Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series NMSP-06-10

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Ocean Service 

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

M/V CONNECTED

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report 

Monitoring Events 2004-2005 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Monroe County, Florida

National Marine Sanctuary Program December 2006 
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 CONNECTED 

Coral Reef Restoration Monitoring Report 

Monitoring Events 2004-2005 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Monroe County, Florida 

Joe Schittone 

Erik C. Franklin 

J. Harold Hudson 

Jeff Anderson 

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 

December 2006 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: Acropora palmata colony on Western Sambo Reef near the M/V Connected

restoration site, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Photo credit: Jeff Anderson. 

Lower right: Reef crown (#86), photographed on July 12, 2004, from the M/V 

Connected restoration site, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Photo credit: Jeff 

Anderson. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

Schittone, J., Franklin, E.C., Hudson, J.H., Anderson, J. 2006. M/V Connected Coral 

Reef Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-2005. Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary Monroe County, Florida. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series NMSP-06-10. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 25 pp. 

CONTACT 

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

This document presents the results of the monitoring of a repaired coral reef injured by 

the M/V Connected vessel grounding incident of March 27, 2001. This grounding 

occurred in Florida state waters within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). 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 

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. 

The monitoring program at the Connected site was to have included an assessment of the 

structural stability of installed restoration modules and biological condition of reattached 

corals performed on the following schedule: immediately (i.e., baseline), 1, 3, and 6 years 

after restoration and following a catastrophic event. Restoration of this site was 

completed on July 20, 2001. Due to unavoidable delays in the settlement of the case, the 

“baseline” monitoring event for this site occurred in July 2004. The catastrophic 

monitoring event occurred on August 31, 2004, some 2 1⁄2 weeks after the passage of 

Hurricane Charley which passed nearby, almost directly over the Dry Tortugas. In 

September 2005, the year one monitoring event occurred shortly after the passage of 

Hurricane Katrina, some 70 km to the NW. This report presents the results of all three 

monitoring events. 

KEY WORDS 

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

Hurricane Charley, Hurricane Katrina, Acropora palmata 

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Topic Page

Abstract and Key Words......................................................................................... i

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

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

Acknowledgements................................................................................................. v

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

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

Coral Reef Restoration.................................................................................... 3 

Restoration Monitoring................................................................................... 7

Methodology........................................................................................................... 8 

Baseline Monitoring Event (July 2004).............................................................. 8 

Field Methods ................................................................................................. 8 

Photo Analysis ................................................................................................ 9 

Data Analysis.................................................................................................. 9 

Post-Catastrophic Monitoring Event (August 2004) .......................................... 9 

Year One Monitoring Event (September 2005).................................................. 9

Results..................................................................................................................... 10 

Baseline Monitoring Event (July 2004).............................................................. 10 

Structural Integrity.......................................................................................... 10 

Biological Condition....................................................................................... 10 

Post-Catastrophic Monitoring Event (August 2004) .......................................... 12 

Structural Integrity.......................................................................................... 12 

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

Year One Monitoring Event (September 2005).................................................. 13 

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

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

Summary................................................................................................................. 16

Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 17

Appendix................................................................................................................. 18

ii 
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

Table Number and Title Page

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

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

Table 2. Reductions in coral cover between the 2004 catastrophic and 2005 

monitoring events.................................................................................. 15 

Figure Number and Title Page

Figure 1. Approximate location (shown on NOAA Chart 11442) that the M/V 

Connected ran aground on the reef crest of Western Sambo Reef. ...... 2

Figure 2. Elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata, damaged by the M/V Connected 

grounding at Western Sambo Reef. ...................................................... 3

Figure 3. The M/V Connected grounding site at Western Sambo Reef with the 

area damaged from the vessel’s inbound path and final resting place 

outlined in red. ...................................................................................... 4

Figure 4. Diagram of reef crown restoration modules installed at the Connected

grounding site (inset from Figure 3). .................................................... 5

Figure 5. Cross-section and plan views of “Reef Crowns,” as designed, and 

artist’s conception of an installed crown. ............................................. 6

Figure 6. A “king crown” restoration module installed on seafloor prior to 

addition of coral fragments to center of the module............................. 7

Figure 7. 2004 — mean (±SE) coral cover (%) among the restored (reef crown) 

area, the damaged unrestored area, and the reference area of the 

Connected grounding site. .................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Trend in mean (±SE) coral cover (%) of the reef crowns of the 

Connected grounding site from 2001 to 2004....................................... 12

Figure 9. Broken branches on Acropora palmata colonies on reef crown #86 

(left) and #87 (right).............................................................................. 13

iii 
Figure Number and Title (cont.) Page

Figure 10. Reef crown (#84) uprooted and overturned by storm-generated 

waves..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 11. Trends in mean (±SE) coral cover (%) of the reef crowns, reference 

sites, and unrestored areas from 2004 to 2005...................................... 15 

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. 

v 
INTRODUCTION 

This document presents the results of the monitoring of a repaired coral reef injured by the M/V 

Connected vessel grounding incident of March 27, 2001. This grounding occurred in Florida 

state waters within the boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). 

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 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 Connected site included an assessment of the structural stability 

of installed restoration modules and biological condition of reattached corals, which was to have 

been performed on the following schedule: immediately (i.e., baseline), 1, 3, and 6 years after 

restoration and following a catastrophic event (Table 1). Restoration of this site was completed 

on July 20, 2001. Due to unavoidable delays in the settlement of the case, the “baseline” 

monitoring event for this site occurred on July 12-13, 2004. Hurricane Charley (August 2004), 

which passed almost directly over the Dry Tortugas, triggered the post-catastrophic monitoring 

event, which occurred on August 31, 2004. In 2005, Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina, the later of 

which passed the site about 70 km to the NW, transpired before a monitoring effort at the site 

could be mounted. However, the site was visited shortly after the passage of Hurricane Katrina, 

with the monitoring event occurring in mid-September 2005. 

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

monitoring.

Event Date 

Vessel Grounding March 27, 2001 

Assessment: Initial March 27, 2001 

Assessment: Aerial photography April 5, 2001 

Assessment: Number of coral fragments counted April 25, 2001 

Restoration June 20-July 20, 2001 

Baseline Monitoring July 12-13, 2004 

Post-catastrophic Monitoring August 31, 2004 

Year One Monitoring September 13,2005 

Year Three Monitoring Summer 2007 

Year Six Monitoring Summer 2010 

1
Damage Assessment 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from the Discussion section of the Connected

Vessel Grounding Assessment prepared by Lauri J. MacLaughlin and William B. Goodwin] 

The Connected, a 59.9-foot motor vessel, struck and damaged the shallow reef crest at Western 

Sambo reef, located south of Boca Chica Key on March 27, 2001 (Figure 1). The predominant 

coral species observed among the injured area was the elkhorn coral Acropora palmata

(Lamarck, 1816; Figure 2). Other coral species present included mustard hill coral (Porites 

astreoides), lettuce coral (Agaricia agaricites), fire coral (Millepora complanata), golfball coral 

(Favia fragum) and starlet coral (Siderastrea siderea). Other living components of the injured 

area included crustaceans, macroalgae, sponges, echinoderms, mollusks, octocorals and fish. 

M/V Connected grounding site

Figure 1. Approximate location (shown on NOAA Chart 11442) that the M/V Connected ran 

aground on the reef crest of Western Sambo Reef on March 27, 2001.

The most prominent feature of the injury site consisted of a wide grounding track plowed 

through an elkhorn coral stand (Figure 2). The width of the injury swath varied between 3-7 m 

along the inbound path and widened at the final resting place to 9 m (Figure 3). The latitude and 

longitude of the beginning of the inbound track were recorded as 24o 28.811’ N and 

81o 43.105’ W and the end of the inbound track as 24o 28.822’ N and 81o 43.091’ W (datum 

GRS80). During removal, the vessel was pivoted and extracted to the south (Figure 3). The area 

of damaged reef framework and live coral colonies from the inbound path and resting place was 

189.58 m2

. In addition, small intermittent areas of injury were documented in front of the 

2
inbound path (4.02 m2

), near the bow resting place (0.64 m2), and adjacent to the pivot point 

(8.24 m2

). The total length of injury was 81.2 m and the total area of injury was 202.48 m2 of 

reef framework and corals, predominately the elkhorn coral Acropora palmata. 

Figure 2. Elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata, the predominant coral species of the shallow reef 

crest habitat, damaged by the M/V Connected grounding at Western Sambo Reef (photo credit: 

Bill Goodwin, FKNMS). 

Coral Reef Restoration 

[Note: The information in this section was adapted from the M/V Connected Grounding Site 

Habitat Restoration at Western Sambo Reef in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

prepared by Marine Resources Inc.] 

The objectives of the M/V Connected site restoration were to 1) provide lost habitat structure, 2) 

salvage and reattach displaced coral fragments, and 3) stabilize reef substrate along the impact 

track. To accomplish these objectives, three hundred seventy coral fragments were reattached 

within and to the exterior of twenty “reef crown” restoration modules (numbered 80-99) installed 

along the vessel’s track and resting place (Figure 4). The fragments were irregularly shaped and 

ranged between 20-100 cm along their longest axis. 

3
Figure 3. The M/V Connected grounding site at Western Sambo Reef with the area damaged 

from the vessel’s inbound path and final resting place outlined in red. The aerial photograph was 

taken on April 5, 2001. 

4
Figure 4. Diagram of reef crown restoration modules (white circles) installed at the Connected

grounding site (inset from Figure 3). Large circles are “king crowns” and small circles are 

“queen crowns.” 

To meet the restoration objectives of the site, “reef crowns” (Figure 5) were proposed to anchor a 

group of damaged reef fragments and elevate them off of the seafloor. The reef crowns would 

stabilize the disturbed reef substrate and salvaged coral tissue and enhance the physical relief of 

the damaged area. The cylindrical structures were created with Portland type II cement, sand, 

limestone rock aggregate, topped by limestone rocks, and anchored to the substrate with iron 

reinforcing rods. Short-length (15cm) fiberglass reinforcing rods were used to ensure structural 

integrity of cement layers with modules. Two sizes of reef crowns were installed; fifteen 

modules were 1.2 m (outer) diameter rings (“king crowns”) and five modules were 0.9 m (outer) 

diameter rings (“queen crowns”). Coral fragments were stabilized within the center of the 

modules with a layer of Portland cement-based grout (Figure 6). 

Project oversight was provided by Harold Hudson, FKNMS, with the restoration performed by 

Marine Resources, Inc. (MRI). Field operations by MRI during the habitat restoration were 

conducted using a 9-m (30-ft) MAKO® vessel with sufficient deck space to allow transport of 

reef replacement modules and to accommodate SCUBA and construction equipment. A 5-m 

(16-ft) Carolina Skiff® with minimal draft was used during specialized vessel operations along 

the impact track. On-board navigation during transit to and from the project site was achieved 

using a Furuno® differential global positioning system (DGPS).

Locations of reef crowns along the impact track were selected by Harold Hudson, FKNMS, prior 

to their placement. Reef crowns were deployed along the impact track using lift bags and/or a 

specialized flotation platform. Reef crowns deployed using lift bags were transported by vessel 

to an area directly west of the impact track and launched overboard onto the sand/rubble bottom 

substrate. They were subsequently moved underwater to the pre-selected location utilizing the 

equivalent of a 300-lb lift bag and a bridle array. Other reef crowns were launched overboard 

while securely attached to the flotation platform and subsequently deployed from the flotation 

platform directly onto the pre-selected location. Reef crowns were placed on patches of firmly 

consolidated reef substrate along the impact track that were relatively devoid of attached reef 

5
biota. Most sand and loose debris within the inside opening of the reef crown was removed and 

small voids between the hard substrate and the module were filled with reef substrate fragments 

prior to coral reattachment. Fiberglass (5/8-inch) and/or metal rebar (3⁄4-inch) was placed into the 

substrate within the opening of the reef crowns prior to coral reattachment to provide sheer 

strength and matrix reinforcement. Following reef crown placement and preparation, a grout 

mixture of approximately 1 part Portland type II cement to 1 part sand was made for filling the 

inside opening of the module and reattaching corals. Grout was prepared utilizing a Gilson® 

6.5 ft3

 mixer. Buckets of grout were transported by divers to the reef crowns and tightly packed 

into the opening to ensure filling voids within the substrate as well as between the substrate and 

the structure. Fragments of reef substrate devoid of coral tissue were pressed into the grout 

mixture to augment fill. Cached hard coral fragments within the impact track and occasional 

loose corals found outside the impact track were set into the grout mixture, once the structure 

was filled approximately to a height slightly above structure wall. Hard coral fragments were 

reattached within the reef crown opening in a manner that closely resembles the natural 

distribution of the existing habitat. The grout fill was smoothed and graded to slightly slope 

away from the center of the full module to prevent trapping sediment. Grout was also placed 

along the outside edge of the reef crown at locations of visible voids between the structure and 

substrate to prevent scouring and subsequent undercutting. Reef substrate and coral fragments 

were attached as “dressing” to the outer vertical surface of the reef crown to enhance aesthetic 

quality of the restoration.

Figure 5. Cross-section and plan views of “Reef Crowns,” as designed, and artist’s conception 

of an installed crown. 

6
Figure 6. A “king crown” restoration module installed on seafloor prior to addition of coral 

fragments to center of the module. 

Restoration Monitoring 

The purpose of the 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 Connected, 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 is identified by NOAA 

(Thayer et al. 2003). 

7
The guiding hypotheses for the evaluation of the “restoration” site reflects the efficacy of the 

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

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

considered restored. The structural integrity of the restoration site is evaluated with the 

following questions: 

 

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

2. Are there any visible cracks in the surface of the reef crowns? 

3. Is there any visible physical damage to the reattached coral colonies? 

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

question: 

Is there a difference in coral cover between the grounding site (i.e., both the restored and 

unrestored areas) and the reference area? 

The monitoring program was designed to detect significant changes in coral cover or damage to 

restoration components (structural enhancements, coral transplants, etc.) as a result of external 

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

addition, the monitoring assessed the effectiveness of the restoration based upon technical 

evaluation of appropriate parameters. 

METHODOLOGY 

BASELINE MONITORING EVENT (JULY 2004) 

Field Methods 

On July 12-13, 2004, the Connected restoration site was monitored using SCUBA from a small 

vessel (6.4 m). Tactile and visual assessments were performed to evaluate the physical stability 

of the reef crowns. To determine the biological condition of the site, in situ observations, digital 

images, and digital videos were recorded among the restoration area and the reference area. The 

restoration area was composed of the 20 reef crowns (area = 20 m2

) and the remaining damaged, 

but unrepaired section of the grounding site (area = 182 m2

). The reference area was adjacent to 

the north side of the grounding path and similar in size (i.e., 202 m2

) and shape to the restoration 

area. Within each area, twenty 1 m2 quadrats were surveyed for coral cover, corallivorous snail 

density and the presence of coral disease, coral bleaching, and damselfish. In addition, all 

twenty reef crowns were surveyed with 1 m2 quadrats. Within the unrepaired section of the 

restoration area and the reference area, the location of quadrat placements were randomly chosen 

from a digital grid of uniquely identified 1 m2 cells overlain on the grounding site map. In the 

field, transect lines were used from landmarks to determine cell locations as best as possible. 

Quadrats were deployed to these cells and visually surveyed for biological variables of interest. 

8
Planar digital photographs of quadrats were recorded when depth allowed while oblique digital 

photographs and dGPS coordinates (with a Garmin 76) were taken of each restoration module in 

the restored area. 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 

Digital images were edited with Adobe Photoshop version 7 (Adobe 2002). Image edits 

included color hue changes to make water look bluer, brightness changes to compensate for 

original exposure, and sharpness changes to enhance images not in focus. Planar images of 

quadrats were corrected using the Panorama Tools plug-in for Photoshop to correct for barrel 

distortion of the extreme wide angle image making it as close to square as possible. Finally, 

excess image information outside the quadrat boundary was cropped. 

Data Analysis 

Data analysis and visualization were performed on a Dell PC with Statistica version 6 (StatSoft 

2003) and Microsoft® Excel 2002 software. Basic descriptive statistics were generated for 

samples collected among the restoration, reference, and damaged unrestored areas. 

POST-CATASTROPHIC MONITORING EVENT (AUGUST 2004) 

On August 13, 2004, hurricane Charley passed just to the east of the Dry Tortugas. Maximum 

gusts recorded at the Key West airport were 58 mph. In order to see how the storm affected the 

restoration, a catastrophic monitoring event was undertaken on August 31. Methodology utilized 

was identical to that related above. 

Data collection revealed that the site was not statistically significantly different from its 

condition during the baseline monitoring, seven weeks previously. In fact, the data indicated that 

coral cover was very slightly greater at the August monitoring event for all three categories: the 

reef crowns, the damaged unrestored area, and the reference area. However, the differences were 

so slight as to be encompassed by anticipated sampling distribution variance, as reflected by the 

standard error of the means. Therefore, the August 2004 monitoring coral cover percentages will 

be used in the figures and text which follow. 

YEAR ONE MONITORING EVENT (SEPTEMBER 2005) 

Another monitoring event occurred on September 13, 2005. Methodology utilized was identical 

to that related above for the previous two monitoring events. 

9
Between the catastrophic (Aug. 2004) and the year-one (Sep. 2005) monitoring events, two 

powerful hurricanes passed within less than 100 kilometers of the restoration site; Dennis in July, 

and Katrina in August 2005. (Those familiar with last year’s hurricanes in the region might 

remember that hurricanes Rita and Wilma did likewise, but both these were after the 2005 

monitoring event.) 

Results of the baseline, catastrophic, and 2005 monitoring are presented in summary fashion 

below. Complete copies of the datasets are maintained by both the FKNMS monitoring team, 

and by NMS headquarters Damage Assessment and Restoration Program staff. 

RESULTS 

BASELINE MONITORING EVENT (JULY 2004) 

Structural Integrity 

The baseline monitoring occurred in July 2004, three years after the restoration, at which time 

the stability and surface of all 20 restoration modules were found to be visually and tactilely 

sound. The modules were found in place with a stable attachment to the substrate and no visible 

cracks in the cement surface. There was no noticeable physical damage to the reattached coral 

fragments. In addition, Acropora palmata fragments among several modules had overgrown the 

cement interface and coalesced their tissue in the center of the module ring (see photos in 

APPENDIX).

Biological Condition 

The Connected restoration site contained a matrix of solitary live Acropora palmata colonies, 

live A. palmata thickets, dead A. palmata skeletons, and reef rubble. Coral species observed 

within quadrats included Acropora palmata, Agaricia agaricites, Diploria clivosa, Favia fragum, 

Millepora alcicornis, and Porites asteriodes. Acropora palmata was the dominant coral species 

and represented 96% of the reported coral cover. Reflecting the habitat matrix of the reef flat, 

samples of coral cover within areas were heterogeneous; cover ranged from 0% to 59% in the 

restoration area and from 0% to 58% in the reference area. Unfortunately the contractor who did 

the restoration in 2001 did not establish a reference area, so there was no possibility of 

determining the trajectory of corals surrounding the grounding site, at least as of the time of the 

baseline monitoring. In 2004, mean coral cover was approximately 8% in the damaged 

unrestored area and 19.5% in the reference area. The coral cover of the reef crowns was 

estimated as 34% (Figure 7). Accompanying vertical growth, representing increased topographic 

complexity, can be assessed from the photos (see photos in APPENDIX). 

10
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(n = 20) (n=20) (n=20)

Coral Cover (% )

Restored

Unrestored

Reference

Figure 7. 2004 — mean (±SE) coral cover (%) among the restored (reef crown) area, the 

damaged unrestored area, and the reference area of the Connected grounding site. 

In August 2001, shortly after the restoration was completed, a series of near-vertical underwater 

digital photographs were taken of the reef crowns. Using a random point count method software 

(Kohler 2004), coral cover was estimated as 16% in 2001 from 50 points per photo frame. 

Therefore, utilizing the 2004 monitoring data, the coral cover of the reef crowns had increased 

approximately 6% per year (absolute coverage) since the restoration in 2001 (Figure 8). 

Coral predators, coral disease, and damselfish were observed within the restoration site. The 

density of corallivorous snails (Coralliophila sp.) was 0.1 snails m2 (8 individuals total) in the 

restoration area and no snails in the reference area. White pox was observed on Acropora 

palmata colonies in two quadrats on reef crowns but not in the reference area. White band 

disease and coral bleaching were not observed in either of the areas. Damselfish were observed 

among 20% of quadrats in the restoration and 25% of the reference area.

11
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05

Coral Cover (%)

Figure 8. Trend in mean (±SE) coral cover (%) of the reef crowns of the Connected grounding 

site from 2001 to 2004. 

POST-CATASTROPHIC MONITORING EVENT (AUGUST 2004) 

Structural Integrity 

Despite the near passage of hurricane Charley, the stability and surface of all 20 restoration 

modules were found to be visually and tactilely sound. However, as can be expected in a storm 

event, there was slight noticeable physical damage to a few reattached coral colonies. The tips of 

some fragments appeared to have been recently broken (e.g. reef crown #86; APPENDIX and 

Figure 9). Notice, at the time of this monitoring event, the “wound” is already being covered 

with algae and some coral tissue growth.). 

Additional, non-storm-related structural damage was also documented (attributable to a boat 

strike), highlighting the multiple challenges faced at this site. The reef crown (#87; APPENDIX

and Figure 9) is in relatively shallow water (~ 1.5 m), and the damage was very recent; perhaps a 

day or less old. This opinion is based on the fact that the wound did not have any signs of algae 

overgrowth, and fresh bottom paint was visible in the vicinity. The good news concerning the 

12
incident is that there was no visible damage to the reef crown module; thus the remaining living 

Acropora palmata tissue had a good chance to recover, absent intervening causes. 

Figure 9. Broken branches on Acropora palmata colonies on reef crown #86 (left) and #87 

(right). 

Biological Condition 

At this monitoring event, coral cover of all areas of the grounding site was statistically 

unchanged. Although some tissue abrasion damage and skeletal fragmentation were observed, 

the majority of reef crown colonies suffered either no or relatively minor injuries. Meanwhile, 

the reference area evidenced essentially no change from the baseline pre-Hurricane Charley 

monitoring event (July) to the immediately post-hurricane monitoring event (August). 

YEAR ONE MONITORING EVENT (SEPTEMBER 2005) 

Structural Integrity 

As previously related, the Year One monitoring event was conducted on September 13, 2005. 

This was after the near passage of Hurricane Dennis in July, and Hurricane Katrina in August. 

The status of the site after the passage of one or the other (or possibly the combination of both) 

of these later hurricanes presented a different picture than was evidenced after Hurricane Charley 

the previous year. [Note: those familiar with the area will remember that Hurricanes Rita and 

Wilma also struck the vicinity in 2005; however, both these storms occurred after the year one 

monitoring event in September.] 

The stability and surface of 19 of the twenty restoration modules were found to be visually and 

tactilely sound. One reef crown was dislodged from the substrate (Figure 10). Close inspection 

by the Sanctuary biologist, Harold Hudson, who was also present during the restoration of the 

13
site, determined that the module had been incorrectly installed with too few and too short 

sections of rebar securing it to the substrate. Other reef crowns (e.g. modules 83, 85, and 99 

photos in APPENDIX), while still securely affixed, did have loose substrate eroded from their 

bases. This erosion can be directly traced to instability of the underlying substrate. Close 

inspection of the site revealed that instead of a well-cemented reef framework, the reef 

underpinning there was composed of loose Acropora palmata debris held in place by tightlypacked sediment. Washout of the stabilizing sediment by hurricane-driven waves resulted in the 

observed erosion at the bases of these reef crowns. Two other reef crowns (e.g. modules 91 and 

92 photos in APPENDIX), still securely affixed to their locations in a natural depression in the 

reef, were completely buried by unconsolidated reef rubble. 

Figure 10. Reef crown (#84) uprooted and overturned by storm-generated waves. 

Biological Condition 

As can be expected in a storm event, there was noticeable physical damage to some reattached 

Acropora palmata colonies. The tips of many fragments appeared to have been recently broken 

and other colonies showed signs of “sand blasting” (see photos in APPENDIX). 

At the time of the 2005 monitoring, coral cover of the reef crowns was 22.2%. This was down 

approximately 36% from what cover had been the summer before (about 12% in terms of 

absolute cover). However, this pales in comparison to the damage done at the reference site, 

where cover was found to be 2.2%. This was reduced almost 89% (relatively) from the previous 

monitoring event (a reduction of ≈17.5% in absolute terms). A very similar degradation trend 

14
was observed at the damaged, unrestored site, where relative cover likewise decreased 88% 

(Table 2 and Figure 11). 

Table 2. Reductions in coral cover between the 2004 catastrophic and 2005 monitoring events. 

(All values are percentages) Reef Crown 

Coral Cover 

Reference Site 

Coral Cover 

Unrestored Area 

Coral Cover 

2004 34.7 19.7 8.7 

2005 22.2 2.2 1.0 

Reduction (relative) 36.0 88.6 88.0 

Benthic Coral Cover Decrease 

(absolute) 12.5 17.5 7.7 

The much greater reduction in coral cover in the reference zone can probably be attributable to 

the fact that most of the site lies below the bathymetry of the reef crowns; thus it served as a 

natural repository for the rubble and sediment which blanketed the whole area. This view is 

buttressed by the fact that damage (almost exclusively as a result of burial by storm-generated 

sediment) was differentially experienced among the reef crowns according to their elevation. 

For example, crowns which lay in a natural depression or “channel” were wholly smothered (e.g. 

reef crowns 91 and 92 in APPENDIX; these were buried in rubble which had to be excavated to 

ID the crowns for the photos.). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

YR 2004 YR 2005

Coral Cover (%)

Reef crowns reference sites unrestored area

Figure 11. Trends in mean (±SE) coral cover (%) of the reef crowns, reference sites, and 

unrestored areas from 2004 to 2005. 

15
SUMMARY 

Monitoring suggests the reef crowns were an effective restoration methodology for facilitating 

the recovery of damaged Acropora palmata at Western Sambo reef, as evidenced by the first 

three years of the recovery process following restoration (Figure 8; APPENDIX). Nonetheless, 

given the extreme shallowness of this site, or any other site situated at such a similarly shallow 

depth, a restoration is unavoidably vulnerable to damage by the passage of a strong hurricane. 

The results documented by the FKNMS monitoring team impart a visually graphic, and easily 

comprehendible take-home lesson. 

Comparison to the monitoring report regarding the M/V Jacquelyn L site (q.v., in the 

Sanctuaries’ “Conservation Series”), which lies almost immediately adjacent to the Connected 

site, should prove informative. Although the groundings at the two sites were separated by a 

decade, the restorations took place only a year apart (Jacquelyn L in July 2000; Connected in 

July 2001). Thus the sites had 3 and 4 years respectively to establish themselves before the 

passage of Hurricane Charley in 2004, and 4 and 5 years before Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina 

in 2005 (with the Jacquelyn L site having the extra year). The much greater success enjoyed by 

the Connected restoration in both years, compared to the complete destruction of the Jacquelyn L

site during the 2005 hurricane season, provides much in the way of valuable information and 

“lessons learned” to the Damage Assessment and Restoration Team of the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program. A restoration site should be elevated as much as possible, consistent with 

surrounding substrate contours. Any effort that can be made to get the coral fragments’ “head out 

of the sand” is effort well spent. Even in the absence of near passage by a hurricane, isolating 

fragments to the extent practical from the usual scour caused by bottom currents, tides, surge, 

etc., will pay dividends in terms of tissue survival. After all, these small colonies are already 

experiencing stress from the incident which gave rise to their fragmentation in the first place. 

Anything that helps alleviate additional energy expenditure by the coral polyps attributable to 

sediment removal would be beneficial, and allow them to put energy into growth and 

reproduction. Along the same lines, loose rubble should be removed from the area, to prevent it 

from being launched as fragment-breaking “projectiles” in the event of a storm. 

16
LITERATURE CITED 

Adobe, Inc. 2002. Photoshop (image processing software), version 7. www.adobe.com. 

Goodwin, W. B. and L. J. MacLaughlin. 2001. Connected vessel grounding assessment report. 

Confidential report prepared for NOAA General Counsel and FDEP Office of General Counsel. 

2 pp. plus figures. 

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

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

Marine Resources Inc. 2001. M/V Connected grounding site habitat restoration at Western 

Sambo Reef in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Prepared for Fowler, White, 

Burnett, Hurley, Banick, and Strickroot. 8 pp. plus an appendix. 

StatSoft, Inc. 2003. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.com. 

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. 

17
18

APPENDIX 

Comparative photographs of reef crown restoration modules at M/V Connected grounding site 

on July 19, 2001 (photo credits: MRI, Inc.), July 12, 2004, August 31, 2004, and September 13, 

2005 (photo credits: Jeff Anderson). 
19

Reef Crown #82 

Reef Crown #81 

Reef Crown #80 

July 19, 2001 

Reef Crown #82 

Reef Crown #81 

Reef Crown #80 

July 12, 2004 

Reef Crown #82 

Reef Crown #81 

Reef Crown #80 

August 31, 2004 

Reef Crown #82 

Reef Crown #81 Reef Crown #80 

September 13, 2005 
20

Reef Crown #85 

Reef Crown #84 

Reef Crown #83 

July 19, 2001 

Reef Crown #85 

Reef Crown #84 

Reef Crown #83 

July 12, 2004 

Reef Crown #85 

Reef Crown #84 

Reef Crown #83 

August 31, 2004 

Reef Crown #85

Reef Crown #84 

Reef Crown #83 

September 13, 2005 
21

Reef Crown #88 

Reef Crown #87 

Reef Crown #86 

July 19, 2001 

Reef Crown #88 

Reef Crown #87 

Reef Crown #86 

July 12, 2004 

Reef Crown #88 

Reef Crown #87 

Reef Crown #86 

August 31, 2004 

Reef Crown #88 

Reef Crown #87 

Reef Crown #86 

September 13, 2005 
22

July 19, 2001 July 12, 2004 August 31, 2004 

Reef Crown #90 Reef Crown #90 Reef Crown #90 

#90 Crown Reef 

Reef Crown #91 Reef Crown #91 Reef Crown #91 Reef Crown #91 

Reef Crown #89 Reef Crown #89 Reef Crown #89 Reef Crown #89

September 13, 2005 
23

Reef Crown #94 

Reef Crown #93 

Reef Crown #92 

July 19, 2001 

Reef Crown #94 

Reef Crown #93 

Reef Crown #92 

July 12, 2004 

Reef Crown #94 

Reef Crown #93 

August 31, 2004 

#92 Crown Reef 

Reef Crown #94 

Reef Crown #93 Reef Crown #92 

September 13, 2005 
24

Reef Crown #97 

Reef Crown #96 

Reef Crown #95 

July 19, 2001 July 12, 2004 August 31, 2004 

#97 Crown Reef 

#97 Crown Reef Reef Crown #97 

Reef Crown #96 

Reef Crown #95 

Reef Crown #96 

Reef Crown #95 

Reef Crown #96 

Reef Crown #95

September 13, 2005 
25

Reef Crown #99 

Reef Crown #98 

July 19, 2001 

Reef Crown #99 

Reef Crown #98 

July 12, 2004 

Reef Crown #99 

August 31, 2004 

#98 Crown Reef 

Reef Crown #99 Reef Crown #98 

September 13, 2005 
This page intentionally blank. 

26
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/). 

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)