Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Reef topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citrus County reports rapid ecological gains after Fish Haven 1 East reef deployment
Summary
County aquatics staff described a recently deployed 40‑acre offshore reef (Fish Haven 1 East) built with about 2,000 tons of material and largely grant‑reimbursed; early dives show algal growth, schooling fish and large predators, and staff outlined monitoring and future inshore efforts.
Public works staff and the county’s aquatics division briefed commissioners on Fish Haven 1 East, a recent offshore artificial‑reef deployment about 14–18 miles from local inlets. Andrew Owens, the county’s aquatics director, said crews placed roughly 2,000 tons of Highway‑19 barge‑canal material into permitted drop areas, establishing a roughly 40‑acre footprint under an expanded Fish Haven 1 permit.
Project funding and timeline: Owens reported the deployment cost about $1,148,000 overall (grant‑reimbursed) with an additional roughly $33,000 for certified as‑built plans. Planning began in 2017, permitting and grant availability followed the BP/Restore timeline, and deployment took about three months of active operations within an overall 15‑year program schedule.
Early ecological results: A post‑deployment dive recorded fast colonization — red and green algae, schools of small fish, and the presence of larger predators including at least five goliath grouper. Staff said the reef’s relief and current patterns are generating good habitat complexity and that small, frequent deployments and stronger monitoring would support scientific and tourism goals.
Next steps: The county plans to continue GIS inventory work, pursue inshore reef design bids, and explore research partnerships (including University of Florida) to strengthen monitoring and to align future deployments with grant opportunities. Commissioners welcomed the progress and discussed tourism and diving potential.
Grant and cost note: Staff emphasized most costs were covered by grants and reimbursements; the county’s direct cost for the offshore deployment was described as limited relative to the total grant‑funded expense.
