Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-08-01

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

National Marine Sanctuary Program January 2008 

` 

M/V ALEC OWEN MAITLAND

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report 

Monitoring Events 2004-2007 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Monroe County, Florida
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 ALEC OWEN MAITLAND 

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report 

Monitoring Events 2004-2007 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Monroe County, Florida 

J. Harold Hudson 

Joe Schittone 

Jeff Anderson 

Erik C. Franklin 

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 

January 2008 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 Alec Owen Maitland aground south of South Carysfort Reef, Florida 

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

Sanctuary. 

Lower right: Naturally-recruited coral colonies on reef restoration module, photographed 

on June 7, 2005, at the M/V Alec Owen Maitland restoration site, Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary. Photo credit: Jeff Anderson, NMSP/NOAA. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Hudson, J.H., J. Schittone, J. Anderson, E.C. Franklin, A. Stratton. 2008. M/V Alec Owen 

Maitland Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2007. 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida. Marine Sanctuaries 

Conservation Series NMSP-08-01. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, 

MD. 34 pp. 

CONTACT 

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

This document presents the results of the first three monitoring events to track the 

recovery of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Alec Owen Maitland (hereafter 

referred to as the “Maitland”) vessel grounding incident of October 25, 1989. 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 in September 1995, and thus far three 

monitoring events have occurred; one in the summer of 2004, one in the summer of 2005, 

and the latest in the summer of 2007. The monitoring has consisted of: assessment of the 

structural stability of restoration armor units and comparison of the biological conditions 

on the restoration armor units with those of the Reference area. Monitored corals are 

divided into Gorgonians, Milleporans, and Scleractinians. Densities at the Restored and 

Reference areas are compared, and are shown to be approximately equal. Size-class 

frequency distributions for the most abundant Scleractinian are examined, and reveal that 

the Restoration is converging on the Reference area. Also, for the Scleractinians, number 

and percentage of colonies by species, as well as several common biodiversity indices are 

provided, and measures for the Restored area exceed Reference values. A quantitative 

comparison of colony substrate settlement preference in the Restoration area is provided 

for all Orders, and for Scleractinians is further broken down for the two most frequent 

Genera. Finally, some inter-annual comparisons for Gorgonians and Scleractinians are 

presented. Generally, results indicate that Restored areas have greater coral density and 

biodiversity than Reference areas. 

KEY WORDS 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, coral, grounding, restoration, reef armor units, 

monitoring, Maitland, Carysfort Reef, recruitment, Anthozoa, Hydrozoa, Octocorallia, 

Hexacorallia, Gorgonacea, Anthoathecata (Millepora), Scleractinia

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Topic Page

Abstract & Key Words............................................................................................ i

Table of Contents.................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables and Figures....................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements................................................................................................. vi

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

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

Coral Reef Restoration.................................................................................... 6

Restoration Monitoring................................................................................... 8

Methodology........................................................................................................... 9

Monitoring Events .............................................................................................. 9

Field Methods ................................................................................................. 9 

Photo Analysis ................................................................................................ 10 

Biological Classifications ............................................................................... 10 

Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 12

Results..................................................................................................................... 13 

First Monitoring Event (August 2004) ............................................................... 13 

Structural Integrity .......................................................................................... 13 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 13 

Second Monitoring Event (June-July 2005) ....................................................... 18 

Structural Integrity .......................................................................................... 18 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 18 

Third Monitoring Event (July-September 2007) ................................................ 22 

Structural Integrity .......................................................................................... 22 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 22

Discussion............................................................................................................... 29

References and Literature Cited.............................................................................. 33

ii 
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table Number and Title Page

Table 1. Event timeline for the M/V Alec Owen Maitland grounding site; 

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

Table 2. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2004 at 

the Maitland restoration site. ................................................................ 16

Table 3. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2004 Scleractinian colony 

population at the Maitland restoration site. .......................................... 16

Table 4. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2005 at 

the Maitland restoration site. ................................................................ 20

Table 5. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2005 Scleractinian colony 

population at the Maitland restoration site. .......................................... 20

Table 6. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2007 at 

the Maitland restoration site. ................................................................ 24

Table 7. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2007 Scleractinian colony 

population at the Maitland restoration site. .......................................... 24

Figure Number and Title Page

Figure 1. Location (shown on NOAA Chart 11463) that the M/V Alec Owen 

Maitland ran aground south of South Carysfort Reef on 

October 25, 1989................................................................................ 3

Figure 2. M/V Alec Owen Maitland aground south of South Carysfort Reef. .. 4

Figure 3. Top row: Fractured Siderastrea siderea and Acropora palmata

colonies. Bottom row: Rubble area and wall of blowhole crater..... 4

Figure 4. Hurricane Andrew relative to the Maitland grounding site. .............. 5

Figure 5. Pre-cast concrete and limestone boulder armor unit used in the 

Maitland restoration. .......................................................................... 6

iii 
Figure Number and Title (cont.) Page

Figure 6. Schematic diagram of restoration area depicting locations of reef 

armor units and “puddle pour” areas along with approximate 

locationof Reference sampling area................................................... 7

Figure 7. Completed restoration with armor units and “puddle pour” with 

limestone “dressing” stones. .............................................................. 8

Figure 8. Diver conducting survey in Restoration area and Reference area. .... 10

Figure 9. Fauna living in and around Maitland restoration armor units............ 11

Figure 10. Representative benthic organisms surveyed on the Maitland

restoration armor units. ...................................................................... 14

Figure 11. 2004 densities of all 3 groups of corals.............................................. 15

Figure 12. 2004 species (by percentage) of Scleractinian colonies..................... 17

Figure 13. 2004 size-class frequency distribution of Porites astreoides in the 

Restored and Reference areas. ........................................................... 18

Figure 14. Restoration armor units showing biological condition 10 years after 

installation.......................................................................................... 19

Figure 15. 2005 densities of all 3 groups of corals.............................................. 19

Figure 16. 2005 species (by percentage) of Scleractinian colonies..................... 21

Figure 17. 2005 size-class frequency distribution of Porites astreoides in the 

Restored and Reference areas. ........................................................... 22

Figure 18. 2007 densities of all 3 groups of corals.............................................. 23

Figure 19. 2007 species (by percentage) of Scleractinian colonies..................... 25

Figure 20. 2007 size-class frequency distribution of Porites astreoides in the 

Restored and Reference areas. ........................................................... 26

Figure 21. Evaluation of substrate settlement preference for all 3 groups of 

corals. ................................................................................................. 26

Figure 22. Evaluation of coral substrate settlement preference for selected 

Scleractinian Genera. ......................................................................... 27

iv 
Figure Number and Title (cont.) Page

Figure 23. Scatterplots of density of Restored (RES) area and Reference (REF) 

area Scleractinians in each quadrat sampled in 2004, ‘05, and ‘07. .. 28

Figure 24. Scatterplots of density of Restored (RES) area and Reference (REF) 

area Gorgonians in each quadrat sampled in 2004, ‘05, and ‘07. ...... 29 

v 
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. Thanks as well to all reviewers, with a special thanks due to Dr. Greg Piniak. 

All errors remain the authors’ own. 

vi 
INTRODUCTION 

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

repaired coral reef injured by the M/V Alec Owen Maitland (hereafter referred to as the 

“Maitland”) vessel grounding incident of October 25, 1989. 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. 

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

installed restoration armor units and coral recruitment patterns, to be performed on the following 

schedule: nine, ten, twelve, and fifteen years after restoration. Restoration of this site was 

completed in the summer of 1995 with monitoring planned to begin in following years. 

However, due to staffing and other logistical constraints, the first biological monitoring event for 

this site was delayed until August 2004. In June and July 2005, the second monitoring event 

took place, and in July, August, and September 2007, the third. This report presents the results 

of all three monitoring events. 

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

Event Date 

Vessel Grounding October 25, 1989 

Vessel Removal October 26, 1989 

Injury Assessment: Initial October 26, 1989 

Pre-Construction Survey June-July 1993 

Restoration August-September, 1995 

First Monitoring Event August 2004 

Second Monitoring Event June-July 2005 

Third Monitoring Event July-September 2007 

Fourth Monitoring Event Summer 2010 

1
Damage Assessment 

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

Administration, (undated). Coral Reef Restoration Key Facts—M/V Alec Owen Maitland

Grounding; and, Gittings, S. R., 1991. Mitigation & Recovery Enhancement at the Grounding 

Site of the M/V Alec Owen Maitland, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary.] 

On October 25, 1989, the M/V Alec Owen Maitland, a 47-meter oil field supply vessel, ran 

aground in a reef coral community south of Carysfort Reef, about 1.5 nautical miles southwest of 

Carysfort Light, in 2-3 meters of water (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Additional injury occurred as 

the result of initial attempts to power off the reef. The grounding totally destroyed 681 m2 of 

living corals and partially destroyed 930 m2 of coral reef framework (NOAA undated). 

As the vessel approached the reef, it created an inbound grounding track approximately 88 m in 

length and injured all bottom substrate. The injury toppled or injured many large coral heads and 

left bottom paint embedded in exposed coral skeletons. At the end of and perpendicular to the 

inbound path, was an area 64 m in length where the vessel reportedly turned during initial 

freeing efforts. The final resting site was at the end of the turning path, parallel to the axis of the 

inbound path, but displaced 30 m to the west. 

The grounding of the ship and subsequent attempts to free it resulted in significant injury to the 

reef substrate and resident marine organisms. Approximately 70 percent of the coral colonies 

and 79 percent of the total coral cover, as well as numerous sponges and sea fans at the site, were 

destroyed by the grounding. 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. Attempts by the vessel to extricate itself caused “blowholes” (excavations 

caused by high-revving propellers) in the reef’s surface (Figure 3). In following years these 

blowholes quadrupled in size while waiting for restoration. In the absence of restoration efforts 

they would likely have continued to expand, and thus have perpetuated the continuing loss of 

Sanctuary habitat. 

2
Figure 1. Location (shown on NOAA Chart 11463) that the M/V Alec Owen Maitland ran aground south of South 

Carysfort Reef on October 25, 1989.

3
Figure 2. M/V Alec Owen Maitland aground south of South Carysfort Reef 

(photo credit: Paige Gill NMSP/NOAA). 

Figure 3. Top row: Fractured Siderastrea siderea and Acropora palmata colonies. Bottom row: Rubble area and 

wall of blowhole crater (quadrat is 25 cm × 25 cm) (photo credits: Harold Hudson NMSP/NOAA). 

4
The Maitland grounding impacted two distinct communities. One, the Gorgonia/Millepora

community, had relatively high, but quite variable cover. The other, a flat rock habitat, had very 

low cover of any type coral. Both are probably physically-controlled assemblages (i.e. waves 

control the community structure). The dominant species in the Gorgonia/Millepora zone were 

sea fans and fire corals, many of which were large. Scleractinian corals were frequent, but small. 

Numerically, the Scleractinian fauna at the site was dominated by colonies of species frequently 

found as recruits in recruitment studies (e.g. Porites spp.). Physically, the largest colonies at the 

site were Acropora palmata, Siderastrea siderea, Diploria strigosa, and D. clivosa. A. palmata

colonies were large, and some thickets in the deeper portions of the grounding site contained a 

dozen or more colonies. The other species were infrequent and generally much less than 0.5 m 

in diameter. Areas most extensively damaged by the grounding probably did not contain A. 

palmata thickets (based on depth and topographic characteristics.). 

NOAA and the responsible parties agreed to a settlement in October 1991. The damages 

received from the responsible parties were allocated to repayment of response and damage 

assessment costs and for future restoration and monitoring of the site. 

In 1992 a catastrophic storm, Hurricane Andrew, severely impacted the Maitland site. The storm 

passed less than 60 miles to the north of the site, with winds exceeding 130 mph (Figure 4). At 

1000 UTC (6 a.m. local time) on August 24, 1992, NOAA’s National Data Buoy Center’s 

Coastal-Marine Automated Network (C-MAN) recording station on the nearby Molasses Reef 

Lighthouse recorded sustained 48 kts (55 mph) winds, and a peak gust of 59 kts (68 mph). After 

the hurricane’s passage, it was found that the blowholes had expanded and merged together 

(CSA 1993). NOAA believed the hurricane’s effects exacerbated the grounding injuries, and 

that additional injuries would continue absent restoration. Restoration undertaken in 1995 was 

planned by National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) headquarters and FKNMS staff, in 

collaboration with marine engineers from the commercial firm of Olsen Associates, Inc., and 

implemented by Team Land and Development, Inc. along with FKNMS staff. 

Figure 4. Hurricane Andrew relative to the Maitland grounding site (ship graphic not to scale). 

5
Coral Reef Restoration 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from the “Reef Restoration Action Project” 

Report (undated) prepared by the (then) NOAA Sanctuaries and Reserve Division (now the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program).] 

The objectives of the Maitland site restoration were to fill in the blowhole and to stabilize the 

damaged reef framework. Engineering design for the site was particularly challenging because 

of the scope of the damage, the site’s shallow-water, high energy environment, and the proximity 

to sensitive biological resources. Structural repairs to the site included the placement of 40 precast concrete and limestone boulder armor units to fill in the grounding crater, filling approx. 800 

m

2

 in total. After placement, they were sealed with approximately 45 m3 of underwater pumped 

concrete (a.k.a. puddle pour). Before setting, the concrete was embedded with locally quarried 

limestone rocks (Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7). 

The armor units were designed in six sizes to accommodate the crater’s complex and varying 

geometry. Each unit weighed approximately 9.5-10 tons above water. The units were designed 

to withstand wave and current forces anticipated in a once-in-25-year-storm event. The structure 

has withstood the passage of several close hurricanes (Georges in 1998 and at least seven more 

recent storms, to be discussed below). Overall, the restoration was intended to “re-create a stable 

foundation which closely emulates the adjacent natural seabed and which would foster future 

recruitment of the local biota” (Bodge 1996). 

Figure 5. Pre-cast concrete and limestone boulder armor unit used in the Maitland restoration 

(photo credit: Harold Hudson NMSP/NOAA). 

6
Reference areas 

Figure 6. Schematic diagram of restoration area depicting locations of reef armor units and “puddle pour” areas 

(shaded areas in diagram surrounding armor units) along with approximate location of Reference sampling area. 

7
Figure 7. Completed restoration with armor units (left) and “puddle pour” with limestone “dressing” stones (right) 

(photo credits: Harold Hudson NMSP/NOAA). 

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. 

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), several of which are 

found below. 

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 Maitland site is designed to detect 

significant changes in the structural stability of the reef restoration armor units and concrete 

puddle pour areas as a result of external events, such as major storms or vandalism, as well as 

significant changes in new coral recruitment, compared to the surrounding reference habitat. 

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

1. Is the attachment of the reef restoration armor units to the substrate stable? 

2. Are there any visible cracks in the surface of the reef restoration armor units and/or 

puddle pour concrete? 

3. Is any undermining occurring around the armor units and/or puddle pour areas? 

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 and the 

Reference area? 

8
METHODOLOGY 

MONITORING EVENTS

Between August 5 and 10, 2004, the Maitland restoration site was monitored using SCUBA from 

a small vessel (6.4 m). The same vessel was utilized for all subsequent monitoring visits. 

Another monitoring event occurred on June 7 and July 26, 2005 and the latest monitoring visit 

occurred between July 27 and September 14, 2007. Between the August 2004 and the June 2005 

monitoring events, the eyes of three powerful hurricanes passed within 250 kilometers of the 

restoration site; Charley in late August, and Jeanne and Frances in September 2004. Each 

sustained winds approximating 175-195 kph at the time of closest approach to the restoration 

site. The possible confounding effects of these hurricanes, if any, are discussed below; no 

monitoring of the site was conducted in the interim. In 2005, hurricane Dennis made its closest 

approach between the June and July portions of the 2005 monitoring event, at similar distance 

and wind speeds as noted for the 2004 storms. In addition, after the July 2005 monitoring, 

hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma passed within 175 km of the site. At the time of closest 

approach, Katrina and Rita had winds of about 130 kph. Wilma had winds of approximately 205 

kph, but was over land (SW Florida) at the time. No monitoring of the site was conducted 

between July 2005 and the 2007 monitoring, and thus the possible confounding effects of these 

hurricanes, if any, are unknown. However, no visually or tactilely perceptible damage was 

observed at the restoration structures. 

Field Methods 

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

restoration armor units. To determine the biological condition of the site, in situ observations, 

digital images, and digital videos were recorded (Restored area = 185 m2). The reference area 

was adjacent to the restoration site. It contained benthic communities likely similar to those 

destroyed by the grounding. See Figure 6 for approximate locations of sampling areas. 

In 2004, within both the restoration and adjacent Reference sampling area, 40 one m2 quadrats 

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

section. In 2005 and 2007, twenty-one quadrats were surveyed. This sampling reduction was 

due to logistical constraints. Within each survey area, a random number generator corresponded 

to a digital grid of uniquely identified 1 m2 cells overlaid on the grounding site map. Transect 

lines were used from landmarks to determine cell locations in the field as best as possible 

(Figure 8). 

9
Figure 8. Diver conducting survey in Restoration area (left) and Reference area (right) 

(photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

Oblique digital photographs were taken of selected coral colonies of interest and the overall 

landscape/topography of the surveyed areas. 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. 

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 

All information presented was generated by visual observation from the quadrat data. The 

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

presented are at the Order level. The Orders discussed below include: Order Anthoathecata in 

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

henceforth referred to by the 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. 

10
Although not included in this analysis, numerous vagile fauna were observed on the restoration 

site. The habitat value of the restoration modules was likely enhanced by the colonization of 

sessile fauna (Figure 9). 

Figure 9. Fauna living in and around Maitland restoration 

armor units. Starting from upper left: young queen conch 

(Strombus gigas), Caribbean reef squid (Sepioteuthis 

sepioidea), lettuce sea slug (Elysia crispata), spotted 

scorpionfish (Scorpaena plumieri), and giant anemone 

(Condylactis gigantea) (photo credits: Jeff Anderson 

NMSP/NOAA). 

11
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 and Reference areas, along with 

various analytic statistics for comparative purposes. 

In the 2004 density analyses, for the Gorgonian and Scleractinian populations a square root 

transformation was performed to meet Gaussian distribution requirements (as per D'Agostino & 

Pearson omnibus normality tests) permitting two-tailed t test comparisons. The unpaired t tests 

were conducted with Welch’s correction, to account for the heteroscedasticity of the data. For 

the Millepora density analysis, the data sets displayed extremely significant non-normality. 

Thus, a Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was utilized. 

For the 2005 analyses, for the Gorgonian and Milleporan colonies, the data could not be rendered 

Gaussian; Mann-Whitney tests were used for both. The Scleractinian corals evidenced a normal 

distribution with no need for transformation, and the t tests were again performed by way of 

Welch’s correction. 

In the 2007 analyses, for the Gorgonians, square root transformation was necessary to enable 

t tests. For the Millepora and Scleractinians, no transformations were needed. All three Orders 

evidenced sufficient homogeneity of variance that no corrections were applied. 

For all years, common biodiversity indices were calculated for the Scleractinian populations. 

Additionally, size-class frequency distributions are shown for Porites astreoides, the only 

species with a sample size sufficient for such calculations. 

Additionally, in 2007, data on substrate attachment in the restoration area was collected for all 

three taxa, so as to permit Chi-square (χ

2

) “Goodness of Fit” test between actual and expected 

settlement occurrences. Because of the low absolute numbers involved for Milleporans, the test 

was conducted by means of Yates’ continuity correction applied to all categories. 

Finally, some inter-annual comparisons are made for Scleractinians and Gorgonians. For 

Scleractinians, no transformations were necessary and analysis proceeded by way of a singlefactor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), followed by Bonferroni's Multiple Comparison Test. 

For the Gorgonians, since normality could not be achieved after any attempted transformation, 

analysis was achieved by way of a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's Multiple Comparison 

Test. 

12
RESULTS 

FIRST MONITORING EVENT (AUGUST 2004) 

Structural Integrity 

The 2004 monitoring occurred 9 years after the restoration, at which time the stability and 

surface of all 40 armor units were found to be visually and tactilely sound. The armor units were 

found in place with a stable attachment to the substrate, with no visible cracks in the concrete 

surface or undermining of the armor units and surrounding puddle pour areas. 

Biological Condition 

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

algae, soft, and hard corals were all recruiting to the armor units and surrounding concrete areas 

(Figure 10), and Scleractinians, Gorgonians, and Millepora were all significantly more abundant 

in the Restored area than in the Reference area. Density results, by Orders, for the 2004 data are 

shown in Figure 11. Further breakdown of some of these groups, with analysis of biodiversity, 

size-class distribution, etc., also follow below. 

13
Figure 10. Representative benthic organisms surveyed on the Maitland restoration armor units. Starting from top 

left: Diploria sp., Siderastrea siderea, Stypopodium zonale next to Halimeda sp., and Porites astreoides next to 

Gorgonia ventalina. (photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

14
2004 Gorgonacea Density

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

***

Restored Area n = 459

Reference Area n = 141

***

2004 Scleractinia Density

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

***

***

Restored Area n = 395

Reference Area n = 132

2004 Millepora Density

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

 *

Restored Area n = 25

Reference Area n = 12

 *

Figure 11. 2004 densities of all 3 groups of corals (Note 

differing scales used for Millepora). Error bars = Standard 

Error; *** notation indicates highly significant difference 

(p < 0.0001), * notation indicates significant difference.

For the Gorgonians and Scleractinians, the statistical analysis indicated that the differences 

between the Restoration and the Reference populations were highly significant, with p < 0.0001. 

Milleporans were present in much lower densities than were the other two groups; however the 

differences between the two areas were still significant. The non-parametric test utilized 

revealed that p = 0.0169. 

In addition to the density data, information regarding species identification (or in some cases 

only to Genus level) was gathered for Scleractinians. That data is presented in Table 2, 

immediately followed by Table 3, which gives several standard biodiversity index calculations. 

15
Table 2. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2004 at the Maitland restoration site. 

Species Restored area Reference area 

Agaricia spp. 3 1 

Dichocoenia stokesii 4 0 

Diploria spp. 11 0 

Montastraea cavernosa 1 0 

Porites astreoides 337 115 

Porites porites 0 14 

Siderastrea siderea 37 1 

Stephanocoenia intersepta 1 0 

Unknown 1 1 

Total 395 132 

Table 3. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2004 Scleractinian colony population at the Maitland restoration site. 

Name of Index (along with formulas) Restored area Reference area 

Species Richness: S = # 8 5 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.738 0.770 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 0.586 0.469 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.282 0.291 

The relative proportions of Scleractinians present in both the Restored and Reference areas are 

graphically presented in Figure 12. 

16
2004 Scleratinian Colonies in Restored Area

n = 395

Pora

85%

Dip

3%

Mon, Ste, Unk

1%

Dic

1%

Aga

1%

Sids

9%

2004 Scleratinian Colonies in Reference Area

n = 132

Pora

87% Aga, Sids, Unk

2%

Porp

11%

Figure 12. 2004 species (by percentage) 

of Scleractinian colonies. 

Abbreviations: 

Aga=Agaricia spp.; 

Dic=Dichocoenia stokesii; 

Dip=Diploria spp.; 

Mon=Montastraea cavernosa; 

Pora=Porites astreoides; 

Porp=Porites porites; 

Sids=Siderastrea siderea; 

Ste=Stephanocoenia intersepta; 

Unk=unknown 

Finally, size-class frequency distributions were ascertained for the only coral with sufficient 

numbers to make such calculations meaningful, that being Porites astreoides. The graphs 

depicting the distribution are shown in Figure 13. 

17
2004 P. astreoides Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 369

2004 P. astreoides Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

 Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 115

Figure 13. 2004 size-class frequency distribution of Porites astreoides in the Restored and Reference areas.

SECOND MONITORING EVENT (JUNE-JULY 2005) 

Structural Integrity 

Despite the close passage of three hurricanes between the 2004 and 2005 monitoring events (see 

METHODOLOGY), the stability and surface of all 40 reef restoration armor units and puddle 

pour areas were again found to be visually and tactilely sound with no visible cracks in the 

concrete surface nor undermining of the armor units and surrounding puddle pour areas. 

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 armor units and surrounding 

concrete puddle pour areas (Figure 14). The population of Gorgonians underwent what might 

fairly be described as a “crash.” Possible explanations for this are presented later in the 

DISCUSSION section. Meanwhile, Scleractinian densities in the Restored area continued to 

exceed those in the Reference area. For the three Orders surveyed in 2005, the data yielded the 

densities shown in Figure 15. Additionally, size-class frequency distribution of Porites 

astreoides in the Restored area showed some convergence to the Reference area, and biodiversity 

measures continued to favor the Restored area. Those results are also shown below. 

18
Figure 14. Restoration armor units showing biological condition 10 years after installation 

(photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

2005 Gorgonacea Density

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m. 

ns

ns

Restored Area n = 24

Reference Area n = 26

2005 Millepora Density

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 10

Reference Area n = 9

ns ns

2005 Scleractinia Density

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

***

***

Restored Area n = 217

Reference Area n = 51

Figure 15. 2005 densities of all 3 groups of corals (Note 

differing scale used for Scleractinia). Error bars = Standard 

Error; ns notation indicates no significant difference, *** notation 

indicates highly significant difference.

19
For the Gorgonians, the non-parametric statistical test used (see METHODOLOGY) indicated 

that the differences between the Restoration and the Reference populations were not significant 

(p = 0.1096). The same test yielded similar non-significant results (p = 0.5962) for Milleporans. 

For Scleractinians, absolute differences are more than four-fold, as examination of Figure 15

reveals. The statistical test utilized resulted in highly significant differences between the two 

areas (p < 0.0001). 

Table 4 and Figure 16 show a comparison of the biodiversity of Scleractinian colonies among the 

Restored and Reference sampling areas within the Maitland restoration site. Table 5 lists the 

results of a number of standard biodiversity indices performed for the Scleractinian colony 

population. 

Table 4. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2005 at the Maitland restoration site. 

Species Restored area Reference area 

Diploria spp. 4 1 

Favia fragum 1 0 

Montastraea cavernosa 1 0 

Porites astreoides 174 47 

Porites porites 8 2 

Siderastrea radians 11 0 

Siderastrea siderea 18 1 

Total 217 51 

Table 5. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2005 Scleractinian colony population at the Maitland restoration site. 

Name of Index (along with formulas) Restored area Reference area 

Species Richness: S = # 7 4 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.654 0.852 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 0.780 0.357 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.401 0.257 

20
2005 Scleractinian Colonies in Restored Area

n = 217

Pora

80%

Sids

8%

Porp

4%

Dip Fav Mon 

3%

Sidr

5%

2005 Scleractinian Colonies in Reference Area

n = 51

Pora

92%

Porp

4%

Dip

2%

Sids

2%

Figure 16. 2005 species (by percentage) 

of Scleractinian colonies. 

Abbreviations: 

Dip=Diploria spp.; 

Fav=Favia fragum; 

Mon=Montastraea cavernosa; 

Pora=Porites astreoides; 

Porp=Porites porites; 

Sidr=Siderastrea radians; 

Sids=Siderastrea siderea

As for the previous year, the 2005 size-class frequency distributions were ascertained for the 

only coral with sufficient numbers to make such calculations meaningful, Porites astreoides. 

The graphs depicting the distribution are shown in Figure 17. 

21
2005 P. astreoides S ize-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 174

 2005 P.astreoides Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 47

Figure 17. 2005 size-class frequency distribution of Porites astreoides in the Restored and Reference areas.

THIRD MONITORING EVENT (JULY-SEPTEMBER 2007) 

Structural Integrity 

The near passage of four hurricanes during the 2005 storm season (see METHODOLOGY) did 

not affect the stability and surface of the 40 reef restoration armor units. However, several areas 

of the puddle pour on the eastern (seaward-facing) side of the restoration had been slightly 

undermined. While the exact cause is unknown, this undermining most likely resulted from 

wave energy and bottom scouring during the four hurricanes. 

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 armor units and 

surrounding concrete puddle pour areas. Gorgonians appeared to have bounced back from their 

previous “crash.” Meanwhile, Scleractinian densities in the Restored area continued to greatly 

exceed those in the Reference area. For the three Orders surveyed in 2007, the data yielded the 

densities shown in Figure 18. Both biodiversity and size-class distribution of the two zones 

seemed to be approaching convergence, as shown in the results below. For this monitoring 

event, additional information is depicted showing overall and Scleractinian (two Genera) 

settlement preferences. 

22
2007 Gorgonacea Density

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

**

**

Restored Area n = 227

Reference Area n = 114

2007 Scleractinia Density

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

***

Restored Area n = 168

Reference Area n = 72

 ***

2007 Millepora Density

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Restored Area Reference Area

C

olonies / sq. m.

 ns ns

Restored Area n = 21

Reference Area n = 22

Figure 18. 2007 densities of all 3 groups of corals (Note differing 

scale used for Millepora). Error bars = Standard Error; ** notation 

indicates very significant difference, ns notation indicates no 

significant difference, *** notation indicates highly significant 

difference.

For the Gorgonians, the statistical test used (see METHODOLOGY) indicated that the difference 

between the Restoration and the Reference populations were very significantly different 

(p = 0.0015). The same test yielded non-significant results (p = 0.8875) for Milleporans. For 

Scleractinians, the statistical test utilized resulted in highly significant differences between the 

two areas (p < 0.0001). 

23
Table 6 and Figure 19 show a comparison of the biodiversity of Scleractinian colonies among the 

Restored and Reference sampling areas within the Maitland restoration site. Table 7 lists the 

results of a number of standard biodiversity indices performed for the Scleractinian colony 

population. 

Table 6. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2007 at the Maitland restoration site. 

Species Restored area Reference area 

Agaricia spp. 0 2 

Diploria spp. 2 0 

Favia fragum 0 1 

Montastraea cavernosa 0 0 

Porites astreoides 119 53 

Porites porites 17 9 

Siderastrea radians 11 3 

Siderastrea siderea 19 4 

Total 168 72 

Table 7. Common Biodiversity indices of the 2007 Scleractinian colony population at the Maitland restoration site. 

Name of Index (along with formulas) Restored area Reference area 

Species Richness: S = # 5 6 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.529 0.563 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 0.954 0.937 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.593 0.523 

24
2007 Scleractinians in Restored Area

n = 168

Dip

1%

Pora

71%

Porp

10%

Sidr

7%

Sids

11%

2007 Scleractinians in Reference Area

n = 72

Aga

3%

Pora

73%

Porp

13%

Sidr

4%

Sids

6%

Fav

1%

Figure 19. 2007 species (by percentage) 

of Scleractinian colonies. 

Abbreviations: 

Aga=Agaricia spp.; 

Dip=Diploria spp.; 

Fav=Favia fragum; 

Pora=Porites astreoides; 

Porp=Porites porites; 

Sidr=Siderastrea radians; 

Sids=Siderastrea siderea

As for the previous years, the 2007 size-class frequency distributions were ascertained for the 

only coral with sufficient numbers to make such calculations meaningful, Porites astreoides. 

The graphs depicting the distribution are shown in Figure 20. 

25
2007 P. astreoides Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 119

2007 P. astreoides Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 53

Figure 20. 2007 size-class frequency distribution of Porites astreoides in the Restored and Reference areas. 

Finally for the 2007 data, a comparison was done of the number of colonies that had settled on 

the limestone rocks versus the number that had settled on the concrete matrix. The relative 

proportions of each surface are approximately 25% and 75% respectively (For methodology as to 

how these percentages were calculated, see Miller and Barimo 2001). Totally random (chance) 

settlement events would be expected to yield above proportions of colonies on the two different 

surfaces. Observed numbers varied from this expectation. This variation was tested statistically 

(see METHODOLOGY) i.e., a test was used to evaluate observed vs. expected settlement. The 

results are presented in Figure 21. 

Number of Colonies on Rock

Observed vs. Expected

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Scleractinians Gorgonians Milleporans

Observed

Expected

***

***

***

Figure 21. Evaluation of substrate settlement preference for all 3 groups of corals; *** indicates highly significant 

difference detected. 

26
As can be seen, the limestone rocks were preferentially settled by Scleractinians, Gorgonians, 

and Milleporans, and the differences from expectations were highly significant (p = 0.0004, 

p < 0.0001, and p = 0.0003, respectively). This perhaps indicates that active settlement 

preferences by larvae are implicated. Though a significant difference was detected for 

Milleporans, the numbers involved were too low to make anything in the way of a meaningful 

evaluation. 

For Scleractinians, this evaluation was broken down into the Genera that comprised the majority 

of colonies, those being Siderastrea and Porites (Note: this included virtually all Scleractinians, 

except one P. astreoides that wasn’t classed, and two Diploria spp. that settled on cement. The 

remainder of the P. astreoides made up 87% of total Porites, and S. siderea made up 63% of 

total Siderastrea). As one would anticipate from Figure 21 and accompanying text, and since the 

percentage of their contribution to the overall Scleractinian population was so high, Porites

preferentially settled on the rocks (p ≤ 0.0001). Interestingly however, for Siderastrea, the test 

performed showed an equally highly significant trend to settle on cement, though once again low 

numbers did not permit robust conclusions to be drawn (though all 19 S. siderea present settled 

on cement; the sole settler on rock was a S. radians). 

Scleractinian Genera on Rock

Observed vs. Expected

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Siderastrea Porites

Observed 

Expected

***

Figure 22. Evaluation of coral substrate settlement preference for selected Scleractinian Genera; *** indicates 

extremely significant difference detected. 

27
In addition to examining data for individual years, some inter-annual comparisons were made. 

In those analyses which follow, only Scleractinian and Gorgonian data will be looked at, as 

Milleporan populations were too low for robust analysis. Looking first at the Scleractinians, 

graphs of the densities are immediately below. 

 RES Scleractinian density per year

04 05 07

0

5

10

15

20

colonies / sq. m

REF Scleractinian density per year

04 05 07

0

5

10

15

20

colonies / sq. m

Figure 23. Scatterplots of density of Restored (RES) area and Reference (REF) area Scleractinians in each quadrat 

sampled in 2004, ‘05, and ‘07. The longest horizontal bar in each year’s group represents the mean; the shorter bars 

above and below represent ± SE. 

For the Restored area, densities were very similar for 2004 and 2005. While they appeared to 

slightly decrease in 2007, overall ANOVA revealed no significant differences, (p = 0.1228). For 

the Reference area, inter-annual differences were also non significant (p = 0.3226). 

Using the same graphics for Gorgonians, though a different statistical analysis (see 

METHODOLOGY) yields the following figure. 

28
RES Gorgonian density per year

04 05 07

0

10

20

30

40

colonies / sq. m

REF Gorgonian density per year

04 05 07

0

10

20

30

40

colonies / sq. m

Figure 24. Scatterplots of density of Restored (RES) area and Reference (REF) area Gorgonians in each quadrat 

sampled in 2004, ‘05, and ‘07. The longest horizontal bar in each year’s group represents the mean; the shorter bars 

above and below represent ± SE. 

For the Restored area, densities varied considerably among years, falling greatly in 2005. The 

Kruskal-Wallis test evidenced highly significant differences (p < 0.0001). The Dunn's Multiple 

Comparison Test revealed a highly significant difference between 2005 and either other year. 

For the Reference area, the same tests yielded the same results (p = 0.0006). 

DISCUSSION 

The results of the 2004, 2005, and 2007 Maitland 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 and this discussion, 

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

to remember that this report reflects the first stages of a longer term 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 Maitland

restoration at this stage. However, the density and composition of coral recruits at this stage 

provides a good indication that the structural stability offered by the restoration armor units is 

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

reef habitat. As for the scope of the monitoring program, it should be reiterated that this 

monitoring effort is tracking only some aspects of coral restoration, namely, stability, density, 

biodiversity, settlement preference, and size distribution. 

For the 2004 data (Figure 11), even a cursory look at this graph indicates that the Restored area 

was doing well, with more abundant populations than the adjacent Reference area. The charts 

29
show that the differences were significant for all categories of coral, highly so for both 

Gorgonians and Scleractinians. In fact, for each, densities were approximately three times higher 

in the Restored area than in the Reference area. 

Looking at the 2005 density data (Figure 15) and comparing it with the earlier, an examination of 

the 2004 density data reveals that while the stony coral populations remained relatively constant, 

the Gorgonian colonies suffered a drastic reduction. This yields an intriguing question—What 

happened to the Gorgonians? In all probability, the decimation of the Gorgonians is attributable 

to the nearby passage of the three hurricanes mentioned in the “Monitoring Events” section of 

this report on page 9 (Refer to the following web site for more information regarding those 

hurricanes: http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/). It is to be remembered that the restoration 

site, and the immediately surrounding Reference area, are in very shallow water of 

approximately 2-2.5 m in depth. Scleractinians don’t appear much affected. However, it should 

also be borne in mind that the Scleractinians present are primarily of the “head,” “mounding,” or 

“boulder” varieties, and are thus not readily subject to fragmentation by storms as are branching 

species (Lirman 2000). Whatever the reason for the differential Gorgonian decline, it seems they 

bounced back quickly (to be discussed below). 

For the 2007 density data, either very or highly significant differences were shown for 

Gorgonian and Scleractinian densities respectively (Figure 18). Again as in 2005, no difference 

of any significance was found regarding Milleporans. The much greater densities in the 

Restored area give rise to some interesting questions. Are the restoration armor units really such 

great recruitment attractors, or do the densities only appear high in relation to mature, stable 

areas? Or, has young-adult colony mortality not yet had a chance to play a role as a structuring 

factor? (Recall that the monitoring protocol does not track actual recruitment or mortality, only 

resultant overall density.) Unfortunately, the frequency of monitoring permitted by available 

settlement funds does not permit tracking individual colonies, and the fine-scale discrimination 

of historical population structure that might result. 

Regarding biodiversity, Table 2 and Table 3 reveal greater species richness and increased 

biodiversity of Scleractinians in the Restored area in 2004. This is depicted graphically in Figure 

12. Again in 2005, species richness and biodiversity of Scleractinians was greater at the 

Restored area. In fact, the differences appeared to be increasing (Table 4 and Table 5, Figure 

16). The differences had virtually disappeared by 2007 and the two areas may be fairly said to 

have converged by this time, at least as regards biodiversity indicators (Table 6 and Table 7, 

Figure 19). As the mentioned tables and charts show, large broadcasting corals (Diploria spp., 

Montastraea cavernosa, and Siderastrea siderea) were present almost exclusively on the 

restoration site. Just why this should be so remains somewhat of a mystery; certainly the issue of 

their generally low recruitment in the Keys is well known. Why then does it seem much higher 

in the Restored area? Certainly, one should be conservative when it comes to making predictions 

based upon demographics of these corals, based upon the low numbers involved. However, if 

any reader has any thoughts or insights regarding this issue, contact with the corresponding 

author would be appreciated. 

In addition, it appears that the over-representation of Porites astreoides in the mix is lessening. 

At the first monitoring event in 2004, the species represented 85% of all Scleractinians in the 

30
Restored sampling area. By the time of the 2007 monitoring, the proportion of the species had 

fallen somewhat, to 71% (Figure 19). However, it should be noted that a virtually identical drop 

in percentage occurred in the Reference sampling area. It will be interesting to see if further 

monitoring reveals a continuation of this trend. 

The 2004 size-class frequency distribution of P. astreoides, shown in Figure 13 gives rise to 

some interesting observations. A large majority (84%) of the colonies present in the Restored 

area were ≤ 40 mm, while less than one third (31%) of those in the Reference area were in that 

size class. Potentially, this bodes well for the future of the restoration because as the small sizeclass cohorts grow and move through the categories, presumably coral cover and topographic 

complexity of the site should increase. Of course, this assumes no differential mortality between 

the Restored and Reference areas (Langmead and Sheppard 2004; Edmunds and Elahi 2007). 

As regards the 2005 P. astreoides size-class frequency distribution (Figure 17), the percentage of 

small (≤ 40 mm) colonies in the Reference area remained relatively constant at 30% (versus 

2004’s 31%). Meanwhile, the proportion in the Restored area declined a bit—from 84% to 

76%—as would be consistent with theory for a maturing restoration site (Epstein et al 2005). 

Further, the “missing” percentage appears to have advanced through the size categories rather 

than having been lost to mortality; the 60, 80, and 100 mm categories progressed from a total of 

16 to 23%. Nevertheless, once again the modest numbers involved counsel for considering these 

findings as preliminary, although worthy of future investigation. 

With respect to the 2007 P. astreoides size-class frequency distribution (Figure 20), percentage 

of small colonies (≤ 40 mm) increased somewhat in the Reference area, from 30 to 42%. 

However in the Restored sampling area, the proportion of those colonies (≤ 40 mm) displayed 

further diminution from the 2005 level (from 76% to 55%) while the proportion in the 60, 80, 

and 100 mm classes experienced an almost perfectly reciprocal increase, going from 23% to 

40%. Thus, with the exception of the very smallest class (≤20 mm), where the restoration area 

still has a 3.5-fold advantage (20.2 v. 5.7%), the size frequency distribution in the two zones now 

almost mirror each other. Besides the smallest class, the only notable exception is in the very 

largest (≥120 mm) classes where—unsurprisingly—the Reference area remains more populous. 

Future monitoring could reveal whether the two sampling areas eventually totally converge in 

this regard. 

The inter-year comparisons among the Scleractinian and Gorgonian densities (Figure 23 and 

Figure 24) proved interesting. For the Scleractinians, very little difference in the Restored and 

Reference areas across years was apparent. There was some slight (though non-significant) 

decrease in density in 2007 as compared to either of the previous two years. The real story to be 

told is that, considering the respective zones across years, the Restored area maintained 

approximately a three-fold advantage in population over the Reference area. Does this provide 

any inference regarding that most oft-cited coral health metric, percent cover? It must be 

remembered that the individual colonies (at least of P. astreoides, and presumably of other 

31
species*

) were growing during this period (see above discussion re size-class frequency 

distribution). Thus while percent coral cover was not evaluated during these monitoring events, 

it is likely that it would have evidenced increase over the time period covered. 

The Gorgonians proved equally interesting. From 2004 to 2005 they suffered a precipitous 

decrease. As a first suspicion, one might suspect disease brought about by Aspergillosis sydowii

as the cause of the rapid Gorgonian decline. Aspergillosis is a fungal pathogen responsible for 

considerable Gorgonian decline in the Florida Keys. However, at least in this case, physical 

ablation appears a more probable cause. The passage of the three violent hurricanes in the near 

vicinity between the 2004 and 2005 monitoring events has already been noted. Further support 

for the proposition of a physically destructive causative factor is provided by the fact that colony 

densities experienced complete recovery to 2004 levels by the time of the 2007 monitoring 

event. Both before and after the population crash likely due to hurricanes, the Restored area 

Gorgonians evidenced a 2.5 to 3-fold population advantage over the Reference area, proving 

quite similar to the Scleractinians is this regard. 

Lastly, among the most interesting findings, the data may provide some evidence that broodingspawner coral larvae exhibit an active settlement preference for the limestone rock substrate, 

versus the concrete matrix in which the rock is embedded; see Figure 21, Figure 22, and the 

accompanying text. This finding is generally consistent with the work of Miller and Barimo 

(2001) regarding early settlement preference results (obtained 3 yrs post-settlement) conducted at 

this site. 

Nonetheless, it should be prominently noted that nothing can be said regarding the mechanism of 

the preference. Are the larvae drawn to the rock because of chemotaxis, due to some attractant 

emanating from the limestone, chemicals leaching out of the concrete, differences in pH, or 

simply because it presents more rugosity in its surface area, providing more cryptic settlement 

opportunities (Babcock and Mundy 1996)? Elevation may also play a role, as the rocks project 

surface area above the surrounding flat, horizontal concrete.

Most intriguing is the fact that the pattern seems to be exactly reversed for the broadcastingspawner Siderastrea. There would appear to be something about cement that the Genus really 

likes. Again, if any reader has any thoughts along these lines, contact and communication would 

be appreciated. This phenomenon is suggestive of future research possibilities. 

 

*

 An interesting, though far from statistically meaningful footnote: To evaluate the growth of a coral with a different 

life history strategy than P. astreoides, size-class frequency distributions were constructed for Siderastrea siderea, a 

framework-building, broadcasting coral. S. siderea also proved to be the second most abundant coral during each of 

the three years, and as a proportion of total Scleractinians, was consistent at about 9.5% of colonies. For two of the 

three years (2005 and 2007) absolute numbers of colonies were so low (18 and 19 respectively), as to make a 

frequency distribution less than robust, and it is for this reason that graphs of same are not depicted. Nonetheless, 

the story told by the coral’s progression through size classes is much the same as that of P. astreoides, though the 

size classes utilized for S. siderea were smaller (10, 20, 30, 40, & 50 mm). The smallest two size classes started out 

as 62% in 2004, but by 2007 had dropped to 37%, with the larger classes gaining reciprocally. Since the density of 

the colonies was almost exactly the same across years (at approx. 0.9 col./m2

) the species’ growth represents an 

absolute increase in its percentage benthic cover. 

32
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

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

www.adobe.com. 

Babcock, R. and C. Mundy. 1996. Coral recruitment: Consequences of settlement choice for 

early growth and survivorship in two scleractinians. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 

and Ecology 206 (1-2), pp. 179-201. 

Bodge, K. 1996. Engineering Summary Report: Structural Restoration of the M/V Alec Owen 

Maitland and M/V Elpis Vessel Grounding Sites: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 

Report prepared for: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment. 

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. (CSA). 1993. Coral Reef Structural Restoration Planning Field 

Survey Report for the M/V Alec Owen Maitland and M/V Elpis Grounding Sites in the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Report prepared for: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Edmunds, P. and R. Elahi. 2007. The demographics of a 15-year decline in cover of the 

Caribbean reef coral Montastraea annularis. Ecological Monographs. Volume 77, (1), pp. 3-18. 

Epstein, N., M. Vermeij, R. Bak, B. Rinkevich. 2005. Alleviating impacts of anthropogenic 

activities by traditional conservation measures: Can a small reef reserve be sustainedly 

managed? Biological Conservation 121 (2), pp. 243-255.

Gittings, S. 1991. Mitigtion & Recovery Enhancement at the Grounding site of the M/V Alec 

Owen Maitland, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary. 

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

Windows, version 5.00. www.graphpad.com. 

Langmead, O. and C. Sheppard. 2004. Coral reef community dynamics and disturbance: A 

simulation model. Ecological Modelling. Volume 175, (3), pp. 271-290. 

Lirman, D. 2000. Fragmentation in the branching coral Acropora palmata (Lamarck): Growth, 

survivorship, and reproduction of colonies and fragments. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology 251 (1), pp. 41-57. 

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. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), undated. Coral Reef Restoration 

Key Facts—M/V Alec Owen Maitland Grounding. 

33
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED (CONT.) 

NOAA, undated. Reef Restoration Action Project. Prepared by (then) Sanctuaries and Reserve 

Division (now the National Marine Sanctuary Program). 

Shannon, C.1948. A mathematical theory of communication". Bell System Technical Journal 27: 

379-423 and 623-656. 

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. 

34
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/). 

Automated, objective texture segmentation of multibeam echosounder data - Seafloor survey and substrate 

maps from James Island to Ozette Lake, Washington Outer Coast. (NMSP-07-05)

Observations of Deep Coral and Sponge Assemblages in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 

Washington (NMSP-07-04) 

A Bioregional Classification of the Continental Shelf of Northeastern North America for Conservation Analysis 

and Planning Based on Representation (NMSP-07-03) 

M/V WELLWOOD Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2006 Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-07-02) 

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)