Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-07-02

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

M/V WELLWOOD

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report 

Monitoring Events 2004-2006 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Monroe County, Florida

National Marine Sanctuary Program June 2007 
About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program. 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 National 

Marine Sanctuary Program. 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. 
M/V WELLWOOD 

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report 

Monitoring Events 2004-2006 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Monroe County, Florida 

J. Harold Hudson 

Jeff Anderson 

Erik C. Franklin 

Joe Schittone 

Alice Stratton 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

National Marine Sanctuaries Program, National Ocean Service 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (USN-ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator 

Silver Spring, Maryland National Marine Sanctuary Program 

June 2007 Daniel J. Basta, Director 
DISCLAIMER 

The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

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

Program web site at http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/. Hard copies may be available 

from the following address: 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 National Marine Sanctuary Program

 SSMC4, N/ORM62 

 1305 East-West Highway 

 Silver Spring, MD 20910 

COVER 

Upper left: M/V Wellwood aground on Molasses Reef, Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary. Photo credit: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 

Lower right: Naturally-recruited Montastraea cavernosa colony on reef restoration 

module, photographed on September 29, 2004, at the M/V Wellwood restoration site, 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Photo credit: Jeff Anderson. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Hudson, J.H., J. Anderson, E.C. Franklin, J. Schittone, A. Stratton. 2007. M/V Wellwood

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2006. Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series NMSP-07-02. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 50 pp. 

CONTACT 

Joe Schittone, corresponding author, at: Joe.Schittone@noaa.gov 
ABSTRACT 

This document presents the results of the first two monitoring events to track the recovery 

of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Wellwood vessel grounding incident of 

August 4, 1984. This grounding occurred within the boundaries of what at the time was 

designated the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary (NMS), now designated the Key 

Largo NMS Existing Management Area within the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (FKNMS). Pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq., and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act 

(FKNMSPA) of 1990, NOAA is the federal trustee for the natural and cultural resources 

of the FKNMS. Under Section 312 of the NMSA, NOAA has the authority to recover 

monetary damages for injury, destruction, or loss of Sanctuary resources, and to use the 

recovered monies to restore injured or lost sanctuary resources within the FKNMS. The 

restoration monitoring program tracks patterns of biological recovery, determines the 

success of restoration measures, and assesses the resiliency to environmental and 

anthropogenic disturbances of the site over time. To evaluate restoration success, 

reference habitats adjacent to the restoration site are concurrently monitored to compare 

the condition of restored reef areas with “natural” coral reef areas unimpacted by the 

vessel grounding or other injury. 

Restoration of the site was completed on July 22, 2002, and thus far two monitoring 

events have occurred; one in the Fall of 2004, and one in the Summer/Fall of 2006. The 

monitoring has consisted of: assessment of the structural stability of restoration modules 

and comparison of the coral recruitment conditions of the modules and reference sites. 

Corals are divided into Gorgonians, Milleporans, and Scleractinians and (except where 

noted) recruits are defined as follows: Gorgonians—maximum size (height) 150 mm at 

first monitoring event, 270 mm at second; Milleporans—maximum size (height) 65 mm 

at first event, 125 mm at second; Scleractinians—maximum size (greatest diameter) 50 

mm at second event (only one species was size-classed at first event, at smaller size). 

Recruit densities at the restored and reference areas for each event are compared, as are 

size-class frequency distributions. For the Scleractinians, number and percentage of 

recruits by species, as well as several common biodiversity indices are provided. Finally, 

a qualitative comparison of recruit substrate settlement preference is indicated. 

Generally, results indicate that restored areas are converging on reference areas, based on 

almost all parameters examined, with one noted exception. Further monitoring is planned 

and the trends are anticipated to continue; close attention will be paid to the indicated 

anomaly. 

i 
KEY WORDS 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, coral, grounding, restoration, reef modules, 

monitoring, Wellwood, Molasses Reef, recruitment, Anthozoa, Hydrozoa, Octocorallia, 

Hexacorallia, Gorgonacea, Anthoathecata (Millepora), Scleractinia

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Topic Page

Abstract................................................................................................................... i

Table of Contents.................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables and Figures....................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements................................................................................................. vii

Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 

Damage Assessment ....................................................................................... 2 

Coral Reef Restoration.................................................................................... 7 

Restoration Monitoring................................................................................... 10

Methodology........................................................................................................... 11 

Monitoring Events .............................................................................................. 11 

Field Methods ................................................................................................. 11 

Photo Analysis................................................................................................ 12 

Biological Classifications............................................................................... 12 

Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 14

Results..................................................................................................................... 15 

Year Two Monitoring Event (September-November 2004)............................... 15 

Structural Integrity.......................................................................................... 15 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 15 

Year Four Monitoring Event (July-October 2006)............................................. 24 

Structural Integrity.......................................................................................... 24 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 24

Discussion............................................................................................................... 33

References and Literature Cited.............................................................................. 37

Appendices.............................................................................................................. 39 

iii 
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table Number and Title Page

Table 1. Event timeline for the M/V Wellwood grounding site; assessment, 

restoration, and monitoring................................................................... 1

Table 2. Number of Scleractinian species recruits surveyed in 2004 in each of 

the three areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site........................... 19

Table 3. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2004 Scleractinian recruit 

population in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood

restoration site....................................................................................... 19

Table 4. Number of Scleractinian species recruits surveyed in 2006 in each of 

the three areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site........................... 27

Table 5. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2006 Scleractinian recruit 

population in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood

restoration site....................................................................................... 27 

Figure Number and Title Page

Figure 1. Location (shown on NOAA Chart 11462) that the M/V Wellwood ran 

aground at Molasses Reef on August 4, 1984. ..................................... 3

Figure 2. Fractured reef substrate and split Montastraea faveolata colony 

resulting from the M/V Wellwood grounding....................................... 4

Figure 3. Aerial view of M/V Wellwood aground on Molasses Reef and 

“parking lot” area after removal. .......................................................... 5

Figure 4. Diver installing 1 m diameter reference marker in the “parking lot” 

for geo-referencing aerial photography. ............................................... 5

Figure 5. Hurricane Georges relative to the M/V Wellwood grounding site........ 6

Figure 6. Cross section of installed reef restoration module................................ 7

iv 
Figure Number and Title (cont.) Page

Figure 7. Aerial photograph of “parking lot” damage area with Reference and 

Damaged, unrestored sampling areas and a bathymetric schematic 

diagram depicting locations of reef restoration modules and 

“puddle pour” restoration areas ............................................................ 8

Figure 8. Reef restoration module and reinforcing rods in excavation crater 

ready to accept tremie pour concrete. ................................................... 9

Figure 9. Completed restoration with reef restoration modules and “puddle 

pour” with boulders each surrounded by limestone “dressing” stones. 9

Figure 10. November 2004 photograph of delineated section of the Reference 

area and divers conducting surveys. ..................................................... 12

Figure 11. Fauna living in and around reef restoration modules............................ 14

Figure 12. Restoration modules showing biological condition 2 years after 

installation along with close-up photos of representative benthic 

organisms surveyed............................................................................... 16

Figure 13. 2004 recruit populations, at the Order level (Genus level for 

Millepora), in the Restored, Damaged, unrestored, and Reference 

sampling areas at the M/V Wellwood restoration site........................... 17

Figure 14. Density (colonies/m2) for all recruit-size classes of: Scleractinians, 

Milleporans, and Gorgonians................................................................ 18

Figure 15. Species (by percentage) of Scleractinian recruits. ................................ 20

Figure 16. Gorgonian recruit size (height) class frequency distribution in each 

of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site....................... 21

Figure 17. Milleporan recruit size (height) class frequency distribution in each 

of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site....................... 22

Figure 18. Siderastrea siderea recruit size (maximum diameter) class frequency 

distribution in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood 

restoration site....................................................................................... 23

Figure 19. Restoration modules showing biological condition 4 years after 

installation............................................................................................. 24

v 
Figure Number and Title (cont.) Page

Figure 20. 2006 recruit populations, at the Order level (Genus level for 

Millepora), in the Restored, Damaged, unrestored, and Reference 

sampling areas at the M/V Wellwood restoration site........................... 25

Figure 21. Density (colonies/m2) for all recruit-size classes of: Scleractinians, 

Milleporans, and Gorgonians................................................................ 26

Figure 22. Species (by percentage) of Scleractinian recruits. ................................ 28

Figure 23. Recruit size (height) class frequency distribution for all Gorgonians 

except Gorgonia ventalina in each of the three areas of the 

M/V Wellwood restoration site. ............................................................ 29

Figure 24. Recruit size (height) class frequency distribution for Gorgonia 

ventalina in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration 

site......................................................................................................... 30

Figure 25. Milleporan recruit size (height) class frequency distribution in each 

of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site....................... 31

Figure 26. Recruit size (maximum diameter) class frequency distribution for 

three species of Scleractinians: Agaricia spp.; Porites astreoides, 

and Siderastrea siderea, grouped by location....................................... 32

Figure 27. Recruit size (maximum diameter) class frequency distribution for 

three species of Scleractinians: Agaricia spp.; Porites astreoides, 

and Siderastrea siderea, grouped by species........................................ 33 

vi 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the Board of 

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund 

of the State of Florida, (“State of Florida” or 

“state”) are the co-trustees for the natural 

resources within the FKNMS and, thus, are 

responsible for mediating the restoration of the 

damaged marine resources and monitoring the 

outcome of the restoration actions. The authors 

would like to express their appreciation to all 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

employees who participated in the initial 

response, damage assessment, restoration, and 

case settlement associated with this vessel 

grounding. 

The authors also wish to express their appreciation to reviewers who generously lent their 

expertise in order to improve this document. Among those who deserve to be singled out 

are: Steve Kolinski, Margaret Miller, Russell Reardon, and Virginia Fuhs. 

vii 
INTRODUCTION 

This document presents the results of the first two monitoring events to track the recovery of a 

repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Wellwood vessel grounding incident of August 4, 1984. 

This grounding occurred within the boundaries of what at the time was designated the Key Largo 

National Marine Sanctuary (NMS), now designated the Key Largo NMS Existing Management 

Area within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). Pursuant to the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., and the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA) of 1990, NOAA is the federal trustee for the natural 

and cultural resources of the FKNMS. Under Section 312 of the NMSA, NOAA has the 

authority to recover monetary damages for injury, destruction, or loss of Sanctuary resources, 

and to use the recovered monies to restore injured or lost sanctuary resources within the 

FKNMS. The restoration monitoring program tracks patterns of biological recovery, determines 

the success of restoration measures, and assesses the resiliency to environmental and 

anthropogenic disturbances of the site over time. To evaluate restoration success, reference 

habitats adjacent to the restoration site are concurrently monitored to compare the condition of 

restored reef areas with “natural” coral reef areas unimpacted by the vessel grounding or other 

injury. 

The monitoring program at the Wellwood site includes an assessment of the structural stability of 

installed restoration modules and coral recruitment patterns, which is to be performed on the 

following schedule: two, four, seven, and ten years after restoration. Restoration of this site was 

completed on July 22, 2002. The Year Two monitoring event for this site occurred between 

September 29 and November 5, 2004. Between July 18 and October 12, 2006, the Year Four 

monitoring event occurred. This report presents the results of both monitoring events. 

Table 1. Event timeline for the M/V Wellwood grounding site; assessment, restoration, and monitoring. 

Event Date 

Vessel Grounding August 4, 1984 

Vessel Removal August 16, 1984 

Injury Assessment: Initial August 16-25, 1984 

Injury Assessment: Post Hurricane Georges Autumn 1998 

Pre-Construction Coral Survey April 23-24, 2002 

Restoration June 2-July 22, 2002 

Year Two Monitoring September 29-November 5, 2004 

Year Four Monitoring July 18-October 12, 2006 

Year Seven Monitoring Summer 2009 

Year Ten Monitoring Summer 2012 

1
Damage Assessment 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric 

Administration, Environmental Assessment: M/V Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration April, 

2002] 

On August 4, 1984, the M/V Wellwood, a 122-meter Cypriot-registered freighter, ran aground on 

the upper forereef of Molasses Reef, about 6 nautical miles southeast of Key Largo, in a 

minimum of 6 meters of water (Figure 1). The Wellwood remained aground for 12 days, causing 

more destruction as time went on. Additional injury occurred as result of initial attempts to 

power off the reef, from tugboat propeller wash abrasion, from extended periods of shading 

under the vessel, and from cable abrasion during several failed attempts to remove the vessel 

from the reef. The grounding destroyed 5,805 m2

 of living corals and injured over 75,000 m2 of 

reef habitat, including fracturing of 644 m2

 of coral reef framework (Hudson and Diaz 1988).

The grounding caused severe biological and physical damage to the reef community and led to 

widespread mortality of benthic fauna and displacement of mobile fauna. The injuries ranged 

from superficial scraping of the reef surface and toppling of large coral heads to complete 

crushing of coral heads and severe cracking of the reef framework structure (Figure 2). 

Additional injury to the reef occurred as a result of Hurricanes Elena and Kate in 1985 and the 

active 1998 storm season (Groundhog Day Storm, Hurricane Georges). 

As the vessel approached the reef, it created an inbound grounding track approximately 

20 m wide and affected bottom substrate up to 6 m deep. The injury toppled or injured 13 large 

coral heads and left bottom paint embedded in exposed coral skeletons. 

The most prominent feature of the injury site was an area known as the “parking lot” where the 

hull of the Wellwood finally came to rest. This entire area was crushed as a result of hull 

pounding and experienced severe shading for the 12 days the vessel was aground. The combined 

effects resulted in near total destruction of the coral cover (Figure 3 and Figure 4). 

Along the starboard side of the hull resting site there was an extensive area that experienced 

patchy areas of destruction. This was the original resting area of the vessel before it pivoted 

during initial removal attempts. At least 6 large boulder coral colonies and numerous smaller 

organisms were destroyed as the vessel scraped the bottom. 

2
Figure 1. Location (shown on NOAA Chart 11462) that the M/V Wellwood ran aground at Molasses Reef on 

August 4, 1984.

3
Figure 2. Fractured reef substrate exposed by hurricane Kate (Hudson and Diaz 1988) (photo credit: Harold 

Hudson, left) and split Montastraea faveolata colony (photo credit: FKNMS, right) resulting from the M/V 

Wellwood grounding 

The Wellwood grounded in the transition zone between the shallow upper forereef (just seaward 

of the Acropora palmata reef crest) and a deeper forereef zone that is dominated by large head 

corals. The habitat was primarily moderate to low-relief, but included numerous large heads of 

boulder corals and had a diverse community of hard and soft corals and other benthic organisms. 

The principal scleractinian coral species present at the site included Montastraea spp., 

A. palmata, Dendrogyra cylindrus, Agaricia agaricites, Diploria spp., Colpophyllia natans, 

Porites astreoides, Favia fragum, Meandrina meandrites, and Dichocoenia stokesii. Cover also 

included a healthy octocoral (gorgonian) community including many sea fans (Gorgonia

ventalina) and sea rods, the zoanthid Palythoa caribaeorum, and fire coral, Millepora spp. In 

addition to direct physical damage from the vessel, many colonies under the vessel's hull were 

seriously damaged due to shading and subsequent tissue death. The dominant species injured in 

the deeper forereef zone during the salvage operations included the large basket sponge 

Xestospongia muta, large M. annularis complex colonies, and many octocorals. Coral loss over 

the entire area was estimated to include the complete destruction of at least 21 large (1 to 2-m 

diameter) colonies of M. annularis complex, four colonies of D. cylindrus, and 6 large colonies 

of other coral species, as well as grazing, abrasion, toppling or other injuries to many other 

colonies.

4
Parking Lot 

N 

Figure 3. M/V Wellwood aground on Molasses Reef (left) and “parking lot” area after removal (right).

Figure 4. Diver installing 1 m diameter reference marker in the “parking lot” for geo-referencing aerial 

photography (photo credit: Harold Hudson). 

5
A settlement between NOAA and the responsible parties was agreed to on December 22, 1986. 

Under the terms of the settlement the responsible parties purchased an annuity to be paid to 

NOAA over 15 years in variable annual installments beginning in 1987 and scheduled to end in 

2001. Between 1987 and 1995, the bulk of the payments were allocated to payment of civil 

penalties and repayment of response and damage assessment costs incurred by NOAA and the 

U.S. Coast Guard during and immediately following the grounding. Payment allocated for 

restoration costs did not begin until 1989 and was completed in 2001; once the funds were 

available, the restoration process was initiated. 

Meanwhile, in 1998 a significant storm, Hurricane Georges, had severely impacted the Wellwood

site. The storm passed approximately 80 miles to the southwest of the site, with winds 

approaching 100 mph (Figure 5). At 1400 UTC (10 a.m. local time) on September 25, 1998, 

NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center’s Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C-MAN) recording 

station on the nearby Molasses Reef Lighthouse recorded sustained 46 kts (53 mph) winds, and a 

peak gust of 53 kts (61 mph). After the hurricane’s passage, it was found that large areas of the 

site had been scoured out. Once exposed, the underlying unconsolidated rubble and sediment 

was mobilized during the storm, causing further scour and the formation of large craters at the 

site. While such scouring is typical of hurricane injury, NOAA believed the grounding injuries 

exacerbated the hurricane’s effects, and that additional injuries would continue absent 

restoration. Restoration undertaken in 2002 was planned by National Marine Sanctuary Program 

(NMSP) headquarters and Florida Keys staff, in collaboration with marine engineers from the 

commercial firm of Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. (CP&E). 

Figure 5. Hurricane Georges relative to the M/V Wellwood grounding site (ship graphic not to scale). 

6
Coral Reef Restoration 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from the Molasses Coral Reef Restoration 

Project Post-Construction Engineering Report prepared by Coastal Planning and Engineering, 

Inc.] 

The objectives of the M/V Wellwood site restoration were to 1) stabilize damaged reef 

framework, 2) infill hurricane-excavated craters, and 3) rebuild reef topography. To accomplish 

these objectives, a design concept featuring artificial reef modules was developed (Figure 6). 

The artificial reef modules were designed and constructed by Harold Hudson, FKNMS Reef 

Restoration Biologist. The artificial reef modules closely replicated the adjacent undamaged 

reef, infilling hurricane excavated craters and rebuilding reef topography that had been lost as a 

result of the grounding. Modules were five-sided (from a planar view) with an approximate 

height of 1.2 m, length of 1.8 m, and a width of 1.5 m. Damp sand was placed inside the form 

during the fabrication process to create a 30 cm high reef cave within the structure (Hudson and 

Franklin 2005). The hollow interior of each module provided space to be used by fish and 

sessile organisms, and the rough limestone provided habitat for organisms using interstitial 

spaces or for boring organisms. The modules minimized the concrete surface exposure and 

maximized the exposure of natural limestone surfaces, providing desirable settlement substrate 

and enhancing the environmental features of the module design. 

Figure 6. Cross section of installed reef restoration module. 

7
The reef restoration design consisted of the placement of 22 reef modules and/or limestone 

boulders, stabilized with a tremie pour of concrete within the 14 repair sites depicted in Figure 7. 

An aluminum frame outline of the reef module, which was constructed by NOAA, was used to 

determine the exact location, orientation and accurate leveling of each reef module prior to 

placement at the repair site. Reef module placement was contingent upon placement of the 

modules in natural and/or excavated receiver sites, allowing tremie pour concrete to secure the 

module to the reef. Excavation of the existing rock substrate was often conducted to provide the 

appropriate receiver site for module placement. Each module was placed on 5-10 cm supports to 

allow concrete to flow under the module, in addition to providing a minimum 30 cm wide and 

deep apron entirely around each module (Figure 8). After the reef module was placed, concrete 

was tremie poured within the excavated depression, cementing the reef module into the existing 

reef substrate. A total of 9 repair sites received reef modules. 

N 

Reference area 

Damaged, 

unrestored area 

Figure 7. Aerial photograph of “parking lot” damage area with Reference and Damaged, unrestored sampling areas 

(left) and a bathymetric schematic diagram depicting locations of reef restoration modules (shaded in brown) and 

“puddle pour” restoration areas (striped areas) (right). Please note, area boundaries and reef restoration module 

locations are not geo-rectified in these images. Bathymetric reef restoration schematic diagram courtesy of Coastal 

Planning & Engineering, Inc. 

8
Figure 8. Reef restoration module and reinforcing rods in excavation crater ready to accept tremie pour concrete 

(photo credit: FKNMS). 

Figure 9. Completed restoration with reef restoration modules (left) and “puddle pour” with boulders (right) each 

surrounded by limestone “dressing” stones (photo credit: Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc.). 

9
The remaining 5 sites were determined to be too small and/or shallow to accommodate reef 

restoration modules. At these sites, a combination of 1-2 ton limestone boulders and tremie 

poured concrete, referred to as a “puddle pour,” were used to fill the excavation. Limestone rock 

dressing stones, 25-45 cm in diameter were pressed into the fresh concrete at close intervals to 

increase rugosity and provide a more natural substrate. The concrete embedded boulders 

projected 50-100 cm above the dressing stones in all “puddle pour” applications (Hudson and 

Franklin 2005). A total of 185 m2

 of damaged reef substrate was repaired using these two 

restoration techniques (Figure 9). 

The remaining areas damaged by the grounding but left “unrestored” were determined not to 

exhibit the structural instability likely to be exacerbated by storms. Thus, they were left to 

continue with the natural recovery that had already begun. Although decades will pass before 

these areas fully recover to their pre-grounding topographic complexity and coral community 

size and diversity (Gittings 2003), NOAA felt the combination of reef restoration modules 

intermixed with the unrestored areas would provide a reasonable reflection of the adjacent 

transition zone reef habitat. 

Restoration Monitoring 

The purpose of the NMSP coral restoration monitoring program is to evaluate the success of 

trustee actions in achieving restoration goals and to determine if remedial measures are needed. 

For a grounding site such as the M/V Wellwood, the evaluation of restoration efforts involves the 

identification of appropriate success criteria and the design and implementation of a sampling 

and analysis plan. A list of success criteria measures for structural and functional aspects of 

coral reef restoration as well as a framework for monitoring activities has been identified by 

NOAA (Thayer et al. 2003). 

The guiding hypotheses for the evaluation of the “restoration” site reflect the efficacy of the 

restoration techniques and the condition of the site relative to reference habitats. The monitoring 

program addresses whether the chosen restoration methods are effective and when the site could 

be considered restored. The monitoring program for the M/V Wellwood site is only evaluating 

the structural stability and coral recruitment of the restoration site. 

The structural integrity of the restoration site was evaluated with the following questions: 

1. Is the attachment of the reef modules to the substrate stable? 

2. Are there any visible cracks in the surface of the reef modules and/or puddle pour 

concrete? 

In addition, the biological condition of the restoration site was evaluated with the following 

question: 

Is there a difference in new coral recruitment between the grounding site (i.e., both the 

restored and unrestored areas) and the reference area? 

10
The monitoring program was designed to detect significant changes in new coral recruitment or 

damage to the reef restoration modules and concrete puddle pour areas as a result of external 

events, such as major storms or vandalism, and in comparison to the surrounding habitat. 

METHODOLOGY 

MONITORING EVENTS

Between September 29 and November 5, 2004, the Wellwood restoration site was monitored 

using SCUBA from a small vessel (6.4 m). Another monitoring event occurred between July 18 

and October 12, 2006. Between the November 2004 and the July 2006 monitoring events, four 

powerful hurricanes passed within 300 kilometers of the restoration site; Dennis in July 2005, 

Katrina in August 2005, Rita in September 2005, and Wilma in October 2005. The possible 

confounding effects of these hurricanes, if any, are unknown; no monitoring of the site was 

conducted in the interim. As discussed below however, no visually or tactilely perceptible 

damage was done to the restoration modules, puddle pour areas, surveyed colonies, or the site in 

general. 

Field Methods 

Tactile and visual assessments were performed to evaluate the physical stability of the reef 

restoration modules and puddle pour areas. To determine the biological condition of the site, in 

situ observations, digital images, and digital videos were recorded among the 22 reef modules 

and concrete puddle pour areas (restored area = 185 m2

) and the remaining damaged, but 

unrestored area of the grounding site (area = 459 m2

). The reference area was adjacent to the 

northeast side of the restoration site. It is a transition zone between former shallow Acropora 

palmata stands and deeper hard ground communities. It likely contained benthic communities 

similar to those destroyed by the grounding (Gittings 2003). See Figure 7 for approximate 

locations of sampling areas. In 2004, within each sampling area, 25 one m2 quadrats were 

surveyed for biological variables of interest as described in the Biological Classifications

section. In 2006, twenty quadrats were surveyed. This sampling reduction was due to logistical 

constraints. A random number generator identified the reef restoration modules/puddle pour 

areas to survey in the restored area. Within the damaged, unrestored and reference areas, the 

random number generator corresponded to a digital grid of uniquely identified 1 m2 cells overlain 

on the grounding site map. Transect lines were used from landmarks to determine cell locations 

in the field as best as possible. 

Oblique digital photographs were taken of each restoration module in the restored area, selected 

coral colonies of interest, and the overall landscape/topography of the surveyed areas. 

11
Underwater digital images were collected with an Olympus C-5050 digital camera in a 

Light & Motion Tetra 5050 underwater housing and digital videos were collected with a Sony 

DCR-DVD200 video camera in an Amphibico QuickView DVD underwater housing. 

Figure 10. November 2004 photograph of delineated section of the Reference area (left) and divers conducting 

surveys (right) (photo credit: Jeff Anderson). 

Photo Analysis 

No quantitative analysis of photographic images was conducted. The images were used to 

qualitatively record the state of the restoration site in general and particular items of interest. 

Digital images were edited with Adobe Photoshop versions 7 and CS2 (Adobe 2002 and 2005). 

Image edits included color hue changes to bring-out natural colors, brightness changes to 

compensate for original exposure, and sharpness changes to enhance image focus. 

Biological Classifications 

The majority of the benthos present were comprised of three Orders and most of the comparisons 

presented are at the Order level. Present were members of the Order Anthoathecata in the Class 

Hydrozoa (specimens were solely of one Genus in the Family Milliporidae and henceforth 

referred to by the more familiar name of that Genus—Millepora), and the Orders Gorgonacea 

and Scleractinia of the Subclasses Octocorallia and Hexacorallia respectively (Class Anthozoa). 

Scleractinians were further divided into species for various analytical purposes. 

An initial comparison was made between populations, at the Order level, of benthic organisms 

that had likely recruited to the site since the restoration. For the purpose of this analysis, recruits 

in all sampling areas were defined as organisms with sizes at or below that observed on the reef 

restoration modules. Thus, at the first monitoring event “recruit” is defined as follows—for 

Gorgonians, a maximum height of 153 mm; for Milleporans, a maximum height of 65 mm. 

Different species of Scleractinians grow at different rates, so a uniform size classification 

12
couldn’t be utilized. Therefore a decision was made to utilize, for size categorization purposes, 

only the most numerous species, Siderastrea siderea. This species achieved a maximum 

diameter of 22 mm in the restored area, and so a size-class scheme based on that size was 

adopted. Naturally, organisms continued to grow in the interim before the second monitoring 

event. However, the monitoring team wished to make use of all the information integrated by 

four years of recruitment across the entire Wellwood site. So, the words “recruit” or “recruits” in 

connection with that event are assigned the following definition: for most Gorgonians, 

maximum height of 270 mm; when Gorgonia ventalina were analyzed separately, a maximum 

height of 100 mm; for Milleporans, a maximum height of 125 mm. Again, separate 

considerations apply for the Scleractinians. By 2006, three species were present in sufficient 

numbers to make size classification reasonable. For two (Porites astreoides and Siderastrea 

siderea), a maximum diameter of 40 mm used; for the third species (Agaricia spp.), a maximum 

diameter of 50 mm was used. These sizes represent the maxima achieved by the respective 

species in the restored area. 

The only other benthic organism visible to the eye (besides algae) was Palythoa caribaeorum, of 

the Order Zoanthidea, Subclass Hexacorallia. However P. caribaeorum presence was only 

recorded in the reference area, and consisted of only a very few colonies (approximately 10) and 

their sizes were such as to cast doubt that they were recruits; they will be ignored for 

comparative purposes. Much the same may be said of Echinoderms; e.g., in 2004 the restored 

area contained seven (six Eucidaris tribuloides and one Echinometra viridis); the other two areas 

had one apiece (a Diadema antillarum in the reference and a Eucidaris tribuloides in the 

damaged unrestored areas). 

Although not included in this analysis, numerous vagile fauna were observed using the 

restoration modules (Figure 11). This was undoubtedly due to both the benthic organisms 

already colonizing the module structures, as well as the shelter afforded by the cave intentionally 

designed within the modules (Figure 6). A separate fish monitoring project is described in the 

DISCUSSION section of this report. 

13
Figure 11. Fauna living in and around reef restoration 

modules. Starting from upper left: cocoa damselfish 

(Stegastes variabilis), blue tang (Acanthurus coeruleus), 

spotted moray eel (Gymnothorax moringa), long-spined 

urchin (Diadema antillarum), and Pederson cleaner shrimp 

in corkscrew anemone (Periclimenes pedersoni in 

Bartholomea annulata) (photo credit: Jeff Anderson). 

14
Data Analysis 

Data analysis was performed on a Dell PC with InStat® version 3.0 (GraphPad 2003), Prism 5 

for Windows (GraphPad 2007), and Microsoft® Excel 2003 software. Descriptive statistics 

were generated for samples collected among the restoration, reference, and damaged but 

unrestored areas, along with various analytic statistics for comparative purposes. For the Order 

level comparisons, a Chi-square (χ

2

) test for independence utilizing a 3×3 contingency table 

analysis was performed in order to detect whether there were significant associations between 

areas and numbers of organisms present in the various categories. Regarding density analyses, 

for the Gorgonia populations, a square root transformation was performed to meet Gaussian 

distribution requirements—allowing parametric one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to be 

utilized, followed by Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons tests. For both the Millepora and the 

Scleractinia recruit density analyses, the data sets displayed highly significant non-normality. 

Thus, Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was conducted, to be followed by Dunn’s post-hoc 

pairwise tests if significant differences were detected. 

RESULTS 

YEAR TWO MONITORING EVENT (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 2004) 

Structural Integrity 

The 2004 monitoring occurred 2 years after the restoration, at which time the stability and 

surface of all 22 restoration modules and puddle pour areas were found to be visually and 

tactilely sound. The modules were found in place with a stable attachment to the substrate and 

no visible cracks in the concrete surface. 

Biological Condition 

The biological condition of the restoration site was developing. Macroalgae, crustose coralline 

algae, soft, and hard corals were all recruiting to the restoration modules and surrounding 

concrete puddle pour areas (Figure 12). For photographs of all 22 restoration modules, see 

APPENDIX 2. 

15
Figure 12. Restoration modules showing biological condition 2 years after installation along with close-up photos 

of representative benthic organisms surveyed. Starting from middle left: Diploria labyrinthiformis, Agaricia sp., 

Pseudopterogorgia sp., and Millepora sp. (photo credit: Jeff Anderson). 

16
Figure 13 suggests that the three areas contained approximately the same number of organisms, 

with the exception of the obvious large difference in the populations of Gorgonians. Analysis 

revealed that sampling areas and colony numbers were highly significantly associated 

(P = 0.0005). 

Recruit Populations of 3 Taxa

2004 Monitoring Event

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Number of colonies

Gorgonacea

Millepora

Scleractinia

Figure 13. 2004 recruit populations, at the Order level (Genus level for Millepora), in the Restored, Damaged, 

unrestored, and Reference sampling areas at the M/V Wellwood restoration site. 

17
2004 Scleractinia Recruit Density

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Restored area n=21

Damaged, unrestored area n=33

Reference area n=33

ns

ns ns

2004 Millepora Recruit Density

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Restored area n=25

Damaged, unrestored area n=25

Reference area n=34

 ns

ns

 ns

2004 Gorgonacea Recruit Density

0

5

10

15

20

25

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

***

Restored area n=153

Damaged, unrestored area n=463

Reference area n=465 ns ns

Figure 14. Density (colonies/m2) for all recruit-size classes 

of: Scleractinians, Milleporans, and Gorgonians (Note 

differing scales used for Gorgonians vs. others).

Error bars = Standard Error; *** indicates extremely 

significant difference, ns indicates non-significance. 

Statistical analysis of recruit densities (colonies/m2) demonstrated Scleractinian recruits had no 

significant difference between sampling areas (P = 0.5023) (Figure 14). Similarly, analysis of 

Millepora recruits detected no significant difference between sampling areas (P = 0.5911). 

Analysis of Gorgonian data revealed the densities were extremely significantly different between 

sampling areas (P < 0.0001). The restored area evidenced difference; the other two areas were 

not shown to be significantly different. 

18
Results of a comparison of the biodiversity of Scleractinian recruits among the three areas within 

the M/V Wellwood restoration site are shown in Table 2 and Figure 15. Table 3 lists the results 

of a number of standard biodiversity indices performed for the recruit population. 

Table 2. Number of Scleractinian recruits, by species, surveyed in 2004 in each of the three areas of the 

M/V Wellwood restoration site. 

Species Restored area 

Damaged, 

unrestored area Reference area 

Agaricia spp. 3 10 13 

Dichocoenia stokesii 2 1 0 

Eusimilia fastigiata 1 0 0 

Favia fragum 1 0 0 

Montastraea cavernosa 1 2 1 

Porites astreoides 4 0 3 

Porites porites 1 1 0 

Siderastrea radians 1 1 2 

Siderastrea siderea 5 18 10 

Stephanocoenia intersepta 1 0 3 

Unknown 1 0 1 

Total 21 33 33 

Table 3. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2004 Scleractinian recruit population in each of the three areas of the 

M/V Wellwood restoration site. 

Name of Index (along with formulas) Restored area 

Damaged, 

unrestored area Reference area 

Species Richness: S = # 11 6 7 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.138 0.396 0.269 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 2.174 1.180 1.547 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.907 0.659 0.795 

19
2004 Scleractinia Recruits in Restored Area

n = 21

Aga

14%

Dic

10%

Eus

5%

Fav

5%

Mon

5% Pora

18%

Porp

5%

Sidr

5%

Sids

23%

Ste

5%

Unk

5%

2004 Scleractinia Recruits in Damaged, unrestored Area

n = 33

Aga

30%

Sids

55%

Sidr

3%

Dic

3%

Porp

3%

Mon

6%

2004 Scleractinia Recruits in Reference Area

n = 33

Aga

40%

Mon

Pora 3%

9%

Sidr

6%

Sids

30%

Ste

9%

Unk

3%

Figure 15. Species (by percentage) of Scleractinian 

recruits. 

Abbreviations: 

Aga=Agaricia spp.; 

Dic=Dichocoenia stokesii; 

Eus=Eusmilia fastigiata; 

Fav=Favia fragum; 

Mon=Montastraea cavernosa; 

Pora=Porites astreoides; 

Porp=Porites porites; 

Sidr=Siderastrea radians; 

Sids=Siderastrea siderea; 

Ste=Stephanocoenia intersepta; 

Unk=unknown 

20
2004 Gorgonacea Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-153

n = 153

mm

2004 Gorgonacea Size-Class Distribution

in Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-153

n = 463

mm

2004 Gorgonacea Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-153

n = 465

mm

Figure 16. Gorgonian recruit size (height) class frequency 

distribution in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood

restoration site. The y-axis shows relative frequency 

(proportion). The largest size was determined by the 

maximum achieved in the restored area. Size classes were 

then selected so as to yield five reasonably spaced and 

populated categories. 

The size class frequency distributions of some of the taxa were next determined. Figure 16

shows the relative frequencies of the Gorgonians divided into size classes, the maxima of which 

was determined by the maximum size of the colonies in the restored area. Figure 17 shows the 

results of the same analysis for Milleporans. 

21
2004 Millepora Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-63

n = 25

mm

2004 Millepora Size-Class Distribution

in Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-63 

n = 25

mm

2004 Millepora Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-15 16-30 31-45 46-63

n = 34

mm

Figure 17. Milleporan recruit size (height) class frequency 

distribution in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood

restoration site. The y-axis shows relative frequency 

(proportion). The largest size was determined by the 

maximum achieved in the restored area. Size classes were 

then selected so as to yield four reasonably spaced and 

populated categories. 

22
2004 Siderastrea siderea Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

5-9 10-14 15-19 20-22

n = 5

mm

2004 Siderastrea siderea Size-Class Distribution

in Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-22

n = 18

mm

2004 Siderastrea siderea Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-22

n = 10

mm

Figure 18. Siderastrea siderea recruit size (maximum 

diameter) class frequency distribution in each of the three 

areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site. The y-axis 

shows relative frequency (proportion). The largest size 

was determined by the maximum achieved in the restored 

area. Size classes were then selected so as to yield four 

reasonably spaced and populated categories. 

The final analysis was a determination of the size class frequency distribution for Scleractinians. 

There are two reasons for not utilizing the same size frequency analysis for Scleractinans as was 

done for Gorgonians and Milleporans. First, the overall number of Scleractinia recruits was 

fairly low, making a determination of relative frequency distribution less than meaningful, a 

characteristic shared by the Milleporans. However, in the case of the Scleractinians, another 

limitation was imposed by the life histories of the species involved. It was felt not to be proper 

to compare recruits sizes across species, given the disparity in growth rates among juvenile 

corals (Vermeij 2006). Thus, Siderastrea siderea, the species with the greatest number of 

recruits, was selected for analysis; the results are shown in Figure 18. 

23
YEAR FOUR MONITORING EVENT (JULY-OCTOBER 2006) 

Structural Integrity 

Despite the near passage of 4 hurricanes during the 2005 storm season, the stability and surface 

of all 22 reef restoration modules and puddle pour areas were again found to be visually and 

tactilely sound. 

Biological Condition 

The biological condition of the restoration site continued to progress. Macroalgae, crustose 

coralline algae, soft, and hard corals were all still present on the restoration modules and 

surrounding concrete puddle pour areas (Figure 19). For photographs of all 22 restoration 

modules, see APPENDIX 2. 

Figure 19. Restoration modules showing biological condition 4 years after installation (photo credit: Jeff 

Anderson). Compare to the same 2 modules shown in Figure 12. 

24
Recruit populations of 3 taxa

2006 monitoring event

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

390

420

450

480

510

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Number of colonies

Gorgonacea

Millepora

Scleractinia

Figure 20. 2006 recruit populations, at the Order level (Genus level for Millepora), in the Restored, Damaged, 

unrestored, and Reference sampling areas at the M/V Wellwood restoration site. 

Figure 20 suggests that the three sites contained reasonably similar recruit populations, although 

as in 2004, analysis revealed that areas and colony numbers were significantly associated 

(P = 0.0161). 

25
2006 Scleractinia Recruit Density

0

1

2

3

4

5

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Restored area n=39

Damaged, unrestored area n=75

Reference area n=49

ns

ns

ns

2006 Millepora Recruit Density

0

1

2

3

4

5

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Restored area n=21

Damaged, unrestored area n=42

Reference area n=50

ns

ns

ns

2006 Gorgonacea Recruit Density

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Restored area Damaged, unrestored area Reference area

Restored area n=400

Damaged, unrestored area n=507

Reference area n=506

ns

ns ns

Figure 21. Density (colonies/m2) for all recruit-size classes 

of: Scleractinians, Milleporans, and Gorgonians (Note 

differing scales used for Gorgonians vs. others).

Error bars = Standard Error; ns indicates non-significance. 

Again, overall recruit densities (colonies/m2) were examined (Figure 21). For Scleractinian 

recruits, no significant difference was detected between sampling areas (P = 0.3852). Analysis 

of Millepora recruit density revealed overall significant variation (P = 0.0412), though there 

were no significant differences between sampling areas found by the pairwise comparative tests. 

Analysis demonstrated that for Gorgonians, the densities were not significantly different between 

sampling areas (P = 0.3517). 

26
Table 4 and Figure 22 show a comparison of the biodiversity of Scleractinian recruits among the 

three areas within the M/V Wellwood restoration site. Table 5 lists the results of a number of 

standard biodiversity indices performed for the recruit population. 

Table 4. Number of Scleractinian species recruits surveyed in 2006 in each of the three areas of the M/V Wellwood

restoration site. 

Species Restored area 

Damaged, 

unrestored area Reference area 

Agaricia spp. 15 21 21 

Dichocoenia stokesii 0 1 0 

Diploria spp. 1 0 0 

Favia fragum 4 0 2 

Montastraea cavernosa 1 2 0 

Porites astreoides 15 8 7 

Siderastrea siderea 3 43 19 

Total 39 75 49 

Table 5. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2006 Scleractinian recruit population in each of the three areas of the 

M/V Wellwood restoration site. 

Name of Index (along with formulas) Restored area 

Damaged, 

unrestored area Reference area 

Species Richness: S = # 6 4 5 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.314 0.356 0.424 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 1.354 1.839 1.12 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.756 0.822 0.696 

27
Aga

38%

Dip

Fav 3%

10%

Mon

3%

Por

38%

Sid

8%

2006 Scleractinia Recruits in Restored Area

n = 39

Aga

28%

Dic

1%

Mon

3%

Por

11%

Sid

57%

2006 Scleractinian Recruits in Damaged, Unrestored Area

n = 75

Aga

43%

Fav

4%

Por

14%

Sid

39%

2006 Scleractinia Recruits in Reference Area

n = 49

Figure 22. Species (by percentage) of Scleractinian 

recruits. 

Abbreviations: 

Aga=Agaricia spp.; 

Dic=Dichocoenia stokesii; 

Fav=Favia fragum; 

Mon=Montastraea cavernosa; 

Por=Porites astreoides; 

Sid=Siderastrea siderea

28
2006 Gorgonacea Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-270

n = 352

mm

2006 Gorgonacea Size-Class Distribution 

in Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-270 mm

n = 465

2006 Gorgonacea Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-270

n = 491

mm

Figure 23. Recruit size (height) class frequency distribution for 

all Gorgonians except Gorgonia ventalina in each of the three 

areas of the M/V Wellwood restoration site. The y-axis shows 

relative frequency (proportion). The largest size was determined 

by the maximum achieved in the restored area. Size classes 

were then selected so as to yield five reasonably spaced and 

populated categories. 

The 2006 size class frequency distribution data of the Gorgonians is presented somewhat 

differently than it was for the 2004 results. The change was necessitated because of the 

increased presence of the common sea fan, Gorgonia ventalina; in 2004 it comprised only about 

1% of the Gorgonian populations, in 2006 it made up as much as 12% (in the restored area) of 

the totals (Note: practically all others in the Order were comprised of the Genus 

Pseudopterogorgia—sea plumes.). Since growth rates between the Genera differ greatly, 

G. ventalina is depicted separately. Figure 23 shows the relative frequencies of the Gorgonians 

except G. ventalina, divided into size classes, the maxima of which being determined by the 

maximum size of the colonies in the restored area. Figure 24 shows the same analysis for 

G. ventalina whereas Figure 25 shows the same analysis for all species of Milleporans. 

29
2006 G. ventalina Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 mm

n = 48

2006 G. ventalina Size-Class Distribution 

in Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100

n = 42

mm

2006 G. ventalina Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 mm

n = 15

Figure 24. Recruit size (height) class frequency distribution for 

Gorgonia ventalina in each of the three areas of the M/V 

Wellwood restoration site. The y-axis shows relative frequency 

(proportion). The largest size was determined by the maximum 

achieved in the restored area. Size classes were then selected so 

as to yield five reasonably spaced and populated categories. 

30
2006 Millepora Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125

n = 21

mm

2006 Millepora Size-Class Distribution in

Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125

n = 42

mm

2006 Millepora Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 101-125

n = 50

mm

Figure 25. Milleporan recruit size (height) class 

frequency distribution in each of the three areas of the 

M/V Wellwood restoration site. The y-axis shows 

relative frequency (proportion). The largest size was 

determined by the maximum achieved in the restored 

area. Size classes were then selected so as to yield five 

reasonably spaced and populated categories. 

31
2006 Scleractinia Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-10 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

Ag

Por

Sid

Ag n=15

Por n=15

Sid n=3

mm

2006 Scleractinia Size-Class Distribution

in Damaged, unrestored Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-10 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

Ag

Por

Sid

Ag n=21

Por n=8

Sid n=43

mm

2006 Scleractinia Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-10 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

Ag

Por

Sid

Ag n=21

Por n=7

Sid n=19

mm

Figure 26. Recruit size (maximum diameter) class 

frequency distribution for three species of Scleractinians: 

Agaricia spp.; Porites astreoides, and Siderastrea siderea, 

grouped by location. The y-axis shows relative frequency 

(proportion). The largest size was determined by the 

maximum achieved in the restored area. Size classes were 

then selected so as to yield five 10 mm range categories 

(Agaricia spp.) or four categories (ending at 40 mm) for the 

other two species. 

The final analysis was a determination of the size class frequency distribution for Scleractinians. 

The 2006 data showed three Scleractinian species (Agaricia spp.; Porites astreoides, and 

Siderastrea siderea) were present in sufficient numbers to allow a size class frequency 

distribution analysis among them to be relatively meaningful. This information is presented in 

two different fashions. Figure 26 shows the data categorized by location while Figure 27 depicts 

it grouped by species. 

32
2006 Agaricia spp. Size-Class Distribution 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-10 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50

DR

DU

UU

Restored (DR) area n=15 

Damaged, unrestored (DU) area n=21

Reference (UU) area n=21

mm

2006 Porites astreoides Size-Class Distribution

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40

DR

DU

UU

Restored (DR) area n=15 

Damaged, unrestored (DU) area n=8

Reference (UU) area n=7

mm

2006 Siderastrea siderea Size-Class Distribution

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40

DR

DU

UU

Restored (DR) area n=3 

Damaged, unrestored (DU) area n=43

Reference (UU) area n=19

mm

Figure 27. Recruit size (maximum diameter) class 

frequency distribution for three species of Scleractinians: 

Agaricia spp.; Porites astreoides, and Siderastrea 

siderea, grouped by species. The y-axis shows relative 

frequency (proportion). The largest size was determined 

by the maximum achieved in the restored area. Size 

classes were then selected so as to yield five 10 mm 

range categories (Agaricia) or four categories (ending at 

40 mm) for the other two species. 

DISCUSSION 

The results of the 2004 and 2006 Wellwood restoration monitoring surveys indicate a gradual but 

definitive development of a healthy coral community on the restoration structures. However, 

several points should be kept in mind while reviewing results, primarily the duration of the 

monitoring program, and the scope of the monitoring program. Regarding duration, it is 

important to remember that this report reflects only the preliminary stages of a longer term 

(10-year) monitoring program. The development of coral communities is well-known to be a 

long-term (decadal) process, so NMSP does not expect to be able to make definitive conclusions 

about the success of the Wellwood restoration at this stage. However, the presence of numerous 

coral recruits even two years after installation provides a good indication that the structural 

stability and three-dimensional complexity offered by the restoration modules are already 

providing suitable substrate and environment for the ongoing development of a healthy reef 

habitat. 

33
As for the scope of the monitoring program, it should be reiterated that this monitoring effort is 

he first overall impression one has from the examination of both the 2004 and the 2006 data is 

 should be noted that this suspected convergence refers only to that parameter being monitored: 

he methodology utilized here was constrained by certain assumptions, as well as some practical 

iven the qualifying statements noted, what story does the data tell? 

irst, as noted above, recruit populations in all sampling areas are becoming more similar. In 

tracking only one portion (stability and recruitment) of the overall restoration project. Although, 

there are other projects that provide additional data on the recovery of the restoration site. Fish 

populations have been monitored since restoration implementation by the Reef Environmental 

Education Foundation (REEF). A final report on REEF’s findings is due in late 2007. Another 

anecdotal indicator of restoration health is the transplantation of Acropora cervicornis fragments 

(as part of another project) to one reef restoration module in October 2003. The fragments have 

survived and continued to grow since placement. They exhibit noticeable tissue expansion at 

their bases, have multiple branches, and as of this writing, are free from disease. 

T

that the damaged, unrestored and the reference areas are relatively similar, but that each is fairly 

distinguishable from the restored location (Figure 13 and Figure 20). It is a rather unremarkable 

finding, given the fact that by 2006, the damaged, unrestored area had been undergoing recovery 

for some 22 years. More surprising is that by 2006, the restored area, despite having been 

restored only 4 years previously, was converging on the status of the other two locations 

(Figure 20)—at least within the parameters being monitored. 

It

namely, populations of recruit- (or at least “small-”) size category organisms. Thus, the status of 

the damaged, unrestored and the reference areas are relatively similar in that regard, and the 

restored area is rapidly “catching up.” It is not surprising that it should have lagged a bit behind 

the damaged, unrestored area. It is recognized that after placing artificial substrate, often a 

period must elapse before it becomes “conditioned” to the reef environment (through the 

deposition of biofilms and other mechanisms beyond the scope of this paper) so as to become 

receptive to the settlement of potential coral recruits. 

T

restrictions. For instance, it was assumed that the maximum size attained by recruits was equal 

in all sampling areas. This is probably not entirely accurate, due to the conditioning period 

mentioned above, which could last for several months. Once settlement occurs however, growth 

rates in the restored area were assumed to be as vigorous as at the other two. A converse 

assumption was also necessary: recruit growth at the damaged, unrestored and reference areas 

was equivalent to that in the restored area, such that there could be no possibility of fewer—but 

slower growing—recruits at those sites. In the absence of data comparing growth rates on 

natural substrate with those on artificial surfaces, these were felt to be reasonable assumptions. 

These assumptions create less than optimal monitoring methodology. More precision could have 

been obtained had the protocol provided for more specific (following individual recruits) as well 

as more frequent sampling. However, NMSP monitoring team budget, time, and manpower 

limitations precluded such possibilities. 

G

F

particular the population of Gorgonians, which had been extremely significantly different in 

34
2004 (P < 0.0001) (Figure 14), were by 2006 no longer statistically different between the 

sampling areas (Figure 21). 

Biodiversity had been a good deal greater at the restored area in 2004 as compared to the other 

sampling areas (Table 3), but was somewhat lessened by 2006 (Table 5) such that all areas had 

similar biodiversity at that time. 

Given the data collected to date, one of the most interesting and potentially important results 

demonstrated was the fact that in 2006, the size-class frequency distributions revealed that the 

restored area always had a greater proportion of all taxa populations in the smallest size category 

(Figure 23, Figure 24, Figure 25, Figure 26, and Figure 27). Perhaps this is indicative of the fact 

that by this time, the modules had become preferential recruitment substrate. If so, in the coming 

years, as the absolute number of recruits to the areas continues to converge, and as the 

proportionately greater restored area small recruit cohort progresses through the size categories, 

overall populations in the restored area should overtake those at the other locations (assuming no 

differential mortality). 

The above applies with equal force to Scleractinians. However, with regard to Siderastrea, the 

observation is probably not very meaningful, as only five colonies were found among the 

restored area quadrats in 2004 (Table 2), and only three in 2006 (Table 4). 

This last statement gives rise to some intriguing questions: Why was the proportion (8%) of 

recruiting Siderastrea so low in the restored area relative to the damaged, unrestored and 

reference areas, where it comprised 57% and 39% respectively in 2006 (Figure 22)? Is there 

something about the area that is not conducive to settlement by the species? For the other two 

substantial recruiters, Agaricia and Porites, no such differential was exhibited. In fact, looking 

solely at those two species, recruitment across the three areas was almost exactly equal; 

cumulatively 30, 29, and 28 colonies at the restored, damaged, unrestored, and reference areas 

respectively (Table 4). 

The questions are of more than academic interest. Agaricia and Porites are small species which 

brood their larvae, while Siderastrea is a large frame-building broadcast spawner (Edmunds 

et al. 2004; Miller et al. 2000). Because of the relatively small number involved, one must be 

guarded with respect to over interpretation of this data, and should probably consider the results 

conservatively as preliminary. Nonetheless, certainly this anomaly warrants heightened scrutiny; 

hopefully an answer may be revealed during the course of future monitoring episodes. 

One final observation of coral recruitment in the restored area is that the number of recruits from 

all surveyed Orders was higher on limestone boulder surfaces. With the data collected to date, 

we are not able to determine if this substrate settlement data reflects trends different than the 

relative proportion of the surface areas of the 2 substrate types (sensu Miller and Barimo 2001). 

Some qualitative sense of the relative space available may be ascertained from the examination 

of photographs in APPENDIX 1. The apparent preference may not be due to the materials 

themselves, but perhaps to their configuration and orientation. That is to say, the rock displays a 

high degree of three-dimensional relief and topographic complexity, while the concrete is 

smooth and flat (level with the substrate). Also the rocks are packed fairly close together (see 

35
Figure 8, Figure 9, and Appendix 1) so their projections form niches under which recruits may 

shelter. This type of cryptic habitat is often favored by coral recruits (Adjeroud 

et al. 2007; Perkol-Finkel and Benyahu 2007). Acquisition of data to model limestone boulder 

and concrete surface areas, enabling coral recruit substrate preference trend analysis at this site is 

being considered for future study. 

36
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

Adjeroud, M., L. Penin and A. Carroll. 2007. Spatio-temporal heterogeneity in coral recruitment 

around Moorea, French Polynesia: Implications for population maintenance. Jour Exp Mar Bio 

and Eco. 341: 204-218. 

Adobe, Inc. 2002, 2005. Photoshop (image processing software), version 7; version CS2. 

www.adobe.com. 

Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE), 2001. Molasses Coral Reef Restoration Project 

Post-Construction Engineering Report. Unpublished Report. 29 pp plus appendices. 

Edmunds, P., J. Bruno, and D. Carlon. 2004. Effects of depth and microhabitat on growth and 

survivorship of juvenile corals in the Florida Keys. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 278: 115-124. 

Gittings, S. 2003. Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site, April 

23-24, 2002. http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/wellwood.html. 

GraphPad Software, Inc. 2003, 2007. InStat Instant Biostatistics, version 3.0; Prism 5 for 

Windows, version 5.00. www.graphpad.com. 

Hudson, J. H. and E.C. Franklin. 2005. Coral reef restoration of a storm-disturbed vessel 

grounding site in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, USA. Proc 10th Int’l Coral Reef 

Symp:1631-36. 

Hudson, J.H. and R. Diaz, 1988. Damage survey and restoration of M/V Wellwood grounding 

site, Molasses Reef, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Proceedings of the 6th 

International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia. Vol. 2: 231-236. 

Kohler, K. E. 2004. CPCe – Coral Point Count with Excel extensions. Computer software. 

National Coral Reef Institute, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 

Miller, M.W. and J. Barimo. 2001. Assessment of Juvenile coral Populations at Two Reef 

Restoration Sites in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Indicators of Success? Bull. 

Mar. Sci. 69: 395-405 

Miller, M.W., E. Weil, and A.M. Szmant. 2000. Coral recruitment and juvenile mortality as 

structuring factors for reef benthic communities in Biscayne National Park, USA. Coral Reefs

19:115-123. 

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 2002. Environmental Assessment: M/V

Wellwood Grounding Site Restoration, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Monroe 

County, FL. 61 pp. 

37
38

REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED (CONT.) 

Perkol-Finkel, S. and Y. Benayahu. 2007. Differential recruitment of benthic communities on 

neighboring artificial and natural reefs. Jour Exp Mar Bio and Eco. 340: 25-39. 

Thayer, G. W. , T. A. McTigue, R. J. Bellmer, F. M. Burrows, D. H. Merkey, A. D. Nickens, S.J. 

Lozano, P. F. Gayaldo, P. J. Polmateer, and P. T. Pinit. 2003. Science-based restoration 

monitoring of coastal habitats, volume one: A framework for monitoring plans under the 

Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457). NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Decision Analysis Series No.23, Volume 1. NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. 35 pp. plus appendices. 

Vermeij, M.J.A. 2006. Early life-history dynamics of Caribbean coral species on artificial 

substratum: the importance of competition, growth and variation in life-history strategy. Coral 

Reefs 25:59-71. 
39

APPENDIX 1 

Photographs of completed reef restoration module and puddle pour installations from June-July 2002 

(photo credits: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc.). 
40

APPENDIX 2 

Comparative photographs of reef restoration modules from October 2004 (left) and September 2006 

(right) (photo credits: Jeff Anderson). 
41

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
42

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
43

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
44

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
45

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
46

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
47

APPENDIX 2 (CONT.) 
48

APPENDIX 3 

Photographs of benthic species surveyed on reef restoration modules during September to November 

2004 monitoring event (photo credits: Jeff Anderson). 
49

APPENDIX 3 (CONT.) 
APPENDIX 3 (CONT.) 

50
NMSP CONSERVATION SERIES PUBLICATIONS 

To date, the following reports have been published in the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series. All publications 

are available on the National Marine Sanctuary Program website (http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). 

Survey report of NOAA Ship McArthur II cruises AR-04-04, AR-05-05 and AR-06-03: Habitat classification of 

side scan sonar imagery in support of deep-sea coral/sponge explorations at the Olympic Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (NMSP-07-01) 

2002 - 03 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Science Report: An Ecosystem Report Card After Five 

Years of Marine Zoning (NMSP-06-12) 

Habitat Mapping Effort at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Current Status and Future Needs

(NMSP-06-11) 

M/V CONNECTED Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-010) 

M/V JACQUELYN L Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2005 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-09) 

M/V WAVE WALKER Coral Reef Restoration Baseline Monitoring Report - 2004 Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-06-08) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Habitat Mapping: Survey report and classification of side scan sonar 

data from surveys HMPR-114-2004-02 and HMPR-116-2005-01 (NMSP-06-07) 

A Pilot Study of Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus Walbaum 1792) Movement in the Conch Reef Research 

Only Area (Northern Florida Keys) (NMSP-06-06) 

Comments on Hydrographic and Topographic LIDAR Acquisition and Merging with Multibeam Sounding Data 

Acquired in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-05) 

Conservation Science in NOAA's National Marine Sanctuaries: Description and Recent Accomplishments

(ONMS-06-04) 

Normalization and characterization of multibeam backscatter: Koitlah Point to Point of the Arches, Olympic 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary - Survey HMPR-115-2004-03 (ONMS-06-03) 

Developing Alternatives for Optimal Representation of Seafloor Habitats and Associated Communities in 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-02) 

Benthic Habitat Mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-06-01) 

Channel Islands Deep Water Monitoring Plan Development Workshop Report (ONMS-05-05) 

Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci 

Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry

(MSD-05-4) 

The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

(MSD-05-3) 
An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fish of the southeast United States and Gray's Reef National 

Marine Sanctuary (MSD-05-2) 

Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River 

Estuary (MSD-05-1) 

Biogeographic Analysis of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve (MSD-04-1) 

A Review of the Ecological Effectiveness of Subtidal Marine Reserves in Central California (MSD-04-2, 

MSD-04-3) 

Pre-Construction Coral Survey of the M/V Wellwood Grounding Site (MSD-03-1) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Proceedings of the 1998 Research Workshop, Seattle, 

Washington (MSD-01-04) 

Workshop on Marine Mammal Research & Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-01-03) 

A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MSD-01-2) 

Distribution and Sighting Frequency of Reef Fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (MSD01-1) 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A Rapid Assessment of Coral, Fish, and Algae Using the 

AGRRA Protocol (MSD-00-3) 

The Economic Contribution of Whalewatching to Regional Economies: Perspectives From Two National 

Marine Sanctuaries (MSD-00-2) 

Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to be Avoided Education and Monitoring Program (MSD00-1) 

Multi-species and Multi-interest Management: an Ecosystem Approach to Market Squid (Loligo

opalescens) Harvest in California (MSD-99-1)