NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program

Sociospatial information is critical to marine and coastal ecosystem management. The Hawaii Coastal Uses Mapping Project used a participatory geographic information systems (PGIS) methodology to gather local knowledge regarding the location and intensity of coastal human activities in Hawaii's priority sites for coral reef management. PGIS provided an efficient and effective means of obtaining information in a data-poor context, particularly at a scale and location where considerable local knowledge is held by community members and resource users. We detail the PGIS methods developed to collect sociospatial data on human uses in the project regions and discuss important considerations regarding the practice of PGIS that emerged from the mapping process, as well as implications for the production and documentation of spatial knowledge. Key themes include: issues of scale and appropriateness in using PGIS as a method for mapping human coastal and marine activities; data validity, authority, and the nature of local knowledge; community trust, engagement, and collaboration; and utility for coral reef management. While several factors limit local agencies' ability to use this spatial information to date, natural resource managers found the participatory mapping process to be highly valuable for stakeholder identification and engagement, and the maps provide a resource to state and federal managers to better understand the human implications of future management scenarios.

The Hawaiians of old depended on the sea for survival and, as a result, developed a sophisticated understanding of the natural processes regulating resource abundance and effective strategies to manage those resources. After Western contact, sociopolitical upheaval led to the breakdown of the traditional Hawaiian fisheries management system, though practice and knowledge continued. Even today, subsistence fishing is culturally and economically important to many communities throughout Hawai‘i, but declining resources over the past century have raised concerns about their sustainability. To confront this issue, a number of communities are currently strengthening local influence and accountability for local marine resources through revitalization of local traditions and resource knowledge. This renaissance of traditional community-based management and rediscovery of traditional techniques offers great promise for improving the condition of Hawai‘i's coastal marine environment and the management of its fisheries.

In June 2007, the US government proposed Corallium (pink and red corals) for listing on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The proposal was adopted and later overturned due to perceived difficulties in implementing and enforcing a CITES listing and uncertainties on population status. An expert review (Food and Agriculture Organization) questioned whether populations had declined to 20-30% of the historic baseline, the level required for a CITES Appendix II listing. This review used colony abundance and density as surrogates of decline, which may be high (200 to 1300 colonies m -2 ) in the Mediterranean. Yet assessments of decline for colonial organisms should also consider changes in size, since reproductive output and survival increase exponentially with size. Colonies of C. rubrum historically achieved heights of 50 cm with complex first, second and third order branching patterns. Today, > 90% of colonies in fished areas are 3 to 5 cm tall, < 50% are sexually mature and most have only rudimentary branches. Few population data are available for Pacific Corallium spp.; however, landings over the last 15 yr have declined from 100-400 to < 5 t yr -1 . Recovery of populations to their natural state may require decades, as colonies in protected areas are less than half their historic size after 20 to 30 yr of protection. Minimum allowable size for harvest should be increased because traditionally determined growth rates appear to underestimate colony age, and corals are being removed long before achieving maximum sustainable yield. 'Boom and bust' cycles of Corallium fisheries and dramatic, long-lasting shifts in population demography highlight the need for improved management and trade regulations.

Abstract Human activities have led to widespread ecological decline; however, the severity of degradation is spatially heterogeneous due to some locations resisting, escaping, or rebounding from disturbances. We developed a framework for identifying oases within coral reef regions using long‐term monitoring data. We calculated standardised estimates of coral cover ( z ‐scores) to distinguish sites that deviated positively from regional means. We also used the coefficient of variation ( CV ) of coral cover to quantify how oases varied temporally, and to distinguish among types of oases. We estimated “coral calcification capacity” ( CCC ), a measure of the coral community's ability to produce calcium carbonate structures and tested for an association between this metric and z ‐scores of coral cover. We illustrated our z ‐score approach within a modelling framework by extracting z ‐scores and CV s from simulated data based on four generalized trajectories of coral cover. We then applied the approach to time‐series data from long‐term reef monitoring programmes in four focal regions in the Pacific (the main Hawaiian Islands and Mo'orea, French Polynesia) and western Atlantic (the Florida Keys and St. John, US Virgin Islands). Among the 123 sites analysed, 38 had positive z ‐scores for median coral cover and were categorised as oases. Synthesis and applications . Our framework provides ecosystem managers with a valuable tool for conservation by identifying “oases” within degraded areas. By evaluating trajectories of change in state (e.g., coral cover) among oases, our approach may help in identifying the mechanisms responsible for spatial variability in ecosystem condition. Increased mechanistic understanding can guide whether management of a particular location should emphasise protection, mitigation or restoration. Analysis of the empirical data suggest that the majority of our coral reef oases originated by either escaping or resisting disturbances, although some sites showed a high capacity for recovery, while others were candidates for restoration. Finally, our measure of reef condition (i.e., median z ‐scores of coral cover) correlated positively with coral calcification capacity suggesting that our approach identified oases that are also exceptional for one critical component of ecological function.

The management of marine resources is a politically and culturally driven process, shaped by human livelihoods and perceptions, where notions of both space and place shape policies and decision-making in fundamental ways. An emerging sub-field within geography critically explores geographic aspects of marine resource management. However, there has been little work to fully articulate this field and to describe the contributions of geographic methodologies and lenses to understanding marine resource management processes. This special issue provides one of the first collections of geographic papers focused on the socio-cultural and socio-spatial dimensions of marine resource management, emphasizing research that has or can be applied to management and policy discussions. The papers in this issue cover critical topics within this emerging field, examining the combined influences of social, ecological, cultural, political, economic, historical, and geographic factors on how marine spaces and resources are used, perceived, and managed. Important themes include: emerging spatial approaches to marine resource management, human dimensions of marine protected areas, the roles of mapping and GIS, the integration of quantitative and qualitative data, and the varying ways in which marine spaces and places are conceptualized by marine resource users and managers. Issues of marine resource governance, community engagement, and vulnerability also play key roles in the future of marine resource management. The papers in this issue shed light on space, place, and human-environment interactions in coastal marine systems, making it clear that questions about stakeholder inclusion and representation, particularly in spatial forms, will continue to dominate the field for some time to come. Future research in this field will be fruitfully informed by core geographical heuristics of space, place, and human-environment dynamics.

emissions in combination with implementing local management actions to support reef health and recovery, particularly actions that protect sites which are more resilient to extreme events. Resilience assessments quantify the ecological, social, and environmental context of reefs through the lens of resilience, i.e., the capacity of a system to absorb or withstand stressors such that the system maintains its structure and functions and has the capacity to adapt to future disturbances and changes. Resilience assessments are an important tool to help marine managers and decision makers anticipate changes, identify areas with high survival prospects, and prioritize management actions to support resilience. While being widely implemented, however, there has not yet been an evaluation of whether resilience assessments have informed coral reef management. Here, we assess the primary and gray literature and input from coral reef managers to map where resilience assessments have been conducted. We explore if and how they have been used to inform management actions and provide recommendations for improving the likelihood that resilience assessments will result in management actions and positive conservation outcomes. These recommendations are applicable to other ecosystems in which resilience assessments are applied and will become increasingly important as climate impacts intensify and reduce the window of opportunity for protecting natural ecosystems.

Shackeroff, J. M., L. M. Campbell, and L. B. Crowder. 2011. Social-ecological guilds: putting people into marine historical ecology. Ecology and Society 16(1): 52. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03410-160152

Abstract Coral reef habitat is created when calcium carbonate production by calcifiers exceeds removal by physical and biological erosion. Carbonate budget surveys provide a means of quantifying the framework-altering actions of diverse assemblages of marine species to determine net carbonate production, a single metric that encapsulates reef habitat persistence. In this study, carbonate budgets were calculated for 723 sites across the Florida Reef Tract (FRT) using benthic cover and parrotfish demographic data from NOAA’s National Coral Reef Monitoring Program, as well as high-resolution LiDAR topobathymetry. Results highlight the erosional state of the majority of the study sites, with a trend towards more vulnerable habitat in the northern FRT, especially in the Southeast Florida region (− 0.51 kg CaCO 3 m −2 year −1 ), which is in close proximity to urban centers. Detailed comparison of reef types reveals that mid-channel reefs in the Florida Keys have the highest net carbonate production (0.84 kg CaCO 3 m −2 year −1 ) and indicates that these reefs may be hold-outs for reef development throughout the region. This study reports that Florida reefs, specifically their physical structure, are in a net erosional state. As these reefs lose structure, the ecosystem services they provide will be diminished, signifying the importance of increased protections and management efforts to offset these trends.

Over the past few decades, the call for ecosystem-based management (EBM) created a major shift in global resource management policy. EBM aims to achieve conservation, sustainable use and the fair allocation of benefits from natural resources, thereby striking a balance between short-term needs and sustainability (Cowan et al. 2012). Monitoring in this context requires whole ecosystem indicators, including information on the status/trends of species, habitats and environmental conditions in the biophysical, and related human system. Typically, trade-offs are implicit in ecosystem monitoring, first, because of insufficient resources to monitor all relevant biological, chemical, human and physical parameters in an ecosystem and secondly because monitoring programmes frequently have multiple, interacting goals. Hence, monitoring often focuses on only a subset of priority indicators, selected based on considerations such as (i) their suitability for assessing policy and management interventions, (ii) uncertainty over the relative importance of different processes within the ecosystem and (iii) value-laden judgements over indicator relevance to current societal objectives and priorities, given the practical and logistical resources available. Consequently, determining the appropriate spatial and temporal scales to monitor multiple indicators in complex systems is, in itself, scientifically and geopolitically complex. Ecosystem-based management involves balancing ecological scales, which are structured scientifically and driven by interacting physical, chemical and biological processes, with management scales, which are defined geopolitically and driven by governing structures and mandates. To date, the implications and trade-offs in interdisciplinary monitoring, at ecosystem appropriate scales, have received little attention. Here, we present our experience of long-term ecosystem monitoring, from establishing and implementing the interdisciplinary Pacific Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (Pacific RAMP), the Pacific component of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan (NCRMP). We focus on the trade-offs made to maintain data integrity within a single discipline, while retaining relevance and integrating across multiple disciplines in a changing policy environment. We propose cross-scale monitoring systems as a means to effectively address trade-offs that likely will arise in ecosystem monitoring. To achieve this, we promote a polycentric approach to monitoring and outline three recommendations that could enable current monitoring practitioners to work towards attaining the information requirements for implementing ecosystem-based management. Polycentricity, in governance, is viewed as critical to ecosystem-based management (Ostrom 2010). Polycentric governance is characterized by an organizational structure where multiple independent actors mutually order their relationships with one another under a general system of rules (Ostrom 1972). These multiple, nested yet independent decision-making units can operate across a range of scales, from local–regional–national–transnational. Governing units balance centralized (top-down) and decentralized (bottom-up) control, and these entities enter into either contractual or informal cooperative endeavours that work in a predictable and consistent manner (Ostrom, Tiebout & Warren 1961; Folke et al. 2005). Benefits of polycentricity include a higher level of cooperation and trust between participants, greater systems learning, innovation and adaptation for increased levels of collective effectiveness at multiple scales (Ostrom 2010). Put simply, the collective whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. It follows then that polycentric governing institutions engaged in ecosystem-based management might benefit by collectively striving towards polycentric monitoring, where monitoring is nested and linked across spatial, temporal, disciplinary and governance scales, to meet the information requirements needed to support an ecosystem approach. In an ecosystem monitoring context, the following features could be implemented in a polycentric monitoring system, for collectively more efficient monitoring: (i) clarity on the purpose, methods and monitoring responsibilities of each monitoring unit, (ii) transparency about the strengths and shortcomings of monitoring that occurs at each scale and (iii) strategic alignment of monitoring efforts, so that interdisciplinary and geopolitical collaborations can provide the information needed for informed ecosystem-based decision-making. Marine resource governance in the USA is geopolitically separated, with different authorities responsible for the management of Federal vs. State or Territorial (herein ‘jurisdictional’) waters. NOAA's Pacific RAMP is federally funded to survey coral reefs in US-affiliated waters in the Pacific (0–200-nm offshore), but most of the authority to manage the near-shore (within 3-nm) lies with jurisdictional agencies. As such, federal and local monitoring programmes often are designed for different purposes, work at different spatial scales and operate independently. Below, we outline the policy rationales for national-level coral reef monitoring and how this changed over time. In 2000, the Coral Reef Conservation Act (CRCA) authorized the long-term monitoring of US coral reefs, and several ad hoc monitoring efforts were established, including Pacific RAMP. In 2010, the NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program unified NOAA's monitoring efforts by establishing the National Coral Reef Monitoring Plan (NCRMP) for US jurisdictional coral reef ecosystems in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific. Multiple data streams are collected across biological, climatic and socio-economic domains. The reporting units and priority indicators for each discipline were decided by a working group comprising relevant NOAA scientists and federal managers. The NCRMP reflects how this particular group envisaged a national programme of greatest utility to the high-level policy statements of the CRCA and jurisdictional management agency needs, at that time given available resources. Since 2000, the NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center has implemented biological and climate monitoring across ~40 islands and atolls in the US-affiliated Pacific within American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawai'i and the Pacific Remote Islands. The Pacific RAMP data and analyses have been used in a variety of opportunistic ways with national and jurisdictional policy repercussions, including the establishment of large-scale marine protected areas, listing of coral species under the US Endangered Species Act and a prohibition on take of large fish in American Samoa. Over time, new policies arose that directly influenced both data collection and use of those data. For example, the 2006 reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (MSRA) – the primary US fisheries legislation – requires the establishment of annual catch limits for all management unit species, including coral reef fishes. Consequently, our data have been used to support reef fish stock assessments (Nadon et al. 2015), directly tying our monitoring programme to a regulatory management framework. Additionally, the 2009 Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act requires monitoring of ocean acidification and associated ecological impacts. The Pacific RAMP adapted to collect data directly relevant to these new policies. The National Ocean Policy (2010) called for ecosystem-based management and for greater collaboration across scales to coordinate jurisdictional and national activities, including monitoring. Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a 2015 Policy Directive on ‘Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management’, calling for more efficient monitoring systems, which will require integration across scientific and geopolitical or governance units. In sum, even over the relatively short 15-year life span of Pacific RAMP, the policy environment has shifted to supporting ecosystem-based management. Next, we use our experience of adapting to this shifting policy environment to demonstrate the emergent trade-offs when operationalizing ecosystem-scale monitoring. This discussion is framed from the perspective of one component of the Pacific RAMP team that surveys fishes. We focus on this team to clearly demonstrate how the data collected are relevant to fisheries management and marine conservation objectives – two sectors that the ecosystem approach seeks to align. We highlight examples where trade-offs were handled through sensible compromise, without affecting our core monitoring purposes. We also discuss cases where it was not possible to balance conflicting monitoring rationales within Pacific RAMP efforts, but where balance could be enabled through polycentricity. We consider these trade-offs along two axes: within a discipline and across disciplines, and in each case discuss their ecological and governance scaling drivers and impacts. The fish component's core mandate is to provide information on coral reef fishes relevant to policy and management at national, regional and jurisdictional levels under the NCRMP. As a result, our sampling framework is optimized to report on the status and trends of four priority indicators (all herbivorous fishes, all piscivorous fishes, all fishes and parrotfishes) at the island scale and across multiple jurisdictions. Our sampling domain is hard-bottom habitat in water depths shallower than 30 m. We survey randomly distributed sites via a depth-stratified design, and our reporting units are typically island and atolls. We also provide information to support the Federal government mandate to assess target stocks and establish annual catch limits. These monitoring mandates, oriented towards national- and jurisdictional-wide information requirements, have influenced which attributes of the fish assemblage we measure and how. We seek to maximize the number of randomly allocated sites surveyed per island during each sampling period; anything that detracts from that focus will degrade our ability to meaningfully report on the status and variability of the indicators. However, ecosystem management requires broader information than Pacific RAMP has the capacity or resources to provide. We do not survey reefs deeper than 30 m, or connected soft-bottomed habitats. While these habitats are important to some species and life stages, allocating survey effort there would reduce our ability to adequately sample in the areas we deem more critical for our core objectives. We therefore have a mismatch between ecosystem and monitoring boundaries. To address this particular disconnect, we collaborate with academic researchers to examine fish assemblages in adjacent habitats and to depths up to 100 m. Being locked into a nationally driven sampling design aimed at reporting at a regional and jurisdictional level affords little flexibility to provide data at finer spatial scales. But this type of data is often desired to address local management needs and is a component of the information required for ecosystem-based management. We generally have too few data at specific sites to determine impacts of localized acute or chronic events, like a point source of pollution, or to assess local management intervention effectiveness, like a marine protected area. In some cases, we have overcome this scaling disconnect by securing additional funding to collect data at finer scales to address specific local management issues; however, additional resources are not always available, and this ad hoc approach is not a sustainable model for long-term monitoring efforts. Localized monitoring is typically the purview of the jurisdictions. Ideally, local and national monitoring would use comparable methods, sampling designs and standard indicators, or at least have information to calibrate disparate data sets to allow for integration and co-reporting for a more complete systems view. The status quo, however, is that within each jurisdiction, there are multiple distinct and not readily integrated monitoring efforts, using different survey methods and designs, operating and reporting at a range of local, jurisdictional and federal levels. Data integration may not always be possible, because local and national management and monitoring have different priorities, resources and work within programmes with their own historical and/or political context. Unless there is sufficient cause to standardize or integrate survey methods and sampling designs, it is unavoidable that these data optimized for different spatial and temporal scales will remain separate. Since our priority indicators are composite groups of reef fishes, our generalist survey method is the stationary point count (SPC), which allows us to infer the status and trends of the reef fish assemblage as a whole, by collecting representative data for non-cryptic and generally abundant taxa. Were fish diversity a priority indicator, it would be more appropriate to systematically sample cryptic fauna. However, gathering data on relatively rare, exploited or ecologically important species, such as sharks, jacks and large parrotfishes, is critical to our primary monitoring purpose. Because those tend to be infrequently recorded using our generalist survey method, we employ a supplementary method – the towed diver survey method – to obtain those data. This technique involves surveying a much larger swathe of reef habitat, ~20 000 m2 per dive compared to the 352 m2 surveyed in a SPC survey. Divers covering that large an area cannot record all species, but by focusing on a narrow segment of the fish assemblage, this method greatly increases the encounter rate for rare species of particular interest. In response to the mandate for annual catch limits for coral reef fishes arising from the MSRA, information gathered during Pacific RAMP became more immediately relevant for federal fisheries management. As such, we adapted our methods to gather additional data on presence, abundance and size distribution of targeted species – specifically, we expanded the time and the area over which we would record observations of target fishes in and around the sample area. We responded to the new policy-driven data need, and improved our ability to generate size distributions for important fishery species, while maintaining continuity of the core data we collect. Our experience of adapting to changing policy and collaborating across two traditionally disparate sectors in the wider management system has been very positive. Specifically, our monitoring group, which was rooted in conservation science and conservation funds, began integrating our data with the stock assessment group. This collaboration was enabled by the existence of our extensive Pacific RAMP data set, coupled with supporting science on the utility of fisheries-independent visual-survey data for stock assessments (Ault, Bohnsack & Mester 1998). This new use of these data led to additional political, financial and institutional support for additional reef fish surveys in regions where fisheries assessments are required. By maintaining consistency in sampling design, methodology and personnel, we are building a large data set that benefits our core national coral reef monitoring purpose and directly aligns our monitoring programme to fisheries management decision-making needs. The fish assemblage data are only one part of the interdisciplinary monitoring performed under the NCRMP. The sampling designs for the other biological and physical data streams diverged because what is optimal to monitor mobile fish assemblages was suboptimal or impractical for other disciplines. Information on fish–habitat associations, while not a primary monitoring objective or indicator, is an important facet of ecosystem monitoring. However, co-locating fish and benthic surveys required a degree of logistical coordination that decreased the number of replicate surveys conducted by each team separately and reduced the statistical power to address the core indicators. As a result, the fish survey protocol was revised to collect benthic photo-quadrat images that are subsequently by benthic of coral diversity and in by benthic are not possible from our current approach a range of fish and benthic habitat data to be gathered with in time. The climate monitoring component of Pacific RAMP, on the other sites with sampling to monitor physical and biological indicators of ocean and four per there is ability for at that however, this approach increased power to in the priority climate indicators that the physical and chemical environment and to ecological parameters and and of spatial and temporal trends is the primary climate monitoring and given the global drivers at it is that these data are our area of in of governance scales, efforts are to coordinate our climate monitoring with global efforts, like the Ocean Acidification climate monitoring is also by a the Pacific and the of the Pacific indicators for the are collected of the data. The indicators include a range of socio-economic information to coral reef resources, such as of coral reef ecosystems and management as as with coral reef resources, for an to policy that would be using only data As indicator data collection is in began in it is to into trade-offs between the and disciplines. We however, that the temporal disconnect between these data streams may to trade-offs in Specifically, the sampling for NCRMP indicators is vs. the of funding the for the collection for the data to with the collection would be a in sample size to a level not representative of the on each Consequently, than all indicators surveyed at the scale and each team in the NCRMP a sampling design that is based on the sampling for their indicators fish coral water or human in reef The of this approach is increased of the individual disciplinary indicators. while integrated of the different data streams is possible at the island one of these disparate sampling designs is reduced ability to integrate data streams at levels than our island This could variability in the of the multiple ecosystem to how opportunistic funding the fish data to be integrated from scales a to the regional data interdisciplinary may also have to on ad hoc in the In sum, the policy environment in which our monitoring programme has over in we adapted multiple data streams to maintain policy relevance without from the of long-term coral reef ecosystem monitoring. Next, we how polycentric monitoring could be through alignment of monitoring efforts and resources across different institutions and scales. In ecosystem monitoring would be designed and integrated into the management system. In management and monitoring systems are not always and as over time. Additionally, long-term monitoring may be locked into a design that little to new methods or from As these are not but require monitoring programmes that can in the of what is most important to while retaining policy relevance by to meet societal and management objectives for the on our the extensive and data needs of long-term monitoring for ecosystem-based management are not by a single but could be through a polycentric approach. this the most to polycentric monitoring into are likely to be systems and structures tend to be and establishing new processes to enable cross-scale collaboration and coordination will be a et al. institutional is likely the of monitoring so to we have our into three within polycentric governance to allow long-term monitoring programmes to and relevant within the ecosystem-based management resources available, there is the that different monitoring units and disciplines will each other as that of the broader policy drivers for data and the of what data and at what scale each discipline is to these will to some of these scaling and This is important in more disparate like the and where team often have use different and may have and As et al. the approach of scientists from different disciplines to requires collaboration between with different and by different between different monitoring to the of data the responsibilities of each and their strengths and could each own of the wider is more likely to in the of indicators & by those with indicator from different to and how their indicators work to a greater across monitoring could be through a of the different drivers of information operating at ecological and management scales. a systems model could in the physical, ecological and of the system et al. can of the drivers and of ecosystem This type of work could in data and of data in a that can be related across scientific and geopolitical scales to an of the In to indicators that could to be by specific a core set of indicators could be across all scales like this will require to standardize indicators, calibrate disparate methods, data management and enable the case of the integrating monitoring across different levels of governance will require a long-term to working across scales. collaborations with and institutions could be to all monitoring is by government which to seek and collaborations with compared to have greater flexibility to new methods or indicators, but may long-term time These collaborations would the ability to interdisciplinary monitoring and the and of the data as typically have greater ability and to in To date, this has us with institutions and to monitor indicators et al. & 2015), we not have the or funding to and integrating monitoring data a in operationalizing ecosystem-based management. and collaboration across disciplines, sectors and ecological and governance scales has through ecosystem monitoring. However, much more towards the and of the trade-offs in collecting data at different scales for different is By our we to promote increased of the trade-offs implicit in these of interdisciplinary and cross-scale By working towards polycentric monitoring of practitioners could a monitoring more to collectively attaining the information requirements for ecosystem-based management. We the efforts of those in Pacific RAMP. This work was by and the received funding from NOAA to and an for that improved an Data have not been because this not data. and work in the Coral Reef Program at and have been in the establishment and of Pacific RAMP. for the Assessment is a for NOAA with the establishment and of the socio-economic component of NCRMP and an at State of in on of integrated monitoring. for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation for We this to our this was was an and much will be led the NOAA Information and to habitats around American Samoa, Guam, the Northern and other atolls and across the Pacific will to as a for coral reef conservation and management.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Conservation Program supports the National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) in the United States Pacific, Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. NCRMP conducts standardized observations of biological, climatic, and socioeconomic indicators across American Samoa, Guam, the Main Hawaiian Islands, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Pacific Remote Islands, Florida, the Flower Garden Banks, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. NCRMP provides periodic, national-level assessments of the status of United States coral reef ecosystems and communities connected to them. In 2014, NCRMP partnered with the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science on an unprecedented collaboration between federal and jurisdictional/state agencies, academia, and non-governmental organizations to synthesize NCRMP data into a reporting format designed to be accessible and relevant to the public and policy makers. The process involved multi-year data analyses of key benthic, fish, and climate indicators. In populated jurisdictions, socioeconomic data were integrated to assess public support for management actions, participation in pro-environmental behaviors, and awareness of threats to coral reefs. Jurisdictions were scored using a report-card scale (0–100%) by establishing references for each indicator using best-available historical data or expert opinion where historical data did not exist or were not statistically comparable. Despite overall ecosystem scores of Fair for all combined Atlantic (70%) and Pacific (74%) jurisdictions, the current trend is downward with a majority of United States coral reefs declining and vulnerable to further degradation. Remote, uninhabited reefs had an advantage with respect to reef fish population scores, i.e., Flower Garden Banks (85%) and Pacific Remote Islands (93%), when compared to populated location scores, i.e., Puerto Rico (63%) and Main Hawaiian Islands (66%). All coral reefs are highly impacted by climate change, and climate impacts were more pronounced than expected on remote reefs, i.e., the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (58%). Presenting results in a report-card style facilitates communication to the public and policy makers, and provides a useful mechanism to garner support for management actions such as expanding protected areas; enforcing existing regulations; increasing climate change education; reducing land-based sources of pollution; and other actions to improve the trajectory of coral reef ecosystem conditions.

Abstract Ocean acidification (OA) threatens coral reef persistence by decreasing calcification and accelerating the dissolution of reef frameworks. The carbonate chemistry of coastal areas where many reefs exist is strongly influenced by the metabolic activity of the underlying benthic community, contributing to high spatiotemporal variability. While characterizing this variability is difficult, it has important implications for the progression of OA and the persistence of the ecosystems. Here, we characterized the carbonate chemistry at 38 permanent stations located along 10 inshore‐offshore transects spanning 250 km of the Florida Coral Reef (FCR), which encompass four major biogeographic regions (Biscayne Bay, Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys) and four shelf zones (inshore, mid‐channel, offshore, and oceanic). Data have been collected since 2010, with approximately bi‐monthly periodicity starting in 2015. Increasing OA, driven by increasing DIC, was detected in the mid‐channel, offshore, and oceanic zones in every biogeographic region. In the inshore zone, however, increasing TA counteracted any measurable OA trend. Strong seasonal variability occurred at inshore sites and included periods of both exacerbated and mitigated OA. Seasonality was region‐dependent, with greater variability in the Lower and Middle Keys. Elevated pH and aragonite saturation states (Ω Ar ) were observed in the Upper and Middle Keys, which could favor reef habitat persistence in these regions. Offshore reefs in the FCR could be more susceptible to global OA by experiencing open‐ocean‐like water chemistry conditions. By contrast, higher seasonal variability at inshore reefs could offer a temporary OA refuge during periods of enhanced primary production.

The interactive and cumulative impacts of climate change on natural resources such as coral reefs present numerous challenges for conservation planning and management. Climate change adaptation is complex due to climate-stressor interactions across multiple spatial and temporal scales. This leaves decision makers worldwide faced with local, regional, and global-scale threats to ecosystem processes and services, occurring over time frames that require both near-term and long-term planning. Thus there is a need for structured approaches to adaptation planning that integrate existing methods for vulnerability assessment with design and evaluation of effective adaptation responses. The Corals and Climate Adaptation Planning project of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force seeks to develop guidance for improving coral reef management through tailored application of a climate-smart approach. This approach is based on principles from a recently-published guide which provides a framework for adopting forward-looking goals, based on assessing vulnerabilities to climate change and applying a structured process to design effective adaptation strategies. Work presented in this paper includes: (1) examination of the climate-smart management cycle as it relates to coral reefs; (2) a compilation of adaptation strategies for coral reefs drawn from a comprehensive review of the literature; (3) in-depth demonstration of climate-smart design for place-based crafting of robust adaptation actions; and (4) feedback from stakeholders on the perceived usefulness of the approach. We conclude with a discussion of lessons-learned on integrating climate-smart design into real-world management planning processes and a call from stakeholders for an "adaptation design tool" that is now under development.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a primary marine conservation strategy in the US territory of American Samoa, which has a goal to protect 20 percent of its coral reef area under “no-take” MPAs. T...

This review presents a summary of existing visitor monitoring methods and relevant studies in land and marine-based areas, with a focus on the application to unique aquatic settings. Various opportunities and challenges exist with respect to the use of each method in different marine settings. These methods differ in terms of the complexity, costs, level of accuracy, and detailed information they provide. Furthermore, the feasibility of applying these methods also depends on the site attributes of a marine area. Since each marine area varies in geographical scale and environmental and social conditions, some methods will be more appropriate or perform more successfully than others in a particular location. Therefore, the consideration of these methods should be part of a proposed alternative process, focused on adaptive monitoring that scales to address visitor ebbs and flows in these aquatic areas. The proposed alternative seeks to develop consensus around quantitative goals for visitor monitoring and estimating techniques in marine settings, using a customizable mix of methods and techniques. This alternative effort progresses to subsequent tasks and discussions, and recommendations are made considering the feasibility and confidence of using these methods in particular marine settings and future pilot sites.

Despite being among the most valuable ecosystems on Earth, coral reefs face ongoing threats that could negatively impact the human populations who depend on them. The National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) collects and monitors data on various aspects of U.S. coral reefs to provide a holistic understanding of the status of the reefs and adjacent human communities. This paper explores results from the NCRMP’s first socioeconomic monitoring cycle using an ecosystem services framework and examines how these results can be used to improve coral reef management in the following U.S. coral reef jurisdictions: American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Florida, Guam, Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Results suggest that residents in the U.S. Pacific coral reef basin may hold stronger cultural and provisioning values, whereas residents in the U.S. Atlantic coral reef basin may hold stronger regulating values. These findings suggest that outreach efforts have been successful in communicating benefits provided by coral reef ecosystems to the public. They also provide insight into which ecosystem services are valued in each jurisdiction, allowing resource managers to make science-based decisions about how to communicate conservation and management initiatives.

The recent mass-bleaching events, as horrible and shocking as they were, provided a natural experiment for us to understand how coral reefs and people might be affected by large-scale global change...

NOAA's Coral Reef Information System (CoRIS) is the primary vehicle for distributing coral reef information and data products resulting from the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. CoRIS is a Web-enabled, GIS enhanced information system that allows multiple user groups to gain access to NOAA's coral reef data and information, activities, and library services through a single Web portal. The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program supports various coral-related projects that have produced peer-reviewed literature and data products, such as aerial photographs, benthic habitat maps, hot-spot and degree heating week charts, coral bleaching reports, biodiversity assessments, etc. that are all available through CoRIS. New data are regularly added to CoRIS due to NOAA's continuing research and monitoring efforts. Find coral-related information and other resources on the CoRIS Web site at http://www.coris.noaa.gov

As coral reefs decline globally, the need for an objective approach to quantify the status and trends of corals has become increasingly important. Empirical data on predisturbance conditions are rare, and integrating data from multiple and disparate survey designs and methods can be analytically challenging. Our goal was to conduct a holistic, data-driven evaluation of the status of corals and benthic communities in US Atlantic coral reef jurisdictions: Florida, Flower Garden Banks, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. A quantitative approach based upon standardized data was used to compare the change in multiple indicators of coral condition (hard coral, macroalgae, and crustose coralline algae cover, coral density, and old mortality) from historic to current conditions in each geographic region. For each indicator, historic, reference baseline conditions from long-term monitoring data or literature data were first identified, reviewed, and classified on a categorical scale from Very Good to Critical by regional experts to account for condition changes that pre-dated current monitoring data. A reference-centering approach then allowed for categorization of statistical changes from historic to current conditions on the same scale to produce results that could be communicated to a broad audience. Our findings show continued declines for multiple indicators in all regions except Flower Garden Banks, illustrate particularly dire declines from regions that had been impacted by Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease at the most recent monitoring included in this study, and demonstrate the increasingly critical need for effective coral reef conservation.

Abstract Coral reef habitat is created when calcium carbonate production by calcifiers exceeds removal by physical and biological erosion. Carbonate budget surveys provide a means of quantifying the framework-altering actions of diverse assemblages of marine species to determine net carbonate production, a single metric that encapsulates reef habitat persistence. In this study, carbonate budgets were calculated for 723 sites across the Florida Reef Tract using benthic cover and parrotfish demographic data from NOAA’s National Coral Reef Monitoring Program, as well as high-resolution LiDAR topobathymetry. Results highlight the erosional state of the majority of the study sites, with a trend towards more vulnerable habitat in the northern Florida Reef Tract, especially in the Southeast Florida region, which is in close proximity to urban centers. Detailed comparison of reef types reveals that mid-channel reefs in the Florida Keys have the highest net carbonate production and indicates that these reefs may be hold-outs for reef development throughout the region. This study reports that Florida reefs, specifically their physical structure, are in a net erosional state. As these reefs lose structure, the ecosystem services they provide will be diminished, signifying the importance of increased protections and management efforts to offset these trends.