NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing 

System (CREIOS) Workshops Report 

J.A. Morgan and J.E. Waddell (eds.) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 9 

November 2009 

United States Department of National Oceanic and National Ocean Service 

Commerce Atmospheric Administration 

Gary Locke Jane Lubchenco John H. Dunnigan 

Secretary Administrator Assistant Administrator
CITATION: 

Morgan, J.A. and J.E. Waddell (eds.). 2009. NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing 

System (CREIOS) Workshops Report. NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP 9. NOAA Coral 

Reef Conservation Program. Silver Spring, MD. 68 pp. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 

We wish to express gratitude to all of the people who contributed to this Report, and in particular, 

thanks go to the workshop facilitators for getting the document started; the regional team members 

who spent many hours writing and editing the jurisdiction chapters; the workshop participants who 

commented on the document; and most of all to the headquarters team who coordinated, drafted, 

and edited this document. 

This Report was made possible with support from NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

WORKSHOPS STEERING COMMITTEE: 

Chairs: Jessica Morgan (Hawai’i workshop) and Jenny Waddell (Puerto Rico workshop) 

Headquarters Team: Felipe Arzayus, Alicia Clarke, Sarah O’Connor, Britt Parker, Tracy Parsons, 

Anita Pritchett, Steve Thur, John Tomczuk, Cecilia Torres, and Dana Wusinich-Mendez 

Pacific Regional Team: Valerie Brown, Kathy Chaston, Gerry Davis, Alan Everson, Meghan 

Gombos, Kris McElwee, Joyce Miller, Jason Philibotte, and Fatima Sauafea-Leau 

Atlantic/Caribbean Regional Team: Eileen Alicea, Chris Caldow, Lisamarie Carrubba, Jocelyn 

Karazsia, Greg Piniak, Simon Pittman, and Jennifer Schull 

Facilitators: Stephanie Kavanaugh and Nancy Wallace 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For more information about this report or to request a copy, please email (coralreef@noaa.gov) or 

fax (301-713-4389) your request to NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program or visit 

www.coralreef.noaa.gov.

DISCLAIMER: 

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for their use by the United States government. 
i 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. ii

Section I: Introduction 

Key Points ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Workshop Structure ............................................................................................................................. 3

Section II: Summary of Mapping and Monitoring Needs 

American Samoa ................................................................................................................................... 6

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ........................................................................ 10

Guam.................................................................................................................................................... 13

Hawai’i ................................................................................................................................................. 16

Florida .................................................................................................................................................. 19

U.S. Virgin Islands.............................................................................................................................. 24

Puerto Rico .......................................................................................................................................... 28

Atlantic/Caribbean Region ............................................................................................................... 34

Section III: Summary of NOAA Capabilities and Potential Solutions 

Mapping ............................................................................................................................................... 38

Physical and Chemical Oceanographic Monitoring ...................................................................... 41

Biological Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 42

Near-shore Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................ 43

Data Dissemination ........................................................................................................................... 44

National-level Mapping and Monitoring ........................................................................................ 44

Section IV: Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 46

Appendices 

Appendix A: Pacific Workshop Agenda ..................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Atlantic/Caribbean Workshop Agenda ................................................................ B-1

Appendix C: Participant List ........................................................................................................ C-1

Appendix D: Workshop Presentations ....................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E: References Cited ..................................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................. F-1
ii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) conducted two regional workshops in 

Hawai’i (November 2008) and Puerto Rico (May 2009) to address its national-level mapping and 

monitoring activities under the Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing System (CREIOS). 

NOAA scientists with technical expertise in mapping and monitoring coral reef ecosystems met with 

resource managers and local scientists from all U.S. coral reef jurisdictions, as well as representatives 

from Federal agencies and Fishery Management Councils. The facilitated workshops were 

successful in eliciting priority information needs from managers, and highlighting important issues 

of concern. This document presents a summary of the discussions held during both workshops, 

major outcomes, and next steps. 

The objectives of the workshops were to: 

1) identify mapping and monitoring needs to address management for coral reef conservation 

2) identify possible products and solutions to meet management needs 

Representatives from the following locations made presentations and participated in plenary and 

breakout discussions with the NOAA service providers: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawai’i, the Pacific Remote Island Areas, Florida, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Atlantic/Caribbean Region (including Navassa Island and Flower 

Garden Banks). 

NOAA scientists presented on the following topics: bathymetric and benthic habitat mapping, 

physical and chemical monitoring, biological monitoring and assessment, near-shore water quality 

monitoring of land-based sources of pollution, and data dissemination. 

It is clear from the results of the workshops that there is a need for: 

 increased technical capacity within jurisdictions, 

 improved communication of scientific information to general audiences, 

 improved dissemination of NOAA data and information products, and 

 increased emphasis on mapping and monitoring at finer scales in specific areas of 

importance to managers. 

The information gathered at these workshops will help inform the CRCP about the most effective 

ways to build capacity and provide support for successful and productive partnerships to meet 

mapping and monitoring needs. 
INTRODUCTION

1 

Section I: Introduction 

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coral Reef 

Conservation Program (CRCP) is reviewing and revising long-term plans for its monitoring, 

mapping, and assessment activities, collectively known as the Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated 

Observing System (CREIOS), to ensure they are cost-effective, aligned with management needs, and 

allow for the timely delivery of required products and services to all essential users, given funding 

constraints. As a first step in a strategic planning effort to strengthen the link between science and 

management goals, two workshops were held to address needs of coral reef managers in the U.S. 

Pacific and Atlantic/Caribbean States and Territories: 

 Pacific CREIOS workshop, November 18-20, 2008, in Honolulu, Hawai’i 

 Atlantic/Caribbean CREIOS Workshop, May 13-14, 2009, in San Juan, Puerto Rico 

The purpose of these workshops was to gather input to guide the future direction of the CRCP’s 

mapping, monitoring, and assessment activities, including: 

 Bathymetric and benthic habitat mapping 

 Physical oceanographic monitoring 

 Biological monitoring 

 Near-shore water quality monitoring of land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) 

 Data dissemination 

The objectives of the workshops were to: 

1) identify mapping and monitoring needs to address management for coral reef conservation; 

and 

2) identify possible products and solutions to meet management needs 

The outcomes from these workshops are expected to inform strategic long-term funding decisions 

with regard to the CRCP’s CREIOS program. These workshops were an opportunity for the local 

managers and NOAA service providers to provide input that will be used to frame various funding 

scenarios to be considered for fiscal year (FY) 2010 planning and beyond, together with the CRCP 

Roadmap for the Future and Goals and Objectives, and other strategic planning efforts currently underway. 

Key Points 

The CREIOS Workshops were successful in gathering information from participants on their 

priority needs for information. It is clear from the results of the workshops that there is a need for 

increased technical capacity within jurisdictions, improved communication of scientific information 

to general audiences, improved dissemination of NOAA data and information products, and 

increased emphasis on mapping and monitoring at finer scales in specific areas of importance to 

managers. 

Specific monitoring and mapping needs developed by each management entity will be critical for the 

CRCP to evaluate its mapping and monitoring activities. These workshops gave participants from 
INTRODUCTION

2 

the management entities the opportunity to share their top mapping and monitoring needs with 

NOAA scientists and staff. The following is a summary of top needs for each location. More 

detailed information and a list of all needs described by each management entity can be found in 

Section II of this report. 

American Samoa’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Mapping of marine resource distributions to support Marine Protected Area (MPA) design 

and the ‘Two Samoas’ initiative 

 Information on near-shore oceanic currents to better understand connectivity among sites 

within and surrounding American Samoa 

 Information on nutrient and sediment loading in near-shore waters 

CNMI’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Bathymetric data to fill gaps in critical shallow-water areas 

 An archipelago-wide hydrographic model to investigate larval connectivity 

Guam’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Maps of Apra Harbor to assist with planning, assessment, and mitigation efforts associated 

with the military expansion 

 Hydrographic data (i.e., currents) to support planning many management efforts 

Additionally, CNMI and Guam both indicated that they need assistance with integrating various 

types of data and information (benthic, oceanographic and fisheries) contained in the upcoming 

Mariana Archipelago Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (RAMP) (MARAMP) report for 

2003-2007. 

Hawai’i’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Improved satellite imagery for critical areas in the Northwestern Hawai’ian Islands (NWHI) 

 Filling in bathymetric data gaps in the Main Hawai’ian Islands (MHI) 

 Acoustic surveys to understand the magnitude of legal fishing pressure and as a tool for 

enforcement in MPAs 

 Integration of watershed information and addressing information gaps 

Florida’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Consistent bathymetric and benthic habitat maps of unsurveyed areas 

 Acropora monitoring and mapping 

 Increased physical, chemical, and water quality properties monitoring 

 Increased coverage for fishery dependent and fishery independent monitoring 

 Hydrodynamic models for scenario testing and hindcasting 

USVI’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Hydrodynamic models and water quality monitoring to understand LBSP issues 

 Bathymetric and benthic habitat maps of near-shore marine environments and shallow bays 
INTRODUCTION

3 

PR’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Consistent high-resolution bathymetric and benthic habitat maps of priority watersheds 

 Predictive hydrodynamic models to understand watershed and LBSP issues 

The Atlantic/Caribbean Regional/Connectivity team’s mapping and monitoring priorities are: 

 Consistent bathymetric and benthic habitat maps of unsurveyed areas 

 Hydrodynamic modeling to understand connectivity, LBSP, and resilience to climate change 

 Fish tracking and water quality monitoring in all jurisdictions 

 Monitoring of reference sites with relatively low human impacts 

 Centralized access to datasets from multiple sources 

All jurisdictions indicated a need for hydrodynamic modeling at various scales (basin- to bay-) to 

investigate many issues, including larval connectivity, sediment and contaminant transport, thermal 

stress and capacitance (as a proxy for resilience to climate change), scenario testing and hindcasting 

to understand detrimental events (algal blooms, runoff events, bleaching events, alien invasions), 

management planning efforts, and determining locations for coastal uses. 

The information gathered at these workshops will help inform the CRCP about the most effective 

ways to build capacity and provide support for successful and productive partnerships to meet 

mapping and monitoring needs. This report will be used by the CRCP in examining its portfolio of 

mapping, monitoring, and assessment activities, and be used as a preamble to the identification of 

priorities and the capacity assessments for each location (see Section IV for more information). 

An initial outcome of this workshop has been improvements in communication between NOAA 

service providers and managers. Numerous short-term actions were identified and continue to be 

addressed by the CRCP. These are the first steps in continuing the after-workshop dialogue as 

implementation of the CRCP’s Roadmap for the Future. 

Workshop Structure 

More than 50 representatives from local agencies of Hawai’i (HI), Guam, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), American Samoa (AS), Florida (FL), the U.S. Virgin Islands 

(USVI), and Puerto Rico (PR), as well as the following entities, attended these workshops (see 

Appendix C for a full list of participants): 

 Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM) 

 Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary (FBNMS) 

 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) 

 Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGNMS) 

 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WESPAC) 

 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) 

 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) 

 Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) 

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
INTRODUCTION

4 

 Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 Department of the Interior (DOI), including the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

NOAA scientists and service providers from the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service (NESDIS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the National Ocean 

Service (NOS), and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) participated in order 

to discuss scientific capabilities and understand location-specific needs directly from the managers. 

The following offices were represented (see Appendix C for a full list of participants): 

 NESDIS Coral Information System (CoRIS) 

 NESDIS Coral Reef Watch (CRW) 

 NMFS Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) 

 NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation (OHC) 

 NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) 

 NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO) 

 NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) 

 NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) 

 NOS Center for Coastal Monitoring & Assessment (CCMA) Biogeography Branch 

 NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research (CCFHR) 

 NOS Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) Coral Conservation Division (CCD) 

 NOS Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 

 OAR Coral Health and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) 

 OAR Ocean Chemistry Division (OCD) 

Prior to the workshop, preparation was required by both the managers and NOAA service providers 

to articulate management needs and evaluate current activities. The CRCP’s “site visits” (a 

combination of one-on-one phone calls, group conference calls, email requests, and in-person 

meetings at each location) engaged decision-makers, managers, and scientists in developing locationspecific lists of management and monitoring needs. The information collected from the preworkshop site visits is summarized in the workshop materials and panel presentations, available on 

the CRCP website (see Appendix D for details). 

Following these site visits, the facilitated workshops were intended to be fora for discussing 

managers’ needs for monitoring and mapping data to achieve the common goals of increasing 

understanding of coral reef ecosystems and improving coral reef ecosystem condition. NOAA and 

other scientists participated alongside the managers in order to discuss scientific capabilities and 

identify location-specific needs directly from the managers. The full agendas can be found in 

Appendices A and B. 

Breakout Groups: Defining Needs 

Participants from the management entities met in breakout groups by location. Prior to the 

workshop, presentations were developed by each group to share with all workshop participants on 

the mapping and monitoring needs to address management efforts. During this first breakout 

session, the presentations were reviewed and participants from each location agreed on primary 

topics to focus on during the workshop. 
INTRODUCTION

5 

Panel Presentation and Discussion: Mapping and Monitoring Needs 

Each group presented their mapping and monitoring needs and participated in a panel discussion. 

The complete presentations can be viewed on the CRCP website (see Appendix D for details). A 

summary of the primary management needs was synthesized by location. There was a discussion 

period after each presentation. 

Panel Presentation and Discussion: NOAA’s Solutions to Address Management Needs 

NOAA scientists shared information on NOAA capabilities and services that can address 

management needs for coral mapping and monitoring. NOAA panelists presented on the following 

topics: 

 Mapping

 Physical Monitoring

 Biological Monitoring

 Near-shore Water Quality Monitoring

 Data Dissemination

See Section III of this report for summaries of these presentations. 

Breakout Groups: Brainstorming Potential Products and Solutions 

To develop solutions for specific management needs, each jurisdiction met with each NOAA 

technical group. The groups discussed NOAA products and services available to address their 

management needs and what could be developed in the future. See Section II of this report for 

summaries of these discussions. 

Breakout Groups: Refining Potential Solutions 

After the management communities met with all of the technical groups, they identified the primary 

products and solutions that would best fit their management needs. This information was then 

shared with all workshop participants. This information is also contained in Section II of this 

report. 
AMERICAN SAMOA

6 

Section II: Summary of Mapping and Monitoring Needs 

NOAA capabilities for mapping and monitoring can be found in Section III. Presentations on 

mapping and monitoring needs, and NOAA presentations on capabilities, can be found on the 

CRCP website (see Appendix D for details). 

American Samoa 

CONTEXT 

The AS team began the workshop by reviewing the results from the site visit interviews, and 

identifying priority needs for AS coral reef management and conservation that can be addressed via 

mapping, monitoring and assessment. 

AS’s management priorities are: 

 Building local capacity 

 Fisheries management 

 Establishment of an MPA Network 

 Habitat degradation and land-based pollution 

 Population growth 

AS’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Information on near-shore oceanic currents to better understand connectivity among sites 

within and surrounding American Samoa 

 Mapping of marine resource distributions to support MPA design and the ‘Two Samoas’ 

initiative 

 Information on nutrient and sediment loading in near-shore waters 

AS also has the following related needs: 

 Increased technical staff capacity in order to better utilize the available data, including 

possible reestablishment of the NOAA Geographic Information System (GIS) fellowship 

program sponsored by the NOAA Pacific Services Center 

 Better data dissemination and increased communication on product availability from NOAA 

scientists 

 Staff exchanges and personnel sharing among partners. An FBNMS Research Coordinator 

position should be backfilled and a NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division (CRED) staff 

member could be located in American Samoa on a 1-2 year rotation to communicate 

monitoring results to the community and managers; AS proposed a shared position between 

Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary (FBNMS), CRED, and the American Samoa 

Government (ASG), which would benefit all parties, and would support National Park 

Service’s work servicing sensor 
AMERICAN SAMOA

7 

MAPPING 

 Information gaps for MPA process: A major management priority is the governmental mandate 

for establishing MPAs. The lack of base maps is a significant hindrance to choosing areas for 

MPAs. AS needs information in some areas, including integrated shallow-to-deep maps, habitat 

maps for the seamounts and banks around Tutuila, and maps of areas that have not been 

mapped (about 15% of the National Park) due to cloud cover over the island. 

 Bathymetric data: AS needs good bathymetric data for hydrodynamic modeling. AS also needs 

a pseudo-bathymetric product; a composite product is available but may not include all the area 

and data needed. AS needs access to Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data from the 

Navy. Both Samoa and American Samoa need access to digital topographic data (for terrestrial 

areas) collected by New Zealand. AS National Park Service (NPS) has imagery but needs 

assistance to sort or process it. The priority is to gather data from multiple sources and begin 

integrating Samoa and American Samoa data. 

 Benthic habitat map products: AS needs greater ground-truthing and evolution away from the 

coral-centric classification. AS needs help identifying what products (i.e., maps, imagery) are 

available and applying the maps to support local monitoring and management via GIS expertise. 

Graduate student projects and partnerships with the NOAA Pacific Services Center (PSC) could 

help disseminate imagery, conduct analyses and re-interpret data. The priority is to develop 

seamless simplified substrate maps (i.e., hard vs. soft surfaces) from the shoreline to 1000 m. AS 

does not necessarily need higher resolution. 

 Airport expansion: AS needs an integrated GIS product that could inform this process. 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Current modeling for larval dispersal/connectivity: AS needs coarse surface circulation 

information that could be used to identify finer-scale areas of interest, and information on 

currents and flushing for areas like Pago Pago Harbor and Vatia Bay. Several models could 

provide this information: Office of Naval Research (ONR) model, Hybrid Coordinate Ocean 

Model (HYCOM), Ocean Surface Current Simulations (OSCURS) model, and Delft3D model. 

AS needs ocean current and circulation data in areas of interest, and dedicated staff time and 

expertise to apply and validate models with existing in situ and satellite data. 

 Hydrographic data for water quality modeling: AS needs data on flushing rates and water 

residency times for key embayments and near-shore areas, including Fagasa, Fagaalu Bay, and 

Alofau. AS Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has approached the Army Corps of Engineers 

about this work; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) is active in Alofau, but does not have sufficient technical expertise to conduct 

this work. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Regulatory Environmental Assessments: AS needs accurate coral growth rate measurements to 

be used in modeling recovery rates after vessel groundings or other disturbances (e.g., airport 

expansion). AS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may request assistance on this; U.S. 

EPA may also be able to help. 
AMERICAN SAMOA

8 

 Invertebrates: AS suggests that CRED’s invertebrate sampling on RAMP cruises is marginally 

useful and could be reduced to allow for expansion of other sampling (e.g., fish or benthic) 

efforts. 

 Fisheries regulations: AS needs more assistance in gathering information that feeds into fisheries 

regulations. AS needs tow-board surveys and assessments to support fisheries regulation more 

frequently than every two years. 

 RAMP cruise frequency: AS would like the RAMP program to continue with the current 2-year 

schedule or increase the frequency to every 6 months or every year. AS would be willing to 

provide in-kind support for NOAA to keep the ship at the current schedule (though they are 

aware of the fuel and budget issues) if that would be helpful. 

 RAMP methodology: AS would like to improve communication with NOAA partners, 

regarding how best to use the data and any potential shift in the sampling methodology. 

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) conducts coral surveys that closely 

replicate CRED methods, and the amount of coral cover seems to be commensurate. Similar 

methodologies and field sampling protocols were used, although CRED only monitors at the 

genus level due to the number of species present. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

 Change analysis: Change analysis is a priority, but AS needs products specifically tailored to 

areas of interest to deal with local issues such as topography and land cover/land use. AS 

requests information on how to get into the queue for coastal change analysis projects. 

 Watersheds: AS needs site-based work within particular watersheds. Several sites were 

suggested, including Alofau, Fagasa, Vatia, and Pago Pago Harbor, which have issues with nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation. It was suggested that two watersheds be selected with 

input from the community to ensure that management of those areas is integrated with 

community efforts to reduce land-based sources of pollution as well as community-based 

fisheries management efforts. 

 Nutrient monitoring: AS EPA monitors nutrients in a limited way, and although they can collect 

samples and download data (telemetered instruments are too expensive to deploy and maintain), 

they need assistance to analyze the samples. AS needs real-time data to close beaches or take 

legal action. In addition to monitoring, AS needs to bring agencies and communities together to 

effect change and to make information available to decision makers and fishing cooperatives. 

 Sediment contamination: AS needs analyses of sediment contamination to determine their 

sources and rates of accumulation. The National Status and Trends (NS&T) program measures 

contamination of sediments and benthic and faunal community structure, but managers must 

first define the questions this information might help answer and identify potential actions that 

could be taken to reduce inputs. 

 Contaminants and biota: AS needs to track contaminants in biota and use the data to pinpoint 

sources of pollutants. An oyster commonly found in Pago Pago harbor could be used for the 

study. There are various programs, protocols and laboratories that could be utilized in this 

effort, including NS&T Benthic Surveillance, Mussel Watch, and USDA impact of confined 

animal feeding operations (CAFOs). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Honolulu has done 

some work on contaminated fish as well. CRED looks at algal infections on coral and sub-lethal 

effects of other coral diseases. 
AMERICAN SAMOA

9 

NOAA’s Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring Report for American Samoa (2002-2006)

 Accessibility and analyses: AS needs a simplified Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring Report that is 

more accessible to readers. It would be useful to have training or a workshop to share the 

outcomes so that managers understand the implications of the data and can use the information 

to support management decisions. A first step would be translation of the information into an 

expanded executive summary. AS also needs further directed analysis of the monitoring data to 

answer local management questions. 

 Feedback and evaluation: A report template was discussed with jurisdictions long ago, but there 

needs to be an evaluation form included during report distribution to make sure the template 

provides the information needed by the jurisdiction. The report template should be adaptable 

and more flexible. One way to do this would be to have a more formal review process on how 

to improve the process for the template. 
CNMI 

10 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

CONTEXT 

The CNMI team began the workshop by reviewing the results from the site visit interviews, and 

identifying priority management needs for the CNMI coral reef conservation initiative. After 

identifying their priorities they met with the Guam team to compare results, recognizing that they 

share similar goals and are both part of larger regional efforts (i.e., the Micronesia Challenge). 

Through this discussion it was obvious that CNMI and Guam share similar management priorities 

and agreed management efforts should be carried out in a more regional context where appropriate. 

CNMI’s management priorities are: 

 Land-based sources of pollution 

 Fisheries management, fish and coral population issues, and connectivity 

 Ecosystem links between trophic groups, understanding life history, and stock assessments 

CNMI’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 An archipelago-wide hydrographic model to investigate larval connectivity 

 Bathymetric data to fill gaps in critical shallow-water areas 

 Assistance with integration of various types of data and information (benthic, oceanographic 

and fisheries) contained in the upcoming MARAMP report for 2003-2007 

CNMI also has the following related needs: 

 Training for on-island managers, including having dedicated staff on the ground or having 

NOAA available to respond to requests when needed 

 Social monitoring work is important and would help make education and outreach efforts 

more effective in causing behavior change 

MAPPING 

 Habitat maps: Benthic shallow water habitat mapping is being done by NOAA Center for 

Coastal Monitoring & Assessment (CCMA) at a smaller mapping unit in the Caribbean (funded 

by the NPS) and using a new classification system which is a dominant habitat cover scheme 

combining structure and cover (though it does not differentiate coral habitat by dominant 

species). CNMI expressed interest in learning more about this new classification system once it 

is finalized in the Caribbean. 

 Change analysis: CNMI is interested in using maps and remote sensing imagery for change 

detection and expressed interest in leveraging purchasing power for new imagery through 

NOAA. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had previously offered 

support with hyperspectral data. 

 Bathymetric data: Bathymetric data has been collected by CRED in water depths of 15-1000 m, 

which leaves a gap in critical near-shore areas (<15 m) that are too shallow for the ship to enter, 

and to date has been filled by estimated depths derived from IKONOS imagery and shallowwater habitat maps. CNMI would like access to the Navy’s LIDAR data to fill additional gaps in 

bathymetric data for some locations. 
CNMI 

11 

 Benthic habitat map products: CNMI needs to receive technical support on any new or updated 

map products, and requests more involvement in the design of future mapping surveys. CRED 

has addressed classification issues in deeper waters via a GIS database using a variety of layers 

(e.g., rugosity and benthic complexity) rather than producing a final benthic habitat map. CNMI 

also needs a process for rapid and on-demand creation of GIS maps for managers to address 

specific and immediate questions. 

 Map resolution: CNMI needs increased spatial resolution on their baseline shallow water habitat 

maps in selected areas, especially Saipan Lagoon (15-20 meters). 

 Instrumentation: CNMI expressed interest in using the R/V AHI (Acoustic Habitat 

Investigator), as well as the independent use of the Towed Optical Assessment Device (TOAD). 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Current modeling for larval dispersal/connectivity: An archipelago-wide hydrographic model is 

a high priority for CNMI to investigate connectivity questions (currents, larvae/plankton sources 

and sinks). A variety of modeling methods and options were discussed, some of which would 

include biological and physical data. 

 ICON/CREWS Station: NOAA is funding the installation of an Integrated Coral Observing 

Network (ICON) /Coral Reef Early Warning (CREWS) station in CNMI. NOAA should 

continue coordination with CNMI to ensure that the location of the station is based on CNMI’s 

specific data needs and objectives. 

 Instrumentation: CNMI is interested in both archival data (to understand dynamics) and nearreal-time data (for current conditions) but questioned the need for some of the CRED 

instrumentation in CNMI. Clarification of the management questions will help determine if 

archival data or (much more expensive) near-real-time data would be appropriate.

 Data delivery: CNMI expressed concerns with formatting of the CRED data available through 

the file transfer protocol (FTP) site. CNMI needs to have rapid access to the data to be able to 

make its own graphs and maps. CRED is working on making the data accessible in network 

common data form (NetCDF) format rather than as raw data. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Change analysis: CNMI needs change analyses, and cause and effect information, which is 

critical to engage legislators into making management decisions. 

 Fisheries data: CNMI needs information on fisheries life history that can be used for stock 

assessments, particularly in relation to the deeper depth ranges (i.e., from 30-100 meters), where 

the fish stock size and structures are unknown. Options were discussed including the addition 

of fishery-focused RAMP cruises or the harvest of fish during regular RAMP cruises. CRED 

will have increased capacity to get information on deeper ranges (>100 meters) through a 

partnership with Woods Hole to use an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) for benthic still 

photography, which would benefit CNMI if the technology allows for assessment of fish. 

 RAMP objectives: CNMI needs to understand NOAA’s national mandates and responsibilities, 

the purpose for the RAMP cruises, the questions driving federal research efforts, and how 

CNMI fits within those priorities. CNMI would like NOAA to clarify its objectives so that both 

can work together better. CNMI views NOAA monitoring activities as focusing on regional 

questions not local ones, and voiced concern about current products not meeting their local 
CNMI 

12 

needs. CNMI is concerned that CRED’s regional focus may not address local management 

questions. 

 RAMP methodology: CNMI expressed concerns about CRED’s monitoring sampling design 

and statistical robustness of the resulting data, as well as concerns with the lack of flexibility to 

modify methodologies. CNMI prefers that monitoring efforts spend more time and gather 

more details in specific sites, rather than do more assessments in a higher number of sites. 

CNMI is concerned about the excessive variety of information gathered by CRED at the cost of 

more focused, detailed and higher quality data. 

 RAMP data dissemination: CNMI is concerned with NOAA’s timeliness in providing data. 

Although the need for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) is well understood, data that 

is 1-2 years old is no longer timely or useful to managers. Inquiries were made about NOAA’s 

policy on data management and whether there are any time requirements for release of federallyfunded data. Since CNMI participates in the acquisition of that data, it is seen as an inefficient 

use of their time. CNMI is interested in quick resource feedback before the final polished 

product is available. 

 RAMP report: CRED is working on development of the MARAMP report, which is modeled 

after the American Samoa report. CRED will be adding more socioeconomic information. 

CNMI reiterated the need for assistance with the integration of the various types of data 

(benthic, oceanographic and fisheries), since they do not have enough resources to dedicate to 

data analysis and interpretation or pulling out the information that will be of interest to 

managers. CRED is working with Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology (HIMB) to create better 

linkages between the data, and is working with CNMI and Guam to discuss other improvements 

to the report. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

 Watersheds: CNMI needs an inventory of watersheds with land-use classifications to allow 

them to begin focusing their efforts on priority areas. 

 Contaminants: CNMI is interested in the NOAA tools and services related to conducting 

pollution and water quality monitoring, including Mussel Watch and the Jobos Bay partnership 

with USDA; CNMI needs information on what services are available and how to access them. 

CNMI also requested information regarding costs of analytical chemistry. 

 Science funding: CNMI voiced concern about the loss of CZM funding for the 310 Program, 

which allowed for funding of land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) -related projects that are 

not currently eligible for funding under the CRCP management grant program. 
GUAM

13 

Guam 

CONTEXT 

The Guam team began the workshop by reviewing the results from the site visit interviews, 

summarizing Guam’s priority management needs, and identifying specific case studies to discuss 

with the NOAA technical teams. After this review, they met with the CNMI team to compare 

results, recognizing that they share similar goals and are both part of larger regional efforts (i.e., the 

Micronesia Challenge). Through this discussion it was obvious that Guam and CNMI share similar 

management priorities and both jurisdictions agreed that a regional approach to management efforts 

should be pursued where appropriate. 

Guam’s management priorities are: 

 Watershed impacts 

 Fisheries management 

 Military expansion 

 Reef resiliency

 Bridging social and scientific aspects of coral reef management 

Guam’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Maps of Apra Harbor to assist with planning, assessment, and mitigation efforts associated 

with the military expansion 

 Hydrographic data (i.e., currents) to support planning many management efforts 

 Assistance with integration of various types of data (benthic, oceanographic and fisheries) in 

the upcoming MARAMP report for 2003-2007 

Guam also has the following related needs: 

 Assistance from NOAA to address capacity building issues, the lack of funding for 

assessments and water quality monitoring, and funding mechanisms (such as contracts) to 

expedite activities

 Assistance from NOAA to develop alternate means for outreach to convey conservation 

messages (e.g., YouTube or MySpace), and 

 Assistance from NOAA to leverage opportunities with other agencies, U.S. Coral Reef Task 

Force (CRTF) partners, and non-governmental organizations 

 Guam specifically needs to build capacity via a specialist in statistical and survey design to 

assist with local plans, and a facilitation specialist to help develop and prioritize specific 

questions for mapping and monitoring needs 

 Guam is challenged by its legal mandates’ all-encompassing purview which result in 

difficulties in setting targeted management activities, monitoring, and research 

 Guam expressed the importance of augmenting science with a better understanding of the 

social components to deal with the root problems of why people do what they do
GUAM

14 

MAPPING 

 Apra Harbor: Guam has an immediate need for maps of Apra Harbor to assist with planning, 

assessment, and mitigation efforts associated with the military expansion. The Department of 

Defense (DoD) and Port Authority of Guam are planning large dredge projects in Apra Harbor 

soon, which could cause significant changes to the harbor and the unique coral reef ecosystems 

found within it. 

 Bathymetric data: Guam needs to obtain, better understand, and apply multibeam, backscatter, 

and LIDAR data products to management questions. 

 Benthic habitat map products: Guam requests more information about NOAA’s benthic habitat 

mapping capabilities, including higher resolution mapping, assessment accuracy, and repeat 

mapping as a basis for change detection. 

 Map resolution: NOAA capabilities may be suitable for particular high priority sites, but not for 

island wide assessments. Guam needs focused application such as the creation of higher 

resolution maps to address management concerns regarding Acropora as a signature in early 

warnings for bleaching, and to tease out the difference among soft and hard coral areas. Guam 

recognizes their reliance on NOAA for these data sets, but wants to better understand how they 

can get their local priority needs addressed by NOAA. 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Hydrographic data: Guam needs technical assistance and critical data about currents to support 

the planning processes for major efforts such as the military buildup and Micronesia Challenge. 

This lack of data has made it especially challenging to address issues associated with near-shore 

pollution, resiliency, and connectivity (both locally and regionally). 

 Current modeling for larval dispersal/connectivity: Guam needs hydrographic information to 

support hydrodynamic modeling at several scales, including: embayment-scale (coral settlement 

and recruitment), island-scale integrating embayment- to archipelago-scale models (larval 

dispersal), archipelago-scale (large-scale connectivity, large-scale resilience and connectivity 

planning), regional-scale (supports regional planning in accordance with Micronesia Challenge 

goals, connectivity linkages to other islands). 

 Hydrographic data for water quality modeling: Guam needs hydrographic information to 

support water quality modeling: embayment-scale (LBSP and watershed restoration work, 

sediment dynamics), and island-scale (sediment and nutrient transport around the island). 

 ICON/CREWS Station: Guam needs technical assistance to increase its capacity for collecting 

physical water quality data parameters, particularly sediments and nutrients. Guam would 

benefit from continuous near-real-time data sets. Guam expressed interest in exploring the 

ICON/CREWS station capabilities (i.e., data types and timescales) in relation to watershed 

restoration efforts. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Trend analysis: Guam needs monitoring information that is capable of determining the trends. 

 Data tools: Guam needs a data integration product to alleviate the time and workforce burdens 

of piecing multiple data sets and project information together. 
GUAM

15 

 RAMP objectives: Guam is concerned with all the information that is collected from CRED 

cruises and how it is used to address management driven needs. Guam reiterated the need for 

better communication between scientists and managers when developing and prioritizing needs. 

Guam is interested in getting at the source of problems with targeted research to understand 

correlations for causality to drive management actions. 

 RAMP methodology: Guam expressed concerns with the statistical robustness of the data 

provided by CRED. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

 Watersheds: Guam needs more information on the types of data NOAA could provide for 

watershed activities. Guam’s goals for watershed restoration are to restore lost ecological 

function, regain diversity, and return to a more robust and resilient coral reef ecosystem. Guam 

needs data or information that clearly demonstrates the linkages between terrestrial activities 

such as reforestation or engineering features that have directly resulted in a positive impact on 

the adjacent reef environment; this information is necessary to get both community and 

fiduciary support for further restoration work. 
HAWAI’I

16 

Hawai’i 

CONTEXT 

The Hawai’i (HI) team began the workshop by reviewing the results from the site visit interviews, 

and identifying priority management needs for Hawai’i coral reef management and conservation that 

can be addressed via mapping, monitoring and assessment. 

Hawai’i’s management priorities are: 

 Understanding ecosystem structure, function, and natural variability with respect to fish 

populations, water quality, and climate change 

 Determining causes of local declines in marine ecosystems 

 Understanding the role of water quality on reef ecosystem condition, and the cumulative 

impacts of land-use on marine ecosystems 

 Invasive species 

Hawai’i’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Improved satellite imagery for critical areas in the NWHI 

 Filling in bathymetric data gaps in the MHI 

 Acoustic surveys to understand the magnitude of legal fishing pressure and as a tool for 

enforcement in MPAs 

 Integration of watershed information and addressing information gaps 

Hawai’i also has the following related needs: 

 Hawai’i appreciates the NOAA focus on the big picture, but wants to ensure that managers 

can utilize data that is relevant for site-specific decisions. 

 Hawai’i appreciates that NOAA’s efforts toward more powerful basic science has proved 

useful for local management applications, but states that there is a need to balance basic and 

applied science, and answer local as well as regional management questions. 

MAPPING 

 Bathymetric data: Hawai’i has a critical need to fill bathymetric data gaps in areas not covered by 

existing LIDAR and ship-based multibeam (20-250 m) data in the MHI. While there is highresolution bathymetric LIDAR data available for most of the MHI, only 25-50% of the 

necessary data has been collected in the NWHI. In general. CRED focuses bathymetric data 

collection in depths of 15-250 m, which leaves a gap in shallow-water near-shore areas (<15 m). 

In the NWHI, shallow water depths have been estimated from IKONOS imagery, but that 

pseudo-bathymetry product is unreliable in depths greater than ~7m. Both the NWHI and MHI 

have a critical need for additional satellite imagery to replace some existing scenes with poor 

image quality (due to cloud cover, turbidity, and other optical issues). 

 Data access: Hawai’i needs access to NOAA bathymetric data for the MHI. Department of 

Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) and NPS need assistance on existing products, and 

arrange to better coordinate with the University of Hawai’i Pacific Islands Benthic Habitat 

Mapping Center. 
HAWAI’I

17 

 Instrumentation: Hawai’i expressed interest using the R/V AHI (Acoustic Habitat Investigator) 

to identify and assess critical fish habitat. 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Current modeling for larval dispersal/connectivity: Hawai’i needs integrated offshore and nearshore current models to inform management decisions regarding MPAs and fisheries 

management. Bringing these models together could assist HI managers with understanding 

connectivity, determining how much annual variability (changes in recruitment) is driven by 

physical processes, and answering questions such as whether larvae are getting off the reef. This 

information could also be used to identify areas more resilient for potential protection from 

climate change. 

 Instrumentation: Hawai’i has a priority need for acoustic surveys (such as the Ecological 

Acoustic Recorders), both to understand the magnitude of legal fishing pressure and as a tool 

for enforcement in MPAs. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Fisheries data: Hawai’i needs NOAA assistance with fishery information, ranging from 

estimates of fishing pressure to analysis of 20 years of creel survey data. 

 RAMP methodology: Hawai’i suggests that RAMP sampling design be modified to integrate 

better with other data and improve statistical robustness. Other options discussed include 

possible calibration methods to make data more comparable. This continues to be a subject of 

much debate, as a variety of methodologies are being utilized. A mini-workshop held just prior 

to the CREIOS workshop examined fish monitoring methodologies and illustrated the wide 

range of methods used even within a specific type of monitoring (such as belt transects). 

 RAMP data dissemination: Hawai’i requested assistance with improving dissemination of 

NOAA data, specifically a clear conduit for exchange (i.e., who should they go through), and 

access in more useful formats. CRED has initiated a Scientific Liaison program to provide a 

main technical point of contact for each jurisdiction, including one liaison each for MHI and the 

NWHI. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

 Watersheds: Hawai’i is interested in expanding integrated watershed studies such as the Jobos 

Bay partnership to specific sites in Hawai’i. This information and the partnerships with 

stakeholder agencies would allow prioritization of sites for management actions to reduce 

nutrient loading/sedimentation. Hawai’i would like to continue discussions with a wider suite of 

partners, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Hawai’i Department of Health, the DLNR 

liaison, the CZM program, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). NOAA and the EPA 

are willing and able to assist, but the State needs to prioritize activities/locations and in some 

cases specifically request assistance. 

 Watershed information gaps: A necessary step in site prioritization is integration of watershed 

information from sources such as USGS (impervious surface maps), the EPA (National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permits), etc. Gaps include unmapped storm 

drainage systems and a more general understanding of what happens before and after stream 
HAWAI’I

18 

channelization or management actions. Potential differences in response along a gradient of 

severely impacted to more pristine watersheds are also unknown. Turbidity analyses using 

remote sensing (analysis of Landsat imagery) may be a promising avenue for quantifying 

turbidity plumes resulting from stream channelizations. 

 Contaminants: Hawai’i needs to increase capacity to monitor for toxins and pollutants (e.g., 

Mussel Watch). 
FLORIDA

19 

Florida 

CONTEXT 

This section was written using information recorded during the pre-workshop discussions with 

Florida reef managers and scientists from over 25 entities, the workshop rotating breakout sessions 

with NOAA technical panels and the post-breakout group report out by Florida participants on their 

priority mapping and monitoring needs. 

The Florida Reef Tract exhibits a major change in latitude from north to south and runs from 

southeast central Florida (Martin County) to the Tortugas Bank. The reef tract includes the 

following areas: Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) Area, Biscayne National Park, 

Everglades and the Dry Tortugas National Parks, and the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary (FKNMS). The Southwest Florida Shelf and Florida Bay are also areas of interest.

The high-latitude Florida Reef Tract is unique for many reasons and is often considered the third 

largest reef complex in the world (NOAA, 2002; Porter and Porter, 2002). Myriad organisms 

characterize the wide variety of habitats found along Florida reefs, including algae, octocorals, and 

varied hard coral populations. The various reef architectural and compositional components create 

an environment that is ecologically diverse and productive, one that supports many other aquatic 

plants and animals. 

 Unlike other jurisdictions, the Florida region is supported by two Fishery Management Councils – 

the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. In addition, the Florida reef system is an economic 

engine. Millions of tourists and local residents enjoy scuba diving, snorkeling, and fishing on 

Florida's coral reefs. These activities provide a major source of income for Florida and its coastal 

communities. From June 2000 to May 2001, reef-related expenditures generated $6.1 billion and 

71,000 jobs (Johns et al., 2001; Johns et al., 2004). Furthermore, over 6 million people live in 

southeast Florida within 3 miles of the coast (U.S. Census). This dense population places enormous 

pressure on the reef system through coastal construction activities, land-based sources of pollution, 

in addition to the activities listed above. A recent publication (Rohmann et al., 2005) estimated 

distribution of potential coral ecosystems within the U.S. territorial sea and exclusive economic zone 

and found that coral ecosystems of South Florida represented had 30,801 square km or 84% of U.S. 

holdings. 

Florida workshop participants agreed that overall, Florida needs to be looked at as a ‘holistic 

system’, and would benefit greatly from enhanced communication amongst all players in order to 

maximize limited individual capacities and increase opportunities for collaboration. They also agreed 

that Florida has much of the technical capacity to complete the priorities discussed at the workshop, 

but lacks the fiscal capacity to operationalize them. 

Florida’s management priorities for mapping and monitoring are: 

 Develop high quality coral reef mapping and monitoring products to generate knowledge 

about the status and trends of existing coral ecosystem resources and to support informed 

management that pertain to (but are not limited to): 

 endangered species recovery 
FLORIDA

20 

 reef and seagrass restoration 

 marine spatial planning 

 design of monitoring programs and research projects 

 anchorage relocation 

 Mapping and monitoring products will be used to better understand and manage impacts 

associated with: 

 climate change 

 overfishing 

 land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) 

 marine construction 

 development of general management plans and science plans 

 Essential Fish Habitat and Endangered Species Act consultations 

Florida’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

Mapping 

 Mapping (bathymetry) and benthic habitat layers of unsurveyed areas 

 Development of a single, consistent reef tract habitat map 

 Mapping location of ‘thickets’ of Acropora colonies 

 Inclusion of reef data on navigational charts 

Physical Monitoring

 Chlorophyll a and optical properties monitoring 

 Improved sea surface temperature (SST) and bottom temperature data 

 Hydrodynamic models for scenario testing and hindcasting 

 Ocean acidification monitoring packages 

Biological Monitoring

 Increased coverage for fishery dependent and fishery independent monitoring 

 Increase the number of Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

(SECREMP) sites 

 Inclusion of coral recruitment in the CREMP and SECREMP activities 

 Acropora monitoring 

LBSP and near-shore water quality (WQ) monitoring

 Tiered WQ monitoring at high temporal resolution for select sites 

 Increase water quality monitoring effort in the SEFCRI area 

Florida also has the following related needs: 

 The importance of having an emergency fund available to respond to disturbance events was 

mentioned in the context of biological monitoring and LBSP. This type of funding is 

difficult to obtain given the current constraints on CRCP grants. Participants suggested 

looking into establishing a State of Florida (e.g., State Park) trust fund or looking to the 

NOAA Marine Mammal Stranding Program as an example. Participants also suggested 

increasing the use of volunteers to report coral bleaching, algal blooms and other events. An 

example model program to examine is the MEERA (Marine Ecosystem Event Response and 

Assessment) program, which is being expanded for this use. 
FLORIDA

21 

 Florida participants see the need for a Florida-focused benthic ecology workshop. Topics at 

the workshop would include discussions on standardizing high priority monitoring across 

the jurisdiction; ways to ensure monitoring programs are comprehensive enough to capture 

impacts of LBSP, Fishing, and Climate; creation of comparable indicators and analyses; and 

improved Acropora monitoring, data distribution and reporting. 

 A central repository for mapping and monitoring data with broad access to users 

 FACE (Florida Area Coastal Environment) program data accessibility 

MAPPING 

 Mapping of unknown areas: Maps of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade County are already 

complete and used on a daily basis to make reef management decisions. Martin County and 

virtually all of the FKNMS still need to be completed. Bathymetry layers should be included in 

this effort to assist with vessel grounding damage assessment and site restoration, zoning, etc.; 

however the bathymetry does not have to be at the IHO1 NOAA standard to be useful to the 

management community. It was suggested that a significant investment would be needed to 

complete the mapping of unknown areas. Completion of, and access to mapping surveys of 

unmapped areas near the Port of Miami anchorage by NOAA Hydrographic Services. While 

priority areas are focused on coral reef locations, associated locations such as Florida Bay and 

the west coast (Cape Sable to the Ten Thousand Islands) lack bathymetric information that 

would assist those managers. Mapping of Hawk Channel, and the Back Country area of the 

Keys to support Key Deer management. 

 Single, consistent reef tract map: The creation of single, reef tract map (including bathymetry) 

with consistent classification schemes is also priority for Florida. Limited funds are a barrier to 

accomplishing this priority. 

 Collection of benthic habitat data and refinement of existing maps: Martin County and FKNMS 

are priority areas for collection of benthic habitat data, which is a critical layer on the above 

mentioned maps. Finer scale resolution (<1 acre minimum mapping unit) benthic habitat maps 

are needed in certain areas. 

 Mapping locations of Acropora colonies: Managers need maps of Acropora presence/absence and 

demographics. Federally designated critical habitat also needs to be mapped. This information 

would be useful in recovery planning and determining population trends. Florida participants 

suggested that imagery, optical and backscatter could be used to predict Acropora presence and 

verify. 

 Inclusion of reef data on navigational charts: Florida participants would like to see reef data on 

navigational charts, but understand the challenges associated with this task. Florida participants 

suggested that the primary reason for inclusion would be for enforcement purposes, i.e.,

dropping anchor on a reef displayed on a chart. If the Coral Reef Conservation Act is 

reauthorized, provisions of the Act could be used to justify this task. 

 Impact assessments: Florida participants would like to see maps to support impact assessment 

of boating, fishing and hurricane impacts on reefs and seagrass beds. 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Chlorophyll a and optical properties monitoring: Managers agreed on the need for chlorophyll a

and related optical monitoring data collected via remote sensing, as well as the need for 
FLORIDA

22 

improved regional algorithms, in order to characterize water properties such as clarity, turbidity, 

light attenuation, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and to understand events such as 

algal blooms, sediment plumes, and discharge/runoff events. These events may influence the 

growth and condition of coral reefs on relatively short time scales, so automated monitoring is 

needed to provide information that field surveys may not capture. 

 Improved SST and bottom temperature data: Managers requested improved water temperature 

data, including data from cross-shelf gradients and eddies, in order to characterize water masses 

and understand warming and cooling events that may impact coral reefs. Models that correlate 

SST data with benthic temperatures, if possible, would provide managers with a valuable tool for 

predicting and responding to climate-related impacts. 

 Hydrodynamic models for scenario testing and hindcasting: Such models would be useful to 

predict and explain the impacts of poor water quality events, algal blooms, sediment plumes, 

discharge/runoff events, and bleaching events. Hindcasting would provide context and 

understanding of effects observed on the reefs following poorly monitored hydrographic events, 

and perhaps suggest management actions appropriate to reduce the impact of future events. 

Hydrodynamic model development should be coordinated between NOAA and the managers to 

ensure these models are relevant to management questions. 

 Ocean acidification monitoring: Florida managers want to use sentinel sites to monitor trends in 

ocean chemistry and understand the factors contributing to changes in reef condition. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Increased geographic and species coverage for fishery dependent and fishery independent 

monitoring: Fishery dependent monitoring is needed for Dry Tortugas, for juvenile reef species 

in Florida Bay, and for sportfish populations in the national parks. Fishery independent 

monitoring is needed for the SEFCRI area, Biscayne National Park and Florida Bay. This 

information is needed to assess the health of the larger ecosystem and to guide management 

action, e.g., marine zoning. Currently, Florida has the capacity to conduct fisheries independent 

monitoring along the northern section of the Florida reef tract, but lacks the funding. 

Participants also discussed that fishery independent monitoring could be integrated into existing 

CREMP and SECREMP activities, which currently focus exclusively on benthic composition. It 

would be beneficial to use the Reef Visual Census (RVC) method along the entire reef tract in 

order to facilitate coordinated management. 

 Increasing the number of SECREMP sites: Additional sites need to be added in the overall 

assessment area. Currently, there are not enough sites to statistically determine any changes that 

are occurring in different habitat types or distinguish between ecological and human-induced 

impacts. 

 Inclusion of coral recruitment in CREMP and SECREMP: Participants emphasized the need to 

determine coral recruitment rates in order to analyze the coral population budget and determine 

larval supply or post-settlement bottlenecks. Such information would help to inform restoration 

strategies, e.g., to determine the appropriate size for coral relocation. Recruitment information 

would help determine recovery rates, which is a high priority management need for regulating 

impacts to reefs and evaluating groundings cases. Managers and scientists noted that plot-based 

methodologies would be helpful for Acropora as well. 

 Enhanced Acropora monitoring: Enhanced monitoring (presence/absence and fate tracking) of 

Acropora is needed across the Florida reef tract. This effort needs to be consistent throughout 
FLORIDA

23 

the region. This information would be useful in recovery planning and in determining the 

effectiveness of conservation actions. 

 Targeted monitoring: In order to understand causality between stressors and effects on reef 

condition, specific monitoring studies should be conducted to assess near-shore areas most 

impacted by coastal development and dredge and fill projects, spread of invasive species 

(lionfish, Tubastrea), disease monitoring and outbreak prediction throughout the region, and level 

of effort and impacts of recreational fishing. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

Florida participants agreed on the following LBSP/WQ priorities to support management, but were 

careful to add that there are different LBSP/WQ issues across the region. For example in the 

SEFCRI area, degraded WQ may be caused by more local (versus regional) sources, e.g., pollutants 

from inlets, wastewater outfalls, seasonal upwelling, groundwater discharge, etc.; while the FKNMS 

water quality problems may be more associated with regional (versus local) sources, such as Gulf of 

Mexico advection. Additionally, the Florida participants felt that they could order these priorities by 

importance, as represented in descending order below. 

 Development of tiered WQ monitoring at a higher temporal resolution for select sites: Florida 

participants expressed a need to have a subset of sites throughout the reef tract with more 

temporally intensive monitoring capabilities, using a tiered sampling approach. This should 

include hourly, real-time and deployment of auto samplers. They also suggested that coupling 

water quality monitoring, nutrient sampling and remote sensing would provide opportunities for 

collaboration – for example, the ground-truthing of satellite imagery (see below). Participants 

also noted the opportunity to collaborate with Everglades restoration initiatives. The ability to 

take management action to abate water quality degradation is limited without this type of 

monitoring program. 

 Increase WQ monitoring in SEFCRI: A long-term, targeted WQ monitoring program needs to 

be expanded into the SEFCRI area. Only one year of quarterly water quality monitoring (a pilotscale effort) has been funded in the SEFCRI area. The paucity of data on this issue may 

preclude management action. 

 Develop collaborations among in situ WQ monitoring and remote sensing activities: 

Collaboration with remote sensing (both hindcasting and nowcasting) for ground-truthing is 

needed in order to make large-scale observations and inform management. 

 Determine effects of WQ on HAB development: Florida managers need to know more about 

the relationship between water quality and biota to further the predictive capabilities for when 

Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB) are likely to occur and understand their impact on coral reef 

condition. 

 WQ metrics: Develop numeric criteria for nutrient levels in waters adjacent to coral reefs. 
USVI 

24 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

CONTEXT 

The coral reef ecosystems of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) are made up of a variety of different 

habitat types including coral reefs and other hardbottom areas, seagrasses, mangroves and sandy 

sediments. Generally, the coral reefs display fringing, patch or spur and groove growth patterns 

distributed around the three geologically distinct islands of the USVI (St. John, St. Thomas and St. 

Croix). Recent estimates put the extent of coral reef ecosystems at approximately 344 km2 at depths 

up to 18 m, and 2,126 km2 in depths ranging from 18-183 m (Rothenberger et al., 2008). 

In order to maximize the benefits of the CREIOS workshop, the USVI team began by reviewing the 

results from the site visit interviews, and identifying priority needs for USVI coral reef management 

and conservation that can be addressed via mapping, monitoring and assessment. USVI delegates 

recognized that the solutions to several priority needs are best approached through development of 

integrated and interdisciplinary solutions across the main technical groups defined for the CREIOS 

workshop. Thus some overlap exists between technical groups. 

USVI’s management priorities are: 

 Understanding the linkages between watershed patterns and processes and marine ecosystem 

health to inform planning actions and strategies that can control stressors 

 Understanding how material is dispersed in near-shore areas to support assessment of 

threats from land-based sources 

 Understanding ecological connectivity through dispersal of eggs and larvae to identify key 

sources and sinks, assess connectivity between marine protected areas (MPAs) and between 

spawning aggregations and juvenile habitat 

 Understanding more about the distribution of resources including diversity and productivity 

hotspots, Acropora distributions and key coral refugia to support priority setting 

 Identifying ecologically meaningful water quality thresholds for marine organisms including 

corals and seagrasses to guide strategies to protect ecosystem integrity 

 Evaluating the threat from contaminants in the marine environment, especially in close 

proximity to industrial sources of pollution to prioritize restoration activities 

USVI’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Development of coupled watershed and near-shore hydrodynamic models to quantify runoff 

and model the subsequent dispersion of land-based sources of pollution in the marine 

environment 

 Assessment of threats to marine ecosystem health from land-based sources including 

chemical contaminants and sediments through targeted sampling in priority areas 

 Support in the development of water quality standards that are relevant to corals, seagrasses 

and other marine organisms to direct water quality monitoring and regulations 

 Bathymetric mapping of near-shore marine environments including shallow bays to provide: 

1) habitat information, 2) facilitate development of higher resolution hydrodynamic models 

to track the fate of material entering the sea, and 3) provide updated navigational charts to 

minimize vessel groundings 
USVI 

25 

 Bathymetric mapping and benthic habitat maps are needed for the extensive coral reefs and 

important spawning aggregation areas around the USVI to help define essential fish habitat 

and prioritize management actions with regard to MPA designation and fisheries 

management 

USVI also has the following related needs: 

 USVI DPNR request technical support and training in processing of existing side-scan data 

and training in benthic habitat mapping. Additionally, USVI requests that DPNR staff be 

trained in the relevant hydrodynamic and ocean circulation modeling techniques so that 

simulations can be run and parameterized as needed. 

 Establishment of a community network/reporting system for gathering monitoring 

information. 

 Field support and analytical support on the biological monitoring of EEMP is requested by 

DPNR to support assessment of health and the ecological importance of specific zones in 

relation to their stated objectives. 

 Technical assistance for analysis of historical water quality data, analysis of DFW fishery data 

and GIS/mapping tasks to make better use of existing data and provide training of local 

staff 

 Support for ecosystem goods and services valuations to assist DPNR with their plans to 

evaluate marine ecosystems of the USVI 

MAPPING 

 Identification of biological hotspots: USVI needs to identify all biological hotspots to prioritize 

protection including high diversity areas and highly productive areas such as spawning 

aggregations and areas with high live coral cover that may function as important refugia for 

corals. 

 Mapping presence/absence of acroporids: USVI needs to identify all areas with federally 

protected Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis species presence to evaluate threats and prioritize 

protection from human impacts. 

 Map resolution: USVI needs higher resolution benthic habitat maps for high priority areas 

including Areas of Particular Concern, offshore cays (land and sea) and national parks, and 

monuments. Additionally, the USVI needs high resolution bathymetry for near-shore areas to 

facilitate development of circulation and dispersal models that can be coupled to broader scale 

circulation models. 

 Imagery: USVI requests historical aerial photography (1940s onward) and technical support 

with image georeferencing to support change analysis. 

 Change analysis: Due to rapid coastal development and marine environmental change, USVI 

needs support for change detection analysis and synthesis to track changes and identify key areas 

with major changes in both coastal development (e.g., urban) and marine habitats (e.g., seagrasses, 

coral reefs). 

 Bathymetric data: USVI needs to fill in the gaps in bathymetry including the Virgin Passage, an 

area with high coral cover, the shelf edges that support important spawning aggregations, and 

the East End Marine Park (EEMP). Additionally, existing bathymetry needs to be integrated 

and processed to provide benthic habitat maps to increase their utility to resource managers. 
USVI 

26 

 Coastal vulnerability modeling/mapping: Due to the potential of sea level rise in the coming 

decades, analysis of affected areas under different scenarios would help inform USVI coastal 

planning and mitigate for hazards and threatened resources. 

PRIORITY MAPPING LOCATIONS 

 Areas of Particular Concern with high development pressure: Magen’s Bay; Mandahl Bay; 

Botany Bay; Western St. Croix – Fredericksted Reef System including Sprat Hole; Sandy Point to 

Hovensa 

 Existing MPAs: EEMP, St. Croix; East End Reserve, St. Thomas 

 Offshore cays threatened by development: Great St. James, Little St. James, Thatch Cay, Mingo 

Cay, Lovango Cay, Inner Brass Cay, and Hans Lollick 

 Important areas for coral reefs and reef fisheries: South shelf edge from Vieques to St. John; 

South shelf of St. Croix; Virgin Passage Area of Interest; North shelf of St. Thomas 

 Priority Locations For LBSP: St. Thomas East End Reserve, St. Thomas (major gut, marinas 

and landfill site); Coral Bay and Fish Bay, St. John (rapid residential development); Magen’s Bay, 

St. Thomas (rapid residential development); Salt River, Teague Bay and Great Pond, St. Croix 

(residential and agricultural impact) 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Current modeling for larval dispersal and connectivity: Near-shore ocean circulation models are 

needed to understand the dispersal of biological and physical material from the land and to map 

connectivity between regions of interest such as between MPA’s. Additionally, coupled physical 

and biological dispersal models are needed to understand the connectivity between Buck Island 

Reef National Monument, EEMP and Lang Bank for groupers and snapper populations and 

between USVI and neighboring areas such as the British Virgin Islands. Finally, dispersal 

models are also needed to understand connectivity between deeper water corals and shallow 

water corals since deeper areas may function as important refugia. 

 Climate change impact analysis: An enhanced near-shore array is needed to measure key 

parameters related to climate change that will impact coral reef ecosystem health (i.e.,

temperature, acidification related parameters). Additionally, USVI needs support in compiling, 

synthesizing and communicating relevant information on climate change to assess the threats to 

the local marine environment and ecosystem services including fisheries, coastal defense, coral 

reef related tourism. 

 Climate change predictions: Climate change predictions are needed at an appropriate scale for 

the USVI and surrounding areas. 

 Resiliency: More information is needed on the linkages between climate change and the health 

of coral reef ecosystems, particularly on identifying spatial patterns of resiliency and identifying 

spatial patterns in the magnitude of threats within the USVI region. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Fisheries data: USVI needs support for quantifying fishing mortality (commercial and noncommercial) and the spatial and temporal patterns of fishing effort across the USVI. 
USVI 

27 

 Protected area efficacy analysis: USVI needs to know if existing protected areas are working to 

enhance productivity and ecosystem functions, this is particularly important information to 

evaluate the efficacy of no-take areas such as National Monuments and certain zones with St. 

Thomas East End Reserve and St. Croix EEMP as well as other fishery closures. 

 Coral disease research: USVI needs to better understand the threat to coral reefs from diseases 

through determination of causative agents, spatial patterns of disease and links to physical and 

anthropogenic factors. 

 Bio-indicators: USVI needs support in the development and implementation of bio-indicators 

to assess status and trends in coral reef ecosystem health that are both practical and relevant to 

the USVI.

 Spiny lobster monitoring: USVI seeks support for spiny lobster monitoring at EEMP and 

assessment of patterns of larval supply, habitat use and connectivity between EEMP and Buck 

Island Reef Monument on St. Croix. 

 Area-specific biological data: USVI needs biological monitoring data (fish, macro-invertebrates 

and benthic habitat) for data poor areas around St. Thomas, EEMP, south shore St. Croix and 

offshore cays. 

 Invasive species assessments: Lionfish are spreading rapidly through the region and several have 

been sighted on St. Croix in the past year. USVI needs support with threat assessment for 

invasive lionfish. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

 Causality studies: USVI needs to know more about the causal links between stressors and 

ecosystem condition, particularly sedimentation, temperature, nutrient input , chemical 

contaminants and fishing. 

 Implementation of water quality standards: USVI needs support for the development and 

implementation of water quality standards for local coral reef ecosystems since existing 

standards relate primarily to human health. 

 Common watershed analysis metrics: USVI needs support in the development of common 

watershed metrics to evaluate USVI watersheds based on impervious surfaces, slope, vegetation 

cover, etc. to be used in planning, prioritizing restoration efforts and for optimizing monitoring 

activities. This could be an index of watershed integrity, but needs to integrate EPA and USGS 

processes/information and must be designed in conjunction with USVI DPNR. 

 Modeling: USVI needs to evaluate and model the delivery of stormwater, sediments and 

chemical pollutants in high priority areas such as close to MPAs and sensitive near-shore 

environments. Support for development of mitigation and restoration strategies is needed. 

Research to establish sediment total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) is also needed. 

 Contaminant analysis: USVI has never comprehensively assessed contaminants in the marine 

environment although some potential sources of pollution are known. USVI needs to 

characterize contaminants particularly in sensitive habitats in close proximity to sources of 

pollution and determine the threat to specific organisms (e.g., coral, fish) and to the marine 

ecosystem in general. In collaboration with DPNR, the development of standards, threshold 

levels and restoration strategies are high priorities for USVI. 

 Evaluation of monitoring strategies: USVI DPNR requests increased collaboration/ 

coordination between DPNR, NOAA and EPA to help re-evaluate water quality monitoring 

strategies for the USVI and communicate LBSP problem to the public.
PUERTO RICO

28 

Puerto Rico 

CONTEXT 

Puerto Rico’s shallow coral reef ecosystem and associated habitats were recently estimated to 

encompass 500,967 ha, with coral reef and colonized hardbottom making up 15.1% of this total and 

seagrass habitat 12.5 % (Kendall et al. 2001). 

The Puerto Rico (PR) team began the workshop by reviewing the results of the Away Team Report. 

The team then identified priority needs for coral reef management and conservation in PR that can 

be addressed via mapping, monitoring, and assessment. However, because the PR team that 

attended the workshop was primarily composed of academics, the priorities reported during the 

workshop do not reflect the spectrum of priorities identified by the PR Away Team, which captured 

a broad spectrum of managers and scientists working in the coral reef ecosystem. For this reason, 

some of the priorities presented in this report were taken from the PR Away Team Report in order 

to reflect the perspective of the general PR management community. 

PR’s management priorities are: 

 Information on status of stocks and key species, especially fisheries independent data and 

fisheries dependent data that includes subsistence and recreational fishing to improve 

fisheries management. 

 The management priority should be to mange fisheries stocks to optimize catch relative to 

the constraint of maintaining the necessary ecological functions (e.g., herbivory) necessary to 

maintain healthy coral reefs 

 Targeted before/after studies to evaluate effectiveness of management actions. 

 Integration of physical, chemical, and biological data at the watershed scale to better 

understand causality between land based inputs, water quality, and reef condition, and 

effectively manage LBSP 

 Predict potential impacts of sea level rise to important coral reef ecosystem habitats, and 

conduct change analysis to quantify and predict shoreline erosion and potential changes in 

distribution of these habitats to guide land use management in priority areas 

 Characterization of resilient areas in order to focus management, with particular interest in 

reef-building corals such as Montastrea and Acropora

 Understanding connections between shallow and mesophotic reefs in order to prioritize 

fisheries management actions 

PR’s top mapping and monitoring needs to support management are: 

 Seamless mapping at higher resolution than current benthic maps from the coast to the deep 

areas for priority watersheds; create watershed maps that include locations of acroporid 

corals and ESI maps 

 Use mapping to link habitats to human uses and map links between habitats and important 

fisheries species, as well as habitats as mitigating sediment and pollutant effects on reefs, to 

better define management priorities and strategies 

 Monitor and use predictive models of sediment and contaminant delivery and dispersal at 

watershed scale and out to reefs 
PUERTO RICO

29 

 Coordinate data collection between remotely sensed and in situ data to help quantify the 

magnitude and distribution of climate-related effects 

 Develop a rigorous sampling approach and monitoring methods for assessing reef fisheries 

PR also has the following related needs: 

 Improve connections between those who generate data products and those who need to 

apply data products for management decisions by making formats available to non-technical 

users and having a central repository and format for data. 

 Stimulate cooperation between users and generators of products and across jurisdictions, 

including the establishment of communication links (points-of-contact) for submission of 

data and data exchange. 

 Integrate various data layers to elucidate connections between impacts from multiple threats 

to reef ecosystems. As part of mapping efforts, different types of data compiled by NOAA, 

such as ESI maps, benthic maps, and ESA-related maps, need to be united in products 

available to users. 

 Assist PR with gaining access to hydrographic information from NOAA OCS for key port 

areas. 

 The delegation requested access to a poster presented at the workshop (T. Battista, Biogeo) 

showing a comprehensive picture of areas encompassed by various ongoing mapping 

programs in Puerto Rico. 

 Cruises are excellent opportunities for outreach and education and should continue to be 

used to educate the public and generate support for coastal mapping efforts. 

 Users of mapping data (bathymetric and benthic habitat maps) should increase 

communication and collaboration with NOAA scientists in order to ensure appropriate use 

of the data, e.g., backscatter information. 

 Better collaboration between NOAA and other Federal Agencies (EPA, NASA, etc.) is 

needed. NASA may have data that could be used as a proxy to calculate terrestrial runoff. 

EPA data is difficult to access and use, so Puerto Rico requested assistance in getting water 

quality data from EPA before during and after an event to better understand links between 

various conditions, e.g., how precipitation levels and intensity contribute to near-shore 

bacteria levels. 

 An accessible, centralized data repository and more standardized data formats is desired. 

Integration of various data streams within a GIS system would help illuminate connections 

among them. An example would be linking habitat data to SEAMAP data. 

MAPPING 

 Bathymetric Information 

 Hydrographic information can be used for management activities such as investigating 

groundings, determining the optimal locations for various coastal uses (cruise ship 

anchorages, submarine cables and other infrastructure, etc.). 

 Particular areas in need of bathymetric information include Fajardo, Vieques, and Culebra 

for Acropora; suspected spawning locations; shelf areas between Puerto Rico, Vieques, 

Culebra, and St. Thomas, USVI, and adjacent to Roosevelt Roads Naval Station; natural 

reserves, near shore areas, and shallow reefs in the North Coast; and fisheries closure areas. 
PUERTO RICO

30 

 Puerto Rico would like NOAA to pursue an increased allocation of time on NOAA ships 

and other NOAA resources that collect bathymetric data. 

 The Navy (in Panama City, FL) may have LIDAR and AUV resources that would support 

bathymetric data collection in Puerto Rico and has previously expressed an interest in this 

type of work. 

 High-resolution bathymetric maps are needed for mesophotic reefs (to 50-70 m) to 

characterize the seafloor, help identify important fish spawning aggregation sites, and enable 

predictive modeling of the marine environment in Puerto Rico. 

 Benthic Habitat Information

 Benthic habitat information is needed for better management, such as during permit review 

for development proposals. Having benthic habitat information added to the ESI maps, 

which are widely used in Puerto Rico, would be helpful. 

 Particular regions where habitat information is needed include shelf areas, fisheries closure 

areas and oceanic islands on the west coast as well as the extensive shelf between Puerto 

Rico and St Thomas, USVI, which includes shelf areas surrounding the islands of Vieques 

and Culebra, Puerto Rico. 

 Puerto Rico’s delegation prioritized filling gaps in areas that are presently classified as 

unknown. 

 Benthic habitat maps with higher spatial resolution are needed in natural reserves, in nearshore areas, at spawning aggregation sites, and in shallow habitats along the north coast. 

 There should be an easily-accessed online source of information to catalog where 

Acroporids corals are located. Identification of locations that currently support Acroporid 

corals is needed in order to protect them from coastal development that leads to LBSP via 

MPAs and during permit reviews. 

 An increase in the amount of ground validation conducted would increase the accuracy of 

NOAA’s interpretation of the backscatter signal as well as thematic accuracy of the resulting 

maps. PR needs maps focusing on priority areas and areas of concern that go out to the 

shelf edge and have a higher resolution than the current benthic maps. 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Fine-scale current patterns: Need fine scale current monitoring for near-shore transport and 

determining water quality and when beaches should be closed. This would include increasing in 

situ monitoring in specific locations as well as increasing the resolution and timeliness of satellite 

data so that near-real-time information on current speed and direction is available in the event of 

disturbances requiring rapid response such as oil spills. Additional in situ data is needed to 

validate the satellite data since its accuracy is less reliable near-shore. Profile modeling will be 

useful to relate surface modeling to the water column and benthos. 

 Analysis of past events and links to ecosystem condition: Hindcasting of past events could shed 

light on connections between storm/precipitation events and effects on near-shore areas. This 

could be used to justify restrictions on certain construction or land use activities during rainy 

periods. Hindcasting with existing data could also help explain patterns documented with 

respect to dispersal and recruitment among key marine species and reef fish populations. 

 Use of existing data: Puerto Rico requested additional training and information on how to 

extrapolate measurements collected at a limited number of buoys to the entire seascape. 

Researchers had concerns about the utility of buoy data collected in one area to describe the 
PUERTO RICO

31 

conditions at distant locations subject to different conditions. What can buoys tell us about the 

water column? If they are primarily used to measure conditions at the surface, how do those 

measurements relate to the rest of the water column? 

 Instruments/Buoys: Installation of an additional instrument(s) (i.e., ICON station) on the east 

coast of Puerto Rico would potentially benefit researchers working in that area, who currently 

use data collected at buoys located many kilometers away (La Parguera, PR or St Croix, USVI). 

 Additional parameters: Participants noted the need to add sensors to measure additional 

parameters, such as turbidity, PAR, chlorophyll, and bacteriological parameters. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Ecosystem monitoring: Need island-wide spatially comprehensive ecosystem-level monitoring 

of fish, coral and other habitat metrics. Fish parameters should include determining growth and 

longevity, as well as catch/population monitoring. This will most likely be achieved through a 

series of partnerships. Additional targeted shallow-water coral reef monitoring needs to be 

directed in particular areas, especially those proposed for development. Repeating surveys 

originally done by Carlos Goenaga would help identify trends. 

 Monitoring in Natural Reserves: Monitoring at natural reserves should be continued and the 

frequency increased, since these sites can potentially be used as control sites in studies. Other 

well-monitored control sites need to be established as well. Monitoring at natural reserves 

should be expanded to incorporate methods for measuring coral recruitment into the study 

design. MPAs and other managed areas need to be evaluated to determine if current levels of 

protection are effective. 

 Identification of Resilient Reefs: The locations of resilient reef complexes need to be identified 

for greater protection. Montastraea reefs near Culebra and Abrir la Sierra may be more resilient 

than other reefs and should be investigated further and included in monitoring efforts. 

 Assessment of previously impacted reefs: Locations that may need greater protection include 

areas between Culebra and St. Thomas which have been impacted by the installation of large 

cables. 

 Acroporid corals: Long-term monitoring of robust populations of Acopora palmata should be a 

focus, particularly in certain areas, e.g., Vega Baja, Manati, Isabela, Tres Palmas, Gallardo, El 

Ron. North coast aerial surveys of Acropora palmata reefs need to be validated with in situ

surveys. Identification of low-tech approaches for propagating and transplanting Acropora 

cervicornis and other important coral species will contribute to restoration efforts, which need to 

be accompanied by monitoring to determine if restored areas are regaining adequate ecosystem 

function.

 Reef fish populations and spawning aggregations: Fishery independent data is very limited on 

eastern shelf areas (compared to west coast). Standard methods should be developed to allow 

for U.S. Caribbean-wide comparisons and integration of data collection efforts and analysis. 

Acoustic monitoring of particular areas can identify or confirm the locations of fish spawning 

aggregations for further investigation, monitoring, and management action. Acoustic 

monitoring needs in situ validation to confirm the abundance and species present. Determining 

the effects of specific gear types could help narrow manager’s focus to address specific fishing 

methods and allow less-destructive fishing methods to continue instead of full closure to fishing. 

For example, spearfishing within the Fajardo reserve is believed to have depleted grouper 
PUERTO RICO

32 

populations, but the effects have not been well documented. Standardized methods for fisheries 

monitoring are needed. 

 Integration of data sets: Data on coral communities need to be collected to further classify 

habitats. Because the composition of habitat types such as ‘colonized pavement’ varies widely, it 

is difficult to use the maps to predict the location of important fisheries habitats. 

 Mesophotic reefs: Most mesophotic reef areas (between 70-100 ft) have not been surveyed, but 

should be studied to determine onshore-offshore and deep-shallow links among key fish and 

benthic (i.e., coral) species. 

 Response and restoration: A rapid response assessment capability needs to be developed to 

document and respond to disturbance events, such as vessel groundings, oil spills, bleaching 

events, etc. NOAA can support this by developing a way to set aside grant funds for this type of 

activity. There is also a need for assessment capacity for small vessel (> 65ft) groundings as well 

as large vessel grounding events. New best management practices should be developed since 

removal of vessels often causes more damage than the initial grounding. Increasing education 

and outreach among boaters regarding what to do in the event of contact with the reef or 

seagrass beds would help. 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

All the priorities identified under LBSP have one thing in common, the need for improved 

education and outreach in order to ensure that management efforts are effective. PR would need to 

build capacity in order to strengthen its education and outreach capabilities. 

 Watersheds: In order to target LBSP, PR needs to continue work at a watershed scale using the 

JBNERR work as a model. Priority watersheds include areas within the Natural Reserve System. 

In particular, PR identified the watersheds associated with the following Natural Reserves as 

priorities: Finca Belvedere; La Cordillera Reefs and Ceiba State Forest in Fajardo; Culebra 

(southeastern portion); and Mayagüez Bay and Tourmaline Reefs. The Fajardo River watershed 

should be the next priority watershed for study because the river is about to be channelized as 

part of an Army Corps of Engineers flood control project. Work has begun to address impacts 

in the Guayanilla/Guánica watershed, which includes the Guánica State Forest and Biosphere 

Reserve. Overall, there is a need in PR to integrate physical, chemical, and biological data to 

understand and manage impacts to reefs, including through pinpointing of sources of sediments 

and contaminants 

 Best Management Practices: In PR, the evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs is a priority. At 

the watershed scale, such as in JBNERR, studies have been done to set a baseline for 

contaminants and sediments, implement BMPs to address the levels of these constituents, and 

then evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs. PR needs studies pre-and post-development and 

implementation of BMPs in order to identify what works, where it works, and how methods can 

be adapted to specific sites. The only way to track effectiveness of BMPs, as well as monitor 

sites in general, is to increase monitoring effort to be more frequent than once per year. 

 WQ and biological monitoring: PR needs monitoring of water quality to include both spatial 

and temporal variables in order to determine changes over time and based on geographic 

location. As part of water quality monitoring efforts, PR needs emergency response capabilities, 

defined in this case to mean the ability to respond to an environmental emergency, such as a 

ruptured sewage outfall, in order to monitor the emergency and its effects on water quality and 

surrounding biota and potentially take action to reduce impacts to the marine environment. 
PUERTO RICO

33 

Studies of the impacts of sewage discharge on the marine environment are seriously lacking. A 

priority in PR is the development of water quality standards that adequately protect the health of 

the coral reef ecosystem, in particular corals, and that are developed using methods appropriate 

to the tropics. In order to strengthen coral protections, water quality monitoring needs to 

identify “hot spots” where problems such as fecal coliform contamination are occurring. Need 

interaction with regulators in order to monitor in areas where projects are proposed or permits 

have already been issued to study impacts of coastal development and use this information to 

shape future permitting actions. 

 Modeling: Models are useful tools for PR team in terms of being able to look at “what if” 

scenarios, but some may be more appropriate than others in the Caribbean or may need to be 

tweaked considerably to be used in PR. PR really needs models and studies that look at fate and 

effects of pollutant transport from the river mouth out to reefs, to include hydrodynamics, 

including incorporating longshore transport. This also requires high resolution images, which 

are not currently available, in order to support modeling efforts. 

 Evaluating effectiveness: Targeted before/after studies to analyze impacts of sediment and 

contaminant transport to reefs to evaluate effectiveness of management actions at the watershed 

scale in order to and improve controls on coastal development. 
ATLANTIC/CARIBBEAN REGION

34 

Atlantic/Caribbean Region 

CONTEXT 

The Atlantic/Caribbean Regional/Connectivity team was comprised of representatives from three 

Fishery Management Councils (Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic), Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary, Navassa U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge, NOAA NMFS SE 

Regional Office, U.S. EPA (Region 2) and U.S. Geological Survey. The goal in bringing this group 

together was twofold – first, it aimed to address mapping and monitoring needs on a regional scale, 

and secondly, it provided managers who do not fall within the jurisdictions of Florida, USVI and 

Puerto Rico an opportunity to discuss their needs. 

Each representative provided background information that set the context for their listed priority 

needs and issues. For example, the Fishery Management Councils manage fishing activities outside 

state/territory waters (to 3nm or 9nm) in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) thus their needs 

are focused most specifically in these areas. The EPA’s drivers for protection of coral reefs include 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Thus EPA is interested in mapping and 

monitoring to strengthen their ability to regulate impacts on coral reefs. Navassa Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge is a small, isolated island, whose primary threat to coral reef ecosystems is unsustainable 

fishing. The Southeast Regional Office manages Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for 

Acropora spp. throughout the U.S. Caribbean. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary 

houses the northern-most coral reefs in the U.S. Mapping and monitoring play a tremendous role to 

each of these entities, and furthermore, to the region as a whole. The information below speaks to 

both the needs of each entity to better protect coral reefs, and the connections between them on a 

regional scale. 

This team’s major themes to be considered for management are: 

 Increasing understanding of physical and biological connectivity on a regional scale 

 Understanding regional patterns of climate change impacts and monitoring for potential 

areas of resilience 

 Improving access to data to better inform management decisions 

 Addressing impacts from fishing, climate change and land-based sources of pollution in 

order to recover Acropora populations 

 Improving understanding of pollutant transport and causality between LBSP and impacts to 

coral reef ecosystems 

 Gaining a more accurate and robust understanding of coral ecosystems from 30-100m 

 Enhancing comparability across region through universal monitoring metrics, use of 

common nomenclature, and expanding use of proven monitoring methods 

Mapping and monitoring priorities are: 

 Obtain bathymetry for unmapped areas to determine areas of likely biological importance 

 Update benthic characterizations in areas with old imagery 

 Fill in small but critical gaps in existing maps and characterizations 
ATLANTIC/CARIBBEAN REGION

35 

 Increase hydrodynamic modeling to understand larval source/sink dynamics of existing 

MPAs/reserves 

 Monitor water movement around reefs to understand or predict if areas with better flushing 

are more resilient to climate change 

 Expand water quality monitoring capacity and scope in all jurisdictions 

 Conduct fish tracking and monitoring to understand habitat/life history connections 

 Monitor MPA effectiveness of Council closed areas 

 Utilize monitoring and research to understand connections between loss of coral cover and 

changes to fish assemblages 

 Monitor reference sites with relatively low human impacts 

 Develop pollutant transport models that are better suited for tropical high islands 

 Expand satellite monitoring to supplement near-shore models (chlorophyll, sediment, 

salinity, etc.) 

 Monitor habitat and biological impacts of LBSP to better understand causality 

 Support centralized data access – e.g., maps with bathymetric datasets from multiple sources 

 Co-locate biological, water quality, physical, chemical parameter monitoring (tied in with 

maps) at priority sites 

 Utilize standardized monitoring metrics or methods throughout the region 

Related needs: 

 Support centralized data access. Participants found NCCOS maps of existing bathymetric 

datasets very useful during the workshop and requested improved mechanisms to access 

mapping and monitoring data, both from the CRCP and other entities working in the region. 

 Co-locate biological, water quality, physical, chemical parameter monitoring (tied in with 

maps) at priority sites. In many cases the need is not for monitoring in more places but for 

maximizing existing efforts. For priority sites, the need is to gather sufficient crossdisciplinary information to begin to tease out causality between specific threats and changes 

in coral reef condition. 

 Utilize standardized monitoring metrics or methods throughout the region. 

MAPPING 

 Obtain bathymetry for unmapped areas to determine areas of likely biological importance: 

Several areas of the region (e.g., 30-100m depths, shelf edge between Puerto Rico and St. 

Thomas, reefs and banks in or near FGBNMS, area between Tampa and Ft. Meyers in FL) do 

not currently have bathymetric data at sufficient resolution to model potential locations of reef 

fish spawning aggregations. This information is critical to identify priority areas for management 

actions. Address priority areas of the CFMC and FGBNMS in depths 30-100m and at 

seamounts and banks. The use of ROV/AUV technology will benefit characterization efforts in 

deeper habitats. 

 Update benthic characterizations in areas with old imagery: Existing benthic habitat 

characterizations in some areas are based on data over 10 years old. Updated information would 

support activities such as predictive models for location of threatened acroporids. Refining this 

knowledge would allow improved guidance for the public on areas to avoid and better support 

enforcement actions. 
ATLANTIC/CARIBBEAN REGION

36 

 Fill in small but critical gaps in existing maps and characterizations: Bathymetry and habitat 

characterization in some areas (e.g., Buck Island Reef National Monument) are nearly complete, 

requiring only a few gaps to be filled to have a complete package for management purposes, 

including designating anchorages and other use zones, estimating damages from groundings, 

structuring monitoring and research activities, etc. 

 Additions to existing maps: Incorporating the locations of CSO (combined sewer outfalls) and 

industrial outfalls on benthic habitat and bathymetric layers can help identify hardbottom areas 

for water quality monitoring. 

PHYSICAL MONITORING 

 Increase hydrodynamic modeling to understand larval source/sink dynamics of existing 

MPAs/reserves: Participants requested physical monitoring, modeling, and research at a variety 

of scales (long-term/short-term, near-shore/regional) to understand whether networks of MPAs 

are actually connected, and if so, are they effective. Efforts in this vein would inform 

management of current MPAs and siting of new MPAs and MPA networks. One suggestion for 

better understanding regional hydrodynamics was to monitor the spread of alien invasive 

lionfish throughout the Caribbean basin. 

 Monitor water movement around reefs to understand or predict if areas with better flushing are 

more resilient to climate change: Localized patterns of coral bleaching are often thought to be 

influenced by the degree of water movement around a reef. Fine-scale measurements of water 

flow would be used to understand if greater water movement is correlated with increased 

resilience to bleaching, and if so, to predict areas likely to be resilient to future events. 

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

 Conduct fish tracking and monitoring to understand habitat/life history connections: 

Continued study and monitoring of habitat utilization by reef fish at different stages in their life 

cycles is necessary to identify population bottlenecks and prioritize areas for protection. 

 Monitor MPA effectiveness of Council closed areas: New or continued monitoring of Fishery 

Management Council closed areas is needed to understand the impacts of closures on fish 

populations and habitat and evaluate effectiveness of these management actions. 

 Utilize monitoring and research to understand connections between loss of coral cover and 

changes to fish assemblages: Some areas have experienced greater than 50% loss of coral cover 

within the past few years, and information about the resulting impacts on associated fish 

assemblages is requested. 

 Monitor reference sites with relatively low human impacts: Given the many threats affecting 

coral reef ecosystems, monitoring of reference sites with limited human impacts is needed in 

order to better separate impacts of LBSP climate change, fishing, or other threats. Establishing 

“baselines” of what the impacts of one threat look like will assist managers in prioritizing actions 

in areas facing multiple threats. 

 Acropora: Monitoring needs to integrate both targeted and opportunistic data and include 

demographic monitoring information. 

 Navassa fishery data: Initiate fisheries catch and effort monitoring for Navassa. 

 Ecological and trophic linkages: Improve understanding of predator-prey interactions. 
ATLANTIC/CARIBBEAN REGION

37 

NEAR-SHORE WATER QUALITY MONITORING 

 Develop pollutant transport models that are better suited for tropical high islands: The models 

currently being used to analyze and predict pollutant transport were not developed with the 

particular characteristics of high islands in mind, such as rapid transport of pollutant loads to the 

ocean from rainfall events. A high priority of the regional group is refining existing models, 

including coefficients that characterize variables for island topographies. 

 Expand satellite monitoring to supplement near-shore models (chlorophyll, sediment, salinity, 

etc.): Satellite monitoring would be helpful to focus in-water monitoring efforts adjacent to reef 

areas, based on location and time series of upstream inputs. For instance, existing “snapshot” 

water quality monitoring cannot establish if local rivers (in Puerto Rico) are significant sources 

of land-based sources of pollution. Additionally, satellite monitoring is needed to characterize 

events such as Orinoco River inputs and harmful algal blooms. Continue use of satellite data to 

understand green-water/runoff episodes 

 Monitor habitat and biological impacts of LBSP to better understand causality: More work is 

needed to link ecosystem parameters to coral condition and inform potential management 

actions. For example, understanding the impacts of sediments vs. contaminated sediments 

would be helpful for teasing out the contribution of each in declining coral condition 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

38 

Section III: Summary of NOAA Capabilities and Potential Solutions 

NOAA scientists at the workshop shared information on NOAA capabilities and services that can 

address management needs of the jurisdictions for coral mapping and monitoring. NOAA panelists 

presented on the following topics: 

 Mapping

 Physical Monitoring

 Biological Monitoring

 Near-shore Water Quality Monitoring

 Data Dissemination

 National-level Mapping and Monitoring 

Mapping 

The CRCP has established mapping goals to: 

 Provide a comprehensive suite of digital map products for U.S. coral reefs 

 Support management and monitoring needs through mapping the spatial extent and 

characterization of coral ecosystems 

 Develop and provide a range of data products and capabilities to support coral ecosystem 

management and conservation 

 Develop advanced technologies and techniques to more efficiently map coral habitats 

The CRCP funds two types of mapping efforts in coral reef areas: 

 Shallow-water near-shore benthic habitat mapping, which is based on visual interpretation of 

satellite imagery and aerial photos, which provide information about the underlying geologic 

structure and biological cover within different habitats in water depths from 0-30 m 

 Mid- and deep-water surveys, which utilize a variety of acoustic technologies and optical 

validation instruments, provide high-resolution bathymetry and derivative products (e.g., 

backscatter, slope, rugosity) in water depths between ~15-1000+ m 

CRCP products meet national-level requirements while providing critical information to regional, 

state, and local coastal managers. Most U.S Pacific (Figure 1) and Atlantic/Caribbean (Figure 1) 

locations now have shallow water benthic habitat maps and moderate depth acoustic and optical 

maps (see Tables 1 and 2). 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

39 

Figure 1. U.S. Pacific jurisdictions. 

Table 1. Mapping progress to date in the U.S. Pacific. 

Jurisdiction 

Benthic Habitat Maps Bathymetric Maps 

Shallow-water

(<30 m) 

Moderate depth

(30-1000 m) 

Shallow-water 

(<30 m) 

Moderate depth

(30-1000 m) 

Main Hawai’ian Islands 75-100% 0-25% 75-100% 75-100% 

Northwestern Hawai’ian Islands 50-75% 0-25% 25-50% 25-50% 

American Samoa 75-100% 0-25% 25-50% 75-100% 

Pacific Remote Island Areas 0-25% 0-25% 0-25% 75-100% 

CNMI 75-100% 0-25% 50-75% 75-100% 

Guam 75-100% 0-25% 75-100% 75-100% 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

40 

Figure 2. U.S. Atlantic/Caribbean jurisdictions. 

Table 2. NOAA mapping progress to date in the U.S. Atlantic/Caribbean. 

Jurisdiction 

Benthic Habitat Maps Bathymetric Maps 

Shallowwater 

(<30 m) 

Moderate 

depth 

(30-100 m) 

Shallowwater 

(<30 m) 

Moderate 

depth 

(30-100 m) 

U.S. Virgin Islands 75-100% 0-25% 25-50% 25-50% 

Puerto Rico 75-100% 0-25% 75-100% 0-25% 

Navassa Island 25-50% 0-25% 75-100% 75-100% 

SE Florida 75-100% 0-25% 0-25% 0-25% 

Florida Keys 50-75% 0-25% 0-25% 0-25% 

Flower Garden Banks N/A 0-25% N/A 75-100% 

The CRCP has identified various solutions to the needs identified by managers: 

 Develop a standard suite of habitat mapping schemes (GIS layers) that are seamless from the 

shoreline to 1000 m 

 Initiate iterative mapping for change analysis in targeted locations 

 Provide training to managers on how to use products 

 Improve information distribution to managers 

 Develop and foster capabilities ecosystem change analysis 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

41 

 Utilize new methods (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, Unmanned Autonomous Systems, 

Bathymetric LIDAR, small boats, etc.) for better, faster, and more cost-effective mapping 

 Conduct mapping of unknown areas based on management priorities. 

 Continue fine-scale remapping of targeted areas based on management needs 

 Conduct syntheses of existing map products 

 Increase watershed and near-shore mapping 

Physical and Chemical Oceanographic Monitoring 

The CRCP’s physical and chemical oceanographic monitoring efforts provide information on: 

 Ocean acidification 

 Spatial structure of oceanographic, physical, and chemical parameters 

 Near-real-time environmental conditions 

 Small- to large-scale patterns of currents and waves 

 Nowcasting and forecasting for potentially detrimental events (e.g., coral bleaching). 

The CRCP supports four sets of activities that are components of physical monitoring of coral reef 

environments (see Table 3): 

 Ship-based spatial oceanographic and near-shore surveys 

 In situ instrumentation 

 Satellite observations and derived products 

 Regional physical, chemical, hydrodynamic, and ecological modeling 

The CRCP has identified various solutions to the needs identified by managers: 

 Tailor information products to management needs 

 Improve access and ensure timely delivery 

 Increase spatial and temporal resolution to answer management questions 

 Better integrate data within and across disciplines 

 Provide automated observations where needed for management 

 Improve detection, modeling, and prediction of climate change impacts 

 Develop and foster hydrodynamic modeling capabilities for connectivity and LBSP 

 Develop new instruments to address known gaps 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

42 

Table 3. Physical oceanographic capabilities, and their roles in monitoring key parameters. 

Capability 

Tools 

Shipbased 

surveys 

In situ 

instrumentation

Satellite 

products Modeling

Long-term environmental trends    

Regional comparisons   

Causes of ecological change    

Ocean acidification    

Coral bleaching condition nowcasting  

Bleaching event forecasting   

Sea level rise   

Ecological modeling    

Spawning event prediction    

Biological indicators for alien species   

Vessel detection and poaching  

Connectivity and larval transport    

Land-based sources of pollution    

Water quality data   

Land use changes  

Biological Monitoring 

The CRCP has established biological monitoring goals to measure temporal and spatial variations in: 

 Sustainable living resources 

 Resource habitat composition 

 Community and ecosystem condition 

 Biological diversity 

 Species of concern 

There are five components to CRCP biological monitoring in the Pacific region: 

 Towed-diver observations 

 Site-based rapid ecological assessments (REAs) 

 Specimen collection for further biological analysis (e.g., life histories, stock assessment, 

histology, species/biodiversity confirmation) 

 In situ instrumentation 

 Grant-supported biological monitoring conducted by local partner agencies 

There are five components to CRCP biological monitoring in the Atlantic/Caribbean region: 

 Ecosystem-based assessments of habitats and living marine resources 

 Reef fish surveys, stock assessments, and spawning aggregation monitoring 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

43 

 Acropora monitoring in support of Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements 

 Mesophotic and deep reefs monitoring 

 Grant-supported biological monitoring conducted by local partner agencies 

There are a variety of applications of biological monitoring data for managers: 

 Baseline resource characterization 

 Regional comparisons of ecosystems 

 Understanding unexpected phenomena 

 Responding to environmental and anthropogenic disturbances 

 Defining and evaluating MPAs 

 Assessing impacts of specific threats, i.e., pollution, overfishing, and fishing-related habitat 

impacts 

The CRCP has identified various solutions to the needs identified by managers: 

 Improve monitoring reports to meet managers’ needs 

 Increase spatial and temporal resolution to answer management questions 

 Improve detection, modeling, and prediction of biological perturbations, including disease 

outbreaks, invasive species, and community shifts 

 Develop and foster hydrodynamic modeling capabilities that will contribute to our 

understanding of connectivity factors among locations 

Near-shore Water Quality Monitoring 

The CRCP has four core capabilities related to LBSP: 

 Monitoring and assessment of marine waters, sediments, etc. 

 Ocean remote sensing 

 Watershed modeling, assessment and planning 

 Review, mitigation, and restoration 

There are a variety of applications of water quality and LBSP monitoring data for managers: 

 Assessing environmental contamination, toxicity, and coral community condition 

 Assessing coral disease and linkages with natural and anthropogenic impacts 

 Evaluating the effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

 Prioritizing areas for conservation 

 Modeling nonpoint source pollution and erosion rates 

The CRCP has identified various solutions to the needs identified by managers: 

 Increase spatial and temporal resolution for water quality data 

 Develop and foster hydrodynamic modeling capabilities for LBSP 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

44 

Data Dissemination 

The CRCP has five core capabilities related to data dissemination: 

 The Coral Reef Information System (CoRIS) web portal includes searchable library catalog, 

metadata describing CRCP activities, datasets, and information products 

 Peer-reviewed publications and NOAA Technical Reports and Memos 

 Web sites, web mapping services, online database applications 

 Maps and databases available in hard copy and by CD/DVD 

 Technology transfer trainings 

CRCP data are available in a variety of formats to meet different user community needs. Custom 

datasets and formats can be created and made available upon request. CRCP also develops and 

provides software tools for data visualization and analysis. CRCP projects provide environmental 

data and information products which continue to be archived at appropriate NOAA National Data 

Centers to ensure long-term access.

The CRCP has identified various solutions to the needs identified by managers: 

 Improve data access and delivery mechanisms 

 Improve integration of data sets 

 Provide technology transfer training and capacity building for data manipulation 

 Provide an annual list of proposed and funded CRCP projects by geographic region 

 Support data recovery projects to ensure preservation of data from historical studies 

 Promote the use of common data standards to allow for data interoperability between 

similar data collection efforts in a region 

 Develop a catalog of NOAA software tools, models and services 

National-level Mapping and Monitoring 

The CRCP derives its mandates and responsibilities from the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 

(CRCA), including the following goals: 

 To preserve coral reef ecosystems 

 To promote wise use and sustainable management 

 To develop sound scientific information on the condition of ecosystems and the threats 

 To assist preservation of coral reefs by supporting conservation programs 

 To provide financial resources for programs and projects 

The CRCP has national-level responsibilities to: 

 Administer the national program and grant programs 

 Be responsive to Congress and NOAA leadership 

 Partnership development 

 National outreach, communications and education 

 International program development 
NOAA CAPABILITIES

45 

 Be able to answer the question “How are the reefs doing?” via basin-wide monitoring, 

mapping, assessment and data analysis 

 Assess efficacy of MPAs 

In an ideal world, the CRCP could support a national program to map, assess, monitor, understand, 

effectively manage, and conserve all U.S. coral reef ecosystems, which would answer the following 

questions: 

 Where are the reefs? (mapping) 

 What are the reef resources there? (assessment) 

 How are the reef resources changing over time? (monitoring) 

 Why are the reef resources changing over time? (environmental and human dimension 

monitoring) 

There are many benefits of having a national-level program: 

 Achieve a greater economy of scale for activities – federal investment in research vessels, 

satellites, data collection instruments 

 Promote consistency in data collection, analysis and dissemination 

 Demonstrate status and trends in coral reef ecosystems across wide geographic range 

 Compare changes across jurisdictions 

 Increase the ability to forecast ecosystem-scale events (e.g., bleaching) 

 Engage the general public, Congress and international partners in coral reef conservation 

efforts. 
CONCLUSION

46 

Section IV: Conclusion 

The CRCP hosted this pair of workshops as an integral component of the process to realign the 

program with the direction outlined in the Roadmap for the Future, the CRCP’s response to 

recommendations made following an external review of the program in 2007. In an extensive selfassessment completed as a precursor to the external review, the CRCP analyzed the balance of its 

investments in a number of ways. Over the first seven years of the program, the CRCP spent nearly 

half of its budget on mapping, monitoring, assessment, and data management. The proportion of 

funding going to these activities has not significantly changed in the three years since the selfassessment was completed. The external review panel, composed of a diverse group of esteemed 

coral reef scientists and managers, deemed this level of expenditure completely appropriate given the 

state of knowledge of U.S. coral reef ecosystems at the time of the program’s inception. The panel 

praised the advancements in understanding of coral reefs that have been made as a result of CRCPfunded activities, and lauded the science that has been produced. However, a core recommendation 

of the panel is that the program shift from one focused primarily on assessment and monitoring of 

coral reefs to one that actively attempts to conserve the systems by reducing major threats. This 

recommendation was accepted by the CRCP’s Program Manager and Senior Management Council, 

and is at the core of the new direction outlined in the Roadmap for the Future.

In order to implement this recommendation, the CRCP must, absent a significant increase in 

Congressional appropriations, decrease the proportion of funding devoted to mapping, monitoring, 

and assessment and shift these resources to activities that reduce threats to coral reef ecosystems. In 

so doing, the CRCP wishes to ensure the remaining portfolio of mapping, monitoring, and 

assessment activities meet the most critical national and local needs. The program is undertaking 

simultaneous top-down and bottom-up approaches to identify these critical needs and strategies to 

address the needs. The CRCP has identified three activities in the Roadmap that will, when complete, 

serve as the foundation for our continuing CREIOS investments: 

1) this pair of workshops to specifically elicit local or site-based needs for mapping, monitoring, 

and assessment information and products; 

2) the jurisdictional management priority-setting processes being conducted by CRCP 

consultants (which will be informed by the results of these workshops); and 

3) an external consultant’s review of and recommendations for the national program’s 

mapping, monitoring, and assessment activities. 

 

The workshops and the jurisdictional priority-setting processes represent the bottom-up approach. 

These efforts are designed to enable management needs to be articulated to the CRCP in a 

structured, comparative manner. The information gathered at these workshops will help inform the 

CRCP about the most effective ways to build capacity and provide support for successful and 

productive partnerships to meet mapping and monitoring needs. The CREIOS Workshops Report will 

be used by the CRCP in examining its portfolio of mapping, monitoring, and assessment activities, 

and be used as a preamble to the identification of priorities and the capacity assessments for each 

location. In reality, the outcomes of these workshops should directly feed into the jurisdictional 

priority setting processes, and the mapping, monitoring, and assessment needs from the workshops 

should be prioritized along with the other types of management needs. Because of the importance, 

significant funding, and technical nature of CREIOS activities, the CRCP determined it was best to 
CONCLUSION

47 

conduct dedicated workshops to these topics instead of allowing them to be dealt with solely by the 

consultants assisting with the jurisdictional priority setting processes. 

The top-down approach will determine the information and products necessary for the national 

program to generate. To date, the CRCP has not articulated the supra-jurisdictional questions it 

seeks to answer with national CREIOS activities. The program has contracted with Dr. John 

Boreman to complete an assessment of the CRCP’s existing mapping, monitoring, and assessment 

activities from the national perspective and make recommendations on the future of CREIOS 

activities. The CRCP will then 1) articulate the purposes of mapping, monitoring, and assessment 

actions that transcend individual management needs, 2) identify the spatial and temporal scale and 

scope of those activities, and 3) align to the extent practicable actions to address these nationallyrelevant questions with actions undertaken in response to local management needs. 

These simultaneous activities will increase transparency in CRCP decision-making processes and 

ensure that the highest priority management needs for mapping, monitoring, and assessment 

information and products are addressed. Specific monitoring and mapping needs developed by each 

management entity will be critical for the CRCP to evaluate its mapping and monitoring activities. 

This information will guide the balancing of location-specific monitoring programs that are designed 

to address managers' data needs with CRCP’s national program needs, while taking advantage of 

existing monitoring expertise. Potential reallocation of monitoring efforts may redistribute 

responsibilities among agencies (i.e., via CRCP monitoring grants), NOAA service providers, and 

other relevant entities, but will ensure, to the extent practical, that monitoring efforts at all levels are 

aligned and working toward meeting coordinated management objectives. 

The purposes of the workshops were to 1) identify mapping and monitoring needs to address 

management needs for coral reef conservation and 2) identify possible products and solutions to 

meet these management needs. The CRCP believes the workshops were successful in achieving 

these objectives. Specifically, the workshops were successful in eliciting priority information needs 

from managers, and highlighted important issues of concern, including the need for: 

 increased technical capacity; 

 improved information and data dissemination; 

 improved communication of scientific information to non-scientific audiences; and 

 increased emphasis on mapping, monitoring, and assessing resources at finer scales in 

specific areas of importance to managers. 

The CRCP clearly heard that there was much that can be done to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of its mapping, monitoring, and assessment activities. As articulated in the Roadmap for 

the Future, the CRCP’s primary objective is to meet strategic management needs. The information 

collected during these workshops, coupled with the jurisdictional priority setting process reports, 

will be used by the CRCP in striking the appropriate balance between answering nationallyimportant questions and fulfilling managers’ specific needs. 

It should also be recognized that the CRCP does not have the financial or human resources 

necessary to address all of the needs articulated during these workshops, and many of those needs 

fall outside the scope of the NOAA CRCP. While the CRCP will not be able to address everything 

that was raised, we are committed to working with other NOAA programs and other Federal 

agencies to bring their expertise and resources to bear on coral reef managers’ needs. 
CONCLUSION

48 

This will be a blank page to print correctly. 

Blank Page 

Blank Page 

Blank Page 
APPENDIX A – PACIFIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

A-1 

Appendix A: Pacific Workshop Agenda 

NOAA Pacific CREIOS Workshop 

Honolulu, Hawai’i 

November 18-20, 2008 

Purpose of Workshop 

Gather input to guide the future direction of mapping and monitoring activities of NOAA’s 

Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

Workshop Objectives 

1) Identify mapping and monitoring needs to address management for coral reef 

conservation 

2) Identify possible products and solutions to meet management needs 

3) Gather input on national mapping and monitoring needs 

Weekly schedule at-a-glance 

Monday 

November 17 

Tuesday 

November 18 

Wednesday 

November 19 

Thursday 

November 20 

Travel 

8:00 - 12:25 

Registration 

Welcome remarks from 

Kacky Andrews 

Breakout groups: defining 

needs 

Jurisdictional panel 

presentations & 

discussion 

8:30 - 12:10 

NOAA technical panel 

presentations & 

discussion 

Breakout groups: potential 

products and solutions 

9:00 - 12:00 

NOAA’s National Program 

presentation & Town Hall 

discussion 

Closing remarks from 

Kacky Andrews 

12:25 Lunch 

(on your own) 

12:10 Lunch 

(on your own) 

Travel 

1:25 - 5:35 

Jurisdictional panel 

presentations & 

discussion 

Breakout groups: refining 

needs 

1:10 - 5:35

Breakout groups: potential 

products and solutions 

Breakout groups: refining 

solutions 

Monday Evening - Social Event 
APPENDIX A – PACIFIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

A-2 

Day 1 - Tuesday, November 18 - Agenda 

8:30 – 12:25 Morning Session 

 Registration and Coffee 

 Welcome (Kacky Andrews) 

 Workshop Objectives, Expectations, and Introductions

 Breakout Groups: Defining Needs

Objective: Jurisdictions develop primary topics to focus discussion on. 

Participants from the 4 jurisdictions (CNMI, Guam, American Samoa, and Hawai’i) will break 

into groups by jurisdiction with a facilitator to discuss mapping and monitoring needs with 

respect to management issues and actions. 

 Panel Presentation and Discussion: Jurisdictional Mapping and Monitoring Needs to 

Address Management Efforts 

Objective: Share and clarify management needs from jurisdictions. 

Each jurisdiction will present their mapping and monitoring needs, followed by a facilitated 

panel discussion. Each panel will have 60 minutes, as follows: 

(15 minutes) - Presentation of mapping and monitoring needs. 

(10 minutes) - Additional comments from the panel 

(30 minutes) - Discussion - questions and answers from audience. 

10:15am Guam, 11:25am CNMI, 1:25pm American Samoa, 2:35pm Hawai’i 

12:25 - 1:25 Lunch (on your own)

1:35 – 5:35 Afternoon Session 

 Panel Presentation and Discussion: Jurisdictional Mapping and Monitoring Needs to 

Address Management Efforts 

 

 Breakout Groups: Refining Needs 

Objective: Identify additional needs based on presentations from other jurisdictions and revisit primary topics. 

Participants will break into groups by jurisdiction with a facilitator to discuss the outcomes from 

the panel presentations and discussions. 

 Report Outs from Breakout Groups 

Objective: Share refined information from break out groups with all participants. 

(15 minutes per group) - A representative from each group will present the results of the breakouts. 

 Wrap Up of Day 1 

Evening (on your own)
APPENDIX A – PACIFIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

A-3 

Day 2 - Wednesday, November 19 - Agenda 

8:30 – 12:10 Morning Session 

 Review Day 1 Outcomes and Objectives for Day 2 

 Panel Presentations and Discussions: NOAA’s Solutions to Address Management 

Efforts 

Objective: Share information on NOAA’s capabilities and services, and clarify product and information needs 

from participants. 

NOAA experts in 4 areas of technical expertise (mapping, physical monitoring, biological 

monitoring, and water quality monitoring) will present NOAA’s capabilities and services, 

followed by a facilitated panel discussion. Each panel will have 30 minutes, as follows: 

(20 minutes) - Presentation of current products and potential solutions. 

(10 minutes) - Discussion - questions and answers from audience. 

9:00am Mapping, 9:30am Physical, 10:00am Biological, 10:45am Water Quality 

 Rotating Breakouts by Jurisdiction/Technical area: Brainstorming Potential Products 

and Solutions 

Objective: Jurisdictions and NOAA experts brainstorm and have dialogue about specific products and services 

needed to address management needs. 

Each jurisdiction will break out with each NOAA technical panel and a facilitator to discuss 

potential products and solutions. 

12:10 - 1:10 Lunch (on your own)

1:35 – 5:35 Afternoon Session 

 Rotating Breakouts by Jurisdiction/Technical area: Brainstorming Potential Products 

and Solutions 

 

 Breakout Groups: Refining Solutions 

Objective: Identify primary products and solutions based on NOAA presentations and breakout group 

discussions. 

Participants will break into groups by jurisdiction with a facilitator to discuss the outcomes from 

the panel presentations and discussions. 

 Report Outs from Breakout Groups 

Objective: Share refined information from break out groups with all participants. 

(15 minutes per group) - A representative from each group will present the results of the breakouts. 

 Wrap Up of Day 2 

Evening - Social Event 
APPENDIX A – PACIFIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

A-4 

Day 3 - Thursday, November 20 - Agenda 

9:00 – 12:00 Morning Session 

 Review Day 2 Outcomes and Objectives for Day 3

 

 “Town Hall” Presentation and Discussion: NOAA’s National-Scale Mapping and 

Monitoring Goals, Needs, and Activities (Kacky Andrews) 

Objective: Gather input on national-level mapping and monitoring needs. 

A facilitated forum for comment on and discussion of NOAA’s national program for mapping 

and monitoring in U.S. coral reef areas. 

 Wrap Up

 

 Next Steps (Kacky Andrews)

12:00 Adjourn 
APPENDIX B – ATLANTIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

B-1 

Appendix B: Atlantic/Caribbean Workshop Agenda 

NOAA Atlantic CREIOS Workshop 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

May 13-14, 2009 

Purpose of Workshop 

Gather input to guide the future direction of mapping and monitoring activities of NOAA’s 

Coral Reef Conservation Program. 

Workshop Objectives 

1) Identify mapping and monitoring needs to address management for coral reef 

conservation 

2) Identify possible products and solutions to meet management needs 

Weekly schedule at-a-glance 

Monday 

May 12 

Tuesday 

May 13 

8:00 – 5:30 

Wednesday 

May 14 

8:30 – 5:30

Travel 

Registration 

Welcome & Objectives 

CRCP National Program 

Jurisdictional presentations & 

discussion 

Convene 

NOAA technical panel 

presentations & discussion 

Rotating breakout groups: 

potential products and 

solutions 

Lunch 

(on your own)

Lunch 

(on your own) 

Jurisdictional presentations & 

discussion 

Breakout groups: refining 

needs 

Rotating breakout groups: 

potential products and 

solutions 

Breakout groups: refining 

products 
APPENDIX B – ATLANTIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

B-2 

Day 1 – Wednesday, May 13 - Agenda 

7:45 – 12:40 Morning Session 

 Registration and greeting (7:45-8:10) 

 Welcome and Presentation on NOAA CRCP and National Program (Kacky Andrews) 

 Introductions and Workshop Overview 

 Breakout Groups: Refining Presentations and Discussion Topics

Participants from the 4 breakout groups (USVI, Puerto Rico, Florida, and the Regional Group) 

will break into groups by jurisdiction to finalize their presentation and discuss mapping and 

monitoring needs. 

 Panel Presentation and Discussion: Jurisdictional Mapping and Monitoring Needs to 

Address Management Efforts 

Objective: Share and clarify management needs from jurisdictions. 

Each jurisdiction will present their mapping and monitoring needs, followed by a facilitated 

panel discussion. Each panel will have 60 minutes, as follows: 

(15 minutes) - Presentation of mapping and monitoring needs. 

(10 minutes) - Additional comments from the panel 

(30 minutes) - Discussion - questions and answers from audience. 

(5 minutes) - Wrap up - final comments from the panel. 

12:40 - 1:40 Lunch (on your own)

1:40 – 4:30 Afternoon Session 

 Continue Panel Presentations and Discussions: Jurisdictional Mapping and Monitoring 

Needs to Address Management Efforts 

 Wrap Up of Day 1 

 Breakout Groups: Refining Needs (optional) 

Objective: Identify additional needs based on presentations from other jurisdictions and revisit primary topics.
APPENDIX B – ATLANTIC WORKSHOP AGENDA

B-3 

Day 2 – Thursday May 14 - Agenda 

7:45 – 12:40 Morning Session 

 Review Day 1 Outcomes and Objectives for Day 2 

 Review of NOAA’s Existing Capabilities for Mapping and Monitoring: NOAA 

Presentations by Area of Technical Expertise 

Objective: Share information on NOAA’s capabilities and services, and clarify product and information needs 

from participants. 

NOAA experts in 5 areas of technical expertise (mapping, physical monitoring, biological 

monitoring, land based sources of pollution, and data dissemination) will present NOAA’s 

capabilities and services. Each panel will have 20 minutes for their presentation and question and 

answer session. 

 Rotating Breakouts by Jurisdiction/Technical Area: Brainstorming Potential Products 

and Solutions 

Objective: Jurisdictions and NOAA experts brainstorm and have dialogue about specific products and services 

needed to address management needs. 

Each jurisdiction will break out with each NOAA technical panel and a facilitator on a rotating 

basis to discuss potential products and solutions. 

12:40- 1:25 Lunch (catered in room)

1:25 – 5:30 Afternoon Session 

 Continue Rotating Breakouts by Jurisdiction/Technical Area: Brainstorming Potential 

Products and Solutions 

 Breakout Groups: Refining Solutions 

Objective: Identify primary products and solutions based on NOAA presentations and breakout group 

discussions. 

Participants will break into groups by jurisdiction with a facilitator to discuss the outcomes from 

the panel presentations and discussions. 

 Report Outs from Breakout Groups 

Objective: Share refined information from break out groups with all participants. 

(10 minutes per group) - A representative from each group will present the results of the breakouts. 

 Closing Remarks and Next Steps (Kacky Andrews) 
APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANT LIST

C-1 

Appendix C: Participant List 

LAST NAME FIRST NAME AFFILIATION WORKSHOP

NOAA HEADQUARTERS 

Andrews Kacky NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Both

Arzayus Felipe NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Pacific

Boreman John NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Atlantic

Clarke Alicia NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Atlantic

Kavanaugh Stephanie NOAA Special Projects Office Both

Koss Jennifer NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Both

Morgan Jessica NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Pacific

Parsons Tracy NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Atlantic

Pritchett Anita NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Atlantic

Thur Steven NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Both

Torres Cecilia NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Pacific

Waddell Jenny NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Both

Wallace Nancy NOAA Special Projects Office Both

NOAA REGIONAL OFFICES 

Brown Val NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office Pacific

Carrubba Lisa-Marie NOAA Southeast Regional Office Atlantic

Everson Al NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office Pacific

Gombos Meghan NOAA Coastal Programs Division Pacific

Karazsia Jocelyn NOAA Southeast Regional Office Atlantic

McElwee Kris NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Pacific

Moore Jennifer NOAA Southeast Regional Office Atlantic

Philibotte Jason NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office Pacific

Piniak Greg NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research Atlantic

Pittman Simon NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Atlantic

Schull Jennifer NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center Atlantic

Seki Mike NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Pacific

NOAA MAPPING 

Battista Tim NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Atlantic

David Andy NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center Atlantic

Miller Joyce NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific

Monaco Mark NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Both

Rohmann Steve NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Atlantic

Rooney John NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific

NOAA PHYSICAL MONITORING 

Brainard Rusty NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific

Eakin Mark NOAA Coral Reef Watch Both

Gledhill Dwight NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Lab Atlantic

Hendee Jim NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Lab Both

 
APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANT LIST

C-2 

LAST NAME FIRST NAME AFFILIATION WORKSHOP

NOAA BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

Bohnsack Jim NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center Both

Caldow Chris NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Both

Hill Ron NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center Atlantic

Kenyon Jean NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific

Manzello Derek NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Lab Atlantic

Miller Margaret NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center Atlantic

Schroeder Bob NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific

NOAA WATER QUALITY / LBSP 

Chaston Kathy NOAA Coastal Programs Division Pacific

Christensen John NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Pacific

Davis Gerry NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office Pacific

Griffin Sean NOAA Habitat Restoration Division Atlantic

Pait Tony NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Atlantic

Vargas-Angel Bernardo NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division Pacific

NOAA DATA DISSEMINATION 

Newlin Michele NOAA Coral Reef Information System Pacific

O’Connor Sarah NOAA Coral Reef Information System Atlantic

AMERICAN SAMOA 

Brighouse Gene NOAA Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Pacific

Brown Paul National Park Service - American Samoa Pacific

Carroll Ben AS Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Pacific

Fenner Doug AS Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Pacific

Goldberg Jeremy AS Department of Commerce Pacific

Peau Lelei AS Department of Commerce Pacific

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Castro Fran CNMI Division of Environmental Quality Pacific

Houk Peter CNMI Division of Environmental Quality Pacific

Starmer John CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office Pacific

Trianni Michael CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife Pacific

GUAM 

Burdick Dave Guam Coastal Management Program Pacific

Cruz Jesse Guam Environmental Protection Agency Pacific

Gutierrez Jay Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Pacific

Lujan Vange Guam Coastal Management Program Pacific

HAWAI’I 

Brown Eric National Park Service - Hawai’i Pacific

Clark Athline Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Pacific

Hamnett Mike University of Hawai’i Pacific

Jokiel Paul Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology Pacific

Kosaki Randy Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Pacific

MacGowan Petra Hawai’i Division of Aquatic Resources Pacific

Nishimoto Robert Hawai’i Division of Aquatic Resources Pacific
APPENDIX C – PARTICIPANT LIST

C-3 

LAST NAME FIRST NAME AFFILIATION WORKSHOP

Walsh Bill Hawai’i Division of Aquatic Resources Pacific

White Susan Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Pacific

Wilhelm Aulani Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument Pacific

PACIFIC REGION 

Maragos Jim U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific

Wiltse Wendy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pacific

FLORIDA 

Boyer Joseph Florida International University Atlantic

Collier Chantal Florida Department of Environmental Protection Atlantic

Gilliam Dave Nova Southeastern University Atlantic

Hallac Dave National Park Service - Dry Tortugas and Everglades Atlantic

Keller Brian NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Atlantic

Palandro Dave Florida Wildlife Research Institute Atlantic

Patterson Matt National Park Service - South Florida/Caribbean Network Atlantic

Ruzicka Rob Florida Wildlife Research Institute Atlantic

Walker Brian Nova Southeastern University Atlantic

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Boulon Rafe National Park Service - St. John Atlantic

Murray January USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife Atlantic

Nibs Anita USVI Division of Environmental Protection Atlantic

Oriol J.P. USVI Coastal Zone Management Atlantic

Rothenberger Paige USVI Coastal Zone Management Atlantic

Smith Tyler University of the Virgin Islands Atlantic

PUERTO RICO 

Appeldoorn Rich University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Atlantic

Diaz Ernesto PR Coastal Zone Management Atlantic

Garcia-Sais Jorge University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Atlantic

Hernandez Edwin University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Atlantic

Lilyestrom Craig PR Marine Resources Atlantic

Rosario Aida PR Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Atlantic

ATLANTIC/CARIBBEAN REGION 

LoBue Buddy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Atlantic

Martinez Juan U.S. Department of Agriculture Atlantic

Rogers Caroline U.S. Geological Survey - St. John Atlantic

Schmahl GP NOAA Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Atlantic

Schwagerl Joseph U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlantic

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCILS

Brouwer Myra South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Atlantic

Dalzell Paul Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council Pacific

Finn Kelly Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council Pacific

Garcia-Molliner Graciela Caribbean Fishery Management Council Atlantic

Simmons Carrie Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Atlantic
APPENDIX D – PRESENTATIONS

D-1 

Appendix D: Workshop Presentations 

The following presentations made during the workshop can be found on the web at 

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/reprioritization/creios/

Mapping and Monitoring Needs 

 American Samoa 

 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

 Guam 

 Hawai’i 

 Florida 

 U.S. Virgin Islands 

 Puerto Rico 

 Regional/Connectivity Team 

NOAA’s capabilities (Pacific Workshop) 

 Mapping 

 Physical and Chemical Oceanographic Monitoring 

 Biological Monitoring 

 Water Quality and Land Based Sources of Pollution 

 CRCP National Mapping and Monitoring Program 

NOAA’s capabilities (Atlantic Workshop) 

 Mapping 

 Physical and Chemical Oceanographic Monitoring 

 Biological Monitoring 

 Water Quality and Land Based Sources of Pollution 

 Data Dissemination 

 CRCP National Mapping and Monitoring Program 
APPENDIX E – REFERENCES 

E-1 

Appendix E: References Cited 

Johns, G. M., Leeworthy, V. R., Bell, F.W. & Bonn, M. A. (2001) Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in 

Southeast Florida. Final Report. Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers & Scientists 

Johns, G. M., Milon, J. W. & Sayers D. (2004) Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Martin County, FL. Final 

Report. Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers & Scientists 

Kendall, M.S., C.R. Kruer, K.R. Buja, J.D. Christensten, M. Finkbeiner, and M.E. Monaco. 2001. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS CCMA 152. Methods Used to Map the Benthic 

Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. NOAA, Silver Spring, MD. 

NOAA. 2002. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely 

Associated States. URL: http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/documents/status_coralreef.pdf 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (2008). Roadmap for the Future: A Plan for Developing CRCP 

Direction Through 2015, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 15 p. 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (2009). NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Goals & 

Objectives 2010-2015, Silver Spring, MD, 40 p. 

NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (2009). NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program International 

Strategy 2010-2015, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD, 20 p. 

Porter, J.W., K.G. Porter (eds). 2002. The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida 

Keys, An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 1000 pp. 

Rohmann, S. O. J. J. Hayes, R. C. Newhall, M. E. Monaco, R. W. Grigg (2005). The area of 

potential shallow-water tropical and subtropical coral ecosystems in the United States, Coral Reefs, 

24: 370–383 

Rothenberger, P., J. Blondeau, C. Cox, S. Curtis, W. Fisher, V. Garriso, z. Hillis-Starr, C. Jeffrey, E. 

Kadison, I. Lundgren, W. Miller, E. Muller, R. Nemeth, S. Patterson, C. Rogers, T. Smith, A. 

Spitzack, M. Taylor, W. Toller, J. Wright, D. Wusinich-Mendez and J. Waddell. 2008. pp 29-73. In

J.E. Waddell and A.M. Clarke (eds.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and 

Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum 73. NOS NCCOS Center 

for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Branch. Silver Spring, MD. 569 pp. 
APPENDIX F – ACRONYMS

F-1 

Appendix F: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AHI Acoustic Habitat Investigator 

AS America Samoa 

ASG American Samoa Government 

AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle 

BMP Best Management Practice 

CAFO Confined Animal Feeding Operation 

CCD NOAA Coral Conservation Division 

CCFHR NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research 

CCMA NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring & Assessment 

CFMC Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

CHAMP NOAA Coral Health and Monitoring Program 

CMP Guam Coastal Management Program 

CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 

CoRIS NOAA Coral Information System 

CRCA Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 

CRCP NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program 

CRED NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Division 

CREIOS NOAA CRCP Coral Reef Ecosystem Integrated Observing System 

CREMP Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

CREWS NOAA CRCP Coral Reef Early Warning System 

CRMO CNMI Coastal Resources Management Office 

CRTF U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 

CRW NOAA Coral Reef Watch 

CSO Combined Sewer Outfall 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZM AS/CNMI/HI/PR/USVI Coastal Zone Management 

DAR HI Division of Aquatic Resources 

DAWR Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources 

DEP FL/USVI Department of Environmental Protection 

DEQ CNMI Division of Environmental Quality 

DFW CNMI/USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife 

DLNR HI Department of Land and Natural Resources 

DMWR AS Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources 

DNER PR Department of Natural and Environmental Resources 

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DPNR USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources 

EAR Ecological Acoustic Recorder 

EEMP East End Marine Park 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 
APPENDIX F – ACRONYMS

F-2 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESI Environmental Sensitivity Index 

FACE Florida Area Coastal Environment 

FBNMS NOAA Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

FGNMS NOAA Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary 

FIU Florida International University 

FKNMS NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

FL Florida 

FMC Fishery Management Council 

FTP File Transfer Protocol 

FWRI Florida Wildlife Research Institute 

FWS DOI Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

HAB Harmful Algal Blooms 

HI Hawai’i 

HIMB Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology 

HYCOM Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model 

ICON NOAA CRCP Integrated Coral Observing Network 

IHO International Hydrographic Organization 

JBNERR Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 

LBSP Land-Based Sources of Pollution 

LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging 

MARAMP Mariana Archipelago Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program 

MEERA Marine Ecosystem Event Response and Assessment 

MHI Main Hawai’ian Islands 

MPA Marine Protected Area 

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 

NASA U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NCCOS NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act 

NESDIS NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service 

NetCDF Network Common Data Form 

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 

NMFS NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNDC NOAA National Data Centers 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOS NOAA National Ocean Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS DOI National Park Service 

NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 
APPENDIX F – ACRONYMS

F-3 

NS&T National Status and Trends 

NWHI Northwestern Hawai’ian Islands 

OA Ocean Acidification 

OAR NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

OCD NOAA Ocean Chemistry Division 

OCRM NOAA Office of Coastal Resource Management 

OCS NOAA Office of Coast Survey 

OHC NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation 

ONMS NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

ONR DOD Office of Naval Research 

OSCURS Ocean Surface Current Simulations 

PAR Photosynthetically Active Radiation 

PIFSC NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

PIRO NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office 

PMNM Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument 

PR Puerto Rico 

PRIA Pacific Remote Island Areas 

PSC NOAA Pacific Services Center 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

RAMP NOAA CRCP Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program 

REA Rapid Ecological Assessment 

ROV Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle 

RVC Reef Visual Census 

SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

SE Southeast 

SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program 

SECREMP Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

SEFCRI Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative 

SEFSC NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

SERO NOAA Southeast Regional Office 

SST Sea Surface Temperature 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TOAD Towed Optical Assessment Device 

UAS Unmanned Autonomous Systems 

UH University of Hawai’i 

UPR University of Puerto Rico 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USVI U.S. Virgin Islands 

UVI University of the Virgin Islands 

WESPAC Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

WQ Water Quality 
United States Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke 

Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Jane Lubchenco 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheres 

National Ocean Service 

John H. Dunnigan 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Service and Coastal Zone Management