Supplement to A Manager's Guide to Coral
Reef Restoration Planning & Design
^USGS
science for a changing world
ฉNCCOS
NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN SCIENCE
ThcNature ftki
Conservancy
Action Plan for Restoration of
Coral Reef Coastal
Protection Services: Case study
example and workbook
ฃ% United States
1*1^/1 Environmental Protection
^1 Agency
EPA/600/R-21/306 February 2022
www.epa.gov/research
-------
EPA/600/R-21/306
Final February 2022
www.epa.gov/research
ACTION PLAN FOR RESTORATION OF CORAL REEF
COASTAL PROTECTION SERVICES:
CASE STUDY EXAMPLE AND WORKBOOK
Supplement to
A Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning & Design
Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Cover Photo Credits:
Working diver/Pheona David, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Coral closeup/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Breaking wave/Curt Storlazzi, U.S. Geological Survey
Preferred Citation:
U.S. EPA. 2022. Action Plan for Restoration of Coral Reef Coastal Protection Services: Case Study Example and Workbook,
Supplement to A Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning & Design. Office of Research and Development, Center
for Public Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-21/306. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/research.
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND DISCLAIMER
This work was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality Assurance (QA)
program for environmental information, with an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, L-HEEAD-
0031309-QP-1-2. Independent QA audits were not deemed necessary; the product was reviewed by QA,
three internal technical reviewers, and three external peer reviewers.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Contractor's role did not include establishing Agency policy.
2
-------
CONTENTS
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND DISCLAIMER 2
CONTENTS 3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 5
PREFACE 6
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7
1 BACKGROUND 8
Introduction to the Guide and Workbook 8
Coastal Protection Services 9
Context for the Hypothetical Case Study 10
2 ACTION PLAN FOR CORAL REEF RESTORATION ON HO'OKOHUKOHU ISLAND 12
Project Description 12
Restoration Goal 13
Sites Selected for Restoration 13
Rationale for Site Selection 15
Ongoing Management 15
Restoration Interventions 16
Objectives and Performance Metrics 18
Activities and Implementation Timeframe 19
Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach 22
3 GUIDE WORKBOOK FOR ACTION PLANNING 23
STEP 1: SET GOAL AND GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS 23
IA. Identify and Prioritize Goals 23
IB. Identify Geographic Focus for Priority Goal 24
IC. Select Goal and Geographic Focus for Restoration Planning and Design 29
STEP 2: IDENTIFY, PRIORTIZE, AND SELECT SITES 30
2A. Identify Potential Restoration Sites 30
2B. Use Framework to Prioritize Sites 32
2C. Final Site Selection 40
STEP 3: IDENTIFY, DESIGN, AND SELECT INTERVENTIONS 42
3A: Brainstorm an Array of Intervention Options 42
3B: Apply Climate-Smart Design Considerations 43
3C: Evaluate & Select Restoration Interventions 53
STEP 4: DEVELOP RESTORATION ACTION PLAN 63
3
-------
4A: Define SMART Objectives 63
4B: Develop Activities and Implementation Timeline 66
4C: Build Action Plan 69
REFERENCES 71
4
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GIS
Geographic Information System
LiDAR
Light Detection and Ranging
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SLR
Sea level rise
SMART
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound
SWAN
Simulating Waves Nearshore
TNC
The Nature Conservancy
UAV
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WAU
Wave Attenuation Unit
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and
Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra
Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific
information and tools to support USEPA's commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural
resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of
sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of
climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are
diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context
can be very challenging.
Coral reefswhich provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and
tourismare threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and
intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution,
overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems.
Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will
enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the
combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts.
The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured
process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager's
Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration
project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration
interventions. The intent is to provide readers with
a completed example of how to use the Guide
workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering
on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning
area of interest in coral reef science and
management communities. The information in this
hypothetical case study is not intended for direct
use; rather, it provides a starting point for more
detailed planning that would occur in specific
places. And while a full review of the current
literature on reef restoration methods is outside
the scope of this report, readers are encouraged
to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide
as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly
growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and
future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action
plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for
adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.
Waves break over a reef in American Samoa.
Credit: Valentine Vaeoso, American Samoa.
6
-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS
The Air, Climate and Energy research program of EPA's Office of Research and Development was
responsible for producing this report. The report was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., under EPA Contract
No. EP-C-17-031. Jordan M. West served as the Task Order Project Officer, providing overall direction
and technical assistance, and was a contributing author.
AUTHORS
Catherine A. Courtney, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Jordan M. West, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Curt D. Storlazzi, U.S. Geological Survey
T. Shay Viehman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Richard Czlapinski, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Erin Hague, Tetra Tech, Inc.
Elizabeth C. Shaver, The Nature Conservancy
INTERNAL REVIEWERS
Olivia Cheriton, U.S. Geological Survey
David Cuevas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Hudson Slay, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
EXTERNAL REVIEWERS
Ryan J. Lowe, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia
William F. Precht, Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc., Miami, Florida
J. Paige Rothenberger, TierraMar Consulting, Fulshear, Texas
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our appreciation for the many colleagues from the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
who contributed valuable insights, suggestions, and feedback throughout the development of this
report. Specifically, we thank the All-Islands Committee, Restoration Working Group and Climate Change
Working Group members for their contributions, as well as the technical teams from American Samoa,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Hawaii whose work was instrumental in
informing this case study. The advice of T. Moore (NOAA) during the planning stages of the project was
also greatly appreciated.
7
-------
1 BACKGROUND
Introduction to the Guide and Workbook
A Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design (the Guide) [1] supports coral reef managers-
together with their partners and stakeholders-in developing restoration projects for coral reefs in their
locations. It describes four key steps to create a Restoration Action Plan that is tailored to the reef area and
management context.1 These steps are illustrated by
the sequential cycle at right, but it should be noted that
the steps are iterative and can inform each other from
any starting point. The four planning steps include:
Step 1: Set Goal & Geographic Focus
Step 2: Identify, Prioritize, & Select Sites
Step 3: Identify, Design, & Select Interventions
Step 4: Develop Restoration Action Plan
The Manager's Guide Workbook (the Workbook) is a
user-friendly companion to the Guide. It provides a
template to document the information used and
decisions made during the four steps of the planning
process in developing a Restoration Action Plan. In the
"Suggested Process" sections within each Guide step,
prompts indicate when to turn to the Workbook to
complete activities with the planning team. The Workbook serves as a reference document for evaluating and
adapting the Restoration Action Plan overtime. It provides a comprehensive record of the information and
assumptions made in developing the Restoration Action Plan and may provide valuable insights as new
information becomes available or underlying assumptions change, allowing for adaptive responses at any point
in the process from goal setting through project implementation.
A key step in the planning process is setting goals for coral reef restoration. Coral reef managers may identify
priority goals such as improving biodiversity or fish habitat. In this case study, the pre-selected goal is improving
coastal protection. Hence, this document presents an example Workbook and Action Plan for a hypothetical
coral reef restoration project, located in the Pacific region, which focuses on the goal of improving the
ecosystem service of coastal protection.
1 Note: Steps 5 and 6 are implementation steps to carry out the Restoration Action Plan and not part of the planning process covered in the Guide or
Workbook.
8
-------
Coastal Protection Services
The degradation of coastal habitats, particularly coral reef ecosystems, increases the exposure of coastal
communities to erosion and flooding [2, 3], Structural complexity in coral reef environments plays a crucial role
in dissipating wave energy and protecting coastlines [4, 5]. High structural complexity results in high hydraulic
roughness and greater frictional dissipation of wave energy when compared to other coastal settings. Lower
frictional dissipation results in larger wave heights in back-reef environments and erosion of the near-shore
zones of tropical reef islands and beaches. Reef crests can dissipate, on average, 86% of the incident wave
energy [6], Reef flats can then dissipate 65% of the remaining wave energy, for a total wave energy reduction of
up to 97% [6],
The bathymetric profile (including during tidal cycles and during high water events such as storm surges) and
rugosity of a reef are critical factors in determining wave attenuation benefits. For this reason, the three-
dimensional complexity, structural integrity,
and health of a reef are paramount in
providing coastal protection services. Coral
reef degradation from land-based runoff,
disease, ship-groundings, and other stressors
results in coral mortality and subsequent
physical and bio-erosion and flattening of the
reef structure [7, 8], whereas healthy reefs
support biogenic production of sediments to
the reef and shoreline [9] In addition, if
vertical reef accretion is unable to keep pace
with the rate of sea level rise, then there will
be even less wave dissipation at the reef crest,
and larger waves will be able to propagate into
reef flat environments [4, 10]. As sea level rise
and other climate change threats make tropical
coastal communities more vulnerable to
shoreline erosion and flooding [5, 11], reef managers are increasingly considering coral reef restoration as an
additional tool for preserving and enhancing coastal protection.
Coral reef restoration for coastal protection is an area of active multi-disciplinary research and development
that will require an array of subject matter experts and the performance of numerous studies and pilot projects
to demonstrate feasibility and proof of concept [12-15]. Interdisciplinary technical expertise in ecology, coastal
geology, oceanography, engineering, and social science can be combined to design a coral reef restoration
project that addresses the goal of reducing wave energy and associated coastal erosion by restoring the
structural complexity of a coral reef environment [16-18]. In the face of climate change, sufficient reef accretion
to keep pace with sea level rise and other challenges may be unlikely in some geographies. Thus, some
communities may want to consider including an engineered option [2] to provide near- and longer-term coastal
protection benefits. While hybrid gray/artificial reef restoration efforts have documented wave attenuation
benefits [19], few projects aimed at restoring natural reefs have done so [19-21].
If one meter of reef is lost, flooding may increase by 23%, impact 62% more
people and 90% more property, and increase damages by $5.3 billion across
the U.S. Credit: Adapted from Reguero et ai. (2021) by J. Kendall-Bar, ฉUCSC.
9
-------
This case study example explores coastal protection as a
restoration planning goal. It is based on a hypothetical island; as
such, it provides a starting point for the more detailed planning
and technical knowledge that would be needed to design a
restoration plan for a specific place. Restoration planning can
include a multidisciplinary team of relevant subject-matter
experts to critically assess the extent of place-based information
and data that may be needed to more comprehensively design a
restoration project for coastal protection services in a specific
geographic location.
Context for the Hypothetical Case Study
This case study example is based on the hypothetical Island of Ho'okohukohu, pictured below. The island is
about 50 km in diameter with about 200 km of shoreline. Ho'okohukohu is a volcanic high island located in the
central North Pacific. The island's terrestrial landscape is dominated by mountain ranges and comprised of many
watersheds, large and small. Northeast trade winds deliver moisture to the northeastern side of the island,
making it the wettest side of the island. Rivers and streams empty into nearshore coastal waters, although many
have been channelized and paved to protect properties from stormwater runoff.
A reef protects a populated coast.
Credit: U.S. Geological Survey. Public Domain.
m
North Shore
Leeward Coast
Ho'okohukohu
Island
Windward Coast
Estuary
South Shore
Fringing Reef
10 km
~ ซ
Coral reefs are the dominant nearshore habitat around the island. These reefs take different forms depending
on their degree of exposure to large open-ocean swells and trade winds that influence the structure and nature
of the ecosystem. Along the windward (east, trade-wind dominated) coast, reef crest and reef flat environments
are important habitats that reduce wave energy reaching the shoreline. Reef flat environments serve as
10
-------
nurseries for reef fish and support subsistence and recreational fishing. Cora! reefs around the south shore of
the island grow on an extensive submarine shelf that extends offshore to depths of about 30 m before dropping
off steeply to the seafloor. These reefs provide some level of coastal protection, as well as recreational uses. On
the leeward coast, fringing reefs close to shore extend to depths of 30 m, dropping off rapidly close to shore.
The north shore is a high wave-energy environment resulting from seasonal extratropical storms. The coral reefs
along the north shore are composed of encrusting and lobate corals typical of high wave-energy environments.
The south shore is particularly exposed to high waves and coastal flooding from periodic tropical cyclones.
Estuaries and bays exist along the windward and south shores of the island.
Human uses of the coastal environment vary around the
island. The windward coast is mostly rural, dominated
by residential, agricultural, subsistence fishing, and
ocean recreational uses, such as surfing, swimming, and
fishing. The coastal highway connecting the south and
north shores is an important scenic drive for tourists as
well as a lifeline for residents to travel to employment
and medical facilities located on the south shore. The
south shore is highly urbanized and dominated by
tourism development and use. The leeward coast is
characterized by sparse residential and agricultural land
uses. The north shore is predominantly rural with some
agriculture, tourism, and surfing.
Land-based runoff contributes significant sediment, nutrient, and contaminant runoff to coastal waters,
although ongoing management efforts are reducing this threat. The island's dense population and commercial
infrastructure along the south coast contribute to the runoff. Agriculture and the prevalence of invasive plant
and animal species in forested upland areas results in increased erosion and soil loss, especially along the
windward (east) coast of the island. Sedimentation, nutrient and pollutant loadings promote coral disease and
bleaching, resulting in degraded coral reefs [22, 23]. A review of coral reefs in turbid water environments
suggests that coral reefs exposed to moderate levels of turbidity may be more resilient to climate change
impacts [24, 25].
Management efforts to preserve the various ecosystem services provided by coral reefs are increasing,
especially for land-based sources of stress. Extensive efforts to remove terrestrial invasive species, especially
ungulates, and replant native species in forested areas are helping to decrease soil erosion and improve
nearshore water quality. Greater emphasis is needed, however, on nearshore fisheries management. New rules
are needed to reduce overfishing, especially of herbivorous fish. Enforcement is underfunded and lacks human
resource capacity.
Climate change has diminished the strength of the prevailing trade winds, and as a result has decreased the
amount of annual rainfall needed to maintain the drinking water aquifer and support riverine and estuarine
systems. Island-wide bleaching events have occurred, especially along the windward coast and south shore,
resulting in localized coral mortalities. Incidences of coral recovery have been documented, but only along the
windward coast. Coastal erosion is occurring over approximately 80 percent of the shoreline. Flooding events
caused by large waves, King Tides, and/or severe storms occur annually, impacting beaches, properties, and
A road affected by coastal flooding.
Credit: Peter Swarzenski, U.S. Geological Survey. Public domain.
11
-------
infrastructure. These and other coastal hazards are exacerbated by sea level rise. Climate change adaptation
plans are being developed for coastal roads. New rules are being put into place to restrict shoreline armoring
and increase coastal construction setbacks. Without reducing such sources of coral stress and mortality at sites
slated for restoration, coral reef restoration efforts will generally fail [26],
In this hypothetical example of a restoration planning and design process, a Core Planning Team composed of
government and nongovernmental reef managers, scientists, and practitioners was established to work through
the four planning steps of A Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. Due to the highly
technical nature of the restoration goal and interventions, a Technical Advisory Group composed of subject
matter experts in watershed management, social science, economics, reef ecology, coastal geology, coastal
engineering, and physical and chemical oceanography was also formed to support the Core Planning Team's
specific needs during the planning process. Outreach to community stakeholders was conducted during planning
and design, specifically to gauge community interest in restoration and to identify potential restoration sites. Six
months were allocated to complete the Workbook planning process and create a Restoration Action Plan. The
Restoration Action Plan was designed to be submitted as part of a grant proposal to the government for funding.
The completed Restoration Action Plan is presented in Section 2 below. This is followed in Section 3 by the full
Workbook that was used to record the step-by-step, detailed thought process and assembled information used
to generate the Restoration Action Plan.
2 ACTION PLAN FOR CORAL REEF RESTORATION ON
HO'OKOHUKOHU ISLAND
Note: The following Restoration Action Plan is structured according to the Action Plan Template
provided in A Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design [1]. A fillable version of
the template is available for download at:
https://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/restoration guide/welcome.html.
Project Description
October 2021
This project will focus on restoring coastal protection services provided by coral reefs on the reef flat
and upper reef crest at Fisher's Reef along the windward coast of the Island of Ho'okohukohu. The reef
crest, fore reef, and reef flat play significant roles in reducing wave energy and coastal erosion in island
environments. Coral reef restoration will address the impacts of coral bleaching and storms that have
reduced the hydrodynamic roughness of the site, which is a critical factor in wave attenuation. In
addition to providing added protection to the coastal highway and properties in the area, the project will
improve fish habitat in an area where recreational and subsistence fishing are important.
12
-------
Corals will be propagated in situ at North Bay Reef and outplanted on Fisher's Reef on both existing
substrate and wave attenuation units (WAUs). The installation of WAUs is deemed necessary to
achieve the goal of wave energy reduction within a timeframe of 15 years and to keep up with rising
sea level. The nursery at North Bay Reef provides variable water conditions including temperature,
salinity, and water quality that are ideal for acclimatizing corals to coral bleaching and other stressors
This Action Plan was developed by a Core Planning Team together with significant input from a
Technical Advisory Group and stakeholders at the project sites.
Restoration Goal
The goal selected for this restoration action plan
is: Within 15 years, restored reef structure
reduces wave energy that contributes to
coastal erosion, thereby strengthening the
resilience of coastal communities to sea level
rise and increasingly intense storms.
A crashing wave in Hawaii
Credit: Michele Reynolds, U.S. Geological Survey.
Public domain.
Sites Selected for Restoration
Below is a brief description of the priority site(s) selected for restoration intervention based on each
site's relevance to the restoration goal, potential for condition improvement, projected future exposures
to large wave events, ecological resilience and processes, and human impacts. Out of six sites
originally considered, the final priority sites selected were Site #2, Fisher's Reef and Site #3, North Bay
Reef, windward coast (see map below).
13
-------
North Shore
Fisher's Reef
Leeward Coast
Ho'okohukohu
Island
Windward Coast
North Bay Reef
Estuary
South Shore
10 km
Fringing Reef
~
~
Fisher's Reef: Windward Coast - Restoration Site
Relevance to Restoration Goal: intact reef crest and wide reef flat provide highly effective
protection to the adjacent shoreline
Potential for Condition Improvement: High potential for restoration to stabilize/improve coral
cover and structure that was lost primarily from recent bleaching events
Future Exposure: Experiences large waves, but intact reef crest and wide reef flat dampen wave
energy
Ecological Resilience and Processes: Documented cases of some coral species recovering
from anomalously high temperatures and thermal bleaching
Human Impacts: Area is heavily fished using pole and line and spearguns
North Bay Reef, Windward Coast - In situ Nursery Site
Relevance to Restoration Goal: Reef crest and reef fiat provide coastal protection for nursery
site that will supply corals for outplanting to restoration site
Potential to improve Condition: Not applicable: site will serve as a nursery that supplies corals
for improvement of condition at the restoration site
Future Exposure: Experiences large waves, but intact reef crest and wide reef flat dampen wave
energy that wraps around the reef and enters the bay
14
-------
Ecological Resilience
" v * >. I
and Processes: Corals
experience high variability
in temperature, turbidity,
and sometimes salinity due
to watershed and adjacent
estuarine environments,
which helps acclimatize
corals and make them
more resilient to
perturbations; corals at this
/ %v.
site have had limited
bleaching, and corals that
were bleached recovered
A diver monitors coral bleaching. Credit: Margaux Hein.
Human Impacts: There are some recreational uses including picnicking and fishing at the beach
park adjacent to reef; a primary impact to the reef is intermittent soil runoff and sedimentation from
the adjacent watershed, which is exacerbated by invasive plants and ungulates
Rationale for Site Selection
The rationale behind selecting these sites as the highest priority includes:
Fisher's Reef has the highest potential for restoration to stabilize/improve coral cover and structure that
has been lost primarily from recent bleaching events. The reef area is important for recreational and
subsistence fishing, as well as coastal protection.
North Bay Reef was identified as an in situ nursery site. Corals at this site have had limited bleaching,
and corals that were bleached recovered. The reef area is important because it is adjacent to an
embayment with estuarine habitat that serves as a nursery ground for fish, as well as coastal
protection. Corals experience variable environmental conditions, which helps acclimatize corals and
make them more resilient to perturbations.
Ongoing Management
The management actions and regulations already in place at these sites are:
While some overfishing occurs at Fisher's Reef, especially of herbivores, new herbivore regulations are
being established.
North Bay Reef has some soil runoff to nearshore waters, but the runoff is mostly transported south
and dissipated. Watershed management to reduce soii erosion is being implemented.
15
-------
Restoration Interventions
Below is a description of the planned climate-smart restoration interventions at each priority restoration
site:
Site #2, Fisher's Reef - Restoration Site
Site #3, North Bay Reef - Nursery Site
Selected Intervention(s): After evaluating a full array of options, it was determined that a hybrid
green-gray restoration intervention would be needed to achieve the goal within 15 years. This
intervention includes asexual propagation of structure-building corals in a field nursery and outplanting
onto existing reef structure and wave attenuation units (WAUs). Sea urchins raised in a land-based
nursery will be outplanted to both prepare and maintain the site against algal overgrowth. In addition,
due to the potential for overfishing, especially of herbivorous fish, the project will pursue other
herbivore management interventions such as place-based protection (e.g., herbivore replenishment
areas), fishing gear restrictions and size limits, and other new regulations. This green-gray restoration
intervention will focus on Fisher's Reef. The North Bay Reef site will be used as a nursery for in situ
coral propagation.
Propagation. Structure-building corals will be
propagated in the field nursery. Branching coral
Pocillopora meandrina and boulder coral Pontes lobata
will be used because they will create the most friction
on the reef flat while also being more resistant to
bleaching and robust against high wave energy. Coral
fragments will be obtained from sites outside the
restoration site that have sufficient numbers for
collection. Corals will be collected from sites that have
experienced past bleaching events such that corals are
more likely acclimatized or have genes for increased
stress tolerance. A nursery site suitability study
identified North Bay Reef as not only a source of corals
but also a suitable site for a field nursery. Coral
fragments will be collected from "corals of opportunity"
that are already broken, or as small fragments
harvested from intact donor colonies. Fragments will
be collected from at least 5 m apart to maximize the
likelihood of including as many genotypes as possible.
Corals showing indications of disease or stress will be
avoided. Asexual fragmentation will be followed by
grow-out in two field nurseries along the windward
coast. In addition to North Bay Reef, another field
nursery will be planned and established to reduce the
risk of loss from unanticipated events at a single site.
Branching coral fragments will be attached directly to
coral trees for propagation using CoralClips [27].
Fragments of boulder corals will be epoxied to plates and attached to the coral tree. The coral tree
propagation method will enable corals to be vertically adjusted or shaded as needed for acclimatization
and lowered in case of storms. The field nursery is exposed to a range of temperatures, water quality
conditions, and wave energy, which is expected to engender more resilient corals for outplanting.
Outplanting Techniques. Propagated branching and boulder coral fragments will be outplanted on
existing reef structure and WAUs using the best available techniques (e.g., CoralClips and epoxy) for
which multiple options will be field-tested during the pilot phase. Adjustments will be made in the event
16
A coral tree nursery in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Credit: Pheona David,
Division of Coastal Resources Management, CNMI.
-------
of high failure rates to ensure that the
outplanfed corals withstand existing and
future wave conditions and sea level rise.
A diver works with outplanted corals in Guam. Credit: Whitney
Hoot, Guam Corai Reef initiative.
WAUs will incorporate biologically friendly
materials, such as pH-neutral concrete or
lightweight concrete with an organic matter
matrix to accelerate biological colonization.
WAU stabilization will be enhanced with the
installation of scour blankets to reduce
potential scouring effects. Multiple technical
guidance documents [21, 28] and expertise
will be consulted to identify WAU prototypes
for pilot testing to evaluate their propensity to
support natural recruitment, withstand severe
wave events, and improve fish habitat as a
co-benefit of the restoration intervention.
Outplanting Configuration. The number and configuration of WAUs will be based on the results of
wave modeling using programs such as XBeach, SWAN, and Delft3D [5, 11, 29], These programs are
typically appropriate for the scale of most reef projects to determine optimal siting and alignment of
WAUs along the width and length of the site in areas with the greatest potential to minimize erosion
along the shoreline under existing and future conditions, including sea level rise and increasingly
severe storm events. The configuration of corals outplanted to existing reef areas will be based on both
the configuration of WAUs determined through wave modeling and baseline studies of coral
demography and reef structure. Corals will be outplanted on
the reef flat in areas of the site where additional structural
complexity could prove beneficial to wave energy reduction and
in multiple locations and at different depths within the site to
account for sea level rise and spread the risk of impacts from
potential bleaching events. A rapid response plan will be
created for repair or replacement of structures after storms.
inputs increase algal growth in the future. Sea urchins will be
outplanted at appropriate densities to the restoration site from
an existing land-based laboratory that is resistant to hurricane
force winds and has a back-up power generator. Natural
urchin species and densities will first be assessed on other
reefs to determine how many urchins are needed to support
algae removal at the restoration site. A rapid response plan
will be put into place for replenishment of urchins lost at high
rates due to factors such as disease, predation, and
temperature extremes. Other herbivore management efforts,
such as place-based protection, gear restrictions, and size
limits, will be pursued to diversify herbivore biomass at the Hatchery-raised urchins on a reef in Hawaii,
restoration site; this will help address uncertainty in impacts of credit; Kyle Rothenborg, Hawaii,
climate change on urchins and other herbivores and the
macroalgae they consume. Different functional groups of herbivorous fish (e.g., scarids, acanthurids,
kyphosids) will be needed to support reef growth and recruitment.
An artificial reef structure colonized by
corals. Credit: Boze Hancock.
Site Preparation and Maintenance. Removal of macroalgae
by hand or mechanical means may be required at the nursery
site to protect propagated corals and at the restoration site to
protect coral outplants and recruits. Algae removal frequency
may have to be increased if rising ocean temperatures and/or
increased nutrient
17
-------
Objectives and Performance Metrics
The specific objectives and performance metrics that will be used to assess project progress are as follows.
Objective 1: Within 5 years, 250 fragments each of branching coral Pocillopora meandrina and boulder coral
Pontes lobata have been preconditioned in a field nursery and outplanted with 50% survival on existing reef
structure and WAU prototypes to demonstrate proof of concept.
Number of WAU prototypes created and deployed at Fisher's
Reef (Site 2)
Number and % survival of corals propagated in nurseries (Site 3)
and outplanted on WAU prototypes (Site 2)
Number and density of urchins outplanted at Fisher's Reef
Number of corals recruited on WAU prototypes
Universal metrics [12]:
o Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean temperature
(nursery and outplanting sites)
o Restored reef areal dimension: outpiant plot and
ecological footprint (baseline)
o Population metrics: mean coral size, abundance, size-frequency distribution (baseline)
Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean total suspended solids, salinity, and temperature (Site 3) [12]
Objective 2: Within 3 years, the wave energy reduction goal and outplanting configuration needed to achieve
that goal are determined via models, and the results peer-reviewed.
Baseline physical characteristics of the restoration site established, including wave energy, bathymetry,
geology, geotechnical conditions, and wave climate
Modeling of the existing and proposed reef configuration for different wave energy reduction goals
completed
Wave energy reduction goal and WAU configuration established for the restoration site
Objective 3: Within 10 years, wave energy is reduced by 50%,
and restored reef areal dimension expands naturally by an
additional 30% after reef restoration.
Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include
universal metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outpiant plot and
ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height,
abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reef structure and complexity: Mean height of corals
and reef structure at a restoration site
Reduced wave energy
The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function of wave height, will be determined as the ratio
of the wave energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on the seaward side. Bottom mounted
pressure sensors or wave buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the wave height and period.
Estimated wave energy reduction goals for the restored reef will be reviewed and validated based on
modeling:
25% reduction in wave energy 5 years after reef restoration
50% reduction in wave energy 10 years after reef restoration
An outplanted coral in Guam. Credit: Whitney
Hoot, Guam Cora! Reef Initiative.
Waves break on an artificial reef structure.
Credit: Steve Schiii, The Nature Conservancy.
18
-------
Objective 4: Within 15 years, wave energy is reduced by 90%, the restored reef areal dimension is maintained,
and natural reef build-up continues after reef restoration.
Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height, abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reef structure and complexity: Mean height of corals and reef structure at a restoration site
Reduced wave energy
The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function of wave height, will be determined as the ratio
of the wave energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on the seaward side. Bottom mounted
pressure sensors or wave buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the wave height and period.
Estimated wave energy reduction goals will be reviewed and validated based on modeling:
90% reduction in wave energy within 15 years of reef restoration
Activities and Implementation Timeframe
Restoration Goal: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby
strengthening the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Objective 1: Within 5 years, 250 fragments each of branching coral Pocillopora meandrina and boulder coral Pontes lobata have been
preconditioned in a field nursery and outplanted with 50% survival on existing reef structure and WAU prototypes to demonstrate proof
of concept.
Performance Metrics:
Number of WAU prototypes created and deployed at Fisher's Reef (Site 2)
Number and % survival of corals propagated in nurseries (Site 3) and outplanted on WAU prototypes and existing reef structure
(Site 2)
Number and density of urchins outplanted at Fisher's Reef
Number of corals recruited on WAU prototypes
Universal Metrics [12]:
o Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean temperature (nursery and outplanting sites)
o Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint (baseline)
o Population metrics: mean coral size, abundance, size-frequency distribution (baseline)
Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean total suspended solids, salinity, and temperature (nursery site)
Activities
Timeframe
1.1
Establish a Coral Propagation and Outplanting Pilot Study Working Group with a lead and experts in
coral ecology, biology, and artificial reef structures, such as coastal engineers, to develop a detailed
design and work plan for the pilot phase that includes implementation of the pilot phase
Year 1 - 5
1.2
For restoration sites, conduct baseline survey of population metrics (mean coral size, abundance,
size-frequency distribution)
Year 1
1.3
Establish location, number, configuration, and size of outplant plots for pilot studies
Year 1
1.4
Monitor temperature and water quality at the restoration site as well as the field nursery to document
the pre-conditioning environment
Year 1 - 5
1.5
Develop propagation and outplanting protocols
Year 1
1.6
Obtain permits for field activities
Year 1
1.7
Outplant sea urchins from land-based nursery and monitor survival
Year 2
19
-------
Establish in situ nursery and develop and test propagation protocol
Year 1 - 2
1.9
Develop and test WAU prototypes with and without outplanted corals
Year 2-3
1.10
Outplant corals and monitor coral outplant survival
Year 3-5
1.11
Conduct peer review of the pilot study and
make any adjustments in coral species,
propagation and outplanting techniques,
and WAU designs based on Activity 2.7
Scientists prepare corai fragments for
attachment to nursery trees. Credit: Pheona
David, Division of Coastal Resources
Management, CNML
Year 5
Objective 2: Within 3 years, the wave energy reduction goal and outplanting configuration needed to achieve that goal are determined
via models, and the results peer-reviewed.
Performance Metrics:
ฎ Baseline physical characteristics of the restoration site documented including wave energy, bathymetry, geology, geotechnical
conditions, and wave climate
Modeling of the existing and proposed reef configuration for different wave energy reduction goals completed
Wave energy reduction goal and WAU configuration established for the restoration site
Activities
Timeframe
2.1
Establish a Coastal Processes Pilot Study Working Group with relevant experts to create a detailed
work plan
Year 1-3
2.2
Prepare detailed work plan to develop model wave energy reduction scenarios for outplanting corals
on existing structures and WAUs
Year 2
2.3
Conduct baseline mapping of reef geometry at the restoration site (e.g., height, structural complexity)
using the best available technology such as high resolution airborne topo/bathymetric LiDAR or UAV
imagery
Year 1 - 2
2.4
Conduct baseline monitoring of wave energy across the restoration site using instrumentation (e.g.,
bottom-mounted pressure sensors or wave buoys) and methods that can be repeated over time
Year 1 - 2
2.5
Conduct hydrodynamic modeling to simulate different configurations and combinations of coral
outplants and WAUs to establish feasible wave energy reduction goals for restoration
Year 2
2.6
Develop and test WAU prototypes with and without outplanted corals
Year 2-3
2.7
Conduct peer review of the results of the modeling and make any adjustments to outplanting
configurations and WAU designs
Year 4
Objective 3: Within 10 years, wave energy is reduced by 50%, and restored reef areal dimension expands naturally by an additional
30% after reef restoration.
Performance Metrics: Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint
20
-------
Population metrics: mean coral size, height, abundance, size-
frequency distribution
Reef structure and complexity: mean height of corals and reef
structure at a restoration site
Reduced wave energy: The percent reduction in wave energy,
measured as a function of wave height, will be determined as
the ratio of the wave energy landward of the restored reef to the
wave energy on the seaward side. Bottom mounted pressure
sensors or wave buoys will be used for short periods of time to
measure the wave heights. Wave energy is measured by wave
height and period. Estimated wave energy reduction goals will
be reviewed and validated based on baseline assessment and
modeling conducted under Objective 2:
o 25% reduction in wave energy 5 years after reef
restoration
o 50% reduction in wave energy 10 years after reef restoratior
-5* ^
\ researcher collects monitoring data on a reef in American
iamoa. Credit: Valentine Vaeoso, American Samoa.
Activities
Timeframe
3.1
Review and refine the Restoration Action Plan, adjusting SMART objectives and metrics and activities
as needed based on results of pilot phases
Year 5
3.2
Refine propagation and outplanting protocol and schedule
Year 5
3.3
Develop long-term restoration monitoring and evaluation plan
Year 5
3.4
Update existing or obtain new permits for field activities
Year 5
3.5
Scale-up nursery operations
Year 6 - ongoing
3.6
Scale-up outplanting operations
Year 6 - ongoing
3.7
Monitor reef geometry at the restoration site (e.g., height, structural complexity) using baseline
assessment methodology (see Activity 2.3) to compare to baseline images collected in Year 1
Year 6, 8, and 10
3.8
Implement long-term restoration monitoring and evaluation plan
Year 6 - ongoing
3.9
Conduct peer review of restoration operations and results
Bi-Annual
Objective 4: Within 15 years, wave energy is reduced by 90%, the restored reef areal dimension is maintained, and natural reef build-
up continues after reef restoration.
Performance Metrics: Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height, abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reef structure and complexity: mean height of corals and reef structure at a restoration site
Reduced wave energy: The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function of wave height, will be determined as
the ratio of the wave energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on the seaward side. Bottom mounted pressure
sensors or wave buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the wave height and period. Estimated wave energy
reduction goals will be reviewed and validated based on baseline assessment and modeling conducted under Objective 2:
o 90% reduction in wave energy within 15 years of reef restoration
Activities
Timeframe
4.1
Implement long-term restoration monitoring and evaluation plan
Years 11-15
4.2
Maintain and replace damaged WAUs as needed after severe storm events
Years 11-15
4.3
Maintain outplanting activities to replace corals lost from severe storm events and bleaching
Years 11-15
4.4
Maintain algae removal and urchin outplanting as needed
Years 11-15
21
-------
Stakeholder Engagement and Outreach
The Ho'okohukohu Coral Reef Restoration Action Plan will be disseminated to local stakeholders (e.g., decision makers,
natural resource managers, researchers, interested community members) through one or more presentations. These
sessions will likely be a combination of in-person and virtual. A one-page executive summary will be developed and shared
with high level decision makers (e.g., Office of the Governor, members of the legislature and their staff). The document will be
made publicly available online. In addition, two Pilot Study Working Groups will be established to conduct literature review
and develop a detailed design of the pilot studies and modeling for Objectives 1 and 2. These groups will regularly meet and
share information, progress, and insights on restoration design and implementation that will be used to update the Action
Plan. The results of the pilot phase and modeling studies will be presented to communities and key stakeholder groups.
Education and outreach activities will be conducted to foster and maintain support for coral restoration and herbivore
management. Educational presentations and materials on the restoration project will be prepared and communicated to
students, particularly in target communities.
A snorkeler dives under a breaking wave on the reef crest at Palmyra Atoii. Credit: Tim Calver.
22
-------
3 GUIDE WORKBOOK FOR ACTION PLANNING
Note: The following completed Workbook is structured according to the Workbook Template provided in A
Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design [1], A fillable version of the template is available
for download at: https://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/restoration guide/welcome.html. Footnotes are used
where explanation of case study context is needed. Some repetition of information occurs in the Workbook
because it is an instrument for breaking a complex thought process into manageable pieces; as such, each step
refines and builds upon information drawn from the previous step.
STEP 1: SET GOAL AND GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS
1A. Identify and Prioritize Goals
List and describe the priority goals for your management area. Summarize the process and decisions made in generating the
list of goals.2
Priority restoration goals (in order of priority):
1. Recover coastal protection services (e.g., reduce coastal erosion, protect coastal infrastructure)
2. Recover fisheries productivity and habitat connectivity (e.g., restore fish habitat at different locations/depths)
3. Build capacity of technical and human resources (e.g., response protocols, nursery capacity, nursery manager,
response team) to respond to acute disturbances (e.g., storms, ship strikes)
4. Support local tourism (e.g., economies, aesthetics)
5. Reestablish a self-sustaining reef system (e.g., focus on foundational species)
6. Recover or manage endangered species (e.g., restore rare coral species or corals on which endangered species
depend)
7. Engage local communities to build reef stewardship (e.g., education, capacity building)
Summary of Process: The Core Planning Team initiated the goal setting process and developed an initial list of priority
restoration goals. The Core Planning Team then conducted a virtual webinar with the Technical Advisory Group of experts
and other stakeholders to vet the list and discuss prioritization. Through this process, the seven general goals were identified
and prioritized.
2 During this brainstorming Step 1 A, some jurisdictions detailed the rationale for each goal and began to indicate sites where each goal was most
appropriate. This information can be helpful in Step 1B to identify the geographic focus for each goal and to define the management and biophysical
context of these geographies. However, the identification of specific sites should not be determined too early in the process, and all potential sites should
be evaluated in Step 2.
23
-------
Rewrite your priority goals using the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) approach.
Summarize the key problems addressed by each goal and the process used to generate the details of these goals. We
suggest working with up to three priority goals as a starting point.3
SMART GOALS
Key problems addressed by this goal
Goal 1: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces
wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby
strengthening the resilience of coastal communities to sea
level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Coral reef structure has been lost due to coral bleaching
and severe storm events, resulting in reduced wave
attenuation that provides coastal protection services
Loss of coral reef structure results in coastal erosion
and exposure to coastal flooding during storms,
threatening critical infrastructure and residential
properties and causing loss of beaches
Coastal erosion is exacerbated by shoreline armoring,
sea level rise, and extreme storm events
Summary of Process: Each priority restoration goal was refined to reflect specific, place-based problems that the goal is
intended to address and medium to long-term desired ecological or social condition, including the level of recovery sought.
The Core Planning Team and Technical Advisory Group met to identify three priority goals, and one goal was selected to
move forward with planning. Priority goal 1 was selected and refined to address SMART criteria. The goal of coastal
protection was made more specific by identifying the various issues that needed to be addressed by coral reef restoration.
The goal is relevant to reef restoration priorities, focuses on a measurable parameter (reducing wave energy), and
establishes a 15-year time horizon. This 15-year period was based on the current technical capacity for implementing pilot
projects and likely need for studies to design the restoration intervention recognized by the Core Planning Team and
Technical Advisory Group. The Core Planning Team acknowledged that the goal might be further refined later in the planning
process or even through early stages of implementation when gaps in knowledge, such as the degree to which wave energy
can be reduced, are filled.
1B. Identify Geographic Focus for Priority Goal
Describe and provide a labeled map of the geographic focus area(s) for each priority goal. Provide notes about the
functionality and benefits, and management and biophysical context. Then, summarize the process used or experts consulted
for this work.4
Goal 1: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby
strengthening the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Geographic Focus: Round 1 - Functionality and Benefits
What areas currently or in the recent past have performed functions that are relevant to the goal?
What areas are currently experiencing the problems that the goal seeks to address?
Within these areas, where could reef restoration provide social and ecological benefits?
3 The Guide instructs the reader to retain approximately three goals until the selection of one priority goal in Step 1C. Goal 1- restoration of coastal
protection services - was selected for this Workbook example; thus, for brevity, only the description of this priority goal (which usually would be selected in
Step 1C) is shown here. Developing SMART Goals was one of the initial challenging tasks encountered by jurisdictional partners. As described in the
Guide, a goal is a medium- to long-term statement that details the desired impact to achieve by conducting a restoration intervention. A common pitfall is
to develop a goal statement that defines success as a pilot project or building capacity to conduct restoration. As you will see in this example in Step 4,
objectives are crafted under the goal to define the specific outcomes of these types of activities.
4 Geographic focus areas are large areas where multiple potential restoration sites may be located. It is important at this stage to identify geographic focus
areas for each goal and describe the management and biophysical context from a larger landscape and seascape perspective. Also note that only one
priority goal has been fully developed for this Workbook Example. You would repeat this process for each of your priority goals (up to 3).
24
-------
1) What areas currently or
in the recent past have
performed functions that
are relevant to
the goal?
The windward coast and south shore have historically provided the greatest coastal
protection services around the island. The reef crest and wide reef flat along the windward
coast provide protection from annual high wave events and storms. The leeward coast is
characterized by a narrower reef flat that is closer to the shoreline and an extensive forereef
that gradually extends to depth of 30 m before dropping off to great depths.
2) What areas are currently
experiencing the problems
that the goal seeks to
address?
All shorelines around the island are experiencing coastal erosion during annual large wave
events, King Tide events, and tropical storms exacerbated by sea level rise. Projected future
erosion rates are accelerating, with an intermediate-high scenario of four feet of sea level rise
by 2075. The south shore is particularly exposed to large waves and coastal flooding from
tropical cyclones. The north shore is a high wave energy environment resulting from seasonal
extratropical storms.
3) Within these areas,
where could reef
restoration provide social
and ecological benefits?
The windward coast has a coastal highway that connects the northern and southern portions
of the island, which is used by both residents and tourists alike. Recreational and subsistence
fishing provide important benefits to the community. Reefs and adjacent estuarine
environments provide fish habitat and serve as nursery grounds for fish species that are
important for recreational and subsistence use. The south shore is the economic engine for
the island and is where the majority of tourism infrastructure is located.
Tropical cyclones affect coral reefs throughout the Pacific. Credit: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
25
-------
GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS AREAS
Description and Map. Two geographic focus areas along the eastern and southern shorelines of the island were identified as most relevant to the goal. These areas were
identified because coral reefs have historically provided coastal protection services to key public and private infrastructure in these areas. Both areas are experiencing coastal
erosion that is threatening the coastal highway and residential areas (windward coast) and tourism infrastructure (south shore). Bleaching and storm events have resulted in
coral loss in recent years. Increased storm activity and sea level rise are growing concerns as portions of shoreline are eroding, especially along the eastern shoreline.
North Shore
Leeward Coast
o
o
Area currently or in the recent past
performing functions that are
relevant to the goal
Area currently experiencing the
problems thatgoal seeks to address
Area where reef restoration could
provide social and ecological
benefits
Ho'okohukohu
Island
South Shore
A
Windward Coast
Estuary
10 km
ป
26
-------
Geographic Focus: Round 2 - Management and Biophysical Context
What are the greatest management challenges in each area for achieving the restoration goal?
What is the biophysical context in which these challenges will need to be addressed?
What is the likelihood of overcoming these challenges? What are unique opportunities?
Context
Windward Coast
South Shore
Management Context
Land-based pollution
Overfishing
Tourism Overuse
Government Policies &
Programs
The windward (east) coast is mostly rural and dominated by residential and
recreational uses; the coastal highway is an important scenic drive for tourists
as well as a lifeline for residents.
Sediment runoff during heavy rainfall events in upland areas contributes to
degraded water quality in some locations along the coast. Invasive plant and
animal species in upland areas contribute to soil erosion. Watershed
management plans for the area are being implemented to reduce soil runoff to
nearshore waters. The local government is leading the implementation of the
watershed management plan together with nongovernmental partners. Funding
is a key challenge for addressing these impacts.
Subsistence and recreational pole and line fishing occurs from the shoreline.
Overfishing of herbivorous fish species on the reef flat from spearfishing has
resulted in algal overgrowth in many reef areas. Nighttime spearfishing targets
overfished scarids (parrotfish) that are important for maintaining reef substrate
free of macroalgal overgrowth for natural coral recruitment. Regulations to
protect herbivorous fish species from overfishing are weak, and enforcement is
absent. Government is proposing new rules to protect herbivorous fish;
however, greater education and outreach are needed to gain support from
fishers. The establishment of community watch groups is needed to encourage
voluntary compliance with existing and new regulations.
The impacts of tourism on reef structure are minimal along this coast, except in
one location along the southern portion of the coast in an area heavily
frequented by snorkelers. More education and outreach are needed to reduce
impacts of snorkelers on coral reefs.
The south shore is highly urbanized and dominated by
tourism development and use.
Land-based runoff from roads and other impermeable
surfaces enters nearshore waters from storm drains.
Shoreline hardening, such as the construction of
seawalls and revetments, is increasing due to increasing
coastal erosion and limited government policies and
regulations. Coastal erosion exacerbated by sea level
rise is putting greater pressure on regulators to maintain
or expand shoreline hardening in urbanized areas.
Government recently amended coastal zone
management rules, prohibiting any future use of
seawalls and revetments.
Place-based restrictions on fishing are in place through
a marine managed area, but the small size and open
and closed seasons have been found to be largely
ineffective at protecting corals or enabling spillover of
fish to adjacent waters. Fishers are not in favor of
changing to permanent fishing restrictions for this
marine managed area.
Tourism impacts on reef structure are somewhat
mitigated due to the presence of a marine managed
area; however, greater education and outreach are
needed to minimize the impacts of snorkelers.
27
-------
Context
Windward Coast
South Shore
Biophysical Context
Oceariographic processes
Geomorphology
Ecological connectivity
Watersheds and hydrology
Ocean temperature,
bleaching & disease
Ocean acidification
Sea level rise
Storm surge & runoff
The windward (east) coast is dominated by trade wind conditions. Annual high
waves generate substantial wave energy that is largely attenuated by the reef
crest and reef flat.
Sand dunes and marine deposits that accumulated on land during previous
geologic periods could support landward beach migration with sea level rise.
The reef crest and wide reef flats provide protection for the coastal road and
homes along the shoreline despite the emergence of hardened structures, such
as highway and residential areas, which impede the adaptive capacity of the
area for natural shoreline retreat with sea level rise.
Reef flats serve as nurseries for fish that also populate adjacent reef flats and
deeper reefs outside the reef crest.
Multiple watersheds exist along the coast, contributing to runoff to the ocean.
One watershed has an estuarine environment that empties into a bay.
Bleaching events have occurred. Some species have recovered. No area-
specific information on the long-term regional increase in ocean acidification is
available.
The south shore has more variable winds. Annual high
waves generate wave energy that is attenuated
somewhat by the fore reef. This side of the island is
subject to large wave events from tropical cyclones.
Narrow reef flats provide some coastal protection from
wave events. The fore reef extends to depths of 30 m on
a gradually sloping carbonate surface before dropping
off to great depths at the edge of the insular shelf.
Watersheds are highly urbanized, with runoff
channelized and/or part of a storm drain system.
Recent bleaching events have resulted in massive die-
offs of corals. No area-specific information on the long-
term regional increase in ocean acidification is available.
Summary of Process: Members of the Core Planning Team, together with the Technical
Advisory Group and other experts, held a one-day workshop to conduct the two-step process for
identifying geographic focus areas for the priority goal. The participants were divided into three
groups. During Round 1, each group identified geographic areas on maps using different color
pens to address the questions about functionality and benefits. The results of Round 1 were
discussed in a plenary session, and focus areas were further refined. In Round 2, participants
provided information to describe the management and biophysical contexts of each focus area
based on their areas of expertise and knowledge.
Waves break on a reef in American Samoa.
Credit: Katie Nalasere, American Samoa.
28
-------
1C. Select Goal and Geographic Focus for Restoration Planning and
Design
Describe the restoration goal your team selected to continue with for planning and design, as well as the final geographic
focus area(s). Describe the process and rationale used to make this determination.
Goal 1: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby
strengthening the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Geographic Focus: The windward coast, a 30 km stretch of fringing reef, was selected as the geographic focus area for
restoration under this goal. Coastal erosion is prevalent along the entire coast and increasing due to large wave events
exacerbated by sea level rise, shoreline armoring, and loss of corals from bleaching and severe storm events. Coastal
erosion is greater along the southern portion of the windward coast due to tourism and other development close to the water's
edge. Annual high waves are known to flood residential areas and damage sections of the coastal highway. Coastal erosion
along the northern portion of the windward coast is significantly impacting the coastal highway, which is the only connection
between the north and south portions of the island. This highway is regularly flooded by annual high wave events and King
Tides.
Reef substrate and conditions vary along the length of this area. Along the northern portion of the windward coast, the reef flat
is wide and dominated by a hard substrate with lobate and digitate corals. Subsistence and recreational fishing are important
activities along this portion of the area. Along the southern portion of the windward coast, the reef flat is characterized by
loose and cemented rubble-dominated substrate.
All along the windward coast, land-based runoff to nearshore water is fairly well managed, although invasive plant and animal
species contribute to upland soil erosion, especially in the middle of the windward coast where a large watershed and
estuarine area meet the coast. Specific sites for restoration will be identified, evaluated, and selected from the windward coast
in Step 2.
Summary: The Core Planning Team and Technical Advisory Group worked together to identify priority goals and describe the
management and biophysical context for each geographic focus area. The Core Planning Team then integrated information
from stakeholder dialogues. Goal 1 and the windward coast focus area were prioritized for planning and design efforts based
on these inputs and considering the potential for co-benefits. Restoration interventions designed to address Goal 1 have the
potential to also contribute to Goal 2, recover fisheries productivity and habitat connectivity and Goal 3, build technical and
human resource capacity to respond to acute disturbances (e.g., storms, ship strikes), providing an opportunity to achieve
multiple benefits.
fflf Step 1 Stakeholder Engagement
List technical experts, stakeholders, and partners including scientists, engineers, community members, private sector, and
federal and local governments engaged to review and prioritize restoration goals and geographic focus area(s) for this step.
Technical Expertise
Key Stakeholders
Coral reef biologist/coral ecologist
Coastal engineer
Coastal geologist/sedimentologist
Physical oceanographer
Modelers
Climate scientist
Watershed manager
Social scientist
Land use planner
Non-Government
Residents impacted by chronic coastal erosion
Fishing community
Tourism industry representatives
Communities located along the windward coast
Representatives of environmental advocacy groups
Government
Regulatory Agencies (federal, state, and local)
29
-------
Provide a summary of stakeholder engagement activities taken for this step.
The Core Planning Team conducted extensive dialogues with community stakeholders to identify priority goals and
geographic focus areas as part of Step 1. Additional outreach was conducted to communicate decisions and rationale for the
selection of the priority goal and geographic focus area for restoration. In addition, in preparation for site selection (Step 2),
focus group meetings, public meetings, and informal discussions were held with appropriate stakeholders to identify any sites
within the geographic focus areas with possible natural and/or cultural resource considerations or recreational boating safety
issues.
STEP 2: IDENTIFY, PRIORTIZE, AND SELECT SITES
2A. Identify Potential Restoration Sites
List restoration sites within the selected geographic focus being considered for restoration. Document their location and
provide a brief rationale for why the site was selected. Alternately, GIS software can be used to set a grid over the geographic
focus area(s), and your team can determine the reef habitat cell/area size and make a map showing the gridded area and
describing the number of grid cells. 5
Site Name/
Coordinates6
Site
Dimensions7
Rationale8
Management in Effect
Causes of reef degradation
have been identified and
are under effective
management (now or in the
future)
Reef Value is High
Reef provides important
ecosystem services that offer
multiple benefits in addition to the
goal, or has high cultural value
Data Are or Can
Become Available9
Long-term (at least 10
years) monitoring takes
place, data and information
on the site are available or
accessible, or plans and
resources are available to
collect new data
1 - North Point
Reef
Width: 0.2 km
Length: 0.5 km
Depth: 2 - 5 m
Some human impacts on
soil erosion from foot
traffic to reach surf spots.
Reef area is important for
kayaking and surfing during
certain wave conditions, as
well as coastal protection.
Data availability limited,
based on observations
by stakeholders.
2 - Fisher's
Reef
Width: 0.5 km
Length: 1 km
Depth: 2 - 5 m
Some overfishing occurs,
especially of herbivores.
New herbivore
regulations are being
established. Efforts to
clean up marine debris
Reef area is important for
recreational and subsistence
fishing, as well as coastal
protection.
Data available; creel
surveys have been
conducted.
5 The Core Planning Team met to identify potential restoration sites in the geographic focus area.
6 No coordinates are available as these are fictitious locations.
7 For this hypothetical example, the workbook was modified to include approximate site dimensions instead of coordinates. In fact, it is
recommended that site dimensions be included to support Step 4 of the planning process where SMART objectives and performance metrics
are identified and scaled for the site.
8 In the Guide, these three components of rationale are recommended for consideration in selected sites in the geographic focus area. For this
hypothetical example, the workbook was modified to add columns for each rationale to facilitate this review.
9 Information in this column was derived from the analysis conducted in the subsequent Step 2B.
30
-------
Site Name/
Coordinates6
Site
Dimensions7
Rationale8
Management in Effect
Causes of reef degradation
have been identified and
are under effective
management (now or in the
future)
Reef Value is High
Reef provides important
ecosystem services that offer
multiple benefits in addition to the
goal, or has high cultural value
Data Are or Can
Become Available9
Long-term (at least 10
years) monitoring takes
place, data and information
on the site are available or
accessible, or plans and
resources are available to
collect new data
and reduce physical
impacts of destructive
fishing practices is
needed.
3 - North Bay
Reef
Width: 0.5 km
Length: 0.5 km
Depth: 2 - 5 m
There is some soil runoff
to nearshore waters, but
it is mostly transported
south and dissipated.
Watershed management
to reduce soil erosion is
being implemented.
Reef area is important for
being adjacent to embayment
with estuarine habitat that
serves as a nursery ground
for fish, as well as coastal
protection.
Data available from
monthly water quality
monitoring data. A
rainfall gauge is located
in the upper watershed.
4 - South Bay
Reef
Width: 0.5 km
Length: 0,5 km
Depth: 2 - 5 m
Soil runoff to nearshore
waters occurs.
Watershed management
to reduce soil erosion is
being implemented.
Reef area is important for
being adjacent to embayment
with estuarine habitat that
serves as a nursery ground
for fish, as well as coastal
protection.
Data available from
monthly water quality
monitoring data. A
rainfall gauge is located
in the upper watershed.
5 - Snorkeler's
Cove
Width: 0.5 km
Length: 1 km
Depth: 2 - 5 m
Efforts to clean up
marine debris and
reduce physical impacts
from snorkelers are
underway.
Reef area serves as a
snorkeling and recreational
area for residents and
tourists, as well as coastal
protection.
Data available;
recreational use surveys
have quantified level of
use for snorkeling and
observations of physical
impacts.
6 - South Point
Reef
Width: 0.2 km
Length: 0.5 km
Depth: 2 - 5 m
Some human impacts on
soil erosion from foot
traffic to reach surf spots.
Reef area is important for
kayaking and surfing during
certain wave conditions, as
well as coastal protection.
Data availability limited,
based on observations
by stakeholders.
31
-------
#
North Shore
Leeward Coast
Ho'okohukohu
Island
Windward Coast
1
Estuary
South Shore
Fringing Reef
10 km
~ ~
2B. Use Framework to Prioritize Sites
List available datasets applicable to each part of the prioritization framework. Document any data or information that are
missing or need to be collected.10
Framework Part
Available Datasets
Sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
Relevance to Restoration Goal:
To what extent would restoration
at the site help to achieve the set
goal?
Historical shoreline flooding and
erosion
Reef bathymetry and rugosity
Nearshore circulation patterns
Offshore wave climate/significant
wave height
Sea level rise projections
Habitat mapping
10 Available datasets must be reviewed by the discipline experts for quality, data gaps and applicability to the project site. The range of possible
disciplines needed was listed previously in the Step 1 Stakeholder Engagement Process.
32
-------
Framework Part
Potential to Improve Condition:
To what extent will restoration
improve site condition?
Available Datasets
Sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
Benthic surveys
Stormwater outfalls
Septic systems
Future exposure: What is the
likely frequency and severity of
future disturbances?
Bleaching conditions
Disease
Projected (with sea level rise)
shoreline erosion
Rainfall monitoring
Storm frequency, severity, impacts
Resilience/ecoloqical processes:
What is the capacity of the site
to resist and recover from
disturbances?
Incidence of post-bleaching recovery
Coral species growth rates and
resistance to breakage
Human impacts: What are the
Repetitive loss estimates of coastal
properties
Recreational use surveys
Fish biomass surveys
types and severity of human
impacts affecting coral reef
communities at the site, and
which are or could be mitigated
through management actions?
Water quality/sediment contaminant
monitoring
Coastal development policies, trends
Potential for cultural/historical or
indigenous native resources in the
site area
Annual marine debris monitoring
Remaining Critical Data Needs:
Baseline wave energy across reefs at each site
Benthic surveys of reef species and condition across all sites
Geology and geotechnical conditions at the site
Other marine resources in the site area
Potential for cultural resources in the site area
33
-------
Describe the rationale for your decision to complete the framework quantitatively or semi-quantitatively, including the
advantages and disadvantages in your case.
A semi-quantitative framework was used to prioritize sites. This framework uses expert judgment along with available data to
select and prioritize sites for restoration. A semi-quantitative framework was selected because a complete set of quantitative
data was not readily available for the entire windward coast geographic focus area. This approach allowed the Core Planning
Team and Technical Advisory Group to consider a wider range of sites and indicators.11
Completing the framework semi-quantitatively
Develop a statement for each framework part to be graded by local experts (first column; you may use the statements in the
table below as an example). Record responses (on a scale from 1-5) and calculate the average. Complete this process for
EACH site. You can use the table below or create a similar spreadsheet.
The site prioritization team was composed of members of the Core Planning Team and Technical Advisory Group.12 The site
prioritization team met twice to review and discuss available datasets for each of the five framework parts. A benchmark
statement for each framework part was developed to aid in the scoring process. Each member then identified one or more
framework parts about which they had the greatest knowledge as a particular focus for their review, but all team members
independently scored all framework parts on a scale of 1 to 5.13 These scores were compiled, and the average and range
were calculated for each framework part. Team members then met and discussed all scores. Framework parts with a high
range of scores were discussed in greater depth. Where there was large uncertainty due to lack of data and/or variability of
interpretations, the type and degree of uncertainty was noted in the rationale as documentation of the need for improved
information. In discussions, team members with the greatest knowledge of the datasets and sites were asked to highlight the
rationale for their scores, and team members revised scores as appropriate until agreement was reached. The priority level of
each site was determined according to the following scale:
High: average score >4.0
Medium: average score >3.0 - 3.9
Low: average score <3.0
11 If comprehensive data are available, a quantitative approach should be used to move forward with the planning process. The Guide provides
more information on the use of both approaches.
12 In this hypothetical example, the scores from only 4 members of the team are shown for brevity. Due to the complexity of the framework
parts, a larger number of members would be needed (a minimum of one expert for each framework part) to provide the range of scientific and
site knowledge to complete a semi-quantitative prioritization process. For Pacific jurisdictions that have worked through this process, the
number of team members ranged from 5 to 10 people.
13 In this hypothetical example, all framework parts were equally weighted, but different weights could be assigned to each part.
34
-------
Statements Crafted for Each Framework Part14
Members
Site Rating (Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
1 -North Point
2 - Fisher's
3 - North Bay
4 -South Bay
5 - Snorkeler's
6 - South Point
Reef
Reef
Reef
Reef
Reef
Relevance to Restoration Goal: To what extent
Member 1
2
5
3
3
5
2
would restoration at the site help to achieve the
selected goal?
Coral restoration at this site is directly
Member 2
3
4
4
4
4
3
Member 3
2
4
4
4
4
2
relevant to achieving the restoration goal of
reducing wave energy that causes flooding
and coastal erosion. The extent of intact reef
Member 4
3
5
3
3
5
3
crest and width of reef flat will attenuate
waves.
Average
2.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
2.5
Coastal bluff and
Reef crest
Reef crest and
Reef crest and
Reef crest and wide
Coastal
adjacent reef
and wide reef
reef flat narrow as
reef flat narrow as
reef flat is a key
protection
Rationale
together provide
coastal protection.
Reef crest is
closer to shore
and reef flat is
relatively narrow.
flat is a key
feature
providing
protection to
the island.
they approach the
bay, providing
some coastal
protection but with
waves wrapping
around the point.
they approach the
bay providing
some coastal
protection but with
waves wrapping
around the point.
feature providing
protection to the
island.
provided by bluff
together with
adjacent reef.
Reef crest is
closer to shore
and reef flat is
relatively narrow.
14 One statement is presented per page, for ease of reading.
35
-------
Statements Crafted for Each Framework Part
Members
Site Rating (Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
1 -North Point
Reef
2 - Fisher's Reef
3 - North Bay
Reef
4 -South Bay
Reef
5 - Snorkeler's
Reef
6 - South Point
Reef
Future exposure: What is the likely frequency and
severity of future disturbances?
Severity and extent of storm-driven coastal
flooding with climate change are high at this
site. Current and future projected erosion
rates with sea level rise are high at this site.
The incidence of bleaching at this site has
been high and is expected to remain so in the
future.
Member 1
4
4
1
1
4
4
Member 2
4
4
2
2
4
4
Member 3
3
5
2
2
5
3
Member 4
3
5
2
2
5
3
Average
3.5
4.5
1.8
1.8
4.5
3.5
yt'' ฆ
Coral bleaching.
Credit: The Ocean Agency.
Rationale
Increasing
impacts from
severe storm
events and sea
level rise.
Potential for
bleaching
unknown (high
uncertainty).
Experiences
waves that are
causing erosion of
the highway.
Many corals have
experienced
bleaching, and
most did not
recover.
Experiences
some wave
energy, but intact
reef crest and
wide reef flat
dampen wave
energy that
wraps around
the point. Few
corals have
experienced
bleaching, and
most recovered.
Experiences
some wave
energy, but intact
reef crest and
wide reef flat
dampen wave
energy that
wraps around
the point. Few
corals have
experienced
bleaching, and
most recovered.
Experiences waves
causing erosion of
coastal
development. Many
corals have
experienced
bleaching, and
most did not
recover.
Increasing
impacts from
severe storm
events and sea
level rise.
Potential for
bleaching
unknown (high
uncertainty).
36
-------
Statements Crafted for Each Framework Part
Members
Site Rating (Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
1 -North Point
2 - Fisher's
3 - North Bay Reef
4 -South Bay
5 - Snorkeler's
6 - South Point
Reef
Reef
Reef
Reef
Reef
Resilience/ecological processes: What is the
capacity of the site to resist and recover from
disturbances?
Member 1
3
5
4
4
4
2
Member 2
3
4
5
5
3
3
This site is relatively resilient with higher
Member 3
3
4
3
3
4
3
relative capacity to resist and recover from
disturbances such as temperature variability
because of high coral cover, diversity, and
herbivore biomass.
Member 4
3
5
4
4
4
2
Average
3.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.8
2.5
Limited data to
assess capacity to
resist/recover from
perturbations;
however, other
Wide reef Hat
contributes to
high
residence
time of the
Corals experience
high degree of
temperature and
sometimes salinity
variations due to
Corals experience
high degree of
temperature and
sometimes salinity
variations due to
Wide reef Hat
contributes to high
residence time of
the water and
warmer
Capacity to
resist/recover
from
perturbations
unknown (high
high-water How
environments
have typically
fared better in
water and
warmer
temperatures.
Documented
watershed and
adjacent estuarine
environment, which
acclimatizes corals
watershed and
adjacent estuarine
environment,
which acclimatizes
temperatures.
Documented
bleaching and
recovery of
uncertainty).
Rationale
terms of bleaching
response
(moderate
uncertainty).
bleaching and
recovery of
multiple coral
species from
temperature
anomalies
have
occurred.
and makes them
more resilient (able
to resist and recover
from perturbations).
Documented
bleaching and
recovery of some
species from
temperature
anomalies have
occurred.
corals and makes
them more
resilient (able to
resist and recover
from
perturbations).
multiple coral
species from
temperature
anomalies have
occurred.
37
-------
Statements Crafted for Each Framework Part
Members
Site Rating (Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
1 -North Point
2 - Fisher's
3 - North Bay Reef
4 -South Bay
5 - Snorkeler's
6 - South Point
Reef
Reef
Reef
Reef
Reef
Human impacts: What are the types and severity
of human impacts affecting coral reef
communities at the site and which are or could be
Member 1
4
3
3
3
3
4
Member 2
5
2
3
3
3
5
mitigated through management actions?
Member 3
4
3
4
4
2
4
Human impacts from reef fish fishing, marine-
based pollution, watershed-based pollution,
marine debris, coastal development, tourism,
and shipping are relatively low or are being
adequately addressed at this site.
Member 4
5
3
2
2
2
5
Average
4.5
2.8
3.0
3.0
2.5
4.5
Primary human
activities are
surfing off the
point with some
residential
development on
bluff
Area is
heavily fished
using pole
and line and
spearguns.
Some recreational
uses including
picnicking and
fishing at beach park
adjacent to reef.
Primary impact to
reef is intermittent
soil runoff and
sedimentation from
the adjacent
watershed, which is
exacerbated by
invasive plants and
Primary impact
to reef is
intermittent soil
runoff and
sedimentation
from the
adjacent
watershed,
which is
exacerbated by
invasive plants
and ungulates.
Area is heavily
used by residents
and tourists for
snorkeling,
swimming,
kayaking, and other
recreational
activities. Dense
land use and large
extent of
impervious surfaces
results in
stormwater runoff to
Primary human
activities are
bodysurfing and
kitesurfing off the
point.
Rationale
ungulates.
nearshore that
carries pollutants.
Some temporary
erosion control
measures to protect
condominiums
along the shoreline
maybe
exacerbating
coastal erosion.
Overall, human
impacts continue
unabated and
would need to be
corrected.
38
-------
Statements Crafted for Each Framework Part
Members
Site Rating (Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
1 -North Point
Reef
2 - Fisher's
Reef
3 - North Bay Reef
4 -South Bay
Reef
5 - Snorkeler's Reef
6 - South Point
Reef
Potential to improve condition: To what extent will
restoration improve site condition?
Restoration at the site has potential to
stabilize/improve coral structure and cover
that has been lost from bleaching and physical
disturbances such as snorkeling and wave
events.
Member 1
2
5
3
3
5
2
Member 2
3
4
3
3
5
3
Member 3
3
5
3
3
4
3
Member 4
2
5
3
3
5
2
Average
2.5
4.8
3.0
3.0
4.8
2.5
Healthy coral structure and cover at Palmyra Ato
Credit: Jim Maragose, USFWS. Public domain.
Rationale
I.
Low potential for
restoration to
stabilize/improve
coral cover and
structure in this
relatively high
wave
environment.
High potential
for restoration
to stabilize/
improve coral
cover and
structure that
has been lost
primarily from
recent
bleaching
events.
Medium potential for
restoration to
stabilize/improve
coral cover and
structure; however,
the variations in
water quality and
temperature provide
an ideal location for
an in situ nursery.
Medium
potential for
restoration to
improve coral
structure and
cover that is
regularly
exposed to soil
runoff.
High potential for
restoration to
improve coral cover
and structure lost
primarily from
physical impacts
from snorkelers and
damage by marine
debris scraping coral
colonies as a result
of a recent tropical
cyclone; however,
ongoing tourism
overuse continues
and threatens
success of
restoration activities.
Low potential
for restoration
to stabilize/
improve coral
cover and
structure in this
relatively high
wave
environment.
OVERALL SITE SCORE AVERAGE
(All framework parts)
3.2
4.2
3.1
3.1
4.0
3.2
39
-------
For each site, average the values for all framework parts, so each site has one numerical score. Use color coding to denote
relative restoration priority. Develop your criteria for low, medium, and high priority or use the criteria in Step 2B of the Guide
(Tables 2.3 and 2.4).
Create a table with the average values for each framework part for all candidate restoration sites. Table 2.5 in the Guide
provides an example of a completed table.
Site Name
Priority
Level
Overall
Site
Score
Average
Relevance
to Goal
Potential to
Improve
Condition
Short and Long-term Survivorship
[climate vulnerability]
Future
Exposure
Resilience
Human
Impacts
1 - North Point Reef
MEDIUM
3.2
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
4.5
2 - Fisher's Reef
HIGH
4.2
4.5
4.8
4.5
4.5
2.8
3 - North Bay Reef
MEDIUM
3.1
3.5
3.0
1.8
4.0
3.0
4 - South Bay Reef
MEDIUM
3.1
3.5
3.0
1.8
4.0
3.0
5 - Snorkeler's Reef
HIGH
4.0
4.5
4.8
4.5
3.8
2.5
6 - South Point Reef
MEDIUM
3.1
2.5
2.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
2C. Final Site Selection
Provide a brief description of the highest priority sites selected for restoration. Include the site name, general description of the
site, and a summary (quantitative or qualitative) on how each site compared to other sites using the site prioritization
framework. You may also use this table to indicate which site(s) might be suitable for the pilot phase.
Site Name
Site Description and Area
Comparison to Other Sites
(based on framework parts)
Pilot
Phase?
Site 2 - Fisher's
Reef
Reef important for recreational and
subsistence fishing as well as coastal
protection. Some overfishing, especially
herbivores. New herbivore regulations are
being established.
Rated highest in all framework parts except
human impacts due to overfishing.
Yes
Site 3 - North Bay
Reef
Reef is adjacent to embayment with
estuarine habitat that serves as a nursery
ground for fish. Some soil runoff to
nearshore waters, but mostly transported
south and dissipated. Watershed
management to reduce soil erosion is
being implemented.
Rated high in resilience and low in exposure,
with medium rankings in remaining
framework parts. For this reason, this site is
being considered as a field nursery for
propagating corals to outplant at Site 2. Coral
colonies experience a range of temperature,
water quality, and wave conditions that
appear to acclimatize them to potential
climate change impacts.
Yes
40
-------
Develop a map of the geographic area of focus for the restoration goal with the final selected sites clearly marked.
North Shore
Leeward Coast
Ho'okohukohu
Island
Fisher's Reef
Windward Coast
North Bay Reef
Estuary
South Shore
10 km
> >
Provide a summary of the process used to finalize your list of restoration sites, including stakeholders or decision-makers
involved.
In Step 2A and 2B, the Core Planning Team and Technical Advisory Group identified 6 sites, summarized the rationale for
site selection, and identified available datasets within the geographic focus area. A semi-quantitative approach for site
selection was used due to the inconsistent coverage of available data across all 6 sites. Non-government and government
stakeholders participated in a workshop to provide input on the site selection process and site selection. The Core Planning
Team then selected two priority sites for a restoration project under Goal 1,15
tiiw
Step 2 Stakeholder Engagement
List technical experts, stakeholders, and partners including scientists, engineers, community members, private sector, and
federal and local government engaged for this step.
Technical Expertise
Key Stakeholders
Coral reef biologist/coral ecologist
Coastal engineer
Non-Government
Residents impacted by chronic coastal erosion
1 Scoring is a useful tool for prioritization; however, it should be noted that it relies on expert judgement, interpretation, and discussion.
41
-------
Technical Expertise
Key Stakeholders
Coastal geologist
Physical/chemical oceanographer
Social scientist
Watershed manager
Water quality specialist
Land use planner
Fishing community
Tourism industry representatives
Communities located along the windward coast
Representatives of environmental advocacy groups
Government
Regulatory agencies (federal, state, and local)
Provide a summary of stakeholder engagement activities taken for this step.
At this stage in the process, several informational meetings were conducted along the windward coast to gather additional
information on the six sites identified. For communities near sites under consideration, meetings with community stakeholder
groups presented initial results of the site selection analysis. Communication about the site selection process and goal of
restoration work was provided through pamphlets, presentations, and question-and-answer sessions. Discussions and
solicitation of stakeholder feedback focused on the need for restoration and the types of community supports that would be
essential for restoration success. Community members were invited to voice concerns and provide input on specific places on
the reef that would be good candidates for restoration. Communities were asked to indicate their support for work at their
locations. The communities at Fisher's Reef and North Bay Reef were both in favor of the proposed activities.
STEP 3: IDENTIFY, DESIGN, AND SELECT INTERVENTIONS
3A: Brainstorm an Array of Intervention Options
List the full array of intervention options that could be applied toward your restoration goal, indicating how they connect to the
goal where appropriate. Then, summarize the process used to make these decisions.
Restoration Goal: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby
strengthening the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Intervention Options:16
OPTION 1 - Propagation and Outplacing: Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in a field nursery and outplant on existing reef structure (Site
2, outplacing and Site 3, field nursery)
OPTION 2 - Substrate Stabilization: Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural recruitment (Site 2)
OPTION 3 - WAUs: Deploy reef-friendly WAUs designed to reduce wave
energy, support natural recruitment, and enhance fish habitat (Site 2)
OPTION 4 - Herbivore Enhancement: Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth and enhance natural coral recruitment
and survival (Sites 2, 3)
Process: The Core Planning Team convened to brainstorm ideas for restoration to achieve the goal.
16The number of restoration options shown for this example is limited to four for brevity; however, the Guide recommends that a full array of all
possible options to support achieving the goal be identified and retained until Step 3C.
Herbivorous fish help reduce algal
overgrowth. Credit: Curt Storlazzi, USGS.
Public domain.
42
-------
3B: Apply Climate-Smart Design Considerations
For each intervention option, use the Step 3B table provided to record your answers to the basic design questions that apply. After reviewing the climate-smart design
considerations in Table 3.3 of the Guide, develop a checklist of questions appropriate to your situation (see following checklist) and use the checklist to build climate-smart
improvements into all relevant design elements in your Step 3B table. These improvements can be highlighted in blue text. Add additional Option columns until all brainstormed
intervention options from 3A above have been designed.
Design
Questions
Restoration Interventions
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield nursery
and outplant on existing reef
structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural
recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units designed to
reduce wave energy, support
natural coral recruitment, and
enhance fish habitat
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth
and enhance natural coral
recruitment and survival
What coral
species will be
used?
Branching coral, Pocillopora
meandrina and boulder coral,
Porites lobata will be used for
propagation because they will
create the most hydrodynamic
roughness on the reef flat while also
being more resistant to bleaching
and robust against high wave
energy.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Where will
corals be
obtained?
Coral fragments will be obtained
from sites outside the restoration
site that have sufficient numbers for
collection. Corals will be collected
from sites that have experienced
past bleaching events such that
corals are more likely to be
acclimatized or have genes for
increased stress tolerance.
Fragments will only be collected
from corals that appear to be
healthy and show no signs of
disease. A nursery site suitability
study identified Site 3 - North Bay
Reef as not only a source of corals
but also a suitable site for a field
N/A
N/A
N/A
43
-------
Design
Questions
Restoration Interventions
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield nursery
and outplant on existing reef
structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural
recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units designed to
reduce wave energy, support
natural coral recruitment, and
enhance fish habitat
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth
and enhance natural coral
recruitment and survival
nursery. Coral fragments will be
collected from "corals of
opportunity" that are already
broken, or by taking small
fragments from intact donor
colonies. Fragments will be
collected every 5 m to attempt to
collect as many distinct genotypes
as possible.
What coral
propagation
and/or
outplanting
methods will be
used?
Propagation: Asexual
fragmentation will be followed by
grow-out in two field nurseries along
the windward coast. In addition to
Site 3, another field nursery will be
established to spread the risk of
loss due to unanticipated events.
Coral trees will be used for
propagation [30], Coral trees are
light-weight structures tethered to
the ocean floor and buoyed with a
subsurface float. Coral trees
suspended in the water column can
move with storm-generated waves
or be moved up and down to avoid
storms and episodes of high sea
surface temperature or heavy
freshwater runoff, preventing
damage to the tree structure and
the corals themselves. Branching
coral fragments will be attached
directly to coral trees using
CoralClips (Suggett et al., 2020).
Fragments of boulder corals will be
N/A
N/A
N/A
44
-------
Restoration Interventions
Design
Questions
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield nursery
and outplant on existing reef
structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural
recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units designed to
reduce wave energy, support
natural coral recruitment, and
enhance fish habitat
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth
and enhance natural coral
recruitment and survival
epoxied to plates and attached to
the coral tree. The coral tree
propagation method will enable
corals to be vertically adjusted or
shaded as needed for
acclimatization and lowered in case
of storms. The field nursery will be
exposed to a range of
temperatures, water quality
conditions, and wave energy, which
is expected to create more resilient
corals for outplanting.
Outplanting: Branching and
boulder coral fragments will be
transplanted to the substrate using
Coral Clips [27] and epoxy
techniques. Attachment techniques
including epoxy and CoralClips will
be tested during the pilot phase and
adjustments made in the event of
high failure rates to ensure that they
can withstand existing and future
wave conditions and sea level rise.
The specific adhesive will be marine
epoxy, which has been shown to
have the lowest detachment rate
and thus should hold up the best
against wave action [31]. Corals will
be outplanted based on the results
of baseline studies of coral
demography and reef structure.
Corals will be outplanted on the reef
flat and upper fore reef in areas of
45
-------
Restoration Interventions
Design
Questions
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield nursery
and outplant on existing reef
structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural
recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units designed to
reduce wave energy, support
natural coral recruitment, and
enhance fish habitat
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth
and enhance natural coral
recruitment and survival
the site where additional structural
complexity could prove beneficial to
wave energy reduction and in
multiple locations and at different
depths within the site to account for
sea level rise and spread the risk of
impacts from potential bleaching
events. A rapid response plan will
be created for repair or replacement
of structures after storms.
What biological
control
techniques will
be used?
Macroalgae removal by hand or
mechanical means may be required
at the nursery site to protect
propagated corals and at
restoration sites to protect coral
outplants. Algae removal frequency
may have to be increased if rising
ocean temperatures and/or
increased nutrient inputs increase
algal growth in the future.
Macroalgae removal by hand or
mechanical means may be required
to support natural recruitment. Algae
removal frequency may have to be
increased if rising ocean
temperatures and/or increased
nutrient inputs increase algal growth
in the future.
Macroalgae removal by hand or
mechanical means may be
required to support natural
recruitment. Algae removal
frequency may have to be
increased if rising ocean
temperatures and/or increased
nutrient inputs increase algal
growth in the future.
Sea urchins, currently being raised in
a land-based laboratory, will be
outplanted at appropriate densities to
the restoration site. It is not known
how the adults or larvae are affected
by increased sea-surface temperature
and ocean acidification. Regular
monitoring of urchin density and
condition will be conducted. A rapid
response plan will be put into place for
replenishment of urchins lost due to
disease or temperature or acidification
effects. Herbivore biomass on the reef
should be diversified to address
uncertainty in impacts of climate
change on urchins and other
herbivores and macroalgae they
consume. Other herbivore
management efforts, such as place-
based protection (e.g., herbivore
replenishment areas), fishing gear
restrictions, and size limits will be
needed; however, to diversify
46
-------
Restoration Interventions
Design
Questions
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield nursery
and outplant on existing reef
structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural
recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units designed to
reduce wave energy, support
natural coral recruitment, and
enhance fish habitat
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth
and enhance natural coral
recruitment and survival
herbivore biomass at the restoration
site, different functional groups of
herbivorous fishes (e.g., scarids,
acanthurids, kyphosids) are needed to
support reef growth and recruitment. In
addition, scarids are important
contributors to sand production on the
reef. New regulations will be needed to
support herbivore biomass
diversification
What physical
or engineering
techniques will
be used?
N/A
Metal stakes and natural fiber, wire
mesh, or other methods will be
piloted to stabilize rubble areas [32],
Mesh will be checked and
maintained regularly to ensure that it
can withstand storms and wave
action, which may increase with
climate change.
Wave attenuation units (WAUs) will
be deployed to the restoration site
to reduce wave energy. WAUs will
incorporate reef friendly materials,
such as pH-neutral concrete or
lightweight concrete with an
organic matter matrix to accelerate
biological colonization. WAU
stabilization will be enhanced with
the installation of a scour blanket to
reduce potential scouring effects.
Zepeda-Centeno C. [21], the World
Bank [28], and other sources will
be consulted to identify WAU
prototypes for pilot testing to
evaluate their ability to support
natural recruitment, withstand
severe wave events, and improve
fish habitat as a co-benefit of the
restoration intervention. WAUs will
be located based on the results of
wave modeling to determine
optimal siting and alignment of
The land-based laboratory where
urchins are currently being raised is
resistant to hurricane force winds and
has a back-up power generator.
47
-------
Design
Questions
Restoration Interventions
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield nursery
and outplant on existing reef
structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect existing
corals and enhance natural
recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units designed to
reduce wave energy, support
natural coral recruitment, and
enhance fish habitat
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify herbivore
biomass to reduce algal overgrowth
and enhance natural coral
recruitment and survival
WAUs along the width and length
of the site in areas with the greatest
potential to minimize erosion along
the shoreline under existing and
future conditions, including sea
level rise and increasingly severe
storm events, while still allowing for
circulation to maintain water
quality. The configuration and
placement density of WAUs may
have an influence on local
circulation that may need modeling
to evaluate potential effects. Wave
modeling programs used in reef
environments include XBeach,
SWAN, and Delft3D [5, 11,29],
Baseline mapping of reef geometry
at the restoration site (e.g., height,
structural complexity) using the
best available technology (e.g.,
airborne high-resolution
topo/bathymetric LiDAR or UAV
imagery) that can be repeated over
time will need to be conducted to
support modeling [33-36],
48
-------
Wave attenuation units. Credit: Steve Schill. The Nature Conservancy.
Checklist: Use the checklist of climate-smart design considerations to indicate which questions apply to each intervention option to support discussion of
climate-smart improvements. Begin with the checklist presented in Table 3.3 of the Guide and add questions as necessaiy to address Category 1 and 2
climate-smart considerations.17
(ft
c
o
Category 1: How will climate change and its interaction with local stressors
of concern impact the biological resilience of the restoration intervention?
Category 2: How will climate change affect the physical functionality of the
restoration intervention through direct impacts on structural components?
(/)
m
3
o
c
TO
'(/>
m
o
Indicate (X) which questions apply to the option to
support discussion and development of climate-
smart improvements. Add questions as necessary
to address Category 1 considerations.
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Indicate (X) which questions apply to the option to support
discussion and development of climate-smart improvements.
Add questions as necessary to address Category 2
considerations.
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
CD
_Q
1
What is the vulnerability of the site to bleaching
conditions? Are certain coral species more resistant to
bleaching?
X
How much is wave energy expected to increase with increasingly
intense storms? Are certain coral species less brittle or more
robust against storm damage?
X
-------
u>
c
o
Category 1: Hon/ will climate change and its interaction with local stressors
of concern impact the biological resilience of the restoration intervention?
Category 2: How will climate change affect the physical functionality of the
restoration intervention through direct impacts on structural components?
tft
a>
Q
Indicate (X) which questions apply to the option to
support discussion and development of climate-
smart improvements. Add questions as necessary
to address Category 1 considerations.
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Indicate (X) which questions apply to the option to support
discussion and development of climate-smart improvements.
Add questions as necessary to address Category 2
considerations.
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Will coral growth rates be able to keep up with sea
level rise?
X
(D
_Q
(/)
Are there in situ sites where corals have naturally been
acclimatized to bleaching or poor water quality?
X
Are there sites that have experienced intense storm events from
which corals that have withstood damage could be collected?
X
e will coral
obtained?
Are there lab-designed species or genotypes with
special characteristics with respect to climate
change-related stressors specific to the restoration
site?
CD
Is there enough brood stock genetic diversity to
maximize chances of long-term survival and potential
to scale-up efforts in the long-term?
(/)
.0 -C
-i_. +->
(O a)
S5 ฃ
(0
Are there nursery sites in the field where corals could
be acclimatized during propagation?
X
How much is wave energy expected to increase with increasingly
intense storms? Does this affect the decision whether to use
natural substrate or build an artificial substrate? (Also see
engineering question below.)
X
X
CL O)
P
Q-c
03
2 Q.
Is there a lab with options for pre-treating corals to
acclimate them to variations in temperature or other
stressors?
How often will it be necessary to outplant more corals to replace
losses from storms?
X
0
0 5
+-ป 0
1 0
How often will it be necessary to outplant more corals
to replace losses from bleaching?
X
At what depths should outplants be placed given projected rates
of sea level rise?
X
ง "3
c
(0
Will materials or methods used to outplant corals be able to
withstand wave energy from storms?
X
(/)
Q)
D
cr
'c
-C
0
0 -o
_b d)
How will climate change affect predator populations
or algal outbreaks? And will this in turn, affect the
frequency or intensity with which removal techniques
will need to be used? Will removal techniques be able
to keep up with algal growth under changing
conditions?
X
X
X
X
Will certain predator or algae removal techniques be difficult to
do in areas of increasingly high wind and wave energy? Will this
limit the time of year or efficiency (amount that can be done in a
given time) with which the technique can be used?
X
X
X
c W
0 13
0 0
"ro
0
D) 5
How will climate change affect environmental
conditions for valued herbivore populations? Wll
regular replenishment of herbivores be needed?
X
Wll the chosen materials be able to stand up to increasingly
intense wave energy and storms?
X
X
X
"O
JD
-tฆ
(0
How will climate change affect the frequency and
severity of disease outbreaks? Wll this affect the
type, method, or frequency of treatments needed? Is
it expected to affect the coral species chosen?
X
X
At what depth should structures be placed to accountforsea
level rise given coral growth rates?
X
X
50
-------
u>
c
o
Category 1: How will climate change and its interaction with local stressors
of concern impact the biological resilience of the restoration intervention?
Category 2: How will climate change affect the physical functionality of the
restoration intervention through direct impacts on structural components?
tft
smart improvements. Add questions as necessary
C
o
C
o
c
o
c
o
Add questions as necessary to address Category 2
c
o
c
o
c
o
c
o
tli
to address Category 1 considerations.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Q.
considerations.
Q.
Q.
Q.
Q.
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
What physical
or engineering
Is there anything about the coral attachment
methods or materials that could render corals more or
less susceptible to climate change-related stress?
X
How will the laboratory where urchins will be propagated be
safeguarded to withstand intense storms? Are structures and
water intake fortified? Is there back-up power generation?
X
51
-------
Prepare a summary description of each intervention option, synthesized from the design consideration questions. Each
intervention option should be specifically tailored to the goal, address all relevant design elements, and include climate-smart
design details as appropriate. Add additional rows to include all of your brainstormed intervention options.18
OPTION 1: Asexualiy propagate structure-building corals in a field nursery and outplant on existing reef structure
(Sites 2, outplanting and 3, propagation). Branching coral Pocillopora meandrina and boulder coral, Porites lobata will be
used for propagation because they will create the most hydrodynamic roughness on the reef flat and upper fore reef while
also being more resistant to bleaching and robust against high wave energy. Coral fragments will be obtained from sites
outside the restoration site that have sufficient numbers for collection. Fragments will only be collected from corals that
appear to be healthy and show no signs of disease. Corals will be collected from sites that have experienced past bleaching
events such that corals are more likely acclimatized or have genes for increased stress tolerance. A nursery site suitability
study identified Site 3 - North Bay Reef as not only a source of corals but also a suitable site for a field nursery. Coral
fragments will be collected from "corals of opportunity" that are already broken, or by taking small fragments from intact donor
colonies. Fragments will be collected every 5 meters to attempt to collect as many distinct genotypes as possible.
Asexual fragmentation will be followed by grow-out in two field
nurseries along the windward coast. In addition to Site 3, another
field nursery will be established to spread the risk of loss due to
unanticipated events. Branching coral fragments will be attached
directly to coral trees for propagation using CoralClips [27] or
other methods if deemed more viable. Coral trees are lightweight
structures tethered to the ocean floor and buoyed with a
subsurface float. Coral trees suspended in the water column can
move with storm-generated waves or be moved up and down to
avoid storms and episodes of high sea surface temperature or
heavy freshwater runoff, preventing damage to the tree structure
and the corals themselves. Fragments of boulder corals will be
epoxied to plates and attached to the coral tree. The coral tree
propagation method will enable corals to be vertically adjusted or
shaded as needed for acclimatization and lowered in case of
storms. The field nursery is exposed to a range of temperatures,
water quality conditions, and wave energy, which is expected to
create more resilient corals for outplanting.
Branching and boulder coral fragments will be transplanted to the substrate using CoralClips and epoxy techniques. These
attachment techniques will be tested during the pilot phase and adjustments made in the event of high failure rates to ensure
that they can withstand existing and future wave conditions and sea level rise. Marine epoxy has been shown to have the
lowest detachment rate and thus should hold up the best against wave action [31], Other adhesives will be explored based on
the best available information. Corals will be outplanted based on the results of baseline studies of coral demography and reef
structure. For a given site, corals will be outplanted on the reef flat in areas characterized by additional structure complexity
which could prove beneficial to wave energy reduction, as well as at different depths to account for sea level rise and
decrease the risk of impacts from potential bleaching events. A rapid response plan will be created for repair or replacement
of structures after storms.
Removal of macroalgae by hand or mechanical means may be required at the nursery site to protect propagated corals and
at restoration sites to protect coral outplants and recruits. Algae removal frequency may have to be increased if rising ocean
temperatures and/or increased nutrient inputs increase algal growth in the future.
OPTION 2: Stabilize rubble to protect existing corals and enhance natural recruitment (Site 2). Metal stakes and natural
fiber or metal mesh will be used to stabilize rubble areas [32], Mesh will be checked and maintained regularly to ensure that it
can withstand storms and wave action, which may increase with climate change. Mechanical removal of macroalgae by hand
or mechanical means from stabilization sites may be required to support natural recruitment. Algae removal frequency may
have to be increased if rising ocean temperatures and/or increased nutrient inputs increase algal growth in the future.
18 The summary of each option should be an easy-to-read paragraph that fully describes the option and incorporates all information from the
Step 3B design table. The team found that in writing the summary, some additional information came to light that was included in this
paragraph. Such new information should be entered back into the Step 3B design table for rigorous record-keeping.
77
i
A scientist measures a coral fragment growing in a coral
tree nursery. Credit: Pheona David, Division of Coastal
Resources Management, CNMI.
52
-------
OPTION 3: Deploy reef-friendly wave attenuation units designed to reduce wave energy, support natural coral
recruitment, and enhance fish habitat (Site 2). Wave attenuation units (WAUs) will be deployed to the restoration site to
reduce wave energy. WAUs will incorporate biologically friendly materials, such as pH-neutral concrete or lightweight
concrete with an organic matter matrix to accelerate biological colonization. WAU stabilization will be enhanced with the
installation of a scour blanket to reduce potential scouring effects. Sources such as Zepeda-Centeno C. [21] and the World
Bank [28] will be consulted to identify WAU prototypes for pilot testing to evaluate their propensity to support natural
recruitment, withstand severe wave events, and improve fish habitat as a co-benefit of the restoration intervention. The
location and alignment of WAUs will be determined using wave modeling, which will identify configurations with the greatest
potential to minimize erosion along the shoreline under existing and future conditions including sea level rise and increasingly
severe storm events. In addition, the configuration and density of WAUs may influence local circulation, thus models may also
be needed to evaluate these potential effects and to determine the WAU placements that will allow for sufficient circulation to
maintain water quality. Wave modeling programs used in reef environments include XBeach, SWAN, and Delft3D [5,11, 29],
Baseline mapping of reef geometry at the restoration site (e.g., height, structural complexity) using the best available
technology (e.g., airborne high-resolution topo/bathymetric LiDAR or UAV imagery) that can be repeated over time [33-36] will
need to be conducted to support wave modeling. In addition, macroalgae removal by hand or mechanical means from WAUs
may be required to support natural recruitment. Algae removal frequency may have to be increased if rising ocean
temperatures and/or increased nutrient inputs increase algal growth in the future.
OPTION 4: Enhance and diversify herbivore biomass to reduce algal overgrowth and enhance natural coral
recruitment (Sites 2,3). Sea urchins will be outplanted at appropriate densities to the restoration site from an existing land-
based laboratory that is resistant to hurricane force winds and has a back-up power generator. Natural urchin species
and.densities will first be assessed on other reefs to determine how many urchins are needed to support algae removal at the
restoration site. A rapid response plan will be put into place for replenishment of urchins lost at high rates due to disease or
temperature extremes. Other herbivore management efforts such as place-based protection, fishing gear restrictions, and
catch size limits will also be pursued to diversify herbivore biomass at the restoration site as different functional groups of
herbivorous fish (e.g., scarids, acanthurids, kyphosids) are needed to support reef growth and recruitment. For example,
scarids are important contributors to sand production on the reef.
3C: Evaluate & Select Restoration Interventions
Describe the evaluation criteria used to select restoration interventions and provide a summary for how these details were
determined.
The Core Planning Team reviewed the multi-evaluation criteria framework in the Guide and made adjustments based on key
aspects of the goal. The Core Planning Team and Technical Advisory Group convened to finalize the evaluation framework.
One-on-one meetings were held with federal, territorial, and local officials that may be involved in the review and approval of
permits for implementation. Input from these agencies helped define aspects of the feasibility of the interventions in terms of
additional legal requirements (e.g., environmental assessments) and timelines for receiving permits. The Technical Advisory
Group conducted the evaluation individually and submitted their results to the Core Planning Team, which compiled the
scores and rationale. A workshop with the Technical Advisory Group and a broader range of stakeholders including local
government department staff, nongovernmental organizations, and community members was held to gain feedback on the
restoration options. During the workshop, the process and information used to arrive at this step were described to
participants, emphasizing the careful, data-driven approach used to set the goal, prioritize sites, and develop restoration
options. Feedback was solicited on preferences for various restoration options. Four stations were established, one for each
restoration option. Participants visited each station and were given additional information about the options and the
opportunity to discuss and provide feedback. Participants were given a shortened version of the evaluation criteria to evaluate
each option and submit their scores at the end of the workshop. This feedback was reviewed by the Core Planning Team
along with the evaluation conducted with the Technical Advisory Group to select the restoration interventions. The ratings and
rationale in the following table represent an average of the individual ratings of the Core Planning Team, Technical Advisory
Group, and stakeholder workshop.
53
-------
Record ratings for each evaluation criteria (scale from 1-5) for each intervention option, using criteria from Table 3.4 and/or criteria developed by your
planning team. Add additional columns until all brainstormed intervention options have been evaluated.19
Evaluation Criteria
Restoration Intervention Rating
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield
nursery and outplant on
existing reef structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect
existing corals and enhance
natural recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs)
designed to reduce wave
energy and support natural
coral recruitment
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify
herbivore biomass to reduce
algal overgrowth and
enhance natural coral
recruitment
Effectiveness
Intervention will be
technically effective at
achieving restoration goal
4
4
5
3
Intervention will be
climate-smart in
addressing changing
conditions and
uncertainties in climate
change projections
4
4
3
2
Average rating
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
Rationale
Intervention will gradually become
effective within 15 years as new
coral structure will be created with
acclimatized structure-building
corals designed to survive future
sea surface temperature (SST)
and high wave events. Monitoring
will determine if and how
intervention would need to be
further adjusted to account for
increasing wave action due to
more severe storms in the future.
Intervention will be effective early
in minimizing physical damage to
surrounding corals and
supporting natural coral
recruitment. New coral structure
will be created with acclimatized
structure- building corals
designed to survive future SSTs
and high wave events.
Monitoring will determine if and
how intervention would need to
be further adjusted to account for
increasing wave action due to
more severe storms in the future.
Intervention will begin working
immediately via installation of
engineered structures designed
to attenuate waves. Natural
recruitment from surrounding
corals could be hampered by
future SSTs. Macroalgal
overgrowth could inhibit
recruitment on engineered
structures.
Intervention effective in the
short-term by enhancing natural
recruitment but does not directly
address wave attenuation that
contributes to coastal erosion.
Non-acclimatized natural
recruits, as well as surrounding
adults, may not survive future
SSTs thereby reducing the
likelihood of enhancing reef
structure as sea level rises.
19 The ratings and rationale in this table represent an average of the individual ratings of the Core Planning Team, Technical Advisory Group,
and stakeholder workshop.
54
-------
Evaluation Criteria
Restoration Intervention Rating
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield
nursery and outplant on
existing reef structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect
existing corals and enhance
natural recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs)
designed to reduce wave
energy and support natural
coral recruitment
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify
herbivore biomass to reduce
algal overgrowth and
enhance natural coral
recruitment
Feasibility
Costs of implementation
and maintenance are
feasible
4
4
2
5
Technical capacity will be
in place to implement
intervention (data,
technical knowledge,
number of staff)
4
4
3
5
Physical infrastructure is
achievable to implement
intervention (e.g., land-
based laboratory)
5
5
4
5
Required government
regulations and permits
are obtainable within the
implementation timeline
4
4
2
5
Strong community,
political, and private sector
acceptance/support for
intervention is available
5
5
5
3
Average Rating
4.4
4.4
3.2
4.6
Rationale
Cost is not prohibitive, consisting
of labor and transportation to and
from sites (no land-based
operations) and supplies such as
attachment plates, CoralClips,
etc. Field staff have piloted
propagation and outplanting
techniques proposed in this
option. Field nursery is in pilot
phase at Site 3, and some
proposed outplanting methods
have been tested. Permitting
process for propagation and
Costs are similar to Option 1,
primarily labor, tansportation to
and from the sites (no land-
based operations) and supplies
such as attachment plates and
coral clips. In addition, natural
fiber or wire mesh will be needed
for substrate stabilization. A
small pilot of this intervention
conducted after the tropical
cyclone hit the area revealed
rubble stabilization and the
permitting process to be feasible.
Key challenges for this option
are high cost of materials and
deployment of WAUs and
permitting of the installation of
artificial structures on the reef
flat. A pilot test is needed to
develop and refine protocols for
deployment. Community and
tourism sector likely to support
this intervention as it would
provide snorkelers with
something to look at and fishers
with habitat to support fish stock
Enhancing urchin populations is
feasible as a land-based
laboratory is already producing
a regular supply of urchins. Any
efforts to develop new fishing
regulations are met with strong
community opposition.
55
-------
Restoration Intervention Rating
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
Evaluation Criteria
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield
nursery and outplant on
existing reef structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect
existing corals and enhance
natural recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs)
designed to reduce wave
energy and support natural
coral recruitment
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify
herbivore biomass to reduce
algal overgrowth and
enhance natural coral
recruitment
outplanting is known and was
used for pilot studies. Community
support for this option is high as
everyone wants coral structure
maintained for coastal protection
and co-benefits to fishing (Site 2).
recovery. Public-private
partnerships between
government and tourism sector
could generate funds to support
restoration in conjunction with
education and outreach.
Flexibility
Intervention is designed to
be adjustable to
accommodate changing
conditions and incorporate
learning
5
3
4
5
Intervention is reversible if
needed
5
2
3
5
Average Rating
5.0
2.5
3.5
5.0
Rationale
Coral trees are designed to be
adjustable to changing nursery
conditions as they can be moved
horizontally and vertically. Corals
can be outplanted at different
depths to accommodate rates of
coral growth and sea level rise.
Ongoing protocols are reversible
or changeable. For example,
different corals can be used in
subsequent years to adjust to
new conditions. With minimal
structures involved, removing
coral trees for the nursery would
be easy.
Substrate stabilization approach
can be adjusted to changing
conditions such as wave energy.
Unlikely to undo/revise
intervention if conditions change.
Wire mesh could be removed
depending on amount of
calcification; however, outplanted
corals could be damaged while
removing the wire mesh.
WAUs can be designed and
installed to accommodate sea
level rise and increasing
intensity of wave events.
Depending on the type of WAU
used, it could be removable.
The number and timing of
tansplantation of urchins and
other herbivores is flexible and
can be adjusted based on
biological conditions on the reef.
Urchins can be culled from the
reef if densities are too high.
56
-------
Evaluation Criteria
Restoration Intervention Rating
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield
nursery and outplant on
existing reef structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect
existing corals and enhance
natural recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs)
designed to reduce wave
energy and support natural
coral recruitment
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify
herbivore biomass to reduce
algal overgrowth and
enhance natural coral
recruitment
Urgency
Degree of threat and cost
of inaction are high if
intervention is not
implemented
4
4
5
2
There is an immediate
opportunity associated
with implementing the
intervention based on
availability of partnerships,
funding, or leveraging
other existing efforts
3
3
4
3
Results from the
intervention can be
achieved in a timeframe
aligned with urgency of
threat
4
2
5
2
Average Rating
3.7
3.0
4.7
2.3
Rationale
Intervention directly addresses
urgent threat of erosion due to
both chronic and event-based
flooding with sea-level rise. There
is great interest in coral gardening
and funding this intervention.
Wave attenuation will take time to
be realized.
Intervention addresses urgent
threat of reducing future physical
damage to corals by stabilizing
the substrate.
Intervention directly addresses
urgent threat of erosion due to
chronic and event-based
flooding with sea-level rise.
There is interest from private
sector partners in supporting
this intervention. Wave
attenuation will be immediate
upon installation.
Intervention primarily addresses
a chronic threat of algal
overgrowth which has impeded
natural recruitment. Wave
attenuation from increased reef
structure is unlikely to be
achieved in the timeframe
needed to address the threat.
External Benefits
Intervention achieves
benefits outside of the
target system, to other
ecosystems, and/or
human communities
(including environmental
justice and equity)
5
4
5
4
57
-------
Evaluation Criteria
Restoration Intervention Rating
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield
nursery and outplant on
existing reef structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect
existing corals and enhance
natural recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs)
designed to reduce wave
energy and support natural
coral recruitment
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify
herbivore biomass to reduce
algal overgrowth and
enhance natural coral
recruitment
Intervention minimizes
unintended negative
consequences, including
carbon footprint
3
3
3
3
Average Rating
4.0
3.5
4.0
3.5
Rationale
Benefits realized over time for fish
habitat and resilient coastal
communities. Acclimatized coral
larvae may be dispersed beyond
the target system. Intervention
designed to reduce erosion of the
coastal highway that provides the
only access to residents and
visitors. Moderate carbon
footprint from extensive boat use
for collection and transport trips to
nurseries and outplacing site.
Propagation and outplacing
protocols will minimize damage to
adjacent live colonies and prevent
transfer of any corals with
disease. Coral tree nursery
structures can be lowered to be
more secure under severe storm
events.
This intervention will minimize
the potential for rubble and other
loose material to be transported
beyond the target system during
storm events preventing potential
damage to other habitats such as
sea grass beds. Corals that settle
and grow through natural
recruitment will eventually
support larval dispersal beyond
the target system. One-time
minimal carbon footprint from
development of structures and
boat use for installations.
Corals that settle and grow
through natural recruitment will
eventually support larval
dispersal beyond the target
system. Intervention designed
to reduce erosion to the coastal
highway that provides the only
access to residents and visitors.
One-time minimal carbon
footprint from development of
structures and boat use for
installations.
Corals that settle and grow
through natural recruitment will
eventually support larval
dispersal beyond the target
system. Potential for unintended
consequences ifoutplanted
urchins overpopulate the reef
and cause bioerosion. As other
proposed herbivore
management efforts, such as
place-based protection, fishing
gear restrictions, and catch size
limits are pursued, the increase
in herbivore biomass will have
positive community impacts by
supporting subsistence and
recreational fishers. Moderate
carbon footprint from boat use
for transport trips from the
nursery to outplacing site.
Interactions
Are there
interdependences,
sequencing
requirements, or
conflicts with other
options?
Intervention will take time to
realize structural change needed
to support goal. Use of man-
made structures (Option 3) would
help expedite results. Herbivore
management is an issue at Site 2
where fishing is heavy. This
option should be paired with
Option 4 to support preparation
This option would be used at Site
2 to correct problems from loose
rubble due to human impacts.
This option should be paired with
Option 4 to support natural
recruitment on stabilized reef
structure.
Natural coral recruitment may
be inhibited by algal growth.
Propagating and outpanting
acclimatized corals (Option 1)
directly on WAUs and in the
surrounding areas may support
more resilient natural coral
recruitment.
This intervention may be
appropriate for maintenance of
Options 1, 2, and 3 if
macroalgal growth becomes
problematic on existing reef,
stabilized rubble, and/or WAUs.
58
-------
Evaluation Criteria
Restoration Intervention Rating
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1)
OPTION 1
Asexually propagate structure-
building corals in afield
nursery and outplant on
existing reef structure
OPTION 2
Stabilize rubble to protect
existing corals and enhance
natural recruitment
OPTION 3
Deploy reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs)
designed to reduce wave
energy and support natural
coral recruitment
OPTION 4
Enhance and diversify
herbivore biomass to reduce
algal overgrowth and
enhance natural coral
recruitment
and maintenance of restoration
site conditions.
OVERALL AVERAGE
4.2
3.5
3.9
3.6
59
-------
Effectiveness
5
Externalities
Feasiblity
Urgency
Flexibility
ฆOption 1-Asexual Propagation & Outplanting
Option 2-Rubble Stablization & Natural Recruitment
'Option 3-Wave Attenuation Devices & Natural Recruitment
Option 4-Herbivore Enhancement & Diversification
Results of Scoring Multi-criteria Evaluation20
20 A radar diagram was used to assist in visualizing the differences is scoring among options.
60
-------
Document the intervention(s) that best support the priority goal as well as the process and rationale used during your
evaluation process.
Selected Interventions(s): Propagation at Site 3: North Bay Reef and Outplanting on Existing Reef and Wave
Attenuation Units (WAU) at Site 2, Fisher's Reef
After evaluating aii options, the team determined that a hybrid green-gray restoration intervention would be needed to achieve
the goal within 15 years. Option 1, asexually propagate structure-building corals in a field nursery and outplant on existing
reef structure and Option 3, install wave attenuation units (WAUs), will be used in combination, including outplanting of corals
onto WAUs to further accelerate reef build-up. Attachment methods for WAUs will be the same as those for natural substrate.
In addition, Option 4 will be used to prepare and maintain the site by outplanting sea urchins raised in a land-based nursery
and by advocating for other herbivore management interventions. This combination of options will focus on Site 2 as the
restoration sites and Site 3 as the nursery site. Substrate stabilization, Option 2, will not be carried forward until the impacts of
marine debris and destructive fishing practices have been addressed.
Propagation, Structure-building corals will be propagated in a field nursery. Branching coral Pocillopora meandrina and
boulder coral Pontes lobata will be used because they will create the most friction on the reef flat while also being more
resistant to bleaching and robust against high wave energy. Coral fragments wiil be obtained from sites outside the
restoration site that have sufficient numbers for collection, as well as from sites that have experienced past thermal bleaching
events so that the corals are more likely to have greater thermal stress tolerance. A nursery site suitability study identified Site
3 - North Bay Reef as not only a source of corals but also a suitable site for a field nurseiy. Coral fragments will be collected
from "corals of opportunity" that are already broken, or from taking small fragments from intact donor colonies. Fragments will
be collected every 5 m to attempt to collect as many distinct genotypes as possible. Corals with indications of disease or
stress will be avoided. Asexual fragmentation will be followed by grow-out in two field nurseries along the windward coast. In
addition to Site 3, another field nursery will be established to mitigate the risk of loss due to unanticipated events. Branching
coral fragments will be attached directly to coral trees for propagation using CoralClips (Suggett, 2020). Fragments of boulder
corals will be epoxied to plates and attached to the coral tree. The coral tree propagation method will enable corals to be
vertically adjusted or shaded as needed for acclimatization and lowered in case of storms. The nursery is exposed to a range
of temperatures, water quality conditions, and wave energy, so is expected to engender more resilient corals for outplanting.
Outplanting Techniques. Propagated corals will be outplanted on existing reef structure and WAUs at Site 2. Branching and
boulder coral fragments will be transplanted to existing reef structure and WAUs using techniques (e.g., CoralClips and
epoxy) that will be tested during the pilot phase and in the event of high failure rates, adjustments will be made to ensure that
the outplanted corals will withstand existing and future wave conditions and sea level rise (Dizon et al., 2008).
WAUs will incorporate biologically friendly materials, such as pH-neutral
concrete or lightweight concrete with an organic matter matrix to
accelerate biological colonization. WAU stabilization will be enhanced
with the installation of scour blankets to reduce potential scouring
effects. Sources such as Zepeda-Centeno C. [21] and the World Bank
[28J will be consulted to identify WAU prototypes for pilot testing to
evaluate their propensity to support natural recruitment, withstand
severe wave events, and improve fish habitat as a co-benefit of the
restoration intervention.
Outplanting Configuration. The number and configuration of WAUs will
be based on the results of wave modeling, using programs such as
XBeaeh, SWAN, and Delft3D [5,11, 29], These programs can generally
model reef areas at the scale needed to determine the WAU
configurations that have the greatest potential to minimize shoreline erosion under existing and future conditions, including
sea level rise and increasing severe storm events. The locations of corals outplanted to existing reef areas will be based on
both the configuration of WAUs determined through wave modeling as well as baseline studies of coral demography and reef
structure. For a given site, corals will be outplanted on the reef flat in areas characterized by additional structural complexity,
which could prove beneficial to wave energy reduction, as well as at different depths to account for sea level rise and
decrease the risk of impacts from potential bleaching events. A rapid response plan will be created for the repair or
replacement of structures after storms.
An artificial reef structure with coral recruits.
Credit: Boze Hancock.
61
-------
Site Preparation and Maintenance. Removal of macroalgae by hand or mechanical means may be required at the nursery
site to protect propagated corals and at the restoration site to protect coral outplants and recruits. Algae removal frequency
may have to be increased if rising ocean temperatures and/or increased nutrient inputs increase algal growth in the future.
Sea urchins will be outplanted at appropriate densities to the restoration site from an existing land-based laboratory that is
resistant to hurricane force winds and has a back-up power generator. Natural urchin species and densities will first be
assessed on other reefs to determine how many urchins are needed to support algae removal at the restoration site. A rapid
response plan will be put into place for replenishment of urchins lost at high rates due to disease or temperature extremes.
Other herbivore management efforts, such as place-based protection, fishing gear restrictions, and catch size limits will also
be pursed in order to diversify herbivore biomass at the restoration site as different functional groups of herbivorous fish (e.g.,
scarids, acanthurids, kyphosids) are needed to support reef growth and recruitment. This will also counterbalance uncertainty
in impacts of climate change on urchins and other herbivores and the macroalgae they consume.
Process and Rationale. The Core Planning team, with input from the Technical Advisory Group, decided that a combination
of restoration Options 1 and 3 was needed to achieve the goal. In addition, it was decided that these restoration efforts should
be focused on Site 2 for the outplacing and Site 3 for the field-based nursery. The Technical Advisory Group provided vital
feedback throughout this step. Meetings with federal, state, and local officials were held to identify any constraints in terms of
approach or timing (e.g., permitting) that could adversely impact the implementation of a restoration option.
While propagation and outplacing of structure-building corals on existing reef will support wave attenuation in the long term,
the deployment of reef-friendly WAUs is likely needed for more immediate results. Wave modeling will be needed to
determine effectiveness of this combined intervention and to inform decisions on the number and configuration of outplants
and WAUs. Herbivore management (Option 4) was also deemed necessary for site preparation and maintenance but is of
secondary importance in promoting settlement of coral recruits. Herbivore management on its own may not be sufficient to
support reef resilience to wave events over the long term [37],
Reef restoration using this intervention will be focused on Site 2, Fisher's Reef, whilst the setup of a nursery for coral
propagation should be focused on Site 3, North Bay Reef. An additional nursery site will be needed to be reduce the risk that
coral propagation is jeopardized by unfavorable environmental conditions and/or events at a single site.
tm Step 3 Stakeholder Engagement
List technical experts, stakeholders, and partners including scientists, engineers, community members, private sector, and
federal and local government engaged for this step.
Technical Expertise
Key Stakeholders
Coral reef biologist/coral ecologist
Coastal engineer
Coastal geologist
Physical/chemical oceanographer
Climate scientist
Watershed manager
Water quality specialist
Land use planner
Non-Government
Representatives of environmental advocacy groups
Government
Regulatory Agencies (federal, state, and local)
Provide a summary of stakeholder engagement activities to be taken for this step.
For this step, stakeholder engagement was confined to the Technical Advisory Group and government and nongovernmental
entities. With the restoration interventions and sites finalized, education and outreach activities will be conducted for
communities where restoration sites are located. Factsheets on the selected restoration interventions will be developed and
disseminated during community meetings and presentations. These factsheets will describe the restoration interventions and
highlight the need to minimize any human disturbances to the restoration sites.
62
-------
STEP 4: DEVELOP RESTORATION ACTION PLAN
4A: Define SMART Objectives
Identify potential performance metrics and intermediate results for the priority goal and restoration intervention(s) selected in
Step 3C.
Goal: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy
that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby strengthening the
resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly
intense storms.
Intervention: Asexually propagate structure-building corals in a field
nursery and outplant on existing reef structure and reef-friendly wave
attenuation units (WAUs). Use herbivore management for restoration
site preparation and maintenance.
A worker distributes juvenile urchins on a reef.
Credit; Kyle Rothenborg, Hawaii.
Objectives
Time (Years)
7-10
11 -<15
Potential Performance
Metrics
Coral survival in
field nursery
Number of sea
urchins outplanted
Sea urchin density
(baseline)
Coral survival of
outplants on
existing reef
structure
Sea urchin
density
Restored coral
height
% reduction in
wave energy from
restored reef
structure
% reduction in
wave energy from
restored reef
structure
Intermediate Results
(Restoration
Intervention)
Nursery is
established and
producing corals
for propagation
Urchins seeded at
restoration sites
Outplanting to reef
structure tested
WAUs tested
High survival of
outplanted corals
Increased urchin
population
maintained at
restoration sites
WAUs deployed
Intermediate Results
(Goal)
Increased colony
height, coral
cover, and
rugosity
Wave energy
reduced from
restored reef
structure
Increased coral
colony size, coral
cover, and rugosity
Wave energy
reduced from
restored reef
structure
63
-------
Craft SMART objectives and metrics that will be used to monitor performance of the restoration interventions) toward the
goal.
Questions to identify metrics for medium to long-term
objectives related to the goal
What is the percent reduction in wave energy
desired/possible from reef restoration at the site?
What type of storm event must the restored reef
structureAVAUs withstand?
How should the restored reef structure be designed to
keep up with sea level rise?
By what timeframes should we expect to see reduced
wave energy from restoration?
Activity to Address information/Data Gaps:
Measure wave energy by installing wave buoys and/or
bottom mounted pressure sensors to establish the
baseline wave energy across the restoration site under
different wave conditions
Conduct wave modeling and simulations to determine the
number and configuration WAUs under various wave
energy scenarios
Determine the appropriate density of urchins needed for
site preparation and maintenance
Identify other herbivores for diversification planning
Intervention(s): Asexually propagate structure-building corals in a field nursery and outplant on existing reef structure and
reef-friendly WAUs. Enhance and diversify herbivore biomass through outplanting urchins from land-based nursery and other
measures for restoration site preparation and maintenance.
Questions to identify metrics for short-term and medium-
term objectives related to the intervention:
How many colonies of Pocillopora and Porites can be
propagated per year?
How many nurseries will be required? Where should the
nurseries be established to achieve desired pre-
conditioning?
How many colonies of Pocillopora and Porites should be
propagated in nurseries to account for future losses of
corals?
How many colonies of Pocillopora and Porites must be
outplanted to natural reef structure and WAUs to
achieve sufficient reef build-up for reduced wave
energy?
Activity to Address information/Data Gaps:
Conduct baseline monitoring of natural reefs to determine
density and number of coral colonies required
Conduct pilot study on coral propagation and outplanting
Conduct monitoring of potential nursery sites for desired
pre-conditioning environment
Conduct pilot study on viability of reef-friendly WAU
prototypes
List SMART Objectives:
Corresponding Performance Metrics
Objective 1: Within 5 years, 250 fragments each of
branching coral Pocillopora meandrina and boulder coral
Porites lobata have been preconditioned in a field nursery
and outplanted with 50% survival on existing reef structure
and WAU prototypes to demonstrate proof of concept.
Number of WAU prototypes created and deployed at
Fisher's Reef (Site 2)
Number and % survival of corals propagated in nurseries
(Site 3) and outplanted on existing reef and WAU
prototypes (Site 2)
Number and density of urchins outplanted at Fisher's Reef
Number of corals naturally recruited on WAU prototypes
Universal Metrics [12]:
o Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean
temperature (nursery and outplanting sites)
o Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and
ecological footprint (baseline)
o Population metrics: mean coral size, abundance,
size-frequency distribution (baseline)
Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean total suspended
solids, salinity, and temperature (nursery site)
64
-------
Objective 2: Within 3 years, the wave energy reduction goal
and outpianting configuration needed to achieve that goal are
determined via models, and the results peer-reviewed.
Baseline physical characteristics of the restoration site
established including wave energy, bathymetry, geology,
geotechnical conditions, and wave climate
Modeling of the existing and proposed reef configuration
for different wave energy reduction goals completed
Wave energy reduction goal and WAU configuration
established for the restoration site
Objective 3: Within 10 years, wave energy is reduced by
50%, and restored reef areal dimension expands naturally by
an additional 30% after reef restoration.
Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal
metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and
ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height,
abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reduced wave energy
The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function
of wave height, will be determined as the ratio of the wave
energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on
the seaward side. Bottom mounted pressure sensors or wave
buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the
wave height and period. Estimated wave energy reduction
goals for the restored reef will be reviewed and validated
based on modeling.
25% reduction in wave energy 5 years after reef
restoration
50% reduction in wave energy 10 years after reef
restoration
Objective 4: Within 15 years, wave energy is reduced by
90%, the restored reef areal dimension is maintained, and
natural reef build-up continues after reef restoration.
Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal
metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and
ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height,
abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reduced wave energy
The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function
of wave height, will be determined as the ratio of the wave
energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on
the seaward side. Bottom mounted pressure sensors or wave
buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the
wave height and period. Estimated wave energy reduction
goals will be reviewed and validated based on modeling.
90% reduction in wave energy within 15 years of reel
restoration
65
-------
4B: Develop Activities and Implementation Timeline
Prepare a table describing restoration activities (intervention activities as well as supporting management and community
engagement activities), with the timeframe and responsible party for completing each activity.21
Goal: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby strengthening
the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Objective 1: Within 5 years, 250 fragments each of branching coral Pocillopora meandrina and boulder coral Porites lobata
have been preconditioned in a field nursery and outplanted with 50% survival on existing reef structure and WAU prototypes
to demonstrate proof of concept.
Performance Metrics:
Number of WAU prototypes created and deployed on at Fisher's Reef (Site 2)
Number and % survival of corals propagated in nurseries (Site 3) and outplanted on WAU prototypes and existing reef
structure (Site 2)
Number and density of urchins outplanted at Fisher's Reef
Number of corals recruited on WAU prototypes
Universal Metrics [12]:
o Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean temperature (nursery and outplanting sites)
o Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint (baseline)
o Population metrics: mean coral size, abundance, size-frequency distribution (baseline)
Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean total suspended solids, salinity, and temperature (nursery site)
Activities
Timeframe
1.1
Establish a Coral Propagation and Outplanting Pilot Study Working Group with a lead and
experts in coral ecology, biology, and artificial reef structures, such as coastal engineers, to
develop a detailed design and work plan for the pilot phase and its implementation
Year 1 - 5
1.2
For restoration sites, conduct baseline survey of population metrics (mean coral size,
abundance, size-frequency distribution)
Year 1
1.3
Establish location, number, configuration, and size of outplant plots for pilot studies
Year 1
1.4
Monitor temperature and water quality at both restoration sites as well as the field nursery to
document the pre-conditioning environment
Year 1 - 5
1.5
Develop propagation and outplanting protocols
Year 1
1.6
Obtain permits for field activities
Year 1
1.7
Outplant sea urchins from land-based nursery and monitor survival
Year 2
1.8
Establish in situ nursery and develop and test propagation protocol
Year 1 - 2
1.9
Develop and test WAU prototypes with and without outplanted corals
Year 2-3
1.10
Outplant corals and monitor coral outplant survival
Year 3-5
1.11
Conduct peer review of the pilot study and make any adjustments in coral species,
propagation and outplanting techniques, and WAU designs based on Activity 2.7
Year 5
21 Note that a responsible party for each objective and activity should be identified in the Action Plan. In this hypothetical example, it was
decided not to invent fictitious names.
66
-------
Goal: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby strengthening
the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
Objective 2: Within 3 years, the wave energy reduction goal and outplacing configuration needed to achieve that goal are
determined via models, and the results peer-reviewed.
Performance Metrics:
Baseline physical characteristics of the restoration site documented including wave energy, bathymetry, geology,
geotechnical conditions, and wave climate
Modeling of the existing and proposed reef configuration for different wave energy reduction goals completed
Wave energy reduction goal and WAU configuration established for the restoration site
Activities
Timeframe
2.1
Establish a Coastal Processes Pilot Study Working Group with relevant experts to create a
detailed work plan
Year 1-3
2.2
Prepare detailed work plan to develop model wave energy reduction scenarios for outplacing
corals on existing structures and WAUs.
Year 2
2.3
Conduct baseline mapping of reef geometry at the restoration site (e.g., height, structural
complexity) using the best available technology such as high-resolution airborne
topo/bathymetric LiDAR or UAV imagery
Year 1 - 2
2.4
Conduct baseline monitoring of wave energy across the restoration site using instrumentation
(e.g., bottom-mounted pressure sensors or wave buoys) and methods that can be repeated
over time
Year 1 - 2
2.5
Conduct hydrodynamic modeling to simulate different configurations and combinations of
coral outplants and WAUs to establish feasible wave energy reduction goals for restoration
Year 2
2.6
Develop and test WAU prototypes with and without outplanted corals
Year 2-3
2.7
Conduct peer review of the results of the modeling and make any adjustments to outplacing
configurations and WAU designs
Year 4
Objective 3: Within 10 years, wave energy is reduced by 50%, and restored reef areal dimension expands naturally by an
additional 30% after reef restoration.
Performance Metrics: Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height, abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reef structure and complexity: mean height of corals and reef structure at a restoration site
Reduced wave energy: The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function of wave height, will be
determined as the ratio of the wave energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on the seaward side.
Bottom mounted pressure sensors or wave buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the wave
heights. Wave energy is measured by wave height and period. Estimated wave energy reduction goals will be
reviewed and validated based on baseline assessment and modeling conducted under Objective 2:
o 25% reduction in wave energy 5 years after reef restoration
o 50% reduction in wave energy 10 years after reef restoration
Activities
Timeframe
3.1
Review and refine Restoration Action Plan, adjusting SMART objectives and metrics and
activities as needed based on results of pilot phases
Year 5
3.2
Refine propagation and outplanting protocol and schedule
Year 5
3.3
Develop long-term restoration monitoring and evaluation plan
Year 5
3.4
Update existing or obtain new permits for field activities
Year 5
3.5
Scale-up nursery operations
Year 6 - ongoing
67
-------
Goal: Within 15 years, restored reef structure reduces wave energy that contributes to coastal erosion, thereby strengthening
the resilience of coastal communities to sea level rise and increasingly intense storms.
3.6
Scale-up outplacing operations
Year 6 - ongoing
3.7
Monitor reef geometry at the restoration site (e.g., height, structural complexity) using
methodology used in Activity 2.3 to compare to baseline images collected in Year 1
Year 6, 8, and 10
3.8
Implement long-term restoration monitoring and evaluation plan
Year 6 - ongoing
3.9
Conduct peer review of restoration operations and results
Bi-Annual
Objective 4: Within 15 years, wave energy is reduced by 90%, the restored reef areal dimension is maintained, and natural
reef build-up continues after reef restoration.
Performance Metrics: Long-term monitoring and evaluation plan will include universal metrics and goal-specific metrics [12]:
Restored reef areal dimension: outplant plot and ecological footprint
Population metrics: mean coral size, height, abundance, size-frequency distribution
Reef structure and complexity: mean height of corals and reef structure at a restoration site
Reduced wave energy: The percent reduction in wave energy, measured as a function of wave height, will be
determined as the ratio of the wave energy landward of the restored reef to the wave energy on the seaward side.
Bottom mounted pressure sensors or wave buoys will be used for short periods of time to measure the wave height
and period. Estimated wave energy reduction goals will be reviewed and validated based on baseline assessment
and modeling conducted under Objective 2:
o 90% reduction in wave energy within 15 years of reef restoration
Activities
Timeframe
4.1
implement long-term restoration monitoring and evaluation plan
Years 10-15
4.2
Maintain and replace damaged WAUs as needed after severe storm events
Years 10-15
4.3
Maintain outplanting activities to replace corals lost from severe storm events and bleaching
Years 10-15
4.4
Maintain algae removal and urchin outplanting as needed
Years 10-15
Wave attenuation units reduce wave energy.
Credit: Boze Hancock.
68
-------
Prepare a table with this information for any supporting management and community engagement activities.22
Objective 5: Provide scientific information to local governments to inform decision-making on methods to reduce coastal
erosion by improving floodplain management, limiting shoreline armoring, and incentivizing living shorelines in the face of
rising seas.
Activities
Timeframe
5.1
Review existing land use and development plans and projects that contribute to coastal erosion now
and in the future with climate change
Year 1 - 2
5.2
Identify opportunities to improve plans and projects to reduce coastal erosion
Year 1 - 2
5.3
Conduct education and outreach with communities on how to improve shoreline management
Year 2-5
Objective 6: Work with the local government and communities to improve herbivore diversity and biomass at the restoration
site.
6.1
Conduct education and outreach with a wide range of stakeholders on the importance of increasing
the diversity and abundance of herbivorous fish biomass
Year 1 - 2
6.2
Identify options for enhancing herbivore diversity and biomass
Year 1 - 2
6.3
Provide scientific information to inform decisions on place-based management of herbivores
Year 2-5
Objective 7: Develop options for sustainable financing mechanisms to support restoration costs through long-term public-
private partnerships.
Activities
Timeframe
7.1
Develop a restoration advisory group including government, nongovernment, and private partners
Year 1
7.2
Provide regular updates of restoration activities to the advisory group
Ongoing
7.3
Work with the advisory group to identify sustainable financing options for restoration including site-
specific restoration funds, reef insurance [38], and other resources
Ongoing
4C: Build Action Plan
Develop your Restoration Action Plan (you can use Appendix 2 as a template). Provide an overview of the process used to
develop your plan.
The Core Planning team leader used the Workbook to populate the Restoration Action Plan template. The completed Action
Plan is found at the beginning of this report. The Action Plan was sent to the rest of the core planning team for review. The
plan was then shared with technical advisors for their final review. This Action Plan served as the basis for a grant proposal.
22 The Guide and Workbook do not direct the reader to develop SMART objectives for other supporting management activities. These
illustrative objectives were considered useful in this example to help organize key activities that support restoration.
69
-------
fflt Step 4 Stakeholder Engagement
List technical experts, stakeholders, and partners including scientists, engineers, community members, private sector, and
federal and local government engaged for this step.
Technical Expertise
Key Stakeholders
Coral reef biologist/coral ecologist
Coastal engineer
Watershed manager
Land use planner
Non-Government
Residents impacted by chronic coastal erosion
Fishing community
Tourism industry representatives
Communities located along the Windward coast
Representatives of environmental advocacy groups
Government
Regulatory Agencies (federal, state, and local)
Provide a summary of stakeholder engagement activities to be taken for this step.
Now finalized, the Ho'okohukohu Coral Reef Restoration Action Plan will be disseminated to local stakeholders (e.g., decision
makers, natural resource managers, researchers, interested community members) through one or more presentations. These
sessions will likely be a combination of in-person and virtual, A one-page executive summary will be developed and shared
with high level decision makers (e.g., Office of the Governor, members of the legislature and their staff). The document will be
made publicly available online. In addition, two Pilot Study Working Groups will be established to conduct literature review
and develop a detailed design of the pilot studies and modeling for Objectives 1 and 2. These groups will regularly meet
together and share information, progress, and insights on restoration design and implementation that will be used to update
the Action Plan. The results of the pilot phase and modeling studies will be presented to communities and key stakeholder
groups. Education and outreach activities will be conducted to foster and maintain support for coral restoration and herbivore
management. Educational presentations and materials on the restoration project will be prepared and communicated to
students, particularly in target communities.
Hawksblll turtle encounter.
Credit: Valentine Vaeoso, American Samoa.
70
-------
REFERENCES
1. Shaver, E. C., Courtney, C.A., West, J.M., Maynard, J., Hein, M., Wagner, C., Philibotte, J.,
MacGowan, P., McLeod, L., Bostrom-Einarsson, L., Bucchianeri, K., Johnston, L., and Koss, J. 2020. A
Manager's Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. NOAA Technical Memorandum
CRCP 36, 128 pp. https://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/restoration guide/welcome.html
2. Reguero, B. G., Secaira, F., Toimil, A., Escudero, M., Dfaz-Simal, P., Beck, M. W., Rodolfo, S., Storlazzi,
C., and Losada, I. J. 2019. The Risk Reduction Benefits of the Mesoamerican Reef in Mexico.
Frontiers in Earth Science, 7, 125. Doi:10.3389/feart.2019.00125.
3. Storlazzi, C. D., Reguero, Borja G., Cole, Aaron D., Lowe, Erik, Shope, James B., Gibbs, Ann E., Nickel,
Barry A., McCall, Robert T., van Dongeren, Ap R., and Beck, M. W. 2019. Rigorously Valuing the Role
of U.S. Coral Reefs in Coastal Hazard Risk Reduction. (Open-File Report 2019-1027)
Doi:10.3133/ofr20191027.
4. Harris, D., Rovere, A., Parravicini, V., and Casella, E. 2016. The role of coral reef rugosity in
dissipating wave energy and coastal protection. EPSC2016-17446.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..1817446H
5. Quataert, E., Storlazzi, C., van Rooijen, A., Cheriton, O., and van Dongeren, A. 2015. The influence of
coral reefs and climate change on wave-driven flooding of tropical coastlines. Geophysical Research
Letters, 42, 6407-6415. Doi:10.1002/2015GL064861.
6. Ferrario, F., Beck, M. W., Storlazzi, C. D., Micheli, F., Shepard, C. C., and Airoldi, L. 2014. The
effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nature
Communications, 5(1), 3794. Doi:10.1038/ncomms4794.
7. Alvarez-Filip, L., Dulvy, N. K., Cote, I. M., Watkinson, A. R., and Gill, J. A. 2011. Coral identity
underpins architectural complexity on Caribbean reefs. Ecol Appl, 21(6), 2223-2231. Doi:10.1890/10-
1563.1.
8. Precht, W., Aronson, R., and Swanson, D. 2001. Improving scientific decision-making in the
restoration of ship-grounding sites on coral reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science, 69, 1001-1012.
9. Perry, C. T., Kench, P. S., Smithers, S. G., Riegl, B., Yamano, H., and O'Leary, M. J. 2011. Implications
of reef ecosystem change for the stability and maintenance of coral reef islands. Global Change
Biology, 17(12), 3679-3696. Doi:10.1111/j.l365-2486.2011.02523.x.
10. Storlazzi, C. D., Elias, E., Field, M. E., and Presto, M. K. 2011. Numerical modeling of the impact of
sea-level rise on fringing coral reef hydrodynamics and sediment transport. Coral Reefs, 30, 83-96.
Doi: 10.1007/s00338-011-0723-9.
11. Grady, A. E., Moore L.J., Storlazzi, C.D., Elias, E., and Reidenbach, M.A. 2013. The influence of sea-
level rise and changes in fringing reef morphology on gradients in alongshore sediment transport.
Geophysical Research Letters, 40, 3096-3101. Doi:10.1002/grl.50577.
12. Goergen, E. A., Schopmeyer, S., Moulding, A.L., Moura, A., Kramer, P., and Viehman, T.S. 2020. Coral
Reef Restoration Monitoring Guide: Methods to evaluate restoration success from local to
ecosystem scales. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 279, 145. Doi:10.25923/xndz-h538.
13. Viehman, T. S., Reguero, B. G., Rosman, J. H., Lenihan, H. S., Storlazzi, C. D., Goergen, E. A., Canals
Silander, M.F., Groves, S.H., Holstein, D.M., Bruckner, A.W., Carrick, J.V., Haus, B.K., Royster, J.B.,
Duvall, M.S., Torres, W.I., and Hench, J. L. In review. Coral restoration for coastal resilience: a
framework for multi-scale integration of ecology, hydrodynamics, and engineering. Restoration
Ecology.
14. Lowe, R. J., McLeod, E., Reguero, B. G., Altman, S., Harris, J., Hancock, B., Hofstede, R. ter, Rendle, E.,
Shaver, E., and Smith, J. M. 2021. International Guidelines on Natural and Nature-Based Features for
71
-------
Flood Risk Management. Chapter 12: Reefs. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center. Doi:10.21079/11681/41946.
15. Vaughn, D. 2021. Active Coral Restoration: Techniques for a Changing Planet. 540 pp. J. Ross
Publishing, Inc. Plantation, FL. ISBN: 978-1604271430.
16. Masselink, G., McCall, R., Beetham, E., Kench, P., and Storlazzi, C. 2021. Role of Future Reef Growth
on Morphological Response of Coral Reef Islands to Sea-Level Rise. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Earth Surface, 126(2), e2020JF005749. Doi:10.1029/2020JF005749.
17. Reguero, B. G., Storlazzi, C. D., Gibbs, A. E., Shope, J. B., Cole, A. D., Cumming, K. A., and Beck, M. W.
2021. The value of US coral reefs for flood risk reduction. Nature Sustainability, 4(8), 688-698.
Doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00706-6.
18. Roelvink, F. E., Storlazzi, C. D., van Dongeren, A. R., and Pearson, S.G. 2021. Coral reef restorations
can be optimized to reduce coastal flooding hazards. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8(440).
Doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.653945.
19. Osorio-Cano, J. D., Alcerreca-Huerta, J. C., Marino-Tapia, I., Osorio, A. F., Acevedo-Ramfrez, C.,
Enriquez, C., Costa, M., Pereira, P., Mendoza, E., Escudero, M., Astorga-Moar, A., Lopez-Gonzalez, J.,
Appendini, C.M., Silva, R., and Oumeraci, H. 2019. Effects of roughness loss on reef hydrodynamics
and coastal protection: Approaches in Latin America. Estuaries and Coasts, 42(7), 1742-1760.
Doi:10.1007/sl2237-019-00584-4.
20. Reguero, B. G., Beck, M. W., Agostini, V.N., Kramer, P., and Hancock B. 2018. Coral reefs for coastal
protection: A new methodological approach and engineering case study in Grenada. Journal of
Environmental Management, 210, 146. Doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.024.
21. Zepeda-Centeno C., M.-T. I., McLeod, E., Rodriguez-Martinez, R., Alvarez-Filip, L., Banaszak, A. T.,
Escudero-Castillo, M., Silva-Casarfn, R., Mendoza-Baldwin, E., Beck, M., and Shaver, E. 2018.
Guidance Document for Reef Management and Restoration to Improve Coastal Protection:
Recommendations for Global Applications based on lessons learned in Mexico.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335676053 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR REEF MANA
GEMENT AND RESTORATION TO IMPROVE COASTAL PROTECTION Recommendations for Glob
al Applications based on lessons learned in Mexico.
22. Haapkyla, J., Unsworth, R. K. F., Flavell, M., Bourne, D. G., Schaffelke, B., and Willis, B. L. 2011.
Seasonal rainfall and runoff promote coral disease on an inshore reef. PLoS ONE, 6(2), el6893.
Doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0016893.
23. Sheridan, C., Baele, J.M., Kushmaro, A., Frejaville, Y., and Eeckhaut, I. 2014. Terrestrial runoff
influences white syndrome prevalence in SW Madagascar. Marine Environmental Research, 101, 44-
51. Doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.08.003.
24. Zweifler, A., O'Leary, M., Morgan, K., and Browne, N. K. 2021. Turbid coral reefs: Past, present and
futureA review. Diversity, 13(6), 251. Doi:10.3390/dl3060251.
25. Sully, S., and van Woesik, R. 2020. Turbid reefs moderate coral bleaching under climate-related
temperature stress. Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1367-1373. Doi:10.1111/gcb. 14948.
26. Precht, W. F., and Robbart, M. 2005. Coral reef restoration: the rehabilitation of an ecosystem under
siege: Coral Reef Restoration Handbook, https://nmsfloridakevs.blob.core.windows.net/floridakeys-
prod/media/archive/review/documents/erreefsundersiege.pdf.
27. Suggett, D. J., Edmondson, J., Howlett, L. and Camp, E.F. 2020. CamplCoralclipฎ: a low-cost solution
for rapid and targeted out-planting of coral at scale. Restoration Ecology, 28, 289-296.
Doi:10.1111/rec. 13070.
28. World Bank. 2016. Managing Coasts with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Measuring and Valuing
the Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves and Coral Reefs. M. W. Beck and G-M. Lange, editors.
72
-------
Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services Partnership (WAVES), World Bank,
Washington, DC. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/23775.
29. Deltares. 2021. XBeach. https://www.deltares.nl/en/software/xbeach/.
30. Nedimyer, K., Gaines, K., and Roach, S. 2011. Coral tree nursery ฉ: An innovative approach to
growing corals in an ocean-based field nursery. AACL Bioflux, 4, 442-446.
31. Dizon, R. M., Edwards, A. J., and Gomez, E. D. 2008. Comparison of three types of adhesives in
attaching coral transplants to clam shell substrates. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems, 18(7), 1140-1148. Doi:10.1002/aqc.944.
32. Ceccarelli, D. M., McLeod, I. M., Bostrom-Einarsson, L., Bryan, S. E., Chartrand, K. M., Emslie, M. J.,
Gibbs, M.T., Gonzalez Rivero, M., Hein, M.Y., Heyward, A., Kenyon, T.M. Lewis, B.M., Mattocks, N.,
Newlands, M., Schlappy, M.L., Suggett, D.J., and Bay, L. K. 2020. Substrate stabilisation and small
structures in coral restoration: State of knowledge, and considerations for management and
implementation. PLoS ONE, 15(10), e0240846. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240846.
33. Collin, A., Ramambason, C., Pastol, Y., Casella, E., Rovere, A., Thiault, L., Espiau, B., Siu, G.,
Lerouvreur, F. Nakamura, N., Hench, J.L., Schmitt, R.J., Holbrook, S.J., Troyer, M., and Davies, N.
2018. Very high resolution mapping of coral reef state using airborne bathymetric LiDAR surface-
intensity and drone imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 39(17), 5676-5688.
Doi: 10.1080/01431161.2018.1500072.
34. Asner, G. P., Vaughn, N.R., Balzotti, C., Brodrick, P.G., and Heckler, J. 2020. High-resolution reef
bathymetry and coral habitat complexity from airborne imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sensing, 12,
310. Doi: 10.3390/rsl2020310.
35. Storlazzi, C. D., Logan, J. B., and Field, M. E. 2003. Quantitative morphology of a fringing reef tract
from high-resolution laser bathymetry; southern Molokai, Hawaii. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 115(11), 1344-1355. Doi:10.1130/B25200.1.
36. Leon, J. X., Roelfsema, C. M., Saunders, M. I., and Phinn, S. R. 2015. Measuring coral reef terrain
roughness using 'Structure-from-Motion' close-range photogrammetry. Geomorphology
(Amsterdam, Netherlands), 242, 21-28. Doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.01.030.
37. Edwards, H. J., Elliott, I. A., Eakin, C. M., Irikawa, A., Madom, J. S., McField, M., Morgan, J.A., van
Woesik, R., and Mumby, P. J. 2010. How much time can herbivore protection buy for coral reefs
under realistic regimes of hurricanes and coral bleaching? Global Change Biology.
Doi:10.1111/j.l365-2486.2010.02366.x.
38. Berg, C., Bertolotti, L., Bieri, T., Bowman, J., Braun, R., Cardillo, J., Chaudhury, M., Falinski, K.,
Geselbracht, L., Hum, K., Lustic, C., Roberts, E., Young, S., and Way, M. 2020. Insurance for natural
infrastructure: Assessing the feasibility of insuring coral reefs in Florida and Hawaii.
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC BOA ReeflnsuranceFeasibili
tv FLHI 113020.pdf.
73
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |