at either platforms or natural sites. In addition, the 

study characterized the reproductive capabilities of Pacific sanddabs (Citharichthys 

sordidus, a species of limited home range that remains in close proximity to its reef 

structure) living around platforms and on natural sites to assess for possible indirect 

effects of the hypothesized contaminants from platforms on reproduction. The study 

found no consistent pattern of significantly higher levels of severely atretic eggs among 

sanddabs from either platform or natural sites (atresia has been widely used as an 

indicator of pollutant-related reproductive impairment in fishes). 

Despite the potential toxicological effects of the chemicals discussed above, adverse 

effects will not occur unless the chemicals are present at or above their effective 

concentrations. In 1998, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources assessed 

the levels of PCBs and heavy metals in biota found on ex-military ships used as artificial 

reefs. They collected over 100 samples of reef materials, resident invertebrates, and 

resident finfish from several locations along the South Carolina coast including permitted 

artificial reefs and naturally occurring hard bottom reefs. The artificial reef structures 
21

selected for the study were primarily ex-military vessels that had been submerged for 3 to 

17 years. Three of seven vessels from which biological samples were collected were 

found to have materials onboard containing PCBs. The PCBs found were in gaskets and 

cable insulation with concentrations ranging from 1.3 to 24.5 ppm. Of the 80 tissue 

samples analyzed for PCBs, only 19 (4 finfish, 14 mollusks, and 1 echinoderm) were 

found above detectable limits. All were well below the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration’s alert action level of 2.0 ppm wet weight. No significant differences 

were detected for PCB concentrations in the tissues of organisms collected from vessels 

found to contain PCB-laden materials, vessels where the presence of PCBs in onboard 

components was possible but not confirmed, and natural hard bottom control sites. The 

same tissue samples were also analyzed for metals. Although some individual tissue 

samples were moderately high in a particular metal, no clear correlation of high metal 

levels and a particular type of sample site (control versus ship reef) was found. Much 

higher levels of lead were found in some gastropods removed from artificial reefs when 

compared to low numbers for bivalves and fish off the same site. The investigators felt 

the high levels were likely attributable to gastropods grazing directly on the painted 

surfaces of ships and ingesting minute quantities of lead-rich paint. No indication of 

bioaccumulation of lead in higher trophic levels was seen. It was concluded that the PCB 

and metal levels detected in the study did not indicate increased hazards around military 

ships used as artificial reefs. (Martore et al. 1998)
22

Impacts to the Physical and Chemical Attributes of the Ecosystem

Deployment of an artificial reef can also affect the physical and chemical attributes of the 

ecosystem, which in turn, impacts the living resources of the system. Just as in the 

ecological dynamics of a natural hard bottom reef community, parameters such as 

circulation, currents, wave force, and sedimentation affect the diversity and density of 

living resources that colonize and utilize the structure of artificial reefs. Strong 

circulation and currents are important in carrying nutrients and organic matter to living 

resources on artificial reefs. Sedimentation can be harmful to some sessile benthic 

organisms because sediment particles can smother reef organisms, can clog pores of 

sponges, inhibit polyp feeding, reduce light available for photosynthesis, and inhibits the 

exchange of dissolved nutrients and gases. It has been shown that areas of high velocity 

flow and strong current and low sedimentation correspond to regions of high sessile 

benthic cover and species diversity, while areas of decelerated flow and increased 

sedimentation correspond to regions of less cover and lower species diversity. In regards 

to shipwrecks, the long axis of a wreck, when oriented perpendicular to the prevailing 

current, typically exhibits areas of higher velocity and energy and lower sedimentation 

rates, in comparison to midship. As such, these portions of shipwrecks are typically more 

productive since many of the sessile invertebrates found on these reefs are suspension 

feeders and obtain nutrients from organic particles and planktonic organisms in the water 

column (Baynes and Szmant 1989).

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, formerly part of the Minerals 

Management Service) has sponsored a series of ecosystem investigations and monitoring 

studies to better predict, assess, and manage the effect of outer continental shelf oil and 

gas development activities on marine environments. Their studies assist with 

understanding the impacts that artificial reefs, in the form of oil and gas platforms, have 

on the physical and chemical attributes of the ecosystem. They have documented that the 

presence of a platform or platform group had little effect on ambient water properties 

(Kennicutt 1995). They did find, however, that alteration of the benthic environment 

adjacent to offshore platforms resulted from the presence of the platforms, materials 

discharged from the platforms, and the oceanographic setting. Sediments close to the 

platforms were highly enriched in sand-sized materials and contaminated with high levels 

of heavy metals (such as chromium, cadmium, lead, and zinc) that resulted in significant 

biological responses in some living resources (e.g., sea urchin eggs, polychaetes, 

copepods). Contaminated sediments were usually confined to within 100 meters of a 

platform (Kennicutt 1995). However, hydrocarbon concentrations at platforms were low, 

especially when compared to coastal sediment levels. In addition, PAH concentrations 

were below levels known to induce biological responses. Also, no enhanced 

bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish or invertebrates was detected near platforms.
23

Longevity and Structural Integrity 

The structural integrity, long-term stability and deployment location of artificial reefs can 

be compromised by environmental impacts such as storm and hurricane damage, waves 

and high surf, and other harsh environmental conditions. Impacts to artificial reefs can 

vary greatly and largely depend on the structural design, materials used, age of the 

artificial reef, geographic location, orientation, and water depth of the artificial reef. As 

such, impacts from environmental factors can range from no disturbance at all, to some 

movement, to partial or total structural modification (Blair et al. 1994). Little published 

literature exists7 regarding the general longevity and structural integrity of artificial reefs 

This is likely due to the fact that funding for restoration projects is short-term and there is 

usually little funding available to monitor and evaluate the long-term success of artificial 

reefs (E. Marsden, UVM, pers. comm., 2012).

Stability and wave attenuation analyses have been conducted on various models of 

materials to be used for artificial reefs, including all-concrete, concrete with rubber tire 

chips, limerock boulders, and Reef BallTM artificial reef units (Zadikoff et al. 1996). Allconcrete and limerock boulders were found to be the most stable8 as individual units and 

in mound structures. Experimental concrete structures with rubber tire chips were the 

least stable units. 

Brock and Norris (1989) compared the design of four artificial reefs to determine their 

long-term stability. They found that reefs composed of haphazardly dumped scrap 

materials (e.g., automobile shells and surplus concrete pipe) were highly unstable and 

exhibited low life expectancies. Due to their high mass to volume ratio, reefs composed 

of modules of scrap automobile tires set in concrete bases and dumped haphazardly were 

relatively stable, but the design precluded effective stacking, resulting in low relief 

structures. Finally, an artificial reef constructed in an open framework of concrete cube 

modules had a long life expectancy and stability in high energy environments.

Studies have shown that artificial reefs constructed of high-density, heavily ballasted tires 

with strong bases show stronger stability in comparison to unballasted tires, which often 

fail (Myatt et al. 1989, Morley 2009). In 1967 approximately two million unballasted 

tires were deployed in bundles approximately 1.8 kilometers (km) offshore of Broward 

County, Florida in 21 meters (m) of water on sandy substrate. Within a few years (some, 

almost immediately), the bindings on the tire bundles failed and they became mobile with 

normal currents, and especially during high energy storms (D. E. Britt Assoc. 1974,

1975). As a result of these observations, tire deployments in Florida were ended by the 

1980s. The tires have since moved extensively, travelling kilometers from their original 

 7 Some monitoring reports of artificial reefs document long-term stability and longevity of large concrete 

and limestone boulders and modules over time (see CPE 2007, Sathe et al. 2010).

8 Oftentimes, stable artificial structures, such as rocks and prefabricated concrete blocks, are used as a 

submerged breakwater to provide opportunities for environmental enhancement, aesthetics and wave 

protection in coastal areas. However, these structures are usually designed and developed from an 

engineering point of view and do not function as fish habitat or substrata for coral, seaweed, and other 

living resources (Armono and Hall 2002).
24

location to beaches and deeper waters offshore. Many of the loose tires have also 

physically damaged benthic reef fauna on natural reefs. A large-scale removal plan of the 

tires was initiated in 2001 (Morley 2009). Interestingly, as a result of their continued 

movement, it has also been shown that tires have the least amount of living resource 

recruitment in comparison to other materials used for artificial reef construction 

(Fitzhardinge and Bailey-Brock 1989). 

Hurricane Impacts

Many studies have examined the impacts severe storms and hurricanes have had on 

artificial reefs. Hurricane damage to artificial reefs can range from none to moderate to 

severe and the variance in damage is the result of the size and speed of storms, the 

frequency of storms, associated wave surges and heights, and local bathymetry and 

topography.

A study by Bell and Hall (1994) examined the impacts that Hurricane Hugo (Category 4, 

September 1989) had on a system of nearshore and offshore artificial reefs off the coast 

of South Carolina. Studies were conducted over a two year period following the storm to 

assess structural damage, movement of reef materials, environmental effects, and 

biological impacts. Their results showed that movement of and damage to artificial reef 

materials was minimal, as only four out of 19 artificial reefs showed major impacts in the 

form of reef material movement (some movement of small reef structures to a distance of 

1.9 km was observed), structural damage, burial or severe subsidence of reef materials. 

Vessels and PVC reefs showed the greatest impacts. Effects of the storm on artificial reef 

fish communities as well as resident epibenthic invertebrates were minimal and short 

term in nature, with no quantifiable detrimental impacts observed. However, water 

turbidity in the vicinity of many of the nearshore and offshore artificial reefs was 

dramatically increased for over a year following the storm due to the input of large 

quantities of estuarine mud into coastal waters. 

Damage to artificial reefs in southeastern Florida resulting from Hurricane Andrew 

(Category 4, August 1992) has also been assessed. Studies have shown that reefs deeper 

than 43 m were not significantly damaged, however, shallower artificial reefs from 12 –

30 m deep showed a 50% damage rate. The data indicated that the damage was likely the 

result of wave height and secondarily from storm surge (Coastal Tech 1993). Another 

study by Blair et al. (1994) assessed the damage resulting from Hurricane Andrew to 

eleven artificial reefs offshore of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Steel ships, tugs and 

barges represented 70% of the artificial reefs studied, with 82% of these placed seaward 

of the outer reef. The remaining 30% of the artificial reefs were composed of other 

materials including wooden vessels, steel tanks, prefabricated steel tetrahedrons and oil 

platforms. Blair et al. showed that following Hurricane Andrew 65% of the artificial reefs 

exhibited some degree of alteration, either via movement, burial, scouring or structural 

degradation. Alteration to ships, tugs, and barges included movement (from only a few 

meters up to 457 meters); overturning, bending, cracking and splitting of the vessel; and 

in some instances, complete loss of structural integrity. In addition, most encrusting 

organisms (soft corals, sponges, hard corals) were scoured from the surfaces of the 
25

artificial structures. Reefs composed of concrete materials had a similar range of 

alterations. The artificial reefs located within and to the north of the storm’s core 

experienced the greatest structural changes; however, impacts did not exhibit a consistent 

pattern. One of the five oil platforms in the region was also impacted and suffered 

numerous broken weld joints, causing the platform to list to the west at a 35 degree angle. 

Interestingly, numerous instances were noted where a reef was severely modified or 

moved while an adjacent reef of similar material (e.g., ships of approximately the same 

size and relief) remained on location or was structurally unchanged. Despite the reefs’ 

new or altered structural configurations, all artificial reef materials remained suitable for 

recolonization by benthic organisms, and in some instances may have actually improved 

habitat quality. Another study by Bortone (1992) examined the effects that Hurricane 

Andrew had on automobiles that had been deployed as artificial reefs off the coast of 

Pensacola, FL in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Their findings showed that the hurricane 

resulted in little shifting or movement of the automobiles. Regardless, by 1990, 

automobiles were prohibited as artificial reef material in Florida.

Studies have demonstrated that some artificial reef materials are more durable and stable 

when faced with a hurricane. For example, researchers examined the impacts that 

Hurricanes Erin (Category 2, August 1995) and Opal (Category 3, October 1995) had on 

over forty artificial reefs located in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Bortone and Turpin 

1997, Turpin and Bortone 2002). Materials of higher density were least affected by wave 

surge, while lighter weight materials were moved distances of at least 1,000 m. 

Automobiles and steel shipping boxes experienced the most movement as a result of the 

hurricanes, radio tower sections experienced some movement (anywhere from 90 – 1,000 

m), while concrete pilings, pipes, prefabricated reef modules, steel oil rigs, and steel 

tugboats and barges were found to be the most stable and durable materials. Interestingly, 

their results also showed that because some artificial reefs were displaced, fishing 

pressure was greatly reduced for at least one year. As a result of these studies of materials 

deployed in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, automobiles, steel shipping boxes, and other 

lightweight materials have not been deployed in Florida since the 1990s.

Impacts of Hurricane Charley (Category 4, August 2004) to artificial reefs located in 

Southwest Florida were also examined (Maher 2006). Overall, relatively low levels of 

impacts to the artificial reef materials were observed on most of the reefs surveyed.

However, there was a consistently high level of removal of the majority of invertebrates 

that had encrusted the structures. It was speculated that the lack of major structural 

impacts was the result of the very narrow wind swath of the hurricane, as well as the fact 

that the storm moved very rapidly over the area. Storm-related impacts did vary based on 

the materials used to construct the reefs and their location. For example, a structural weak 

steel barge exhibited significant damage, while a stronger steel car ferry did not appear to 

have been impacted. 

Artificial reef structural damage caused by Hurricane Ivan off the coast of Escambia 

County, FL (Category 3, September 2004) has also been examined. Four materials were 

studied – fish havens (hollow, floorless concrete three sided units reinforced with metal 

re-bar), modules designed as “walter modules” (10’ x 10’ base hollow concrete 
26

tetrahedron with metal panels attached to the three sides), Goliath Reef BallTM (reef balls 

constructed of granite rock); and hollow concrete Reef BallTM. Following the hurricane, 

half of the fish havens had collapsed and all that remained were loose piles of irregular 

concrete pieces. Several of the Walter Modules were damaged with about half showing 

the steel plate walls torn from the concrete frames. Only one of twenty Goliath Reef 

BallTM was broken as a result of the hurricane, while 11% of the standard Reef BallTM

had been damaged due to the hurricane, though it was unknown if the reef balls were 

previously damaged during the deployment process (Horn and Mille 2004).

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

In the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary stability issues have arisen on two 

artificial reefs. In 1998 Hurricane Georges (Category 4, September 1998) broke the 

sunken vessel Eagle in half (J. Delaney, FKNMS, pers. comm., 2012). The U.S.S. 

Spiegel Grove, which was scuttled as an artificial reef in 2002, sank prematurely and 

settled inverted on the bottom with its bow 11 meters in the air. The vessel remained 

lying on the her side for nearly three years until Hurricane Dennis (Category 4, July 

2005) tipped the vessel to the upright position into a 20 ft hole that had developed 

beneath the keel as a result of scouring from currents over the previous three years 

(Farrell and Wood 2009). Interestingly, the resulting upright position of the vessel 

maintains the same coordinates as prior to Hurricane Dennis at a depth approximately 20 

ft deeper in the scour hole, which presumably provides improved long-term stability.

Considering that Florida has the largest number of permitted artificial reef sites in the 

United States (Mostkoff 1992) it is understandable that the state has contracted the 

development of software to predict the long term stability of artificial reefs. In 2000, the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission contracted Paul Lin & Associates, Inc. to develop 

an Artificial Reef Stability Analysis Software to examine the stability of deployed 

artificial reef materials under given storm conditions throughout the state (Paul Lin & 

Associates, Inc. 2000). The software provides models that would allow artificial reef 

administrators in coastal counties to determine the deployment water depth, orientation, 

and reef material weight for a proposed artificial reef program. Similarly, in 2001 the 

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management tasked 

Coastal Systems International, Inc. with developing computer software that analyzes the 

behavior of objects that are proposed to be used to create artificial reefs under complex 

ocean conditions. The software uses historic wave condition data for the entire coast of 

Florida to predict the forces on and the stability of the proposed reef (DERM 2001). As a 

result of using these software stability analysis programs, and through evaluation of 

performance of existing artificial reefs over time, artificial reef deployments since 2000 

undergo more scrutiny than the experimental materials of the 1960s-1990s.

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary and the Gulf of Mexico

Hurricanes Katrina (Category 5, August 2005) and Rita (Category 5, September 2005) 

were two of the most intense Atlantic hurricanes ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico and 

created considerable damage to a wide range of energy infrastructure, shutting down 
27

eight refineries, hundreds of oil-drilling and production platforms, and many other 

industrial facilities (Cruz and Krausmann 2008). These two hurricanes caused the largest 

number of destroyed and damaged platforms and pipelines, and the highest number of 

mobile offshore drilling units set adrift in the history of Gulf of Mexico operations

(Darby et al. 2006, Cruz and Krausmann 2008). Hurricane Katrina destroyed 44 

platforms and severely damaged 21 others (MMS 2006a, b) and Hurricane Rita destroyed 

69 platforms and severely damaged 32 others (Djamarani 2005, MMS 2006a). Sixty 

percent of the platforms that were destroyed were built 30 or more years ago prior to the 

adoption of more stringent design standards that went into effect in 1977 (Cruz and 

Krausmann 2008). In addition, many of the platforms that were destroyed were older, 

smaller producers in relatively shallow waters. Structural damage to platforms included 

complete toppling of sections and tilting or leaning of platforms. The primary cause for 

damage to the integrity of platform structures were the loadings caused by wave 

inundation of the deck (Energo Engineering 2007) (wave inundation increases the 

horizontal load and overturning moment of the structure resulting in failure and possible 

collapse).

The shipwreck Texas Clipper was intentionally placed in an artificial reef site off 

the lower Texas coast, approximately 200 nautical miles southwest of the sanctuary, in 

November 2007. It was substantially damaged by Hurricane Ike (Category 4, September 

2008) ten months later. Although the site did not take a direct hit from the storm, which 

was a Category 1 and 2 storm while in the Gulf of Mexico, a large crack was produced 

and the stern section of the ship fell to the seafloor. The hurricane made landfall on the 

upper Texas coast and hurricane strength winds (greater than 74 mph) were not recorded 

within 150 nautical miles of the Texas Clipper reef site.

Human Use and Economic Impacts 

Advocates of the economic benefits of artificial reef development hypothesize that 

sinking an artificial structure in the vicinity of a natural reef environment can reduce 

human use pressure on the surrounding natural reefs, increases businesses to local dive 

operators, and increases economic impact on the local economy (Leeworthy 2011). In 

Florida, artificial reefs can account for a significant proportion of economic benefit. For 

example, a study by Johns et al. (2001)9 found that in 2000 artificial reefs accounted for 

$117.6 million in expenditures for the Monroe County, Florida economy. In addition, 

artificial reef related expenditures accounted for 24% of the economic contribution of all 

reefs, including natural reefs in the county. This study also demonstrated that artificial 

reefs accounted for $32.5 million in income and approximately 2,300 jobs for the local 

economy. Additionally, according to this study, there appears to be a very high public 

demand for artificial reefs in the Florida Keys (the study estimated that annual use values 

for maintaining existing artificial reefs was $9.4 million, while use value for new 

artificial reefs was $2.1 million per year. In general, the use value is the maximum 

amount of money that reef users are willing to pay to maintain the reefs in their existing 

condition and to add more artificial reefs to the reef system). 

 9 Note that this study was completed prior to the deployment of the two most highly visited artificial reefs 

in the Florida Keys – the U.S.S. Spiegel Grove (2002) and the U.S.S. Vandenberg (2009).
28

Socioeconomic studies conducted at the U.S.S. Spiegel Grove and the U.S.S. 

Vandenberg, both submerged vessels in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 

have further demonstrated that the dive charter industry and the local economies benefit 

from the introduction of decommissioned ships as artificial reefs. Study results at the 

U.S.S. Spiegel Grove, a 510-foot retired navy ship that was intentionally sunk in the 

waters off of Key Largo, Florida in June 2002, showed that after deployment recreational 

use of the surrounding natural reefs decreased, while local dive charter business 

increased, and the greater local economy grew in terms of both income and employment 

(Leeworthy et al. 2006). Overall, it has been estimated that the following the sinking of 

the U.S.S. Spiegel Grove the local income increased by $961,800 and the local 

employment increased by approximately 70 jobs. Also, there was an associated increase 

of $2.6 million dollars in total recreational expenditures and $2.7 million increase in 

sales/output for the local economy following the deployment. However, results from a 

similar study conducted at the U.S.S. Vandenberg, a 520-foot retired air force missile 

tracking ship intentionally sunk in the waters off of Key West, Florida in May 2009, did 

not support the hypothesis that introducing an artificial reef would reduce use on the 

surrounding natural reefs. However, the hypotheses that diver operator business would 

increase as would impacts on the local economy were supported (Leeworthy 2011). 

Following the deployment of the U.S.S. Vandenberg the net changes in total recreational 

expenditures from the pre- to post-deployment period indicated that there was an increase 

of $6.5 million in total recreational expenditures, which generated a total impact on 

sales/output of $7.29 million, about $3.2 million in income, and the creation of 105 new 

jobs. For the scuba and snorkel businesses of Key West, the number of paying dive 

customers increased by approximately 49,000, or a 188.9% increase in business in total 

from the pre-deploy to post deployment time frames. It is important to note that the 

results of both studies depend heavily upon the attributes of the local economy and 

existing dive business structure and the marine ecosystem and the artificial reef itself; 

therefore, the conclusions of these studies may only apply to other locations that have 

similar attributes. Both studies support the idea that decommissioned ships converted to 

artificial reefs can be successful in promoting economic development and tourism and 

also yield a net return on investment.
29

Cited Literature

Adams, J.A., and S. Slaughter-Williams. 1988. The effects of PCB’s (Aroclors 1254 and 

1016) on fertilization and morphology in Arbacia punctulata. Water Air Soil Pollut. 

38:299-310.

AGSMFC (Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions). 2004. Guidelines 

for marine artificial reef materials, 2nd edition. 205pp.

Albins, M. and M. Hixon. 2008. Invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish Pterois volitans reduce 

recruitment of Atlantic coral-reef fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367:233-238.

Ambrose, R.F. 1994. Mitigating the effects of a coastal power plant on a kelp forest 

community: rationale and requirements for an artificial reef. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:694-708.

Armono, H.D. and K.R. Hall. 2002. Wave transmission on submerged breakwaters made 

of hollow hemispherical shape artificial reefs. Canadian Coastal Conference. Victoria, 

Canada. 1-13.

Atchison, A.D. 2005. Offshore oil and gas platforms as stepping-stones for expansion of 

coral communities: a molecular genetic analysis. MS Thesis. Dept. of Oceanography and 

Coastal Sciences. Louisiana State Univ. 94pp.

Baine, M. 2001. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and 

performance. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:241-259.

Batterman, A.L. and P.M. Cook. 1981. Determination of mineral fiber concentrations in 

fish tissues. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:952-959.

Baynes, T.W. and A.M. Szmant. 1989. Effect of current on the sessile benthic community 

structure of an artificial reef. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2)-545-566.

Belanger, S.E., K. Schurr, D.A. Allen, A.F. Gohara. 1986. Effects of chrysotile asbestos 

on coho salmon and green sunfish: evidence of pathological stress. Environ. Res. 39:74-

85.

Belanger, S.E., D.S. Cherry, J. Cairns, Jr. 1990. Functional and pathological impairment 

of Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes) by long-term asbestos exposure. Aquat. Toxicol.

17:133-154. 

Bell, M. and J.W. Hall. 1994. Effects of Hurricane Hugo on South Carolina’s marine 

artificial reefs. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2-3):836-847.

Bernhard, M. 1980. The relative importance of lead as a marine pollutant. In: M. Branica 

and A. Konrad (eds.) Lead in the Marine Environment. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, 

345-352.
30

Blair, S.M., T.L. McIntosh, B.J. Mostkoff. 1994. Impacts of Hurricane Andrew on the 

offshore reef systems of central and northern Dade County, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

54(3):961-973.

BOEM (United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region). 2010. Notice to lessees and 

operators of federal oil and gas leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the outer 

continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico region. NTL No. 2010-G05. 11pp. 

Bohnsack, J.A. and F. H. Talbot. 1980. Species-packing by reef fishes on Australian and 

Caribbean reefs: an experimental approach. Bull. Mar. Sci. 30:710-723.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial reef research: a review with 

recommendations for future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37(1):11-39.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat 

limitation or behavioral preference? Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:631-645.

Bohnsack, J.A., D.L. Johnson, R.F. Ambrose. 1991. Ecology of artificial reef habitats and 

fishes. In: Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries. Academic Press, Inc., 

pp. 61-107.

Bohnsack, J.A., D.E. Harper, D.B. McClellan, M. Hulsbeck. 1994. Effects of reef size on 

colonization and assemblage structure of fishes at artificial reefs off southeastern Florida, 

U.S.A. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:796-823.

Bohnsack, J.A., A-M, Ecklund, A.M. Szmant. 1997. Essay: artificial reef research: is 

there more than the attraction-production issue? Fisheries 22:14-16.

Boland, G.S., B.J. Gallaway, J.S. Baker, G.S. Lewbel. 1983. Ecological effects of energy 

development on reef fish of the Flower Garden Banks. LGL Ecological Research 

Associates, Inc. 499pp.

Booth, D.J. and D.M. Brosnan. 1995. The role of recruitment dynamics in rocky shore 

and coral reef fish communities. Av. Ecol. Res. 26:309-385.

Bortone, S.A. 1992. Stability of automobile and helicopter bodies in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. University of West Florida. Report submitted to Florida Department of Natural 

Resources. 20pp.

Bortone, S.A. and R.K. Turpin. 1997. An evaluation of artificial reefs after the influences 

of hurricanes and fishing pressure. Project no. OFMAS-062. University of West Florida. 

Report submitted to Santa Rosa County and Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. 74pp.
31

Bortone, S.A. 2008. Coupling fisherieswith ecology through marine artificial reef 

deployments. Pages 917–924. In: J. Nielsen, J. J. Dodson, K. Friedland, T. R. Hamon, J. 

Musick, E. Verspoor (eds.). Reconciling fisheries with conservation: symposium 49. 

Proceedings of the fourth world fisheries congress. American Fisheries Society. 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Brock, R.E. and J.E. Norris. 1989. An analysis of the efficacy of four artificial reef 

designs in tropical waters. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):934-941.

Brouwer, A., P.J.H. Reijnders, J.H. Koeman. 1989. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-

contaminated fish induces vitamin A and thyroid hormone deficiency in the common seal 

(Phoca vitulina). Aquat. Toxicol. 15:99-106.

Brown, B.E., A.W. Tudhope, M.D.A. Le Tissier, T.P. Scoffin. 1991. A novel mechanism 

for iron incorporation into coral skeletons. Coral Reefs 10:211-215.

Cairns, S. 2000. A revision of the shallow-water azooxanthellate Scleractinia of the 

Western Atlantic. Stud Nat Hist Carib 75:1–240.

Carr, M.H. and M.A. Hixon. 1997. Artificial reefs: the importance of comparisons with 

natural reefs. Fisheries 22(4):28-33.

Caselle, J. E., M.S. Love, C. Fusaro, D. Schroeder. 2002. Trash or habitat? Fish 

assemblages on offshore oilfield seafloor debris in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:S258–S265.

Clark, R.B. 1992. Marine Pollution. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 172 pp.

Clavero, M. and E. García-Berthou. 2005. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal 

extinctions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:110.

Coale, K.H., S.E. Fitzwater, R.M. Gordon, K.S. Johnson, R.T. Barber. 1996. Control of 

community growth and export production by upwelled iron in the equatorial Pacific 

Ocean. Lett. Nature 379:621-624.

Coastal Tech. 1993. Effects of hurricane Andrews on Dade County’s artificial reefs, 

Florida. Report submitted to Metropolitan Dade County Department of Environmental 

Resources Management, Miami, Florida 11pp.

Cowan, J.H., C.B. Grimes, W.F. Patterson III, C.J. Walters, A.C. Jones, W.J. Lindberg, 

D.J. Sheehy, W.E. Pine III, J.E. Powers, M.D. Campbell, K.C. Lindeman, S.L. Diamond, 

R. Hilborn, H.T. Gibson, K.A. Rose. 2010. Red snapper management in the Gulf of 

Mexico: science- or faith-based? Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. 18pp.
32

CPE (Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.). 2007. As-built survey of artificial reefs 

constructed by Pinellas County, Florida; under FDEP permit no. 52-2923209. Prepared 

for Department of Environmental Management, Pinellas County, Florida. 30pp.

Creed, J.C. 2006. Two invasive alien azooxanthellate corals, Tubastraea coccinea and 

Tubastraea tagusensis, dominate the native zooxanthellate Mussismilia hispida in Brazil. 

Coral Reefs 25:350.

Cruz, A.M. and E. Krausmann. 2008. Damage to offshore oil and gas facilities following 

hurricanes Katrina and Rita: An overview. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process 

Industries 21(6)620-626.

Darby, K.A., D.E. Dismukes, S.E. Cureington. Hurricanes and energy infrastructure in 

the Gulf of Mexico: impacts and challenges. GCAGS Annual Convention Lafayette, 

Louisiana. 

D. E. Britt Associates, Inc. 1974. Report of investigation of Broward artificial reef (tire 

reef). Report to Broward County Waste Collection & Disposal Division of Solid Waste. 

10pp.

D. E. Britt Associates, Inc. 1975. Annual report of investigations of Borward artificial 

reef (tire reef). Report to Broward County Waste Collection & Disposal Division of Solid 

Waste. 5pp.

DeMartini, E.E., D.A. Roberts, T.W. Anderson. 1989. Contrasting patterns of fish density 

and abundance at an artificial rock reef and a cobble-bottom kelp forest. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

44:881-892.

den Besten, P.J., J.M.L. Elenbaas, J.R. Maas, S.J. Dieleman, H.J. Herwig, P.A. Voogt.

1991. Effects of cadmium and polychlorinated biphenyls (Clophen A50) on steroid 

metabolism and cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase system in the sea star Asterias rubens 

L. Aquat. Toxicol. 20:95-110.

DERM (Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management). 

2001. Artificial reef stability program, version 1.0 documentation. 9pp.

Djamarani, M. 2005. The stakes are rising. Petroleum Review, December.

Dodge, R.E. and T.R. Gilbert. 1984. Chronology of lead pollution contained in banded 

coral skeletons. Mar. Biol. 82:9-13.

Doherty, P.J. and D.M. Williams. 1988. The replenishment of coral reef fish populations. 

Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 26:487-551.
33

Doherty, P.J. and A. Fowler. 1994. Demographic consequences of variable recruitment to 

coral reef fish populations: a congeneric comparison of two damselfishes. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

54:297-313.

Dodrill, J., K. Mille, B. Horn, R. Turpin. 2011. Progress report summarizing the reef fish 

sampling, PCB analysis results and visual monitoring associated with the Oriskany Reef, 

a decommissioned former Navy aircraft sunk in 2006 as an artificial reef in the 

Northeastern Gulf of Mexico off Pensacola, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, Florida Artificial Reef Program. 136pp.

Eisler, R. and A.A. Belisle. 1996. Planar PCB hazards of fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: 

a synoptic review. National Biological Service, Biological Report 31, 75 pp.

Eklund, A.M. 1996. The effects of post-settlement predation and resource limitation on 

reef fish assemblages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.

Emery, B.M., L. Washburn, M.S. Love, M.M. Mishimoto, J.C. Ohlmann. 2006. Do oil 

and gas platforms off California reduce recruitment of bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) to 

natural habitat? An analysis based on trajectories derived from high-frequency radar. 

Fish. Bull. 104:391-400.

Energo Engineering. 2007. Assessment of fixed offshore platform performance in

hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Final report, Energo Engineering.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. EPA Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) Consultation on the Polychlorinated Biphenyl-Artificial Reef Risk Assessment. 

Letter to the Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, EPA Administrator. EPA-SAB-CON-06-

001.

EPA MARAD (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Maritime 

Administration). 2006. National guidance: best management practices for preparing 

vessels intended to create artificial reefs. 77pp.

ESA PWA. 2012. Evaluation of erosion mitigation alternatives for Southern Monterey 

Bay. Prepared for Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation and The Southern Monterey Bay 

Coastal Erosion Working Group. 203pp.

Fager, E.W. 1971. Pattern in the development of a marine community. Limnol. 

Oceanogr. 16:241-253.

Farrell, J. and S. Wood. 2009. An automated purge valve for marine salvage. IEEE 

Conference Publishing. 10pp.

Fenner, D. and K. Banks. 2004. Orange cup coral Tubastraea coccinea invades Florida 

and the Flower Garden Banks, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Coral Reefs 23:505-507. 
34

Ferreira, F. and N.A. Straus. 1994. Iron deprivation in cyanobacteria. J. Appl. Phycol. 

6:199-210.

Ferry, R. 2009. Range expansion of an invasive coral species into South Florida and the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: investigating the ecological impact and source 

of the invasion. Wetlands, Coastal and Oceans Branch, EPA, Region 4. 6pp.

Fitzhardinge, R.C. and J.H. Bailey-Brock. 1989. Colonization of artificial reef materials 

by coral and other sessile organisms. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(2):567-579.

Frost, B.W. 1996. Phytoplankton bloom on iron rations. Nature 383:475-476.

Garcia, C.B. and H. Salzwedel. 1995. Successional patterns on fouling plates in the Bay 

of Santa Marta, Colombian Caribbean. An. Inst. Invest. Mar. Punta de Betin. 24:95-121.

Gibbs, P.E., P.L. Pascoe, G.R. Burt. 1988. Sex change in the female dog-whelk, Nucella 

lapillus, induced by tributyltin from antifouling paints. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 68:715-

731.

Glasby, T.M., S.D Connell, M.G. Holloway, C.L. Hewitt. 2007. Nonindigenous biota

on artificial structures: could habitat creation facilitate biological invasions? Mar. Biol. 

151:887-895.

Grossman, G.D., G.P. Jones, W.J. Seaman. 1997. Do artificial reefs increase regional fish 

production? A review of existing data. Fisheries 22:17-23.

Harland, A.D, and B.E. Brown. 1989. Metal tolerance in the scleractinian coral Porites 

lutea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 20:353-357.

Herlan, J. and D. Lirman. 2008. Development of a coral nursery program for the 

threatened coral Acropora cervicornis in Florida. Session number 24. Proceedings of the 

11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Herrnkind, W.F., M.J. Butler IV, J.H. Hunt. 1997. Case study: can artificial habitats that 

mimic natural structures enhance recruitment of Caribbean spiny lobster? Fisheries 

22:24-27.

Hickerson, E.L. and Schmahl, G.P. 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems in the Flower

Garden Banks, Stetson Bank, and Other Banks in the Northwest Gulf of Mexico. Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary NOAA, pp. 201–221 (Chapter 8).

Horn, B. and K. Mille. 2004. Post hurricane dive assessment of four concrete modular 

artificial reefs south of Pensacola, FL. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. 20pp.
35

Johns, G.M., V.R. Leeworthy, F.W. Bell, M.A. Bonn. 2001. Socioeconomic study of 

reefs in Southeast Florida. Final Report for Broward County, Palm Beach County, 

Miami-Dade County, Monroe County, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 348pp.

Kennicutt, M.A., II (ed). 1995. Gulf of Mexico offshore operations monitoring 

experiment, phase I: sublethal responses to contaminant exposure. Final Report. OCS 

Study MMS 95-0045. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana. 709pp.

Laughlin, R.B. 1996. Bioaccumulation of TBT by aquatic organisms. In: M.A. Champ 

and P.F. Seligman (eds.), Organotin: environmental fate and effects. Chapman and Hall, 

NY, pp. 331-355.

Leeworthy, V.R., T. Maher, E.A. Stone. 2006. Can artificial reefs alter user pressure on 

adjacent natural reefs? Bull. Mar. Sci. 78(1):29-37.

Leeworthy, V.R. 2011. The Economic Impact of the U.S.S. Vandenberg on the Monroe 

County Economy. Silver Spring, MD: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National 

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 16pp.

Lewbel., G.S., R.L. Howard, B.J. Gallaway. 1987. Zonation of dominant fouling 

organisms on northern Gulf of Mexico petroleum platforms. Mar. Environ. Res. 

21(3):199-224.

LGL Ecological Research Associates. 1998. Cumulative ecological significance of oil 

and gas structures in the Gulf of Mexico: Information search, synthesis and ecological 

modeling; Phase 1 Final Report. USGS/BRD/CR - 1997-0006; OCS Study MMS 97-

0036. 132pp.

Lindberg, W.J. 1997. Essay: can science resolve the attraction-production issue? 

Fisheries 22:10-13.

Lindberg, W.J., T.K. Frazer, K.M. Portier, V. Frederic, J. Logtin, D.J. Murie, D.M. 

Mason, B. Nagy, M.K. Hart. 2006. Density-dependent habitat selection and performance 

by a large mobile reef fish. Ecological Applications 16(2)731-746.

Love, M.S. and A. York. 2005. A comparison of the fish assemblages associated with an 

oil/gas pipeline and adjacent seafloor in the Santa Barbara Channel, Southern California. 

Bull. Mar. Sci. 77(1):101–117.

Love, M.S., D.M. Schroeder, W. Lenarz, A. MacCall, A.S. Bull, L. Thorsteinson. 2006.

Potential use of offshore marine structures in rebuilding an overfished rockfish species, 

bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis). Fisheries Bulletin 104:383-390.
36

Love, M.S., E. Brothers, D.M. Schroeder, W.H. Lenarz. 2007. Ecological performance of 

young-of-the-year blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) associated with oil platforms and 

natural reefs in California as measured by daily growth rates. Bull. Mar. Sci. 80(1):147-

157.

Love, M.S., M. Nishimoto, M. Saiki. 2009. Reproductive ecology and body burden of 

resident fish prior to decommissioning. OCS Study MMS 2009-019. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region. 

93pp.

MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton 

University Press.

Maher, T. 2006. Assessment of Hurricane Charley impacts on Southwest Florida artificial 

reefs. The reef ball foundation. 42pp.

Martore, R.M., T.D. Mathews, M. Bell. 1998. Levels of PCBs and heavy metals in biota 

found on ex-military ships used as artificial reefs. Marine Resources Division, South 

Carolina Marine Resources Center, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 

Charleston, SC, unpublished.

Matsunaga, K., Y. Suzuki, K. Kuma, I. Kudo. 1994. Diffusion of Fe(II) from an iron 

propagation cage and its effect on tissue iron and pigments of macroalgae on the cage. J. 

Appl. Phycol. 6:397-403.

Meier, M.H., R. Buckley, J.J. Polovina. 1989. A debate on responsible artificial reef 

development. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:1051-1057.

Menge, B.A. 1976. Organization of the New England Rocky intertidal community: role 

of predation, competition, and environmental heterogeneity. Ecological Monographs 

46:355-393.

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2006a. Impact assessment of offshore facilities 

from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, News Release 3418, 19 January.

MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2006b. MMS updates hurricanes Katrina and Rita 

damage, Minerals Management Service, News Release 3486, 1 May.

Montoya, A.J., Q.R. Quesada, Z.E. Madriz, M.E. Castro, P.O. Urpi. 1985. Comparative 

analysis of substrates for collection of mangrove oyster (Crassostrea rhizophorae, 

Guilding 1828) spat in Viscaya estuary, Limon, Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 33:1-6. 

Mostkoff, B.J. 1992. Preliminary report: Dade County DERM artificial reef program, the 

effects of Hurricane Andrew. 10pp.
37

Morley, D.M. 2009. Environmental enhancement gone awry: characterization of an 

artificial reef constructed from waste vehicle tires. Masters thesis. NOVA Southeastern 

University Oceanographic Center. 70pp.

Morris, J.A., Jr. and J.L. Akins. 2009. Feeding ecology of invasive lionfish (Pterois 

volitans) in the Bahamian archipelago. Environmental Biology of Fishes, DOI 

10.1007/s10641-009-9538-8. 

Morris, J.A., Jr. and P.E. Whitfield. 2009. Biology, ecology, control and management of 

the invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish: an updated integrated assessment. NOAATechnical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 99. 57pp.

Morris, J.A., Jr., J.L. Akins, A. Barse, D. Cerino, D.W. Freshwater, S.J. Green, R.C. 

Munoz, C. Paris, P.E. Whitfield. 2009. Biology and ecology of the invasive lionfishes,

Pterois miles and Pterois volitans. Proceedings of the 61st Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries 

Institute November 10 - 14, 2008 Gosier, Goudeloupe, French West Indies. 6pp.

Myatt, D.O., E.N. Myatt, W.K. Figley. 1989. New Jersey tire reef stability study. Bull. 

Mar. Sci. 44(2):807-817.

Olden, J.D., N.L. Poff, M.R. Douglas, M.E. Douglas, K.D. Fausch. 2004. Ecological and 

evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 

19:18–24.

Osenberg, C.W., C.M. St. Mary, J.A. Wilson, W.J. Lindberg. 2002. A quantitative 

framework to evaluate the attraction-production controversy. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 59: 

S214–S221.

OST (California Ocean Science Trust). 2010. Executive summary. Evaluating 

alternatives for decommissioning California’s offshore oil and gas platforms. A technical 

analysis to inform state policy. 18pp.

Otake, S. and M. Oshitani. 2006. Macro-evaluation of catch data from artificial reefs 

deployed in the Japan Sea. Bull. Mar. Sci. 78(10)221-226.

Pape, T.L. 2006. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) source term estimates for exORISKANY (CVA-34). Fairfax, Virginia, Program Executive Office (Ships); CACI 

International Inc. and Subsidary Companies: 1-21.

Pattengill, C.V. 1998. The Structure and Persistence of Reef Fish Assemblages of the 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M 

University, College Station, Texas. 164 pp.

Patterson III, W.F., D.T. Addis, M.A. Dance. 2009. The Refuge Effect of Unpublished

Artificial Reefs Deployed on the Northwest Florida Shelf (FWC-06120): 2005-08

Modeling Report. Pensacola, FL, University of West Florida: 53pp.
38

Paul Lin & Associates, Inc. 2000. Artificial reef stability analysis software. Submitted to 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Lee County Department of 

Environmental Services. 14pp.

Pickering, H. and D. Whitmarsh. 1996. Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a 

review of the “attraction versus production” debate, the influence of design and its 

significance for policy. CEMARE Res. Pap., University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, 

no.107, 28 pp.

Potts, T.A. and A.W. Hulbert. 1994. Structural influences of artificial and natural habitats 

on fish aggregations in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:609-622.

Proserv Offshore. 2010. Decommissioning cost update for removing Pacific OCS region 

offshore oil and gas facilities, January 2010, Volume 1. A Study for the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 83pp.

REEF (Reef Environmental Education Foundation). 2007. Fish monitoring on the Spiegel 

Grove artificial reef April 2002 – August 2007 final report. 20pp.

Quinn, T.P. 2009. The influence of artificial reef associated fish assemblages and varying 

substrates on coral recruitment. Thesis. Nova Southeastern University, Fort LauderdaleDavie, Florida. 124pp.

Rainbow, P.S. 1990. Heavy metal levels in marine invertebrates. In: R.W. Furness and 

P.S. Rainbow (eds.), Heavy metals in the marine environment. CRC Press, Inc., Boca 

Raton, pp. 67-79.

Randall, J. E. 1963. An analysis of the fish populations of artificial and natural reefs in 

the Virgin Islands. Carib. J. Sci. 3:31-47.

Rooker, J.R., G.J. Holt, C.V. Pattengill, Q. Dokken. 1997. Fish assemblages on artificial 

and natural reefs in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, USA. Coral 

Reefs 16:83-92.

Ruiz-Carus, R., R.E. Matheson, D.E. Roberts, P.E. Whitfield. 2006. The western Pacific 

red lionfish, Pterois volitans (Scorpaenidae). In: Florida: Evidence for reproduction and 

parasitism in the first exotic marine fish established in state waters. Biol. Conserv. 

128(March):384-390.

Salcido, R.E. 2005. Enduring optimism: examining the rig-to-reef bargain. Ecology Law 

Quartery 32(863).

Sammarco, P.W., A.D. Atchison, G.S. Boland. 2004. Expansion of coral communities

within the northern Gulf of Mexico via offshore oil and gas platforms. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 260:129–143.
39

Sathe, M.P, S.E. Thanner, S.M. Blair. 2010. Bal Harbour mitigation artificial reef 

monitoring program year 10 progress report and summary. Submitted to the State of 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection in partial fulfillment of the Bal Harbour 

consent order – OGC Case No. 94-2842. 39pp.

Scarborough-Bull, A., M.S. Love, D.M. Schroeder. 2008. Artificial reefs as fishery 

conservation tools: contrasting the roles of offshore structures between the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Southern California Bight. American Fisheries Society, Proceedings of 

the 4th World Fishery Congress, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 587-603

Schroeder, D.M. and M.S. Love. 2004. Ecological and political issues surrounding 

decommissioning of offshore oil facilities in the Southern California Bight. Ocean & 

Coastal Management 47:21–48.

Schmahl, G.P., E.L. Hickerson, W.F. Precht, 2008. Biology and ecology of coral reefs 

and coral communities in the Flower Garden Banks Region, Northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico. In, B.M. Riegl and R.E. Dodge, Coral Reefs of the USA, Springer Science, 

2008.

Shearer, T. 2010. Distribution of Tubastraea coccinea in Florida and Flower Garden 

Banks: Progress Report. Georgia Institute of Technology. 14pp.

Sheehy, D.J. and S.F. Vik. 1992. Developing prefabricated reefs: an ecological 

engineering approach. In: Thayer, G.W. (ed.), NOAA Symposium on Habitat 

Restoration. Restoring the Nation’s Marine Environment. Maryland Sea Grant, College 

Park, MD.

Sheehy, D. and S.F. Vik. 2010. The role of constructed reefs in non-indigenous species 

introductions and range expansions. Ecological Engineering 36:1-11.

Shinn, E.A. 1974. Oil structures as artificial reefs. In: Colunga, L. and R. Stone (eds.)

Proceedings of an International Conference on Artificial Reefs, March 1974. Houston,

TX. TAMU-SG-74-103. pp. 91-96.

Shipp, R. L. 1999. The artificial reef debate: Are we asking the wrong questions? Gulf 

Mexico Sci., 17(1):51–55.

Shipp, R.L. and S.A. Bortone. 2009. A perspective of the importance of artificial habitat 

on the management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Reviews in Fisheries Science 

17(1):41-47.

Smith, G.B., D.A. Hensley, H.H. Mathews. 1979. Comparative efficacy of artificial and 

natural Gulf of Mexico reefs as fish attractants. Fla. Mar. Res. Pub. 35. 7pp.
40

Smith, N.S. 2006. Lionfish invasion in nearshore waters of the Bahamas: an examination 

of the effects of artificial structures and invader versus native species colonization rates. 

Thesis. University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 93pp.

Sorensen, E.M. 1991. Metal poisoning in fish. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 374 pp.

SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006a. Artificial reefing: ex-Oriskany artificial 

reef project - prospective risk assessment model (PRAM) Version 1.4C. San Diego, 

California. (Prepared for: Program Executiv Office Ships (PMS 333)), Navy 

Environmental Health Center, URS Corporation, SPARWAR Systems Center, : Sections 

1-2, Tables 1-11, Figures 1-15, Appendices A-K.

SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006b. Ex-Oriskany artificial reef project: 

human health risk assessment. [Prepared for: Program Executive Office Ships (PMS 

333)]: x, Sections 1-11, Appendices A-K. 

SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006c. Ex-Oriskany project: time dynamic 

model documentation (TDM), [Prepared for: Program Executive Office Ships (PMS 

333)]: Section 1, Appendicies A-D.

SPARWAR Systems Center San Diego. 2006d. Ex-Oriskany project: investigation of 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) release-rates from selected shipboard materials under 

laboratory-simulated shallow ocean (artificial reef) environments: xvii, 1-219, 

Appendices pp. 1-836.

Spieler, R.E., D.S. Gilliam, R.L. Sherman. 2001. Artificial substrate and coral reef 

restoration: what do we need to know to know what we need? Bull. Mar. Sci. 69:1013-

1030.

Stewart, S. and K. Schurr. 1980. Effects of asbestos on survival of Artemia. Proceedings 

of the International Symposium on the Brine Shrimp Artemia salina. pp. 233-251.

Takeda, S. 1998. Influence of iron availability on nutrient consumption ratio of diatoms 

in oceanic waters. Nature 393:774-777.

Thompson, D.R. 1990. Metal levels in marine vertebrates. In: R.W. Furness and P.S. 

Rainbow (eds.), Heavy Metals in the Marine Environment. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 

pp. 143-182.

Turpin, R.K. and S.A. Bortone. 2002. Pre- and post-hurricane assessment of artificial 

reefs: evidence for potential use as refugia in a fishery management strategy. ICES 

Journal of Marine Science 59(S74-S82).

Tyrrell, M.C. and J.E. Byers. 2007. Do artificial substrates favor nonindigenous fouling 

species over native species? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology

342:54-60.
41

Villareal, T.A., S. Hanson, S. Qualia, E.I.E. Jester, H.R. Granade, R.W. Dickey. 2007. 

Petroleum production platforms as sites for the expansion of ciguatera in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae 6(2):253–259.

Walton, J.M. 1982. The effects of an artificial reef on resident flatfish populations. Mar. 

Fish. Rev. 44(6-7):45-48.

Wasson, K., K. Fenn, J.S. Pearse. 2005. Habitat differences in marine invasions of central 

California. Biol. Invasions 7(6):935–948.

Wells, M.L., N.M. Price, K.W. Bruland. 1995. Iron chemistry in seawater and its 

relationship to phytoplankton: a workshop report. Mar. Chem. 48:157-182.

Woodhead, A.D., R.B. Setlow, V. Pond. 1983. The effects of chronic exposure to 

asbestos fibers in the Amazon molly, Poecelia formosa. Environ. International 9:173-

176.

Work, T.M., G.S. Aeby, J.E. Maragos. 2008. Phase shift from a coral to a corallimorphdominated reed associated with a shipwreck on Palmyra Atoll. PLoS ONE 3(8):e2989.

Zadikoff, G., L. D.M. Covello, Harris, B, Macmillan. 1996. Stability and wave 

attenuation analyses for concrete and concrete/rubber tetrahedron modules for submerged 

structures. Shelby and Associates and Florida Institute of Technology. Submitted to City 

of Miami Beach. 64pp.
42

Acknowledgements

Thanks is given to Paula (Souik) Bizot who, in 1998, drafted a white paper for the NOAA 

Sanctuaries and Reserve Division titled Considerations for Artificial Reef Development. 

Portions of that document were used during the drafting stages of this updated report on 

the same topic. 

This report also benefited significantly from the following individuals who either 

provided a preliminary review of the report or contributed comments, content, or 

literature: Greg Boland (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), Erica Burton (NOAA 

MBNMS), Thomas Coon (Michigan State University), Brad Damitz (NOAA GFNMS), 

Natalie Dingledine (DLZ Michigan), Jon Dodrill (FFWCC), Scott Donahue (NOAA 

FKNMS), Steve Gittings (NOAA ONMS), Kaitlin Graiff (NOAA CBNMS), Russ Green 

(NOAA TBNMS), Lauren Heesemann (NOAA MNMS), Emma Hickerson (NOAA 

FGBNMS), Rebecca Holyoke (NOAA ONMS), Hoku Johnson (detail to NOAA ONMS), 

Michelle Johnston (NOAA FGBNMS), Irina Kogan (formerly of NOAA GFNMS), 

Vernon R. Leeworthy (NOAA ONMS), Ellen Marsden (University of Vermont), Keith 

Mille (FFWCC), Michael Murphy (California Coastkeeper Alliance), Steve Rohmann 

(NOAA ONMS), Jan Roletto (NOAA GFNMS), George Schmahl (NOAA FGBNMS), 

and Vicki Wedell (NOAA ONMS).

Special thanks is given to Joanne Delaney (NOAA FKNMS), John Embesi (NOAA 

FGBNMS), and Dale Roberts (NOAA CBNMS) who were particularly helpful in 

generating content, reviewing and editing text, answering questions, and providing 

references for this report.

Finally, sincere thanks is also extended to the peer reviewers of this document: Dr. Jim 

Bohnsack (NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center), Dr. Ann Scarborough Bull (Environmental Sciences Section, Pacific Region 

Office of Environment Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), and Mr. Keith Mille 

(Division of Marine Fisheries - Artificial Reef Program, Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission).