United States	Office of Water	xxx-x-96-xxx

Environmental Protection	(4504F)	July 1996

Agency	Washington, DC 20460

SEPA watershed Management of

Coral Reef Communities:

A Framework for Protection



Section 1 Understanding the Coral Reef Ecosystem

Characteristics of the Coral Ecosystem	



Economic, Environmental and Social Importance

Reef Communities of the United States

Southeast United States	

The Florida Reef Tract	

Gulf of Mexico Systems	





. . . 7


Reef Communities of the Island Territories.

The Caribbean	

The Pacific Islands	

Section 2 Threats and Impacts to Coral Reefs: Natural Processes and Human Activities	11

Natural Stressors 	






Pathogens, Herbivores, and Predators .








Human-Induced Stresses and Impacts .


Sediment from Human Activity . .
Chemical Contaminants	

. 19

Sources of Pollution 	

Nonpoint Source Pollutants.
Point Source Pollutants	




Other Sources and Impacts	

Seafood Processing 	

Industrial Wastes	

Mining and Petroleum Wastes.


Desahnization Effluent	.-..24

Physical Damage and Physical Alteration of the Environment 	 ..	7.4

Section 3 Watershed-wide Planning for Coral Reef Protection


Developing a Local Plan	

The Importance of Planning 	

The Planning Process	

Considering a Watershed Planning Approach	

The Integrated Watershed Management Plan 	

Setting Goals and Objectives 	

Developing Management Options 	

Promoting Community Involvement	

Implementing the Plan	

Assessing the Plan's Effectiveness	

Monitoring Tools and Protocols 	

Types of Monitoring	

The Monitoring Plan	

Water Quality Monitoring vs. Ecological Monitoring 	

Determining Success of the Planning Process	

Section 4 Case Studies	

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: A Managed Reef System	

Reef Relief, Key West, Florida Community-Based Education and Advocacy for

Coral Ecosystem Protection		

The Tar-Pamlico River Basin: A Watershed Approach to Protecting North

Carolina's Coastal Waters	

The Ugum Watershed Project: Managing a Tropical Watershed 	






























Rules and Regulations.
Resource Compendium



Coral communities are some of the most diverse, and
threatened, ecosystems in the world Over the years,
management plans have been designed and imple-
mented to protect these ecological systems. The plans
have primarily addressed direct impacts such as recre-
ational activities like scuba diving and sportfishing,
commercial fishing, boat anchoring, propeller damage,
and discharge of municipal and industrial wastes Un-
fortunately, the plans have not always effectively pro-
tected coral ecosystems. Coral reefs around the world
are still experiencing stress and are declining.

The ineffectiveness of some past management practices
requires us to look at the way we approach coral reef
protection. We need to broaden our management per-
spective to address the indirect impacts on coral com-
munities as well as the direct impacts. These indirect
impacts include the upland activities, such as agricul-
ture and forestry, urbanization, and marina activities,
that are affecting the offshore ecosystem Individually
and collectively, these impacts can have a detrimental
effect on coral ecosystems. Runoff from agricultural
lands carries pesticides, fertilizers, and sediment Devel-
opment elevates levels of stormwater runoff, which of-
ten contains high concentrations of oil and grease,
nutrients, and sediment. Mannas are a source of waste
material and petroleum products.

The best way to address the impacts of upland activi-
ties is to approach coral ecosystem management on a
watershed-wide basis. A watershed is a geographic area
in which water, sediments, and dissolved materials
drain to a common outlet, such as a river, lake, bay, or
ocean. Although the watershed approach to protecting
ecosystems has been around for several years, it has tra-
ditionally been thought of in the context of protecting
the water quality 111 rivers, lakes, and near coastal
waterbodies. But the watershed approach can also be a
critical.component of preserving and protecting specific
ecosystems like coral habitats. By investigating what is
happening up in the coastal watershed and how pollut-

ants are being transferred to coastal waters, such pollut-
ants can be stopped or reduced at the source before they
affect coral communities.

The purpose of this document is to describe some of
the stresses to which coral ecosystems are exposed and
introduce the watershed planning concept as a manage-

Ttils Report:

•	Provides a characterization of coral communities and
describe coral ecosystems found in the United States
and its island territories

•	introduces the concept of watershed management to
protect coral ecosystems

•	Presents case studies that Illustrate watershed-wide
coral ecosystem management

•	Provides a list of coral management
resources and an overview of
relevant federal and state/territory


ment tool for coral protection. Section 1 provides an
overview of coral ecosystems, describes coral ecosystems
in the United States, and describes some of the factors
that need to be considered in coral reef management.
Section 2 discusses the stresses to which coral commu-
nities are exposed and the impacts of these stresses.
Section 3 describes the watershed planning and man-
agement process and provides a general outline for a
watershed management and monitoring plan. Section 4
presents four case studies that illustrate successful eco-
system management on a watershed scale. The appen-
dices contain a summary of federal and state/territory
legislation related to coral protection and resources for
additional information on reef management. A glossary
is also included.


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft ¦ July 199b


Section 1

Understanding the Coral Reef

Characteristics of the Coral Ecosystem

Coral ecosystems are unique, biologically diverse habi-
tats that are recognized as valuable economic and envi-
ronmental resources They are very sensitive habitats
that are integral parts of larger coastal ecosystems An
understanding of the biology, distribution, and eco-
nomic, environmental, and social importance of these
systems is critical to achieving responsible and effective


A coral is an animal that consists of a single polyp or
colony of polyps. A polyp is a tube-like body cavity
that has rings of tentacles surrounding a single mouth.
Polyps secrete calcium carbonate, commonly called
limestone. The limestone serves as skeletal material
that either is embedded in the living tissues or encloses
the animal. Coral polyps live in symbiotic association
with small, single-celled plants called zooxanthellae
The coral depends on the zooxanthellae to produce
oxygen while the zooxanthellae rely on the coral for
food. The symbiosis is a response to the nutrient defi-
ciency of clear tropical waters. The plant-animal rela-
tionship is reflected in the growth form of many corals,
a number of which are plant-like in their structure and
their orientation toward light.

There are generally two types or categories of corals—
soft corals and hard corals. Soft corals deposit the lime-
stone in their tissue, giving them a soft, fleshy texture;
hard corals deposit the limestone both around and be-
neath each polyp, as well as under the tissue that con-
nects the polyp colony. Hard corals form reefs
(Sheppard, 1983).

Both hard and soft corals are very delicate organisms
that can exist only within a narrow range of environ-
mental conditions. Seawater temperature should range
from 16 to 36 °C (61 to 75 °F), although most active
coral growth occurs m a much narrower range (23 to

25 °C, 73 to 77 °F) Adequate sunlight, well-oxygenated
water, and stable water salinities (35 parts per thou-
sand, or ppt) are equally important for coral growth.
These factors, combined with a need for wave action or
vigorous water currents, generally restrict well-devel-
oped reefs to the windward sides of shorelines and the

seaward sides of reef structures (Smith. 1948).

Coral reefs form largely in response to underlying geo-
logical features. Coral need a hard substrate on which to
"anchor" and begin growing. As a result, coral reefs
have been categorized or defined according to their
form. Overall, there are five basic types of reef struc-
tures (Buck, 1991).

• Fringing reefs are formed by corals growing close
to the shore and in shallow water. As fringing
reefs develop, their crests extend seaward and
toward the water's surface. They are
characterized by a diversity of coral types.


Watershed Management fcr Cera! Reef Communities

Final Draft ¦ July 1996

Barrier reefs are separated from land by a shallow,
sand-floored lagoon These reefs form a series of
ramparts along the coastline They contain two
major areas or structures—the reef crest and the
forereef. Both of these areas contain numerous
zones that are inhabited by many distinctive
corals. Some well-known barrier reefs include the
Great Barrier Reef in Australia, the Florida Reef
Tract, and the Barrier Reef in Belize.

Platform/patch reefs are small circular or irregular
reefs that are distinct from other reef sections.
They form where the hard seabed rises close to
the surface. In some locations, portions of these
reefs may be exposed at low tide.

of coral reefs. The result of this collaborative effort is a
diverse and biologically productive system that has
high levels of biological recycling and nutrient retention
and serves as a habitat for a large variety of organisms.

Coral reef ecosystems are not biologically isolated com-
munities They are systems that require nutrient inputs
from adjacent areas, such as sea grass beds and man-
grove forests, and from bacteria in reef sediments. They
also respond to terrestrial factors such as freshwater
flows into the coastal system Consequently, destruc-
tion or alteration of surrounding coastal systems, in-
cluding uplands, can directly affect the health and
productivity of coral reef communities.


Corals and coral reefs are located in subtropical and
tropical oceans and seas around the world. Most of
the large reef communities are located in shallow wa-
ters. Deeper and colder waters usually support only
small coral communities that do not form large reef

The shallow-water coral reefs have been more widely
recognized than other reefs for their uniqueness and
biological importance to the marine environment. Glo-
bally, these reefs cover approximately 241,000 square
miles (Buck, 1991). They are located in most of the ma-
jor oceans throughout the world. Table 1 illustrates the
geographic distribution of shallow-water coral reefs as a
percentage of total global coral reef coverage.

Table 1. Geographic Distribution
off Shallow-water coral Reefs

Geographic Area	Percent of Total Global

Coral Reef Co verage

Caribbean and North Atlantic	14

South Atlantic	1

Indian Ocean	60

Pacific Ocean

(South of the Equator)	15

Pacific Ocean

(North of the Equator)	12

Source Buck, 1991

•	Bank reefs, in contrast to platform/patch reefs,
form on deeper seabeds and are never exposed

•	Atolls are true coral islands typically found far
from the mainland Atolls form circular reef
structures, often with small islets formed from
accumulated coral debris, and with central, calm-
water lagoons Atolls are largely absent from the
Atlantic and Caribbean, but there are more than
300 in the Indo-Pacific.

Coral reefs are home to many organisms, such as algae,
mollusks, crustaceans, sponges, fish, and worms. All
contribute to and play special roles in the construction

In the United States, shallow-water coral reefs are pri-
marily found in southeast Florida and Hawaii. In addi-
tion, reefs can be found in the coastal waters of some of
the U S. territories. The U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Marshall Islands, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands
all have reef ecosystems.

Less recognized, deeper-water coral communities and as-
semblages can be found both domestically and interna-
tionally. In the United States, deeper coral assemblages
include Gray's Reef in Georgia and Flower Garden
Banks in Texas. Internationally, assemblages of deeper
corals have been found along continental shelves in,Eu-
rope, the Gulf of Mexico, and West Africa


Economic, Environmental, and Social

Coral reef ecosystems provide important economic, en-
vironmental,. and social benefits to human communities
worldwide. These benefits can be seen both directly
and indirectly, but are all products of a healthy, viable
coral reef ecosystem. Some of these benefits include
fisheries, scientific and medical research, recreation and
tourism, coastal protection, and environmental values.


Coral reef ecosystems provide habitat for a wide variety
of organisms that have high commercial value. Fish,
mollusks, oysters, and lobsters are all members of the
coral reef community that are harvested for human
consumption. Worldwide, reef-related fisheries yield an
estimated 9 6 to 12 percent of the total annual catch of
77 million tons Some of the highly productive reef
communities, like the Philippines, support annual har-
vests of 33 tons per square kilometer (km2), or 85 6 tons
per square mile (mi2), and can yield 11,000 pounds per
fisherman per year (White et al , 1994).

Scientific and Medical Research

The coral reef ecosystem serves as an ideal laboratory
for students and scientists to study and learn about
complex ecological and biological processes In addition,
the diversity and uniqueness of the ecosystem also at-
tract members of the medical community. The reef
yields many biological treasures that are increasingly
being recognized as natural sources of biomedical
chemicals. These chemicals have been found to be

useful for the treatment of many disorders, including

Recreation and Tourism

The aesthetic attraction of coral reefs makes them a vi-
tal resource for tourism and recreation. People visit coral
reefs for recreational activities like fishing, underwater
photography, scuba diving, and snorkeling. Many na-
tions, such as Maldives, have developed entire tourism
industries around coral reefs In the United States, the
Virgin Islands National Park receives about one million
visitors each year, generating more than $23 million in
revenue (Buck, 1991). The Florida Keys yield an esti-
mated S30 million to $50 million per year from fishing,
diving, and educational research activities (White et al.,

Coastal Protection

Coral reefs are also important for coastal protection.
The reefs act as natural breakwaters or buffers that pro-
tect the coastline and help reduce erosion of beaches
and shorelines. In the absence of these reefs, artificial
structures would have to be constructed at an esti-
mated cost of billions of dollars (Buck, 1991).

Environmental Values

Coral reefs contain a richness of species that rivals that
of tropical rain forests. The reef ecosystem contributes
significantly to the world's biodiversity (range of differ-
ent species) and biological productivity. Many people
value coral reefs as a source of enrichment and personal

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Fatal Draft -July 1996


Reef Communities of the United States

The Florida Reef Tract

The coral communities of the continental United
States largely exist at extreme latitudes for coral
growth. Consequently, these coral communities
can experience changes in physical parameters (es-
pecially temperature) more frequently than do
reefs closer to the equator. The species richness
and community development reflect this higher
degree of physical stress. The distribution of coral
communities in the continental United States is
limited to the southeast coasts of Georgia, Florida,
and the Gulf of Mexico

Coral Communities

Southeast United States

Along the Atlantic coast, from the Georgia border to
Fort Pierce, Florida, pretzel coral bank communities
{Ocuhua sp ) occur at depths of 49 to 165 feet. Although
these coral assemblages are of relatively low diversity, they
provide important structural habitat for many species,
particularly fish (Jaap, 1984). From Fort Pierce to Palm
Beach, Florida, pretzel coral communities are blended with
tropical coral species A shift m dominance by tropical
species occurs south of Palm Beach to Miami, although
the building of three-dimensional reef structures occurs
only farther south, near the Florida Keys The region of
maximum coral reef development, the Florida reef tract,
is restricted to the area south and west of Miami.

Largely influenced by
the warm waters of the
Gulf Stream, the Florida reef
tract is a bow-like band of reef-building
corals that parallels the Florida Keys. The
reef tract is one of the largest coral reefs in
the world and is often considered the only
barrier reef in the United States Reference to
the Florida reef tract as a barrier reef is actually
debated among scientists, who disagree as to *±2^
whether it accurately fits the classic descrip- **
tion (Jaap, 1984); however, the reefs are clearly large,
elongated, and separate from the existing land mass of
the Keys. The reef tract occurs atop a large limestone

platform composed of marine sedi-
ments up to 23,100 feet deep and
up to 150 million years old.

Several physical environments are
associated with the reef tract:

Hawk Channel, the body of water
between the reef and the Keys, and
a series of shallow-water
embayments that include Biscayne
Bay, Card and Barnes sounds, and
Florida Bay. These environs support
a variety of biological communities,
such as deep reefs, reef crests, patch
reefs, sea grasses, mangroves, wet-
lands, and uplands, all of which
play a role in the development and
survival of the reef. Impacts to
these systems can affect the reef.

Because of the accessibility of the reef and the tropical
allure of the Keys, the Florida reef tract began showing
signs of stress, especially degradation of water quality,
as early as the 1950s Continuing problems contributing
to the decline of the reef included pollution, overfish-
ing, physical impacts (e g , boat anchors, ship ground-
ings, contact by divers), overuse, and use conflicts. The
system also experiences adverse impacts from upland
areas including the highly developed south Florida coast
and the Everglades agricultural areas. Several manage-
ment efforts have been initiated, the most recent being
the passage of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanc-


tuary Act (Causey. 1995). Details on this effort are pro-
vided in the case study in Section 4

\ / I (


& I

Gulf of Mexico Systems

In the Gulf of Mexico, close to Florida, hard-bottom
communities known as the "Middle Grounds" occur
with a few coral species present, but without forming
reef structures. Near Texas, the Flower Garden Banks
form coral structures of limited size dominated by mas-
sive coral species. Twenty-one species of corals occur on
the Flower Gardens, as well as more than 250 species of
invertebrates and 175 species of fishes. The Flower Gar-
dens are separated into East and West Banks, located ap-
proximately 12 miles apart. Both are located 100 miles
southeast of Galveston, Texas. The East Flower Garden
Bank is a pear-shaped dome, approximately 3.1 miles in
diameter, rising to within 50 feet of the surface. The to-
tal area of live reef at the crest of the bank is about 250
acres. The West Flower Garden Bank is oblong in shape,
is approxi-
mately 5	/^~)

U 7 I	^ ^

by 7 miles	.

in area, and has	Y_o

a little more than 100
acres of live coral cover.


Hawaii supports coral reef systems that are
part of the tropical central Pacific region
The Hawaiian archipelago is the longest and most iso-
lated chain of tropical islands in the world. The geogra-
phy of the islands is varied and complex. The species
richness of corals is low compared to that of the Carib-
bean and Indo-Pacific, a condition attributed to the
change in ocean surface currents over geological time
(Gngg, 1988). The number of coral species in Hawaii is


less than 10 percent of the number in the Indo-West Pa-
cific. However, the reef structures can be well developed
and highly productive Coral growth is highest near the
southeastern end of the island chain, where water tem-
perature and sunlight are optimal. The coral species
composition is remarkably uniform in spite of the large
spatial variability, suggesting that most of the coral spe-
cies that occur in Hawaii are. generalists. (UNEP/IUCN,

The best-developed coral reefs in Hawaii are on the lee-
ward (south and southwest) coasts, or in bays. Coral
reefs are present along the Kona Coast and Kealakekua
Bay on Hawaii Island, Molokini Lagoon on the south
coast of west Maui, the north coast of Lanai, the south-
east coast of Molokai, and Hanauma Bay and Barbers
Point on Oahu Lagoons of the: northwest Hawaiian Is-
lands, including Midway and (Cure, also support reefs
(UNEP/IUCN, 1988). Many of the reefs are dominated
by branching corals, such as Pontes sp., Pocillopora sp.,
and Montipora sp , which can form large stands in struc-
turing reef crests and flats. Research on reef fishes and
invertebrates has shown low species diversity compared
to the Indo-Pacific region, but there are several species
unique to Hawaii (Houngan and Reese, 1987; Kay and
Palumbi, 1987).

Kaneohe Bay, on Oahu, is one of the most intensively
studied reef systems in the Pacific. Before the 1960s the
descriptions of coral reefs within the bay were limited;
however, research has shown that these reefs have
evolved under significant terrestrial influences from ad-
jacent watersheds. Heavy coastal development has had
significant adverse impacts on coral abundance and dis-
tribution within Kaneohe Bay.

Several reef systems in Hawaii are exhibiting signs of
impacts from upland stresses. An example is Kuai,
Hawaii's fourth-largest island, most of which is bor-
dered by fringing reefs, many with wide reef flats. Sev-
eral major streams on the island have headwaters in the
massive rocks of a large central volcanic crater Fifteen
streams feed into estuaries, and these contribute to 11
distinctive bays around the island High degrees of
freshwater input, siltation, agricultural wastewater, and
sewage discharge affect water quality, and algal re-
sponses to elevated nutrients have been implicated in
the inhibition of coral growth (UNEP/IUCN, 1988)

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


Reef Communities of the Island Territories

Coral reefs also occur in the insular territories of the
United States (the islands of the Caribbean and Indo-Pa-
cific regions). The physical conditions under which reefs
develop in both regions are similar; however, characteris-
tics such as species diversity, age, reef morphology (struc-
ture), and zonation (geographic distribution) vary

Species are less diverse in coral reefs of the Caribbean
compared to regions in the Indo-Pacific. The west Indo-
Pacific is the world's center of coral species diversity As ex-
amples, Caribbean coral reefs have only one-sixth the
number of hard corals found on the Great Barrier Reef
(Kojis, 1993); 3 species of an important reef-building
coral, Acropora, occur in the Caribbean, compared to
over 200 species on the Great Barrier Reef and up to
150 in other regions of the Indo-Pacific. The massive
star coral. iVlontastrea annularis, is the most abundant
and primary reef-building coral in the Caribbean,
whereas there is no single species that dominates the
Great Barrier Reef or reefs in many other Indo-Pacific
locations. .

Caribbean reefs are also significantly younger than
most Indo-Pacific reefs. Caribbean reefs have largely
formed since the last ice age. Consequently, the depth
of ancient reef structure is much less than that of the
Indo-Pacific region.

The Caribbean

The general coral reef types observed in Puerto Rico and
the U S. Virgin Islands include fringing reefs, fringing
barrier reefs, submerged barrier reefs, and patch reefs

Puerto Rico

The coral com-
munities of the
north coast of
Puerto Rico con-
sist primarily of

scattered hard coral colonies, soft corals, and poorly de-
veloped reefs in hard pavement areas along the coast
(USEPA, 1992). The percent cover of living coral tissue
is generally low and where quantitative observations
have been made, has not exceeded 7 percent. Coral reefs

are better developed along the eastern side of the north
coast, with patch reefs formed east of San Juan to
Ensenada Comezon, and fringing reefs off Punta
Miquillo and Punta Picua (Goenaga and Cintron, 1979).
Historically, coral coverage in this area has been low
because of the discharge of sediments from the large
rivers in the region and the heavy exposure to waves of
the open Atlantic. Sedimentation from extensive dredg-
ing and pollution from sewage also destroyed well-de-
veloped reefs northwest of Boca de Cangrejos.

Coral reefs on the eastern and southern side of the is-
land are occasionally well developed and form patch
and fringing coral reefs. The estimated percent cover
ranges from 6 to 100 percent (USEPA, 1992). The sub-
merged-shelf edge along the south coast also supports
well-developed reefs. However, many of the reefs have
been damaged by human activity and sedimentation
and exhibit low percent coral cover Coral reefs along
the western coast of Puerto Rico are also well developed.
Both fringing and patch reefs are found; however, sev-
eral areas have been heavily impacted by human activity.

U.S. Virgin Islands

In the U.S. Virgin Islands,
the extent of coral commu-
nity development is not well docu-
mented. However, the eastern and
southeastern barrier reef in St. Croix
is one of the best developed reef sys-
tems in the tropical-Atlantic Carib-
bean (Adey et al., 1981). This area
has also been suggested to be the
largest reef structure among the
insular territories, with the pos-
sible exception of some U.S. Indo-
Pacific island reefs.

St John is the site of the Virgin Islands National Park
and Biosphere Reserve and coral reefs are well repre-
sented The best developed is Johnson's Reef on the
east coast and in Haulover Bay (USEPA, 1992). St.
John's reefs were damaged by Hurricane Hugo in 1989.
In St. Thomas, coral cover on reefs has been estimated
as high as 49 percent, but most documentation of reefs
is for the south coast of the island.


The Pacific islands

American Samoa

American Samoa is an unincorporated
territory of the United States. It comprises six eastern
islands of the Samoan Archipelago, as well as Swain's
Atoll, which is geographically part of the Tokelau group.
Land area covers approximately 76 square miles. All is-
lands except Swain's Atoll are aligned along a crest of a
discontinuous submarine ridge, extending over 290
miles, northwest by southeast (UNEP/IUCN, 1988)
The largest island, Tutuila, lies atop a composite vol-
cano rising approximately 3 miles from the ocean floor
Other islands in the group include Aunu'u (1 mi2, 200
feet highest elevation), Olosega (2 mi2, 3,169 feet high-
est elevation), Ta'u (17 mi2, 3,169 feet highest eleva-
tion), the Rose and Swain's atolls, and Ofu (3 mi2,
1,621 feet highest elevation). All islands are bordered by
well-developed fringing reefs, although many are nar-
row and lack substantial nearshore dropoffs. Most reefs
typically have a shallow moat (<6 feet in depth), a
shallow forereef, a reef crest (usually emergent at low
tide), a surge zone with spur and groove formations,
and a distinct forereef slope, with 16- to 33-foot relief
gradually descending into deep water (UNEP/IUCN,

The coral reefs of American Samoa are among the best
documented in the south Pacific region. The most im-
portant reefs identified (by IUCN) are Pago Pago Har-
bor, Utulei, Aua, Faga'alu, Tafananai, Alega Faga'itua,
Aoa, Masefau, Afono, Vatia, Fagasa, Massacre, Maloata,
Poloa, Amanave, Nua-Se'etaga, Leone, Asili, Pala La-
goon, Matuu, and around Aunu'u Island Tuituila is the
most populated island with 90 percent of American
Samoa's population (UNEP/IUCN, 1988) One-third of
the population lives around Pago Pago Bay, with the re-
mainder residing in small villages along the coast Hu-
man activities have increased impacts to the reefs
through pollution, and fish poisoning and other extrac-
tion techniques. From 1942 to 1945, the U S military
services dredged large sections for wartime ship fleets
Coral reefs in Pago Pago Bay particularly have suffered
damage from human activity.

The Marshall Islands

In 1986 the Republic of the Marshall Islands became
freely associated with the United States. Twenty-nine
coral atolls and five coral islands with low elevation
(1.5 to 25 m, 5 to 83 feet) form two chains The Ratak
Islands occur to the east, and the Ralik Islands to the
west, including the Enewetak, Bikini, and U]elang atolls.

The Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas Islands and Guam

The Commonwealth of the Northern

Marianas Islands (CNMI) was granted

status as a sovereign territory by the

United States in 1986. CNMI comprises all

the Marianas except Guam. Sixteen islands	°

compose the archipelago, and they range in

size from 0.3 mi2 (Farallon de Medinilla) to 47

mi2 (Saipan). The relief of the islands ranges	°

from 265 to 3,166 feet. The shorelines of	°

Aguijan, Farallon de Medinilla, and most of the o

smaller northern islands do not have coral

reefs, largely because of the sea cliffs and	0

steep, rocky slopes (UNEP/IUCN, 1988)

People live on only the three largest islands to ^

the south—Saipan, Tinian, and Rota—with	?

over 87 percent of the population living

on Saipan (roughly 35,000). Saipan and

Tinian have offshore barrier reefs with

shallow lagoons along portions of their U

western coasts.

Cuam, located southwest of CNMI. is the largest and
most populated island in the Marianas chain. Like the
other islands in the southern chain, Guam is volcanic
with high relief, but it has a long geologic history of
carbonate accretion from reefs. Over 45 species of corals
occur on the fringing and barrier reefs that surround the
southern and western coasts Reef structures are also
covered by coralline algae (e.g., Porohthoti sp.).

Coral reefs in Guam experience degradation from hu-
man-related impacts. Land construction activity has
caused sublethal effects on reefs along the southern
coast (Richmond, 1993). Increased freshwater runoff
laden with sediment has caused high levels of mortality
and rapid response in growth by fleshy algae.

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 199&



Section 2

Threats and impacts to Coral Reefs:
Natural Processes and Human

The marine environments in which coral reef communi-
ties have evolved are noted for their relative stability.
The daily and seasonal changes in the coral reef envi-
ronment tend to occur slowly and over relatively nar-
row ranges Coral species vary in their ability to tolerate
extremes m physical and chemical parameters, such as
salinity, temperature, nutrients, and turbidity, although
tolerance ranges are generally narrow Healthy corals are
better able to adapt to environmental changes than cor-
als under stress.

A variety of direct and indirect environmental impacts
pose a threat to the health of coral reef ecosystems.
They result from both natural processes and human ac-
tivities. Direct impacts to reefs can be caused by natu-
ral events like storms and hurricanes, or by human
activities like boating (e g., groundings, propeller dam-
age, anchor damage), diving, overfishing, and dredging.
Indirect impacts result from water quality degradation
from waste discharges, runoff, deep well injection, sep-
tic tanks, chemical spills, and litter (Crigg and Dollar.
1990) Indirect impacts can be more serious than direct
impacts in terms of long-term effects due to the diffi-
culties encountered in finding and reducing or eliminat-
ing sources of stress such as excessive nutrients or toxic

Table 2 is a summary of known threats to reefs
throughout the Atlantic and eastern Pacific. Figure 1 is
a conceptual illustration of the land-based activities
that affect coral communities. Figure 2 shows some of
the impacts to coral communities that result from dif-
ferent stressors.

Natural Stressors


Because of their zooxanthellae, corals respond to both
the intensity and spectral quality of light. It has been

lypical threats to coral
ecosystems Include:

i • Natural stresses—light, temperature,
® salinity, pathogens, sediment,

herbivores, predators, weather, climate

Human-induced stresses-
nutrients, sediment,
direct impacts

suggested that the unprecedented coral bleaching (loss
of zooxanthellae) events that occurred in the Caribbean
in 1987 might have been due in part to increases in ul-
traviolet radiation related to stratospheric ozone deple-
tion (Goenmaga et al., 1989; Williams et al., 1987).
However, warmer-than-normal seawater temperatures
were also suggested as an additional factor

This section discusses natural and human-induced
stresses to coral ecosystems. The impacts these stresses
have on coral ecosystems are also discussed.

Watershed Managemem for Ccral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


Table 2. Ki


Land Clearance




Recreational use




anchor damage

fish traps,


conch, lobster

anchor damage,
boat groundings

bleach, exolpsives


stony and black
corals, lobster,
conch, fish

anchor damage

explosives, bleach,




fertilizers, sewage,




mangroves on cays

uroanization on cays

lobster, fish, conch

tounsm, ancnor




tourism, industry



British Virgin Islands


mannas, jetties,
dredging, sand

sewage (boats),
industrial antifouling

fish, lobster, concn,
black coral

anchor damage,
boat groundings,

spearfishing, wreck
excavation, fish

Cayman Islands


hotel building,
extraction, swamp

sewage, oil

fish, lobster, conch,

anchor damage,
littering, tourism


Chile (Easter Islands)



oil spill (1983)



holiday homes,

construction, sand
extraction, land

sewage, thermal,
insecticides, refuse

conch, lobster, fish,
apuanum fish

anchor damage,
boating, littering

dynamite, lobster
traps, wrecks"

Costa Rica

deforestation, other

housing, hotels,

sewage (urban,

coral, fish, lobster,

trampling, littenng


urban development,
sand dredging

industrial, oil spill






industrial, urban


fish, lobster, conch,

Dominican Republic


sand dredging, port
and airport

sewage, industrial,

fish, lobster, conch,
coral, shells

diving, tounsm,
littering, sportfishing


Ecuador (Galapagos)

black coral




sand dredging

herbicides, refuse






urban development,
sand mining,


agncuiture, refuse,
sewage, pesticides,
oil, heavy metals

coral, fish, mollusks






coral, shells, conch



airports, roads


tounsm, ancnor


vegetation along

hotel development,
river channelization

sewage, oil*

stony and black
corals, fish, conch

trampling, anchor
damage, boat

dynamiting, fish
traps, spearfishing


TtiBsBe 2. Known Threats to Reefs, cont.

Land Clearance




Recreational Use




urban, airoort,
industnai, roao


concn/fish, lobster




urban, tounsm,
petroleum industry

oil spills, industrial

conch, lobster,
coral, fish

tounsm," tramoling,
boat groundings,


St Kitts-Nevis

sand mining

conch, lobster


Netherlands Antilles


sand mining, harbor
hotels," landfill

oil. thermal,
industrial, refuse,
sewage, toxic
metals, hypersaline

snells. fish, lobster,
conch, coral

anchor damage,
scuba diving

spearfishing, fish





sea level canal," oil
pipeline and
terminal, landfill,

sewage, herbicides,
freshwater inDut,"
oil spill (1983), oil*


Puerto Rico


dredging, sand/coral
extracbon, urban,
industnai, jetty
construction, holiday

industnai, oil,
sewage, thermal,

coral, fish

anchor damage

ship traffic,
bombing, wrecks

St Lucia

hotel development,
sand dredging,
mining, construction


coral, fish

anchor damage,
scuba diving


St Martin and St

sand extraction




St Vincent

detergent, boat


Trinidad and Tobago

coastal vegetation,

shore development

coral, snells

ancndr damage,

Turks and Caicos


hotel development,"
mannas, dredging

sewage," oil

fish, lobster, conch

tpurism, littering

ship groundings,
bleach, spearfishing,
aragonite mining*
ballast dumping

u s

marinas, beach

sewage, oil,* heavy
metals, industrial,"
desalimzation plant

lobster, coral, shells,

anchor damage,

ship grounding and
salvage, artificial
reefs, oil drilling,"
dumping of fishing
gear, ship traffic,
wrecks, roller trawl
fishing, fish traps,
hook and line
fishing, spearfishing

U S Virgin Islands


industrial, dredging,
sand mining,

industrial, oil,
sewage, urban,
thermal, heavy
metals, bauxite and
aluminum plants

conch, lobster,
coral, shells, fish

tourism, littering,
anchor damage,



holiday homes

urban, sewage,
industrial, ship


shipping ,

Source Wells, 1988
"Potential threat


Watershed Management for Coral Re:f Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

Because of the light dependence of most corals, they are
found in areas with good light penetration. Suspended
sediments and overabundance of phytoplankton (tiny
marine plants suspended in the water column) are two
factors that can reduce the amount of light reaching
corals. Although corals might adapt to existing light re-
gimes (Dustan, 1979), reduction in light due to turbid-
ity lowers their growth rate and complete shading can
cause their death (Rogers. 1979).


Corals can be affected by both long-term climatic tem-
perature fluctuations and short-term human-induced
temperature changes Concern for the effects of global

warming on coral reefs has been voiced (Goenaga,
1991), but evidence of such impacts to coral reefs is still
lacking (Miller, 1991; Roberts. 1991).

Seasonal fluctuations resulting in extremely cold and
extremely warm temperatures have been cited as the
cause of coral bleaching and coral death in Florida (Jaap,
1984) Typically, coastal marine waters of more north-
ern latitudes are characterized by lower winter mini-
mum temperatures and lower summer maximum
temperatures than their more tropical counterparts. Evi-
dence of lower thermal tolerances for subtropical corals
compared to tropical corals indicates that higher-lati-
tude corals live in waters even closer to their thermal

maximum temperatures than their more tropical coun-

Seasonal sources of thermal stress include winter cool-
ing of nearshore surface waters and upwelling of deep,
cooler water from offshore. Air temperatures can fluc-
tuate dramatically on a seasonal basis, bringing occa-
sional periods of frost during winter and prolonged heat
waves in summer Warm-water stress is usually the re-
sult of summer warming of shallow water during warm
calm periods, although larger-scale ocean warming
events like El Nino can also bring unseasonably warm
water into the vicinity of coral reefs


Both low and high salinity can stress coral communi-
ties. Low salinity can occur as the result of an over-
abundance of freshwater runoff following storms. Brief
episodes of low salinity due to storm water runoff have
been reported to cause loss of zooxanthellae and coral
death (eg., Goreau, 1964). Elevated salinity has been
observed to cause coral mortality at levels only slightly
above normal (Johannes, 1975).


Sedimentation is a natural process in all marine sys-
tems, and all corals have the ability to actively remove
some sediments from the surface of the reef. The effect
due to sedimentation depends on a number of factors,
which include the type of sediment (grain size, carbon-
ate content, organic content, toxic pollutant levels), the
amount of sediment, and the duration and timing of
coral exposure (e.g., night vs. day, reproductive or re-
cruitment period).


Storms, especially hurricanes, can have very significant
effects on coral reef communities both directly through
physical impacts (storm surge damage and sediment
resuspension) and indirectly through physical processes
associated with heavy rainfall runoff that transports
sediment, freshwater, and nonpoint source pollutants
into coastal waters. Storms are the primary mecha-
nisms that produce nonpoint source pollution. The_
sediments washed off during these storms can trans-
port toxicants, oxygen-demanding substances, nutri-



ents. and pathogens into the marine environment. Sus-
pended sediments limit the amount and quality of light
reaching coral reefs

Pathogens, Herbivores, and Predators

Coral,, mangrove, and sea grass communities are typi-
fied by complex physical, chemical, and biological pro-
cesses. Probably the least understood of these are the
interactions among pathogens, predators, herbivores,
and other environmental factors The sources of patho-
genic outbreaks in these communities are largely un-
known, but such outbreaks have had widespread and
devastating impacts Research on the effect of predators
and herbivores on community composition, biomass,
areal coverage, and productivity has
also revealed that these ecosystem com-
ponents can exert a profound influence
on the structure and function of coral
communities. How humans influence
these factors and the role of natural or
random variation are still poorly under-


Bacteria and filamentous blue-green al-
gae have been identified as pathogenic
agents in corals (Hodgson, 1990;

Mitchell and Chet, 1975, Peters et al.,

1983; Antonius, 1981b). Corals stressed
by elevated concentrations of crude oil,
copper sulfate, potassium phosphate, or
dextrose have produced copious
amounts of mucous and died (Mitchell
and Chet, 1975). With the addition of antibiotics, how-
ever, coral death was not observed, implicating the bac-
teria as the agents of mortality. This interpretation has
been extended to sediment stress through demonstra-
tion of antibiotics preventing mortality due to sedi-
ment deposition (Hodgson, 1990) The loss of corals
due to pathogenic effects can result in dramatic changes
in coral community structure, including fish popula-
tions (Gladfelter, 1982, Goenaga et al., 1989).

Predators and Herbivores

Community interactions are also important in deter-
mining community structure. Effects on coral commu-
nity structure due to algal grazing by the spiny sea

urchin, the territorial behavior of the threespot damsel-
fish, plant eating by reef fish (species of parrotfish and
surgeonfish), and predation directly on corals by fish
(species of parrotfish and surgeonfish), a polycheate
worm, and the flamingo tongue snail have been re-
ported (Jaap, 1984).

Human-Induced Stresses and Impacts

Reef-building corals rely on their relationship with
zooxanthellae for calcium carbonate production A by-
product of the zooxanthellae's photosynthesis allows
the coral to more effectively produce its limestone skel-

eton. As discussed earlier, corals are limited to warm,
oligotrophy (low-nutrient), high-light-intensity marine
environments Excess nutrients, primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus from sources such as domestic sewage and
agricultural runoff, have the potential to adversely af-
fect coral reefs in several ways. Nutrients can enhance
the growth of phytoplankton in the water column sur-
rounding the reef, which in turn can increase water tur-
bidity, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching corals
The reduction in light intensity can inhibit photosyn-
thesis in the zooxanthellae, reducing coral growth and
calcium carbonate production on the reef. Increased
phytoplankton also contribute to sediment loading to
the reef, an additional source of stress. Algae growth
directly on the reef is also enhanced by excess nutrients.

Predation on the Reef:
The Spiny Sea Urchin Story

A good example of the effects of the
complex interactions in reef
communities involves the large-scale
mass mortality of the spiny sea urchin.
This urchin was abundant on Caribbean
reefs before 1983, but the abundance
in particular areas might have
depended on fishing intensity on the
reefs (Hay, 1984). Heavy fishing of
some areas on the reefs presumably
resulted in the reduction of herbivorous
fish and fish predators of the sea urchin
(Hay, 1984) Beginning in 1983,
however, the spiny sea urchin began to
die in large numbers, possibly due to a
waterborne pathogenic agent (Lessios,

1988). On reefs where spiny sea urchin
density was high, algal biomass was low.
Following the reduction of spiny sea
urchin density, algal biomass increased
(Carpenter, 1990a). Interestingly, algal
community productivity decreased
(Carpenter, 1990a), and although the
numbers of herbivorous fish increased,
algal biomass remained high (Carpenter,
1990b). Because the spiny sea urchin
preys on settled coral larvae, but also
grazes on algae that inhibit coral larval
settlements, the density of the spiny
sea urchin might have additional
implications for coral community
structure (Sammarco, 1980).


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

Nuisance algae can occupy areas where new coral grow,
interfering with reef growth. These algae also colonize
damaged and diseased coral skeletons, inhibiting recov-
ery and regrowth of coral tissues.

The effect of increased nutrient input to coral reef areas
is not well understood, and conflicting evidence has
been presented. Nutrients, particularly phosphate, can
directly affect coral skeletal growth by inhibiting skel-
etal formation (Simkiss, 1964) and can indirectly affect
the coral community through enhancement of the
growth of attached algae. The algae can overgrow living
corals or interfere with new coral growth (Birkeland,

Sediment from Human Activity

Sediment suspended as a result of human activity (e.g.,
land-based construction or dredging and filling) has sig-
nificant effects on adjacent coral reefs. Point and non-
point sources of pollution, which are discussed in detail
later in this section, can add significantly to coastal
sedimentation rates. Poor forestry and agricultural prac-
tices, as well as construction activity where erosion is
not controlled, result in sediment-laden runoff. Point
sources contribute suspended solids and particulate or-
ganic matter from nutrient enrichment.

Excess sedimentation over an extended period can cause
corals to expend energy on cleaning that would other-
wise have gone into processes such as feeding, growth,
and reproduction. Extreme sedimentation rates can
cause coral mortality through smothering and burial.
High sedimentation rates can interfere with coral re-
cruitment because coral larvae will not settle on soft
sediments. Sediment loads in the water column mini-
mize sunlight penetration to the coral reef, causing re-
duced photosynthesis and the loss of zooxanthellae.

Excessive amounts of sediments and sedimentation re-
sult in the death of the reef-forming coral organisms
and degradation of the reef framework Loss of the reef
framework and its associated structural complexity re-
sults in habitat loss and reduction of coral reef fish
(Rogers, 1990) Heavy sedimentation has led to fewer
coral species, less live coral, lower coral growth rates,
decreased reef building, decreased net productivity, de-
creased reef building rates, and reduced coral growth
(Rogers, 1990). Because many toxic substances bind to
sediment particles, sediments also transport particulate-
associated toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen-demand-
mg organic matter, and pathogens.

Chemical Contaminants

Chemicals from industrial processes and petroleum ex-
ploration and production can cause both short- and
long-term effects on corals and other living components
of the reef community Toxicants like chlorine, metals,
pesticides, and petroleum products can directly affect
the various life stages of corals or the life stages of ani-
mals and plants that make up the coral community.
Coral colonies themselves might be fairly resistant to
toxic pollutants (Marszalek, 1987), but other coral life
stages might be more sensitive. Corals exhibit a variety
of reproductive strategies, including timing of spawn-
ing and spawning synchrony among species (Richmond
and Hunter, 1990) Therefore, the timing of pollutant
input might play an important role in toxic effects on
coral life stages.


Coral mortality and coral community alterations due to
oil pollution have been noted in several areas of the Car-
ibbean (e.g., Bak, 1987; Jackson et al, 1989). Oil pollu-
tion in direct contact with corals can impair coral


growth, reproductive systems,, and larvae and can cause
death of corals (Loya and Rinkevich, 1987). The shal-
low-water Caribbean coral Manicma arcolata has been
shown to bioaccumulaie petroleum hydrocarbons (Peters
et al., 1981) This results in the pollutants being passed
along the food chain


Pesticides can exhibit both lethal and sublethal toxicity to
marine animals, including corals Concentrations of
pesticides too low to cause death in adults might be le-
thal to more sensitive younger stages. Sublethal effects
can include impairment of settlement, feeding, growth,
disease resistance, reproduction, and adaptation to envi-
ronmental change. Herbicides might have similar ef-
fects on reef organisms, including zooxanthellae.

Sources of Pollution

The primary sources for water quality-related stress to
coral reef ecosystems are point source discharges and
nonpoint sources of pollution Point source is a term used
to describe a discharge at a single, identifiable point,
such as a culvert or pipe. Point sources are usually asso-
ciated with treated or untreated wastewater discharges,
but they can consist of stormwater runoff or other dif-
fuse nonpoint sources collected and discharged as a
point source. Many of these sources are depicted in Fig-
ures 1 and 2.

A nonpoint source of pollution does not have a defined
point of origin. Nonpoint sources typically are a collec-
tion of waters from runoff, rainfall, drainage, or other
natural or human-made sources that discharge to sur-
face waters via rivers and streams or indirectly through
ground water flows (USEPA, 1993). Nonpoint source
discharges include storm water from agricultural and
urban areas, discharges from marinas and other
nearshore industries, accidental releases of chemicals
(e.g , oil spills), septic system failures, and sediments
suspended during construction and dredging activities

Water quality degradation from point and nonpoint
sources can contribute to a host of adverse impacts to a
coral reef community They range from coral mortality
to stress resulting from subtle alterations in community
structure caused by chronic toxicity and low levels of
physical stress.

Nonpoint Source Pollutants

Urban Stormwater Runoff

As an area is developed, the amount of impervious sur-
face increases, thereby increasing the volume and veloc-
ity of runoff to receiving waters. In addition, the
amount of actively maintained landscape increases as
an area is developed. This can lead to an increase in nu-
trient and pesticide loadings from excess application.
Construction activities can contribute a large amount
of sediment to coastal waters if proper techniques for
controlling erosion and sediment transport are not used.
Urban runoff contains a variety of pollutants, including
sediment, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, fertilizers, pesti-

					 * »—'	

cides, and oils and greases, depending on the land uses.
Unless urban runoff is treated using best management
practices (BMPs) prior to its discharge to coastal waters
or their tributaries, these pollutants can end up off-

Pollutant loadings vary depending on several factors,
including volume of rainfall, amount of impervious sur-
face. land use. and effectiveness of BMPs in use Prac-
tices such as maintaining open space and buffer areas to
filter storm water runoff, minimizing use of pesticides
and fertilizers, street sweeping, and public education
minimize the contributions of urban areas to nonpoint
source pollution.

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


Agricultural Runoff

Nonpoint source pollutants from agricultural lands in-
clude nutrients,, sediment, hydrocarbons, and pesti-
cides. Agricultural land uses are very chemical-
intensive. Although pesticide and fertilizer application
is a necessary component of agriculture, overuse might
eliminate desirable organisms in near coastal waters,,
destroy higher organisms'' food sources, result in lethal
combinations when more than one compound is used,
or result in bioconcentration of compounds through the
food chain. Land tilling and erosion account for large
amounts of sediment being carried away by runoff. In
areas with relatively flat topography, erosion is not as
critical a concern as it is in more mountainous areas;
however, the geology of an area can allow pollutants to
be introduced directly into the water table and ulti-
mately flow to the coast. An example of this would be
an area with porous limestone containing an uncon-
fined aquifer.

Nutrients have a number of sources, including fertiliz-
ers, manure from animal production facilities, and irri-
gation water, and can result in overenrichment of
nearby waters. In addition, animal wastes contain oxy-
gen-demanding substances, bacteria, and sediments,
which can affect surface water quality.

Marinas and Recreational Boating

Impaired water quality and biotic impacts are associated
with marinas and recreational boating Specifically, facility
design, operation, and maintenance, in combination with
increases in surrounding impervious surfaces, can result in
low dissolved oxygen, as well as increased concentrations
of metals and hydrocarbons in the immediate vicinity. In
addition, facility construction and operation, shoaling and
shoreline erosion, and boat propellers in shallow areas can
increase sediment levels.

Metals and metal-containing compounds have many
functions in boat operation, maintenance, and repair
Copper and tin are used in compounds used to kill ma-
rine fouling organisms that attach themselves to boats
and pilings. These metals slowly leach into the water
column Lead is used as a fuel additive and can be re-
leased through incomplete combustion and boat bilge
discharge Zinc anodes are used to deter corrosion of
metal hulls and engine parts. Because they do not dis-
solve in water and are readily bound to sediment, many
of the pollutants associated with marina activities do

not cause problems in the water column but do accu-
mulate in the bottom sediments. They become a water
quality concern when resuspension of sediment occurs.


Forestry activities can be a major nonpoint source of
pollution in tropical watersheds. Impacts can result
from activities like the cutting of timber, the construc-
tion of logging roads, and pre- and post-harvest timber-
land management. The types of nonpoint pollution
associated with forestry activities include sediment,
nutrients, chemicals, and organic debris.

Hydromodification/Alteration of Natural
Hydrologic Features

Modification or alteration of natural hydrologic fea-
tures (such as stream channels and wetlands) can result
in sediment supply changes, reduced or increased fresh-
water availability, accelerated delivery of pollutants,
loss of contact with overbank areas, and changes to
overall ecosystems, as well as secondary instream/
waterbody effects.

While nearshore habitats (intertidal wetlands and sub-
merged aquatic vegetation) might not be considered a
hydrologic feature, alteration or destruction of these
areas is a potential source of nonpoint source pollution,
which can affect coral reef ecosystems. The removal or
fragmentation of these vegetated areas can result in the
elimination of the natural line of defense that prevents
nonpoint sources of pollution from reaching offshore.
In some areas, submerged aquatic vegetation is removed
to create a "clean-bottom beach" for tourist use. The
removal of such vegetation results in an increase in tur-
bidity caused by increased wave- and current-induced
bottom scouring.

Freshwater runoff (and therefore stress caused by low
salinity) is the product of rainfall. The quantity of
freshwater runoff discharged to coastal waters can be
increased by removing vegetation that retains runoff;
paving large areas, which prevents infiltration of run-
off; and channelizing runoff.

Alterations of coastal barriers or channels of tidal ex-
change can result in increased or decreased exchange of
seawater, resulting in increased or decreased salinity,of
the.affected areas. This happens when inlets are cut
through the barrier islands or causeways are con-
structed without adequate culverts.


Sand Mining/Other Mining

Mining of sand and coral for use as construction materi-
als,. beach nourishment projects, and other uses occurs in
many areas of the world. The physical damage and high
degree of suspended sediment generated by these activi-
ties can have severe impacts on the coral reef ecosystem
Mining for minerals, metals, soil, and other materials
within the watershed can result in increased levels of
sediment and metals in the mining runoff.

Atmospheric Deposition

In some areas atmospheric deposition of nutrients,
heavy metals, and toxins can be a significant contribu-
tor to nonpoint source pollution loadings. However,
sources of atmospheric deposition—remote and even
local—might be difficult and too expensive to identify
and monitor effectively

Point Source Pollutants

Compared to nonpoint sources, point sources have sig-
nificantly lower total flow and therefore do not pose
as serious a threat to coral reef environments. Land-
based point source discharges tend to be restricted to
urban and industrial centers, limiting the geographic
scope of impacts to reefs adjacent to these areas. Off-
shore point source discharges (mining, shipping, oil
and gas activities) can be more widely distributed.
Where point source discharges do occur, however, they
can contribute significantly to localized impacts to
coral reefs.

Sewage Effluent

The nutrients, pathogens, and toxicants associated
with sewage outfalls pose a serious threat to coral reef
ecosystems, which are dependent on low-nutrient,
high-clarity water (De Freese, 1991). The impacts of
sewage pollution can be placed into three broad cat-
egories nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, and tox-
icity. The following impacts can have an adverse effect
on coral reefs (USEPA, 1982).

•	Accumulation of discharged solids on the seabed

•	Stimulation of phytoplankton and/or macroalgal
growth due to nutrient enrichment

•	Reduction of phytoplankton and/or macroalgal
growth due to turbidity increases

Reduction of dissolved oxygen due to
phytoplankton blooms and subsequent die-offs,
causing mass mortalities of fishes and

Bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants due to direct
contact or ingestion of sediment, direct uptake
from the effluent, or ingestion of contaminated

Induction of diseases from contact with
sediments, ingestion of contaminated organisms,
or exposure to the effluent.

Black-band disease has been observed on corals in the
vicinity of sewage discharges. This disease, caused by
bacteria, has been linked to nutrient enrichment, high
sedimentation rates, elevated temperatures, direct tox-
icity, and physical damage. Excessive nutrients can also
stress coral reefs by promoting the growth of fleshy al-
gae, which outcompete corals and other organisms. In-
creased phytoplankton and related eutrophication
problems such as deposition of suspended solids, can
reduce light penetration (Tetra Tech, 1983). Because the
corals derive a portion of their nutrition from algae
(zooxanthellae) living within their tissues, reduced light
levels that decrease photosynthesis can also affect the
general health of the coral.


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft • July 1996

Thermal Effluent

Human-induced temperature stress is caused mainly by
heated effluent from power plants and water desaliniza-
tion plants Such effluent can also be associated with
additional stress factors such as toxicants used in the
elimination of fouling organisms and metals associated
with corrosion of the cooling system (Neudecker,
1987). Salinity is an additional stressor if the thermal
effluent consists of hypersaline brine from a water de-
salinization plant. How these effluents affect coral
communities depends on the initial temperature of the
effluent, the salinity of the effluent, the toxicant con-
centration, and the mixing characteristics of the dis-
charge. For example, the plume of a warm freshwater
discharge to surface waters tends to float on the denser
seawater, affecting only shallow coral communities that
encounter the surface plume.

Water temperatures 4 to 6°C above ambient levels are
lethal to corals, and corals stop feeding at temperatures
only 1.5 to 3°C above ambient temperatures (Johannes,
1975). The sensitivity of corals to heat stress is in-
versely proportional to the corals' growth rate
(Neudecker, 1981); the fastest-growing corals are most
susceptible to stress induced by elevated temperatures.

Other Sources and Impacts

A variety of other anthropogenic activities can have an ad-
verse effect on coral communities. These activities and
their associated pollutants and impacts are discussed
briefly below. The effects of the specific pollutants associ-
ated with these activities have already been described.

Seafood Processing

Discharges from land-based or shipboard seafood pro-
cessing plants provide high organic loading, resulting in
phytoplankton blooms and decreases in the oxygen in
the water

industrial Wastes

Industrial activities can discharge a variety of chemical
contaminants, depending on the industry. These in-

clude but are not limited to toxics, suspended solids,
heavy metals, and heated water.

Mining and Petroleum Wastes

Pollutants from land-based and offshore mining and
from oil and gas exploration and production include pe-
troleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, other chemical
contaminants, suspended solids, and salt brine.

Desallnlzatlon Effluent

Hypersaline water can be discharged from water desali-
nation plants, causing a change in the salinity If the
brine is warm, the discharged wastewater tends to sink .
and mixes poorly, severely affecting benthic communi-
ties (Chesher, 1975) In addition, the effluent might
have low dissolved oxygen levels or might contain pes-
ticides found in antifoulants or naturally occurring ra-
dioactive materials.

Physical Damage and Physical Alteration
of the Environment

Two additional types of stress that are not directly re-
lated to water quality are direct physical damage and
physical alteration of the environment. Direct physical
damage can be human-induced (i.e., direct impact dur-
ing construction, boat anchoring, and/or dredging ac-
tivities) or due to natural causes like tropical storms
and hurricanes.

Severe physical impacts can crush live coral or cause
breakage, fractures, or tissue lesions that make coral
susceptible to disease (Peters, 1984). Loss of coral cover
can result in changes in the fish community, which
might change over time as the area is recolonized (Den-
nis and Bright, 1988) The open space created when cor-
als die can also be quickly colonized by benthic algae.

Physical damage and changes in coral community struc-
ture have been noted following hurricanes; ship ground-
ings; dredging and channel construction; coastal
construction; recreational activities like snorkeling, skin
diving, and scuba diving; and boat anchoring.


Section 3

Watershed-Wide Planning for Coral
Reef Protection

Over the years,, regulations and controls have been de-
veloped to control point sources of pollution. Point
sources are easily identified,, and the technology has
been available to control many of the pollutants typi-
cally associated with them. This approach has resulted
in improved water quality in coastal waters. However,
several challenges to addressing degradation of coastal
water quality remain. These challenges concern control-
ling nonpoint sources of pollution and reducing their
impact on coral communities.

Nonpoint source pollution, in contrast to pollution
from point sources, cannot be easily regulated One
way to control nonpoint source pollution, however, is
to address suspected problems or sources (e g., urban
runoff, agricultural activities, marinas) on a watershed
scale. By addressing issues on a watershed scale, using a
watershed planning approach, those areas that pose the
greatest risk to human and ecological health can be tar-
geted, several pollutants can be addressed at one time,
the public can be involved in cleaning the environment
and protecting coral habitats, and integrated solutions
for environmental protection can be considered.

Many nonpoint sources of pollution and watershed-
wide impacts are tied to land use. How an area is devel-
oped can be an indication of the types of pollutants
that can ultimately end up in receiving waters For ex-
ample, pollutants commonly associated with residential
development include nutrients from lawn fertilizers, pet
waste, and decomposing yard waste. Heavy metals like
lead and hydrocarbons from automobiles are commonly
associated with commercial development because of
the large parking areas typical of such development
Agricultural land uses can contribute large amounts of
sediment, pesticides, and fertilizers to runoff Open
space and conservation areas can serve as buffers and
filters for more sensitive ecosystems. Because of these
associations, an effective way for local governments to

control pollutants throughout the watershed is to care-
fully plan for the land uses in the watershed.

This section begins by outlining the steps of a typical
planning process and describing how planning for coral
reef management might be done at the local level The

section then discusses how the local planning approach
can be expanded to consider the entire watershed to
achieve more effective protection of coral reef ecosys-

Developing a Local Plan

The development of a plan helps a community under-
stand the value of its resources, the issues affecting
those resources, and what is required to protect the re-
sources. Plans are usually developed at the local level
with broad community participation and agreements
reached by consensus The planning process establishes

A watershed
is a geographic area
in which water,
sediments, and
dissolved materials
drain to a common
outlet, such as a river,
lake, bay, or ocean.

(USEPA, 1991)

Watershed Management for CeraI Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


a conceptual and legal framework for land use decisions
based on a community's shared vision of its future.

Community-based protection typically has three gen-
eral characteristics.

1	The scale of involvement is local.

2	Participation is broad, with representation of all
areas of the community, the public, and industry.

3	Agreements are arrived at by consensus

Making land use decisions is largely the responsibility
of local governments. The local population is best

suited to understand local problems and develop reme-
dial actions. There are strong reasons for making and
implementing policies affecting coral reef management
at the local level.

•	Local citizens and officials are the most familiar
with local problems and needs, and they are in
the best position to articulate and reconcile
competing land use interests

•	Much of the power to influence local land use
patterns is at the local level.

•	Because environmental losses can be permanent
and delays for action costly, it is important to act
in a timely manner. Local citizens and officials
can often act more quickly than the state or
federal government.

•	Many of the benefits of protecting ecologically
sensitive coastal areas, which are associated with
coral ecosystems, are realized at the local level.
These include tourism, recreation, and
commercial fishing

•	Local governments are responsible for providing
and maintaining public services. They will bear
any increased cost for poor or ineffective

Communities can address coral reef protection either as
part of a comprehensive plan or as a more focused spe-
cial use plan. Comprehensive or master plans articulate
a community's vision for its future by establishing
long-range goals for a variety of issues, such as land use,
education, infrastructure, capital expenditures, and
natural resource protection. They also provide guidance
on broad policy questions such as the formulation of
regulations, public investment, and the issuance of
building permits. Comprehensive plans can include
guidelines and policies for the protection of near coastal
areas and reefs. Special use plans address particular con-
cerns, which might be necessary to protect coral com-
munities These plans can stand alone or can be
incorporated into comprehensive plans.

An excellent resource on the planning concept is Protect-
ing Coastal and Wetland Resources: A Guide for Local Gov-
ernments (EPA 842-R-92-002), published by EPA in
October 1992. This guidance is focused on coastal and
wetland resources, but it can be applied to near coastal
coral reef communities as well.

The Management Plan for {Jgum Watershed—Territory of
Guam (U.S Department of Agriculture/Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service, 1996) describes a series of
management plans for the Ugum watershed developed
using a planning concept that involves all levels of the
community, and it proposes four alternative manage-
ment scenarios for consideration A synopsis of the.
Ugum watershed study is provided in Section 4 of this


The Importance of Planning

A plan facilitates land use decisions by describing exist-
ing patterns of the community—housing, economics,
natural resources—and recommending policies that will
manage future development for the protection of near
coastal environments and coral ecosystems. For a plan
to be successful, it must outline a framework on which
to build future actions. It must have adequate commu-
nity leadership and funding, as well as technical sup-
port to help make decisions.

A local planning commission (elected or appointed) or
other governing body usually oversees the planning pro-
cess and adoption of a legally acceptable plan. A process
conducted openly, in the public forum, usually means
decisions are made ethically and are not politically

The Planning Process

The planning process typically has five main steps:

1.	Define the context of the planning effort.

2.	Understand the community, its resources, and
the challenges facing it. Gather data to clarify and
substantiate the existence of resources and
problem areas.

3.	Establish goals and objectives.

4.	Prepare the plan.

5.	Implement, monitor, and enforce the plan.
The following is a description of each step

Step 1:

Define the Context of the Planning Effort

Investigate Existing Programs That Affect the
Planning Jurisdiction

Variations in local decision-making power directly af-
fect the planning process. Some localities have more
latitude than others in their authority to make deci-
sions. Others must rely on broader regional governmen-
tal bodies No matter what the level of authority, every
community exists within a larger political framework

and it is important for all levels of government to work
together For example, municipalities must work with
county and state agencies and the state environmental
agency must coordinate with the appropriate federal
agencies Although in most areas local planning will re-
main within the purview of local government, the suc-
cess of the plan depends on cooperation from all levels
of government.

Review Existing Local Land Use Policies That
Affect Coral Communities

Many communities have enacted regulations to directly
or indirectly protect coral ecosystems. However, they
might also have policies that inadvertently harm those
ecosystems The existing regulatory programs that con-
trol land and water uses will play an important role in
shaping the community's options for effecting change.

Identify Constituencies Interested in Local

Planning is a public process. The early involvement of
the general public in planning efforts is very important.
Educating participants and raising awareness of the is-
sues will greatly increase public involvement in the
planning process Both public and private stakeholders
in land use decisions need to be represented. These
stakeholders include the agricultural community, busi-
ness owners, planners, developers, local and state gov-
ernment representatives, environmental groups, and

Organize Available Resources and Assess the
Potential Scope of Legal Action

Planning efforts are limited by a community's willing-
ness to devote time, staff, and financial resources to
what can be a time-consuming and complicated pro-
cess. A careful inventory of planning resources will help
organizers determine the possible scope of the planning
effort It is important to look to both governmental and
nongovernmental bodies for technical assistance and
financial support.

Step 2:

Understand the Community

Collect Information

Effective management plans for coral ecosystems re-
quire collecting a great deal of information on the areas
that are considered upstream from these ecosystems


Watershed /Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 19
The information gathered during this step will allow
planners to realistically assess the issues, problems, and
opportunities facing their community This informa-
tion will also allow planners and local officials to put
actions in priority order based on the needs of the com-
munity This step is important in developing public

Build Public Support and Educate the Public

An important step in understanding the community is
knowing what is important to the people living there
Planners and local officials should hold public meetings
or hearings—formal and/or informal—early and often.
This approach allows affected parties to enter the pro-
cess before decisions have been made.

Education is a key component of public support. Plan-
ners and resource managers should raise the
community's awareness of the value of coral ecosys-
tems. They should show how important reefs are aes-
thetically or how they protect shorelines from erosion,
produce sand for local beaches, and help support the
tourism industry. Planners could illustrate how cluster-
ing development can lower costs for developers and also
benefit natural resources.

The planners and resource managers should be a source
of technical assistance and information on the coral
ecosystem and coastal habitats, offering citizen educa-
tion programs, community workshops, and training for
all sectors of the community. Alternative methods for
dissemination of information, such as electronic media
or the Internet, should be considered.

The public should be encouraged to become active
stewards of their environment by reporting suspected
violations of environmental laws and participating in
the enforcement process. Local authorities must re-
spond promptly to such reports to maintain a credible
relationship with the community.

Involve Everyone

The following, at a minimum, should be involved in the
development of a local plan

•	Federal, state, county, and local government
officials (elected and appointed)

•	Business representatives

•	Community organizations

•	Landowners

•	Recreational interests

•	Environmental and conservation groups

•	Technical support: scientists, engineers, lawyers

Develop Mechanisms for Effective

Participants in the process should always feel that their
input is welcome and that they have a place to go if
they have any questions or concerns. The importance of
property rights should be recognized in the decision
process People are generally reluctant to support poli-
cies that reduce the value of their property

Step 3:

Establish coals and Objectives

The community needs to decide on the relative impor-
tance of various land uses and governmental priorities
and their relationship to potential impacts on coral reef
habitat. These priorities can include economic growth,
preservation of open space, or maintenance of infra-
structure. The community can then delineate specific
goals and objectives for different land areas according
to community needs, fiscal capacity, and the physical
features of the land. It is critical that all stakeholders be
involved in the formation of goals and objectives for
the community. Only then can decisions be made that
consider both the economic well-being of the commu-
nity and the protection of natural resources. Consider-
ing all perspectives will ensure that future actions
adequately protect valued resources and promote the
community's shared vision for its future

Identifying Overarching Goals

The community will have overarching goals that will
act as a guide in its land use decisions In some small
communities, certain concerns that might be embodied
as goals include the following:

•	Managing and directing growth.

•	Providing for economic development.

•	Ensuring the availability of sufficient affordable

•	Preserving rural character

•	Protecting life and property from floods.

•	Maintaining the viability of agricultural uses in
the face of more profitable development options

•	Protecting open space, natural resources, and
unique sites.


The plan will usually incorporate a time frame (e g., 10
years. 5 years, or 1 year) for meeting the goals. The
goals express local desires regarding land use and devel-
opment (e g . commercial, industrial, and residential
placement, recreation, public facilities and infrastruc-
ture: open space;-and other natural environment consid-
erations). They reflect:

•	The heterogeneity of the community

•	The diverse demands on and needs of the

•	Long- and short-term costs and benefits

•	Infrastructure impacts

•	Risks to human health and the environment

It is crucial to evaluate and reconcile these many com-
peting interests. Once local goals have been identified,
the community can determine where planning efforts
should focus and what other jurisdictions might need
to become involved.

Within these broad goals, planners need to consider pro-
tection of critical areas While coral reefs themselves
usually constitute a critical area, other examples might

•	Protection of ground water supplies

•	Protection of fish spawning areas and shellfish

•	Protection of endangered species and wildlife

•	Provision for recreational uses

Each goal has a set of objectives that describe the spe-
cific actions for achieving the goals. For example, if a
community's goal is to improve the water quality on
the barrier reef, objectives might include developing a
storm water management ordinance to control non-
point source pollution, banning detergents containing
phosphates, and improving inspection programs for sep-
tic tanks.

In light of these goals and objectives, a community's
land use policies might prohibit development in some
areas. In other areas, they might limit land uses to
those with minimal environmental impacts In still oth-
ers, they may impose few or no restrictions, or provide
for new development or increased density of develop-

Building Consensus

Land use decisions and development policies have often
been contentious. The increasing concern for and com-
plexity of environmental issues has merely added chal-
lenges to the process If a community's actions are to
be effective and endure, land use decisions must involve
all groups with a stake in the community's growth and
development. From this participation must come con-
sensus—if not on the specific details of every project,
at least on the overall goals and objectives of the com-

Building and maintaining consensus is important
throughout the development and implementation of a
plan, but is perhaps most essential when developing

goals and objectives. The goals and objectives represent
the community's shared vision of its future. They gen-
erally are not associated with specific development or
conservation projects, but instead provide the general
framework within which specific decisions are made.
Preplanning consensus building requires making every
effort to include all interested parties in shaping these
goals and objectives, ensuring that each group articu-
lates its vision for the future and enabling the groups to
work cooperatively to generate a shared view. With this
framework in place, the plan for guiding growth, devel-
opment. and conservation can then be structured.


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Comminutes

Final Draft -July 1996

step a:

prepare the Plan

Preparing a comprehensive plan involves synthesizing
the many concerns analyzed during the information-
gathering and assessment phases (Steps 1 and 2) to de-
velop a detailed statement of what a community
intends to be (Step 3) and to specify the steps it will
take to get there (Step 4). The review of existing land-
use policies that affect coral communities, from Step 1,
will help estimate the amount of land suitable for dif-
ferent uses and the areas where development should be
restricted. It will also help determine the amount of
land needed to meet population growth and economic
demand. The plan should help the local government
minimize conflicts between existing land uses and en-
sure that future uses will be environmentally sensitive

This step in the process involves developing alternatives
to the implementation of the goals and objectives sum-
marized in the plan. A community's list of alternatives
is developed by applying the information it has gar-
nered to a series of policy and program options that
support the goals and objectives of the plan. Develop-
ment of management options is exemplified in the case
studies for both the Florida Keys National Marine Sanc-
tuary and the Ugum Watershed in Section 4.

Step 5:

implement, Monitor, and Enforce the Plan

A well-structured plan will include an implementation
strategy that describes steps for translating the plan
into action and monitoring the extent to which the
plan's goals and objectives are being achieved The plan
should also include provisions for modifying the plan, as
needed, to accommodate new goals, achieve better re-
sults, or address unforeseen issues.

Considering a Watershed Planning

Since the effectiveness of any coastal protection strat-
egy is tied to oversight of activities in the entire water-
shed, it might be most effective to consider the
watershed planning approach Consideration of the en-
tire watershed is important for several reasons. First, the
impacts of development are not always localized and

can affect resources throughout the watershed
Second, by examining the entire watershed, planners
can best discern areas where growth and development
would be most suitable, due to either the presence of
existing infrastructure or the lack of significant threats
to sensitive natural resources. Finally, local planners can
evaluate the progress of existing control efforts
throughout the watershed and can use this information
to target scarce resources and to identify where protec-
tion of coastal areas is weakest.

The Integrated Watershed Management

The ideal management plan establishes the goals and
objectives of watershed management with respect to
coral reef protection and enhancement It also outlines
the specific actions for achieving the goals and objec-
tives. The plan documents the processes and schedules
for achieving specific remedial actions, defines stake-
holders' roles, and identifies the parties responsible for
the plan's implementation. Stakeholders are all those in
the community that will be affected in some manner
by management actions within the watershed. They
may include agencies, organizations, and individuals.
The plan also specifies how the effectiveness of selected
management options is to be assessed Management
options are discussed later in this section.

setting Goals and Objectives

The first step in the development of an integrated wa-
tershed management plan is to develop goals and objec-
tives for corrective actions. Each goal should clearly
state what needs to be accomplished and when, and the
objectives should clearly describe how the goal is to be
met. Goals and objectives can be very detailed and spe-
cific. Several preparatory activities should accompany
the development of the goals and objectives statement:

Watershed Identification and Delineation—A first step is
the identification of the watershed(s) contributing to
the degradation of the coral reef ecosystem. The water-
shed becomes the management unit, and therefore its
geographic boundaries must be established. Geographic
features and land use practices constitute the descrip-
tion of the watershed.


Problem Identification and Definition—An important step
is the careful evaluation of the water quality problems
within the watershed that are affecting adjacent coral
reef communities and preparation of a problem state-
ment Point and nonpoint sources of pollution are iden-
tified and characterized Here the manager determines
the nature and extent of the watershed's impact on the
coral reef ecosystem The evaluation can be conducted
through literature searches, surveys, interviews, site
visits, and information from previous management
efforts, if applicable.

Developing Management Options

An important step in the planning process is to identify
and evaluate the range of management options avail-
able to meet the stated goals and objectives. In this step
the important sources of stress to the coral environ-
ment are evaluated with respect to the costs and associ-
ated benefits of remediation. The best management
options are those which control the sources of stress in
the most reasonable, acceptable, and cost-effective
manner. Management options for achieving the goals
and objectives of the plan need to be identified. They
contain four key elements:

•	Scientific Validity—Management options selected
must be demonstrated to be effective in achieving
the intended environmental result

•	Cost-Effectiveness—Management options selected
should achieve the desired environmental result at
the lowest practical social and economic cost.

•	Measurability—Measurable environmental
indicators of a plan's success are an essential
component of any management option for
achieving and communicating environmental

•	Sociopolitical Acceptability—Management options
selected should have the support of the major
stakeholders in the affected community.

Managers should factor in unique aspects of the indi-
vidual watershed, resources available for each option,
community support, and legal authorities. Several ana-
lytical tools, useful in the evaluation process, are avail-
able to the resource manager They measure different

aspects of resource management, and their use depends
on the information available and what managers need
to know Three of the analytical tools are briefly dis-
cussed here. More detailed discussions of these and
other methods can be found in (citations).

•	Economic Impact Analysis—This analysis aids m
the determination of how a management action
affects the regional economy. Such information
can be critical to the resource manager because
economic impacts will be a major determining
factor in stakeholders' acceptance of the
management plan. This analysis technique
measures changes in business activity and does
not account for effects on social benefits or
values; an economic impact analysis considers
only those things with market value.

•	Cost-Effectiveness Analysis—This analytical tool
assists in finding the lowest-cost alternative to
achieve a desired objective. Cost-effectiveness
analysis is useful in situations where the
monetary value of any benefit of a management
action is not considered. An option is cost-
effective if it provides a given amount of benefit
at a lower cost than its alternatives

•	Cost-Benefit Analysis — This method of analysis
compares the costs associated with a
management action with the value (economic
and social) of the benefits derived as a result of
the action. The social benefits of a healthy coral
reef ecosystem must be expressed in terms of
monetary value for a cost-benefit analysis.
Because the coral reef environment is not traded
in the marketplace and has no associated price
and quantity data, special techniques are needed
to assign a monetary value to it. Several methods
of environmental valuation (placing a monetary
value on environmental change) are available to
the resource manager (citations).

Promoting Community Involvement

The success of the watershed management approach to
coral reef ecosystem protection depends on the support
and participation of the community and stakeholders.
The community can be one of the watershed manager's
most valuable and important assets in the development,


Watershed Management for CoraI Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

implementation, and continued success of the manage-
ment plan. Several steps will ensure that stakeholders
play a meaningful role in watershed management and
coral reef protection

•	Identification—Stakeholders should be identified
early in the development of the watershed
management plan. The various stakeholder
factions should be the focus of investigation to
determine their interest in watershed
management and coral reef protection, as well as
what impacts management actions might have on

•	Outreach and Education—The purpose of
outreach is to explain the environmental
protection need (coral reef protection) and
approach (watershed management), and to
establish a dialogue between managers and the
community. Methods for reaching out to
stakeholders should be developed and
implemented prior to the development of the
watershed management plan.

•	Input—Effective mechanisms for stakeholder
input at all stages of the management process
should be developed. One method would be to
form steering committees that represent all of the
important stakeholders

•	Stakeholder Roles—A process is needed to
determine the roles and responsibilities of the
various community factions in the development
and implementation of the watershed
management plan.

Implementing the Plan

The watershed management plan must clearly outline
the processes for its implementation. The plan needs to
identify responsibilities, schedules, and resources re-
quired for the timely and efficient execution of its key
elements. Implementation has several important com-

•	Prioritization—The most critical elements of the
plan must be determined to prioritize schedules
and resource allocation

•	Planning—Management actions should be
implemented only when all responsible parties
understand fully what is expected and when all
resources needed are in place.

•	Coordination—Responsible parties should be in
constant communication so that each knows
what the other is doing and all fulfill their roles at
the appropriate times.

•	Leadership—A Steering Committee or
Management Committee composed of the
principal stakeholders is needed to guide
implementation of the plan

Assessing the Plan's Effectiveness

The watershed management plan should provide for a
periodic assessment and evaluation of progress. The en-
vironmental indicators used to determine the effective-
ness of management actions must be evaluated so that
successes and failures can be reported and addressed.
Social and economic impacts to the community should
also be part of periodic assessments. The next section
provides an overview of monitoring to determine a
plan's effectiveness.

Monitoring Toots and Protocols

Monitoring is an important component of any coral
reef watershed management plan. Monitoring data pro-
vide the information needed to determine whether cor-
rective actions are achieving the desired effect on water
quality. Monitoring data can be used to adjust water-
shed protection activities to achieve the best effect. Pro-
tection activities determined to be ineffective or
activities whose costs outweigh their benefit to the
environment can be eliminated or exchanged for more
beneficial activities.

Types of Monitoring

Monitoring the results of coral reef watershed protec-
tion activities can be separated into two broad catego-
ries: (1) water quality monitoring and (2) ecological
monitoring. The two types of monitoring provide dif-
ferent kinds of information and require different levels
of ability, resources, and labor.


Water Quality Monitoring

Water quality monitoring is the periodic measurement
of key chemical and physical parameters in the water
column Water quality can be monitored anywhere in
the watershed, including on the coral reef. Because wa-
tershed management activities are designed to improve
the quality of water ultimately reaching the reef, water
quality monitoring directly measures whether correc-
tive actions in the watershed are having the desired ef-

Ecological Monitoring

Ecological monitoring attempts to measure the impacts
of water quality on the coral reef community. Examples
include monitoring of community structure or ecologi-
cal functions, such as coral mortality, recruitment,
bleaching, disease, and other signs of stress Ecological
monitoring indirectly measures the effectiveness of cor-
rective actions in the watershed because the current
conditions and changes in coral reef communities might
be only partly caused by activities in the watershed.

The Monitoring Plan

Like the watershed management plan, the monitoring
plan should describe goals and objectives, schedules,
responsible parties, and resources required for imple-
mentation. To be effective, monitoring plans should be
developed and implemented along with other plans in
the watershed. Monitoring often precedes the protec-
tive actions to acquire baseline data for later compari-
sons. The first step in the development of an effective
monitoring plan should be careful consideration of a
number of important factors to determine the appropri-
ate types and levels of monitoring for a given situation.

• Information Needed—The overall goal of coral
watershed management is to minimize the
watershed's impact on the coral reef environment
via improvements in water quality. The goal of
monitoring is to determine whether watershed
management is successful in achieving that goal.
Managers should determine the level of
information they need to assess the program's
success and design monitoring plans to obtain
only that level of information.

•	Resources Available—Monitoring activities can be
a significant drain on limited money and staff
resources Resources applied to monitoring
cannot be used for corrective actions or other
activities in the watershed. A careful
consideration of priorities is essential to determine
what resources are needed for important
protection activities and what resources will
remain for monitoring. When resources are
limited, care should be used in determining
monitoring parameters. A solid database for a few
important parameters will prove more valuable
than limited data for a large number of variables
Resource availability from year to year is often
uncertain. Monitoring should be designed to
provide meaningful data within the time periods
for resource allotments

•	Scientific and Technological Skill Needed—Water
quality and ecological monitoring activities vary
widely in terms of the scientific knowledge and
technical skills required. It is critical in
monitoring that the scope of work be well within
the level of skills available.

Water Quality Monitoring vs. Ecological

Water quality monitoring will provide the simplest,
quickest, and most direct measure of the effectiveness
of any corrective action in the watershed and, there-
fore, should be part of any monitoring plan. An impor-
tant consideration is whether monitoring should focus
only on water quality or extend to ecological measure-
ments of the coral reef community. Careful consider-
ation of some important factors regarding attributes of
the coral reef and its relationship to water quality is

•	Cora! Reef Ecology—The coral reef ecosystem is an
extremely complex system from an ecological
perspective. Though much has been written
about coral reef ecosystems, their intricacies are
not yet well understood. Inferences of cause-and-
effect relationships based on interpretations of
coral reef monitoring data are problematic and
might lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the
effectiveness of corrective actions.

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


•	Factors Affecting Reef Communities—The ecological
condition of a coral reef is affected by many
biotic and abiotic factors, of which only a few
might be a direct result of human activities The
watershed might have a great deal or very little to
do with the health of the coral reef ecosystem.
Ecological monitoring measures the cumulative
impacts to the reef and usually cannot
distinguish between watershed impacts and other
impacts. Such information may over- or
underestimate the effectiveness of watershed

•	Pollutant Effects—Various pollutants can affect
coral reef communities in a variety of different
ways (see Section 2). A single pollutant can
exhibit different effects under different sets of
conditions, including synergistic effects in the
presence of other pollutants and stresses. In
addition, the effects of most pollutants on coral
physiology and resultant impacts on community
structure are poorly understood or completely

•	Recovery Tunes—The degradation of an impacted
coral reef might occur slowly or very rapidly
Recovery of a severely impacted coral reef, on the
other hand, is likely to take years. Resource
managers should consider how long they can
wait for an indication of success.

•	Monitoring Methods—Scientists continually debate
issues regarding the appropriate types and levels
of effort needed to adequately monitor conditions
and changes in coral reefs. Currently, there is no
clear consensus regarding study parameters and
monitoring methods.

Determining Success of the Planning

Examination of local efforts to protect coastal and coral
resources nationwide points to a number of criteria for
successfully using watershed management as one way
of protecting these resources. Among these criteria for
success are the following:

1 Clearly defined goals and objectives. Communities
that have been most successful in protecting their
coastal resources have implemented programs
and policies that reflect clearly defined and
realistic goals and objectives. These goals and
objectives are generally the product of an acutely
felt need to do something to protect certain
resources, a well-informed and scientifically
based understanding of the characteristics of that
resource and the threats to it, and, perhaps most
important, a significant planning effort.

2.	Strong information base and readily available
technical backup. The community has surveyed
and defined its resources and analyzed its land. It
has carefully analyzed policy options with respect
to their economic, social, political, and
environmental impacts.

3.	Regulatory and legal authority. The community has
established its regulatory and legal authority to
protect sensitive areas through an adopted
comprehensive plan, clear enabling statutes at the
state and/or local level, and minimum state

4.	An explicitly integrated approach. The community
has developed an explicit approach to ensure that
land use policy is consistent with and bolstered
by other environmental protection efforts, such
as pollution prevention efforts at nearby
industrial sites. Land use planning and regulation
take place in conjunction with prohibition of
certain activities, rational siting, nonpoint
pollution programs, and other activities. A
community is more likely to succeed when it
recognizes the interdependent nature of land use
management decisions and coordinates its actions
to pursue its goals in an integrated fashion.

5.	Public participation. Successful efforts to protect
coastal resources are based on public participation
in the decision-making process Public support is
important to all aspects of protecting coastal and
coral resources., including planning, program
development, implementation, and enforcement
Public understanding and support are fostered
through an open, organized, and credible process
that includes all affected parties. The first step is
to develop publicly accepted common goals and


to build a coalition that addresses the many	8

dimensions of the growth management and
sensitive area protection issue An alliance of
development and environmental interests and
landowners will clearly be an asset, whereas a	9

lack of public participation could become an
impediment to protection efforts

6. Political leadership. Political leadership is a major
factor in building strong public support. In many
respects, protecting coral ecosystems and near
coastal waters is more a political problem than a
technical one. Inadequate leadership can hinder
implementation of protection plans.

7 Public education. An educated public is paramount
to the community's having a full understanding
of the issues involved in the establishment of the
plan's management options and sustainable use

Adequate financial support. Adequate funding is
necessary not only for establishing the program
but also for implementing and enforcing it.

Monitoring and assessment. This final component is
often overlooked. Periodic monitoring not only
provides status and trends data for evaluating the
coral system, but also provides the information
needed to address changes that will be needed
from time to time. It will also indicate the
effectiveness of management This will broaden
community involvement and provide an
economical way to strengthen the monitoring
database. EPA has published a guide for citizens
who do volunteer estuary monitoring, which
might be helpful in monitoring bays or estuaries
in association with coral communities (Volunteer
Estuarv Monitonne: A A'lethods Manual. USEPA,

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Ccmmumttes

Final Draft - July 1996



Section 4

Case studies

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
A Managed Reef System


The Florida Keys form a limestone archipelago that ex-
tends southwest from the southeast tip of Florida for
320 km (198 mi). The Keys comprise more
than 1.700 islands with a total land area of
approximately 266 km2 (103 mi2) and gen-
erally less than 1 m (3 ft) of relief. The
tropical climate of the region has a wet
summer from May to October followed by
a dry winter. An average of 124.5 cm
(49 in) of rain falls annually, mostly as lo-
cally intensive storms. Tropical depressions
and hurricanes also occur in the region.

The large region of which the Keys are a
part contains five distinct physiographic
regions: Florida Bay, the southwest conti-
nental shelf, the reef tract, the islands or
keys, and the straits of Florida (Figure 3).

Three land uses—vacant land, conservation
land, and residential land—predominate on
the Keys themselves. Vacant and conserva-
tion lands are predominant in the lower
keys; vacant and residential lands have approximately
equal predominance in the middle keys; and conserva-
tion land is predominant in the upper keys.

Use of the region by people is varied and seasonally in-
tensive. The popularity of the region as a vacation spot
places stress on the ecosystems and infrastructure of
the region and has resulted in intensive development in
some areas. The 1990 peak population in the Keys was
estimated at 134,600, only 78,000 of whom were per-
manent residents. Visitors to the Keys enjoy recre-
ational boating, recreational fishing, scuba diving and
snorkeling, swimming, and beach-going. The waters
near the Keys are also important for commercial ship-

Management Approach Development

An effort to protect the Keys grew out of years of pub-
lic and scientific discussion about their health and fu-
ture. Declines in coral recruitment, increases in fish kills,
and sea grass die-offs were attributed to declining water
quality from point and nonpoint sources of pollution.

Figure S. Florida keys Region (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1995)

Point sources of pollution in the Keys include 10 domes-
tic wastewater treatment plants and 9 other dischargers
(water supply treatment plants, power plants, and 2 in-
dustrial facilities). The most significant nonpoint
source of pollution in the Keys is domestic wastewater.
There are approximately 30,000 onsite disposal systems
(septic tanks) and 670 injection wells from hospitals,
restaurants, schools, campgrounds, and other facilities.
Active and abandoned landfills, marinas, liveaboards,
and storm water runoff also contribute to the nonpoint
sources of pollution in the Keys. All of these sources col-
lectively contribute hydrocarbons, pesticides, herbicides,
heavy metals, and nutrients to the waters of the region.


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

Sources of pollution from "higher up" in south Florida's
watershed can also affect water quality in the Keys.
Water quality in Florida Bay, which lies between the
upper keys and the southern edge of Florida (see Figure
3), is periodically degraded due to past alterations of the
freshwater flow to the bay from the Everglades and pol-
lutants,. especially nutrients and fertilizers from agricul-
ture, transported from the north. The loop circulation,
which is the clockwise circulation in the Gulf of Mexico,
and the Florida current, which runs north along the
eastern edge of the Keys, transport pollutants from
Florida's west coast and the Mississippi River to the
Keys as well.

As part of the effort to protect the region's unique ecol-
ogy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration designated the area as the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) in 1990. Approximately
9,500 km2 (3,667 mi2) of submerged lands and waters—
the largest reef system in the continental United
States—is included in the FKNMS and protected for its
scientific, recreational, and ecological value

A comprehensive watershed management approach was
chosen to address the issues facing the Keys because of
the region's diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats and
the numerous human activities that occur in the region.
The process followed to develop the watershed manage-
ment plan included coalition building, scientific charac-
terization, development of alternative management
strategies and scenarios, and finally selection of a pre-
ferred alternative

Public scoping meetings were held initially to identify
the range of issues to be addressed in the Sanctuary
Management Plan (SMP) A FKNMS Advisory Council
was assembled to provide a forum for public input to
the process. A core group of concerned and involved citi-
zens was then formed to oversee the development and
implementation of the SMP. The Core Group included
representatives of the following-

Federal government

•	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

•	U.S Environmental Protection Agency

•	National Park Service

•	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State government

•	Executive Office of the Governor

•	Department of Community Affairs

•	Department of Environmental Protection

•	South Florida Water Management District

County government

•	Growth Management Division of Monroe County

Five major issue groups that affect the Keys were iden-

•	Boating

•	Commercial and recreational fishing

•	Recreation and cultural/historical resources

•	Land use

•	Water quality

Each issue group was then comprehensively analyzed in
the context of its potential impact to four entities in
the Florida Keys region: habitats, species, uses and us-
ers, and water quality.

In keeping with the watershed approach, the compre-
hensive analyses of the issue groups took into account
all potential influences within the Keys region. Impacts
to sea grass, coral, hardbottom, dead coral rubble, wet-
land, and mangrove community habitats were exam-
ined Impacts to species included those to manatees,
birds and bird colonies, marine turtles, American croco-
diles, shallow-water fishes, and crustaceans (lobsters,
crabs, etc.). Conflicts between uses and users and im-
pacts to individual uses and users that were examined
included recreational and commercial fishing, treasure
hunters, recreational divers, swimmers and beach goers,
and tourism in general The water quality impacts of
uses and activities that occur both in the Keys and
within the region of influence surrounding the Keys
were examined.

A variety of potential management strategies were
identified from these analyses. Each management strat-
egy identified how the management issue(s) to which it
applied were to be addressed. Example management
strategies were management of boat access, pollution
discharges, visitor registration, limited-entry fishing,
exotic species, spear fishing, marina operations, dredg-
ing, public access, and recreational carrying capacity;


wastewater management: spill reporting, water quality
monitoring, zoning, and education Each strategy had
to be completely developed in the sense of accounting
for costs, implementation schedules, responsible insti-
tutions, prerequisites, financing, regulatory require-
ments, staffing, other resource requirements, and
identification of the geographic area affected by the
management actions.

From these management strategies, five management
alternatives were identified They differed primarily in
level of regulatory control and use restrictions, ranging
from most restrictive to no action.

Management Alternatives

Alternative 1 is the most restrictive alterna-
tive. It stresses resource conservation and
prohibits most consumptive uses of sanctuary
waters and resources. Only research activities
would be allowed. Strict water quality stan-
dards would be imposed under this alterna-
tive. This alternative does not provide a
balance between resource protection and
sanctuary use and would have significant im-
pacts on users and the Florida Keys' economy.

quality and would not negatively impact users as much
as Alternative 1, 2, or 3. All traditional uses would
continue, although some spatial and temporal separa-
tion would be established.

Alternative 5 is the ;'no action" alternative. It would
not result in an increase in resource or ecosystem pro-
tection and would not improve habitats or species or
decrease user conflicts Existing threats to sanctuary
resources would continue.

Selection of Preferred Alternative

The Core Group and the FKNMS Advisory Council con-
sidered Alternatives 1 and 5 to be undesirable and im-

Table 3. Key issues related to
environmental Impacts

Water Quality



Alternative 2 stresses resource conservation
but facilitates access and use of sanctuary wa-
ters. Ecosystem protection is provided
through regulations that prohibit or limit
many consumptive uses. Alternative 2 would
not have a significant impact on current or
future users, and in most cases consumptive
uses would continue although they would be separated
in time and space as necessary. Land uses with nega-
tive impacts would be minimized under Alternative 2

Alternative 3 maintains a traditional approach to man-
agement and use in the Keys and provides for increased
resource protection through prohibitions and limita-
tions on some uses. Most current uses would be main-
tained, although they would be separated temporally
and spatially as necessary.

Alternative 4 provides some additional ecosystem pro-
tection above the current level. It would not have sig-
nificant positive impacts on habitats, species, or water

-	growth management

-	marinas/boat discharge

-	water use and reuse

-	dredge and fill

-	research and monitoring

-	domestic wastewater

-	storm water

-	canals

-	zoning

-	growth management

-	zoning

-	carrying capacity

-	restoration

-	vessel groundings

-	access

-	marinas/boat discharge

-	fishing

-	submerged cultural


-	growth management

-	zoning

-	carrying capacity

-	consistent regulations

-	limited entry

-	gear/methods

-	exotic species

-	marina operations

-	access

-	restoration

practical. The three remaining alternatives were then
analyzed and compared. The environmental impacts of
implementing the three alternatives—categorized as
impacts to habitats, species, and water quality—were
compared collectively by federal, state, local, and pri-
vate resource managers and scientists Key issues re-
lated to environmental impacts in each of the impact
categories (habitats, species, and water quality) were
analyzed most intensively. The key issues are listed in
Table 3. Education and enforcement were identified as
activities that affect all categories.

Watershed A'Uinae.cmem for Cera! Reef Communities

Final Draft-July >996


The socioeconomic impacts of the management alterna-
tives were also analyzed and compared Socioeconomic
impacts to boating, fishing, land use, recreation, water
quality, zoning, and education were included in the

The FKNMS Advisory Council found Alternative 3 to
be the most reasonable and recommended it to the Core
Group, with modification, as the preferred alternative.
Although Alternative 4 was anticipated to result in
fewer negative socioeconomic impacts on sanctuary
users, it did not adequately address the long-term envi-
ronmental impacts on the sanctuary. Alternative 2 was
judged to provide adequate environmental protection
for the long-term health of the ecosystem but to place
too great an economic burden on sanctuary users. The

Core Group accepted the recommendation of Alterna-
tive 3 as the preferred alternative and also accepted
most of the modifications recommended by the Advi-
sory Council Table 4 summarizes the key management
strategies in Alternative 3


Copies of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Management Plan are available from:

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

1305 East-West Highway - SSMC4

Silver Spring MD 20910

(301) 713-3137


Table 4. Summary off key management strategies in Alternative 3




Boating Strategies

Boat Access

Reduce resource impacts from boating

Direct public access to low-impact areas
Modify access ramps in sensitive areas

Habitat Restoration

Promote research and development of
new technologies to restore and
enhance coral, sea grass, and
mangrove habitats

Develop and implement a restoration plan for
severely impacted areas

Derelict Vessels

Reduce direct and indirect impacts to
natural resources from derelict and
abandoned vessels

Provide a plan for removing derelict vessels based
on prioritization of problem areas

Channel Marking

Reduce damage to natural resources
caused by boating activities

Implement a detailed and comprehensive plan for

high-use and sensitive areas
Identify problem areas and set priorities
Mark frequently used channels, shallow-water

reefs, shoals, and other significant features
Reduce erosion from various causes

Additional Enforcement

increase the presence of law

enforcement officers on the water

Add 30 law enforcement officers to patrol
sanctuary waters

User Fees

Generate funds for sanctuary

management and related research

Provide a fair and equitable method of charging
user fees


Reduce damage to natural resources
from improper vessel salvage

Establish regulations and procedural guidelines for
commercial salvaging and vessel towing

Require permits for commercial salvaging and

towing operations
Establish a salvage operator training program

Mooring Buoys

Decrease user conflicts, prolong

mooring buoy life, and reduce the
risk of vessel groundings

Develop and implement a comprehensive

mooring buoy plan
Prioritize areas of concern

Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Reduce damage to natural resources
due to improper operation of
motorized boats and personal
watercraft, and address user

Offer the most enforceable options regarding the
distance PWCs and other motorized vessels
must maintain from other users, edges of
flats, and other sensitive areas

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


Table a. (cont)




Fishing Strategies


Build on stock research conducted
elsewhere to determine the effect
of fish stocking on the genetic
integrity of native species

Implement a moratorium on stocking activities
until adequate research has been conducted
to prevent damage from stocking

Aquaculture Alternatives

Reduce fishing pressures on

commercially harvested marine

Help satisfy the commercial demand for
these species

Research and promote appropriate aquaculture

Establish regulations

Limited Entry

Through existing fishery regulatory
programs, limit the number of
persons, vessels, or fishing gear
units using specific sanctuary

Implement appropriate limited-entry mechanisms
for selected fisheries to adjust fishing efforts
and harvests

Fisheries Sampling

Evaluate and modify existing
commercial landing and
recreational creel census programs

Improve fisheries sampling, effort levels, and
catch to provide more accurate data on
resource status and use

Cear/Method impacts

Reduce impacts to corals, hardbottoms,
sea grasses, and other habitats

Develop alternative gear designs and types
Establish regulations that require low-impact gear
and methods in priority areas

Spear fishing

Determine the impacts of spear fishing
on species composition and
Reduce incidental habitat damage
Reduce user conflicts

Develop and impose spear fishing regulations in
high-priority areas

Sponge Harvesting

Determine harvesting methods with low
adverse impacts on both species
and habitats
Identify areas with low abundance, low
recovery rates, and habitat damage

implement appropriate research-based

Recreation Strategies

Submerged Cultural
Resource (SCR) Management

Protect SCRs from disturbances
Maintain SCRs for research, education,
science, and recreation

Implement an SCR Management Plan/Program,
Abandoned Shipwreck Act guidelines, NOAA
policy statements and permit decisions


Table 4. (cont)




Recreation Strategies (cont)

Recreation Survey

Provide data on types, levels, users, and

locations of recreational activities
Improve planning

Conduct routine surveys
Identify specific access and carrying capacity
problems and high-use areas where user
conflicts occur
implement a permitting system to regulate use
for charter and rental vessels

Carrying Capacity

Provide information used to reduce
impacts from recreational activities

Determine the carrying capacity of different

Zoning Strategies

Wildlife Management Areas

Reduce the disturbance to wildlife
populations and their habitats

Complement management efforts of FWS
through a cooperative enforcement
agreement with FWS

Replenishment Reserves

Establish replenishment reserves to
protect commercial fish habitats
and species, protect fisheries from
collapse, provide control areas in
exploited areas, and improve
resource monitoring

Limit consumptive activities, but allow recreational
activities compatible with resource

Sanctuary Preservation
Areas (SPAs)

Enhance the reproductive capabilities of

renewable resources
Protect areas critical for sustaining and
protecting important marine

Reduce conflicts In high-use areas

Establish nonconsumptive SPAs

Special-use Areas

Reduce user conflicts and negative
environmental effects of high-
impact activities

Establish special-use areas

Land Use Strategies

Boat Maintenance

Evaluate refueling operations and
reduce pollution

Inventory fueling facilities
Assess typical fuel-handling techniques
Establish containment areas for boat maintenance
Establish secondary containment areas for
hazardous and toxic material storage

Watershed Management for Cora! Reef Communities

Ftnal Draft - July 199b


Table a. (cont)




Land Use Strategies (cont.)

Containment Options

Determine what regulations are

necessary to meet state recycling
goals, implement retail packaging
standards, and require source

Study containment and relocation options for

solid waste facilities
Implement appropriate recommendations within
5 years

Dredging Prohibitions and
Regulations/ Wetland
Dredge and Fill

Reduce or eliminate degradation of

wetland and submerged resources
Improve water quality
Eliminate suspension of sediments and

sediment-associated toxicants
Maintain species and habitat character

Prohibit new dredging permits unless they are in
the public interest or no environmental
degradation will occur

Public Access

Provide information on problems
associated with existing public
access areas. Including habitat
damage and user conflicts

Assess existing public access
Develop standards for improving and constructing
public access areas

Water Quality Strategies

Wastewater Management

Reduce the amount of pollutants
entering ground water

Enforce existing standards
Conduct research to estimate the level of
wastewater nutrient loading reduction
needed to restore/maintain water quality

Surface Discharges

Control point source discharges

Require all NPDES-permitted facilities with surface
discharges to develop resource monitoring

Canal Water Quality

improve water quality in dead-end canals
through improved circulation

Monitor water quality in dead-end canals and

other near shore confined areas
Implement improvements

Storm Water Retrofitting

Reduce sediment, toxic material, and
nutrient loadings

Implement various engineering methods

Education Strategies

Education Program

Develop a comprehensive education

Develop printed and audiovisual materials, a
sanctuary library, displays and signs, a
training program, public service
announcements, an education advisory
council, visitor booths, and presentations
Hold periodic public meetings


Reef Relief, Key West, Florida:
Community-Based Education and
Advocacy for Coral Ecosystem Protection


Undertaking a watershed-scale effort to protect coral
ecosystems implies that people with a wide variety of
interests will become involved in the protection effort.
Gaining their involvement can be difficult because
many people can offer only limited time and effort, but
that involvement is necessary if a broad-based coral reef
protection effort is to succeed. A community-based
outreach, education, and advocacy approach, which re-
quires minimal staff and funding and relies largely on
voluntary contributions of time and expertise from
people, organizations, and businesses in the watershed
that have an interest in coral ecosystem protection, can
be an effective means to gain citizen and community
involvement in a watershed-wide protection effort. A
community-based approach allows participants to de-
fine their level of involvement and donate their skills
and knowledge as they are needed. It also creates a
sense of stewardship for the watershed that more
formal approaches often lack.

This case study reviews the approach and contributions
of one successful community-based advocacy and edu-
cation organization, Reef Relief in Key West, Florida, in
its efforts to protect the Florida Keys coral reef tract It
demonstrates how community-based action can be ap-
plied successfully to watershed protection efforts.

A Community-based Outreach Approach

Reef Relief is a small organization dedicated to the pres-
ervation and proper use of the Florida Keys ecosystem.
It began in 1986 as an effort to protect the coral reefs in
the Keys from boat anchoring damage by installing per-
manent mooring buoys at popular dive spots Reef Re-
lief relied on public announcements about the damage
caused to the reefs by boat anchors and education
aimed at dive shops and the diving community to gain
support for buoy deployment. This strategy helped the
organization gain recognition and credibility in the
community and began its focus on education about is-
sues facing the Flonda Keys.

The organization and its initial efforts were well re-
ceived, and soon Reef Relief began to take a more active
role in the effort to protect the Keys. The effort to des-
ignate the Keys as a National Marine Sanctuary was
gaining speed at approximately the same time Reef Re-
lief was founded, and Reef Relief expanded its advocacy
role for Keys management as more issues facing the re-
gion were brought to the public's attention and more
people and organizations became interested and in-
volved in the issues Marine debris, water quality, and
offshore oil drilling were some of the issues Reef Relief
addressed in its public education and advocacy cam-

Reef Relief, which has very few paid personnel, has re-
lied primarily on the local community and the larger
community of people and organizations dedicated to
the preservation and protection of coral reefs to accom-
plish its goals It has developed an approach to advo-
cacy that relies heavily on community efforts. When
an issue that affects the' Keys ecosystem attracts its at-
tention, Reef Relief first identifies the matter and the
subissues related to it as clearly as possible. It then
gathers as much information about the issue as possible
and maintains a constant dialog with policy makers,
coral reef users, scientists, and citizens to keep abreast
of new developments and information relevant to the
issue. Reef Relief uses this information base to com-
municate with policy makers at the local, state, and na-
tional levels to make its opinions known and to
influence any decisions taken with respect to the issue.

When Reef Relief became involved in the effort to des-
ignate the Keys as a national marine sanctuary, it real-
ized that its reach had to extend beyond the Florida
Keys community somehow to reach national policy
makers While continuing with its community-based
action strategy, it helped form the Coral Reef Coalition
to lobby for wise management in the Keys under the
federal National Marine Sanctuary Program The coali-
tion includes organizations such as the Wilderness Soci-
ety, The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, and
Florida Audubon

Education Programs

Education is a very important element of Reef Relief's
outreach strategy. Flyers that contain information

WatershediManagement for Ccral Reef Communities

Final Draft -July 1996


about relevant topics, called "Action Alerts," are distrib-
uted to people on Reef Relief's extensive mailing list.
These flyers encourage action in the form of letter writ-
ing and phone calls on the part of recipients and are a
primary means for Reef Relief to build wide support for
protection in the Keys General information packets
about Keys issues are also sent to citizens and commu-
nity groups, businesses, and other nongovernmental or-
ganizations. which are encouraged to contact their
members about the issues and urge them to take action

Reef Relief also develops and implements numerous
education programs as part of its community outreach .
effort The Environmental Education Center was estab-
lished in 1990 as a base for Reef Relief's education pro-
grams. The center houses a small museum with displays
showing reef ecology and human impacts on it. It makes
presentations to schools and produces television and ra-
dio spots, posters, handbooks, videos, flyers, and teach-
ing kits. The center also produces and mails a quarterly
newsletter to dive shops, mannas, and Reef Relief mem-


Its active, community-based involvement in Keys issues
has helped Reef Relief log many accomplishments over
the past 10 years, including:

•	Deployment of 119 mooring buoys for use by dive
boats and others.

•	Participation in a national campaign to place a 10-
year ban on oil drilling in the Florida Keys.

•	AbanonU.S Navy weapon testing in the Florida

•	Participation in the designation of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary.

•	Imposition of a limit on the phosphate level allowed
in cleaning products sold in the Florida Keys.

•	Passage of regulations limiting the harvest of reef
organisms by users.

•	Participation in numerous successful beach cleanups.

•	Regular monitoring of the condition of the Keys by
members and volunteers, which enables Reef Relief
to take action quickly when there is a threat to the
Keys ecosystem.

Because Reef Relief is funded through grants and con-
tributions of money and in-kind services, it relies pri-
marily on the dedicated efforts of volunteers to
accomplish its goals. However, its education programs
and cooperation with the community and other organi-
zations dedicated to conservation in the Key allow it to
accomplish far more than its small size indicates might
be possible. Reef Relief is an example of how a small
organization can enlist the assistance of the community
to develop an effective program for coral reef protection.

For more information contact

Reef Relief
P.O. Box 430
Key West, FL 33041
305-294-3100 (phone)
305-293-9515 (fax)


The Tar-Pamlico River Basin: A Watershed
Approach to Protecting North Carolina's
Coastal Waters


North Carolina is one of the first states to adopt a holis-
tic and comprehensive approach to protecting and
maintaining the integrity of its water resources. The
North Carolina Division of Environmental Manage-
ment (NCDEM) is implementing a watershed manage-
ment initiative targeted at protecting the state's surface
drinking water sources and near coastal waters. This
initiative moves beyond traditional point source man-
agement strategies by integrating both point and
nonpoint source pollution control efforts on a water-
shed scale It serves as a means of better identifying
water quality problems, developing appropriate man-
agement strategies, maintaining and protecting water
quality and aquatic habitat, and ensuring equitable dis-
tribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers.

This case study focuses on watershed planning and
management efforts in one of the state's major river
basins, the Tar-Pamlico River basin. Watershed manage-
ment in the basin is unique in that a nutrient reduction
strategy that involves pollution credit trading is being
implemented in conjunction with the basinwide water
quality management plan. Although this case study out-
lines the overall Tar-Pamlico basinwide management
strategy, special emphasis is placed on tracing the devel-
opment and implementation of the pollution credit
trading approach to protecting the nutrient-sensitive
estuanne waters of the Tar-Pamlico Lessons learned
from North Carolina's efforts are identified in an effort
to facilitate and guide the effective application of this
watershed management approach to the protection of
coral reef ecosystems.


The Tar-Pamlico basin encompasses portions of 17
counties and covers approximately 2.9 million acres
The Tar River, the major river in the basin, flows ap-
proximately 140 miles through the North Carolina pied-
mont and across the coastal plain, and widens just east
of Washington, North Carolina, where it forms the
Pamlico River. The Pamlico flows into the Pamlico Es-

tuary and empties into the Pamlico Sound off the North
Carolina coast. The sound is protected by an extensive
barrier island system with only a few small inlets con-
necting to the Atlantic Ocean (NCDEM. 1989)

The waters of the Tar-Pamlico basin are a highly eco-
nomically and ecologically valuable natural resource
that supports commercial and recreational fisheries, rec-
reational boating, and swimming. The basin also serves
as a primary drinking water source for eight cities and
towns in central and eastern North Carolina. (NCDEM,

Agriculture and forestry are the dominant land uses in
the Tar-Pamlico basin. Forestry operations are mostly
concentrated in the lower coastal plain, forest cover in
the upper portion of the basin has been relatively undis-
turbed. Agricultural activities, including row crop culti-
vation and intensive livestock operations, dominate
land use in approximately 37 percent of the basin.
(Harding, 1990).

Both agricultural and forestry operations, in conjunc-
tion with increases in human population and develop-
ment, have contributed to declining water quality in
the Tar-Pamlico basin. Specifically, point and nonpoint
source pollution from these activities have led to in-
creased levels of fish contamination, sporadic fish kills,
elevated sediment and nutrient loads, phytoplankton
blooms, and decreases in dissolved oxygen (DO) levels.
As of 1992, only 59 percent of the stream miles in the
Tar-Pamlico basin were supporting their state desig-
nated uses, 25 percent were partially supporting, and 7
percent were not supporting these uses (NCDEM,


The Pamlico River Estuary is one of the waterbodies
that have been particularly affected by elevated nutri-
ent inputs from point and nonpoint sources in the ba-
sin. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Tar and
Pamlico rivers has been identified as the primary cause
of degraded water quality in the estuary (NCDEM,
1989). High nutrient loads have been associated with
the phytoplankton blooms that have depleted oxygen in
bottom waters. In addition, the economically valuable
commercial fisheries in the estuary have been impaired
by losses in submerged aquatic vegetation (NCDEM,

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft-July 1996


watershed Management In the Tar-Pamllco:
Addressing the Problem

In confronting the problems of nutrient loading and
water quality degradation in the Tar-Pamlico basin, the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Manage-
ment (NCDEM) has adopted a watershed-wide ap-
proach to water quality management. This approach
has evolved from the development of two separate wa-
ter quality management initiatives—the 1989 NCDEM
effort to manage the basin as a Nutrient-Sensitive Wa-
ter (NSW) and the 1991 NCDEM basinwide water
quality management program While developed sepa-
rately, these two initiatives have recently been inte-
grated through the incorporation of the nutrient control
strategy into the Basinwide Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan. Both initiatives have been successful and
have been based on the principles of a watershed-based
management approach.

The Tar-Pamllco Nutrient Control strategy

Initial Nutrient Control Measures

Efforts to address nutrient loading on a watershed scale
in the Tar-Pamlico basin were initiated in April 1989
with NCDEM's decision to designate the basin as a Nu-
trient-Sensitive Water (NSW). Pursuant to North Caro-
lina state law, the NSW designation required the
development and implementation of a basinwide man-
agement strategy for both point and nonpoint nutrient
sources In developing a comprehensive strategy for the
basin, NCDEM began by reviewing a nutrient source
budget that was prepared for the Tar-Pamlico basin in
1986. This nutrient budget, however, was outdated.
NCDEM realized that more information was needed
before a basinwide management strategy could be de-
signed. Consequently the state proposed an interim
strategy that required mandatory limits on nitrogen
and phosphorus for new and expanding dischargers in
the basin. The goal of the interim measure was to sig-
nificantly reduce point source discharges until a scien-
tifically defensible nutrient reduction plan could be
developed and implemented.

The Nutrient Trading Approach

In response to NCDEM's interim proposal, point source
dischargers in the Tar-Pamlico basin expressed concern
regarding the high costs of the new wastewater treat-
ment facility construction that would be necessary to
achieve the nutrient control goals. Point source dis-

chargers, in recognition of their mutual interests,
formed a coalition and began negotiations with the
state, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and the
Pamlico-Tar River Foundation The point source dis-
charger coalition, know as the Tar-Pamlico Basin Asso-
ciation, emerged from the negotiations with a new
proposal that allowed for "nutrient trading" between
point source dischargers and agricultural operations
while achieving the overall nutrient reduction goals.
The North Carolina Environmental Management Com-
mission reviewed and approved the proposal in Decem-
ber 1989.

The basic premise of the nutrient trading approach is
that nutrient reductions achieved through the imple-
mentation of best management practices (BMPs) can be
more cost-effective than capital outlays for new waste-
water treatment facilities. The program calls for the
establishment of an overall reduction goal and then al-
lows nutrient sources to find the most cost-effective
way to allocate allowable loads. The state does retain
the right to control localized impacts through individu-
alized permitting and enforcement. Polluters, however,
are given the flexibility to trade reduction credits
among themselves or to pay to control pollution at
other sources as long as the total nutrient limit for the
basin is not exceeded (EDF, 1993). As a result, the strat-
egy calls for the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association to con-
tribute funding for agricultural BMPs to achieve all or
part of the total nutrient reduction goals established for
the member facilities.

Funds provided by the Association for BMP implemen-
tation and maintenance are given to the North Carolina
Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The division
distributes the monies to the local soil and water con-
servation districts, which then distribute funds to BMP
projects through the North Carolina Agricultural BMP
Cost Share .Program Individual BMP projects are se-
lected by the districts through a ranking process that
considers the severity of the area's nutrient control

Implementing Nutrient Trading

Implementation of the nutrient trading strategy is be-
ing divided into two phases. Phase I of the program
was initiated in 1989 and completed in 1994 The pur-
pose of Phase I was to develop and evaluate the nutri-
ent trading approach. NCDEM established the initial


load reduction goal of 200,000 kg/yr (220 tons/year)
(180.000 kg/yr for nitrogen and 20.000 kg/yr for phos-
phorus) and estimated nutrient reduction control costs
at SI 1.8 million—S10 million for construction, infra-
structure. etc , and $1 8 million for administration In
addition, Phase I required that the Association fulfill
several conditions or requirements These included
(1) the development of an estuanne model to aid in es-
timating the relative contribution of nutrient loads
from various sources in the watersheds throughout the
basin, (2) an analysis of several municipal treatment
plants to determine the changes needed to ensure opti-
mal operating efficiency, and (3) annual payments to
the trading fund in addition to the $150,000 used for
program administration and BMP implementation

guide nutrient trading have been debated (Woods,
1991). In addition, the applicability of this approach to
other areas has been questioned. To be successful, a
point and nonpoint source trading system is dependent
on similar quantities of a common pollutant being
present at both sources (Hall, 1994)

Baslnwlde water Quality Management

An Integrated Approach

The second major initiative that has helped shape wa-
tershed management in the Tar-Pamlico basin is
NCDEM's basinwide water quality management pro-
gram NCDEM began formulating the idea of
basinwide management in the late 1980s In 1990, the

Phase II of the nutrient trading program was initi-
ated in early 1995 and is scheduled to run through
2004 The purpose of the second phase is to refine
and improve the implementation of the nutrient
trading approach. Program efforts will be focused
on tracking compliance, determining accountabil-
ity, and ensuring that load reductions are actually
achieved. In addition, NCDEM will use the water-
shed modeling capabilities developed during Phase
I to improve the determination of basinwide nu-
trient reduction goals and loading calculations.

Phase II will also encourage new efforts to reduce
nonpoint source pollution throughout the basin.
EDF has proposed that wetland restoration will be
a key element in the second phase of the program

Program Results

Implementation of the nutrient trading program
has largely been the subject of praise from the state,
dischargers, and environmental groups By addressing
both nonpoint and point source discharges from a wa-
tershed perspective, NCDEM and other program par-
ticipants have achieved a reduction program that is
more comprehensive than the original NSW strategy
Dischargers have already benefitted from the increased
flexibility and cost-effectiveness of the trading ap-
proach. In addition, monitoring data show that nutri-
ent reduction levels have been achieved (Table 5)

Although the program appears to be working, it is im-
portant to point out that there are problems with the
program In particular, the economic values used to

Table 5: Nutrient Loading In the
Tar-Pamlico Basin, 1B01-I90a

Total	Measured	Measured	Measured

Allowable	Total	Total	Total

Loading	Nitrogen	Phosphorus	Nutrients

lkg/yrI	(kg)	(kgI	IkgI


1991	525,000 396,916	64,478	461,394	12%

1992	500,000 386,014	50,113	436,128 13%

1993	457,000 371,336	45,881	417,217	12%

1994	425,000 319,578	51,623	371,201	12%

Note 1 toil equals 900 kg.

Division established a permitting schedule and began
basinwide monitoring activities. A formal basinwide
management program description was published in Au-
gust 1991 The basinwide management approach
adopts watershed-based management principles and
seeks to integrate existing point and nonpoint source
control programs

Central to North Carolina's management efforts is the
delineation of river basins and sub-basin watersheds
throughout the state. NCDEM has divided the state
into a total of 17 major river basins and 135 sub-basin
watersheds For each basin, a 5-year basin planning/
management approach is being implemented. The
management approach involves the integration of sev-


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft -July 1996

eral key activities including data collection, data analy-
sis and modeling, basinwide management plan develop-
ment, plan review and approval,, and NPDES


The implementation of basinwide management in the
Tar-Pamlico basin was initiated in 1991. The key ele-
ment of implementing the basinwide approach was the
development of a water quality management plan. The
preparation of the basinwide management plan was a 5-
year process involving several key steps or stages.

These steps include (1) water quality data collection/
identification of goals and issues, (2) data assessment
and model preparation, (3) preparation of a draft
basinwide management plan, and (4) public review and
approval of the plan (NCDEM, 1994).

The next step for the Tar-Pamlico basin is the imple-
mentation of the basinwide management plan. A key
element will be the implementation of permitting ac-
tivities and associated routine support activities, such
as field sampling, modeling, and wasteload allocations.
NPDES permitting will drive the schedule for develop-
ing and updating the basinwide management plan at 5-
year intervals. Most importantly, however, the insights
and developments from the Tar-Pamlico basin's nutrient
reduction strategy will be incorporated into and inte-
grated with plan implementation. Specifically, the nu-
trient load reductions and allocation strategy will serve
as a formal TMDL strategy for the basin.

Expected Benefits of Flan Implementation and
Basinwide Management

Implementation of the basinwide management ap-
proach in the Tar-Pamlico basin, as well as in other ma-
jor basins throughout the state, is expected to yield a
number of benefits The approach already appears to be
an effective way of integrating point and nonpoint
source pollution assessment and controls. It is antici-
pated that basinwide planning will improve water qual-
ity management throughout the state NCDEM has
outlined several benefits that are expected to be realized
through the implementation of this approach. They
include improved program efficiency, increased effec-
tiveness of water quality management efforts, im-
proved consistency and equitablility, and increased
public awareness (NCDEM, 1994).

Lessons Learned and Insights for improving
Coral Reef Management

The implementation of NCDEM's basinwide manage-
ment approach and the development of the watershed-
scale nutrient control strategy in the Tar-Pamlico basins
provide some important lessons for the application of a
watershed management approach to protecting coral
reefs The Tar-Pamlico experience clearly supports the
conclusion that a watershed management approach is
an effective way to protect and manage water quality
in coastal areas. Some of the important conclusions or
lessons learned include the following.

Importance of Stakeholder Involvement. In both the
development of the Tar-Pamlico water quality manage-
ment plan and the implementation of the nutrient re-
duction strategy, NCDEM incorporated the input of
different government and nongovernment organiza-
tions, as well as the public. In fact, the involvement of
and collaboration among dischargers, NCDEM, and en-
vironmental groups was instrumental in the develop-
ment of the nutrient trading program. By involving
and incorporating the opinions of diverse interest
groups, the legitimacy and effectiveness of subsequent
management efforts can be enhanced.

Importance of Data Quality. Obtaining high-quality
data on the condition and status of the resource being
managed, the sources that are contributing to impair-
ment, and the impacts associated with increased pollut-
ant loadings is critical in devising effective and
responsible control strategies. The development of the
nutrient control strategy and the Tar-Pamlico manage-
ment plan both involved effective data collection and
modeling efforts. The importance of data quality is par-
ticularly relevant when considering the management of
coral reef systems. The sensitive nature of coral reefs
makes them highly susceptible to changes and increases
in nonpoint source pollutants, such as nutrients and
sediment loads. As a result, a sound understanding of
how the system responds to different contaminant lev-
els can aid management strategies


Importance of Cost-Effectiveness. Critical to any wa-
tershed management approach is the achievement of
tangible environmental improvements at a reasonable
financial cost In the case of the Tar-Pamhco; both ini-
tiatives were effective in addressing and accomplishing
this objective. The basmwide management plan tar-
geted reductions in administrative and implementation
costs by seeking to integrate water quality management
efforts throughout the basin. The nutrient reduction

strategy pursued the idea of "nutrient trading" as a cost-
effective alternative to stringent point source controls

For more information, contact:

North Carolina Department of Environmental


P.O. Box 29535

Raleigh, NC 27626-0535


Watershed Management for Ccral Reef Communities

Final Draft -July 1996


The Ugum Watershed Project: Managing
a Tropical Watershed


Guam is the largest island of the western Pacific's
Marianas Island chain. It is a territory of the United
States and is under the jurisdiction of some U S laws.
The island is approximately 549 km2 (212 mi2) in area.
The reefs are predominately of the fringing type,, al-
though two barrier reef lagoons occur on the western
side of the island (Figure 4).

Conservation plans, management plans, and environ-
mental regulations are administered by a variety of fed-

eral and territory governmental agencies. Guam also ad-
ministers environmental controls under the federal En-
dangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act. and the Clean Water Act. The entire island is de-
fined as a coastal zone

The Ugum River is a major source of potable water for
southern Guam In an effort to maintain and protect
the surface and ground water quality of the watershed,
the Ugum Watershed Project was established. This
project is a cooperative effort by Guam government
agencies, with technical assistance provided by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture. The project is divided into

three phases (1) assessment of resources. (2) develop-
ment of a management plan and (3) implementation of
demonstration projects.

The management plan provides the guidance necessary,
to protect the integrity of the Ugum watershed It also
provides the basis for actions relating to the water qual-
ity and quantity of this basin. The plan presents alter-
natives for controlling nonpoint source pollution and
managing the natural resources of the watershed The
scope of the Ugum Watershed Project is long range and
comprehensive The management plan projects present
conditions forward 20 years and proposes alternative
management scenarios and recommendations.

Watershed Characterization

The Ugum watershed encompasses 18.9 km2 (7 3 mi2)
of rolling hills and areas of extremely steep slopes. The
volcanic uplands rise 378.5 m (1,250 ft.) and are
transected by steep slopes. The gently sloping foothills
are cut by major streams The watershed drains the
Ugum and Bubulao rivers into the Talofofo River which
flows to Talofofo Bay. Heavy rainfall from typhoons
and intense local storms are common. The heavy rain-
fall and strong winds cause severe erosion which is ac-
companied by sedimentation of streams and coastal

Approximately 37 km (23 mi) of rivers and streams
drain the watershed. The surface waters are a source of
drinking water for southern Guam and supplement
northern ground water sources Seventy percent (13.2
km2 or 5.1 mi2) of the drainage basin is privately owned
and the other 30 percent (5 7 km2 or 2 2 mi2) is in pub-
lic ownership. The public lands are in the highlands,
which limits development. This will help maintain the
integrity of the headwaters and protect downstream
water quality

All of the private land is zoned as •Agriculture" with the
exception of 75 hectares (185 acres) that are developed
as a resort Currently, there is very little active farming
in the watershed. Most activities are related to recre-
ational uses, such as hunting Off-road vehicle usage in
the watershed has increased. Fires are common in the
watershed and are related to hunting activities. Both
off-road vehicles and fires increase erosion rates and the
sediment loads carried to nearshore environments


Watershed Assessment

A technical assistance team, referred to as the Ecosys-
tem Based Assistance Team, or EBAT. was formed to
identify and rank areas of concern that needed to be ad-
dressed in the management plan

Public meetings and agency meetings allowed for broad
involvement in the identification of significant issues
related to the Ugum Watershed. Twenty-six environ-
mental, economic, social, and cultural concerns were
identified at these meetings. These concerns were priori-
tized, as shown in Table 6. Sedimentation of streams,
coastal waters, and reefs was one area given a high de-
gree of concern.

A possible set of action scenarios to be carried out from
1995 to 2015 was developed based on the potential ef-
fects they would have on the top four major areas of
concern defined by the EBAT These areas are soil ero-
sion, fires, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat
protection. It was felt that most of the 26 concerns pri-
oritized would be addressed to some degree by dealing
with these top four concerns since many are overlap-
ping or closely related issues

Watershed Management Scenarios

The EBAT proposed four management scenarios for the
Ugum Watershed Each of the scenarios takes into con-
sideration the land use trends that might develop within
the watershed over the 20-year planning period Each
scenario was presented for consideration along with a
summary and comparison of alternatives and the
EBAT's recommendation of the most appropriate sce-
nario for the management plan to implement.

No Action Scenario

The No Action Scenario describes the predicted future
watershed condition without the implementation of an
organized management plan in the Ugum Watershed. It
assumes that the existing island-wide trends for devel-
opment, resource use, management, and land use prac-
tices will continues unabated into the future No
additional environmental protection measures would be
implemented. No mitigation recommendations were

Under this scenario, no additional restrictions would be
placed on landowners in the watershed. Landowners
would be free to use their property in any way. This ap-
proach would also minimize the cost of government in-
tervention m island land use policy It is assumed that
public education would adequately inform individuals of
sound environmental decision making.

Maintenance Scenario

Under the Maintenance Scenario, the plan would main-
tain the current levels of functionality of the water-
shed. The goal is to preserve the functions and benefits
of the ravine forest, riparian areas, and wetland ecosys-
tems at the existing levels, with no future loss in area or

This scenario is based on the assumption that any devel-
opment includes the necessary conservation and envi-
ronmental protection measures necessary for
maintaining watershed integrity and water quality at
current levels. It also recommends that developers be
encouraged to monitor their own ground and surface
water so identified problems can be addressed quickly.

Improvement Scenario

The goal of the Improvement Scenario is to improve the
ecosystem functions and minimize the present prob-
lems in the watershed. The primary difference between
the maintenance scenario and the improvement sce-
nario is that the improvement scenario focuses on mini-
mizing and controlling soil erosion, controlling fires,
protecting wetlands, and improving wildlife habitat in
the watershed. This scenario also allows for the imple-
mentation of a number of mandatory conservation
practices and best management practices, and it imposes
restrictions for land uses.

Watershed Reserve

The Watershed Reserve Scenario calls for the purchase of
all the private lands in the watershed by the Govern-
ment of Guam so that the watershed can be controlled
for the production of water. No development or land
disturbance would be allowed The Ugum watershed
would be managed as a park.

This type of management has many benefits. They in-
clude improved water quality and quantity and in-
creased rate of flow. Other benefits include an increase

Watershed Management for Ccral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


Table 6. Ranking of Concerns for the Ugum Watershed

Environmental, Economic, Social, and Cultural Concerns

Degree of Concern and Significance to Decision Making*

Soil erosion




Water quality and quantity


Fish and wildlife habitat protection


Off-road vehicle impacts


Sedimentation of streams


Sedimentation of coastal waters and reef


Pesticides and fertilizer usage


Deveiooment of agncuiturai uses


impact of deveiooment


Land use conflicts


Infrastructure needs


Road building and grading


Wetland protection


Threatened and endangered species


Cultural resources


Water rights


Water pressure


Security of PUAC intake facility


Access to puolic lands


Interagency coordination


Suitable commercial activities


Capturing excess water


Beautification of watershed


Regulation for protecting the resources


Access to private land


Health effects of cattle grazing


water availability for agriculture




Illegal fishing and hunting


Effect of recreation on water quality


Monitoring development in the Dan Dan area



in wildlife habitat and wetland functions and a decrease
in erosion and the accompanying sediment loads to

Table 7 offers a summary and comparison of the pro-
posed alternatives.

Recommended Action

The EBAT chose to provide general rather than specific
recommendations It considered the Maintenance Sce-
nario and the Improvement Scenario to be best suited
for the goals of the sponsors and the landowners The
Watershed Reserve Scenario was not recommended
since it would remove control of land from the present
owners at considerable cost to the Government of


Development of this management plan highlights some
important steps that should be considered in the devel-
opment of any conservation or management plan. Spe-
cifically. it included.

•	Organization of a broad-based technical assistance

•	Involvement of interested parties through public
and governmental meetings, which identified a
broad array of environmental and economic issues.

•	Identification by a technical team of major areas of
environmental concern that the management plan
would need to address to maintain the ecological
integrity of the watershed

•	Development of a proposed set of action scenarios
as alternatives for consideration in developing the
management plan.

•	Presentation of advantages and disadvantages of
possible actions. The technical team provided a
recommended plan with justification.


Copies of the Ugum Watershed Management Plan are

available from:

United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Pacific Basin Area
Suite 301 FHB
400 Route 8
Maite, Guam 96927
011-671-472-7490 (phone)

011-671-472-7288 (fax)

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996


Table 7. Summary and Comparison of Alternative Scenarios of the Ugum
Watershed Management Plan


Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4




Voluntary, local and federal
programs, and incentive

Gov Guam - S6 million to
S80 million

Ravine Forest Ecosystem

707 hectares and less

807 hectares and maintain

918 hectares and improve

918 hectares and maintain

Savanna Grassland Ecosystem

627 hectares

527 hectares

416 hectares

696 hectares

Riparian Buffer Ecosystem

impacted by agriculture and

159 hectares maintained

159 hectares improved

159 hectares maintained

Wetland/Stream Ecosystem

Impacted by fire and erosion

Maintained at present levels

Improved with protection

Improved with less

Soil Erosion

196,508 tonnes/year

112,074 tonnes/year

111,785 tonnes/year

120,342 tonnes/year


91,376 tonnes/year

66,064 tonnes/year

51,980 tonnes/year

55,959 tonnes/year


200 hectares

151 hectares

121 hectares

80 hectares

Water Quality

Adverse effect

No effect


No effect or improved

wildlife Habitat and Wetlands

Negatively impacted



Reserved, improved


140 km with no design or

140 km with minimal design

140 km with improved design

63 km, no new roads

Public Education


Program for fire retention

Program for fire control and
habitat protection, etc

Program for fire control and
habitat protection



Minimum land treatment
Water quality monitoring
Minimum wetland and wildlife
habitat protection
Erosion and sediment control

Land treatment
Pest and nutrient

Waste management systems
Road surface and ditch

Erosion and sediment control

Riparian buffer management
Fire management
Water quality monitoring
Wetland and wildlife habitat

Land treatment
Revegetation of unused roads
Maintenance of trails

Agriculture and Development

280 hectares, uncontrolled
location, major impacts on all
natural resources

280 hectares, limited to areas
best suited for dwellings
Minimum impacts

280 hectares, limited to areas
best suited for dwellings

Resource management

Conservation plans
Farmstead assessment

None allowed, no effect




While there are several traditional ways to manage di-
rect impacts to coral ecosystems,, degradation of coral
communities will not be totally curtailed until the indi-
rect land-based impacts are addressed. Runoff from ur-
ban and agricultural activities, pollutants discharged
from marinas, nutrients and pathogens from failing or
improperly installed septic systems, and increased tur-
bidity from mining and dredging all have a major, long-
term impact on coral ecosystems.

Watershed planning is a key to controlling land-based
impacts By evaluating and assessing the activities in
the coastal watershed and correlating them to potential
and actual impacts to the offshore coral ecosystems,
planners and resource managers can mitigate or elimi-
nate the indirect stresses to coral ecosystems. The essen-
tial elements of watershed planning include the

• Allow the planners and managers to be flexible
and build a plan that is best for their community
given the unique features of an area, such as
socioeconomics, natural resources, and political

•	Involve the public in all phases of development.
Public buy-in is an essential component of
watershed planning since it is the residents,
business owners, and special interest groups
within the watershed that will be implementing
the plan.

•	Include monitoring of the plan's effectiveness. If
some components of the plan are not practical or
are not helping to solve the problems related to
coral reef degradation, they can be modified.

•	Take into account all components of the
watershed such as land use, point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, hydrology, existing plans
and regulations, and financial resources available
to implement the plan.

A variety of techniques to control watershed-wide im-
pacts are available. When they are used in conjunction
with traditional resource management tools, the decline
of coral communities can be slowed, if not stopped.

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996




Adey, WH . C.S. Rogers, and R S Steneck 1981 The south St
Croix reef A study of reef metabolism as related to environmental fac-
tors and att assessment of environmental management Prepared for
the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, Govern-
ment: of the U S Virgin Islands.

American Samoa Government. 1994 Administrative rules for the
American Samoa Coastal Management Program

	 Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources Regula-
tions Chapter 3. sections 24 0706-24 0723, fishing areas, illegal
fishing methods and gear

	 Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Regulations.

15CFR, section 941 8, activities prohibited or controlled

Antonius, A. 1981 The "band" diseases in coral reefs. Proc Fourth
International Coral Reef Symposium. Manila, Philippines 2 7-14

Avecedo. R 1991 Preliminary observations on effects of pesti-
cides carbaryl, naphthol, and chlorpyrifos on planulae of the
hermatypic coral Poctllopora damtcornis. Pac Set 45.287-289.

Bak, R.PM 1987 Effects of chronic oil pollution on a Caribbean
coral reef Mar Pollut Bull 18 534-539

Bak, R P.M , and ] Elgershuizen. 1976 Patterns of oil-sediment
reaction in corals. Mar Biol 37. 105-113.

Banner, A.H 1974 Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii- urban pollution and a
coral reef ecosystem Proc 2nd International Symposium on Coral
Reefs, Brisbane 2: 685-702.

Birkeland, C. 1977 The importance of rate of biomass accumu-
lation in early successional stages of benthic communities to the
survival of coral recruits Proc. 3rd International Symposium on
Coral Reefs. Miami 2 15-21

Buck. Eugene H 1991 CRS Report for Congress Corals and coral
reef protection. Congressional Research Service. 91-671 ENR

Carpenter. R.C 1990a Mass mortality of Diadema antdlarum. II
Long-term effects on sea urchin population dynamics and coral
reef algal communities. Mar Btol 104 67-77

	. 1990b Mass mortality of Diadema ant til arum II. Effects

on population densities and grazing intensity of parrotfishes and
surgeonfishes Mar. Biol 104 79-86.

Causey, B 1995. An ecosystem approach to managing manne
protected areas for sustainable use. In Sustainable financing
mechanisms for coral reef conservation ¦ Proceedings of a work-
shop, ed A Hooten and M Hatziolos The World Bank, Wash-
ington, DC.

Coastal America 1994 Toward a watershed approach A framework
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, protection, and management Wash-
ington, DC

Craik. W, R A. Kenchington, and G. Kelleher 1990 Coral, Reef
Management. In Ecosystems of the world Coral reefs, ed. Z.
Dubinsky Elesvier

De Freese, D E. 1991. Threats to biological diversity in marine
and estuarine ecosystems of Florida Coast Manage. 19:73-101.

Dennis, G D., and TJ. Bright 1988 The impact of a ship
grounding on the reef ship assemblage at Molasses Reef, Key
Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida Proc Sixth Interna-
tional Coral Reef Symposium, Townsville, Australia 2 293-298.

Dustan, P 1979 Distribution of zooxanthellae and photosyn-
thetic chloroplast pigments of the reef-building coral Montastrea
annularis Ellis and Solander in relation to depth on a West Indian
coral reef Bull Mar. Set 29 79-95

Evans, E C 1977 Microcosm responses to environmental
perturbance Helgol. Meeres. 30.178-191

Florida Adminstrative Code. 1995. Chapter 46-42, section 46-
42.001, marine life.

Florida Statutes 1993. Chapter 370, section 370.114, Taking of
marine corals and sea fans regulated

Gjerde, K , and R Fujita 1992 Guidelines for national legislation
to protect coral reef ecosystems Environmental Defense Fund, Envi-
ronmental Solutions International, and Greenpeace publishers

Gladfelter, WB. 1982. White-band disease in Acropora palmata:
Implications for the structure and growth of shallow reefs. Bull
Mar Sci 32 639-643

Goenaga C., and G Contron. 1979 Inventory of the Puerto Rtcan
coral reefs. Report submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement. National Oceanic and Atmosphenc Administration,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico


Watershed Management for Ccral Reef Communities

Ftna! Draft - July 1996

Goenaga, C , VP Vicente, and R A Armstrong. 1989 Bleaching
induced mortalities in reef corals from La Parguera, Puerto Rico. A
precursor of change in the community structure of coral reefs^
Canb ]. Set 25 59-65

Goreau, T.F 1964 Mass expulsion of zooxanthellae from Jamai-
can reef communities after Hurricane Flora Science 145 383-386

Goh, B.PL 1991 Mortality and settlement success of Pocillopora
damicorms planula larvaeduring recovery from low levels of
nickel Pacif Set. 45 276-286.

Greenpeace. 1991 The transboundary movement of hazardous and
nuclear wastes in the wider Caribbean region—A call for a legal in-
strument within the Cartagena Convention, ed. J. Puckett and
S L. Ayllon. CEP Technical Report No. 7 UNEP Caribbean Envi-
ronment Program, Kingston, Jamaica.

Grigg, R W, and S.J Dollar. 1990 Natural and anthropogenic dis-
turbance on coral reefs. In Ecosystems of the World, 25 Coral
Reefs, ed. Z Dubinsky. Elesvier.

Hay, M.E. 1984. Patterns of fish and urchin grazing on Carib-
bean coral reefs Are previous results typicaR Ecology 65 446-

Hodgson, G 1990 Tetracycline reduces sedimentation damage
to corals Mar. Biol. 104.493-496

Hubbard, D K. 1987. A general review of sedimentation as it relates
to environmental stress in the Virgin Islands Biosphere reserve and the
Eastern Caribbean in general Biosphere Reserve Research report
no. 20 Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative/Na-
tional Park Service

Hughes, T.P. 1994 Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale
degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265 1547-1551.

Jaap, WC. 1984 The ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs A com-
munity profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service Publication
FWS/OBS 82/08 and MMS 84-0038

Jackson, J.B C , J.D. Cubit, B.D Keller, V Batitsta, K. Burns,
H M. Caffey, R L Caldewell, S D. Garrity, C.D Getter, C.
Gonzalez, H M., Guzman, K.W Kaufmann, A.H Knap, S C
Levings, M J. Marshall, R Steger. R.C Thompson and E Weil
1989 Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian
coastal marine communities Science 243-37-44.

Johannes, R.E. 1975 Pollution and degradation of coral reef
communities. In Tropical marine pollution, ed E. Wood and R E
Johannes Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Johannes, R.E., and S.B.'Betzer 1975 Introduction. Marine
communities respond differently to pollution in the tropics than
at higher latitudes. In Tropical marine pollution ed Ferguson
Wood, E.J. Johannes, R E. Elsevier

Johannes, R.E., WJ Wiebe, CJ Crossland, DW Rimmer, and
S V. Smith. 1983. Latitudinal limits of coral reef growth. Mar
Ecol Prog Ser. 11 105-111

Kenchmgton, RA. 1992. Decisionmaking for marine environ-
ments. Mar Pollut. Bull 24 69-76

Kenchmgton, R A., and M T Agardy. 1990. Achieving marine
conservation through biosphere reserve planning and manage-
ment. Environ Conser 17- 39-44.

Kojis Q 1993. Biological limits to Caribbean reef recovery: A
comparison with western south Pacific reefs. In Proceedings of
the Colloquium on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs, University of
Miami. 1993.

Liddle, M.J 1991 Recreation ecology. Effects of trampling on
plants and corals Tree 6 13-17

Littler, M M , and D S Littler 1985. Factors controlling relative
dominance of primary producers on biotic reefs. Proc. >th Coral
Reef Congr., Tahiti 4 35-39

Loya, Y., and B Rinkevich 1980. Effects of oil pollution on coral
reef communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3 167-180.

Marszalek, D.S 1987. Sewage and eutrophication. In Human
impacts on coral reefs. Facts and recommendations, ed. B.Salvat, pp.
77-90 Antenne de Tahiti Musum E.P.H.E., Papetoai, Moorea,
French Polynesia

McCloskey, LR., and R.H Chesher 1971. Effects of man-made
pollution on the dynamics of coral reefs. In Scientists-tn-the-sea,
ed J.W Miller et al, pp 229-237. U S Department of the Inte-
rior, Washington, DC

Mitchell, R , and I Chet. 1975 Bacterial attack of corals in pol-
luted seawater Microb. Ecol 2 227-233

National Safety CounciL Covering the coasts¦ A Reporter's guide to
coastal and marine resources National Safety Council, Environ-
mental Health Center, Washington, DC.

Peters, E, J.J. Oprandy, and PP Yevich 1983 Possible causal
agent of "white band" disease m Caribbean Acropond corals. J.
[nvertebr. Pathol. 41.394-396

Peters, E.C. 1984 A survey of cellular reactions to environmen-
tal stress and disease in Caribbean scleractinian corals. Helgol
Meeresunters. 37-113-137.

Peters, E.C, PA. Meyers, P.P Yevich, and N J. Blake. 1981.
Bioaccumulation and histopathological effects of oil on a stony
coral. Mar Pollut Bull. 12:333-339.

Povey, A, and M.J. Keough. 1991 Effects of trampling on plant
and animal populations on rocky shores Oikos 61:355-368.


Richmond. R H.. and C.L. Hunter 1990. Reproduction and re-
cruitment of corals Comparisons among the Caribbean, the
Tropical Pacific, and the Red Sea Mar Ecol Prog Ser 60 185-203

Rogers. C S. 1979 The effect of shading on coral reef structure
and function J Exp MarBiol Ecol 41 269-288

	 1988 Recommendations for long-term assessment of

coral reefs U S National Park Service regional program Proc
Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium. TownsviUe. Australia
2 399-403.

	 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedi-
mentation Mar. Ecol. Prog Ser. 62 185-202

	 1982 The marine environments of Brewers Bay, Persever-
ance Bay, Flat Cay and Saba Island, St. Thomas, U S VI, with
emphasis on coral reefs and seagrass beds (November 1978-July
1981) Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs. Gov-
ernment of the Virgin Islands

Rogers, C S.. T Suchanek, and F Pecora. 1982 Effects of Hurri-
canes David and Frederic (1979) on shallow Acropora palmata
reef communities. St Croix, U.S Virgin Islands. Bull. Mar. Set.

Rogers, C S., M. Gdnack, and C Fitz III. 1983 Monitoring of
coral reefs with linear transects: A study of storm drainage J
Exp. Mar Btol. Ecol. 66 285-300

Sammarco, PW 1980 Diadema and its relationship to coral spat
mortality grazing, competition, and biological disturbance. J.
Exp. Mar Btol. Ecol. 45 245-272

Simkiss, K 1964 Phosphates as crystal poisons of calcification
Btol Rev 39 487-505.

	 1969. Possible effects of zooxanthellae on coral growth

Expertentia. 20 140

Smith, F.C.W 1948. Atlantic reef corals University of Miami
Press. Miami, FL

Solbakken, J.E., A.H Knap, TD. Sleeter, C E. Searle, K.H
Palmork 1984. Investigation into the fate of '4C-labelled
xenobiotics (naphthalene, phenanthrene, 2,4,5,2',41.5'-
hexachlorobiphenyl, octachlorostyrene) in Bermudian corals
tVlar Ecol Prog Ser 16 149-154

Sorokin. YJ 1993. Coral reef ecology Springer-Verlage

South Atlantic Fishery Managment Council. 1982 Fishery
mManagement plan for coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic Includes Amendments 1, 2, and 3.

Te, FT 1991 Effects of two petroleum products on Pocillopora
damtcornts planulae. Paaf So

Tetra Tech 1983 Ecological impacts of sewage discharges on coral
reef communities Prepared for U S Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC,
by Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.

Tilmant, J T. 1987. Impacts of recreational activities on coral
reefs. In Human impacts on coral reefs Facts and recommendations.
ed. B. Salvat, pp. 195-214 Antenne de Tahiti Musum E.P.H E,
Papetoai, Moorea, French Polynesia.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1991 50 CFR Part 638, sections
1-8, coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and the South

	 1991 15 CFR Part 943, Flower Garden Banks National

Marine Sanctuary regulations.

	. 1995 Strategy for stewardship: Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary draft management plan/environmental impact

USEPA. 1982 Revised section 301(h) technical support document.
U S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, Washington, DC. EPA 430/9-82-011

	 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of for-
estry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
U S Environmental Protection Agency and University of Wash-
ington. EPA/910/9-91-00

	. 1992a. Monitoring guidance for the National Estuary

Program U S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
EPA 842-B-92-004.

	 1992b Protecting coastal and wetland resources: A guide

for local governments. U S Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water. EPA 842-R-92-002

	 1992c. Characterization of use impairments of the U S.

Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico U S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2

	 1993 Volunteer estuary monitoring. A methods manual

U S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 842-

White, AT, LZ, Hale, Y. Renard, and L Cortesi. 1994 Collabo-
rative and community-based management of coral reefs Lessons
from experience Kumarian Press

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft -July 1996




Accretion Increase in size Coral accretion is adding
more coral coverage to a reef or other structure

Algae. Simple rootless plants that grow in sunlit wa-
ters in relative proportion to the amount of nutrients
available They can affect water quality adversely by
lowering the dissolved oxygen in the water.

Algal blooms. Sudden spurts of algal growth, which can
indicate adverse changes in water quality

Ambient. Surrounding conditions.

Atolls. Coral islands that form circular reef structures,
often with islets and often with calm-water lagoons in
the center.

Bank reef. Deeper reef that forms separate from other
reef sections.

Barrier reef. A coral reef that forms offshore in ram-
parts and is separated from land by a shallow, sand-
floored lagoon.

Best Management Practice. Controls for stormwater
and other forms of nonpoint source pollution that are
best able to prevent or minimize adverse impact within
given environmental, social, and economic parameters.

Biomass. All the living material in an area

Calcium carbonate. A colorless grey powder found
naturally in limestone Calcium carbonate dissolves in
seawater and is extracted by coral to form reefs.

Coral bleaching Loss of zooxanthellae, the algae that
live in coral polyps.

Coral coverage. The amount of living coral on a reef

Coral mortality Death of coral organisms

Coral recruitment New coral growing on a hard sub-
strate, like a reef structure

Crustacean Class of animals, primarily aquatic, hav-
ing a body covered by a hard shell or crust. Examples
include lobster, crabs, and shrimp.

Desalinization. The process by which salts are re-
moved from seawater to make potable water.

Dredging. To clear or deepen the bottom of a

Ecosystem. The interacting system of a biological
community and its nonliving surroundings.

Effluent. Wastewater (treated or untreated) that flows
out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall.

Erosion. The wearing away of land surface by wind or

Eutrophication. A process that occurs when too many
nutrients are added to a waterbody, thereby encouraging
accelerated growth of undesirable plants, such as algae.

Fouling organisms. Organisms, such as barnacles and
some worms, that grow on submerged surfaces like
boat hulls, pilings, and water intake pipes

Fringing reef. A coral reef that forms close to shore
and in shallow water.

Habitat. The place where a population lives and its sur-
roundings, both living and nonliving


Watershed Management for CeraI ReefCcmmtinmes

Final Draft - July 1996

Hard coral. Coral that secretes calcium carbonate
around its living tissue, forming an exterior skeleton.

Herbivore. An animal that feeds on plants

Hydrocarbon A chemical compound that consists en-
tirely of carbon and hydrogen, examples include gasoline
and oil.

Hydromodification Alteration of the hydrologic char-
acteristics of coastal and noncoastal waters, which in
turn could cause degradation of water resources.

Hypersaline. A condition that occurs when there is an
abnormally high concentration of salts in the water.

Impervious surface. Surfaces that do not allow water
to seep into the ground

Insular. Of or pertaining to an island.

Larva The early form of many organisms, such as coral,
that occurs after an egg "hatches.'7 Coral larvae are free-
floating and eventually settle on a hard substrate and
form coral polyps.

Lethal. Deadly; fatal.

Mangrove A species of tree found in tropical coastal
areas. Mangroves form thick stands at the edge of the
water and are important habitat for many aquatic or-

Mollusk. An animal having a soft segmented body
covered by a hard shell. Examples include snails, clams,
conch, and oysters

Nonpoint sources. Pollution sources that are diffuse and
do not have a single point of origin or are not introduced
into a receiving stream from a specific outlet.

Nutrient. Any substance used by living things to pro-
mote growth.

Nutrient enrichment. The addition of nutrients, such
as nitrogen and phosphorus, which can result in

Oligotrophic Low in nutrients.

Overnourishment. The addition of too many nutrients
to the water.

Pathogens Microorganisms that cause disease in other
organisms, examples include bacteria, viruses, and para-

Photosynthesis. The process by which plants make
carbohydrates and oxygen from carbon dioxide and wa-
ter in the presence of chlorophyll, using light as the en-
ergy source.

Phytoplankton Tiny plants that live in the water col-
umn, many invisible to the naked eye.

Platform/patch reef. A small circular or irregular reef
that forms where the hard seabed rises close to the sur-
face and is distinct from other reef sections.

Point source. A stationary location or fixed facility
from which pollutants are discharged.

Polyp A sedentary animal having a hollow cylindrical
body with a fixed base at one end and a mouth sur-
rounded by tentacles at the other

Predator Something that preys on other animals.

Salinity The amount of salt in the water, usually mea-
sured in parts per thousand, or ppt.

Seaward. Directed toward the sea.

Sedimentation. The process of solids settling out of
the water column.

Septic tank. An underground storage tank for wastes
for homes with no connection to a sewage treatment
plant. The waste goes directly from the home to the
tank, where organic waste is decomposed by bacteria
and settles to the bottom. The sludge is pumped out of
the tank periodically. The effluent flows out of the
tank to a dramfield.

Soft coral Coral that deposits calcium carbonate in its
tissue, making it "fleshy" and fan-like.

Spawning Reproducing.


Species diversity. The number of different species in an
area. High species diversity means there are many differ-
ent species in an area

Species richness The number of one specific species in
an area High species richness means there are many of
a particular species in an area.

Sublethal. Below the lethal dose of a toxicant; a dose
that will not cause death, but may cause harm.

Symbiotic. A situation in which two dissimilar organ-
isms are living in close proximity to each other and each
benefits from the association.

Toxic. Harmful to living organisms

Toxicants. Poisonous agents that harm or kill animal
or plant life.

Toxicity. The degree of danger posed by a substance to
animal or plant life.

Turbidity. Cloudy condition in water caused by sus-
pended sediment or organic matter.

Watershed. The land area that drains into a stream,,
river, lake, or estuary.

Wetland An area that is regularly saturated by surface
or ground water and subsequently is characterized by a
prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions.

Windward. Being on the side toward which the wind

Zooxanthellae. Algae found in coral polyps that give
the coral its color. The algae also provide the coral with
oxygen and carbon dioxide (through photosysthesis) and
assist reef-building corals in extracting calcium carbon-
ate from seawater.

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996



Appendix A

Rules and Regulations

Much of the following information was reproduced from Covering the Coasts: A Reporter's Guide to Coastal and Marine
Resources, with permission from the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council.

National Statutes and Programs that
Pertain to Coral Reef Protection and

Umbrella Laws

National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

Responsible Agencies- President's Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires
that the applicable federal agency prepare a detailed en-
vironmental impact statement (EIS) for major federal
actions that might significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. Not only does NEPA require full
disclosure of a proposed project's environmental im-
pacts. but the authorizing agency must also evaluate a
complete set of alternatives to the project including the
"no build" alternative. The intended outcome of the
EIS process is that any identified adverse environmental
effects have been evaluated and, where appropriate,
avoided, minimized and/or mitigated

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972

Responsible Agencies. EPA, U S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U 5. Coast Guard

The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act greatly increased federal financial assis-
tance to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
The Amendments established uniform technology-

based effluent limitations for industrial dischargers as
well as established a national permit system for all
point source discharges, called the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The law en-
courages nonpoint source pollution assessment and con-
trol programs. Finally, the amendments granted the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the authority to issue
permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the U.S

Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 (Water
Quality Act of 1987)

Responsible Agency: EPA

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act was reautho-
rized and amended in what became known as the Water
Quality Act of 1987. The Act authorizes EPA to del-
egate issuance andenforcement of NPDES permits to
states with appropriate regulatory programs and proce-
dures. Finally, the Act added priority toxic pollutant
control to the federal program.

Coastal Zone Management Act (1972)

Responsible Agencies: EPA and NOAA

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972
provides for management of the nation's coastline, in-
cluding the Creat Lakes, by balancing economic devel-
opment with environmental preservation Its goals are
"preserve, protect, develop, enhance, and restore where
possible, the coastal resources." CZMA encourages
states to exercise full authority over their coastal lands
and waters


Watershed Management (or Cora! Reef'Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

Coastal Zone Management Program


The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) encour-
ages states to produce and enforce their own Coastal
Zone Management Programs consistent with the fed-
eral law and its goals. CZMA provides federal financial
assistance to states that produce CZM programs ap-
proved by the Secretary of Commerce (NOAA).

Thirty-six states and territories are eligible to partici-
pate in the CZM program. By early 1992, 29 states had
created approved programs covering more than 95 per-
cent of the country's coastline (National Safety Coun-
cil). Ceorgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas are
developing CZM programs Illinois was not pursuing
development as of late 1992 (National Safety Council,

Coastal Nonpolnt Pollution Control Program

In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Act Reau-
thorization Amendments, adding a section designed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution of coastal waters
Section 6217 requires states that have Coastal Zone
Management Programs to develop and implement
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs

Endangered Species Act (1973)

Responsible Agencies: U S Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

This law is intended to protect endangered or threat-
ened species by requiring all federal agencies and their
permittees and licensees to ensure that their actions do
not jeopardize these species or damage their critical
habitats. The act also prohibits imports and exports of
endangered species and the taking of any endangered
species within the territorial sea or on the high seas.
The law authorizes civil and criminal penalties and
gives federal and state agencies enforcement authority

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
Title III National Marine Sanctuary Program

Responsible Agency: NOAA

Under the act, NOAA is charged with preserving and
protecting marine areas that have special significance
based on their "conservation, recreational, ecological,
historic, research, educational, or aesthetic qualities."
The National Marine Sanctuary Program allows areas to
be designated as sanctuaries

Fagatele Bay in American Samoa; Key Largo and Looe
Key of the Florida Keys, the Flower Garden Banks in the
Gulf of Mexico, and the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale, Hawaii are approved sanctuaries that include
coral reef habitat. As of 1992, there were 12 sanctuaries
covering a total of 10,000 nautical miles.

Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972)

Responsible Agencies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

This act places a moratorium on the taking and import-
ing of marine mammals and their products for any pur-
pose other than scientific research or public display.
The term "take" means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill
any marine mammal. The act also prohibits imports of
fish caught with gear that causes incidental death or
injury to marine mammals.

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of
1976 (Magnuson Act)

Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of State, NOAA,
NMFS, U.S Coast Guard, and Regional Fishery Adanage-
ment Councils

This law provides for the conservation and manage-
ment of all fishery resources within the U.S Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and some resources beyond the
EEZ. The act also establishes eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils charged with preparing Fishery
Management Plans (FMPs) for their regions. More than
30 fishery management plans are in place, including a
fishery management plan for coral and coral reefs in the
Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic.


Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965)

Responsible Agencies: Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S
Army Corps of Engineers

This act promotes land and water conservation by es-
tablishing funds to acquire land or water, or interests in
land or water to promote outdoor recreational opportu-
nities. The act authorizes the Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund to be collected from surplus property sales,
motorboat fuel taxes, certain revenues authorized from
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and user fees at
designated National Park system "units.''1 It authorizes
the Department of the Interior to acquire lands or allo-
cate funds to states to carry out the Act

Estuary Protection Act of 1968

Responsible Agency Fish and Wildlife Service

This act was established for the conservation of estua-
rine areas.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1958)

Responsible Agencies: Fish and Wildlife Service and the U 5.
Army Corps of Engineers

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides that
the Fish and Wildlife Service review all proposed federal
actions that might affect any stream, wetland, or other
body of water and to make recommendations for the
conservation of fish and wildlife. The Service reviews
both development and regulatory actions

North American Wetlands Conservation Act

Responsible Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service

Provides funding for purchase of critical wetlands in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico and provides for
matching funds for wetlands' conservation projects in
North America

Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Resto-
ration Act of 1990

Responsible Agencies Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and EPA

Encourages wetland conservation and planning in U S.
coastal areas and provides for state grants for wetlands
conservation Also, grants the U S Army Corps of En-

gineers authority to create wetlands across the United
States and specifically in Louisiana.

Water Resources Development Act of 1976 and of
1986 (as amended in 1990 and 1992)

Responsible Agency: U.S Army Corps of Engineers

Authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use
dredged material for wetlands creation, to modify exist-
ing projects or operations for environmental improve-
ment, and to mitigate fish and wildlife losses associated
with authorized water resources projects, including the
acquisition of lands or interests in lands.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Responsible Agency. U S. Army Corps of Engineers

This act prohibits construction m any navigable waters
without Corps approval. In addition, it prohibits the
discharge of refuse into navigable waters or their tribu-
taries without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Until passage of the 1972 Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments, the 1899 Rivers and
Harbors Act had provided the primary federal basis for
managing and regulating dredged and fill activities in

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act

Responsible Agency Fish and Wildlife Service

This act was established for the conservation and pro-
motion of nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats,
including grants to states

Fish Restoration and Management Projects Act

Responsible Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service

This act was established to fund state programs for the
restoration and management of fishery resources, in-
cluding coral habitats.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Responsible Agency. Fish and Wildlife Service

This act establishes resources management programs
for fish and wildlife habitat and acquires lands and wa-
ters for the purpose of fish and wildlife conservation.

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Con intimites

Final Draft -July 1996


Federal Water Project Recreation Act

Responsible Agency Fish and Wildlife Service

This ac: provides federal funds for fish and wildlife en-
hancement and land acquisition for these same pur-
poses in con|unction with federal water development

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956

Responsible Agency. Fish and Wildlife Service

This act establishes a comprehensive national fish,
shellfish, and wildlife resource policy emphasizing the
commercial fish industry.

Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act

Responsible Agency NOAA

This act promotes and encourages management of
interjurisdictional fishery resources throughout their

North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954

Responsible Agency: NOAA

This Act enforces the agreements of the International
Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North
Pacific Ocean.

Reefs for Marine Life Conservation and the Na-
tional Fishing Enhancement Act of 1964

Responsible Agency: U.S Department of Transportation

Conserves marine life through the use of obsolete ships
as artificial reefs for the conservation of marine life.

Marine Pollution

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other matter (London
Dumping Convention) (1972)

Responsible Party United Nations

The London Dumping Convention (LDC) grew out of
proposals made by the 1972 United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment in Stockholm. The LDC
regulates ocean dumping to prevent pollution of the
marine environment, harm to living marine resources,
hazards to human health, and damage to amenities.
Dumping involves any deliberate disposal at sea from
vessels, aircraft, platforms, or other man-made struc-
tures, but excludes waste disposal from normal opera-
tion of vessels. The United States implements the
Convention through Title I of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (see below).

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
Title I or Ocean Dumping Act (1972)

Responsible Agencies. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, U.S. Coast Guard

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuar-
ies Act (MPRSA), commonly known as the Ocean
Dumping Act, regulates the transportation of material
for the purpose of dumping into ocean waters. In gen-
eral, the act prohibits the transportation of material
from the United States or by U.S.-registered vessels for
the purpose of ocean dumping unless authorized by a
permit issued under the act. In addition, the MPRSA
was amended in 1988 to make ocean dumping of indus-
trial waste and sewage sludge unlawful.

Ocean Dumping Ban Act (1988)

Responsible Agency: U.S. Coast Guard

The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 amended the Ma-
rine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Its pri-
mary purpose is to prohibit ocean dumping of sewage
sludge and industrial wastes after December 31. 1991.


International Convention for the Prevention of Pol-
lution From Ships (1973 and 1978)

Responsible Parties¦ United Nations and U S Coast Guard
lit U.S. waters

The 1973 International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution From Ships, known as MARPOL. did not go
into effect until 1983 after several modifications. Its
intent is to end "the deliberate,, negligent or accidental
release of. harmful substances from ships'' and to
"achieve the complete elimination of international pol-
lution of the marine environment . by harmful sub-
stances " MARPOL is concerned primarily with wastes
generated during the normaloperations of vessels

Oil Pollution Control Act (1990)

Responsible Agencies¦ EPA and U S. Coast Guard

The law combines various oil spill response mecha-
nisms from the Clean Water Act, the Deepwater Port
Act of 1974, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act, and the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and seeks to harmo-
nize them with state laws, international conventions,
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or
Superfund). The act provides for emergency response
planning through establishing contingency plans for
specific areas to deal with worst-case scenario oil spills.
A National Contingency Plan (NCO) was also estab-
lished that provides a method of ranking waste sites for
inventory and cleanup.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act

Responsible Agency: NOAA

This act licenses the construction and operation of
ocean thermal energy conversion plants. The licensing
process takes into account impacts on ecosystems, in-
cluding coral habitat

The National Ocean Pollution Planning Act (1988)

Responsible Agency NOAA

This act establishes a comprehensive 5-year plan for
federal ocean pollution research and development and
monitoring programs. In addition, it provides for the
development of the necessary information base to sup-
port and provide for equitable utilization, conservation,
and development of ocean and coastal resources.

Toxics and wastes

Article 39 of the Lome IV Treaty (1989)

Responsible Party. United Nations

This treaty represents the world's most comprehensive
hazardous waste trade ban prohibiting the European
Union from shipping any hazardous (including nuclear)
wastes to the 69 African. Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP)
countries. Under this agreement, the ACP countries
also agreed to prohibit hazardous (including radioac-
tive) waste imports from any country. Caribbean na-
tions protected under the treaty are Antigua and
Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Do-
minion Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St.
Kitts and Nevis, St Lubic, St Vincent and the Grena-
dines, Sunmane, and Trinidad and Tobago

Shore Protection Act of 1988

Responsible Agency: EPA

Protects coastal water from litter and pollution by regu-
lating waste-handling practices by wastesources, ves-
sels, and receiving facilities to minimize deposition of
waste into coastal water.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
Amended (Superfund)

Responsible Agencies: EPA, U S. Coast Guard

The basic purpose of CERCLA is to respond to past re-
leases of hazardous substances into the air, water, or
land If a responsible party (RP) does not take the ap-
propriate removal and remedial actions, EPA can order
it to do so. If the RP still does not respond, EPA can use
federal funds to do the necessary work and then recover
expenses from responsible parties at a particular site. If
there is no "potentially responsible party'' (PRP), the
clean-up costs come from Superfund. While EPA is the
responsible agency on land, EPA and the Coast Guard
share responsibilities for responding to emergencies
such as oil or hazardous chemical spills in coastal wa-

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

Responsible Agency: EPA

Just as Superfund is designed to clean up existing and
abandoned hazardous waste sites, the Resource Conser-


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is intended to prevent
creation of new threats to human health by improper
hazardous waste disposal. The law establishes a
"cradle-to-grave;; system to track hazardous wastes
from generation to final disposal

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976

Responsible Agency: EPA

TSCA regulates the introduction into commerce of new
hazardous chemical substances and mixtures for the
purpose of avoiding unreasonable risk or injury to hu-
man health or to the environment.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended (1988)

Responsible Agency EPA

FIFRA regulates the production and use of pesticide
chemicals. It gives EPA the authority to deny or cancel
registrations of pesticides whose use would or does
cause fish contamination It also establishes "action
levels" or "tolerances" for unavoidable pesticide con-
taminants in fish and shellfish.

Submerged Lands and Mineral Resources

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended in

Responsible Agencies. Department of the Interior's Minerals
Management Service and U S. Coast Guard

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires the In-
terior Department to develop and maintainestimates of
oil and gas reserves and undiscovered resources in the
OCS. It must assess the likely effects of gas and oil ac-
tivities on marine, coastal, and human environments.
It administers competitive lease sales of offshore tracts
and regulates OCS activities to ensure safety and envi-
ronmental protection.

Submerged Lands Act (1953)

Responsible Parties' States

This act establishes ownership of lands beneath navi-
gable waters within the boundaries of the states and
the right to develop these lands. The lands beneath
navigable waters are defined as lands within state
boundaries that were navigable when the state became
a member of the Union; lands periodically or perma-
nently covered by tidal waters, or lands that were filled
in or reclaimed lands that were formerly beneath navi-
gable waters. The seaward boundary of each state was
confirmed as a line three geographical miles from its
coastline or, in the case of the Great Lakes, to the inter-
national boundary.

The federal government retained certain rights to use
the submerged lands for commerce, navigation, defense,
and international affairs, but not the rights of owner-
ship or management, which were specifically granted in
the act.

Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act (1980)

Responsible Agency NOAA

This act provides authority to the Department of Com-
merce (NOAA) to license consortia for the mining of
hard minerals beyond the continental shelf.

State and U.S Territory Regulatory Statutes that Per-
tain to Coral Reef Protection


American Samoa


Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Regula-

The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Regula-
tions (15 CFR 941 8) state that no person shall gather,
take, break, cut, damage, destroy, or possess any inver-
tebrate, coral, bottom formation, or marine plant. Sec-
tion 307 of the Act, 16 U S.C. 1437, authorizes the
assessment of a civil penalty of not more than
S50.000.00 for each violation of any regulation issued
pursuant to the Act.

Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources:
Rules and Regulations

Several sections of the Department of Marine and Wild-
life Resources' rules and regulations address activities in
coastal areas. Chapter 3 regulates fishing areas and pro-
hibits the taking or damage of natural resources, includ-
ing coral, from Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary
and Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge Chapter 5
states that it is unlawful to collect any livingcoral
above the 60-foot contour surrounding all islands of
American Samoa and offshore banks in the waters of
American Samoa. The commercial harvest of any coral
below the 60-foot contour requires a valid Coral Collec-
tion Permit from the Department.

The American Samoa Coastal Management Pro-
gram (ASCMP)

ASCMP administrative rules are adopted pursuant to
authority granted by the Development Planning Office
under Public Law 21-35, the American Samoa Coastal
Management Act of 1990. The ASCMP specifically ap-
plies to land use practices and prohibits the impairment
of any ecosystem

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands Coastal Resource Management Program
Lagoon Master Plan

[Information Pending]

Draft Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement for the Florida Keys National Marine

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Pro-
tection Act of 1990 and the Amendments Act of 1992
directed the Secretary of Commerce to develop a com-
prehensive management plan and implement regula-
tions to protect sanctuary resources. All requirements
have been addressed in this plan. NOAA regulatory ac-
tions (section 929) address boating, fishing, land use,
recreation, and zoning (Dept of Commerce, 1995)

Chapter 370 of the Florida Statute

Florida Statute section 370 states that it is unlawful for
any person to take, otherwise destroy, sell or attempt to
sell (1) any sea fan of the species Gorgoma flabtllum or
the species C. vtntahna (2) any hard or stony coral
(Scleractinia), or (3) any fire coral (Millepora). Indirect
authorities with relevance to coral protection include
fishery gear regulations (section 370 15, F.S.), a permit
system for the use of chemicals to collect marine speci-
mens (section 370 08, F.S ), ocean water contamination
regulations (section 370.09, F.S.), and dredge and fill
regulations (section 370.03, F.S.)

Marine Life Rule

Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 46-42.001, pro-
tects and conserves Florida's tropical marine life re-
sources and ensures the continuing health and
abundance of these species. Thischapter ensures that
harvesters in the fishery use nonlethal methods of har-
vest and that the fish, invertebrates, and plants har-
vested are maintained alive for the maximum possible
conservation and economic benefits.

Fishery Management Plan for Coral and Coral
Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic as

This plan was produced by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council under the authority provided in
the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of
1976 (Magnuson Act) The plan specifically addresses
the Florida reef tract. Federal regulations for the plan
are under 50 CFR Part 638 (SAFMC, 1982).


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

Flower Garden Banks, Texas

Fishery Management Plan for Coral and Coral
Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic as

This plan was produced by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council under the authority provided in
the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of
1976 (Magnuson Act). The plan specifically addresses'
the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
Federal regulations for the plan are under 50 CFR Part
638. Federal regulations for the Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary are under 15 CFR Part 943
(SAFMC, 1982).

Note: Texas has no direct coral protection laws relevant
to coral resources. However, the state does have regula-
tions on fishing (Texas P&W Code section 77), ocean
pollution (Texas Water Code section 26), use of elec-
troshock (Texas P&W Code section 66), and dredge and
fill activities (Texas Natural Resources section 33).


Appendix B

Compendium of Organizations and

A Resource of Science and Policy on Coral Reefs

Nongovernmental Organizations

Aquarium for Wildlife Conservation

Osborn Laboratories for Marine Science

West 8th Street & Surf Avenue

Brooklyn,. NY 11224

phone- (718) 265-3435

fax. (718) 265-0419

Contact: Paul Boyle, Director

American Fisheries Society

5410 Grosvernor Lane, #10
Bethesda, MD 20814
phone. (301) 897-8616
fax: (30) 897-8096
Contact: Paul Brouha

American Oceans Campaign

235 Pennsylvania Avenue. SW

Washington. DC 20003

phone. (202) 544-3526

fax: (202) 544-5625

Contact: Robert Sulnick, Executive Director

Asia-Pacific Region Conservation International

1015 18th Street, NW
Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20036

phone- (202) 973-2240

fax (202) 887-5188

Contact: Cynthia A'lackie, Vice President

Association of Southeast Asian Nations Coopera-
tive Project

195 Pemberton Avenue
Vancouver, British Columbia V7P2R4
phone- (604) 986-4331
Contact: Beth Power

Australian Cooperative Project

195 Pemberton Avenue
Vancouver. British Columbia V7P2R4
phone: (604) 986-4331
Contact: Beth Power

Biodiversity Conservation Network

c/o World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th Street, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20037
phone: (202) 293-4800
fax: (202) 861-8324
Contact: Hank Cauley

Caribbean Association of Environmental Health

NUPW Building, Second Floor

Dalkeith Road

St. Michael, Barbados

OWest Indies

phone: (809) 436-7347

Contact: Lenore Harvey, Project Manager

Caribbean Environment Program

United Nations Environment Program

14-20 Port Royal Street

Kingston, Jamaica

phone- 1 (809) 922-9267 to 9

Caribbean Fishery Management Council

Banco de Ponce

Suite 1108

Hato Rey, PR 00918

Contact: Hector Vega-Morrera, Chairman


Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July -1996

Conservation Education Diving

Archeology and Museums International

Fox Road

Croton-on-Hudson. NY 10520
phone (914) 271-5365
fax: (914) 271-4723
Contact: Rick Sammon

The Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico

P.O. Box 4747
San Juan, PR 00902-4747
phone: (809) 722-5834
fax: (809) 722-5872

Contact: Francisco Blanco, Executive Director

Coral Forest

400 Montgomery Street
Suite 1040

San Francisco, CA 94104
phone: (415) 788-7333
fax: (415) 398-0385
Contact. Jessica Abbe, Co-director
Contact: Wendy Weir, Co-director

CORAL—The Coral Reef Alliance

809 Delware Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
phone: (510) 528-2492
fax: (510) 528-9317

Contact: Stephen Colwell, Executive Director

Coral Reef Coalition

Center for Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales Street, NW
Suite 500

Washington, DC 20036
phone- (202) 429-5609
fax: (202) 872-0619
Contact- Jack Sobel

Cousteau Society

870 Greenbrier Circle
Suite 402

Chesapeake, VA 23320
phone- (804) 523-9335
fax: (804) 523-2747
Contact: Richard Murphy

111 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
phone: (212) 949-6290
fax: (212) 949-6296
Contact Paula DiPerna

Defenders of Wildlife

1244 19th Street. NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone. (202) 659-9510
fax. (202) 833-3349
Contact: Maureen Hearn


680 Mt Auburn Street
Box 403

Watertown, MA 02272

phone: (617) 926-8200

fax: (617) 926-8532

Contact: Andrew Hudson, Program Director

Environmental Defense Fund

5655 College Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
phone- (510) 658-8008
fax: (510) 658-0630
Contact: Rodney Fujtta

257 Park Avenue, South
New York, NY 10010
Contact. Fred Krupp, Director

Environmental Solutions International

13826 Castle Cliff Way
Silverspring, MD 20904
phone: (301) 989-1731
fax: (301) 384-4369

Friends of the Puako Reef

26 Puako Beach Drive
Kamuela, HI 96743
phone: (808) 882-7625
fax: (808) 882-7556
Contact. Gary Wagner
Contact Shirley Wagner


Global Coral Reef Alliance

324 North Bedford Road
Chappaqua. NY 10514
phone- (914) 238-8788
fax: (914) 238-8768
Contact¦ Tom Goreau

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

PO. Box 1379
Townsville OLD 4810
phone: 077-81-8811
fax: 077-72-6093
Contact ¦ Rtchard Kenchmgton

Greenpeace International

Waste Trade in the Caribbean Campaign
Keizersgracht 176
1016 DW Amsterdam

1436 U Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
phone: (202) 462-1177
fax- (202) 462-4507
Contact. Cliff Curtis

Greenpeace Latin America Project

Toxics Coordination Unit
9a. calle A 3-56, Zona 1
Ciudad de Guatemala

phone: 502-2-29432-81997
fax: 502-2-532771

Hawaii Audubon Society

1088 Bishop Street
Suite 808

Honolulu, HI 96822
phone (808) 528-1432
Contact: Linda Paul, President

Hawaii Green Party

1684 Halekoa Drive
Honolulu, HI 96821
phone- (808) 732-5497
fax: (808) 956-6877
Contact. Ira Rohter

International Coral Reef NGO Network

Center for Clean Development

1227 West 10th Avenue

Eugene, OR 97402

phone (503) 687-1043

fax. (503) 346-2040

Contact. Jeanne Kirby, Coordinator

International Marinelife Alliance

201 W Stassney
Suite 408

Austin, TX 78745-3156
phone- (512) 326-5265
fax. (512) 326-4017
Contact. Peter Rubec, President

International Union for the
Conservation of Nature

1400 16th Street, Suite 502
Washington, DC 20036-2266
phone. (202) 797-5454
fax: (202) 797-5461
Contact: Achim Sterner

International Society for Reef Studies

State of Florida Institute of Oceanography

830 First Street

St. Petersburg, FL 33712

phone: (813) 893-9100

fax: (813) 893-9109

Contact John Ogden

Island Resources Foundation

1718 P Street, NW
Suite T-4

Washington, DC 20036
phone: (202) 265-9712
fax: (202) 232-0748
Contact: Edward Towle, President

Le Vaomatua

PO. Box B
Pago Pago, 96799
American Samoa
phone: (684) 633-7458
fax. (684) 633-7458
Contact: John Enrtght

Watershed Management for Ccral Reef Communities

Final Draft - July 1996

Life of the Land

1111 Bishop Street
Suite 511

Honolulu,. HI 96813
phone (308) 553-3454
fax- (808) 537-9019
Contact. Henry Curtis

Man and the Biosphere Biodiversity Program

Smithsonian Institution
1100 Jefferson Drive, SW
Suite 3123

Washington, DC 20560
phone: (202) 357-4792
fax: (202) 786-2557

National Audubon Society

801 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Suite 200

Washington, DC 20003
phone: (202) 547-9009
fax. (202) 547-9022
Contact: Stephen Parcells

Natural Resources and Rights Program
Rainforest Alliance

65 Bleecker Street
New York, NY 10012
phone- (212) 677-1900
fax. (212) 677-2187
Contact¦ Charles Zerner

Nature Conservancy

P.O. Box 1738
Koror, Palau 96940
phone: (680) 488-2017
fax: (680) 488-1725
Contact- Chuck Cook

Ocean Watch Foundation

PO Box 462

Fort Lauderdale. FL 33302
phone. (305) 467-1366

Pacific Science Association

PO. Box 17801
Honolulu, HI 96817
phone: (808) 848-4139
fax. (808) 841-8968

Contact L C. Eldredge, Executive Secretary

Pacific Whale Foundation

101 N. Kihei Road
Suite 21

Kihei, HI 96753
phone: (808) 879-8860
fax- (808) 879-2615
Contact ¦ Eric Brown

Professional Association of Diving Instructors

Aquatic World Awareness, Responsibility and Education

1251 East Dyer Road

Santa Ana, CA 92705-5605
phone. (714) 540-7234
fax: (714) 540-2609
Contact: Tiera Olson

Island Resources Foundation

6296 Estate Nazareth No 11
St. Thomas, USVI 00802
phone- (809) 775-6225
fax- (809) 779-2022
Contact Edward Towle, President

Project ReefKeeper

Operations Center
Suite 162
2809 Bird Avenue
Miami, FL 33133
phone: (305) 358-4600
fax: (305) 358-3030

Pacific Region

Suite 106-542 350 Ward Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96814

Latin American Region
Calle 60 No. 387-C, Manda
Yucatan. Mexico 97000


Caribbean Region

Suite 1271

Castillo Del Mar

Isla Verde.. PR 00913

Contact Alexander Stone, Director

Reef Education Project

391 Braeburn Drive
Eugene, OR 97405
phone. (503) 687-9115
fax: (503) 687-9115
Contact. Aubrey Hord

Reef Environmental Education Foundation

PO. Box 246

Key Largo, FL 33037

phone (305) 451-0312

fax. (305) 451-0312

Contact. Laddie Akms, Executive Director

Reef Relief

PO. Box 430
Key West, FL 33041
phone: (305) 294-3100
fax: (305) 293-9515
Contact DeeVon Quirolo


6 Keyes Street

Florham Park, NJ 07932

phone: (201) 377-1183

fax: (201) 377-1183

Contact: Agnes Kammerer-Kovacs, Director

Rescue the Reef Program

The Nature Conservancy
1815 North Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
phone: 703.841.5366
fax (703) 841-4880
Contact¦ John Tsclurky

Sierra Club

1414 Hilltop Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32303
phone: (904) 385-7865
fax. (904) 385-7862
Contact: Shirley Taylor

1621 Mikahala Way
Honolulu, HI 96816-3321
phone (808) 734-4986
fax- (808) 856-4933
Contact. Dave Raney

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

Ahupua'a Action Alliance
223 South King Street

Honolulu, HI 96813
phone (808) 599-2436
fax: (808) 521-6841
Contact¦ Denise Antohni

Wildlife Conservation Society

185th Street and Southern Boulevard

Bronx, NY 10460-1099

phone: (718) 220-5155

fax: (718) 364-4275

Contact. John Robinson, Vice President

World Resources Institute

1709 New York Avenue
Suite 700

Washington, DC 20006
phone- (202) 662-2529
fax: (202) 638-0036
Contact¦ Nels Johnson

Worldwatch Institute

1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 202 452-1999
fax: (202) 296-7365
Contact: Lester Brown

World Wildlife Fund

1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
phone- (202) 861-8301
fax: (202) 293-9211
Contact: Tundi Agardy

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft • July 4 996


Federal Government

State Department

Peter Thomas

Coordinator. International & U S. Coral Reef Initiative

(ICRI) U.S. Department of State

OES/ETC, Room 4325

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

phone (202) 647-3367

fax: (202) 736-7345

U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program

Islands Directorate

State Department - OES/ENR/MAB

Washington. DC 20520

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration

Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary

P.O. Box 4318

Pago Pago, AS 96799

phone- 011-684-633-7354

fax. 011-684-633-7355

Nancy Daschbach, Satuuary Coordinator

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

P.O. Box 500368
Marathon, FL 33050
phone. (305) 743-2437
fax: (305) 743-2357
Billy Causey, Superintendent

Florida Keys (Lower Region) National Marine

216 Ann Street

Key West, FL 33040

phone. (305) 292-0311

fax: (305) 292-5065

George Sclnnahl, Sanctuary Manager

Florida Keys (Upper Region) National Marine

P.O Box 1083

Key Largo, FL 33037

phone: (305) 451-1644

fax. (305) 451-3193

LCDR Paul Moen, Sanctuary Manager

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

1716 Briarcrest Drive

Suite 702

Bryan, TX 77802

phone. (409) 847-9296

fax: (409) 845-7525

Dr. Steve Cittings, Sanctuary Manager

Ocean Assessments Division

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

N/OMA 3, Room 323, WSC-1-6001 Executive Building

Rockville, MD 20852

phone. (301) 443-8933

fax: (301) 231-5764

Andrew Robertson, Chief

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manage-

1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
phone: (301) 713-3086 x 206
Stephen Jameson

National Oceanic 8t Atmospheric Administration
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

1305 East-West Highway •

Silver Spring, MD 20910
phone- (301) 713-3145
Dr. Charles Wahle


Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

NOAA, SSMC-4, Room 11536
Silver Spring, MD 20910
phone- (301) 713-3155
fax: (301) 713-4012
Michael Crosby

Co-Chair, Domestic Management for
Sustainable Use Task Croup

Office of Global Programs, NOAA

1000 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1225
Silver Spring, MD 20910-5603
phone: (301) 427-2089
fax: (301) 427-2073
C. Mark Eaktn

Co-Chair, Research Assessment and
Monitoring Task Group


NOAA, International Affairs

14th & Constitution Avenue
NOAA - DAS. Room 5230
Washington. DC 20230
phone- (202) 482-6196
fax (202) 482-4307
Arthur Paterson

NOAA, Satellite Oceanography

1305 East-West Highway
Building 4, Room 8402
Silver Spring, MD 20910
phone: (301) 713-1193
Bill Patzert

NOAA, Sanctuaries & Reserves

Technical Projects Branch

1305 East-West Highway, 12th Eloor

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Janice Sessmg, Damage Assessment Coordinator

U.S. Department of the Interior
Territorial and International Affairs

1849 C Street, MS 4328
Washington, DC 20240
phone: (202) 208-6816
fax- (202) 501-7759
N B Fanning

Co-Chair, Domestic Management for
Sustainable Use Task Group

National Park Serivce

Office of International Affairs (023)

National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127

Washington. DC 20013-7127
Shannon Cleary, Chief

Virgin Islands National Park

PO Box 710
St. John, USVI 00830
phone: (809) 776-4714
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Caroline Rogers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fernandez Juncos Avenue

Santorce, PR

phone: (809) 851-7219

United States Environmental
Protection Agency

Environmental Research Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
phone- (904) 934-9200
fax: (904) 934-9201

Gulf of Mexico Program

U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Building 1103

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
phone- (601) 688-3726
fax: (601) 688-2709

Caribbean Field Office

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Centro Europa Building
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Santurce, PR 00909
phone- (809) 729-6951
Carl-Axel Soderberg

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4101)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

phone- (202) 260-5700

Dana Minerva

Office of International Activities

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
phone: (202) 260-4780
fax: (202) 260-9653
William Nitze
Assistant Administrator

Watershed Management for Coral Reef Communities

Final Draft ¦ July 4 996


U S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street,. SW


Washington. DC 20460
phone (202) 260-7893
fax: (202) 260-9960
Ken Potts

National Science Foundation

4201 Wilson Boulevard
Room 725

Arlington. VA 22230
phone: (703) 306-1587
fax: (703) 306-0390
Dr. Phillip Taylor

States and Territories

America Samoa

America Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency

American Samoa Government
Pago Pago, AS 96799
phone: 011-684-633-2304
fax: 011-684-633-4195
Sheila Wigman


Coastal Resources Management
Department of Lands & Natural Resources

Caller Box 10007
2nd Floor Morgan Bldg., San Jose
Saipan. Mariana Islands 96950
phone: 01-.670-234-6623
John Furey


Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Marine Resources

2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
phone: (904) 488-6058
Jennifer Wheaton

Guam Coastal Management Progam

PO Box 2950
Agana, Guam 96910
phone: 01-.671-472-4201
fax: 011-671-477-1812
Mike Ham


Aquatic Resources Division

Department of Land & Natural Resources

1151 Punchbowl Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

phone. (808) 587-0094

fax. (808) 587-0115

Francis Oislu

Puerto Rico

Coastal Zone Management Department
Department of Natural Resources

Puerta de Tierra Station
San Juan, PR 00906
Dr. Julio Cardona


Texas General Land Office
Coastal Management Division

1700 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
phone: (512) 475-1394
fax: (512) 475-0680

Virgin Islands

Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Zone Management

Nasky Center
Suite 231

St. Thomas, USVI 00802
phone. (809) 774-3320
Sue Higgins, Senior Planner

Other Government Organizations

Organization of American States

Department of Regional Development
1889 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dr Kirk Rogers, Director

American Flag Pacific Islands Coral Reef Initiatve
Management Program

Pacific Basin Development Council
711 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1075
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813



Dr. James Battey, President

Association of Marine Laboratories of the Caribbean

#2 John Brewers Bay

St. Thomas.. USVI 00802-9990

phone: (809) 693-1381

fax. (809) 693-1385

Dr. Charles Birkeland

University of Guam
Marine Laboratory
Mangilao, GU 96923
phone: (671) 734-2421
fax (671) 734-3118

Dr. James Bohnsack

Southeast Fisheries Center
Miami Laboratory
75 Virginia Beach Drive
Miami, FL 33149
phone: (305) 361-4252
fax: (305) 361-4219

Dr. Robert Buddemeier

University of Kansas

Kansas Geological Survey

1930 Constant Avenue, Campus West

Lawrence, KS 66047-2598

phone: (913) 864-3965

fax: (913) 864-5317

Center for the Study of Marine Policy

Robinson Hall
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone. (302) 831-8086
fax- (302) 831-3668

Dr. George Dennis

Caribbean Marine Research Center
Vero Beach Laboratory
805 East 46th Place
Vero Beach, FL 32963
phone- (407) 234-9931

Dr. Chris D'Elia

University of Maryland
Maryland Sea Grant College
0112 Skinner Hall
College Park, MD 20742
phone- (301) 405-6371
fax (301) 314-9581

Dr. Robert Ginsberg

Division of Marine Geology & Geophysics
University of Miami
phone- (305) 361-4875

Dr. Peter Glynn

University of Miami

Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries
4600 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, FL 33149-1098
phone: (305) 361-4134
fax: (305) 361-4600

Dr. Tom Goreau

324 North Bedford Road
Chappaqua, NY 10514
phone 914.238 8788
fax: (914) 238-8768

Dr. Richard Grigg

University of Hawaii
Department of Oceanography
1000 Pope Road
Honolulu, HI 96822
phone: (808) 948-8626
fax: (808) 956-9225

Porter Hoagland

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Marine Policy Center
Woods Hole, MA 02543
phone: (508) 457-2867
fax (508) 457-2184

Dr. Gregory Hodgson

Coastal Systems Research Limited
c/o Binnie Consultants Limited
11th Floor, New Town Tower
Pak Hok Ting Street, Shatin
New Territories, Hong Konk
fax: 011-852-601-3331

Watershed Management for Corat Reef Ccninwnmes

Final Draft - July 1996

Dr. Cindy Hunter

Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
P.O Box 1346
Kaneohe. HI 96744

Dr. Jeremy Jackson

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Unit 0948, Panama
APOAA 34002-0948
phone 011-507-52-5840
fax: 011-507-28-0516

Walter Japp, Marine Biologist

Marine Research Laboratory

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

100 Eighth Avenue, SE

St Petersburg, FL 33701

phone- (813) 896-8626

Dr. Nancy Knowlton

Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Naos Island Marine Laboratory, Unit 0948
APOAA 34002-0948
phone: 011-507-28-4303
fax: 011-507-28-0516

Francine Lang

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute
1104 Strand Street
Suite 208

Christiansted.l USVI 00820
phone- (809) 773-9854

Dr. Judith Lang

Texas Memorial Museum
2400 Trinity Street
Austin, TX 78705
phone. (512) 471-1604
fax: (512) 471-4794

Dr. Brian Lapointe

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution
Route 3, Box 297-A
Big Pine Key, FL 33043

Dr. James Maragos

Program on Environment
East-West Center
1777 East-West Road
Honolulu, HI 96848
phone. (808) 944-7271
fax: (808) 944-7298

Dr. Michael Marshall, Research Coordinator

Florida Keys Marine Research Center
1600 Thompson Parkway
Sarasota, FL 34236
phone- (813) 388-4441
fax: (813) 388-4312

Dr. Sherwood Maynard, Director

University of Hawaii Marine Option Program
1000 Pope Road
MSB 229

Honolulu, HI 96822
phone: (808) 956-8433
fax: (808) 956-2417

Dr. John McManus

Reefbase Project Leader

International Center for

Living Aquatic Resouces Management

MC P.O. Box 2631

Makati, Metro Manila 0718


phone- 63 2 818.0466
fax. 63-2-816-3183

Dr. Jack Morelock

Department of Marine Sciences
University of Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 908
Lajas, PR 00667

Dr. Pamela Hallock Muller

University of South Florida
Department of Marine Sciences
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5013
phone. (813) 893-9567
fax- (813) 893-9189


Dr. Elliott Norse, Chief Scientist

Dr. James Porter

Center for Marine Conservation

University of Georgia

1725 DeSaies Street,. NW

Department of Zoology

Washington,. DC 20036

Athens, GA 30602

phone: (202) 429-5609

phone. (706) 542-3410

fax (202) 872-0619

fax. (706) 542-4271

John Ogden

Dr. Marjorie Reaka-Kudla


University of Maryland

State of Florida Institute of Oceanography

Department of Zoology

830 First Street

1200 Zoology-Psychology Building

St Petersburg, FL 33712

College Park, MD 20742-4415

phone- (813) 893-9100

phone: (301) 405-6944

fax. (813) 893-9109

fax: (301) 314-9358

Dr. Sharon Ohlhorst

Dr. Robert Richmond

Utah State University

University of Guam

Department of Geography and Earth Resources

Marine Laboratory

Logan, UT 84322-5200

UOG Station

phone- (801) 750-2580

Mangilao, GU 96923

fax: (801) 750-4048

phone- (671) 734-2421

fax: (671) 734-6767

Stephen Olsen

Lynne Hale

Klaus Ruetzler

Coastal Resources Center

Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Program

University of Rhode Island

Smithsonian Institute

Narragansett Bay Campus

National Musuem of Natural History

Narragansett, RI 02882

Invertebrate Zoology

phone- (401) 792-6224


fax. (401) 789-4670

10th and Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20560

Dr. Walter Padilla Pena

phone- (202) 861-2130

Fisheries Research Laboratory

P.O. Box 3665

Yvonne Sadovy, Director

Marina Station

Fisheries Research Laboratory

Mayaguez, PR 00681

Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute

phone: (809) 833-2025

Department of Natural Resources

fax: (809) 833-2410

Mayaguez, PR 00907

Dr. Esther Peters

Dr. Kenneth Sebens

Tetra Tech, Inc.

University of Maryland

10306 Eaton Place. Suite 340

Department of Zoology

Fairfax. VA 22030

College Park, MD 20742

phone (703) 385-6000

phone: (301) 405-7978

fax: (703) 385-6007

fax: (301) 314-9358

Watershed Management for CeraI Reef Com numtizs

Ft?ia! Draft - July 1996


Dr. Steve Smith

University of Hawaii
Department of Oceanography
Honolulu,. HI 96822
phone 808 956 8693
fax (808) 956-9225

Dr. Kathleen Sullivan

University of Miami
Department of Biology
PO. Box 249118
Coral Gables,, FL 33124-0421
phone (305) 284-3013
fax: (305) 284-3039

Dr. Byron Swift

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

1400 16th Street, Suite 502

Washington, DC 20036-2266

phone. (202) 797-5454

fax: (202) 797-5461

Dr. Alina Szmant

University of Miami

RSMAS/BLR Marine Biology and Fisheries

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

phone. (305) 361-4609

fax. (305) 854-4523

Marcia Taylor

Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service

University of the Virgin Islands

RR #2, P.O. Box 10,000

Kingshill, St. Croix

USVI 00850

phone: (809) 778-0246

John Tunnell

Center for Coastal Studies
Texas A&M University
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
phone. (512) 994-2736
fax. (512) 994-2270

Anita van Breda, Program Director

Center for Coastal and Watershed Systems

School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Yale University

301 Prospect Street

New Haven. CT 06511

phone- (203) 432-3026

fax. (203) 432-3817

Dr. Vance Vicente

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SE Fishery Science Center, Caribbean
c/o CFMC, Suite 1108 Banco de Pone
Ehato Rey, PR 00918

Dr. Gerard Wellington

University of Houston
Department of Biology
4800 Calhoun Road
Science and Research 2
Houston, TX 77204-5513
phone- (713) 743-2649
fax: (713) 743-2667

Dr. Sue Wells

World Conservation Monitoring Center
219 Huntington Road
Cambridge, CB3 0DL
phone: 011-044-223-277-314
fax: 011-63-2-816-3183

Dr. Robert Wicklund

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Caribbean Marine Research Center
4905 Indian Draft Road
Covington, VA 24426
phone: (703) 965-3990
fax: (703) 965-3991

Dr. Ernest Williams, Director

Association of Island Marine Laboratories of the Carib-

Department of Marine Sciences
University of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, PR 00709-5000
phone: (809) 899-2048
fax: (809) 899-5500


%.!	"it5"'