22
Editor: Alasdair J. EdwardsSchool of BiologyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RUUnited Kingdom
Contributing authors: Alasdair Edwards, James Guest, Shai Shafir,David Fisk, Edgardo Gomez, Baruch Rinkevich, Andrew Heyward,Makoto Omori, Kenji Iwao, Rommi Dizon, Aileen Morse, Charlie Boch,Sandrine Job, Lucia Bongiorni, Gideon Levy, Lee Shaish, Susan Wells.(See inside back cover for contact details.)
Publication data: Edwards, A.J. (ed.) (2010). Reef RehabilitationManual. Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program: St Lucia, Australia. ii + 166 pp.
Published by: The Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program
Postal address: Project Executing AgencyGlobal Change InstituteLevel 7 Gerhmann BuildingThe University of QueenslandSt Lucia QLD 4072 Australia
Telephone: +61 7 3346 9942Facsimile: +61 7 3346 9987E-mail: [email protected]: www.gefcoral.org
The Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management (CRTR) Program is a
leading international coral reef research initiative that provides a coordinated approach to
credible, factual and scientifically-proven knowledge for improved coral reef management.
The CRTR Program is a partnership between the Global Environment Facility, the World Bank,
The University of Queensland (Australia), the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and approximately 50 research institutes and other third-parties around
the world.
ISBN: 978-1-921317-05-7
Product code: CRTR 005/2010
Designed and Typeset by: The Drawing Room, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
www.thedrawingroom.net
Printed by: Doran Printing, Melbourne Australia.
May 2010
© Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program, 2010
Photos: Front cover – Y. Horoszowski, N. Thongtham, Seamarc, P. Cabaitan; D. Fisk
(inside). S. Shafir (p. i), K. Kilfoyle (p. ii).
1
29
Chapter 3.
Managing risks in reef restoration projects
David Fisk and Alasdair Edwards
Overview of risk assessment
Assessing the most relevant risks
Five-step process for prioritising and managing risks
Mitigating risk and adaptive managementresponses
30
3.1 Introduction
What threats and risks can be avoided to improve the
chances of success of a restoration effort? What are the
temporal, spatial, qualitative and quantitative factors that are
most important when assessing risk factors? One approach
is to be aware of what has caused significant problems in
other projects and to ensure that the same compromising
factors are accounted for in the planning and design
stages. The limitation of this approach is that there is no
specific set of risk factors that will be present for every
project, as each restoration site and project have their own
unique set of circumstances. For example, in the case of
ship groundings on reefs, there can be unique factors that
need to be addressed which are characteristic of ship
impacts, like the production of large volumes of rubble and
the presence of potentially toxic anti-fouling paint1-3. It has
been suggested that in reef systems where there is
evidence of a high rate of natural coral recruitment,
allocating limited resources to managing the most obvious
sources of disturbance may be a better approach than
active rehabilitation, leaving natural regeneration processes
to restore the damaged reef4-5.
Previous rehabilitation projects (including some of the case
studies presented in Chapter 8) show that the range of
issues that can negatively influence the success of a project
are numerous and diverse. Many of the adverse factors that
come into play are unexpected6 or not adequately
accounted for in the initial planning stages or in the project
design. It is clear that some of these negative influences
could have been considered in the planning stages (during
scoping and choice of site) if a more rigorous risk
assessment had been carried out.
This chapter formalizes the lessons learnt from past studies,
by presenting a structured approach and relatively simple
assessment protocols so as to minimise risks in future
projects. If you undertake effective risk management at the
planning stage, and incorporate appropriate responses to
the perceived risks in your project design, you should have
a better chance of success than many projects in the past.
3.2 Overview of risk assessment
At the outset of the risk assessment process, it is
necessary to distinguish between locally manageable risks
(local human impacts), and externally derived threats to
project success that cannot be managed locally.
Nonetheless, threats that are external to a project’s
immediate influence (e.g., global climate change7, tropical
cyclones, tsunamis) should be considered in a project
design so as to mitigate likely impacts. At the very least,
such threats should be included explicitly among the
assumptions made when setting project objectives.
In addition, it is critical that a cycle of monitoring and
adaptive management8 is incorporated into all projects to
help to reduce the risk of failure. That is, most of the aims of
a project should treat the project management cycle as a
process that occurs over an ecologically meaningful time
scale (e.g. 10 or more years) and not as a short term
transplantation event (though there are some exceptions to
that rule).
Within the project management cycle there needs to be an
effective monitoring and maintenance regime to reduce risks
such as competition from algae and predation. Appropriately
scheduled maintenance and monitoring throughout the
project life can provide early warning of problems and
trigger adaptive management responses when necessary.
Macroalgae infested Acropora (left) and Pocillopora verrucosa (right) in the Funafuti lagoon (Tuvalu) close to the main township. Indicators like these suggest
eutrophication due to nutrient input from the township and/or a lack of herbivores possibly as a result of overfishing (D. Fisk). A survey of other parts of this lagoon
indicated that the high macroalgal cover in competition with live coral was restricted to parts of the lagoon adjacent to human habitation, suggesting localised
anthropogenic influences on the lagoon ecology. Such information is important in addressing community concerns over the health of their reef. It also suggests that
restoration efforts should be focused on the causes of these impacts (passive restoration) rather than undertaking active restoration in these areas.
31
Risk management is a structured approach to manage uncertainty related to (i) potential threats and disturbances to rehabilitation projects and (ii) the lack of scientific knowledge about reef restoration.
The potential impact of uncertainty can be mitigated by embedding both monitoring and adaptive management in the project design.
Managing risk involves using past experience from other studies, applying those lessons to your project, and being aware that the unexpected is always possible.
Potential risks and uncertainties should be explicitly communicated to stakeholders and funders at the planning stage.
Each project will have a unique set of environmental and socio-economic conditions, such that known risks will vary in their potential impact on the outcome of a project.
At the very least, you can use the lessons learnt from past projects in a structured way to assess the likelihood of the occurrence of known risks, as well as their expected importance to your project.
Clearly defining the aims of your restoration project and understanding the temporal and spatial implications of those aims is a critical initial step in managing the potential risks to your project.
A proper monitoring plan is central to both adaptive management and risk mitigation in a rehabilitation project (not an optional extra).
A key lesson from past active restoration projects is that you should expect the unexpected.
Message Board
What is the role of risk management in reef rehabilitation?
Risk management is predominantly the practice of
systematically selecting cost-effective approaches for
minimising the effect of environmental disturbances and
threats (e.g. predation) to a restoration effort. Be aware that
all risks can never be fully avoided or mitigated (Figure 3.1).
As a consequence, all projects will have to accept some
level of risk.
The risk of disturbance or threat refers to a combination of
the probability or frequency of occurrence of a disturbance
and the magnitude of its consequences.
To further complicate the risk assessment process, you
need to be aware of, and perhaps take into consideration in
your assessment of risk, factors that may not be
immediately apparent with respect to a specific disturbance.
These risk factors can be reasonably predicted to occur as
a consequence of the initial disturbance, but may only
become an issue some time later. For example, following a
Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreak, a
few large individuals often remain in the area but may not be
in the impacted site where you want to apply restoration
efforts. After introducing new colonies to the denuded site,
the starfish can be attracted to this new source of food and
seriously affect your transplants.
Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) eating a Pocillopora colony in
Hawaii (K. Kilfoyle). Interestingly, at a site near Bolinao in the Philippines more
transplanted corals were lost to Crown-of-thorns (COT) predation during a
warming event in 2007 than to bleaching. The site had never had a COT
outbreak in living memory, emphasising that you should always expect the
unexpected when attempting reef rehabilitation.
3
32
1.Unaccountable
riskWhere a risk is not
identified and isoverlooked.
1.May be
managed by using appropriately
experienced specialists at the planning and
implementation stages and building adaptive management into the
project design.
4.Management risk
Ineffective implementation and operational
procedures.
4.May be
managed by effective oversight,
monitoring and evaluation, coupled
with adaptive responses.
2.Knowledge risk
When deficient orinadequate
knowledge isapplied to a
situation.
2.Can be
managed by proper project design and paying sufficient
attention to monitoring and feedback
mechanisms for key activities.
3.Collaboration andengagement riskWhen ineffective
or inadequate collaboration occurs
between stakeholdersin the project.
3.Can be managed
by correct identification and engagement of stakeholders, and
by effective consultation.
Figure 3.1. The main classes of risk and general management responses.
Figure 3.2. Hierarchy of risk assessment to incorporate into your project design.
GOODPRACTICE
Allow for a large margin of error in assessment of the risks
The level of risk assigned to a particular factor should be quite broad toallow for the inherent uncertainties of the risk assessment process. Oneway to deal with the large margin of error is to replicate the restorationefforts over a series of sub-plots within a site and to spread the rehabilitation activities among a number of suitable sites. Varying the mixof coral species and transplant methods used between sites is anotherway of allowing for uncertainty.
4Screening and prioritisationof risks.
Assessment of possiblerisks.3
Selection of the natural and social setting.2
Definition of aims andobjectives.1
33
3.3 Assessing the most relevant risks during projectdesign
A risk management strategy should incorporate four
essential hierarchical components (Figure 3.2).
1. Definition of aims and objectives
Carefully define the aims and objectives of your rehabilitation
project (if a location is already assigned). Alternatively, if the
aims are already assigned, then carefully choose the
location so that they may be achievable. The original aims
of a restoration project will determine the range of risks that
you need to take into account. Many of those potential risks
can affect a number of different project aims. In general,
restoration primarily endeavours to improve ecosystem
structure and function in degraded reef areas. Your project
objectives may range from passive indirect measures, to
active direct measures, all with the purpose of redressing
certain defined aspects of reef degradation or damage.
2. Selection of natural and social setting
Once a location and project aims are established you need
to consider carefully the natural and social setting of the
proposed rehabilitation site. This will refine the range of risks
that you need to consider in a rehabilitation plan. In most
instances, you will need risk predictions relating to the
ecology of the site, and to the natural and anthropogenic
threats, which will be unique for a particular site.
Management of risks will depend also on the social context
of the restoration site and your project aims. “Social
context” refers to the human influences and decision-
making structures in place at the location, specifically, the
degree to which the key stakeholders are involved, and are
in agreement on, the restoration aims and activities.
3. Assessment of possible risks
A full risk assessment needs to be an integral part of the
project design phase and should be carried out early on so
that the outcomes can be built into the implementation
phase (Chapter 2). Scoping and field assessment by a
specialist is strongly recommended during the design
phase. Risk factors should be collated and assessed at the
initial scoping stage by the team undertaking the project (a
team that ideally includes a reef ecologist, project
managers, decision-makers, and local community
members). Critical environmental and biological factors that
may impact your project need to be assessed via the input
of an experienced reef ecologist who is able to interpret the
environmental signs that are present at the site selected for
rehabilitation. This will include an assessment of previous
environmental and human usage trends of your site.
Assessing and interpreting trends in the past history of a
site should help guide the planning of the rehabilitation
project and allow you to make it more robust to
disturbances.
4. Screening and prioritisation of risks
The management of risk requires that you compile as much
information as possible on biological, environmental, and
social risk factors that relate to your site and prioritise these
to arrive at a strategy of where, when, and how to proceed
(which can also include the decision not to proceed). The
iterative nature of the risk management process may mean
that factors originally classed as low risk could become high
risk factors during the project’s life. We strongly recommend
that the risk management plan includes provision for regular
reviews of progress and conditions at the site. This allows
the project to change emphasis and methodology if
necessary in order to achieve its aims, i.e. your project
design needs to be flexible and reactive to changing
threats8.
Ideally, you should follow a prioritisation process whereby
the risks with the greatest loss and the greatest probability
of occurring are addressed first, and risks with lower
probability of occurrence and lower resultant loss are dealt
with in descending order. In practice, the process of
prioritisation can be very difficult to complete, and balancing
between risks with (1) a high probability of occurrence but
lower loss, and (2) a high loss but lower probability of
occurrence, can be difficult.
3.4. Five-step process for prioritising and managingrisks
To manage risk, a structured response related to perceived
threats can minimise the chance of failure of a restoration
project. The response strategies include:
• avoiding the risk,
• mitigation strategies for reducing the negative effect of
the risk, or reducing the magnitude of loss, or probability
of occurrence,
• spreading the risk among other components of the
project (by replication of effort in different spatial, species
composition, and temporal settings, e.g., by spreading
A lone Acropora coral colony on a macroalgae dominated reef (N. Graham).
Unless the broader management issues which have allowed the seaweed to
dominate are resolved first, there is high risk that active restoration measures
will fail.
3
34
the risk among different habitats, or between different
species groups or source areas, or over different times
of the year or different environmental conditions), and
• accepting some or all of the consequences of a
particular risk and budgeting for that factor.
An initial planning and assessment exercise where you
predict the risks to the project and plan how you will
manage these risks, should be based on local, regional,
and global knowledge, and should include the following five
steps.
1. Setting out your rehabilitation project’s specific aim(s).
Once you have established and agreed your aim(s) with all
stakeholders, then specific spatial and temporal
requirements for the project will result from the aim(s). The
assessment of risk involves a proper understanding of the
spatial and temporal scale implications of each aim.
2. Defining the risks associated with the natural (biophysical)
and social setting of the proposed rehabilitation site.
3. Assessing and prioritising the risks to your project early
on during the design phase (listing, assigning a perceived
probability of occurrence and magnitude of impact
(i.e. consequences) to each risk, and then prioritising).
4. Development of response options for mitigation of risks
using realistically available technological, human and
organisational resources.
5. Integration of earlier steps to develop a Risk Management
Plan.
Step 1. Setting out your project’s aim(s), and understanding the spatial and temporal implicationsof those aims
The conditions under which your project will operate are
partly determined by your aims and objectives, and partly by
the social and ecological circumstances of the
site chosen for restoration. Often a project will have several
aims and objectives but for simplicity, each major aim will be
treated separately here. You will need to assess and
prioritise any conflicting risk factors when more than one
main aim is identified for a single project.
Risk management considerations relating to the most
common aims (see Box 3.1) are outlined below.
Box 3.1 Rationales and aims of reef rehabilitation.
Common reasons for carrying out reef restoration interventions include:
• Lack of awareness in a local community and a poor appreciation of the economic and cultural value of
reef ecosystems.
• Loss of biodiversity.
• Loss of productivity (food species).
• Loss of key reef components (usually coral, but also adjacent seagrass or mangroves) due to natural
disturbances (bleaching, storm damage, coral predation and disease),
• Loss of key ecosystem processes (e.g. recruitment of juvenile corals, grazing of macroalgae by
herbivorous fish or urchins) and services.
• Provision of alternative livelihoods (e.g. culture of aquarium products, tourism) for stakeholders who
agree to stop harvesting reef resources.
• Mitigation for developments that will adversely impact coral reef species at a site, especially the
relocation of threatened corals.
Common aims that previous restoration projects have cited as their motivation include:
1. Building public awareness and environmental education.
2. Promoting recovery of biodiversity.
3. Increasing biomass and productivity.
4. Assisting recovery of key reef species or ecosystem processes.
5. Development of alternative livelihoods.
6. Mitigation of damage or degradation.
3
35
1. Building public awareness and environmental education
Often the aims of raising awareness of coral reefs and
education of local communities result in demonstration
projects that have to be located at readily accessible sites
situated in areas where communities can claim ownership of
the activity and/or where some degree of surveillance of the
site can be done by that community. The objective is to
have high community visibility and awareness of the project.
Risk management messages
• There is a risk that practical considerations may take
precedence over ecological considerations, leading to
poor restoration outcomes due to low attention to
ecological requirements.
• Although stimulating community involvement in a project
is very important, you need to be careful that this aim
does not jeopardize other aims, that is, multiple aims
can be hard to manage effectively as the pursuit of one
aim can negatively influence the success of another
(e.g. Ch 8: Case study 2).
• Awareness/education projects are usually small in
spatial scale and do not generally last for more than a
couple of seasons or years. While building awareness,
they therefore tend to have poor outcomes in terms of
real reef rehabilitation. As a consequence, we would
advise that this aim should generally be adopted without
linking other (e.g. ecological) aims with it. There is, of
course, a danger that poor ecological outcomes will be
counterproductive in terms of public engagement, so
the consequences of ecological compromises driven by
“public awareness” convenience need to be considered
very carefully.
• On the other hand, large long-term rehabilitation
projects not necessarily constrained by the practical
requirements of education and awareness building, can
deliver education and awareness benefits at
appropriately accessible sites (e.g. Ch. 8: Case study 9).
2. Promoting recovery of biodiversity
A biodiversity protection aim using active restoration,
requires that your project design will result in a functional
and diverse reef community. Often, an implied outcome is
that reef resilience will be enhanced through fisheries
management9 or through the preservation of a specific coral
species. Conversely, passive restoration to control fishing
and build herbivore populations can markedly increase
resilience.
Risk management messages
• Sites that are most ecologically suitable for enhancing
and promoting biodiversity may be difficult to work and
can entail high logistical costs.
• Biodiversity preservation is a long-term aim that requires
long-term management and maintenance to be
successful.
• Active restoration efforts cannot automatically build a
resilient community though in theory, they can enhance
resilience through the establishment of a diverse range
of healthy mature colonies. It may take decades before
a highly diverse and resilient community can be
established.
Drupella cornus snails feeding on a plate of Acropora hyacinthus in the lagoon at Funafuti (Tuvalu). Inset: Close-up of a group of Drupella and their feeding scar on an
Acropora florida colony (D. Fisk). Careful examination of feeding scars and adjacent areas is necessary to distinguish between Drupella, disease, fish bites, Crown-of-
thorns starfish and other causes of lesions. Note the rapid reduction in live coral tissue (evidenced by the fresh white scar area with no sign of colonisation by turf
algae). High incidences of coral predators are a significant risk to restoration efforts and can be difficult to manage, generally requiring constant vigilance and
maintenance efforts.
36
3. Increasing biomass and productivity
A productivity aim usually relates to a focus on fisheries
enhancement by restoring or creating suitable reef habitat for
commercial or subsistence fishery species (both
vertebrate and invertebrate). Some previous projects have
focused on increasing habitat complexity and providing
refuges for fishery species by active restoration (e.g. Ch. 8:
Case study 2) whereas enforcement of no-take areas
(passive restoration) can also generate significant rises in
fish biomass without habitat modification (e.g. Ch. 8: Case
study 10).
Risk management messages
• In general, meaningful gains in biomass or productivity
are rarely achieved by active restoration techniques
because of their small spatial scale. Such techniques
cannot be applied at a suitably large spatial scale, i.e. at
scales orders of magnitude larger than the current
practical limit of restoration techniques (1–10 ha).
• You will need to incorporate a medium to long-term
project timeline (3+ years, depending on the species
involved) to achieve any tangible measure of success,
as multiple recruitment seasons are usually necessary to
allow for build up of fishery biomass. The implications
are that effective management input over the long term
will be required also.
• In contrast, passive restoration techniques (effectively
managing the drivers of reef degradation) can be
reasonably expected to result in productivity gains given
sufficient time. However, depending on the main sources
of degradation that were present, any productivity gain
may be highly variable among potential sites10.
4. Assisting recovery of key reef species or ecosystemprocesses
This aim is usually achieved by passive restoration efforts
that are expected to result in increased natural recruitment or
survival rates of corals, fish or other reef species. The
assumption is that natural build up of key reef species will
occur under favourable environmental conditions (e.g. the
absence of disturbance factors), and in time will result in
higher recruitment and survival rates, and eventually a more
biodiverse and resilient reef system. It may be assisted by
active restoration (e.g. transplantation of Acropora palmata in
Case studies 6 and 9 in Chapter 8).
Risk management messages
• Restoration of key reef species may initially be at a small
spatial scale (e.g. by focusing on managing key habitat
for selected species) with the expectation that those
small areas will then enhance recruitment elsewhere in a
reef system. This is difficult to achieve. For example, key
habitat may be fish spawning aggregation sites or
naturally high coral diversity areas that are expected to
supply recruits to other areas. The rationale for this
approach assumes there will be adequate connectivity
and larval dispersal, that larval survival will be adequate,
and that other natural processes will be favourable to
recovery.
• The project design and resourcing need to reflect the
likely timescale of recovery; this may vary from 5 years
to decades depending on the severity and spatial scale
of the impacts.
5. Development of alternative livelihoods
This aim usually entails an agreement with local
communities or resource owners for restricted harvest
regimes in exchange for income from (i) fees to resource
owners, (ii) employment in tourism (e.g. as guides, boatmen),
(iii) aquaculture, or (iv) coral farming to provide products for
the marine aquarium trade or support re-establishment of
selected species into natural populations or tourism related
habitat enhancement. The aquaculture of highly prized giant
clams (Tridacna spp.) for food or as an aquarium species is
an example.
Restoration techniques can also be employed to accelerate
recovery at or enhance sites that are already tourist
attractions, are being developed for tourism or have been
damaged during resort construction (Ch. 8: Case study 3).
Examples are sites that are used as underwater snorkel trails,
and boat underwater viewing areas that may have been
damaged by storms, predation, disease or bleaching events.
Sites that are adjacent to a tourist resort also can provide
added economic value to the resort if attractive reef habitat
is made readily accessible to guests.
Risk management messages
• You may need to consider establishing aquaculture
activities at sites, which although ecologically suitable for
the chosen species, may be logistically challenging.
• The growth rates of species (corals, clams, urchins,
etc.) being cultured for the aquarium trade or for
re-establishing depleted natural populations, will
determine the minimum time scale needed. You need to
ensure that the time-scale of budgetary support
matches the aquaculture cycle.
• If proposed aquaculture involves use of feeds for fish,
then beware of potential eutrophic impacts.
• When multiple aims are adopted, conflicting species
requirements may occur. For example, the demands of
aquarists (who require small colonies of very specific
species, colours, etc.) will be different to those of
managers aiming to enhance natural populations. Thus,
two complementary sets of nurseries, one for income
generation, one for rehabilitation might be needed.
These issues need to be explored at the project design
stage.
3
8
• Enhancing or accelerating recovery at a site with high
tourism value means that the choice of site is
predetermined (rather than being selected as part of the
project design phase) with the risk that the site may not
be optimal in terms of likely restoration success. Critical
parameters to consider include: allowing sufficient time
for attachment and growth of transplanted corals (1–2
years), and planning for longer periods (3–5 years)
before gradual natural accumulation of fish and other
organisms from natural recruitment processes are
noticeable in the restored area (in contrast to short-term
build up of fish abundance via the attraction of fish
already in the vicinity, e.g. through the introduction of
artificial reef structures).
6. Mitigation of damage or degradation
As stated in Chapter 1, mitigation of damage refers to
the reduction or control of the adverse environmental
effects of a project, but it also includes restitution for any
damage to the environment through replacement,
restoration, or creation of habitat in one area to
compensate for loss in another. This often involves
moving corals and other organisms from a designated
high disturbance site (usually due to a development) to
an adjacent site outside the development impact zone.
Relatively short time scales (2+ years) are probably
required to assess the survival (success/failure) of the
transplantation. Success will depend on how well the
transplants adapt to the new site, and where necessary,
whether there has been adequate attachment.
Risk management messages
• When re-locating corals and other organisms you
should try to re-create the spatial arrangement (paying
particular attention to zonation and depth) and density of
organisms that existed at the source site and ensure
that the receiving environment is compatible (e.g. with
respect to current/wave exposure) with the original one.
To do this you need to find a relatively bare or previously
degraded site that has biophysical conditions as similar
as possible to the original source site. However, finding
suitable sites for relocating corals can be difficult as
logically, coral communities would be expected to
already exist at similar non-impacted sites. Thus, by
implication, relatively bare areas may well be unsuitable
for reasons that are not clear (e.g. susceptibility to
decadal or longer-term disturbances).
Step 2. Defining risks associated with the naturaland social setting of the rehabilitation project
To define the risks associated with the natural setting you
need a full description and analysis of the rehabilitation site,
including key factors that influence the physical and
biological processes that shape the reefscape. The major
sources of natural or environmental risk and the main risk
factors associated with each, along with predictive threats
and management responses, are outlined in Table 3.1.
Those related to the natural setting include:
1. History of natural and anthropogenic disturbances at a
site,
2. Connectivity and spatial relationships of a site with
respect to the hydrodynamic regime (tidal characteristics,
marine and coastal ecosystem links, terrestrial links, regional
marine connectivity), and
3. Coral transplantation issues (sources of coral transplants
and potential collateral damage, transplant species and
growth forms, life history and reproduction).
To define the risks associated with the social setting you
need to identify all human related factors concerned with
governance, decision making, and ownership issues
affecting the site. The major sources of social or human
associated impacts and the main risk factors associated
with each, along with predicted threats and possible
management responses, are outlined in Table 3.1. These
can be split into:
4. Social and political setting – local social and political
factors (site selection implications, local decision making
and management arrangements, stakeholder
understanding, unpredictable factors, effects of local
economic changes, protection, post-funding stakeholder
issues), and
5. Management issues – administrative considerations
(adaptive measures, training and capacity of personnel,
stakeholder engagement, monitoring and reporting
protocols).
Coral nursery platform being assembled during a community restoration
project in north-western Luzon, Philippines (R. Dizon).
37
38
Ris
k p
red
icti
on
Mit
igat
ion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent
resp
ons
e
Trop
ical
cyc
lone
s an
d s
torm
s:te
nd to
be
mor
e fre
quen
t at c
erta
in ti
mes
of y
ear
(hur
rican
e, ty
phoo
n,
cycl
one
or m
onso
on s
easo
ns –
see
ww
w.a
oml.n
oaa.
gov/
hrd/
tcfa
q/G
1.ht
ml).
New
ly tr
ansp
lant
ed c
oral
s
are
mor
e su
scep
tible
to d
etac
hmen
t tha
n w
ell-e
stab
lishe
d co
loni
es th
at h
ave
had
time
to s
elf-
atta
ch to
the
subs
trate
. C
limat
e ch
ange
may
lead
to m
ore
frequ
ent a
nd s
ever
e tro
pica
l cyc
lone
s.
Fres
hwat
er r
un-o
ff a
nd g
roun
dw
ater
see
pag
e:m
ay r
educ
e sa
linity
and
/or
intro
duce
nut
rient
s/
sedi
men
t/ga
rbag
e du
ring
wet
test
mon
ths
of y
ear
or d
urin
g st
orm
s (s
ee a
bove
). C
oral
tran
spla
nts
are
likel
y to
be
stre
ssed
and
may
die
in a
reas
sub
ject
to s
uch
impa
cts.
Try
to a
void
tran
spla
ntin
g du
ring
the
tropi
cal c
yclo
ne s
easo
n (e
.g.
in w
este
rn A
tlant
ic:
1 Ju
ne –
30
Nov
embe
r; pe
ak p
erio
d ea
rly to
mid
-Sep
tem
ber)
or d
urin
g m
onso
on s
easo
n w
hen
your
site
is m
ost
expo
sed
to w
ave
actio
n. W
here
feas
ible
allo
w a
few
mon
ths
for
trans
plan
ts to
sel
f-at
tach
11be
fore
seas
onal
rou
gh w
eath
er.
Avo
id v
ery
expo
sed
site
s. M
ake
sure
tran
spla
nts
are
secu
rely
atta
ched
to th
e
subs
tratu
m.
Try
to a
void
site
s su
bjec
t to
dam
agin
g se
ason
al (o
r lo
nger
cyc
le) i
nput
s fro
m la
nd.
Whe
re th
ere
is
fresh
wat
er s
eepa
ge,
bew
are
of tr
ansp
lant
ing
to la
goon
al s
ites
that
app
ear
suita
ble
for
cora
ls b
ut a
re
devo
id o
f the
m (u
nles
s ca
use
for
abse
nce
is e
vide
nt a
nd n
ot a
cur
rent
thre
at).
Som
e si
tes
may
suffe
r se
ason
al s
edim
enta
tion
from
run
-off
or a
lgal
ove
rgro
wth
from
nut
rient
flux
es a
nd h
ave
cora
ls
adap
ted
to th
is.
At s
uch
site
s on
ly u
se lo
cally
ada
pted
spe
cies
as
trans
plan
ts a
nd tr
y to
avo
id
trans
plan
ting
at ti
mes
of y
ear
whe
n w
ater
qua
lity
is p
oor
due
to r
un-o
ff fro
m la
nd.
Tab
le 3
.1Th
is ta
ble
pres
ents
an
outli
ne o
f how
you
can
def
ine
and
resp
ond
to r
isks
to y
our
reef
reh
abilit
atio
n pr
ojec
t. It
lists
sou
rces
of r
isk
and
deta
ils o
f maj
or fa
ctor
s as
soci
ated
with
eac
h
sour
ce,
the
kind
of i
nfor
mat
ion
you
shou
ld s
eek
abou
t pot
entia
l thr
eats
, ris
k pr
edic
tions
ass
ocia
ted
with
var
ious
fact
ors,
and
fina
lly m
anag
emen
t res
pons
es th
at c
an b
e im
plem
ente
d to
miti
gate
the
mos
t lik
ely
risks
. To
mak
e th
e m
ost u
se o
f thi
s ta
ble
you
shou
ld s
yste
mat
ical
ly a
ddre
ss e
ach
of th
e m
ain
sour
ces
of r
isk,
alo
ng w
ith th
e lis
ted
fact
ors
to c
onsi
der
with
eac
h so
urce
. Fo
r ea
ch
fact
or,
cons
ider
the
vario
us r
isk
pred
ictio
ns in
term
s of
thei
r lik
elih
ood
at y
our
site
and
dam
age
they
mig
ht d
o to
you
r pr
ojec
t, th
en lo
ok fo
r gu
idan
ce a
nd s
ugge
stio
ns in
the
“Miti
gatio
n or
ada
ptiv
e
man
agem
ent r
espo
nse”
col
umn
to e
nsur
e yo
u ar
e m
axim
izin
g th
e lik
elih
ood
of s
ucce
ss.
You
shou
ld r
epea
t thi
s ex
erci
se fo
r ea
ch p
roje
ct b
ecau
se d
iffer
ent l
ocat
ions
and
eve
n si
tes
with
in a
loca
tion
may
hav
e di
ffere
nt c
ircum
stan
ces
and
risks
to c
onsi
der.
Gen
eral
info
rmat
ion
need
s:A
s pa
rt of
the
desi
gn p
hase
of y
our
reha
bilit
atio
n pl
an (C
h. 2
: Fi
gure
2.1
), yo
u sh
ould
gat
her
info
rmat
ion
on p
oten
tial r
isks
to p
roje
ct s
ucce
ss a
t you
r pr
opos
ed
site
(s).
The
aim
of t
he in
form
atio
n ga
ther
ing
exer
cise
is to
est
imat
e th
e lik
elih
ood
that
you
r pl
anne
d re
habi
litat
ion
will
be c
ompr
omis
ed b
y th
e va
rious
gro
ups
of fa
ctor
s be
low
dur
ing
the
lifet
ime
of
your
pro
ject
. Th
e le
vel o
f ris
k w
ill th
us b
e de
pend
ent b
oth
on th
e ob
ject
ives
and
tim
efra
me
of th
e pr
ojec
t (se
e C
hapt
er 2
). If
risks
app
ear
sign
ifica
nt,
then
you
nee
d to
dec
ide
on m
itiga
tion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent r
espo
nses
(rig
ht-h
and
colu
mn)
to m
inim
ize
them
. If
miti
gatio
n ha
s a
poor
cha
nce
of s
ucce
ss th
en y
ou m
ight
wis
h to
con
side
r ch
angi
ng o
bjec
tives
(or
site
) in
disc
ussi
on
with
sta
keho
lder
s, o
r co
nsid
er a
band
onin
g th
e pr
ojec
t if n
o vi
able
alte
rnat
ive
site
can
be
foun
d.
1. S
ite
hist
ory
of
dis
turb
ance
(na
tura
l and
ant
hro
po
gen
ic)
1.1
Phy
sica
l fac
tors
:tro
pica
l cyc
lone
s an
d st
orm
s, fr
eshw
ater
run
off a
nd g
roun
dwat
er s
eepa
ge,
war
m w
ater
ano
mal
ies
that
cau
se c
oral
ble
achi
ng a
nd m
orta
lity.
Info
rmat
ion
need
s:Yo
u sh
ould
col
late
info
rmat
ion
on p
ast p
hysi
cal d
istu
rban
ces
and
impa
cts
at y
our
site
(or
near
by r
eefs
, if
noth
ing
know
n) a
nd lo
ok fo
r ev
iden
ce o
f tre
nds
(e.g
. in
crea
sed
frequ
ency
due
to
clim
ate
chan
ge) o
r cy
cles
(e.g
. se
ason
al fl
uctu
atio
ns,
or E
l Niñ
o S
outh
ern
Osc
illatio
n [E
NS
O] e
vent
s oc
curri
ng e
very
few
yea
rs).
Mak
e fu
ll us
e of
loca
l kno
wle
dge
such
as
that
of f
ishe
rs a
s w
ell a
s pu
blis
hed
data
such
as
wea
ther
rec
ords
. Fo
cus
on fi
ndin
g ou
t wha
t phy
sica
l and
che
mic
al fa
ctor
s ar
e m
ostly
like
ly to
stre
ss y
our
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te a
nd w
hen
thes
e st
ress
es a
re li
kely
to o
ccur
.
3
39
War
m w
ater
ano
mal
ies:
(unu
sual
ly w
arm
sea
tem
pera
ture
s of
ten
asso
ciat
ed w
ith E
NS
O e
vent
s) s
tress
cora
ls a
nd c
an c
ause
cor
al b
leac
hing
(a s
ympt
om o
f stre
ss) a
nd d
eath
if th
ey o
ccur
dur
ing
war
mes
t
mon
ths
of th
e ye
ar a
nd a
re p
rolo
nged
(sev
eral
wee
ks).
Stre
ssed
cor
als
appe
ar to
be
mor
e pr
one
to
dise
ase1
2an
d m
ore
susc
eptib
le to
atta
ck b
y sn
ail,
spon
ge a
nd o
ther
pre
dato
rs.
Even
in n
orm
al y
ears
cora
ls m
ay b
e st
ress
ed d
urin
g th
e w
arm
sea
son.
War
m w
ater
stre
ss is
pre
dict
ed to
bec
ome
mor
e
frequ
ent a
nd s
ever
e as
a r
esul
t of c
limat
e ch
ange
.
Try
to a
void
tran
spla
ntin
g co
rals
dur
ing
war
mes
t mon
ths
of th
e ye
ar a
t you
r si
te (e
.g.
May
–Sep
tem
ber
in
north
ern
Phi
lippi
nes,
Mar
ch–J
une
in M
aldi
ves)
and
if fe
asib
le a
llow
tran
spla
nts
to b
ecom
e es
tabl
ishe
d fo
r
a fe
w m
onth
s be
fore
sea
tem
pera
ture
s re
ach
thei
r an
nual
pea
k. [N
ote:
It m
ay b
e di
fficu
lt to
avo
id b
oth
roug
h w
eath
er a
nd w
arm
est m
onth
s.]
For
long
er te
rm c
yclic
eve
nts,
con
sult
ww
w.o
sdpd
.noa
a.go
v/m
l/oce
an/s
st/a
nom
aly.
htm
land
rel
ated
web
site
s to
che
ck s
ea s
urfa
ce te
mpe
ratu
res
(SS
T) a
nom
alie
s, H
otS
pots
and
Deg
ree
Hea
ting
Wee
ks
data
for
your
are
a. T
hese
are
upd
ated
app
roxi
mat
ely
twic
e a
wee
k. If
SS
Ts s
eem
to b
e un
usua
lly w
arm
for
the
time
of y
ear
(they
may
be
anom
alou
sly
high
for
seve
ral m
onth
s be
fore
ann
ual m
axim
a ar
e
reac
hed
and
blea
chin
g oc
curs
), se
ek a
dvic
e an
d co
nsid
er r
esch
edul
ing
proj
ect.
Che
ck fo
r EN
SO
pred
ictio
ns o
n: w
ww
.cpc
.nce
p.no
aa.g
ov/p
rodu
cts/
anal
ysis
_mon
itorin
g/en
so_a
dvis
ory/
inde
x.sh
tml.
If
ther
e ar
e pr
edic
tions
of a
n im
min
ent E
NS
O r
elat
ed w
arm
ing
in y
our
area
, co
nsid
er r
esch
edul
ing
any
plan
ned
trans
plan
tatio
n un
til a
fter
it (th
is m
ay a
llow
you
to id
entif
y bl
each
ing
resi
stan
t gen
otyp
es fo
r
nurs
ery
prop
agat
ion)
.
Cho
ose
the
mor
e te
mpe
ratu
re to
lera
nt s
peci
es fo
r yo
ur tr
ansp
lant
s (th
is m
ay r
equi
re e
xper
t opi
nion
, bu
t
if pr
evio
us b
leac
hing
eve
nts
have
occ
urre
d in
the
area
, th
ose
know
n to
hav
e su
rviv
ed a
re o
bvio
us
choi
ces;
in g
ener
al,
mas
sive
and
slo
wer
gro
win
g fo
rms
tend
to s
urvi
ve b
ette
r th
an fa
st g
row
ing
bran
chin
g, ta
bula
te a
nd e
ncru
stin
g fo
rms)
. A
t the
ver
y le
ast,
use
a m
ix o
f spe
cies
that
are
wel
l-ada
pted
to y
our
site
to in
crea
se th
e ch
ance
that
som
e w
ill su
rviv
e a
war
min
g ev
ent.
If fe
asib
le,
choo
se s
ites
with
feat
ures
that
hel
p re
duce
the
impa
ct o
f war
m w
ater
eve
nts
(e.g
. lo
cal
upw
ellin
g of
coo
ler
ocea
nic
wat
er,
mod
erat
e tu
rbid
ity (r
educ
es s
unlig
ht),
good
tida
l wat
er e
xcha
nge)
.
Pre
dat
ion:
Cor
als
are
prey
ed u
pon
by a
ran
ge o
f org
anis
ms
(e.g
. C
OT
star
fish,
cus
hion
sta
rs (C
ulci
ta),
gast
ropo
ds s
uch
as D
rupe
lla,
Cor
allio
phila
and
Phe
stilla
, an
d so
me
fish
spec
ies)
and
if th
ese
pred
ator
s
are
in s
igni
fican
t num
bers
, th
ey c
an s
erio
usly
dam
age
cora
l tra
nspl
ants
, pa
rticu
larly
thos
e re
cent
ly
trans
plan
ted
and
stre
ssed
. Th
e m
ain
prob
lem
is th
at r
esto
ratio
n ar
eas
are
usua
lly s
mal
l and
eas
ily
over
whe
lmed
by
pred
ator
s. T
hese
may
app
ear
to b
e pr
esen
t at l
ow d
ensi
ty b
ut c
an b
e at
tract
ed fr
om
neig
hbou
ring
area
s by
the
pres
ence
of c
oral
tran
spla
nts.
If th
ere
is a
rec
ent p
ast h
isto
ry o
f pre
dato
r
You
shou
ld c
aref
ully
ass
ess
the
prox
imity
and
den
sity
of p
oten
tial p
reda
tors
at t
he s
ite s
elec
tion
stag
e. If
they
are
pre
sent
in s
igni
fican
t num
bers
, th
ere
is li
kely
to b
e a
high
ris
k of
pro
ject
failu
re d
ue to
pre
datio
n
of tr
ansp
lant
s. M
itiga
tion
optio
ns in
clud
e da
ily to
wee
kly
or m
onth
ly v
isua
l mon
itorin
g an
d re
mov
al (a
s
need
ed) o
f inv
erte
brat
e pr
edat
ors
such
as
CO
T st
arfis
h an
d ga
stro
pods
, bu
t thi
s w
ill in
volv
e
cons
ider
able
tim
e an
d ef
fort
(and
thus
cos
t). F
or fi
sh,
tem
pora
ry e
xclu
sion
of l
arge
r pa
rrotfi
sh a
nd w
rass
e
for
a w
eek
or tw
o by
cag
ing
of n
ewly
tran
spla
nted
are
a m
ay a
ssis
t sur
viva
l but
may
be
logi
stic
ally
diff
icul
t
1.2
Bio
log
ical
fac
tors
: Cro
wn-
of-t
horn
s (C
OT)
sta
rfish
(Aca
ntha
ster
pla
nci),
cus
hion
sta
rs (C
ulci
ta),
gast
ropo
d pr
edat
ion
(Dru
pella
, C
oral
lioph
ila,
etc.
), di
seas
e, m
acro
alga
l dom
inan
ce a
nd o
ver
grow
th,
lack
of
herb
ivor
es d
ue to
ove
rfish
ing,
spo
nge
and
tuni
cate
infe
stat
ions
, fis
h th
at a
ttack
cor
al tr
ansp
lant
s.
Info
rmat
ion
need
s: Y
ou s
houl
d co
llate
info
rmat
ion
on p
ast (
e.g.
CO
T ou
tbre
aks
– se
e w
ww
.aim
s.go
v.au
/pag
es/r
eflib
/cot
-sta
rfish
/pag
es/c
ot-0
00.h
tml)
and
pres
ent p
oten
tial b
iolo
gica
l thr
eats
at y
our
site
(or
near
by
refe
renc
e re
efs)
and
look
for
evid
ence
of t
rend
s (e
.g.
incr
easi
ng a
ccou
nts
of g
astro
pod
pred
atio
n) o
r cy
cles
(e.g
. se
ason
al fl
uctu
atio
ns in
dis
ease
pre
vale
nce,
tuni
cate
infe
stat
ions
, m
acro
alga
l blo
oms)
. M
ake
full
use
of lo
cal k
now
ledg
e su
ch a
s th
at o
f fis
hers
as
wel
l as
any
publ
ishe
d da
ta fr
om th
e ar
ea.
Focu
s on
find
ing
out w
hat a
re th
e m
ost l
ikel
y bi
olog
ical
thre
ats
at y
our
prop
osed
reh
abilit
atio
n si
te a
nd w
heth
er th
ese
are
seas
onal
.
Ris
k p
red
icti
on
Mit
igat
ion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent
resp
ons
e
A s
ea s
urfa
ce te
mpe
ratu
re (S
ST)
ano
mal
y m
ap fr
om M
ay 1
998
from
the
US
Nat
iona
l Oce
anog
raph
ic a
nd
Atm
osph
eric
Adm
inis
tratio
n w
ebsi
te a
t: w
ww
.osd
pd.n
oaa.
gov/
ml/o
cean
/sst
/ (c
ourte
sy o
f NO
AA
).
40
impa
cts
(e.g
. C
OT
outb
reak
s),
then
futu
re p
reda
tion
(thou
gh p
reda
tors
do
not a
ppea
r to
be
imm
edia
tely
pres
ent a
t the
site
) may
be
expe
cted
to o
ccur
. In
MPA
s or
are
as w
ith lo
w fi
shin
g pr
essu
re,
larg
er
parro
tfish
and
cer
tain
spe
cies
of w
rass
e m
ay b
e at
tract
ed b
y ne
wly
tran
spla
nted
cor
als
and
may
bot
h
graz
e an
d de
tach
tran
spla
nts.
Dis
ease
s:C
oral
s ar
e su
scep
tible
to d
isea
se
whe
n th
ey a
re s
tress
ed.
War
m s
ea
tem
pera
ture
s du
ring
the
sum
mer
mon
ths
or
durin
g w
arm
ing
anom
alie
s (A
.1) a
re c
orre
late
d
with
incr
ease
d co
ral d
isea
se12
-13 ,
thus
stre
ssin
g co
rals
by
trans
plan
ting
them
dur
ing
the
war
mes
t mon
ths
of th
e ye
ar is
like
ly to
incr
ease
thei
r su
scep
tibilit
yto
dise
ase.
Hig
h
nutri
ents
and
sed
imen
tatio
n m
ay a
lso
be
cond
uciv
e to
the
prev
alen
ce o
f dis
ease
s12,
14.
and,
if d
islo
dged
, ca
ging
may
cau
se d
amag
e in
a s
torm
. Tr
ansp
lant
s ha
ve r
ecov
ered
from
initi
al in
tens
e
graz
ing
and
appe
ar to
bec
ome
less
pro
ne to
atta
ck w
ith ti
me.
Als
o, s
peci
es w
ith d
ense
r sk
elet
ons
appe
ar le
ss p
rone
to fi
sh p
reda
tion.
Car
eful
han
dlin
g of
cor
als
help
s to
min
imiz
e st
ress
and
tiss
ue d
amag
e du
ring
nurs
ery
rear
ing
or
trans
plan
tatio
n. C
aref
ul m
aint
enan
ce o
f you
r co
ral n
urse
ry (s
ectio
n 4.
5) o
r tra
nspl
ants
to r
emov
e an
y
harm
ful a
lgae
or
pred
ator
s sh
ould
als
o re
duce
stre
ss a
nd th
e ch
ance
of i
nfec
tion.
Loc
atin
g yo
ur n
urse
ry
or r
esto
ratio
n si
te w
here
wat
er q
ualit
y is
goo
d sh
ould
red
uce
the
pote
ntia
l for
cor
al d
isea
ses.
How
ever
,
little
is k
now
n of
the
sour
ce a
nd tr
ansm
issi
on o
f cor
al d
isea
ses1
5an
d on
ce d
isea
se is
est
ablis
hed
at a
site
“tre
atm
ent”
is g
ener
ally
not
con
side
red
feas
ible
14.
The
Cor
al D
isea
se H
andb
ook.
Gui
delin
es fo
r
Ass
essm
ent,
Mon
itorin
g &
Man
agem
ent1
4ca
n as
sist
you
in id
entif
ying
dis
ease
s an
d di
stin
guis
hing
them
from
tiss
ue lo
ss d
ue to
pre
datio
n, b
leac
hing
, in
verte
brat
e ga
lls a
nd o
ther
non
-dis
ease
lesi
ons.
You
shou
ld a
void
tran
spla
ntin
g co
rals
nea
r re
efs
whe
re d
isea
sed
cora
ls a
re p
reva
lent
and
if d
isea
se b
reak
s
out i
n yo
ur n
urse
ry o
r tra
nspl
ant s
ite th
en d
isea
sed
cora
ls s
houl
d be
rem
oved
imm
edia
tely
to r
educ
e th
e
chan
ce o
f the
infe
ctio
n sp
read
ing.
Hig
h m
acro
alga
l cov
er m
ay r
esul
t fro
m h
igh
nutri
ent l
oads
in th
e w
ater
(due
to s
ewag
e or
aqu
acul
ture
was
tew
ater
, or
farm
run
-off)
, or
from
insu
ffici
ent g
razi
ng a
ctiv
ity b
y fis
h an
d se
a ur
chin
s be
caus
e of
over
fishi
ng,
or fr
om a
com
bina
tion
of fa
ctor
s17 .
Afte
r na
tura
l dis
turb
ance
s th
at r
emov
e co
rals
, al
gal c
over
may
als
o ris
e (b
ut u
sual
ly o
nly
tem
pora
rily
on h
ealth
y re
efs)
. Fo
r m
itiga
tion,
the
caus
e of
the
high
mac
roal
gal c
over
nee
ds to
be
dete
rmin
ed a
nd a
ppro
pria
te m
anag
emen
t act
ions
take
n to
red
uce
nutri
ent
inpu
ts o
r re
duce
fish
ing
pres
sure
at t
he s
ite.
Onc
e th
ese
fact
ors
are
unde
r co
ntro
l, th
en a
ctiv
e
rest
orat
ion
mig
ht h
ave
som
e ch
ance
of s
ucce
ss.
Man
agem
ent a
ctio
ns m
ay ta
ke a
con
side
rabl
e tim
e to
be e
ffect
ive,
so
the
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te m
ay r
equi
re a
n in
itial
rem
oval
of m
acro
alga
e or
mai
nten
ance
to
prev
ent t
he b
uild
-up
of h
arm
ful m
acro
alga
e un
til th
ere
are
suffi
cien
t num
bers
of g
raze
rs to
con
trol a
lgal
grow
th.
Mac
roal
gal d
omin
ance
and
ove
rgro
wth
:Mac
roal
gae
com
pete
with
cor
als
for
both
spa
ce a
nd li
ght.
They
can
ove
rgro
w,
abra
de a
nd s
hade
cor
als
and
prev
ent r
ecru
itmen
t of c
oral
s by
pre
-em
ptin
g sp
ace1
6 .
Thus
hig
h pr
eval
ence
of m
acro
alga
e is
like
ly to
be
anta
goni
stic
to tr
ansp
lant
sur
viva
l and
ree
f rec
over
y
proc
esse
s.
Red
ucin
g th
e fis
hing
pre
ssur
e on
gra
zers
may
allo
w n
umbe
rs to
rec
over
and
gra
zing
to r
etur
n to
a le
vel
that
allo
ws
recr
uitm
ent a
nd k
eeps
mac
roal
gae
in c
heck
. B
ut th
ere
may
be
case
s w
here
it c
ould
be
nece
ssar
y to
re-
intro
duce
gra
zing
spe
cies
(e.g
. ur
chin
s) to
are
as w
here
they
hav
e be
en v
ery
serio
usly
depl
eted
. H
owev
er,
grea
t cau
tion
is n
eces
sary
in a
ny s
uch
man
ipul
atio
n.
Lack
of
herb
ivor
es:R
eef h
erbi
vore
s, s
uch
as p
arro
tfish
, su
rgeo
nfis
h, r
abbi
tfish
and
sea
urc
hins
, se
rve
a
vita
l fun
ctio
n in
cre
atin
g sp
ace
on th
e re
ef w
here
inve
rtebr
ate
larv
ae,
incl
udin
g co
ral l
arva
e, c
an s
ettle
and
surv
ive.
If th
ere
is in
suffi
cien
t gra
zing
then
cor
al r
ecru
itmen
t is
likel
y to
be
redu
ced
lead
ing
even
tual
ly
to r
educ
ed c
oral
cov
er a
nd s
truct
ural
com
plex
ity a
nd r
eef h
ealth
dec
line1
8 .
Bla
ck-b
and
dise
ase
on a
larg
e D
iplo
riaco
lony
at M
ona
Isla
nd,
Pue
rto R
ico
(K.
Kilf
oyle
).
3
41
Ree
f sub
stra
te im
med
iate
ly a
djac
ent t
o w
here
cor
als
are
to b
e at
tach
ed c
an b
e cl
eane
d w
ith a
wire
brus
h or
scr
aped
to r
emov
e po
tent
ially
hos
tile
sess
ile in
verte
brat
es a
nd m
acro
alga
e pr
ior
to
trans
plan
tatio
n of
cor
als.
Wat
er r
ich
in p
artic
ulat
e or
gani
c m
atte
r su
ch a
s th
at n
ear
aqua
cultu
re fa
rms
or
whe
re th
ere
is r
un-o
ff fro
m la
nd c
an fa
vour
spo
nges
and
tuni
cate
s, s
o m
anag
emen
t of w
ater
qua
lity
can
redu
ce th
e ris
k of
spo
nge
and
tuni
cate
infe
stat
ions
. In
the
shor
t ter
m,
mon
itorin
g an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f
your
res
tore
d ar
ea (o
r co
ral n
urse
ry) t
o re
mov
e tu
nica
tes
and
spon
ges
that
thre
aten
to o
verg
row
cor
als
can
help
, bu
t thi
s is
not
sus
tain
able
in th
e lo
nger
term
with
out m
easu
res
to a
ddre
ss th
e ro
ot c
ause
s of
the
infe
stat
ions
(e.g
. m
anag
emen
t of w
ater
qua
lity
at th
e si
te).
Sp
onge
and
tun
icat
e in
fest
atio
ns:S
pong
e an
d tu
nica
te
(sea
-squ
irt) i
nfes
tatio
ns c
an le
ad to
sig
nific
ant c
oral
mor
talit
y.
Som
e tu
nica
tes
may
occ
ur s
easo
nally
and
not
do
muc
h
dam
age
but s
pong
es s
uch
as C
liona
(Cas
e st
udy
6) m
ay
over
grow
and
kill
cora
ls,
parti
cula
rly w
hen
cora
ls a
re s
tress
ed.
Mov
emen
t of c
oral
s fro
m d
onor
site
s to
nur
sery
or
trans
plan
t site
s m
ay le
ad to
the
trans
fer
of th
reat
s
such
as
dise
ase,
pre
dato
rs a
nd in
vasi
ve a
lgae
or
sess
ile in
verte
brat
es.
Wat
er q
ualit
y:C
urre
nts
can
carr
y nu
trien
ts,
chem
ical
pol
luta
nts,
sed
imen
t, lo
w s
alin
ity w
ater
, an
d
othe
r w
ater
qua
lity
rela
ted
dist
urba
nce
thre
ats
to th
e re
habi
litat
ion
site
.
Larv
al t
rans
por
t:Lo
cal c
urre
nts
will
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er c
oral
and
oth
er la
rvae
arri
ve a
t you
r si
te in
suffi
cien
t num
bers
to a
ssis
t rec
over
y or
whe
ther
larv
ae p
rodu
ced
by m
atur
e tra
nspl
ante
d co
rals
at y
our
site
will
settl
e lo
cally
or
be tr
ansp
orte
d aw
ay to
nei
ghbo
urin
g re
ef a
reas
or
to th
e op
en o
cean
.
Dep
endi
ng o
n yo
ur p
roje
ct o
bjec
tives
, th
ere
are
risks
that
loca
l cur
rent
pat
tern
s m
ay h
inde
r yo
ur
reha
bilit
atio
n pl
ans.
Isol
ated
and
unc
onne
cted
site
s ar
e lik
ely
to b
e le
ss r
esilie
nt to
dis
turb
ance
.
Loca
l wat
er f
low
s an
d t
ides
:The
dire
ctio
n an
d st
reng
th o
f wat
er fl
ows
(incl
udin
g w
ater
mix
ing
via
tides
and
wav
e ac
tion)
and
tida
l ran
ge w
ill af
fect
the
chan
ces
of s
ucce
ssfu
l tra
nspl
ant a
ttach
men
t, gr
owth
and
surv
ival
. To
o m
uch
wat
er m
ovem
ent m
ay h
inde
r at
tach
men
t; to
o lit
tle m
ixin
g du
ring
the
war
mes
t mon
ths
may
lead
to h
eat s
tress
and
mor
talit
y; u
nusu
ally
low
sea
sona
l spr
ing
tides
may
exp
ose
cora
ls to
the
air
if
trans
plan
ted
too
shal
low
. Th
e hy
drod
ynam
ic r
egim
e at
a s
ite m
ay v
ary
dram
atic
ally
bet
wee
n m
onso
ons
or s
easo
ns.
Try
to s
elec
t onl
y he
alth
y co
loni
es o
r fra
gmen
ts fo
r nu
rser
y re
arin
g or
tran
spla
ntat
ion,
and
rem
ove
pote
ntia
lly h
arm
ful o
rgan
ism
s or
dam
aged
par
ts p
rior
to tr
ansp
lant
atio
n.
Ensu
re th
at p
rese
nt a
nd p
redi
cted
ups
tream
act
iviti
es th
at n
egat
ivel
y im
pact
wat
er q
ualit
y w
ill no
t
sign
ifica
ntly
affe
ct y
our
site
(with
due
allo
wan
ce fo
r se
ason
al c
hang
es in
pre
vailin
g cu
rrent
flow
s).
Try
to
sele
ct a
loca
tion
for
your
nur
sery
or
trans
plan
t site
that
is u
nlik
ely
to b
e im
pact
ed b
y de
lete
rious
terre
stria
l
or w
ater
bor
ne in
puts
(eith
er e
nsur
e it
is d
ista
nt fr
om p
oten
tial p
ollu
tion
or u
pcur
rent
from
it).
Avo
id s
ites
near
sew
age
outfa
lls,
aqua
cultu
re fa
rms,
riv
er d
isch
arge
s, e
tc.
Try
to u
tilis
e si
tes
that
are
con
nect
ed b
y cu
rrent
flow
s to
nei
ghbo
urin
g re
efs
and
can
func
tion
as p
art o
f a
netw
ork
of r
eefs
that
exc
hang
e la
rvae
(thi
s is
sim
ilar
to th
e id
ea o
f est
ablis
hing
res
ilient
net
wor
ks o
f
MPA
’s20
). If
you
inte
nd y
our
site
to b
e a
sour
ce o
f fut
ure
cora
l lar
vae
for
a la
rger
deg
rade
d ar
ea,
then
mak
e su
re th
at it
is u
pcur
rent
of t
he ta
rget
are
a.
Whe
n co
nsid
erin
g w
heth
er y
our
site
is s
uita
bly
loca
ted
take
into
acc
ount
sea
sona
l cha
nges
. Yo
u m
ay
have
to c
onsi
der
trade
-offs
bet
wee
n pr
otec
tion
from
wav
es d
urin
g st
orm
y pe
riods
and
exp
osur
e to
war
min
g du
ring
calm
per
iods
in th
e w
arm
est m
onth
s.
2. C
onn
ecti
vity
and
hyd
rod
ynam
ic r
egim
e ar
oun
d r
ehab
ilita
tio
n si
te
Fact
ors
:Wat
er q
ualit
y, la
rval
tran
spor
t tow
ards
and
aw
ay fr
om s
ite,
hydr
odyn
amic
reg
ime.
Info
rmat
ion
need
s:Yo
u ne
ed to
find
out
as
muc
h as
you
can
abo
ut th
e w
ater
flow
s ar
ound
you
r si
te,
how
thes
e ch
ange
on
a da
ily a
nd s
easo
nal b
asis
, an
d ho
w it
is c
onne
cted
to s
urro
undi
ng m
arin
e ar
eas
and
influ
ence
d by
riv
ers
and
othe
r la
nd r
un-o
ff (in
clud
ing
anth
ropo
geni
c di
scha
rges
). A
n un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e cu
rrent
s, ti
des,
and
wav
es im
ping
ing
on y
our
site
and
pot
entia
l sou
rces
of p
ollu
tion
can
help
you
to
dete
rmin
e if
any
of th
ese
feat
ures
will
influ
ence
the
chan
ces
of s
ucce
ssfu
l res
tora
tion.
Adm
iralty
Pilo
ts fo
r yo
ur a
rea
will
have
muc
h us
eful
dat
a w
hich
can
be
com
bine
d w
ith lo
cal f
ishe
r kn
owle
dge
and
your
ow
n
obse
rvat
ions
(e.g
. tra
ckin
g of
cur
rent
flow
s us
ing
low
-cos
t sur
face
drif
ters
19).
This
info
rmat
ion
toge
ther
with
a k
now
ledg
e of
the
life-
hist
orie
s of
the
cora
ls (e
.g.
larv
al c
ompe
tenc
y tim
es –
sec
tion
5.8)
can
giv
e yo
u
som
e in
dica
tion
of li
kely
cor
al la
rval
tran
spor
t.
Ris
k p
red
icti
on
Mit
igat
ion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent
resp
ons
e
A s
pong
e en
velo
ping
a M
onta
stra
eatra
nspl
ant n
ear
Can
cun
in M
exic
o
(K.
Kilf
oyle
).
42
3. C
ora
l tra
nsp
lant
atio
n is
sues
Fact
ors
: Sou
rces
of c
oral
tran
spla
nts,
cor
al s
peci
es a
nd g
row
th fo
rms,
life
his
tory
and
rep
rodu
ctio
n.
Info
rmat
ion
need
s: A
sou
nd k
now
ledg
e of
the
biol
ogy
and
ecol
ogy
of c
oral
ree
fs is
like
ly to
impr
ove
the
succ
ess
of y
our
proj
ect.
In th
e ab
senc
e of
an
expe
rienc
ed c
oral
ree
f eco
logi
st,
ther
e is
a la
rge
num
ber
of
help
ful d
ocum
ents
ava
ilabl
e ov
er th
e in
tern
et (s
ee li
sts
of r
efer
ence
s at
end
of e
ach
chap
ter)
and
cons
ider
able
sco
pe fo
r in
form
ed ju
dgm
ent u
sing
car
eful
pla
nnin
g an
d a
com
para
ble
refe
renc
e si
te (C
hapt
er 2
) to
guid
e yo
ur p
roje
ct d
esig
n. Y
ou n
eed
to c
arry
out
prio
r de
taile
d in
spec
tion
of p
rosp
ectiv
e do
nor
site
s fo
r co
rals
, pr
opos
ed n
urse
ry o
r re
habi
litat
ion
site
s, a
nd w
here
nec
essa
ry a
“re
fere
nce”
site
(par
t of t
he fa
ct-f
indi
ng
for
your
reh
abilit
atio
n pl
an –
sec
tion
2.3)
. A
ref
eren
ce s
ite is
one
with
a s
imila
r en
viro
nmen
tal s
ettin
g to
the
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te b
ut w
hich
has
eno
ugh
of a
cor
al c
omm
unity
left
to te
ll yo
u w
hat o
ught
to s
urvi
ve a
t the
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te (i
f the
latte
r is
den
uded
and
the
prev
ious
cor
al c
omm
unity
is u
nkno
wn)
. W
ork
out d
ista
nces
bet
wee
n si
tes
and
times
and
oth
er lo
gist
ics
need
ed to
tran
spor
t cor
als.
Ris
k p
red
icti
on
Mit
igat
ion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent
resp
ons
e
Sou
rcin
g co
ral t
rans
pla
nt m
ater
ial:
Your
site
(or
site
s) c
hose
n fo
r do
nor
colo
nies
(or
“cor
als
of o
ppor
tuni
ty”)
does
not
con
tain
suf
ficie
nt c
oral
for
the
proj
ect w
ithou
t sig
nific
antly
dam
agin
g th
e do
nor
loca
tions
.
If th
e di
stan
ce b
etw
een
your
cor
al s
ourc
e si
te a
nd n
urse
ry o
r tra
nspl
anta
tion
site
is to
o fa
r to
allo
w
rela
tivel
y st
ress
-fre
e tra
nspo
rt (s
ee C
hapt
ers
4, 6
and
8) o
f cor
al fr
agm
ents
or
colo
nies
giv
en y
our
reso
urce
s, th
en s
urvi
val w
ill be
poo
r.
If yo
u us
e co
loni
es fr
om o
ther
hab
itats
(eve
n ad
jace
nt b
ut d
iffer
ent h
abita
ts) y
ou w
ill in
crea
se th
e ris
k of
unac
cept
able
mor
talit
y.
Cor
al s
pec
ies
and
gro
wth
for
ms:
Fast
gro
win
g br
anch
ing
cora
ls te
nd to
be
mor
e su
scep
tible
to b
leac
hing
and
oth
er s
tress
es th
an s
low
er
grow
ing
mas
sive
cor
als.
Som
e ge
noty
pes
of a
spe
cies
will
be m
ore
resi
stan
t to
stre
ss th
an o
ther
geno
type
s.
Cor
al s
peci
es a
nd g
row
th fo
rms
that
are
not
wel
l ada
pted
to th
e co
nditi
ons
at y
our
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te
(ass
umed
to b
e un
der
som
e fo
rm o
f man
agem
ent c
ontro
l and
with
ade
quat
e w
ater
qua
lity)
will
have
low
surv
ival
.
. Life
his
tory
and
rep
rod
uctio
n:If
cora
ls o
f the
sam
e sp
ecie
s ar
e at
tach
ed to
o fa
r ap
art f
rom
eac
h ot
her
then
ferti
lizat
ion
rate
s of
gam
etes
may
be
inad
equa
te (A
llee
effe
cts)
.
Red
uce
the
scop
e of
you
r pr
ojec
t and
cor
resp
ondi
ng d
eman
d fo
r tra
nspl
ants
if a
ltern
ativ
e do
nor
site
s
cann
ot b
e fo
und
with
sim
ilar
cond
ition
s to
the
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te.
You
may
als
o co
nsid
er u
sing
cor
al
nurs
erie
s fo
r pr
opag
atin
g co
loni
es o
r fra
gmen
ting
the
first
“cr
op”
or tr
ansp
lant
s on
ce th
ey h
ave
grow
n in
orde
r to
gen
erat
e m
ore
trans
plan
ts.
Dur
ing
the
plan
ning
sta
ge m
ake
sure
that
you
hav
e ad
equa
te r
esou
rces
to tr
ansp
ort r
equi
red
cora
l
sour
ce m
ater
ial s
afel
y fro
m s
ourc
e si
te(s
) to
nurs
ery/
trans
plan
tatio
n si
te(s
) or
cons
ider
mov
ing
or
aban
doni
ng y
our
plan
ned
trans
plan
t site
loca
tion.
Ref
rain
from
the
tem
ptat
ion
to u
se d
onor
col
onie
s fro
m h
abita
ts th
at a
re d
iffer
ent t
o th
e re
habi
litat
ion
site
in te
rms
of w
ave
expo
sure
, de
pth,
wat
er c
larit
y, e
tc..
Do
not f
ocus
on
fast
-gro
win
g fo
rms
but s
elec
t a c
ross
-sec
tion
of s
peci
es a
nd g
row
th fo
rms
that
are
rela
tivel
y co
mm
on a
nd k
now
n to
sur
vive
at y
our
prop
osed
reh
abilit
atio
n si
te (o
r si
mila
r “r
efer
ence
” si
te).
For
indi
vidu
al s
peci
es y
ou s
houl
d se
lect
a r
ange
of g
enot
ypes
(i.e
. try
to o
btai
n fra
gmen
ts fr
om 3
0 or
mor
e do
nor
colo
nies
or
from
cor
als
of o
ppor
tuni
ty s
catte
red
over
a w
ide
area
that
are
like
ly to
hav
e
com
e fro
m d
iver
se s
ourc
es).
Bas
e yo
ur s
elec
tion
of c
oral
spe
cies
and
gro
wth
form
s on
wha
t alre
ady
surv
ives
(or
surv
ived
in th
e pa
st)
at y
our
reha
bilit
atio
n si
te o
r at
site
s in
sim
ilar
envi
ronm
enta
l set
tings
nea
rby
(“ref
eren
ce”
site
s).
Ensu
re y
ou c
reat
e ad
equa
te c
olon
y de
nsiti
es o
f eac
h sp
ecie
s in
you
r tra
nspl
ant a
rea.
The
den
sity
shou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
that
for
the
spec
ies
at a
sim
ilar
heal
thy
com
para
tive
area
(ref
eren
ce s
ite).
(Don
’t
plac
e tra
nspl
ants
of a
spe
cies
sev
eral
tens
of m
etre
s ap
art o
n a
bare
deg
rade
d re
ef.)
3
43
4. S
oci
al a
nd p
olit
ical
set
ting
Fact
ors
:S
ocia
l and
pol
itica
l set
ting
in te
rms
of n
atio
nal a
nd lo
cal g
over
nmen
t uni
ts,
rele
vant
NG
Os,
coa
stal
and
wat
ersh
ed m
anag
emen
t ini
tiativ
es;
impa
ct o
n st
akeh
olde
r liv
elih
oods
; co
mm
unity
acc
epta
nce
(risk
of
inte
rfere
nce)
; lik
ely
sust
aina
bilit
y on
ce in
itial
fund
ing
com
es to
an
end.
Info
rmat
ion
need
s:Yo
u ne
ed a
goo
d un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e lo
cal d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
proc
esse
s an
d m
anag
emen
t inf
luen
ce(s
) ove
r th
e ar
ea u
nder
con
side
ratio
n an
d le
vel o
f dev
olut
ion
of r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s/ju
risdi
ctio
n. A
thor
ough
eco
logi
cal s
copi
ng e
xerc
ise
of p
oten
tial s
ites
will
help
in th
e as
sess
men
t of t
he r
isk
invo
lved
in th
e se
lect
ion
of s
ites.
Thi
s w
ill in
clud
e an
initi
al a
sses
smen
t of p
oten
tial d
onor
col
onie
s an
d co
nclu
sion
s on
the
spec
ific
appr
oach
to r
esto
ratio
n. Y
ou w
ill ne
ed to
be
awar
e of
the
leve
l of s
take
hold
er u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he r
ehab
ilitat
ion
proj
ect a
nd n
eeds
for
train
ing.
Unp
redi
ctab
le c
onfo
undi
ng fa
ctor
s ca
n be
min
imiz
ed b
y
unde
rsta
ndin
g th
e ec
onom
ic c
ondi
tions
of l
ocal
com
mun
ities
mos
t lik
ely
to b
e im
pact
ed b
y yo
ur p
roje
ct,
incl
udin
g tre
nds
in lo
cal d
emog
raph
ics.
Pos
t-pr
ojec
t sta
keho
lder
beh
avio
ur c
an a
lso
affe
ct y
our
proj
ect s
o an
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
dyna
mic
s of
loca
l pol
itics
, so
cial
, an
d ec
onom
ic c
ircum
stan
ces
can
help
in b
uild
ing
up s
take
hold
er o
wne
rshi
p an
d in
crea
se th
e lik
elih
ood
of lo
ng-t
erm
com
mun
ity s
uppo
rt.
Ris
k p
red
icti
on
Mit
igat
ion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent
resp
ons
e
If lo
cal a
nthr
opog
enic
impa
cts
on th
e re
efs
are
not u
nder
con
trol t
hen
reha
bilit
atio
n ha
s a
high
ris
k of
failu
re d
ue to
ext
erna
l im
pact
s or
loca
l int
erfe
renc
e.
If so
cial
and
pol
itica
l com
prom
ises
hav
e st
rong
ly in
fluen
ced
the
sele
ctio
n of
you
r re
habi
litat
ion
site
,
perh
aps
over
ridin
g ec
olog
ical
crit
eria
, th
en th
ere
is a
hig
h ris
k th
e pr
ojec
t fai
ling
in th
e lo
nger
term
.
Loca
l pol
icy
and
deve
lopm
ent d
ecis
ions
can
impi
nge
on a
site
afte
r th
e tra
nspl
anta
tion
wor
k is
com
plet
e, th
ereb
y ch
angi
ng th
e na
ture
of g
over
nanc
e an
d pr
otec
tion
for
your
site
. In
sub
sist
ence
com
mun
ity a
nd tr
aditi
onal
ow
ners
hip
setti
ngs,
dev
elop
men
t or
reso
urce
usa
ge d
ecis
ions
can
be
unpr
edic
tabl
e, b
ut c
omm
unity
acc
epta
nce
can
redu
ce th
e po
tent
ial f
or c
hang
e in
a d
ecis
ion
abou
t a
proj
ect’s
use
fuln
ess.
Insu
ffici
ent s
take
hold
er u
nder
stan
ding
and
trai
ning
in b
asic
bio
logi
cal r
equi
rem
ents
of r
eef r
ehab
ilitat
ion
can
jeop
ardi
ze th
e su
cces
s of
a p
roje
ct.
See
min
gly
smal
l cha
nges
in th
e so
cial
/pol
itica
l circ
umst
ance
s ca
n al
ter
the
para
met
ers
arou
nd w
hich
a
proj
ect w
as fi
rst d
esig
ned
and
the
rank
ing
of p
oten
tial t
hrea
ts.
Econ
omic
cha
nges
in th
e lo
cal c
omm
unity
can
affe
ct th
e de
gree
and
type
of r
esou
rce
use
and
put
diffe
rent
pre
ssur
es o
n re
sour
ces.
Suc
h ch
ange
s ca
n ca
use
an in
crea
se in
uns
usta
inab
le p
ract
ices
that
may
impi
nge
on a
reh
abilit
atio
n si
te.
We
stro
ngly
rec
omm
end
that
you
r re
stor
ed s
ite is
sub
ject
to s
ome
form
of p
rote
ctio
n (e
.g.
in a
Mar
ine
Pro
tect
ed A
rea
(MPA
), m
arin
e re
serv
e/pa
rk,
tabu
area
, no
-tak
e ar
ea,
etc.
). B
y lo
catin
g si
tes
with
in
exis
ting
broa
der
prot
ectiv
e re
gim
es,
a le
vel o
f man
agem
ent a
nd p
rote
ctio
n is
mai
ntai
ned
even
whe
n th
e
proj
ect c
ease
s to
exi
st.
If ec
olog
ical
ly p
oor
site
sel
ectio
n is
una
void
able
you
sho
uld
mak
e th
e po
tent
ially
poo
r lo
ng-t
erm
outc
omes
cle
ar to
sta
keho
lder
s at
the
plan
ning
sta
ge.
An
alte
rnat
ive
appr
oach
is to
try
to p
ersu
ade
stak
ehol
ders
to in
clud
e an
add
ition
al s
ite a
t a m
ore
ecol
ogic
ally
favo
urab
le lo
catio
n.
You
shou
ld tr
y to
ens
ure
that
pla
nned
coa
stal
dev
elop
men
ts a
re n
ot li
kely
to im
ping
e on
the
rest
orat
ion
site
ove
r th
e ex
pect
ed li
fetim
e of
the
proj
ect (
incl
udin
g de
cisi
ons
on u
pstre
am lo
catio
ns),
befo
re y
ou
deci
de to
go
ahea
d w
ith a
pro
ject
. In
vest
in s
trong
com
mun
ity c
onsu
ltatio
n at
the
proj
ect p
lann
ing
stag
e.
Incl
ude
a de
taile
d an
d ho
nest
pla
n w
ith ti
mel
ines
for
outc
omes
that
you
ens
ure
are
wel
l und
erst
ood
by
the
com
mun
ity.
Your
pro
ject
sho
uld
inco
rpor
ate
stro
ng p
artic
ipat
ion
proc
esse
s in
all
cons
ulta
tions
, an
d
pres
ent r
egul
ar p
rogr
ess
upda
tes
to th
e co
mm
unity
thro
ugho
ut th
e lif
e of
the
proj
ect.
You
shou
ld a
lloca
te s
uffic
ient
res
ourc
es a
nd ti
me
to e
nsur
e yo
u cr
eate
hig
h st
akeh
olde
r aw
aren
ess,
acce
ptan
ce,
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
ecol
ogic
al b
ackg
roun
d to
you
r pr
ojec
t. S
take
hold
er o
wne
rshi
p
and
inte
rest
lead
s to
vig
ilanc
e to
war
ds th
reat
s.
Unp
redi
ctab
le c
hang
es in
the
soci
al/p
oliti
cal s
ettin
g ar
e ris
ks th
at a
re h
ard
to m
anag
e, b
ut if
you
hav
e
stro
ng a
nd a
ttent
ive
man
agem
ent i
n th
e pr
ojec
t you
sho
uld
be a
ble
to e
nsur
e th
at r
isks
to th
e pr
ojec
t
are
kept
low
by
mai
ntai
ning
eng
agem
ent w
ith th
e co
mm
unity
and
loca
l dec
isio
n-m
aker
s.
If yo
u ha
ve d
esig
ned
a pr
ojec
t with
low
ove
rall
risk,
this
allo
ws
for
mor
e fle
xibi
lity
to r
espo
nd to
unpr
edic
tabl
e ris
ks.
44
Suc
cess
ful r
ecov
ery
can
prod
uce
new
fish
hab
itat,
resu
lting
in in
crea
sed
fish
biom
ass
(e.g
. C
ase
stud
y
10) a
nd p
oten
tially
a d
esire
by
loca
l fis
hers
to e
xplo
it th
is a
t the
res
tore
d si
te.
This
may
lead
to d
amag
e
to th
e re
habi
litat
ion
site
by
fishi
ng g
ear,
anch
ors
or s
pear
fishi
ng d
iver
s.
Ofte
n st
akeh
olde
r in
tere
st in
a p
roje
ct c
ease
s af
ter
the
fund
ing
finis
hes,
res
ultin
g in
the
risk
of n
egle
ct
and
dam
agin
g in
terfe
renc
e at
the
site
.
Ensu
re th
at lo
ng-t
erm
pro
tect
ion
mea
sure
s (e
.g.
site
s w
ithin
no-
take
zon
es) o
r fis
hery
man
agem
ent
regu
latio
ns a
re in
pla
ce a
nd a
gree
d w
ith s
take
hold
ers
at th
e pl
anni
ng s
tage
. (It
is e
asie
r to
agr
ee fi
shin
g
regu
latio
ns b
efor
e si
gnific
ant b
iom
ass
is a
chie
ved.
) You
can
als
o m
aint
ain
regu
lar
stak
ehol
der
cons
ulta
tions
to r
educ
e th
e te
mpt
atio
n fo
r da
mag
ing
expl
oita
tion
by e
ncou
ragi
ng lo
cal o
wne
rshi
p of
the
site
.
Pro
ject
s w
ith lo
ng-t
erm
aim
s sh
ould
incl
ude
long
-ter
m in
volv
emen
t by
proj
ect i
ndiv
idua
ls a
s w
ell a
s
stak
ehol
ders
to a
llow
tim
e fo
r ta
ngib
le b
enef
its to
dev
elop
. Yo
u ne
ed to
fost
er s
take
hold
er o
wne
rshi
p
durin
g pr
ojec
t life
(par
ticul
arly
if ta
ngib
le b
enef
its s
uch
as fi
sh a
re p
rese
nt) s
o th
at th
ere
are
ince
ntiv
es to
mai
ntai
n th
e si
te a
nd a
ssoc
iate
d be
nefit
s po
st-f
undi
ng.
5. M
anag
emen
t is
sues
Fact
ors
: Per
sonn
el,
capa
city
and
trai
ning
, re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n pr
ojec
t per
sonn
el a
nd lo
cal g
over
nmen
t uni
ts,
stak
ehol
der
enga
gem
ent.
Info
rmat
ion
need
s: F
or m
anag
emen
t of r
ehab
ilitat
ion
to b
e ef
fect
ive
it sh
ould
be
adap
tive
(flex
ible
and
res
pons
ive
to c
hang
ing
need
s),
thus
you
nee
d to
hav
e a
stea
dy fl
ow o
f inf
orm
atio
n on
pro
gres
s of
the
reha
bilit
atio
n pr
ojec
t via
a m
onito
ring
plan
(Cha
pter
2).
For
a pr
ojec
t to
be s
usta
inab
le in
the
long
-ter
m,
it al
so u
sual
ly n
eeds
to b
e fir
mly
em
bedd
ed in
the
loca
l com
mun
ity w
ith a
ll ke
y st
akeh
olde
rs in
volv
ed fr
om th
e
plan
ning
sta
ge (C
hapt
er 2
). Th
e la
tter
requ
ires
a flo
w o
f inf
orm
atio
n fro
m th
e pr
ojec
t to
stak
ehol
ders
and
dec
isio
n-m
aker
s an
d th
e ca
paci
ty fo
r ad
aptiv
e m
anag
emen
t res
pons
es to
acc
omm
odat
e ch
ange
s in
sta
keho
lder
perc
eptio
ns a
nd a
spira
tions
, if
appr
opria
te.
Ris
k p
red
icti
on
Mit
igat
ion
or
adap
tive
man
agem
ent
resp
ons
e
A s
yste
mat
ic m
onito
ring
and
man
agem
ent r
egim
e th
at is
too
rigid
can
hin
der
timel
y ad
aptiv
e re
spon
ses
to a
ddre
ss u
nfor
esee
n th
reat
s to
a p
roje
ct a
nd c
hang
ing
soci
al,
econ
omic
, po
litic
al a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tal
circ
umst
ance
s.
A r
ehab
ilitat
ion
proj
ect t
hat h
as r
elat
ivel
y lo
ng ti
mel
ines
can
bec
ome
less
effi
cien
t if k
ey p
erso
nnel
leav
e,
resu
lting
in lo
ss o
f crit
ical
und
erst
andi
ng a
nd fo
cus.
Key
sta
keho
lder
s, w
ho h
old
the
influ
ence
or
deci
sion
-mak
ing
pow
er to
mai
ntai
n a
proj
ect,
may
cha
nge
over
tim
e re
sulti
ng in
dec
reas
ed
unde
rsta
ndin
g an
d su
ppor
t for
you
r pr
ojec
t.
Inad
equa
te m
onito
ring
redu
ces
the
chan
ces
of s
ucce
ssfu
l ada
ptiv
e m
anag
emen
t and
pot
entia
l for
feed
back
to s
take
hold
ers.
You
shou
ld a
lway
s in
clud
e pr
ovis
ions
for
adap
tive
resp
onse
mea
sure
s in
you
r pr
ojec
t des
ign
and
mon
itorin
g pl
an.
You
shou
ld d
istin
guis
h be
twee
n sy
stem
atic
mon
itorin
g fo
r sc
ient
ific
reas
ons
and
for
stak
ehol
der
and
proj
ect d
onor
rep
ortin
g re
quire
men
ts,
and
mon
itorin
g fo
r ad
aptiv
e m
anag
emen
t rea
sons
. Q
uick
vis
ual
chec
ks o
f the
reh
abilit
atio
n si
te o
n a
wee
kly
to m
onth
ly b
asis
can
bot
h id
entif
y em
ergi
ng th
reat
s an
d
allo
w c
orre
ctiv
e re
spon
ses
to b
e ta
ken
in ti
me.
You
can
help
new
incu
mbe
nts
by p
rovi
ding
app
ropr
iate
det
aile
d do
cum
enta
tion
of th
e pr
ojec
t des
ign,
aim
s, ti
mel
ines
, an
d pr
ogre
ss,
incl
udin
g a
good
ris
k m
anag
emen
t pla
n, w
hich
will
aid
smoo
th s
taff
turn
over
.
You
shou
ld e
nsur
e th
at p
erso
nnel
invo
lved
and
sta
keho
lder
s ar
e aw
are
of th
e es
sent
ial p
roje
ct d
etai
ls s
o
that
loca
l kno
wle
dge
is r
etai
ned.
You
shou
ld p
ro-a
ctiv
ely
enga
ge w
ith k
ey s
take
hold
ers
and
loca
l dec
isio
n-m
aker
s so
that
they
mai
ntai
n
supp
ort.
Whe
n ch
oosi
ng y
our
proj
ect s
taff,
you
cou
ld in
clud
e an
app
ropr
iate
loca
l per
son
or g
roup
(e.g
. N
GO
or
Com
mun
ity B
ased
Org
anis
atio
n) to
man
age
stak
ehol
der
rela
tions
with
the
proj
ect.
At t
he p
lann
ing
stag
e, y
ou n
eed
to a
sses
s th
e ab
ility
and
train
ing
that
will
be r
equi
red
for
staf
f to
mon
itor
key
aspe
cts
of th
e pr
ojec
t and
pro
vide
feed
back
. Yo
u sh
ould
reg
ular
ly a
naly
se a
nd d
isse
min
ate
mon
itorin
g da
ta to
sta
keho
lder
s, o
ther
wis
e it
is o
f litt
le u
se.
3
45
Step 3. Assessing and prioritising the risks to yourproject
Once you have identified the main risks, you then need to
assess them as to their potential severity and probability of
occurrence. In some case these can be fairly easy to
assess but in others they may be more or less impossible
(e.g. in the case of the probability of a rare event occurring).
Therefore, in the assessment process you may need to
make educated guesses in order to prioritise the risks and
develop a risk management plan. The person who is
assigned to do this assessment will be critical to the whole
design and risk management process. The pragmatic
adoption of realistic aims will be equally important for the
potential success of a project.
The fundamental difficulty in risk assessment is determining
the probability of occurrence of a particular risk since
Good Practice Checklist
Use an experienced coral reef ecologist to provide input at the design stage of a projectand ensure that one is available for advice in the event of problems during subsequentstages, so that the predominantly biological risks to the success of your project can beaddressed in a timely and appropriate manner.
Make full use of the huge amount of useful information that is available free over theinternet (see web links in reference sections of each chapter).
Choose your rehabilitation site with great care and with full consideration of the ecological and logistic implications.
Ensure that there is adequate management control of the rehabilitation site so thatadverse human impacts (e.g. destructive fishing practices) will not jeopardise your project.
Carefully research the optimum time of year for transplantation at your site and seek toavoid particularly stormy or warm times of year.
To spread risk, replicate transplant sites whenever feasible, creating several well-separated patches of coral rather than a single large patch.
Make sure you only transplant coral species or growth forms that are well-adapted tothe conditions at your proposed rehabilitation site, using a “reference site” as a guide towhat these are if need be.
Within the constraints of the previous item, seek to use as wide a cross-section of common coral species and genotypes as you can, to increase the chance that somecolonies will be resistant to any disturbances that may occur.
Foster local support for your project by engaging fully with stakeholders, the communityand local government units and use monitoring results to increase public awareness,report progress and maintain the project’s media profile.
Prepare for the unexpected by building into the project plan the capacity for monitoringand adaptive management in response to changing needs or setbacks.
statistical information is not available on past incidents that
led to failure or significantly reduced successful outcomes.
Furthermore, evaluating the severity of the consequences
(impact) is often quite difficult also. You can attempt to
quantify the risks by using the following approach: Likelihood
of occurrence coupled with the predicted consequences
(impact of the event) defines the severity of the risk, where a
rank value can be assigned to each of the risk categories
(Table 3.2). In the table, the predicted consequences of a
risk are cross referenced to the predicted likelihood of
occurrence to produce a potential risk ranking (ranging from
1 = near zero risk to 4 = high risk).
Where a number of specific risks are identified as likely to
impinge on your project, a sum total of the risk rankings
provides some guidance as to whether the project has a
reasonable chance of success. The higher the sum of the
46
risks, the higher the potential for failure or compromised
project outcomes. The presence of several high risk factors
would be particularly worrying. This exercise can be utilised
in an iterative way, by altering the risk rankings according to
the inclusion of additional provisions in the design phase
that will mitigate certain identified risks (in the process,
reducing the rank value of that risk), thereby improving the
overall success potential of your project.
The final risk assessment matrix should be critically
assessed as to whether it truly incorporates all of the most
likely known and predicted risks. If there are several aims,
then risks to one from a given factor may be greater than to
another, in which case the more severe risk category should
be chosen.
Table 3.2 A method to rank the severity of risks by
incorporating the estimated likelihood of risk occurrence and
predicted consequences of risk impact. H = High Risk
(Rank value = 4), M = Medium Risk (Rank value = 3),
L = Low Risk (Rank value = 2), NZ = Near Zero Risk (Rank
value = 1).
Step 4. Development of response options for mitigation of risks
Depending on the ranking of the most relevant and likely
risks associated with a restoration project under each of the
major aims, a list of appropriate responses can be
developed. Suggested responses are outlined in Table 3.1.
Note that specific risks can occur at various spatial and
temporal scales so you most likely will have to address
several risk factors in a given project. You may also need to
develop site-specific responses that are not covered on this
list.
The aim of mitigation is to ensure that perceived risks are
minimised. If risks are in the medium or high category, a
reassessment of how to minimise those risks may mean
changing the initial project aims and design. Also, many
risks might be associated with a selected site, so to
minimise the risks, you may be required to look for an
alternative site or to even abandon the project if viable
alternatives are not available.
Table 3.1 is presented as a series of risk sources, the
information you need to obtain in order to evaluate them,
the specific risks associated with each source, and the
appropriate management response to mitigate or minimise
the threat from these risks. Many of the responses just
involve careful planning and prior thought.
Likelihood of risk Consequences of risk impact occurrence
Severe Moderate Mild Negligible
High H H M/L NZ
Medium H M L NZ
Low M M/L L NZ
Negligible L L L NZ
Step 5. Integration of earlier steps and developmentof a Risk Management Plan
At this stage, you may need to enter into an iterative
process and reconsider your original aims or the suitability
of your selected site in order to reduce the level of risk from
the most significant of perceived threats.
Due to the uncertainties in our scientific knowledge, a key
part of the Risk Management Plan may be to use monitoring
to provide more information as the project proceeds and
use this to guide adaptive management to correct problems
arising, as well as to provide feedback to stakeholders.
Thus monitoring is central to adaptive management and risk
mitigation and not an optional extra. The key is flexibility and
the capacity to respond to changing circumstances as
indicated by the arrows in both directions between stages 4
and 5 in Figure 2.1 and those between these stages and
the financial and human resources available.
Ultimately, all you can do is try to mitigate for likely risks and
be in a position to respond to less likely ones. With careful
project design and systematic consideration of the risk
factors in Table 3.1 and their mitigation, you can reduce the
chances of your rehabilitation project failing but you can
never guarantee success.
References
1. Jaap, W.C. (2000) Coral reef restoration. Ecological
Engineering, 15, 345-364.
2. Hudson, J.H., Anderson, J., Franklin E.C., Schittone, J.
and Stratton, A. (2007) M/V Wellwood Coral Reef
Restoration Monitoring Report, Monitoring Events 2004-
2006. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Monroe
County, Florida. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series
NMSP-07-02. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 50 pp.
[Download at: sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/conservation/
pdfs/wellwood2.pdf]
A local diver in Tuvalu inspects a coral transplant for unwanted predators and
macroalgae on the skeleton prior to transporting it to a rehabilitation site
(Ch. 8: Case study 2). The coral had feeding or disease scars which
signalled that particular care was needed to ensure that no predators or
disease were transferred to the rehabilitation patch. Alternatively, this colony
may have had to be rejected (D. Fisk).
3
47
3. Precht, W.F., Aronson, R.B. and Swanson, D.W. (2001)
Improving scientific decision making in the restoration of
ship grounding sites on coral reefs. Bulletin of Marine
Science, 69 (2), 1001-1012.
4. Kojis, B.L. and Quinn N.J. (2001) The importance of
regional differences in hard coral recruitment rates for
determining the need for coral restoration. Bulletin of Marine
Science, 69 (2), 967-974.
5. Naughton, J. and Jokiel, P.L. (2001) Coral reef mitigation
and restoration techniques employed in the Pacific islands.
I. Overview. OCEANS, 2001. MTS/IEEE Conference and
Exhibition, 1, 306-311.
[Download at: cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/Downloads/
Publications/CP_Coral_Reef_Mitigation_1.pdf]
6. Shaish, L., Levy, G., Katzir, G. and Rinkevich, B. (2010)
Coral reef restoration (Bolinao, Philippines) in the face of
frequent natural catastrophes. Restoration Ecology, [online:
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00647.x]
[Download at: www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/full-
text/123320601/PDFSTART]
7. Reid, C., Marshall, J., Logan, D. and Kleine, D. (2009)
Coral Reefs and Climate Change. The Guide for Education
and Awareness. CoralWatch, University of Queensland,
Brisbane. 256 pp.
8. Thom, R.M. (1997) System-development matrix for
adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration
projects. Ecological Engineering, 8, 219-232.
9. Green, A.L. and Bellwood, D.R. (2009) Monitoring
functional groups of herbivorous reef fishes as indicators of
coral reef resilience – A practical guide for coral reef
managers in the Asia-Pacific region. IUCN working group on
Climate Change and Coral reefs. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
70 pp. ISBN 978-2-8317-1169-0.
[Download at: cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/resilience_
herbivorous_monitoring.pdf]
10. Jokiel, P.L. and Naughton, J. (2001) Coral reef
mitigation and restoration techniques employed in the
Pacific islands. II. Guidelines. OCEANS, 2001. MTS/IEEE
Conference and Exhibition, 1, 313-316.
[Download at: cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/Downloads/
Publications/CP_Coral_Reef_Mitigation_2.pdf]
11. Guest, J.R., Dizon, R.M., Edwards, A.J., Franco, C.
and Gomez, E.D. (2009) How quickly do fragments of coral
‘self-attach’ after transplantation? Restoration Ecology, 17
(3) [doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00562.x]
12. Harvell, C.D., Jordán-Dahlgren, E., Merkel, S.,
Rosenberg, E., Raymundo, L., Smith, G.W., Weil, E. and
Willis, B.L. (2007) Coral disease, environmental drivers and
the balance between coral and microbial associates.
Oceanography, 20 (1), 58-81.
[Download at: www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_
archive/issue_pdfs/20_1/20.1_breaking_waves.pdf]
13. Bruno, J.F., Selig, E.R., Casey, K.S., Page, C.A., Willis,
B.L., Harvell, C.D, Sweatman, H. and Mealndy, A.M. (2007)
Thermal stress and coral cover as drivers of coral disease
outbreaks . PLoS Biology, 5 (6), e124, 1220-1227.
[Download at: www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/
journal.pbio.0050124]
14. Raymundo, L.J., Couch, C.S. and Harvell, C.D. (Eds)
(2008) Coral Disease Handbook. Guidelines for
Assessment, Monitoring & Management. Coral Reef
Targeted Research and Capacity for Management Program,
St Lucia, Australia. 121 pp. ISBN 978-1-921317-01-9
15. Bruckner, A.W. (2002). Priorities for effective
management of coral diseases. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-OPR-22. 54 pp.
[Download at: www.coral.noaa.gov/coral_disease/cdhc/
man_priorities_coral_diseases.pdf]
16. McCook, L.J., Jompa, J. and Diaz-Pulido, G. (2001)
Competition between corals and algae on coral reefs: a
review of evidence and mechanisms. Coral Reefs, 19,
400-417.
17. McCook, L.J. (1999) Macroalgae, nutrients and phase
shifts on coral reefs: scientific issues and management
consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs, 18,
357-367.
18. Mumby, P.J. and Steneck, R.S. (2008) Coral reef
management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving
ecological paradigms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23
(10), 555-563.
19. Austin, J. and Atkinson, S. (2004) The design and
testing of small, low-cost GPS-tracked surface drifters.
Estuaries, 27 (6), 1026-1029.
20. Green, A., Lokani, P., Sheppard, S., Almany, J., Keu,
S., Aitsi, J., Warku Karvon, J., Hamilton, R. and Lipsett-
Moore, G. (2007) Scientific Design of a Resilient Network of
Marine Protected Areas. Kimbe Bay, West New Britain,
Papua New Guinea. TNC Pacific Island Countries Report
No. 2/07. x + 60 pp.
[Download at: www.reefresilience.org/pdf/ Kimbe_
Complete_Report.pdf]
48
![[Restoration of endodontically treated teeth]](https://static.documents.page/doc/80x56/635b004126d04ababa0215cb/restoration-of-endodontically-treated-teeth.jpg)
