Where to Deploy a New Artificial Reef Off the Coast of New Jersey Based on

Relationship with Popular Fishing Sites

Daniel Weiss

Stockton University

Applied G.I.S.

Term Paper

12/12/2022
 Weiss-2

Abstract:

This term project is on the relationship between artificial reef sites and popular
fishing sites in New Jersey. The correlation between these two parameters was found in
order to determine if the implementation of a new artificial reef would be beneficial.
Previous parameters set by the datasets were used to determine the potential location
for a new artificial reef. It was found that the artificial reefs have a high overlap with the
popular fishing sites through the data analysis on ArcGIS Pro. The most common
substrate on fishing sites was sand and was found around many of the reef sites. The
three potential locations for a new reef included Brigantine, Hamilton, and Toms River
as they met the parameters to sustain an artificial reef. This future reef is to be made of
mostly dredged rock as it is the most commonly used artificial reef material in New
Jersey.

Research & Article Support:

Introduction
Artificial reefs are human created submerged structures that promote biodiversity
in local marine life, therefore in theory increasing the fishing activity in that area.
 Weiss-3

Previous studies have shown that by introducing an artificial reef there is a following
increase in fish abundance and larger capacity for an environment to hold more
organisms, this would imply these reefs cause fish from other locations to congregate in
one area (Folpp, et al., 2020). By adding an artificial reef different fish species are able
to use the reef to protect juvenile fish, as well as start a small ecosystem for local
marine species (Smith et al., 2015). Artificial reefs have been deployed off the coast of
New Jersey in large clusters, while each cluster consists of many artificial reefs, they
are combined and referred to as their larger cluster name. Each cluster is named based
on their relativity to an adjacent coastal community or body of water. There are
approximately 17 reefs off the coast; Ocean City, Townsends Inlet, Wildwood, Cape
May, Delaware Bay, Atlantic City, Great Egg, Deep Water, Little Egg, Garden State
South, Garden State North, Barnegat Light, Shark River, Sea Girt, Sandy Hook,
Manasquan Inlet, and Axel Carlson (NJDEP 2022). Many of these coastal communities
and bodies of water are also known for popular fishing destinations for commercial
fishermen. Commercial fishing is a popular activity amongst both locals and tourists in
these areas so it is possible the addition of the artificial reefs benefited the local
ecosystem and biodiversity. Popular fishing sites require large amounts of local or
migratory fish to supply the demands of the fishermen without disturbing the biodiversity
through overfishing.
These features are often found on featureless bathymetries in order to attract fish
to a new area. Commonly, objects such as ships or cars are sunk in order to create the
reefs, data used from NJDEP will show the most common items used in NJ for reef
creation. The impact of these artificial reefs should be measured to gain knowledge on
how artificial reefs can change fishing habits in the region in order to reduce the risk of
overfishing. It is expected that many of these locations will overlap showing that the
artificial reefs are successful at sustaining a high fish density, and display the
implementation of a new reef would likely supply fishermen with a new location to fish
and provide local species a new habitat.
Problem:
The problem to be solved is predicting the impact of a new reef on fishing
grounds in New Jersey. Finding how the artificial reefs impact fishing can be used for
future projects in order to reduce overfishing of specific reefs and expand the local
biodiversity. Previously, it was found that fishing rates do increase around artificial reefs
as more fish begin to congregate around the reef, studies have been conducted
measuring the fishing amount over a short period of time (Becker et al., 2020) as
opposed to long term data from the state. Other studies have shown the success of
artificial reefs in regards to fishing rates, but the correlation has not been viewed within
the artificial reefs of New Jersey. By finding the correlation between the reefs and
fishing sites it can be determined if the addition or deployment of a new artificial reef
would benefit both the local ecosystem and commercial fishing alike. I am looking to find
if there is a correlation between the popular fishing sites off the coast of New Jersey and
 Weiss-4

the artificial reef sites that have been deployed off of the coast. If these sites show a
correlation, where would the best location be to deploy a new reef based on the
parameters set by the previous deployments.
By finding and predicting a possible location to deploy a new artificial reef this
could prevent possible overfishing at the known sites. To find this location I will place a
buffer around any overlapping fishing sites and artificial reefs, from there I will find a
fishing location that lacks an artificial reef. This will give fishermen a new location,
negating the possibility of overfishing. The final location for the new artificial reef will be
based on existing parameters such as proximity to other artificial reefs, locations of
popular fishing sites, and access to saltwater fishing sites in New Jersey, reef materials,
and substrate of currently deployed reefs. Also, artificial reef substrate is a very
important parameter, placing an artificial reef on incorrect substrate choice is able to
contribute to the failure of artificial reefs. Previous studies have tested the sustainability
of different substrates on reefs, including; fine sand, concrete, concrete mixed with
coarse sand, and a plastic material (La Marca 2022). Data will be used from the NJDEP
website in order to find both the popular fishing sites and locations of the deployed
artificial reefs. Current data supplied from the NJDEP website includes, popular fishing
sites off the coast of NJ, locations and materials used for each of the currently deployed
artificial reefs, and the prime saltwater access sites for fisherman.
Methods:
Data Acquisition & Analysis
In order to find new possible locations for the deployment of artificial reefs data
collection on current artificial reefs and fishing locations was needed as well as the
makeup of each artificial reef and substrates for each of the prime fishing locations. As
previously stated, all data was supplied by the NJDEP open database that supplies data
and maps for ArcGIS and other mapping programs. All of the data was downloaded
from the NJDEP website and uploaded to ArcGIS Pro in order for data analysis to be
conducted. Once uploaded onto a digital map the data was separated into three
different maps according to its purpose. The first map was made for all data regarding
artificial reefs, this included the labeled artificial reef sites, as well as data points for all
structures used within the reef. This map is displayed by ‘Map 1” in the results section.
The second map consisted commercial fishing data provided by the NJDEP including;
prime fishing location data which consisted of barriered regions within the water where
commercial fishermen tend to fish, as well as the substrate type of some of the regions
and data on some species that were caught in the area, but data is very limited on
species haul. This map also consisted of data points for prime saltwater access sites for
fishermen; this data was needed to assist in the determination of the new artificial reef
sites. A display of this map can be viewed on ‘Map 2’.
 Weiss-5

Map 1: Labeled display of all actively deployed artificial reefs in New Jersey. Each individual sunken object is
indicated by a green point.

Map 2: This map displays the popular fishing sites in New Jersey (orange) and the prime saltwater access zones
(red).
Finding New Reef Location
Once the data was put on individual maps, a third, combined map was created in
order to view the correlation between the fishing sites and artificial reefs. First, both
datasets were placed on the same map to view the overlap between data sets, maps of
this can be seen on ‘Map 3’ and ‘Map 4’. Next, both the artificial reefs and fishing sites
were given a buffer of 1000 meters or 0.62 miles in order to find how closely the
datasets overlay each other. This is further displayed on ‘Map 5’, ‘Map 6’, and ‘Map 7’.
Further data analysis required the attribute tables for both data sets as they contained
further information on the background of all data points and regions. Within the attribute
table of the popular fishing site location data was a list of substrates for each location. A
 Weiss-6

total of seven unique substrate types were recorded; sand, gravel, mud, rock, pebble,
clay, and structured. Tables and Graphs were made using this information to uncover
which substrate was most commonly found at these fishing sites. According to the data
supplied, sand was the most common substrate. From here all regions with a sand
substrate were outlined in order to narrow down possible locations for new reefs. This
can be shown on ‘Map 8’. Next, locations were chosen based on proximity to the buffer
zone of popular fishing sites, proximity to prime saltwater access points, a sand
substrate, and no overlap with a buffer zone from any other artificial reef site. Images of
the prime locations are displayed on ‘Layout 1’. Additionally, tables were made from the
attribute table of the artificial reef data regarding the makeup of the material for each
object that was submerged within the reefs. These materials included; dredged rock,
military vehicles, subway cars, concrete, reef balls, tires, ships, and steel (steel cables).

Map 3: This map displays the popular fishing sites (orange) and the labeled artificial reef zones with each
submerged object (green).
 Weiss-7

Map 4: This map shows the artificial reef sites (blue) overlaying the popular fishing sites (orange) and their proximity
to the prime saltwater access sites (red) in New Jersey.
Response:
Results
The data shows an overlap between most of the artificial reef sites and the
fishing sites. Many of the reefs either fall directly in the fishing zone or they fall within
the buffer zones of the fishing areas, in close proximity. This is shown on ‘Map 5’, ‘Map
6’, and Map 7’. Next, it was found that sand was the most common benthic substrate for
the popular fishing areas. It had 217 locations which was 186 more locations than
gravel as the second most common substrate as displayed on table 1 and graph 2.
Areas with sandy substrates were highlighted on ‘Map 8’. Of all the reef locations in
New Jersey, Shark River had the most submerged objects, followed by Sandy Hook,
this is shown on graph 1. Of all the submerged objects for artificial reefs, dredged rock
and military vehicles were the most common at 2,173 and 394 respectively, this is
shown on graph 3 and table 2.

Graph 1: This graph displays the total number of submerged objects at each reef site in New Jersey.
 Weiss-8

Map 5: This map shows the overlap of the fishing sites and the artificial reefs (Atlantic City, Ocean City, Great Egg,
and Little Egg.)

Map 6: This map shows the overlap of the fishing sites and the artificial reefs (Shark River, Sandy Hook, Sea Girt,
and Manasquan.)
 Weiss-9

Map 7: This map shows the overlap of the fishing sites and the artificial reefs (Barnegat Light, and Axel Carlson.)

Map 8: This map displays all the fishing areas with sandy substrates, indicated by the blue outline.
 Weiss-10

Graph 2: This graph displays the total percentage of sand substrates compared to others in the popular
fishing sites off of New Jerseys coast.

Material Type (Fishing Site Substrate) Available Count

Sand 217

Gravel 31

Mud 23

Rock 18

Pebble 16

Clay 2

Structured 1

Table 1: This table displays the substrate type and count of the popular fishing sites in New Jersey.

Graph 3: This graph displays the count of artificial reef materials in New Jersey
 Weiss-11

TYPE Count

Dredge rock 2,173

Military vehicle 394

Subway car 315

Concrete 309

Reef ball 212

Tires 204

Ship 179

Steel 10

Table 2: This table displays the type and count of materials used at the artificial reef locations in New Jersey.

Discussion
After the maps, graphs, and tables were completed, the results were analyzed to
find both the connection between the artificial reefs and popular fishing sites, as well as
where to place a new artificial reef. The first point of interest was the amount of overlap
between the separate data sets. This overlap implies that the artificial reef sites are also
popular fishing locations due to their ability to attract local fish and sustain a healthy
biodiversity. Most artificial reef sites either fall directly within the bounded region of a
popular fishing site or within the buffer zone. This further indicates that these reef sites
are highly connected to the locations fishermen choose to fish. Reefs including the
Garden State South, Garden State North, Sandy Hook, Deep Water, Little Egg, and Sea
Girt fall directly in the middle of a popular fishing location while reefs such as Atlantic
City, Great Egg, Barnegat Light, Wildwood, Cape May, and Ocean City fall within the
buffer zone of one or more popular fishing locations. This infers that some reef sites are
more popular than others, further research is needed to discover why some reefs are
more popular for fishermen than others. Next, it was found that sandy benthic areas of
the fishing regions are most prevalent with 217 documented sand regions compared to
gravel in second at 31 recorded areas. The least common benthic types were
Structured with only one registered region, clay with two regions, and pebble with 16
regions as seen on table 1 and graph 2. In order to choose an area to deploy a new
artificial reef the region had to have or be near a sandy benthic environment, inhabit the
buffer zone or within the popular fishing region while also not falling in a buffer region of
another artificial reef. and have adequate access from the prime salt water access sites
in the area. Three coastal communities were found to meet these parameters,
 Weiss-12

Brigantine, Hamilton, and Toms River. All three of these regions provide the necessary
substrate and fall within the range of a fishing zone making them prime areas to deploy
a new artificial reef. A display of these locations can be found on ‘Layout 1’. Based on
the data from table three, dredge rock should make up the majority of the reef's profile.
Dredged rock was the most commonly used material for artificial reefs as 2,173 of the
reef data points were registered as dredged rock followed by military vehicles, subway
cars, and concrete with 394 (Military vehicles), 315 (Subway cars), and 309 (Concrete)
respectively. The least common included steel with 10 points, ships at 179, and tires at
204.

Layout 1: This layout displays the three potential locations for the deployment of a new artificial reef, indicated by the
red circles.

Conclusion
It is expected that the addition of a new reef in these areas will provide both
fishermen with a new fishing area and provide local fish with a new habitat. The
implementation of a new artificial reef zone would help the New Jersey coast to
maintain its biodiversity. The deployment of an artificial reef in any of the three
 Weiss-13

suggested regions would likely reduce the loss of biodiversity in the surrounding reefs
as well. Future research can be conducted to view the impact the new reef has on the
fishing rates at the surrounding reefs. Also, research can be conducted on why some
artificial reefs seem to be more popular than others for fishermen. It will be important to
monitor the future interactions between commercial fishing and the newly deployed reef
to determine if the reef is successful. Other possible research projects include finding
the reefs that are most suitable for high fishing rates, also fish population and density
data should be collected as well. One of the limitations of the project included a lack of
information about specific water quality at the reefs and fishing areas; this was a
parameter that was left out of the determination of the new reef sites due to lack of
information. Another limitation is the incomplete data on fish populations in these
regions, it becomes difficult to determine fishing rates at the artificial reefs. Overall,
there is a relationship between the artificial reef sites and the popular fishing sites for
commercial fishermen as shown through the overlaps in datasets through data analysis
on ArcGIS Pro. With this relationship three proposed locations; Brigantine, Hamilton,
and Toms River were chosen as potential locations for a new artificial reef to be
deployed. These locations were chosen due to their sandy benthic environment and
proximity to popular fishing sites, and the reef is to be made of dredged material as it is
the most commonly used material for artificial reefs in New Jersey.

Appendix:
● Title Page
 Weiss-14

● Abstract
● Research & Article Support
○ Introduction
○ Problem
● Methods
○ Data Acquisition & Analysis
○ Finding New Reef Location
● Response
○ Results
■ Map 1
■ Map 2
■ Map 3
■ Map 4
■ Map 5
■ Map 6
■ Map 7
■ Map 8
■ Layout 1
■ Table 1
■ Table 2
■ Graph 1
■ Graph 2
■ Graph 3
○ Discussion
○ Conclusion
● Appendix
● References
○ Data Sources

References:

Becker, A., Taylor, M., McLeod, J., & Lowry, M. (2020). Application of a long-range
camera to monitor fishing effort on an offshore Artificial Reef. Fisheries
Research, 228, 105589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105589

Bortone, S. A. (2011). Artificial reefs in fisheries management. CRC Press.

 Weiss-15

Boyle, K. S., Hightower, C. L., Nelson, T. R., & Powers, S. P. (2022). Use of
passive acoustic monitoring to estimate fishing effort on artificial reefs in
Alabama during the recreational red snapper fishing season. Fisheries
Research, 249, 106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2022.106262

Folpp, H. R., Schilling, H. T., Clark, G. F., Lowry, M. B., Maslen, B., Gregson, M.,
& Suthers, I. M. (2020). Artificial reefs increase fish abundance in habitat‐
limited estuaries. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(9), 1752–1761.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13666

La Marca, E. C., Ape, F., Martinez, M., Rinaldi, A., Montalto, V., Scicchigno, E.,
Dini, E., & Mirto, S. (2022). Implementation of artificial substrates for
Dendropoma Cristatum (Biondi 1859) reef restoration: Testing different
materials and topographic designs. Ecological Engineering, 183, 106765.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106765

Smith, J. A., Lowry, M. B., & Suthers, I. M. (2015). Fish attraction to artificial reefs
not always harmful: A simulation study. Ecology and Evolution, 5(20), 4590–
4602. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1730

Taylor, M. D., Becker, A., & Lowry, M. B. (2018). Investigating the functional role of
an artificial reef within an estuarine seascape: A case study of yellowfin
bream (acanthopagrus australis). Estuaries and Coasts, 41(6), 1782–1792.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-018-0395-6

Data Sources:

Njdep Bureau of GIS. NJDEP Bureau of GIS. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2022,
from https://gisdata-njdep.opendata.arcgis.com/