Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-08-03

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

National Marine Sanctuary Program March 2008 

M/V ELPIS

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 ELPIS 

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 

March 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 Elpis aground at The Elbow Reef, Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary. Photo credit: John Halas NMSP/NOAA. 

Lower right: School of chub (Kyphosus spp.) swimming over limestone boulders 

covered with naturally-recruited coral colonies, photographed on June 30, 2005, at the 

M/V Elpis 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 Elpis

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2007. Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series NMSP-08-03. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 36 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 Elpis vessel grounding incident of 

November 11, 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. Restoration of the site was completed 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 in 2004 was in the nature of a 

“pilot project,” or proof of concept. Only the quantitative results of the 2005 and 2007 

monitoring are presented and discussed. Monitoring has consisted of assessment of the 

structural stability of limestone boulders used in the restoration and comparison of the 

coral communities on the boulders and reference areas. Corals are divided into 

Gorgonians, Milleporans, and Scleractinians. Coral densities at the Restored and 

Reference areas for the 2005 and 2007 events are compared, and it is shown that the 

densities of all taxa in the Restored area are greater by 2007, though not significantly so. 

For the Scleractinians, number and percentage of colonies by species, as well as several 

common biodiversity indices are provided. The greater biodiversity of the Restored area 

is evidenced. Also, size-class frequency distributions for Agaricia spp. (Scleractinia) are 

presented. These demonstrate the approaching convergence of the Restored and 

Reference areas in this regard. An inter-annual comparison of densities, within both 

areas, for all three Orders, is presented. The most noteworthy finding was the relative 

consistency across time for all taxa in each area. Finally, certain anomalies regarding 

species settlement patterns are presented. 

KEY WORDS 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, coral, grounding, restoration, limestone 

boulders, monitoring, Elpis, Elbow 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................................................................................................. v

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

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

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

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

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

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

Field Methods ................................................................................................. 10 

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

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

Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 11

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

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

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

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

Second Monitoring Event (June-July 2005) ....................................................... 14 

Structural Integrity .......................................................................................... 14 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 14 

Third Monitoring Event (July-September 2007) ................................................ 19 

Structural Integrity .......................................................................................... 19 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 19

Discussion............................................................................................................... 25

References and Literature Cited.............................................................................. 28

Appendix................................................................................................................. 29

ii 
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table Number and Title Page

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

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

Table 2. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2005 at 

the Elpis restoration site........................................................................ 17

Table 3. Common biodiversity indices of the 2005 Scleractinian colony 

population at the Elpis restoration site.................................................. 17

Table 4. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2007 at 

the Elpis restoration site........................................................................ 21

Table 5. Common biodiversity indices of the 2007 Scleractinian colony 

population at the Elpis restoration site.................................................. 21 

Figure Number and Title Page

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

aground at The Elbow Reef on November 11, 1989. ........................... 3

Figure 2. Diagram of the grounding site of the M/V Elpis, indicating the 

location of the grounded ship on the inbound path, and on its final 

resting site after pivoting and drifting off the inbound path. ................ 4

Figure 3. M/V Elpis aground at The Elbow Reef................................................. 5

Figure 4. Overturned Colpophyllia natans colony and berm/blowhole material 

resulting from the grounding and attempts to extricate the vessel........ 5

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of restoration area depicting how blowholes will 

be filled with boulders along with approximate location of Reference 

sampling areas....................................................................................... 7

Figure 6. Restoration of the blowhole craters – Divers installing quarried 

limestone boulders and the completed restoration................................ 8

Figure 7. Fauna living in and around Elpis restoration site.................................. 11

iii 
Figure Number and Title (cont.) Page

Figure 8. Restoration boulders showing biological condition 9 years after 

installation............................................................................................. 13

Figure 9. Restoration boulders showing biological condition 10 years after 

installation............................................................................................. 14

Figure 10. Representative benthic organisms surveyed on the Elpis restoration 

boulders................................................................................................. 15

Figure 11. Densities of all 3 groups of corals......................................................... 16

Figure 12. Species (by percentage) of Scleractinian colonies................................ 18

Figure 13. Size-class frequency distribution of Agaricia spp. in the Restored 

and Reference areas in 2005. ................................................................ 19

Figure 14. Densities of all 3 groups of corals......................................................... 20

Figure 15. Species (by percentage) of Scleractinian colonies................................ 22

Figure 16. Size-class frequency distribution of Agaricia spp. in the Restored 

and Reference areas in 2007. ................................................................ 23

Figure 17. Scatterplots of density of each of the three Orders, in all Restored 

areas, on each boulder sampled in 2005 and 2007................................ 23 

Figure 18. Scatterplots of density of each of the three Orders, in all Reference 

areas, on each boulder sampled in 2005 and 2007................................ 25 

iv 
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. Dwayne 

Meadows. All errors remain the authors’ own. 

v 
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 Elpis vessel grounding incident of November 11, 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 and to monitor 

their recovery. 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 Elpis site includes an assessment of the structural stability 

of installed limestone restoration boulders, and comparison of the recovery of coral populations, 

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, used as a “pilot project” to establish data collection methods, was 

delayed until August 2004. In June and July 2005, the second monitoring event took place, and 

in August 2007, the third. This report presents the quantitative results of the latter two 

monitoring events. An event timeline is presented in Table 1. 

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

Event Date 

Vessel Grounding November 11, 1989 

Vessel Removal November 12, 1989 

Injury Assessment: Initial November 12-December 12, 1989 

Injury Assessments: Follow-up April-June & November-December, 1990 

Pre-Construction Survey June-July 1993 

Restoration June-August, 1995 

First Monitoring Event August, 2004 

Second Monitoring Event June-July, 2005 

Third Monitoring Event August, 2007 

Fourth Monitoring Event Summer 2010 

1
Damage Assessment 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from: Gittings, S., 1991. Reef Coral 

Destruction at the M/V ELPIS Grounding Site, Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary.] 

On November 11, 1989 the M/V Elpis, a 143-meter loaded freighter, ran aground in a reef coral 

community about 0.4 km (0.25 nautical miles) northeast of the Elbow Reef Light, in 8.5-10 

meters of water (Figure 1). Additional injury occurred as result of attempts to “power-off” the 

reef. The grounding destroyed over 3,000 m2 of living corals and 878 m2 of coral reef 

framework. 

The ship was on a heading of 215° when it encountered the sea floor. It came to rest on this 

heading with the port side of the hull aground. Early the next morning, the ship pivoted 

approximately 230° counterclockwise and drifted slightly to the northwest, coming to rest on a 

heading of 345° (Figure 2 and Figure 3). On November 12, the ship was removed from the reef 

through a combination of towing by a single tug to pivot the M/V Elpis bow clockwise (seaward) 

and the ship’s own power. 

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

reef substrate and resident marine organisms. Approximately 94 percent of the coral colonies, 

and 93 percent of the total coral cover in the grounding area, as well as numerous sponges and 

sea fans at the site, were destroyed. Moreover, virtually all survivors showed evidence of injury 

caused by the grounding. The injuries ranged from superficial scraping of the reef surface, 

toppling and fracturing of large coral heads, severe cracking and excavating of the reef 

framework structure, and burial by resulting sediments and rubble. Attempts by the vessel to 

extricate itself caused “blowholes” (excavations caused by high-revving propellers) in the reef’s 

surface and the displaced material from these blowholes accumulated as berms (linear mounds) 

up to 1 m high and tens of meters long (Figure 4). 

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

November 11, 1989.

3
Figure 2. Diagram of the grounding site of the M/V Elpis, indicating the location of the grounded ship on the 

inbound path, and on its final resting site after pivoting and drifting off the inbound path. Shaded region indicated 

the areas of bottom potentially affected by the ship (Gittings 1991). 

4
Figure 3. M/V Elpis aground at The Elbow Reef. Notice stream of white sediment emerging from the stern of the 

vessel (photo credit: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary). 

Figure 4. Overturned Colpophyllia natans colony (left) and berm/blowhole material (right) resulting from the 

grounding and attempts to extricate the vessel (Photo credits: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary). 

Based on surveys from natural hard-bottom communities in the vicinity, the M/V Elpis 

grounding impacted a coral reef community dominated by soft corals and small hard corals. 

These groups totaled approximately 15 colonies/m2

 and percent cover averaged 10%. The most 

abundant soft corals were the genus Pseudopterogorgia, most being P. americana. Other 

common soft corals included Pterogorgia citrina, Briareum asbestinum, and Erythropodium

caribaeorum. 

The six most abundant hard corals in the nearby reference areas, from most to least abundant, 

included: Favia fragum, Agaricia spp., Dichocoenia stokesii, Porites spp., Siderastrea spp. and 

Montastraea annularis complex. Nearly all hard corals were small, as reflected by their percent 

cover of less than 2%. 

5
Fire corals, represented by the genus Millepora, mostly M. alcicornis, accounted for roughly 

10% of all coral cover and 18% of all coral colonies in the nearby reference areas. Again, the 

low relative percent cover reflects the colonies’ small average size. 

Although abundant in certain zones on other Florida Keys’ reefs, neither upright sponges nor 

colonial anemones (Palythoa spp.) appeared to contribute significantly to the benthic assemblage 

at the M/V Elpis grounding site. 

A settlement between NOAA and the responsible parties was agreed to in July 1991. The 

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

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

Coral Reef Restoration 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from: 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: NOAA/Office 

of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment.] 

The goal of the M/V Elpis restoration project was to re-create a stable foundation that closely 

emulated the adjacent natural seabed to foster recruitment of coral colonies. Because of the size, 

irregular shape, and contour of the blowholes, as well as the depth of the restoration site, the use 

of boulders was selected as the restoration method (Bodge and Creed 1993) compared to the use 

of prefabricated concrete armor units at the much shallower M/V Alec Owen Maitland site. (see 

the Maitland restoration project web site for more information: 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/southeast/maitland/index.html). Rubble (primarily Acropora 

cervicornis rubble) and small rocks from the nearby berms were used to fill the blowholes to the 

specified level. Natural coral rocks larger than 2 ft. diameter present in these berms were set 

aside for later use. Quarried marine limestone boulders averaging 4.25 ft. diameter (Bodge 

1994) were individually placed on the fill, and the large natural coral rocks were intermixed 

(Figure 5). All boulders were placed such that they were in contact with each other; interlocking 

to form a compact mass. Oolitic carbonate sand imported from the Bahamas was placed from a 

barge to fill the interstitial spaces of the reef rubble and boulders within the filled blowholes. 

6
Reference areas 

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of restoration area depicting how blowholes will be filled with boulders along with 

approximate location of Reference sampling areas. 

7
Figure 6. Restoration of the blowhole craters – Divers installing quarried limestone boulders (top row) and the 

completed restoration (bottom row) (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. 

For a grounding site such as the M/V Elpis, 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 whether and when 

the site can be considered restored. The monitoring program for the M/V Elpis site is evaluating 

the structural stability of restored habitat and coral population parameters of the restoration site. 

8
The structural integrity of the restoration site was evaluated with the following questions: 

Is the attachment of the reef restoration boulders to the substrate stable? 

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

question: 

Is there a difference in coral colony densities, biodiversity, and other population 

parameters between the Restored area and the Reference areas? 

The monitoring program was also designed to detect significant changes in coral colonies on the 

reef restoration boulders, versus the Reference areas, as a result of external events, such as major 

storms. 

METHODOLOGY 

MONITORING EVENTS

The first monitoring survey was conducted on August 16, 19, & 24, 2004. This first survey was 

used as a “pilot project” for data collection methods at the site. On June 30, and July 1, & 6, 

2005, the Elpis restoration site was again monitored, and on August 3, 9, & 14, 2007, the site 

was monitored for the third time. Monitoring was conducted using SCUBA from a small vessel 

(6.4 m). Prior to 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 consisted of 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 

unknown, since definitive monitoring was not done in 2004. 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 likewise unknown. However, no visually or tactilely 

perceptible damage was observed at the restoration site, after either the 2004 or 2005 storms. 

9
Field Methods 

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

restoration. To determine the biological condition of the site, in situ observations were recorded; 

digital images and digital videos were also taken. The “Reference” area was adjacent to the 

restoration site (Figure 5). In both 2005 and 2007, within the “Restored” area, 12 haphazardly 

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

Classifications section (following). In both years, a similar number of haphazardly selected 

“boulders” were examined in the immediately adjacent, but unimpacted, Reference area. These 

boulders actually consisted of natural reef outcroppings, selected on the basis of similarity in size 

and shape to the restoration boulders, as estimated according to the “pilot project” conducted at 

this site in 2004. 

Oblique digital photographs were taken of each boulder in the restored area, 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 

The majority of the benthos visible was comprised of three Orders of the Phylum Cnidaria, 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 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. 

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

site, including those pictured in Figure 7. The habitat value of the restoration boulders for vagile 

fauna was likely enhanced by the colonization of sessile fauna. 

10
Figure 7. Fauna living in and around Elpis restoration site. Top row: chub (Kyphosus spp.) (left), neon gobies (Gobiosoma

oceanops) on Montastraea faveolata (right). Bottom row: French grunt (Haemulon flavolineatum), bluestriped grunt 

(Haemulon sciurus), and porkfish (Anisotremus virginicus) (left), Christmas tree worm (Spirobranchus giganteus) (right) 

(photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

Data Analysis 

Again, using the 2004 pilot project as a guide, it was determined that the best method to convert 

the boulders into a unit of standard measure (m2 surface area) was the model that follows. It was 

11
determined that the surface area of the boulder shapes was most closely approximated by 

considering each as if it was an ellipsoidal right cylinder, standing on end. Measures of the 

lengths of the major and minor axis, and the height of each, were obtained and used (after 

subtracting for the bottom “face” of the cylinder, resting on the substrate) to calculate surface 

area, according to the formula: 2π*(a+b)/4*h + π*a/2*b/2; where a, b, & h, are the lengths of 

the major and minor axes and height, respectively. (Actually this is not a perfectly correct 

formula for the surface area; however, it tremendously simplifies computational effort, yields a 

result always within ≈ 2% of the true figure, that of the frustum of an oblique cylinder, and the 

skew is always in the same direction.) Doing so yielded similar surface areas; after randomly 

eliminating one boulder from the 2005 reference area, total surface areas for both sites, over both 

years, varied only between 51 and 52.5 m2

, with the restoration area being ≈ 0.75 to 1 m2 less in 

each year. 

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 2005 density analyses, for the Gorgonian and Scleractinian populations a square root 

transformation was performed to meet Gaussian distribution requirements, permitting two-tailed 

t test comparisons (For all data, whenever transformation was deemed necessary [as per 

Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality testing] since the underlying data arose from enumerative 

counts evidencing Poisson distributions, it proceeded by way of square root transformations.). 

For the Milleporans, no transformation was required, but the t test was conducted by way of 

Welch’s correction, to account for the heteroscedasticity of the data set. 

For the 2007 analyses, for the Scleractinians, the data could not be rendered Gaussian by 

transformation; thus the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used. The Gorgonian corals 

evidenced a normal distribution with no need for transformation or correction. The Milleporan 

data was transformed, there was homogeneity of variance, and the t test was performed without 

need for correction. 

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

Additionally, size-class frequency distributions are shown for the only coral taxa present in 

sufficient numbers to allow a meaningful classification (Agaricia spp.). 

Finally, some inter-annual comparisons between 2005 and 2007 are made for densities of all 

Orders, in both areas. In the restored areas, for the Scleractinians, the data could not be 

normalized, and the comparison proceeded by a Mann-Whitney U test. For the Gorgonians, a t

test was conducted with no transformation or correction. For the Milleporans, transformation 

was required, but no correction. 

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 restoration boulders were found to be visually and tactilely sound. The boulders 

were found in place with a stable attachment to the substrate. 

Biological Condition 

The biological recovery of the restoration site was progressing. Macroalgae, crustose coralline 

algae, soft, and hard corals were all recruiting to the restoration boulders. For a more 

comprehensive set of boulder photographs tracking their biological condition over time, please 

see the APPENDIX. No quantitative results from this pilot project monitoring survey are 

presented. 

Figure 8. Restoration boulders showing biological condition 9 years after installation 

(photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

13
SECOND MONITORING EVENT (JUNE-JULY 2005) 

Structural Integrity 

The 2005 monitoring occurred 10 years after the restoration, at which time the stability and 

surface of all restoration boulders were found to be visually and tactilely sound. Despite the 

close passage of three hurricanes between the 2004 pilot survey and 2005 monitoring event (see 

METHODOLOGY); the boulders were found in place with a stable attachment to the substrate. 

Biological Condition 

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

coralline algae, soft, and hard corals were all recruiting to the restoration boulders (Figure 9 and 

Figure 10). For a more comprehensive set of boulder photographs tracking their biological 

condition over time, please see the APPENDIX. For the three Orders surveyed in 2005, the data 

yielded the densities shown in Figure 11. 

Figure 9. Representative restoration boulders showing biological condition 10 years after installation 

(photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

14
Figure 10. Representative benthic organisms surveyed on the Elpis restoration boulders. Starting from top left: 

Agaricia sp., Montastraea cavernosa, Psuedopterogorgia spp., Diploria labyrinthiformis, Porites porites, Millepora 

alcicornis (photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 

15
2005 Scleractinia Density

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 276

Reference Area n = 185

2005 Gorgonacea Density

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 95

Reference Area n = 129

2005 Millepora Density

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 33

Reference Area n = 42

Figure 11. Densities of all 3 groups of corals (Note differing 

scale used for Milleporans). Error bars = +/- Standard Error; No 

significant differences noted for any taxa.

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

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

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

16
Table 2. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2005 at the Elpis restoration site. 

Species Restored area Reference area 

Agaricia spp. 55 59 

Colpophylia natans 0 1 

Dichocoenia stokesii 10 1 

Diploria labyrinthiformis 2 0 

Diploria spp. 3 3 

Eusimilia fastigiata 0 1 

Favia fragum 11 0 

Madracis spp. 0 32 

Meandrina meandrites 1 0 

Montastraea annularis 1 0 

Montastraea cavernosa 17 5 

Montastraea faveolata 0 26 

Mycetophyllia spp. 0 1 

Porites astreoides 49 18 

Porites porites 36 27 

Siderastrea radians 21 0 

Siderastrea siderea 60 9 

Solenastrea bournoni 2 0 

Stephanocoenia intersepta 2 2 

Unknown 6 0 

Total 276 185 

Table 3. Common biodiversity indices of the 2005 Scleractinian colony population at the Elpis restoration site. 

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

Species Richness: S = # 15 13 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.149 0.186 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 2.122 1.925 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.784 0.750 

Information regarding the relative proportions of Scleractinians present in both the Restored and 

Reference areas is additionally presented in Figure 12. 

17
2005 Scleractinians in Restored Area

n = 276 

Agar

20%

Dsto

4%

Dspp

1%

Ffra

4%

Mcav

6%

Past

18%

Ppor

13%

Srad

8%

Ssid

21%

Misc

5%

2005 Scleractinians in Reference Area

n = 185

Agar

31%

Dspp

2%

Mads

Mcav 17%

3%

Mfav

14%

Past

10%

Ppor

15%

Ssid

5%

Misc

3%

Figure 12. Species (by percentage) of 

Scleractinian colonies. 

Abbreviations: 

Agar = Agaricia spp.; 

Dsto = Dichocoenia stokesii; 

Dspp = Diploria spp.; 

Ffra = Favia fragum; 

Mads = Madracis spp; 

Mcav = Montastraea cavernosa; 

Mfav = Montastraea faveolata; 

Past = Porites astreoides; 

Ppor = Porites porites; 

Srad = Siderastrea radians; 

Ssid = Siderastrea siderea; 

Misc = Unknown, Unidentified, and any species 

with fewer than three colonies, lumped together. 

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

numbers to make such calculations meaningful, that being Agaricia spp. The graphs depicting 

the distribution are shown in Figure 13. 

18
2005 Agaricia spp. Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 55

2005 Agaricia spp. Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Maximum Colony Diameter (mm)

Relative Frequency

n = 59

Figure 13. Size-class frequency distribution of Agaricia spp. in the Restored and Reference areas in 2005. 

THIRD MONITORING EVENT (JULY-SEPTEMBER 2007) 

Structural Integrity 

Despite the near passage of four hurricanes during the 2005 storm season (see 

METHODOLOGY), the stability and surface of all reef restoration boulders were again found to 

be visually and tactilely sound. 

Biological Condition 

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

coralline algae, soft, and hard corals were all still present on the restoration boulders. For a more 

comprehensive set of boulder photographs tracking their biological condition over time, please 

see the APPENDIX. For the three Orders surveyed in 2007, the data yielded the densities shown 

in Figure 14. 

19
2007 Scleractinia Density

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 215

Reference Area n = 171

2007 Gorgonacea Density

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 172

Reference Area n = 153

2007 Millepora Density

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Restored Area Reference Area

Colonies / sq. m.

Restored Area n = 82

Reference Area n = 47

Figure 14. Densities of all 3 groups of corals (Note differing scale 

used for Milleporans). Error bars = +/- Standard Error; No 

significant differences noted for any taxa.

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

only to Genus level) was gathered for Scleractinians. Those data are presented in Table 4, 

immediately followed by Table 5 which gives several biodiversity index calculations 

20
Table 4. Number of Scleractinian colonies, by species, surveyed in 2007 at the Elpis restoration site. 

Species Restored area Reference area 

Agaricia spp. 40 83 

Diploria spp. 2 3 

Dichocoenia stokesii 8 0 

Favia fragum 27 1 

Madracis spp. 0 34 

Montastraea annularis 1 0 

Montastraea cavernosa 5 2 

Mussa angulosa 0 1 

Porites astreoides 46 22 

Porites porites 36 19 

Siderastrea radians 9 0 

Siderastrea siderea 35 5 

Solenastrea bournoni 1 0 

Stephanocoenia intersepta 3 1 

Unknown 2 0 

Total 215 171 

Table 5. Common biodiversity indices of the 2007 Scleractinian colony population at the Elpis restoration site. 

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

Species Richness: S = # 13 10 

Simpson’s index: D = Σ(Pi

2

) 0.155 0.305 

Shannon-Weiner: H = - Σ(Pilog[Pi]) 2.038 1.495 

Evenness: E = H/log(S) 0.794 0.650 

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

presented in Figure 15. 

21
2007 Scleractinians in Restored Area

n = 215 

Agar

19%

Dsto

4%

Ffra

13%

Mcav

2%

Past

21%

Ppor

17%

Sint

1%

Srad

4%

Ssid

16%

Misc

3%

2007 Scleractinians in Reference Area

n = 171 

Agar

48%

Dspp

2%

Mads

20%

Past

13%

Ppor

11%

Ssid

2%

Misc

4%

Figure 15. Species (by percentage) of 

Scleractinian colonies. 

Abbreviations: 

Agar = Agaricia spp.; 

Dsto = Dichocoenia stokesii; 

Dspp = Diploria spp.; 

Ffra = Favia fragum; 

Mads = Madracis spp; 

Mcav = Montastraea cavernosa; 

Past = Porites astreoides; 

Ppor = Porites porites; 

Sint = Stephanocoenia intersepta; 

Srad = Siderastrea radians; 

Ssid = Siderastrea siderea; 

Misc = Unknown, Unidentified, and any species 

with fewer than three colonies, lumped together. 

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, again Agaricia spp. 

The graphs depicting the distribution are shown in Figure 16. 

22
2007 Agaricia spp. Size-Class Distribution

in Restored Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Relative Frequency

n = 40

2007 Agaricia spp. Size-Class Distribution

in Reference Area

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

Relative Frequency

n = 83

Figure 16. Size-class frequency distribution of Agaricia spp. in the Restored and Reference areas in 2007. 

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

Scatterplots of the densities follow. 

RES Scleratinian density 05 & 07

05 07

0

5

10

15

colonies / sq. m

RES Gorgonian density 05 & 07

05 07

0

2

4

6

8

colonies / sq. m

RES Milleporan density 05 & 07

05 07

0

2

4

6

colonies / sq. m

Figure 17. Scatterplots of density 

of each of the three Orders, in all 

Restored areas, on each boulder 

sampled in 2005 and 2007. The 

longest horizontal bar in each 

year’s group represents the mean; 

the shorter bars above and below 

represent ± SE. 

23
For the Restored area Scleractinians, densities were similar for 2005 and 2007. While they 

appeared to slightly decrease in 2007, no significant difference was detected. 

For the Gorgonians, mean densities were similar for 2005 and 2007 with, however, several 

suspected outliers in each data set. While densities appeared to increase in 2007, no significant 

difference was noted, regardless of whether or not the outlier data points are included in the 

analysis. 

For the Milleporans, densities showed an increase from 2005 to 2007. The difference was 

significant (p = 0.0155). 

Finally, plots for the Reference areas, for all taxa, for both years, are presented below. No 

significant difference for any taxa was noted. 

 REF Scleratinian density 05 & 07

0507

0

5

10

15

colonies / sq. m

 REF Gorgonian density 05 & 07

0507

0

5

10

15

colonies / sq. m

 REF Milleporan density 05 & 07

0507

0

1

2

3

4

colonies / sq. m

Figure 18. Scatterplots of density 

of each of the three Orders, in all 

Reference areas, on each boulder 

sampled in 2005 and 2007. The 

longest horizontal bar in each 

year’s group represents the mean; 

the shorter bars above and below 

represent ± SE. 

24
DISCUSSION 

The results of the 2005 and 2007 Elpis restoration monitoring surveys indicate a gradual but 

definitive recovery of a coral community in the Restored area. However, several points should 

be kept in mind while reviewing results, primarily the duration and 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 Elpis restoration at this stage. 

However, the presence of numerous coral recruits 10 years after installation provides a good 

indication that the structural stability offered by the restoration boulders are already providing 

suitable substrate and environment for the ongoing development of 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, recruitment, biodiversity, and size 

distribution. 

For the 2005 density data (Figure 11) the Restored area Scleractinians seemed to be recruiting 

well, with total colony numbers being 6.2 col./m2

, vs. 4.1 col./m2 in the Reference area. 

Gorgonians and Milleporans appeared to fare a bit more poorly. The densities of the former in 

the Restoration and Reference areas respectively, was 2.0 and 3.1 col./m2

; while for the latter 

they were 0.7 vs. 1.1 col./m2

. However, in none of the three Orders did the differences prove 

significant. 

Table 2 and Table 3 show a greater species richness, biodiversity, and number of colonies of 

Scleractinians in the Restored area, and proportions are depicted graphically in Figure 12. The 

discrepancies noted in biodiversity values are not great. The only distinction that proved quite 

large (in terms of absolute numbers) was for the Genus Siderastrea, with 81 colonies in the 

Restored area and only 9 in the Reference. This may have important implications that bode well 

for the restoration, since the species is one of the few large, framework-builder, broadcasting 

species to recruit in substantial numbers in the Restored area. An even more dramatic 

difference—in percentage terms—was presented by the Genus Madracis; while the Restored 

area contained none (0), the Reference area held 32 colonies. 

The size-class frequency distribution of Agaricia spp. shown in Figure 13 gives rise to some 

interesting observations. The figure reveals that, at least for this Genus, the distribution in the 

Restored area is converging with that demonstrated by the Reference area, as one might expect 

10 years after a restoration. The 30-40 mm size class in each comprised about one third of both 

populations, though the larger (60 mm and above) colonies still had a considerable lead in the 

Reference area, where they made up 27% of the population, versus 9% in the Restored area. 

This is not surprising, the growth rate of Agaricia spp. being moderately slow at about 10 mm/yr. 

in diameter linear extension (Box and Mumby 2007). 

Looking at the 2007 data, the Restored area appeared to be faring better in all three Order 

categories, although again, the differences weren’t significant (Figure 14). For Scleractinians, 

the Restoration area contained 4.4 col./m2

, while the Reference area held 3.2 col./m2. The 

25
density of Gorgonians was nearly identical, at 3.3 and 3.0 col./m2

. For Milleporans, the 

respective figures are 1.7 vs. 1.0 col./m2

. 

Table 4 and Table 5 reveal that the restored area is “widening its lead” in the species richness 

and biodiversity arena. The taxa noted above continued to display the same general preference 

pattern. This time Siderastrea had 44 colonies in the Restored area versus 5 in the Reference, 

while—practically identically with the 2005 data—Madracis showed 0 in the Restored area and 

34 in the Reference. These apparent differences in site preferences by Genus are unexplained. It 

should be remembered that the settlement surfaces are similar, both in terms of material and 

configuration. Both are composed of limestone “rock” outcroppings; the Restoration area 

boulders are relict reef quarried in the Keys—having undergone no treatment—while of course 

the Reference area is extant reef. Similarly, they are of the same approximate shape, size, and 

topographic complexity. Nor can what is commonly referred to as a necessary period of 

underwater “conditioning” have been a factor; by the time of these monitoring events in 2005 

and 2007, the restoration boulders had been down 10 and 12 years respectively. Perhaps the 

reason had to do with taxa successional processes, though this explanation is speculative. It 

seems unlikely that Siderastrea would be replaced by Madracis in any event (Lang et al. 1992). 

(Should any reader have thoughts on the differential recruitment preferences by Genus, contact 

with the corresponding author would be appreciated.) 

Equally noteworthy is the overall species mix. At the 2007 monitoring event Agaricia spp. made 

up almost half the total colonies in the Reference area (Figure 15). Obviously then, biodiversity 

and evenness in the area dropped considerably (Table 5). 

The Agaricid size-class frequency distribution for 2007 (Figure 16) was rendered somewhat less 

robust, in that in this year there were only 40 colonies in the Restored area to be classified. 

Nevertheless, the pattern noted above can generally be said to have continued. In fact, for the 

larger size categories (≥ 60 mm) the gap appeared to have closed somewhat; the Reference area 

was composed of 22% of colonies in these classes, the Restored area 15%. 

The inter-year density comparisons among the Orders in the Restored area proved interesting. 

Between 2005 and 2007, for Scleractinians there was a decrease, for Gorgonians an increase, 

though neither difference was found to be significant (this despite the fact that Gorgonian density 

rose 65% over the period, from 2.0 to 3.3 col./m2

; the p value of the analysis was 0.0962). The 

only taxa to show a significant increase was the Milleporans which moved up from 0.7 to 1.7 

col./m2 (Figure 17). 

Finally, the Reference area inter-year comparisons likewise proved interesting, but in a different 

fashion. The most noteworthy observation about the colony densities, across all Orders, is their 

remarkable consistency (Figure 18). 

Overall, the Elpis restoration appeared to be relatively healthy, and doing well in comparison to 

adjacent reference areas. Despite a few unexplainable (or at least presently unexplained) 

anomalies referred to above, it is anticipated that, broadly speaking, general convergence to the 

reference conditions will continue. The next monitoring event is currently scheduled for 

26
Summer 2010, and a follow-up report comparing data obtained in that year with the above will 

be prepared. 

27
REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

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

www.adobe.com. 

Bodge, K. and C. Creed, 1993. Conceptual Engineering Alternatives for Structural Restoration of 

the Maitland and Elpis Grounding Sites: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Report 

prepared for: Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment. 

Bodge, K. 1994. Reef Restoration of the M/V Alec Owen Maitland and M/V Elpis Vessel 

Grounding Sites: Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary. Technical Specifications prepared for: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

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. 

Box, S.J. and P.J. Mumby. 2007. Effect of macroalgal competition on growth and survival of 

juvenile Caribbean corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 342: 139-149. 

Gittings, S. 1991. Reef Coral Destruction at the M/V ELPIS Grounding Site, 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. 

Lang, J.C., H.R. Lasker, E.H. Gladfelter, P. Hallock, W.C. Jaap, F.J. Losada, and R.G. Muller. 

1992. Spatial and Temporal Variability During Periods of Recovery after Mass Bleaching on 

Atlantic Coral Reefs. American Zoologist. 32:696-706. 

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. 

28
29

APPENDIX 

Comparative photographs of restoration boulders at the M/V Elpis grounding site from July 1997 

(photo credits: Harold Hudson NMSP/NOAA.), August 2004, June 2005, and August 2007 

(photo credits: Jeff Anderson NMSP/NOAA). 
30

July 1997 August 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
31

July 1997 August 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
32

July 1997 August 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
33

July 1997 August 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
34

August 1997 July 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
35

July 1997 August 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
36

July 1997 August 2004 June 2005 August 2007 
This page intentionally blank. 

37
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/). 

CONNECTIVITY Science, People and Policy in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (NMSP-08-02)

M/V ALEC OWEN MAITLAND Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report Monitoring Events 2004-2007 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida (NMSP-08-01) 

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)