• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main
 Tables and figures
 Appendix






Title: An investigation of anchor damage to the Frederiksted reef system : impacts to substrate, benthic communities, and reef fish assemblages
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/CA01300957/00001
 Material Information
Title: An investigation of anchor damage to the Frederiksted reef system : impacts to substrate, benthic communities, and reef fish assemblages
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Publisher: Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Place of Publication: St. Croix, USVI
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: CA01300957
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of the Virgin Islands
Holding Location: University of the Virgin Islands
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

F7AnchorDamage ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Main
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Tables and figures
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Appendix
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
Full Text







F-7 Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project:


Final Completion Report -
October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2005.


Part 2.



An Investigation of Anchor Damage to the Frederiksted Reef System:
Impacts to Substrate, Benthic Communities, and Reef Fish Assemblages


Wesley Toller

Division of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
45 Mars Hill
Frederiksted, USVI 00840


April 18, 2006






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 2
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

SUMMARY

The Frederiksted Reef System of western St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, is threatened by a
number of anthropogenic activities including physical destruction caused by the anchoring of
large commercial vessels. Little was known of this coral reef system prior to the 1994
designation of an anchorage on top of it, and no studies were made subsequently. Therefore, this
investigation was undertaken to determine the ecological impacts of anchoring. Preliminary
mapping surveys were made to delineate the damaged area. From these maps, four damaged
sites and four reference (non-impact) reef sites were selected for survey work to compare: 1) reef
substrate topographic complexity and composition, 2) coral and benthic community composition,
and 3) fish assemblage structure.

Preliminary mapping with towed-diver surveys delineated a large area of contiguous anchor
damage: an estimated 21.2 hectares of reef crest zone with a maximum observed cross-shelf
width of 256 m. Damage was greatest in the southern part of the study area near the Frederiksted
Pier. Independent measures of substrate topographic complexity from damaged and non-impact
sites indicated that anchoring resulted in a marked change in the physical structure of the reef.
Rugosity was significantly reduced (by 43.5 %) and vertical relief was substantially reduced
(67.9 %). The composition of abiotic substrate at damaged sites showed a 6.3-fold increase in
rubble, a 2.5-fold increase in sand cover, and 44.1 % decrease in consolidated reef/rock substrate
relative to non-impacted sites. Benthic community composition was strongly negatively
impacted by anchor damage. Coral cover at non-impact sites was high (average 25 %) and
dominated by a single species, Montastraea annularis, which accounted for 51 % of coral cover.
At damaged sites, coral cover was reduced by > 87 % and coral richness was reduced by 54 %.
Total macroalgal cover was not significantly different between areas although Halimeda was
more abundant at non-impact sites and Dictyota was more abundant at damaged sites. Percent
cover by dead coral with turf algae was significantly greater at damaged sites (57.5 %) than at
non-impact sites (44.6 %). Fish assemblages from damaged areas were significantly less diverse
than those of non-impact sites, in terms of average number of species (20 % fewer species),
cumulative number of species (19 % fewer species), and Shannon-Weaver index (H' 17 %
lower). Planktivores were exceptionally abundant at all sites and the five predominant species
showed individually variable patterns of response to anchor damage. Excluding these five
species, total abundance of fish assemblages was significantly lower (reduced by 43 %) at
damaged sites. Additional differences in the composition of fish assemblages between areas are
identified and discussed.

Results from this study indicate that anchoring has caused pronounced changes in the
architecture of the reef and in the structure of biological communities associated with it.
Although the large reduction in coral cover has not caused a phase shift to macroalgal-
dominance, recovery of impacted reef areas has progressed very little. Full recovery will require
decades. Damage to the Frederiksted Reef serves to illustrate the pressing need for regulatory
agencies to implement policies for improved management of maritime activities. Adequate
planning for the accommodation of large and small vessel traffic should include mechanisms to
obviate or mitigate damage to coral reefs and associated marine habitats. A program for
maritime accident response is needed to assess coral reef impacts and initiate restoration.






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 3
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System




INTRODUCTION

Coral reefs of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) are increasingly threatened by
anthropogenic activities (Rogers and Beets 2001, Catanzaro et al. 2002, Jeffrey et al. 2005).
Among these, impacts from anchoring of large vessels are of great concern because they result in
severe disruption of the reef framework and reduction or elimination of much of the scleractinian
coral community (Jaap 2000). Anchoring impacts to coral reefs are further exacerbated because
reef recovery is very slow. For example, one USVI anchoring incident which resulted in a
severe loss of corals and change in benthic community structure showed almost no sign of
recovery after more than a decade (Rogers and Garrison 2001). Off Grand Cayman, damages
caused by cruise ship anchoring were estimated to require more than 50 years for recovery
(Smith 1988).

In addition to perturbations of the benthic community, the physical destruction of coral reefs by
anchoring may also affect reef-associated fishes that depend upon intact coral reef habitat for all
or part of their life cycle. How fish assemblages respond to physical habitat destruction has yet
to receive study on coral reefs of the USVI. Results from studies conducted elsewhere on
analogous coral reef impacts, however, suggest that such physical destruction of habitat may lead
to marked and long-term changes in fish assemblages. Riegl (2001) reported that destructive
impacts from ship groundings and dynamite fishing on coral reefs in the Red Sea were similar,
and that both resulted in comparable reductions in diversity and abundance of associated fish
assemblages. Ebersole (2001) studied fish assemblages at ship grounding sites on coral reefs in
the Florida Keys more than 15 years post impact and observed low diversity, low abundance fish
assemblages more typical of natural hard grounds.

In the face of physically destructive impacts, how do coral reefs and associated fish assemblages
respond? A potentially illustrative example is that of the Frederiksted Reef of western St. Croix.
Areas of extensive damage were created by frequent anchoring of large vessels in the near shore
waters off Frederiksted (IRF 1993a, b). Although the Frederiksted Reef was considered among
the most important areas to the local fishery (IRF 1977), the existence of a robust coral reef at
the shelf edge was not known or was simply ignored (see Toller 2005), and anchoring caused an
unquantified amount of habitat destruction. The Frederiksted Reef thus presents an opportunity
to assess, characterize and document the magnitude of coral reef damage caused by anchoring of
commercial vessels. It also represents a case study that may provide insight into how benthic
communities and fish assemblages respond to large-scale physical alteration of coral reef habitat.

Available historic information about anchoring on the Frederiksted Reef is rather incomplete.
Anchoring at Frederiksted appears to have been a common practice that dates back to the
colonial era. Danish maps of St. Croix from 1764 show a Frederiksted anchorage, and
subsequent British charts indicate two anchorages, which roughly correspond to present-day
north and south anchorage areas. The peak of anchoring activity probably occurred more
recently, between 1960 and the mid-1980s, when the town of Frederiksted served as the primary
commercial port for the island of St. Croix (B. Lawaetz, former USVI Senator, pers. com.).






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 4
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

From 1970 through the late 1980's, large commercial vessels were commonly anchored north of
the Frederiksted Pier (S. Rodriguez, former Frederiksted pilot boat captain, pers. com.).

The only previous description of anchor damage to the Frederiksted Reef is a brief 1994 survey
report (Appendix 1). The Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA) requested establishment of
anchorage areas at the Frederiksted Pier, citing this survey report as evidence that taking such
action would confine damage to areas already heavily impacted by anchoring. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) granted the permit modification to establish two anchorages
(northern and southern), concluding that the designated anchorages would have "insignificant"
impacts upon the environment. Subsequently, no further accounts of anchor impacts or
anchoring frequency were recorded. In the following years, however, commercial traffic at
Frederiksted declined. Since 1999, the frequency of large vessel anchoring on the Frederiksted
Reef has decreased to less than one per year on average (W. Tobias, pers. com.).

The foregoing indicates that most of the anchoring on the Frederiksted Reef, and therefore most
of the damage, occurred prior to formal designation of anchorage areas in 1994. With the limited
information available, it is not possible to apply specific dates with any great certainty to
individual anchor scars. On the other hand, it is reasonable to infer that almost all of the
observed anchor damage is at least 10 years old and much of it is 20-30 years old or older. Thus,
damage observations from the Frederiksted Reef can be used to address questions about more
protracted decadall or more) aspects of anchoring impacts.

The specific objectives of this study were to: 1) obtain preliminary mapping information to
delineate areas of damaged reef habitat from non-impacted reef areas, 2) determine the changes
in substrate topographic complexity associated with anchoring, and 3) evaluate the extent to
which benthic communities and fish assemblages have been altered as a result of habitat damage
caused by anchoring. The latter two goals were addressed using a study design which compared
damaged and non-impacted sites.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Location

This study was conducted on the Frederiksted reef system located on the western (leeward) side
of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Toller (2005) provides a general description of inshore, hard
bottom habitats of the Frederiksted Reef System. Surveys were conducted in the reef crest zone
in an area north of the Frederiksted pier (Fig. 1A). Although a southern anchoring area was also
designated in 1994, only the northern anchorage was investigated in this study. This choice was
made based upon previous accounts of greater damage to reef habitats from anchoring north of
the Frederiksted Pier (DFW unpublished, also see Appendix 1).






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 5
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Figure 1. Map of western St. Croix and study area. A. Map showing the Frederiksted Reef (stippled
polygons) and study area (rectangle). B. Location of towed-diver survey transects superimposed on benthic
habitat map (see Kendall et al. 2001 and Toller 2005). SH = Sprat Hole monitoring site, UTR = Underwater
Tracking Range.



A B





SH















Preliminary Mapping and Identification of Survey Sites

Towed diver surveys were conducted across the Frederiksted Reef system to identify impacted
areas (see Toller 2005). Eight transects were run from shore to the 18.3 m (60 ft) depth contour,
with an additional (partial) transect added to the northern and southern portions of the study area
(Fig. 1B).

Damaged areas were identified by a combination of scoring criteria. In many cases, physical
disruptions from large anchors left pronounced scars in the reef framework. Large gouges (5 to
> 30 m long) oriented offshore with paired grooves separated by about 1.5 m were evidently
caused by the digging of anchor forks during anchor retrieval. Areas of "sweeped" reef substrate
(numerous independent coral heads broken off at a uniform height) were also evident and
presumably caused by anchor chains. Adjacent areas of unconsolidated rubble and boulders, or
overturned skeletons of massive corals (especially Montastraea annularis) were also included.
Extensive areas of unconsolidated coral rubble (i.e. "rubble-ized" reef areas) were scored as
damaged reef when evidence from adjacent zones indicated that the zone formerly supported
coral reef (i.e. presumptive reef crest zone).

The preliminary mapping data were used to select sites for surveys of benthic communities and
fish assemblages. A total of eight sites were chosen: four sites from damaged reef areas and four






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 6
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

from undamaged (non-impact) sites (Table 1). In this report, the name of each sampling site is
abbreviated with a two letter code (e.g. Sprat Hole = SH). Site codes are shown in Table 1 and
used throughout this report. Figure 2 shows the spatial distribution of sampling sites across the
Frederiksted Reef System.


Table 1. Survey sites and sampling dates.
Site Impact Location Avg. Fish Survey Benthic Survey
Code Site Name Designation Lat. (N) Lon. (W) Depth (m) Date No.* Date No.*

RF Rubblefield Damaged 170 43.101' 64 53.448' 12.4 17 Mar 05 6 4 May 05 10
TC The Comer Damaged 170 43.209' 640 53.570' 13.7 1 Dec 04 6 2 Jun 05 10
LP La Piedra Damaged 170 43.310' 640 53.671' 14.3 13 Apr 05 6 26 May 05 10
MA Midank Damaged 170 43.384' 640 53.677' 12.6 6 May 05 6 7 Jun05 10

PB Paul's Buoy Non-Impact 170 43.208' 640 53.416' 9.4 27 Apr 05 6 19 May 05 10
BP Black Point Non-Impact 170 43.642' 640 53.688' 11.4 5 May 05 6 3 Jun 05 10
RB Rainbow Non-Impact 170 43.858' 640 53.749' 11.8 6 Apr 05 6 12 May 05 10
SH Sprat Hole Non-Impact 170 44.049' 640 53.715' 9.6 22 Mar 05 6 1 Jun05 10

* Number of replicates for fish surveys (stationary point counts) and benthic surveys (quadrats)


Benthic Communities

Benthic surveys were conducted between May and July of 2005. Benthic communities were
assessed using quadrats (1.0 m2 with a 10 cm interior grid) following published methods (Rogers
et al. 1994). A diver descended and affixed a transect tape (marked in 1 cm intervals) to a
haphazardly selected non-living bottom feature. The diver then swam out 30 m of transect tape
following a pre-selected random compass bearing. A second transect was established parallel to
the first, approximately 10 m away, using the same compass bearing [paired transects were used
to allow dive teams to stay within constant visual contact]. Quadrats were placed at pre-selected
random distances along the transect tape. Quadrats were placed on the right-hand side of the
tape for even numbered distances and the left-hand side for odd numbered distances.

The surface area of all organisms occupying the quadrat was estimated to the nearest 0.1 % as
judged from planar view. Organisms which collectively occupied less than 0.1 % of the quadrat
(< 10 cm2 surface area) were excluded. Corals were identified to species. Estimates of percent
cover were based only upon spatial extent of living coral tissue. For analyses, hydrocorals (fire
corals of the genus Millepora) were grouped together with scleractinian corals. Algae were
identified to genus, or to species in a limited number of samples. Sponges were identified
according to coarse morphological groupings (encrusting, branching/tubular, vase, or
irregular/erect forms) except for three taxa (Cliona spp., Xestospongia muta, and Neofibularia
nolitangere), which were identified to genus. Gorgonians (subclass Octocorallia, order
Gorgonacea) were categorized into encrusting or branching forms. Only the bases of branching
gorgonians were considered for estimates of percent cover. Percent cover by filamentous and






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


turf forming algae
was estimated
visually or
calculated based
upon available
surface area of hard
carbonate substrate.
Such surfaces were
scored as "dead
coral with turf
algae," or DCTA.

For each quadrat,
divers also scored
the percent
composition of
abiotic substrate
underlying the
benthic community.
Abiotic substrate
was classified as
reef/rock, rubble,
sand, or other.
Percent abiotic
cover was assessed
independently from
any overlying biotic
cover. Digital
photos were taken
of each quadrat and
all data were
recorded onto
standardized forms.


Figure 2. Aerial photo of study area showing location of survey sites.
Locations of fish and benthic surveys are shown for damaged sites
(red circles) and non-impact sites (white circles). See Table 1 for site
codes. Geo-referenced photomosaic and polygons which show habitat
types (black lines) are from Kendall et al. (2001). Green trapezoid
shows the buoyed corners of the designated anchorage area based
upon DFW coordinates. UTR = Underwater Tracking Range station
located at Estate Sprat Hall, RC = red crane at the base of the
Frederiksted Cruise Ship Pier.


Topographic I
complexity was
measured using the chain method [several versions of the chain method exist; Luckhurst and
Luckhurst 1978, Rogers et al. 1994, C. Jeffrey, pers. com] as described here. A chain made of
fine-linked galvanized steel and 5.00 m in length was wound onto a plastic spool with a short
section of monofilament fishing line at the terminus. Beginning from a random point on the
transect tape, divers conformed the entire length of the chain to the bottom, directly beneath the
transect line. Conformed chain length was read directly from the transect tape to the nearest cm
using the monofilament tab for vertical alignment. Only surfaces of "hard" features were
included (e.g. live coral, dead coral skeleton, bare substrate, encrusting sponges). Soft features






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 8
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

(macroalgae, gorgonian stalks, branching sponges, etc.), were gently moved aside. A rugosity
index (RI) was calculated using the following equation:
RI = L/D
where L is the straight length of the chain (5.0 m) and D is the linear distance covered by the
chain when conformed to the substrate. Using this index, a flat surface would have an RI of 1.0
and a vertical surface would have infinite rugosity. For comparative purposes, a larger value of
RI indicates a substrate with greater rugosity.

An attempt to measure vertical relief was also made at all survey sites. Divers estimated average
vertical relief and maximal vertical relief along each transect line (i.e. two estimates per site).
Measures were obtained by "dropping and sweeping" the weighted chain (vertically) beneath the
transect line, along 2 m distance and then recording the length of chain required to touch the
substrate. Although poor inter-observer consistency was obtained with the method, the
measurements of vertical relief were nonetheless qualitatively consistent with rugosity indices
and with visual observation. Information on vertical relief was therefore treated as qualitative
data in analyses.


Fish Assemblages

The stationary point count method (Bohnsack and Bannerot 1986) was used to assess fish
assemblages at damaged and non-impacted sites. Compared to other visual census methods (belt
transects, timed random swim methods), point counts are advantageous because estimates of fish
abundance are recorded within a defined area of survey (i.e. as density). In addition, the
geometry of the survey area is circular and compact relative to belts. Such compactness allows
for more discrete sampling of selected habitat zones. Generally, results from stationary point
counts are comparable to results obtained from belt transects (e.g. Bortone et al. 1989).

The census protocol was only slightly modified from Bohnsack and Bannerot (1986). A 15 m
diameter census "cylinder" was defined by transect tape with the observer positioned in the
center at the 7.5 m mark (cylinder area = 176 m2 per replicate). Fish within this cylinder were
censused as follows. During an initial 5-minute "listing" period, the names of all observed fish
species were recorded onto pre-printed data forms. At the end of the listing period, the observer
began enumerating all individuals of each species, working from the bottom of the list upward
and making one 3600 sweep. Species observed after the listing period (i.e. species that swam
into the cylinder after the first five minutes) were excluded from counts. Divers estimated fish
fork length (or total length) by reference to a measuring "T-bar" held during surveys. Fish were
recorded into one of six size categories: <5 cm, >5 to 10 cm, >10 to 20 cm, >20 to 30 cm, >30 to
40 cm, or > 40 cm. Divers also recorded a brief description/sketch of habitat features within the
census area. All fish were identified to species. Small and/or cryptic species (gobiids, blenniids,
apogonids) were excluded from counts.

Fish surveys were conducted between December of 2004 and May of 2005. For each reef site,
six replicate censuses were made. This is a level of replication thought to adequately sample >
90 % of fish species richness at a site (Bohnsack and Bannerot 1986). Total survey area (six






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 9
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

replicates) was 1,056 m2 per reef site. A summary of fish survey sites, dates and number of
replicates is shown in Table 1.


Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with Statistica (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK) using either
parametric (two tailed t-tests) or non-parametric tests, as appropriate. Datasets were examined
with Kolmogorov-Smimov and Lilliefors test for normality. If datasets failed normality tests
(before and after log-transformation) then non-parametric tests were applied. For analyses, site
data were pooled by impact group (damaged vs. non-impact). Data are also presented
individually by site in this report. To identify changes in specific abundance between fish
assemblages from damaged and non-impact sites, the difference in average abundance (delta
abundance) was calculated using ln(x+l)-transformed data.

Mapping data were collected with handheld GPS units and analyzed with ArcView GIS 3.2a
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.) as described previously (Toller 2005).


RESULTS

Observations on the Extent ofAnchor Damage

The following account presents some general observations regarding the distribution and extent
of anchor damage to the Frederiksted Reef. Within the study area, large areas (1000's of m2) of
unconsolidated boulders and coral rubble or "rubblefields" were observed (e.g. Fig. 3B). Gouges
and tracks were evident and overlapped in areas of damage, suggesting that the rubble substrate
had been "overturned" multiple times. Such rubblefields were most extensive in the southern
part of the study area, inshore of the shelf break, in a cross-shelf position which corresponds to
the reef crest zone. At rubblefield margins, abrupt transitions to topographically complex reefs
were accompanied by large boulders lifted from substrate. Surprisingly, it was also observed
that small areas (100's of m2) of high-relief reefs (or "reef islands") which appeared to be
unimpacted by anchoring, occurred amidst rubblefields. The PB site is an example of one such
reef island area.

An exploratory dive through the designated anchorage area, following the 14 m depth contour
which roughly parallels the shelf-break, indicated that damage was near-continuous across more
than 500 m distance. Additional forays along reef slope indicated that anchor damage extends
deeper (> 30 m), however these areas were not surveyed in this study. In the northern part of the
study area, isolated scars were discernable within linear reef habitat that otherwise appeared
unimpacted. North of the SH site, little evidence of anchor damage was found. A comparison of
habitat appearance is shown in Figure 3.





A. Non-impacted site. Photo from Rainbow sampling site (RB). B.
Damaged reef site. Photo from Midank sampling site (MA).


I






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 11
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

Benthic habitat maps, which show 350,000 m2 of linear reef within the study area. Using the
percentage cited above, it can be estimated that approximately 169,000 m2 (16.9 hectares) of
linear reef has been damaged by anchoring.

The areal extent of anchor damage can also be estimated from the size of the designated
anchorage area itself, assuming that all reef habitat within the anchorage has been impacted. By
reference to the ACOE permit, the officially designated anchorage boundaries (see Appendix 1)
delineated an area of 389,396 m2 (38.9 hectares). There was, however, a substantial discrepancy
between coordinates of the permitted area and that of the area marked by VIPA buoys. DFW
recorded GPS position of the four buoys marking corners of the north anchorage in 1995 (A.
Adams, unpublished DFW memo, Appendix 1). These buoys delineated an anchorage (Fig. 2)
that was in a different position than the permitted anchorage, and also represented a smaller area
(161,243 m2 or 16.1 hectares).

Using the location/area of Figure 4. Aerial photo showing the approximate perimeter of contiguously
the designated anchorage impacted reef habitat on the northern Frederiksted reef Red polygon shows
as a proxy for estimating damage perimeter as estimated from towed-diver surveys. Green trapezoid shows
the buoyed corners of the designated anchorage. Locations of five survey sites
the spatial extent of habitat are also shown: four damaged sites (red circles; MA, LP, TC, RF) and one non-
impact has at least three impact site (white circle; PB). See Table 1 for site codes. Geo-referenced
shortcomings. First, photomosaic is from Kendall et al. (2001).
damage caused by
anchoring was evident
beyond the boundaries of
the anchorage area.
Extensive damage was seen
to the south of the
boundary, and, to a lesser
extent, also to the north of
the anchorage area.
Second, not all habitat
within the designated
anchorage is (or was) linear
coral reef. Third, some
small sections of linear reef
habitat that occurred within
the designated area were
also seen to be unimpacted.

An alternative approach was to use observations from towed-diver surveys. GIS mapping of a
limited number of positions provided an approximation for the perimeter of contiguous damage
(Fig. 4). The damage polygon encloses an area of 212,023 m2 (21.2 ha) and its position also
coincides rather imprecisely with the designated anchorage area (ACOE permit) and the VIPA-
buoyed anchorage area (Fig. 4). However, this approach may have still underestimated the
actual spatial extent anchor damage because: 1) the perimeter of contiguous damage extended
further southward towards the Frederiksted Pier (outside the study area), 2) the area of






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


p. 12


continuous damage does not include the numerous isolated anchor scars that were observed
further to the north, and 3) mapping efforts extended only to the 18.3 m depth contour although
anchoring impacts were also observed at greater depths on the Frederiksted Reef.


Substrate

Rugosity measurements were obtained at all four damaged sites and all four non-impact sites (10
replicates per site) for a total of 80 measurements. Rugosity indices were non-normally
distributed. The data were pooled by impact group (damaged vs. non-impact) and examined
further with non-parametric tests. Rugosity indices were significantly lower at damaged sites


(Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA
by Ranks; H1, so =58.53,
p < 0.001). At damaged
sites, average RI (
st.dev.) was 1.29 + 0.11
(range 1.02- 1.56). At
non-impact sites, average
RI was 2.31 0.61 (range
1.45 4.72). RI was
more variable within and
among non-impact sites
(Fig. 5A).

Vertical relief also
differed between
damaged and non-impact
sites. From pooled data,
average estimated
vertical relief was 0.27 +
0.12 m at damaged sites
compared to 0.84 + 0.19
m at non-impact sites
(Fig. 5B). Average
estimated maximum
vertical relief was 0.70 +
0.23 m at damaged sites
and 1.69 0.24 m at non-
impact sites (Fig. 5B).
Data for rugosity and
vertical relief are shown
in Appendix 2.

The composition of
abiotic substrate at each


Figure 5. Substrate topographic complexity at damaged and non-
impacted sites. A. Rugosity index. Columns show average rugosity
indices (from 10 replicate measures) as determined with the chain
method (see text) at damaged sites (gray columns) and non-impacted
sites (white columns). Error bars show standard deviation. See Table
1 for site codes. B. Estimated vertical relief from pooled data at
damaged sites (gray columns) and non-impacted sites (white
columns). Average and maximum values are shown. Error bars show
standard deviation.


Substrate Rugosity


RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH


2.0

I 1.5

_ 1.0

0.5

0.0


Maximum Observed


Average Observed


rh


'r







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 13
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


survey site is shown in Figure 6. Analysis of pooled data showed that substrate composition
differed significantly between damaged and non-impact areas. On average, damaged areas had
greater cover of rubble (37.6 28.7 %) than non-impact areas (6.0 7.2 %; t-test assuming
unequal variance, t = -7.73, p < 0.001) and damaged areas had a greater coverage of sand (12.4 +
16.5 %) than non-impact areas (4.9 7.2 %; t-test assuming unequal variance, t = 2.63, p <
0.012). Non-impact areas had a greater percent coverage of reef/rock (89.1 9.7 %) than was
observed at damaged areas (49.8 30.6 %; t-test assuming unequal variance, t= 6.74, p <
0.001).
Figure 6. Abiotic substrate composition at damaged sites (gray
columns) and non-impact sites (white columns). A. Reef or
consolidated limestone rock. B. Unconsolidated rubble. C. Sand.
Error bars show standard deviation. See Table 1 for site codes.

A.

100 Reef/Rock
100 -
80



40 -

20

0-
RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH

B.
100
Rubble
80-

> 60

I40-

20 -

0
RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH

C.
100
Sand
80

S60-

)40-

20
6 4






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 14
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

Benthic Communities

Corals
Coral cover was higher at non-impact sites than at damaged sites (Fig. 7A). Average percent
coral cover was 25.1 + 10.3 % at non-impact sites and 3.1 4.0 % at damaged sites. This
difference was significant (t-test assuming unequal variance, t = -12.5, p < 0.001), and represents
an 87.5 % reduction in coral cover.

A total of 28 coral
species (including two Figure 7. Coral abundance and richness at damaged sites (gray
nominal taxa), columns) and non-impact sites (white columns). A. Average percent
representing 10 families, cover of corals. B. Average coral richness (cumulative number of
were observed in this coral species observed at each site also indicated). Error bars show
study (Table 2). More standard deviation. See Table 1 for site codes.
species were observed at A.
non-impact sites (27 Coral
Coral Cover
species) than at damaged 80
sites (17 species).
Average richness was 60
higher at non-impact sites 0
than at damaged sites
(Fig. 7B). On average, 20 -
damaged sites had 3.1 +
1.8 species per m2 and -
non-impact sites had 6.7 RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH
+ 1.9 species per m2 B.
Average richness at
damaged sites was 10 Coral Richness
significantly lower than
at non-impact sites (t-test,
t= -8.45, p < 0.001).
Cumulative number of w, 5
species observed was also z
higher at non-impact sites 17 20 21 16
(Average = 18.5 species) __
than at damaged sites RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH
(Average = 11.0 species).

Comparison of corals from damaged and non-impact areas (Table 2) also showed that
differences in the amount of cover varied by coral species. At non-impact sites, Montastraea
annularis dominated (50.9 %) coral communities, followed by Porites astreoides (13.1 %), M.
franksi (9.2 %), M. faveolata (8.7 %), Agaricia agaricites (7.6 %), P. porites (3.0 %), M.
cavernosa (2.3 %), and Siderastrea siderea (0.5 %). The remaining 19 species (Table 2)
collectively accounted for 4.8 % of coral cover (Fig. 8).









Table 2. Frequency and percent cover of corals at damaged and non-impact sites.
Damaged Sites Non-Impact Sites
Frequency Percent Cover (per m2) Frequency Percent Cover (per m2)
Species Family (n = 40) Avg. St.Dev. (n = 40) Avg. St.Dev.


Montastraea annularis
Porites astreoides
Montastraea franksi
Agaricia agaricites
Montastraea faveolata
Montastraea cavernosa
Porites porites
Siderastrea siderea
Colpophyllia natans
Diploria labyrinthiformis
Meandrina meandrites
Millepora alcicornis
Stephanocoenia intersepta
Agaricia sp.
Agaricia lamarki
Madracis decactus
Scolymia sp.
Madracis mirabilis
Poritesfurcata
Faviafragum
Agariciafragilis
Eusmilia fsxtigiutu
Mycetophylliaferox
Mycetophyllia lamarckiana
Mycetophyllia aliciae
Diploria strigosa
Millepora complanata
Isophyllastrea rigida


Faviidae
Poritidae
Faviidae
Agariciidae
Faviidae
Faviidae
Poritidae
Siderastreidae
Faviidae
Faviidae
Meandrinidae
Milleporidae
Astrocoeniidae
Agariciidae
Agariciidae
Pocilloporidae
Mussidae
Pocilloporidae
Poritidae
Faviidae
Agariciidae
Caryophylliidae
Mussidae
Mussidae
Mussidae
Faviidae
Milleporidae
Mussidae


Corals are ranked in decreasing order of average percent cover (all sites combined).


27.5%
52.5%
35.0%
57.5%
2.5%
32.5%
15.0%
37.5%
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
2.5%


0.39
0.52
0.95
0.62
0.01
0.28
0.04
0.14

0.02
0.02
0.03
0.08


0.02
0.003


0.01







0.01
0.01


0.81
1.15
1.99
1.03
0.03
0.87
0.12
0.24

0.07
0.08
0.16
0.26


0.06
0.02


0.02







0.05
0.03


92.5%
95.0%
57.5%
100.0%
42.5%
35.0%
47.5%
17.5%
10.0%
7.5%
10.0%
32.5%
10.0%
7.5%
5.0%
22.5%
10.0%
7.5%
5.0%
20.0%
7.5%
7.5%
2.5%
5.0%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
0.0%


12.77
3.28
2.31
1.90
2.18
0.58
0.74
0.12
0.23
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.003


11.04
2.45
2.84
1.55
3.75
1.29
1.13
0.36
0.94
0.50
0.46
0.19
0.13
0.38
0.44
0.13
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.02







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 16
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System




At damaged reef sites, average percent cover ofMontastraea annularis was reduced by 97 % and
M. faveolata was almost eliminated (Table 2). Coral community composition was restructured
(see Fig. 8) such that the dominant corals wereM.franksi (30.4 %), A. agaricites (19.8 %), P.
astreoides (16.7 %), M. annularis (12.3 %), M. cavernosa (8.9 %), and S. siderea (4.6 %).
Compared to non-impact sites, all coral species had lower average percent cover at damaged
sites except for S. siderea and Stephanocoenia intersepta.


Figure 8. Average coral species composition at damaged sites (below, right) and non-impact
sites (below, left). Pie charts are scaled 7:1 to show the relative difference in percent coral
cover between damaged and non-impact sites.


Non-Impact Sites Damaged Sites

S. siderea
All others
M. cavemAo:a as All others
P. pc*e.: WgS. siderea M. annularis
M. cavernose
A. agariciti:
P. porites P. astreoides

M. faveolata A. agaricites
M. annularis M. franksi


M. franks-i



F. astreodes





Macroalgae
Total cover by macroalgae was comparable between damaged and non-impact sites (Fig 9A).
On average, percent algal cover was 21.3 + 9.5 % at non-impact sites and 22.7 + 9.3 % at
damaged sites. These differences were not significant (t-test, t = 0.65, p = 0.52). Fourteen taxa
(species or nominal taxa) of macroalgae were observed in this study. Over 87 % of macroalgal
cover was contributed by three genera: Lobophora, Dictyota, and Halimeda. Each was observed
with a frequency > 90 %. Also relatively abundant were encrusting coralline algae (4.8 %) and
the filamentous blue-green algae, S. h/itlr i/\ calcicola (2.6 %). The remaining genera
(Galaxaura, Ceramium, Jania, Udotea, Valonia, Ventricaria, Neomeris and unidentified
macroalga) were less frequent and less abundant, collectively contributing 5.6 % to observed
macroalgal coverage.







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 17
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Abundance of the three predominant algal genera were compared between damaged and non-
impact sites (Fig. 9B). The percent cover of Lobophora (exclusively L. variegata) was similar
between areas: 10.6 7.3 % at damaged sites and 9.4 8.8 % at non-impact sites (t-test, t = 0.66,
p = 0.51). However, the average percent cover by Dictyota was greater at damaged sites (6.2
2.6 %) than at non-impact sites (3.0 2.1 %; t-test, t = 5.95, p < 0.001). Average percent cover
by Halimeda was greater at non-impact sites (5.7 + 3.9 %) than at damaged sites (3.4 2.2 %; t-
test assuming unequal variance, t = -3.30, p = 0.002). The author notes that three species (H.
goreaui, H. opuntia, and H. copiosa) accounted for most observations ascribed to the taxon
Halimeda.


Figure 9. Percent cover of macroalgae at damaged sites (gray columns)
and non-impact sites (white columns). A. Total cover of all macroalgae.
See Table 1 for site codes. B. Cover of the three dominant taxa of
macroalgae, Lobophora, Dictyota and Halimeda. Site data were pooled
by impact group. Error bars show standard deviation.

A.
Total Macroalgal Cover
40

0

2 20




RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH

B.
20
2T Dominant Algal Taxa Damage
15 0 Non-Impact


10-

i m^


Lobophora Dictyota


Halimeda






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 18
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System



Other Invertebrates
Gorgonians and sponges were the only taxa which contributed substantially to "other
invertebrates" within benthic communities (i.e., recorded at > 0.1 % cover in quadrats).
Collectively, sponges and gorgonians contributed about equally to average percent cover at
damaged sites (4.4 + 3.4 %) and at non-impact sites (4.2 + 4.5 %). Examination of the
composition of gorgonians and sponges indicated that there were several differences between
damaged and non-impact areas (Fig. 10). Branching gorgonians (primarily Pseudopterogorgia
sp.) had higher percent cover (Fig. 10A) and were more frequent (Fig. 10B) at non-impact sites.
The giant barrel sponge, Xestospongia muta, was observed with greater frequency at non-impact
sites (Fig. 10B). At damaged sites, the encrusting/boring sponges of the genus Cliona had higher
percent cover (Fig. 10A) and were more frequently observed (Fig. 10) than at non-impact sites.







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Figure 10. Abundance ofgorgonians and sponges observed at damaged
sites (gray columns) and non-impact sites (white columns). Site data
were pooled by impact group. A. Average percent cover. Error bars
show standard deviation. B. Frequency of observation (40 replicate
quadrats per area). Abbreviations are as follows: Br.Gorg. = branching
gorgonian, Enc.Gorg. = encrusting gorgonian, Cliona = sponge of the
genus Cliona, Xesto = Xestospongia muta, Neofib = Neofibularia
nolitangere, Enc.Spo. = encrusting sponge, Br.Spo. = branching sponge,
Irr.Spo. = irregular/erect sponge, Vs.Spo. = vase sponge.

A.
Percent Cover


6) ~ 6) M 6 6 0 6
CD CD x z o ,=
mg
w w
= ,,,
iiiL


Frequency

80- Damaged
-OO Non-Impact
60

S40-

20

0 F


p. 19


Dead Coral with Turf Algae
Among the primary biotic categories used for scoring benthic communities in this study, Dead
Coral with Turf Algae (DCTA) dominated biotic cover at all sites (Fig. 11). Percent cover by
DCTA was significantly greater (t-test, t = 4.17, p < 0.001) at damaged sites (57.5 14.5 %)
than at non-impact areas (44.6 13.1 %).






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 20
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


A comparison of the average
contributions by each of the Figure 11. Average percent cover of dead coral with turf algae
primary biotic categories (DCTA) at damaged sites (gray columns) and non-impact sites (white
(corals, algae, gorgonians & columns). Error bars show standard deviation. See Table 1 for site
sponges, DCTA) to benthic codes.
community structure is 100
shown in Figure 12 forTA
damaged and non-impact so
sites. Among sites, the biotic
cover of hard substrate (sand 60
is also shown in Figure 12) 40
by macroalgae was <
approximately equal between 20
damaged and non-impact
sites. Similarly, average RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH
cover by gorgonians &
sponges was comparable
between damaged and non-impact areas. However, large differences between damaged and non-
impacted areas were seen for coral cover, DCTA cover, and sand (Fig. 12). At damaged sites,
the large decline in coral cover is accompanied by an increase in DCTA cover and, to a lesser
extent, an increase in sand cover.




Figure 12. Comparison of benthic community composition between damaged areas (below, right) and
non-impacted areas (below, left). Average percent cover is shown for the four primary biotic categories
observed. Site data are pooled by impact group. Average cover of sand (an abiotic category representing
softbottom substrates) is also shown. DCTA = Dead Coral with Turf Algae, Other Inverts = sponges,
gorgonians and other non-scleractinian invertebrates.

Non-Impact Sites Damaged Sites
SandSand
;igjL Algae




SInverts [ \ Inverts

Coral



C,, T- D ,CT.-.






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 21
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System



Fish Assemblages

Fish assemblages were assessed with a total of 48 point counts. Divers recorded a total of
18,813 fish representing 82 species from 29 families (Appendix 5). More fish were observed at
non-impact sites (10,305 fish) than at impact sites (8,508 fish).

Average fish abundance at
each site is shown in Figure Figure 13. Fish abundance at damaged and non-impacted sites. A. Average
13. When data were pooled, abundance for all fish species observed. B. Average fish abundance after
excluding the five most common fish species (creole wrasse, blue chromis,
average abundance at non- bicolor damselfish, bluehead wrasse and brown chromis). Error bars show
impact sites (429.4 157.3 standard deviation. Sites are coded as damaged (gray columns) or non-
fish/count) was greater than impact (white columns). See Table 1 for site codes.
average abundance at A.
damaged sites (354.5 103.6 800
fish/count) although this
difference was not significant o 600
(t-test, t = -1.947, p = 0.058, --I- -
Fig. 13A). After excluding 400
6 400
the five most common z
species (see below), average 2
200)
abundance at non-impact
sites (99.6 29.9
species/count) was greater RE TC LP MA PB BP RB SH
than average abundance at
damaged sites (56.7 10.3
species/count, Fig. 13B). B.
This difference was 160
significant (t-test, t = -6.65, p _
< 0.001). o 120

Fish assemblages were s80
dominated by the following g
five species, ranked in order 40
of decreasing total
abundance: creole wrasse o
(Clepticusparrae), blue RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH
chromis (Chromis cyanea),
bicolor damselfish (Stegastes
partitus), bluehead wrasse (Thalassoma bifasciatum), and brown chromis (Chromis
multilineata). Together, the five most common species accounted for over 80 % (15,062 fish) of
all observations (Table 3). Examination of specific abundance patterns revealed a general log-
linear relation on rank abundance (Fig. 14A) which indicated that these five species were also
somewhat exceptional in terms of abundance. Therefore, they were examined separately from
the remaining fish assemblage. Collectively, planktivore abundance at damaged sites (297.8






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


p. 22


99.2 fish/count) and non-impact sites (329.8 156.3 fish/count) was not significantly different
(t-test, t = -0.844, p = 0.403). When analyzed individually, however, abundance differences
were apparent for two species. At damaged sites, a significant increase in abundance was
observed for bicolor damselfish (t-test, t = 5.640, p < 0.0001) and a significant decrease was
observed for brown chromis (t-test, t = 3.03, p < 0.004). Abundance of creole wrasse,
bluehead, and blue chromis were not significantly different between damaged and non-impact
areas.


Average species richness of
fish assemblages at each
site is shown in Figure
15A. Average richness
was higher at non-impact
sites (25.1 + 2.7 fish/
count) than at damaged
sites (20.2 2.2 fish/
count). Average richness
was significantly different
between groups (t-test, t= -
6.89, p < 0.001).
Cumulative number of
species was also higher at
non-impact sites (t-test, t =
-4.73, p < 0.003). On
average, the cumulative
number of fish species
observed at non-impact
sites (47.3 species/site) was
greater than that observed
at damaged sites (38.3
species/site). Of 82 species
observed during the study,
71 species were observed at
non-impact sites and 56
were observed at damaged
sites.

Average fish diversity
(Shannon-Weaver H') is
shown in Figure 15B.
Average diversity,
expressed as H' observed
per replicate count, was


Figure 14. Analysis of abundance trends in the five most commonly
observed fish species in this study. A. Rank abundance of all fish taxa
plotted against natural logarithm of abundance. The five most common
species (circled group at upper left) deviated from the general log-linear
abundance trend observed for other species. B. Average abundance of the
five most commonly observed species at damaged sites (gray columns) and
non-impacted sites (white columns). Error bars show standard deviation.
Asterisks indicate significant differences between pairs.

A.


0 20 40 60 80
Rank Abundance


Li"
o F


mg L
"- .E
Z i


ui
0E


higher at non-impact sites (2.20 + 0.27) than at damaged sites (1.83 0.18). Observed
differences were significant (t-test, t = -5.69, p < 0.001).


















Figure 15. Fish species richness and diversity at damaged sites (gray
columns) and non-impacted sites (white columns). A. Average richness
(average number of fish species observed from six replicate counts).
Cumulative number of species observed per site is shown (inset). B.
Average Shanon-Weaver diversity (average H' value from six replicate
counts). Error bars show standard deviation. See Table 1 for site codes.

A.
Fish Richness
| 30


020



7 3 395 JO 49 43 51 46

RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH


B.
3 Fish Diversity (H')






0)



RF TC LP MA PB BP RB SH


Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


p. 23


A comparison of fish species composition between damaged and non-impact sites is shown in
Table 3. Observed differences were explored further by calculating the specific differences in
abundance (Fig. 16). Large differences in abundance (> 1 standard deviation from average A
abundance) are seen for 13 species. Relative to non-impact sites, the following species showed
lower abundance in damaged habitats: brown chromis (Chromis multilineata), threespot
damselfish (S. planifrons), french grunt (Haemulon flavolineatum), mackerel scad (Decapterus
macarellus), graysby (Cephalopholis cruentatus), boga (Inermia vittata), mahogany snapper
(Lutjanus mahogoni) and schoolmaster (L. apodus). Mackerel scad and boga were observed at
only one site (sites RB and BP, respectively). The following species showed higher abundance







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 24
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


in damaged sites: bicolor damselfish (S. partitus), yellowhead wrasse (Halichoeres garnoti),
coney (Cephalopholisfulvus), tobaccofish (Serranus tabacarius) and harlequin bass (S. tigrinus).

Patterns of spatial distribution within and between impact groups were also examined (not
shown). Six species showed evidence of restricted distribution between damaged and non-
impact sites. Trumpetfish (Aulostomus maculatus), sergeant major (Abudefdufsaxatilis), fairy
basslet (Gramma loreto), whitespotted filefish (C/ihel/e, /iie macrocerus), and caesar grunt
(Haemulon carbonarium) were observed at most non-impact sites and not at damaged sites.
Tobaccofish (Serranus tabacarius) were observed at most damaged sites but not at non-impact
sites. These spatial patterns, together with observation on abundance, are summarized in Table
4.


Figure 16. Differences in species abundance patterns between damaged and
non-impacted areas. Delta (abundance) was calculated from habitat-pairs
for each species using ln(x+l) transformed data. Data are presented in rank
order of average abundance (pooled data) and shown relative to average
delta (-0.152) calculated from the entire fish assemblage (solid line).
Dashed lines show 1 and 2 standard deviations. Note that a positive value of
delta abundance indicates increased abundance in damaged habitats and a
negative value indicates decreased abundance in damaged habitats. Species
are abbreviated as follows: Ccru = Cephalopholis cruentatus, Cful =
Cephalopholisfulvus, Cmul = Chromis multilineata, Dmac = Decapterus
macarellus, Hfla = Haemulonflavolineatum, Hgar = Halichoeres garnoti,
Ivit = Inermia vittata, Lapo = Lutjanus apodus, Lmah = Lutjanus mahogoni,
Spar = Stegastes partitus, Spla = Stegastes planifrons, Stab = Serranus
tabacarius, Stig = Serranus tigrinus.

2.0
Cful
1.0 Spar Sti
+ 1.0-- --------*-- --------------------

0.0 p ... o, p %-,
W S-- ^ -a^ -5 --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Ivit
!1o ----- -----'=------- ----------------------------------------------------


^- Dmac
' -2.0 Dm

.0 pla
-30 CT-------------- -----------------------------------------------
-3.0
0 20 40 60 80
Rank Abundance







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System



Table 3. Abundance of the 30 most common fish species at damaged and non-impact sites.
Damaged Sites
Total Freq. Avg No.
Common Name Species No. (%) per Obs. St.Dev
creole wrasse Clepticus parrae 1,510 62.5% 62.9 80.2
blue chromis Chromis cyanea 1,361 91.7% 56.7 54.7
bicolor damselfish Stegastes partitus 2,264 100.0% 94.3 43.8
bluehead wrasse Thalassoma bifasciatum 1,491 95.8% 62.1 39.9
brown chromis Chromis multilineata 522 54.2% 21.8 37.5
threespot damselfish Stegastes planifrons 26 25.0% 1.1 2.3
princess parrotfish Scarus taeniopterus 183 100.0% 7.6 3.5
redband parrotfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum 153 95.8% 6.4 2.8
yellowhead wrasse Halichoeres garnoti 143 91.7% 6.0 3.5
striped parrotfish Scarus iserti 99 70.8% 4.1 4.4
french grunt Haemulonflavolineatum 44 87.5% 1.8 1.2
longfin damselfish Stegastes diencaeus 68 54.2% 2.8 4.5
stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma viride 50 79.2% 2.1 2.3
ocean surgeonfish Acanthurus bahianus 72 91.7% 3.0 2.5
yellow goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus 57 25.0% 2.4 5.0
coney Cephalopholisfulvus 108 100.0% 4.5 1.6
mackerel scad Decapterus macarellus 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0
graysby Cephalopholis cruentatus 22 62.5% 0.9 0.9
boga Inermia vittata 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0
mahogany snapper Lutjanus mahogoni 12 8.3% 0.5 1.9
harlequin bass Serranus ;,i, ,i,, 62 79.2% 2.6 2.0
foureye butterflyfish Chaetodon capistratus 23 45.8% 1.0 1.2
blue tang Acanthurus coeruleus 23 58.3% 1.0 1.0
sharpnose puffer C,hoii, i r,. rostrata 21 33.3% 0.9 1.5
queen parrotfish Scarus vetula 11 16.7% 0.5 1.3
blackbar soldierfish Myripristisjacobus 18 20.8% 0.8 2.0
barjack Caranx ruber 18 41.7% 0.8 1.4
longspine squirrelfish Holocentrus rufus 24 58.3% 1.0 1.1
rock beauty Holacanthus tricolor 9 25.0% 0.4 0.7
schoolmaster Lutjanus apodus 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0

Fish are ranked in order of decreasing total abundance (all sites combined).







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


p. 26


Spatial Distr
(No. of S






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 27
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


DISCUSSION

Declines in coral reef condition (Rogers and Beets 2001) and phase-shifts on Caribbean coral
reefs (Hughes 1994) have recently focused attention on reef health and resiliency (Hughes et al.
2003). Anthropogenic stressors to Caribbean coral reefs have become so chronic that they may
now impair the regeneration potential of reef systems (Nystrom et al. 2000, McManus and
Polsenberg 2004, Gardner et al. 2005). Thus, it has become increasingly important to understand
the long-term response of reefs to different types of impacts. Results from this study offer
insight into the medium-term (10-25 years) response of a coral reef and associated biota to
physical destruction caused by anchoring. This study also provides local resource managers with
a more accurate assessment of anchor damage to the Frederiksted Reef and a better description
of unimpacted areas from the reef crest zone. As discussed below, these findings leave little
doubt that anchoring on the Frederiksted Reef has altered the physical framework over a large
area and that benthic and fish communities have been impacted.

I. Physical Impacts to the Reef

Anchors cause physical destruction of coral reefs by fracturing and leveling the reef framework,
pulverizing or toppling carbonate structures, and further reducing carbonates to small rubble,
debris or fine sediment (Jaap 2000). The magnitude of damage increases with the size of anchor
and chain deployed. Deploying and retrieving the large (> 1 ton) anchors used by commercial
vessels can deeply gouge the reef substrate creating permanent scars (e.g. Smith 1988, Rogers
and Garrison 2001). Swinging of anchor chains may cause additional damage over an even
larger area by crushing or toppling corals and sponges or dislodging benthic invertebrates (Jaap
2000, pers. obs.). On the Frederiksted Reef, abundant evidence for these types of anchoring
impacts was observed. Measures of rugosity and vertical relief confirmed that structural
complexity of the former reef crest zone had been greatly reduced. Impacted areas also had
increased amounts of rubble and sand but less consolidated reef substrate.

The spatial extent of anchor damage to the Frederiksted Reef is large: 16.1 to > 21.2 hectares of
contiguous damage. The towed-diver survey method used here was useful for identifying
damaged reef areas in a preliminary manner, but the method was impractical for generating a
high resolution map across the entire reef tract. Advanced mapping methods such as side scan
sonar are needed to better delineate reef damage, as well as to gain a better understanding of the
spatial, structural and bathymetric extent of the Frederiksted Reef System.

II. Benthic Communities

Anchoring impacts to coral communities were readily apparent. Live corals were sparse at
damaged sites and comprised far fewer species. Compared to non-impact areas, there was a
tremendous decrease (> 97 %) in the abundance ofMontastraea annularis the predominant
reef building coral of the Caribbean (Knowlton and Weil 1994). In adjacent areas < 1 km to the
north, M. annularis is the most abundant species in the reef crest zone and contributes most of
the reef framework. Branching corals were also rare or absent from damaged sites. Corals from






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 28
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

damaged areas were typified by small, encrusting or hemispherical growth forms such as
Montastraeafranksi, Siderastrea siderea, Stephanocoenia intersepta, Porites astreoides and
Agaricia agaricites. Jaap (2000) considered the latter two corals to be pioneering species which
recover at impact sites within eight to ten years. While these pioneer species provides some
evidence for coral recovery, the observations indicate that the largest, slow-growing massive
corals (e.g. M. annularis, M. faveolata and Colpophyllia natans) which were greatly impacted by
anchor damage have shown little sign of re-growth at damaged sites.

In addition to scleractinian corals, anchoring may kill or dislodge sponges and gorgonians (Jaap
2000, Rogers and Garrison 2001). Data from the Frederiksted reef indicate that anchoring has
reduced the abundance of some sponges particularly large, slow growing species such as
Xestospongia muta. However, encrusting sponges of the genus Cliona were more common in
damaged habitats, presumably as an opportunistic response. Branching gorgonians were also
less abundant in damaged habitats. Jaap (2000) predicts an ecological succession with a
replacement over time of algal turfs (see below) by gorgonians, sponges and stony corals.
Pseudopterogorgia is among the first octocorals to colonize damaged sites (Jaap 2000). At the
Frederiksted Reef, however, Pseudopterogorgia occurred in low abundance at damaged sites.
Observations of invertebrates from damaged sites imply that these areas are in an early phase of
recovery. Conditions for invertebrate recruitment may be unfavorable due to loose rubble and
sand. Or, alternatively, foraging of microcarnivorous fishes such as wrasses may have reduced
recruitment or survivorship of invertebrate larvae and juveniles (Ebersole 2001).

On Jamaican coral reefs, a sharp decline in coral cover was accompanied by a large increase in
cover by fleshy macroalgae, or a phase shift (Hughes 1994). Such coral-algal phase shifts
represent alternate ecological states which may persist indefinitely (Knowlton 1992, Hughes
1994, Knowlton 2004). Physical damage to coral reefs can cause phase shifts. For example,
Hatcher (1984) observed a phase shift from coral to algal dominance at a ship grounding site on
the Great Barrier Reef. Given the large reduction in coral cover caused by anchoring on the
Frederiksted Reef, a shift to dominance by fleshy macroalgae might be predicted. However,
results from this study do not support the inference that a coral-algal phase shift has occurred at
damaged sites. Total cover by macroalgae was seen to be comparable between damaged and
non-impact sites. Among macroalgal taxa observed, Lobophora variegata predominated but its
abundance was similar at damaged and non-impact areas. Dictyota (fleshy brown algae) was
relatively more abundant at damaged sites while Halimeda (less palatable calcareous green
algae) was more common at non-impact sites. This pattern may be attributed to differential fish
grazing pressure between damaged and nonimpact sites.

Although frondose or fleshy macroalgae did not proliferate at damaged sites, cover by turf algae
did increase in disturbed areas. The reduction in live coral cover was accompanied by an
increase in carbonate surfaces covered with turf-forming algae. Filamentous and turf-forming
algae are typically the first recruits to reef surfaces following a major disturbance (Jaap 2000).
The persistence of algal turfs at impact sites (instead of replacement by macroalgae) may be
indicative of unfavorable growth conditions for macroalgae. Unstable substrata at disturbed sites
1 I .11 1 _i _1 1 i ..... A 1, . 1 1 .. A _1 .I






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 29
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

herbivorous fishes or territorial damselfish activities may favor turf algae by preventing
development of a frondose macroalgal flora (Hixon 1997).

Despite the passage of 10-25 years, the foregoing information on benthic community structure
collectively indicates that areas damaged by anchoring off Frederiksted are still in an early phase
of recovery: there has been little re-growth of the major reef building corals, gorgonian
abundance remains low, species of slow growing sponges are rare, and turf algae predominates
on carbonate surfaces. Coral reef recovery is known to be impeded by the presence of unstable,
shifting substrata (rubble and debris) at impact sites which acts to prevent colonization and
survival of coral recruits (Jaap 2000, Fox et al. 2003). On the Frederiksted Reef, it is likely that
a preponderance of rubble and sand in impacted areas have slowed recovery from anchor
damage.






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 30
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

and non-impact areas. Bicolor damselfish showed a positive population response. This may
have been caused by reduced predation on bicolor damselfish at damaged sites due to refuge
provided by the unique habitat architecture (predominantly rubble substrate) of these areas
(Nemeth 1998). Alternatively, bicolor damselfish may have been released from space
competition due to exclusion of threesport damselfish (see below) from damaged habitats
(Robertson 1996). Brown chromis showed a negative population response to impact, perhaps
due to the reduced availability of nightime shelter at damaged sites. These observations suggest
that anchor damage impacts to fish assemblages may be manifested in a variety of different
species-specific responses.

Exclusive of highly abundant planktivores, examination of the remaining fish assemblages
showed that fish abundance was negatively affected by habitat damage, with total abundance
reduced by about 43 % at damaged sites. For example, the threespot damselfish, Stegastes
planifrons, was very common at unimpacted sites (observed in 100 % of surveys) but was
observed infrequently (25 % of surveys) and at far lower abundance (> 95 % reduction) at
damaged sites. This loss of fish abundance and assemblage diversity may also equate to reduced
fisheries productivity of the Frederiksted Reef System. At least three recreationally and
commercially important fish species had lower abundance at damaged sites: graysby
(Cephalopholis cruentata), mahogany snapper (Lutjanus mahogoni), and schoolmaster (L.
apodus) showed 65 %, 81 % and 100 % reductions in abundance at damaged sites.

It is tempting to propose a simple model of taxonomic attenuation to explain the decline in fish
diversity corresponding with habitat damage (i.e., loss of habitat equals loss of species). Strict
exclusion of reef-associated species might be predicted at reef habitats where benthic
communities are sufficiently altered or where topographic complexity is largely eliminated. In
this study, however, the spatial distribution patterns for most taxa were broad, and few species
showed evidence of exclusions from damaged habitats. The composition of fish assemblages
from damaged and non-impact sites showed broad overlap. Most of the differences between
assemblages arose from changes in modal abundance and frequency, rather than from exclusion
of species from a certain habitat. Thus, a simple subtractive model for fish assemblage change
will not sufficiently explain abundance and spatial distribution patterns. Ebersole (2001) reached
a similar conclusion in his study of fish assemblages from ship grounding sites in the Florida
Keys.

The spatial distribution data did suggest that a small number of infrequently observed species
were more common at damaged sites (e.g. tobaccofish, yellowheadjawfish and sargassum
triggerfish). The presence of these non-reef species at damaged sites likely reflects a species


ne ic






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 31
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

graysby are generalized serranid predators on natural reefs. Coney are more common in low-
relief habitats on St. Croix (Toller 2002, Toller 2005) and graysby tend to inhabit high profile
reefs with substantial topographic relief (DeLoach 2004). Given the marked simplification of
habitat structure at damaged sites, opposite population responses by these two species was not
entirely surprising. However, the strongly positive population response by coney to anchor
damage (15-fold more abundant at damaged sites) was unexpected. The positive response of
coney populations to reduced habitat complexity may reflect a strong habitat preference by this
species. Alternatively, a favored prey item (e.g. bicolor damselfish) may be more abundant in
damaged habitats, or the coney may be released from threat of predation in low-relief habitats.
Given the importance of coney to the local commercial and recreational fishery (Bolden 1994),
this finding deserves further study.

Among the various habitats which occur in near shore waters of the Caribbean, fish assemblages
usually reach their greatest diversity in the fore-reef zone (Gratwicke and Speight 2005). On the
Frederiksted Reef System, fish assemblages of the reef crest zone are quite diverse (Toller 2005)
and are known to rival the highest diversities reported for the island of St. Croix (Nemeth et al.
2003, Kendall et al. 2005). Reduction or elimination of habitat structure on the Frederiksted
Reef, and from the reef crest zone in particular, may cause a significant loss of fish biodiversity.

IV. Prognosis for Recovery

What is the time course for coral reef recovery from anchor damage on the Frederiksted Reef?
Results from this study indicate that the damaged section of the Frederiksted Reef has recovered
little during a 10 to >25 year period. The length of time required for full recovery will depend
upon rates of coral recruitment, survival and growth which are difficult to predict with precision.
Observations on coral density from this study were used to calculate a rate of coral recovery
under a best case scenario, assuming 1) all anchoring impacts occurred exactly ten years ago and
there were no intervening impacts during ten years of coral growth, 2) coral density was initially
reduced to near zero by impacts, and 3) coral growth has followed a uniform geometric
expansion in bottom cover. Recovery rate calculations suggest that total coral cover will be
restored after 40 years and recovery of M. annularis, the primary reef framework building coral,
will require > 60 years. These recovery estimates underscore the protracted nature of anchoring
impacts.

Comparison of recovery rates from the Frederiksted Reef to damage investigations conducted in
other locations suggests that the above estimates are not unreasonable. In St. John, USVI, a reef
that was impacted by cruise ship anchoring showed no signs of recovery after more than 10 years
(Rogers and Garrison 2001). In Grand Cayman, Smith (1988) examined anchor damage from
cruise ships and estimated that recovery periods would exceed 50 years. Jaap (2000) suggests
that recovery of stony corals from ship groundings requires "several decades to a century."
Ebersole (2002) suggested that "hardgrounds" created by ship groundings in the Florida Keys
may persist > 100 years.

Coral reef recovery is known to be slowed by natural and anthropogenic stressors (Nystrom et al.
2000). If anchoring activities have effectively ceased on the Frederiksted reef, duration of the






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


p. 32


)93b) [a general failure to recognize and mitigate reef impacts occt
onceptions about the composition and spatial extent of this reef sy,
ation or reduction of these stressors should facilitate the reef recov

coral reef restoration techniques have been developed for rehabilii
ged reef habitats (Edwards and Clark 1998). Some restoration suct
*fs damaged by ship groundings (Jaap 2000) and blastfishing (Fox
economic and scientific merit deriving from restoration efforts are s
dwards and Clark 1998, Spurgeon and Lindahl 2000). In the case
eef, the sheer size of the area impacted by anchoring (> 21 hectares
n a prohibitively expensive option (see restoration cost estimates ii
Despite the extended time projected, the only economically reason
be to allow recovery of the Frederiksted Reef to occur through na:

idations

Which has occurred on the Frederiksted Reef should serve as a va
es efforts to effectively conserve and manage coral reef resources i
-ritorial governmental agencies must collaborate to develop a strat(
omic growth of coastal communities such as Frederiksted while m
valuable natural coral reef resources. Future consideration for ancl
void direct physical impacts to coral reef habitats. When re-locati<
practical, single-point moorings should be utilized as the preferred
ragency cooperation will be required to develop a plan for effective
ivities which will protect all USVI reefs from anchor damage and
iis plan should incorporate the formation of a local accident respond
ve scientific assessments of coral reef damages which arise from ft
ling incidents.

gement will necessarily require better information on USVI coral r


r1UWCVCi, LIe II1USL IIIpOUI LadI site ll wi LU ValuaitC L;Ual ICCe ICSuuLIHS uaseu upuo SUo;O-
economic lines (Cesar and Chong 2004). Placing real dollar figures on the value of coral reef
resources will better enable scientists and policymakers to assess risks, address mitigation, and
evaluate alternate management strategies. In the case of the Frederiksted Reef, if the potential
for long-term habitat impacts and potential economic losses had been fully appreciated, anchor
damage might have been mitigated or avoided altogether. This example should serve as a
valuable reminder of our imperfect knowledge of the coastal ecosystems and the need for
effective management practices of valuable marine resources.






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 33
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people assisted with field surveys including Uschi Anlauf, David Camoyan, Olga
Montealegre Hutchins, John Schuster, Christine O'Sullivan, William Tobias and Willy Ventura.
A special thanks goes to Maren Hoover, without whom the field investigations could not have
been completed. Dave Ward kindly offered his insights and observations. Bruce Green of
Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. also provided valuable assistance and information. Barbara
Kojis, Roger Uwate, David Camoyan and Uschi Anlauf gave helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this report. This study was supported by Sportfish Restoration Grant F-7, segments 19
and 20, from the USF&WS to the Division of Fish and Wildlife.


Effects of a hurricane on two assemblages of coral reef fishes: multit
e 'snapshot' interpretation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69(2):341-356.
d S.P. Bannerot (1986) A stationary visual census technique for quan
ructure of coral reef fishes. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 41, U.S.
Spp.
4) A summary of biological and fishery data on red hind (Epinephelu
lopholis fulva) stocks int eh U.S. Virgin Islands. NOAA-NMFS, Con1
, 33 pp.
. Kimmel and C.M. Bundrick (1989) A comparison of three methods
fish communities: time and area compensated. Northeast Gulf Sci. 10
Rogers, Z. Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth and M. Taylor. 2002. Status of cor
I. In: The state of coral reef ecosystems of the United States and Pacif
tes: 2002. Turgeon et al. NOAA/NOS, Silver Springs, MD, 265 pp.
. Chong (2004) Economic valuation and socioeconomics Economic o
al issues and three case studies. Pp. 14-40 In: M. Ahmed, C.K. Chong
lic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Co
nter Conference Procedings 70, 222 pp.
9) Reef Fish Behavior: Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas. New World Pul
FL, 359 pp.
)1) Recovery of fish assemblages from ship groundings on coral reefs
1 Marine Sanctuary. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69(2):655-671.
S. Clark (1998) Coral transplantation: a useful management tool or n
ir. Poll. Bull. 37:474-487.
mus, J.S. Pet, A.H. Muljadi and R.L. Caldwell (2005) Experimental as:
tion following blast fishing. Conserv. Biol. 19(1):98-107.
;, R. Dahuri and R.L. Caldwell (2003) Recovery in rubble fields: long






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 34
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Hatcher, B.G. (1984) A maritime accident provides evidence for alternate stable states in benthic
communities on coral reefs. Coral Reefs 3:199-204.
Hixon, M.A. (1997) Effects of reef fishes on corals and algae. Pp. 230-248 In: C. Birkeland (Ed.) Life and
Death of Coral Reefs. Chapman & Hall, New York, 536 pp.
Hobson, E.S. (1991) Trophic relationships of fishes specialized to feed on zooplankters above coral reefs.
Pp. 69-95 In: P. F. Sale (ed.) The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press, Inc., New York,
754 pp.
Hughes, T.P. (1994) Catastrophes, phase-shifts and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef.
Science 265:1547-1551.
Hughes, T.P., A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, M. Card, S.R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. Hoegh-
Guldberg, J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J.M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystr6m, S.R. Palumbi, J.M.
Pandolfi, B. Rosen and J. Roughgarden (2003) Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of
coral reefs. Science 301:929-933.
IRF (1977) Marine Environments of the Virgin Islands, Technical Supplement No. 1. Prepared by Island
Resources Foundation for Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States, Virgin Islands
Planning Office, Coastal Zone Management Program, 120 pp.
IRF (1993a) St. Croix Coral Reef System Area of Particular Concern (APC) and Area of Preservation and
Restoration (APR) Management Plan. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Coastal Zone Management Program. Prepared by Island Resources Foundation under contract PC
PNR-330-92 with assistance from the University of the Virgin Islands. 70 pp.
IRF (1993b) U.S. Virgin Islands St. Croix Frederiksted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern (APC)
Management Plan. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Coastal Zone
Management Program. Prepared by Island Resources Foundation under contract PC PNR-330-92
with assistance from the University of the Virgin Islands. 57 pp.
Jaap, W.C. (2000) Coral reef restoration. Ecol. Engineering 15:345-364.
Jeffrey, C.F.G., U. Anlauf, J. Beets, S. Caseau, W. Coles, A.M. Friedlander, S. Herzlieb, Z. Hillis-Starr,
M. Kendall, V. Mayor, J. Miller, R. Nemeth, C. Rogers and W. Toller (2005) The state of coral reef
ecosystems of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In: J. Waddell (ed.) The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the
United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS NCCOS 11.
Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp.
Kaczmarsky, L.T., M. Draud and E.H. Williams (2005) Is there a relationship between proximity to
sewage effluent and the prevalence of coral disease? Carib. J. Sci. 41(1):124-137.
Kendall, M.S., M.E. Monaco, K.R. Buja, J.D. Christensen, C.R. Kruer, M. Finkbeiner and R.A. Warner,
(2001) Methods Used to Map the Benthic Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Silver
Spring, MD; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (On-line) URL:
http://biogeo.nos.noaa.gov/projects/mapping/caribbean/startup.htm.
Kendall, M.S., L.T. Takata, O. Jensen, Z. Hillis-Starr and M.E. Monaco (2005) An ecological
characterization of Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve, U.S. Virgin
Islands. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS NCCOS 14, 116 pp.
Knowlton, N. (1992) Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community dynamics. Am. Zool.
32:674-682.
Knowlton, N. (2004) Multiple "stable" states and the conservation of marine ecosystems. Prog. Oceanogr.
60:387-396.
Luckhurst, B.E. and K. Luckhurst (1978) Analysis of the influence of substrate variables on coral reef fish
communities. Mar. Biol. 49:317-323.
McManus, J.W. and J.F. Polsenberg (2004) Coral-algal phase shifts on coral reefs: ecological and
environmental aspects. Prog. Oceanogr. 60:256-270.
Nemeth, R.S. (1998) The effect of natural variation in substrate architecture on the survival of juvenile
bicolor damselfish. Environ. Biol. Fishes 53(2):129-141.






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 35
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Nemeth, R.S., L.D. Whaylen and C.V. Pattengill-Semmens (2003) A rapid assessment of coral reefs in
the Virgin Islands (Part 2: Fishes). Atoll Res. Bull. 496:566-589.
Nystr6m, M., C. Folke and F. Moberg (2000) Coral reef disturbance and resilience in a human-dominated
environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15(10):413-417.
Riegl, B. (2001) Degradation of reef structure, coral and fish communities in the Red Sea by ship
groundings and dynamite fisheries. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69(2):595-611.
Risk, M.J. (1972) Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 153:1-6.
Robertson, D.R. (1996) Interspecific competition controls abundance and habitat use of territorial
Caribbean damselfishes. Ecology 77(3):885-899.
Rogers, C.S. and J. Beets (2001) Degradation of marine ecosystems and decline of fishery resources in
marine protected areas in the US Virgin Islands. Environ. Conserv. 28(4):312-322.
Rogers, C.S. and V.H. Garrison (2001) Ten years after the crime: lasting effects of damage from a cruise
ship anchor on a coral reef in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69(2):793-803.
Rogers, C.S., Garrison, G., Grober, R., Hillis, Z.-M. and Franke, M.A. (1994) Coral Reef Monitoring
Manual for the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Virgin Islands National Park, St. John, USVI, 109
pp.
Smith, S.H. (1988) Cruise ships: A serious threat to coral reefs and associated organisms. Ocean
Shoreline Manage. 11(3):231-248.
Spurgeon, J.P.G. and U. Lindahl (2000) Economics of coral reef restoration. Pp. 125-136 In: H.S.J. Cesar
(ed.) Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs. CORDIO, Kalmar, Sweden.
Toller, W. (2002) Quantitative estimates of species composition and abundance of fishes, and fish
species/habitat associations in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Final Report, F-7-17, Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
44 pp.
Toller, W. (2005) F7 Final Completion Report October 1, 2003 to September 30 2005, Part 1. Habitat
Surveys of the Frederiksted Reef System of Western St. Croix with Observations on Cross-Shelf
Distribution Patterns of Fishes. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands. 59 pp.
Weil, E. and N. Knowlton (1994) A multi-character analysis of the Caribbean coral Montastraea
annularis (Ellis and Solander,1786), and its two sibling species, M faveolata (Ellis and Solander,
1786) andM franksi (Gregory, 1895). Bull. Mar. Sci.55:151-175.






Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 36
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. Survey sites and sampling dates.
Table 2. Frequency and percent cover of corals at damaged and non-impact sites.
Table 3. Abundance of the most common fish species at damaged and non-impact sites.
Table 4. Abundance and distribution patterns of fish species affected by habitat damage.

Figure 1. Map of western St. Croix and study area.
Figure 2. Aerial photo of study area showing location of survey sites.
Figure 3. Example photos of reef substrate from the two impact groups.
Figure 4. Approximate perimeter of damaged reef habitat.
Figure 5. Substrate topographic complexity at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 6. Abiotic substrate composition at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 7. Coral abundance and richness at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 8. Coral species composition at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 9. Macroalgal cover and composition at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 10. Abundance of gorgonians and sponges at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 11. Percent cover of DCTA at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 12. Average composition of biotic communities at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 13. Fish abundance at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 14. Abundance trends in the five most common fish species.
Figure 15. Fish species richness and diversity at damaged and non-impact sites.
Figure 16. Abundance and distribution patterns offish species affected by habitat damage.

Appendix 1. VIPA document regarding Frederiksted anchorage areas.
Appendix 2. GPS coordinates of features relating to the study area.
Appendix 3. Data for rugosity and vertical relief.
Appendix 4A. Benthic data Rubblefield (damage site).
Appendix 4B. Benthic data The Comer (damage site).
Appendix 4C. Benthic data La Piedra (damage site).
Appendix 4D. Benthic data Midank (damage site).
Appendix 4E. Benthic Pauls Buoy (non-impact site).
Appendix 4F. Benthic data Black Point (non-impact site).
Appendix 4G. Benthic data Rainbow (non-impact site).
Appendix 4H. Benthic data Sprat Hole (non-impact site).
Appendix 5. List of fish species observed at each site (presence-absence data).
Appendix 6A. Fish count data Rubblefield (damage site).
Appendix 6B. Fish count data The Comer (damage site).
Appendix 6C. Fish count data La Piedra (damage site).
Appendix 6D. Fish count data Midank (damage site).
Appendix 6E. Fish count data Pauls Buoy (non-impact site).
Appendix 6F. Fish count data Black Point (non-impact site).
Appendix 6G. Fish count data Rainbow (non-impact site).
Appendix 6H. Fish count data Sprat Hole (non-impact site).







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 37
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 1. VIPA document regarding Frederiksted anchorage areas.




VIRGIN ISLANDS PORT AUTHORITY
Post Oflice Box 1707
ST. THOMAS, VIRGIN ISLANDS U.S.A. 00803-1707
FAX (809) 774-0025 TEL: (809) 774-1629


FREDERIKSTED PIER
SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR REQUEST TO REPLACE
THE THREE MOORING BUOYS WITH DESIGNATED ANCHORAGE
AREAS 5/3/93

The Virgin Islands Port Authority has requested that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' permit condition on the permit for the construction of the
Frederiksted Pier requiring the placement of one (1) mooring buoy at the time
of construction of the pier and potentially two (2) additional mooring buoys
in the future, be amended to allow for the creation of two (2) anchorage areas
large enough to accomWodate the same or greater number of vessels.

The reasons for this request are:

1. The Virgin Islands Port Authority can only request that those
ships under its direct control, i.e., cruise ships using the
mooring buoys. All tankers, cargo vessels, etc. would con-
tinue to anchor in an uncontrolled manner along the western
coast of St. Croix (beyond VIPA's geographic control).

2. That after several years the confidence level in the struc-
tural soundness of the buoys will decline and even the cruise
vessels will cease to use these moorings.

3. A defined anchorage area is more likely to encompass all classes
and sizes of vessels whether or not they are required to do so
by the Virgin Islands Port Authority or other entity.

4. Mooring buoys cause 100% devastation within the swing scope of
their anchor chains. The chains and anchors required to moor
the vessels in the class in question would completely denude a
a bottom area of over 200,000 sq. ft.

5. Anchoring by vessels creates significant benthic damage; however,
these are isolated incidents and species do recover, and usually
only the top lay of the organisms are destroyed.

REPORT ON THE SELECTION AND LOCATED OF PROPOSED ANCHOR-
AGE AREAS 4/93

The proposed anchorage areas will be located to the north and the south of
the Frederiksted Pier. The selection of the sites were made after
exhaustive bottom reconnaissance on scuba between 30 and 90 ft. of depth
along the west coast of Frederiksted. Surveys were made from the Navy
mooring buoy to as far north as the Butler Bay artificial reef site and from
south of the pier to Sandy Point.







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 38
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 1. continued.


-2-



The areas to the south of the King Frederik Hotel along Sandy Point are
fairly pristine, with almost continuous live coral and algal bottom coverage.
From the pier south to the Fishermen's Wharf there is an almost continuous
sandy bottom outside of the 35 ft. contour to a depth of greater than 100
ft. Only one patch reef is located in this area, and this patch reef occu-
pies less than 5% of the slope area. Because of the sparseness of sessile
benthic organisms in the area, it offers an excellent anchorage area. There
will be the potential of cnchors impacting the single large patch reef; how-
ever, chances for this will be limited based on the small percentage of area
occupied by the patch reef. While large anchor impacts could be severe, once
the ship has pulled anchor the area will recover.

To the north of the Frederiksted Pier there is a clearly defined area already
being used frequently by some of the "visiting" ships and vessels. This area
extends north from the Navy mooring buoy to just south of the AFWTA
restricted anchoring area. This entire area shows severe anchor damage.
Most of the area appears as though it has been mown, with the tops of the
corals broken off approximately 1 1/2 to 2 ft. above the bottom substrate.
Approaching the AFWTA restricted area the bottom disturbance dramatically
drops off. In the area being proposed as the anchorage area, as much as 70%
of the bottom has been impacted. Outside of this area to the north less than
5% appears to have bee impacted by anchoring. In the area that has been im-
pacted, despite the heavy amount of surface damage, a significant community
still lives below the scrape line. Corals, sponges, and algae still thrive
and support a large population of fish and invertebrates. Throughout the
impacted area there are various stages of recolonization and recovery on the
surface layer.

While designating this area as an anchorage area will ensure its continued
impact by anchors, it would confine anchoring in this area which has already
been heavily impacted. Placing a mooring buoy would only slightly abate the
number of ships indiscriminately anchoring for a finite period of time. Most
of the ships which anchor off Frederiksted are oil tankers and cargo vessels,
which would not be inclined to use the mooring buoy, while the anchorage area
would be attractive to and used by almost all vessels.

There is not a "no negative impact" solution to the pier overflow/ship
anchoring situation. The mooring buoys proposed as a special condition in
the Corps of Engineers' permit would limit the amount of indiscriminate
cruise ship anchoring for a finite period of time. However, it is extremely
rare that there is an extra cruise ship in Frederiksted which is not able
to berth at the pier. A majority of the ships off of Frederiksted would not
use the mooring buoy if it existed. Proposed anchorage areas could encompass
all vessels and measures could be taken by the Port Authority and Department
of Planning and Natural Resources to enforce their use. The anchorage area
would address both the pier overflow issue as well as encompass the more
large scale indiscriminate anchoring by other vessels.







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 2. GPS coordinates of features relating to the Frederiksted Reef study area.
Coord. GPS Position
Feature/Group Name Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Description/Comment


Permitted Anchorage Boundary
North Anchorage
pt 1N 170 43.170'
pt 2N 170 43.508'
pt 3N 170 43.423'
pt 4N 170 43.084'

South Anchorage
pt 1S 170 42.753'
pt 2S 170 42.507'
pt 3S 170 42.492'
pt 4S 170 42.737'

Marker Buoys for Anchorage Areas
North Anchorage
A marker N 170 43.571'
B marker N 170 43.215'
C marker N 170 43.228'
D marker N 170 43.548'

South Anchorage
A marker S 170 42.706'
B marker S 170 42.452'
C marker S 170 42.464'
D marker S 170 42.678'
E marker S 170 42.622'

Underwater Tracking Range, Area A
Area A-1 170 44.700'
Area A-2 170 43.100'
Area A-3 170 44.500'

Sites of Fish and Benthic Surveys
RF 170 43.101'
TC 170 43.209'
LP 170 43.310'
MA 170 43.384'
PB 170 43.208'
BP 170 43.642'
RB 170 43.858'
SH 170 44.049'


640 53.502'
640 53.716'
640 54.014'
640 53.801'


640 53.342'
640 53.324'
640 53.558'
640 53.578'



640 53.684'
640 53.500'
640 53.693'
640 53.787'


640 53.322'
640 53.339'
640 53.460'
640 53.434'
640 53.378'


640 54.300'
640 54.300'
640 53.500'


640 53.448'
640 53.570'
640 53.671'
640 53.677'
640 53.416'
640 53.688'
640 53.749'
640 53.715'


Reconstructed from the original ACOE
permit text description using charted
position of the Frederiksted Pier
mooring (N17042.823', W64053.366') as a
fixed reference point.

Reconstructed positions (see above).







GPS coordinates were reported in a 1995
DFW memo by Aaron Adams. Coordinates
were taken with handheld GPS unit
(accuracy unknown).


Positions from A. Adams (see above).







No anchoring within triangular area
bounded by 3 points. Reserved for use by
the US Navy.


Rubblefield, damaged site
The Corer, damaged site
La Piedra, damaged site
Midank, impact site
Pauls Buoy, non-impact site
Black Point, non-impact site
Rainbow Reef, non-impact site
Sprat Hole, non-impact site


Frederiksted Reef Approx. north and south boundaries of
north FRS 170 44.865' 640 53.871' Frederiksted Reef (from NOAA Benthic
south FRS 170 41.321' 640 54.139' Habitat Maps).


Miscellaneous Features
RC
UTR
Navy Buoy


170 42.871'
170 44.442'
170 43.063'


640 53.041'
640 53.482'
640 53.579'


Red Crane at base of Frederiksted Pier
UTR command center at Estate Sprat Hall
Mooring buoy for Navy ships and subs.


p. 39







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 3. Data for rugosity and vertical relief.


p. 40


No. D(m) RI D(m) RI D (m) RI D (m) RI D (m) RI D (m) RI D (m) RI D (m) RI
1 3.20 1.56 3.90 1.28 4.64 1.08 4.23 1.18 2.07 2.42 1.98 2.53 1.89 2.65 2.19 2.28
2 3.80 1.32 3.93 1.27 3.60 1.39 3.79 1.32 1.90 2.63 2.41 2.07 1.55 3.23 3.35 1.49
3 3.50 1.43 3.82 1.31 3.66 1.37 3.99 1.25 3.13 1.60 1.81 2.76 1.73 2.89 2.79 1.79
4 4.20 1.19 3.90 1.28 4.09 1.22 3.98 1.26 2.35 2.13 2.18 2.29 1.74 2.87 2.44 2.05
5 4.08 1.23 3.51 1.42 3.40 1.47 4.12 1.21 3.03 1.65 2.65 1.89 2.27 2.20 2.69 1.86
6 4.20 1.19 3.60 1.39 3.98 1.26 3.66 1.37 2.70 1.85 2.16 2.31 1.92 2.60 2.37 2.11
7 4.24 1.18 3.59 1.39 4.40 1.14 3.90 1.28 2.40 2.08 3.44 1.45 2.25 2.22 2.81 1.78
8 3.86 1.30 3.24 1.54 4.10 1.22 3.66 1.37 2.75 1.82 2.26 2.21 1.58 3.16 1.06 4.72
9 4.05 1.23 3.52 1.42 4.11 1.22 3.95 1.27 2.34 2.14 2.17 2.30 2.65 1.89 1.43 3.50
10 4.88 1.02 3.70 1.35 3.92 1.28 3.99 1.25 1.90 2.63 2.54 1.97 2.30 2.17 2.11 2.37
Avg 4.00 1.26 3.67 1.37 3.99 1.26 3.93 1.28 2.46 2.09 2.36 2.18 1.99 2.59 2.32 2.39
StDev 0.46 0.15 0.22 0.09 0.37 0.12 0.18 0.06 0.44 0.37 0.45 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.68 0.98
Max 4.88 1.56 3.93 1.54 4.64 1.47 4.23 1.37 3.13 2.63 3.44 2.76 2.65 3.23 3.35 4.72
Min 3.20 1.02 3.24 1.27 3.40 1.08 3.66 1.18 1.90 1.60 1.81 1.45 1.55 1.89 1.06 1.49


Estimated Vertical Relief at Damaged Sites (m) Estimated Vertical Relief at Non-Impact Sites (m)
Rubblefield (RF) The Comer (TC) La Piedra (LP) Midank (MA) Pauls Buoy (PB) Black Point (BP) Rainbow (RB) Sprat Hole (SH)
No. Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max Est. Avg Est. Max
1 0.40 0.80 0.20 0.50 0.15 0.40 0.11 0.97 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 0.80 1.50 0.50 1.50
2 0.30 0.60 0.40 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.84 0.70 2.00 1.00 1.80 1.00 1.80 0.75 1.44
Avg 0.35 0.70 0.30 0.75 0.18 0.45 0.26 0.91 0.85 2.00 1.00 1.65 0.90 1.65 0.63 1.47

Rugosity Index (RI) was calculated as 5.0 m/D, where D = the linear distance covered by a 5.0 m chain when conformed to the substrate. Vertical Relief was visually
estimated to the nearest cm (see text). Divers estimated average vertical relief (n=2 observations) and maximum vertical relief (n =2 observations) at each site.


Ruost Ine (RI at Daae Sie oiyIdx(I tNnIpc ie


Ruaositv Index (RI) at Damaaed Sites


Ruaositv Index (RI) at Non-Impact Sites


Rubble eld (RF)


The CnmrriTC~ I T.n Pirdm IT.P~


Midan: (MA)


Pauls Booy (PB)


k calB Point (BP)


Rainbow (RB)


Sprat H >le (SH)








ial Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Ichor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


ipendix 4A. Benthic data Rubblefield (damaged site).
Quadrat No. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
Group Depth (m) 13.4 12.2 12.2 12.5 14.0 12.2 12.2 12.2 13.7 12.5
Abiotic reef/rock 50 2 18 44 60 14 20 17 80 0
rubble 50 37 21 44 30 79 77 82 15 97
sand 0 61 61 12 10 7 3 1 5 3
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Corals Agaricia agarnctes 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5 2.4 1.4 0.8 0.6
Diplora labyrnthiformis 0.4
Favafragum 0.1
Madracts decactus 0.2
Millepora complanata 0.3
Montastraea annularis 0.1
Montastraeafaveolata 0.2
Montastraeafranksi 2.0
Montastraea cavernosa 0.2 0.3 0.1
Porztes astreoides 0.3 0.2 3.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Porztes porites 0.1 0.1
Szderastrea siderea 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3
Stephanocoenza intersepta __ 1.1 0.1
Subtotal Corals 0.2 0.5 2.5 3.1 6.5 0.8 2.5 2.4 0.5 0.6
Algae Halmeda sp. 3.5 0.6 4.9 1.4 0.5 3.9 3.6 2.0
Hahmeda goreauz 1.5 3.0
Neomers annulata 0.1 0.2
Udotea cyathtformis 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5
Valonza/Ventricarza 0.1 0.1
Lobophora variegata 8.5 0.9 3.0 2.0 5.5 3.8 2.5 10.1 11.5 3.0
Dictyota sp. 7.9 7.2 5.0 10.0 5.4 10.2 9.0 9.8 6.3 7.0
Galaxaura sp. 0.2 0.1 0.1
Ceramium sp. 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.8 3.0
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 2.0 1.0 1.0
Schizothrzx calcicola 1.0 1.0
Macro Algae, unidentified 8.8 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.7
Subtotal Algae = 29.2 8.7 9.8 18.1 18.2 15.4 17.3 23.8 24.7 16.0
Other Psuedopterogorgia sp. 0.1
nvertebrates Erythropodium carnbaeorum 0.5
branching gorgonian 1.4 0.2
Chona sp. 2.4 1.0 7.0 3.5 0.5
sp. 0.8








Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 4B. Benthic data The Corner (damaged site).


Quadrat No. Q1


03 04


p. 42


09 010


Cover


Freauencv


Group Depth (m) 14.0 13.7 14.0 14.0 13.7 13.4 13.1 13.4 13.4 13.7 Avg St.Dev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 86 38 12 99 84 84 23 85 80 21 61.2 33.4 10 100.0%
rubble 3 56 84 0 15 3 74 12 19 16 28.2 31.1 9 90.0%
sand 10 6 3 1 1 6 3 3 1 63 9.7 18.9 10 100.0%
other 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0.9 2.2 3 30.0%
Corals Agaricia agaricites 1.5 0.2 0.3 4.0 2.5 3.5 2.0 1.6 6 60.0%
Diploria labyrinthiformis 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
MAadracis decactus 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
Aontastraea annularis 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.8 0.8 5 50.0%
Montastraeafranksi 9.0 2.0 5.5 0.5 3.5 4.1 3.3 5 50.0%
Montastraea cavernosa 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 2 20.0%
Porites astreoides 3.8 0.5 2.8 2.0 5.0 2.8 1.7 5 50.0%
Porites porites 0.4 0.4 1 10.0%
Scolymia sp. 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
Siderastrea siderea 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.3 4 40.0%
Stephanocoenia intersepta 0.3 __ 0.8 0.5 0.4 2 20.0%
Subtotal Corals= 17.5 4.1 1.0 1.3 14.3 4.0 0.7 7.8 9.7 0.0 6.0 6.1 na na
Algae Halimeda sp. 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 9.0 1.5 3.8 2.7 6 60.0%
Halimeda goreaui 2.5 0.5 3.0 7.0 3.3 2.7 4 40.0%
Lobophora variegata 5.0 26.0 14.0 21.0 8.0 16.0 18.0 10.0 5.0 13.7 7.3 9 90.0%
Dictyota divaricata 5.0 10.0 3.0 9.0 8.0 4.0 6.5 2.9 6 60.0%
Dictyota sp. 1.0 9.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 3.6 4 40.0%
Galaxaura sp. 2.0 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.8 3 30.0%
Ceramium sp. 2.0 2.0 1 10.0%
Jania sp. 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 2 20.0%
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 0.2 1.5 2.5 2.0 0.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.0 8 80.0%
Schizothrix calcicola 2.0 1.0 ____ _2.0 4.0 2.3 1.3 4 40.0%
Subtotal Algae= 13.0 33.2 28.3 12.0 37.5 14.5 31.0 35.8 32.0 10.5 24.8 10.9 na na
Other branching gorgonian 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Invertebrates encrusting gorgonian 2.0 2.0 1 10.0%
Cliona sp. 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 2.0 0.9 0.6 5 50.0%
encrusting sponge 5.0 7.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.9 2.7 6 60.0%
branching sponge 1.5 1.3 1.4 0.1 2 20.0%
irregular/lumpy sponge 1.5 3.5 __ 7.5 2.3 3.7 2.7 4 40.0%
Subtotal Other Inverts= 1.5 6.5 7.0 3.5 2.0 8.3 1.6 3.3 4.0 4.3 4.2 2.4 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with Turf Algae 58.0 50.2 60.7 82.3 45.2 67.3 63.7 50.2 53.3 22.2 55.3 15.7 10 100.0%








Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 4C. Benthic data La Piedra (damaged site).


Quadrat No. Q1


05 06


Cover


p. 43


Fre
q
uency


Group Depth (m) 14.3 14.3 14.6 14.3 14.6 13.4 14.3 13.7 13.7 13.7 Avg St.Dev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 75 39 95 10.5 84 14 75 48 78 17 53.6 31.9 10 100.0%
rubble 10 56 3 65.5 10 63 5 49 2 60 32.4 28.2 10 100.0%
sand 12 5 2 24 6 23 20 3 20 23 13.8 9.1 10 100.0%
other 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.9 1 10.0%
Corals Agarcia agarcites 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 6 60.0%
;., ..': a,', rigida 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
Meandrna meandrites 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Millepora alcicornis 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.5 2 20.0%
Montastraea annularis 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.4 2 20.0%
Montastraeafranksi 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.2 0.2 4 40.0%
Montastraea cavernosa 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 4 40.0%
Porites astreoides 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 5 50.0%
Porztes porites 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 2 20.0%
Sderastrea siderea _0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 6 60.0%
Subtotal Corals= 1.0 1.2 4.9 1.0 1.7 1.2 0.6 2.7 0.1 3.4 1.8 1.5 na na
Algae Hahmeda sp. 5.0 6.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 3.3 1.8 6 60.0%
Hahmeda goreauz 2.0 0.8 1.4 0.8 2 20.0%
Halmeda opuntia 6.0 2.0 4.0 2.8 2 20.0%
Lobophora varegata 25.0 12.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 4.0 7.0 18.0 4.0 5.0 10.4 6.7 10 100.0%
Dictyota divancata 3.0 5.0 6.0 4.7 1.5 3 30.0%
Dictyota sp. 7.0 4.5 7.5 7.0 3.0 2.0 8.0 5.6 2.4 7 70.0%
Galaxaura sp. 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 0.6 4 40.0%
Schizothrzx calcicola 1.0 1.0 ____ __ 1.0 0.0 2 20.0%
Subtotal Algae= 37.0 18.5 23.0 18.5 22.0 11.8 18.0 24.7 9.0 17.0 20.0 7.7 na na
Other Psuedopterogorgia sp. 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Invertebrates Chona sp. 2.0 17.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 5.0 4.0 6.2 7 70.0%
sp. 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 2 20.0%
encrusting sponge 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.5 0.9 0.6 8 80.0%
branching sponge 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.3 3 30.0%
irregular/lumpy sponge 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 5 50.0%
Subtotal Other Inverts= 3.0 18.5 5.0 1.9 2.0 2.5 3.6 0.7 6.5 2.5 4.6 5.1 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with Turf Algae 47.0 56.8 65.1 54.6 68.3 61.5 57.8 68.9 64.4 54.1 59.9 7.0 10 100.0%








Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 4D. Benthic data Midank (damaged site).


Quadrat No. Q1


02 03 04


Cover


p. 44


erF
q
uency


Group Depth (m) 13.4 13.4 13.1 12.8 13.1 12.8 13.7 12.2 13.7 12.2 Avg St.Dev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 32 69 48 37 30 45 85 72 97 24 53.9 25.2 10 100.0%
rubble 64 21 37 55 30 52 6 23 3 74 36.5 24.2 10 100.0%
sand 4 10 15 8 40 3 9 5 0 2 9.6 11.6 9 90.0%
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0%
Corals Agarcia agarcites 0.3 1.8 0.5 0.9 0.8 3 30.0%
Faviafragum 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
Madracis decactus 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 2 20.0%
AMeandrna meandrites 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
Montastraea annularis 0.2 0.6 1.5 0.8 0.7 3 30.0%
Montastraeafranksi 0.8 2.7 6.7 0.5 2.7 2.9 4 40.0%
Montastraea cavernosa 1.0 0.1 5.3 1.2 1.9 2.3 4 40.0%
Porites astreoides 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 5 50.0%
Porites porztes 0.6 0.6 1 10.0%
Stephanocoenza intersepta ___ 1.0 0.1 1 0.6 0.6 2 20.0%
Subtotal Corals= 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.3 3.7 4.0 2.5 12.5 2.2 2.8 3.7 na na
Algae Hahmeda sp. 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.5 6.0 4.6 8.0 5.5 3.4 4.2 2.1 9 90.0%
Halmeda goreauz 7.5 7.5 1 10.0%
Neomerts annulata 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 2 20.0%
Udotea cyathiformis 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Lobophora variegata 13.0 16.0 26.0 8.0 10.2 22.0 2.7 20.0 17.0 10.0 14.5 7.1 10 100.0%
Dictyota sp. 12.0 7.0 4.0 5.0 4.4 3.0 4.2 4.0 3.9 5.0 5.3 2.6 10 100.0%
Galaxaura sp. 1.0 1.0 0.3 2.0 1.5 1.2 0.6 5 50.0%
Ceramium sp. 1.5 8.3 4.9 4.8 2 20.0%
Jama sp. 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.1 0.7 7 70.0%
Schizothrzx calcicola _ 1.0 1.0 0.8 __ 1 0.9 0.1 3 30.0%
Subtotal Algae= 33.2 28.0 40.0 16.0 17.1 35.0 14.1 35.0 36.8 22.4 27.8 9.6 na na
Other Psuedopterogorgia sp. 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
Invertebrates Chona sp. 0.5 2.0 1.5 7.1 1.0 3.5 0.3 2.3 2.4 7 70.0%
sp. 3.3 3.3 1 10.0%
encrusting sponge 0.5 7.0 0.5 2.0 2.2 1.3 4.7 0.2 5.0 2.6 2.4 9 90.0%
irregular/lumpy sponge 0.5 0.4 6.0 1.0 0.1 1.6 2.5 5 50.0%
vase sponge 1.0 __ __ 1.0 1 10.0%
Subtotal Other Inverts= 1.0 7.0 3.5 4.0 10.8 9.2 5.8 4.8 0.6 5.0 5.2 3.2 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with TurfAlgae 61.6 55.0 41.5 70.9 30.8 49.1 67.1 52.7 50.1 68.4 54.7 12.7 10 100.0%








Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 4E. Benthic data Pauls Buoy (non-im
OQuadrat No. 01 02


pact site).


03 04 05 06


Cover


Fre
q
uency


Group Depth (m) 8.8 9.1 8.5 8.2 8.8 8.5 8.5 9.1 9.8 9.1 Avg St.Dev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 91 99 96 79.5 98 67.5 91 99.8 84 75 88.1 11.2 10 100.0%
rubble 4 0 3 17.5 0 29 9 0 14 0 7.7 9.8 6 60.0%
sand 5 1 1 3 2 3.5 0 0.2 1 25 4.2 7.5 9 90.0%
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.1 0.3 1 10.0%
Corals Agaricia agaricites 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.2 0.7 10 100.0%
Agaricia lamarki 2.8 2.8 1 10.0%
Agaricia sp. 0.3 0.3 1 10.0%
Colpophyllia natans 0.8 0.8 1 10.0%
Diploria labyrinthiformis 1.8 1.8 1 10.0%
Diploria strigosa 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Faviafragum 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
AMadracis decactus 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Millepora alcicornis 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
Montastraea annularis 23.0 27.5 21.0 17.0 0.5 4.0 7.5 4.0 5.5 12.2 9.9 9 90.0%
Montastraeafaveolata 3.0 0.8 2.0 4.8 15.0 5.1 5.7 5 50.0%
Montastraeafranksi 0.3 4.5 3.1 3.0 1.0 2.4 1.7 5 50.0%
Montastraea cavernosa 0.8 0.3 3.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 5 50.0%
Porites astreoides 1.2 3.5 0.8 0.4 3.5 0.8 5.2 0.5 3.5 1.0 2.0 1.7 10 100.0%
Poritesfurcata 0.5 2.0 1.3 1.1 2 20.0%
Porites porites 0.2 0.2 2.5 2.4 1.3 1.3 4 40.0%
Siderastrea siderea 1 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
Subtotal Corals= 26.6 34.8 25.5 19.1 18.0 14.5 22.5 9.3 14.5 17.8 20.3 7.3 na na
Algae Halimeda sp. 1.5 10.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 3.9 3.7 5 50.0%
Halimeda goreaui 1.5 6.0 3.8 3.2 2 20.0%
Lobophora variegata 3.5 6.8 9.0 10.0 3.0 33.5 13.0 19.0 30.0 14.2 11.1 9 90.0%
Dictyota sp. 0.2 2.0 2.0 2.5 7.0 2.5 4.5 8.0 0.5 3.2 2.7 9 90.0%
Galaxaura sp. 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
Jania sp. 0.5 5.0 2.8 3.2 2 20.0%
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 4.5 4.5 1 10.0%
Schizothrix calcicola 1.0 2.0 1.5 0.7 2 20.0%
Macro Algae, unidentified 4.5 ____ ___ 4.5 1 10.0%
Subtotal Algae= 5.2 13.3 8.2 14.0 27.0 8.0 43.0 25.5 26.5 31.0 20.2 12.3 na na
Other Briarium sp. 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
Invertebrates encrusting sponge 0.8 1.0 3.0 1.6 1.2 3 30.0%
branching sponge 0.8 0.8 1 10.0%
irregular/lumpy sponge 0.4 0.6 1.0 __ 0.5 0.6 0.3 4 40.0%
Subtotal Other Inverts= 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.9 1.1 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with TurfAlgae 63.2 50.9 63.6 63.3 52.0 73.2 34.5 64.0 58.0 22.7 54.5 15.3 10 100.0%


p. 45














Appendix 4F. Benthic Black Point (non-impact site).


Group Depth (m) 12.8 12.8 12.5 13.1 12.8 12.8 12.2 12.2 13.7 12.2 Avg St.Dev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 86 70 93 99.7 91 95.5 85 79 100 92 89.1 9.4 10 100.0%
rubble 13 11 6 0 9 0 11 4 0 7 6.1 5.0 7 70.0%
sand 1 19 1 0.3 0 4.5 4 17 0 1 4.8 7.2 2 20.0%
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0%
Corals Agarncia agancites 2.8 1.7 0.6 0.9 3.0 1.7 0.8 5.0 2.0 3.0 2.2 1.3 10 100.0%
Agaricafragihs 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 2 20.0%
.' *,',' \ ,- .. natans 2.4 2.4 1 10.0%
Eusm2dzafastigzata 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 2 20.0%
Faviafragum 0.1 0.1 1 10.0%
Aadracis decactus 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 4 40.0%
Madracis mirabihs 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 2 20.0%
Aeandrina meandrites 2.6 0.2 1.4 1.7 2 20.0%
Millepora alcicornis 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 5 50.0%
Montastraea annularis 22.0 24.0 2.5 8.0 20.8 3.5 14.5 15.0 3.0 12.6 8.6 9 90.0%
Montastraeafaveolata 4.0 1.2 6.1 3.8 2.5 3 30.0%
Aontastraeafranksi 3.5 4.0 6.5 4.5 2.8 4.3 1.4 5 50.0%
Aontastraea cavernosa 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.3 3 30.0%
ferox 0.8 0.8 1 10.0%
lamarckzana 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 2 20.0%
Porztes astreoides 2.0 3.8 4.0 1.1 6.5 7.9 4.0 3.0 4.3 4.5 4.1 2.0 10 100.0%
Porztes porites 0.8 1.6 2.0 4.6 1.5 2.0 0.3 1.8 1.4 7 70.0%
Scolymia sp. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 2 20.0%
Szderastrea siderea 2.0 0.3 1.2 1.2 2 20.0%
Stephanocoemna intersepta 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 2 20.0%
Subtotal Corals = 31.4 14.5 36.6 5.0 22.4 36.0 19.8 25.3 33.5 13.3 23.8 10.7 na na
Algae Hahmeda sp. 1.5 7.0 7.0 5.8 3.5 7.3 7.0 5.0 8.6 5.0 5.8 2.1 10 100.0%
Hahmeda opuntia 0.3 0.3 1 10.0%
Valonza/Ventricarza 0.3 0.3 1 10.0%
Lobophora varnegata 23.0 18.0 11.0 25.0 13.0 16.3 13.0 7.0 6.5 17.0 15.0 6.1 10 100.0%
Dictyota sp. 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.6 2.0 2.1 3.0 2.0 1.6 3.0 2.0 0.8 10 100.0%
Galaxaura sp. 1.2 1.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.4 2.0 0.3 1.5 1.9 0.9 9 90.0%
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 5.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.6 1.3 6 60.0%
Schizothrix calcicola 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.6 0.4 5 50.0%
Subtotal Algae = 32.7 29.0 28.0 35.5 25.0 29.9 28.0 16.0 18.0 26.5 26.9 6.0 na na
Other Psuedopterogorgia sp. 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.2 7 70.0%
Invertebrates Chona sp. 0.5 2.5 1.5 1.4 2 20.0%
encrusting sponge 1.6 2.5 3.0 6.9 1.0 0.3 3.7 0.6 0.6 3.5 2.4 2.0 10 100.0%
branching sponge 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 3 30.0%
irregular/lumpy sponge 1.5 1.0 1.2 2.4 1.5 0.6 4 40.0%
Subtotal Other Inverts= 3.2 4.4 3.8 8.4 1.4 3.3 6.6 2.2 0.6 3.5 3.7 2.3 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with Turf Algae 31.7 33.1 30.6 50.8 51.2 26.3 41.6 39.5 47.9 55.7 40.8 10.2 10 100.0%


Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


p. 46


Quadrat No. Q1


Cover


Fre
q
uency









Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 4G. Benthic data Rainbow (non-impact site)
QuadratNo Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Cover Frequency
Group Depth (m) 122 1 40 128 125 131 131 116 131 122 125 Avg StDev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 98 92 80 77 98 965 87 97 96 94 91 6 77 10 1000%
rubble 1 0 16 20 0 0 10 0 1 5 53 75 6 600%
sand 2 8 4 3 2 35 3 3 3 1 33 1 9 10 1000%
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00%
Corals Agancia agancites 08 1 1 08 04 1 2 32 30 69 25 10 21 20 10 1000%
Aganca fragils 02 0 2 -1 100%
Agancia lamarki 03 0 3 1 100%
Agancia sp 08 08 1 100%
Colpophyllha natans 05 05 1 10 0%
Diplona labynnthiformns 24 12 1 8 08 2 200%
Eusmihafasthgata 04 0 4 1 100%
Faviafragum 01 02 02 02 01 3 30 0%
Madracts decactus 04 02 01 03 0 3 01 4 40 0%
Madracis mirabils 22 22 1 100%
Meandnna meandntes 1 4 14 1 100%
Millepora alcicorms 01 02 01 04 08 03 03 5 50 0%
Millepora complanata 0 1 0 1 1 100%
Montastraea annulans 252 148 175 03 146 150 54 230 70 136 8 1 9 900%
Montastraeafaveolata 49 80 37 22 85 55 27 5 50 0%
Montastraeafranksi 19 52 105 21 40 20 12 110 47 39 8 800%
Montastraea cavemosa 05 60 01 22 33 3 30 0%
Pontes astreoides 08 75 1 0 22 52 45 59 21 15 3 4 24 9 900%
Pontespontes 06 30 1 8 10 1 10 15 10 5 500%
Scolymna sp 01 0 1 -1 100%
_____ Stephanocoema mitersepta 0 3 1 03 1 10 0%
Subtotal Corals 28 3 279 198 307 118 321 303 261 28 8 308 267 63 na na
Algae Hahmeda sp 33 106 40 22 80 80 78 6 3 31 7 700%
Hahmeda goream 30 20 60 3 7 21 3 30 0%
Hahmeda opuntia 1 0 10 1 100%
Valonma/Ventncana 01 02 02 01 2 20 0%
Lobophoravanegata 20 165 180 95 108 75 90 115 80 30 96 51 10 1000%
Dictyota sp 44 57 30 20 86 50 48 33 30 44 20 9 90 0%
Galaxaura sp 32 1 0 50 05 25 24 1 8 5 500%
Ceramnum sp 01 05 10 03 05 04 4 40 0%
Jama sp 12 1 2 1 100%
Calcareous/Encrustmg Red 3 0 2 20 5 07 2 20 0%
Schzothnx calcicola 28 20 1 5 10 20 1 9 07 5 500%
Macro Algae, unidentified 03 42 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 9 4 40 0%
Subtotal Algae 97 392 285 235 140 31 1 195 283 191 141 227 91 na na
Other Psuedopterogorgia sp 05 01 02 1 0 05 02 08 0 5 03 7 700%
Invertebrates Bnanum sp 10 10 1 100%
branching gorgonlan 30 02 16 20 2 20 0%
Chona sp 53 05 04 25 30 23 20 5 500%
encrusting sponge 39 10 03 37 10 12 28 20 15 7 70 0%
branching sponge 06 02 01 01 05 0 3 02 5 500%
irregular/lumpy sponge 43 10 27 23 2 20 0%
vase sponge ___ 28 1 5 22 09 2 20 0%
Subtotal Other Inverts 59 44 16 06 56 7 9 12 49 41 80 44 26 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with Turf Algae 54 1 205 46 1 42 2 66 6 25 4 460 377 45 0 46 1 430 13 2 10 1000%


p. 47









Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 4H. Benthic data Sprat Hole (non-impact site)
I (n~drat MNn (I 1 I -) I "r I n I ";


06 07 08


09 1 10


Cover


Frequency


Group Depth (m) 10.1 9.8 9.4 10.7 9.4 9.8 10.7 9.4 10.1 9.1 Avg St.Dev Count %
Abiotic reef/rock 74 92 91 65 78 92 94.5 100 98.5 91 87.6 11.4 10 100.0%
rubble 18 6 6 0 14 1 0 0 0 6 5.1 6.4 6 60.0%
sand 8 2 3 35 8 7 5.5 0 1.5 3 7.3 10.1 9 90.0%
other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0%
Corals Agaricia agaricites 1.5 2.0 0.8 2.1 1.0 2.5 0.8 0.4 3.0 7.0 2.1 1.9 10 100.0%
Agaricia sp. 2.3 2.3 1 10.0%
Colpophyllia natans 5.5 5.5 1 10.0%
Faviafragum 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 3 30.0%
Meandrina meandrites 0.4 0.4 1 10.0%
Millepora alcicornis 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 2 20.0%
Montastraea annularis 6.5 9.5 2.2 0.2 11.5 9.8 43.8 44.0 20.6 16.5 16.5 15.7 10 100.0%
Montastraeafaveolata 3.5 4.5 0.5 14.5 5.8 6.1 4 40.0%
Montastraeafranksi 2.5 7.0 4.5 3.0 4.2 4.2 1.8 5 50.0%
Montastraea cavernosa 4.5 0.3 1.5 2.1 2.2 3 30.0%
Mycetophyllia aliciae 0.6 0.6 1 10.0%
Porites astreoides 8.5 3.5 3.7 4.0 6.4 1.0 1.1 1.9 9.0 4.3 3.0 9 90.0%
Porites porites 3.0 0.2 1.0 1.4 1.4 3 30.0%
Scolymia sp. 2.5 2.5 1 10.0%
Siderastrea siderea 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.3 4 40.0%
Stephanocoenia intersepta 0.8 0.8 1 10.0%
Subtotal Corals -20.2 31.6 15.2 6.5 22.3 33.4 49.8 51.0 31.2 34.5 29.6 14.1 na na
Algae Halimeda sp. 7.0 4.8 12.8 19.3 11.0 6.5 4 40.0%
Halimedagoreaui 4.0 9.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 11.0 7.3 2.4 6 60.0%
Udotea cyathiformis 0.2 0.2 1 10.0%
Valonia/Ventricaria 0.4 0.4 1 10.0%
Lobophora variegata 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.7 2 20.0%
Dictyota sp. 1.0 2.0 7.0 2.9 6.0 3.0 1.3 2.0 4.2 2.0 3.1 2.0 10 100.0%
Galaxaura sp. 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 4 40.0%
Jania sp. 0.8 0.8 1 10.0%
Calcareous/Encrusting Red 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.6 4.0 3.7 1.4 5 50.0%
Schizothrix calcicola 0.5 0.1 0.1 8.0 1.0 1.9 3.4 5 50.0%
Subtotal Algae = 8.5 6.0 17.5 8.0 19.0 16.1 22.1 13.2 25.3 18.5 15.4 6.4 na na
Other Psuedopterogorgia sp. 0.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.4 4 40.0%
Invertebrates Briarium sp. 0.5 0.5 1 10.0%
branching gorgonian 0.2 3.0 1.6 2.0 2 20.0%
encrusting gorgonian 0.3 0.3 1 10.0%
Cliona sp. 3.5 0.5 2.0 2.1 2 20.0%
Xestospongia muta 9.0 4.0 23.5 12.2 10.1 3 30.0%
encrusting sponge 1.0 0.4 3.0 4.5 2.2 1.9 3.0 2.3 1.4 7 70.0%
branching sponge 0.5 2.5 3.2 1.0 0.5 0.7 3.0 1.6 1.2 7 70.0%
irregular/lumpy sponge 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 3 30.0%
vase sponge 0.3 0.3 1 10.0%
Subtotal Other Inverts =10.2 9.0 26.0 4.7 4.0 6.0 0.2 2.8 5.8 7.0 7.6 7.1 na na
DCTA Dead Coral with Turf Algae 53.1 51.4 38.3 45.8 46.7 37.5 22.5 33.0 36.2 37.0 40.1 9.2 10 100.0%


p. 48


I


. ~U'* .







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 5. List of fish species observed at each site (presence absence data).


Site Code*
Species RF TC LP MA PB BP R


Acanthurus bahianus
Acanthurus chirurgus
Acanthurus coeruleus
Aulostomus maculatus
Balistes vetula
Melichthys niger
Xanthichthys ringens
Bothus lunatus
Caranx latus
Caranx ruber
Decapterus macarellus
Chaetodon aculeatus
Chaetodon capistratus
Chaetodon ocellatus
Chaetodon striatus
Dasyatis americana
Cyclichthys antillarum
Fistularia tabacaria
Gramma loreto
Haemulon carbonarium
Haemulon chrysargyreum
Haemulon flavolineatum
Haemulon sciurus
Holocentrus adcensionis
Holocentrus rufus
Myripristis jacobus
Neoniphon marianus
Inermia vittata
Bodianus rufus
Clepticus parrae
Halichoeres garnoti
Halichoeres pictus
Thalassoma bifasciatum
Lutjanus apodus
Lutjanus mahogoni
Ocyurus chrysurus
Malacanthus plumieri
Cantherhines macrocerus
Cantherhines pullus
Mulloidichthys martinicus
Psuedupeneus maculatus
Gymnothoraxfunebris
OQ'. '0,ilit, aurifrons
Acanthostracion ploygonia
Lactophrys bicaudalis
Lactophrys triqueter
Holacanthus tricolor
Pomacanthus paru
Abudefduf saxatilis
Chromis cyanea
Chromis multilineata


1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1


1
1 1


1 1 1
1


1
1 1

1 1
1


1 1 1
1


1 1


1
1 1
1


1
1 1 1 1 1


1 1 1
1
1 1


1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1

1 1
1


1
1 1
1
1 1 1


1
1 1
1


No. of
B SH Sites
1 8
2
1 7
1 5
2
1 3
2
2
1
1 7
1
1 2
1 8
1
1 5
1
1
1
1 4
1 3
1
1 8
1
1
1 7
1 7
4
1
1 7
1 8
1 8
1 2
1 8
2
1 5
2
2
1 3
1 2
1 8
1 6
1
2
1 2
1
4
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 8
1 8


p. 49


1 1
1
1

1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1

1


1 1
1
1

1 1
1 1







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 5. continued.

Species
Microspathodon chrysurus
Stegastes diencaeus
Stegastes leucostictus
Stegastes partitus
Stegastes planifrons
Stegastes variabilis
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus
Scarus iserti
Scarus taeniopterus
Scarus vetula
Sparisoma atomarium
Sparisoma aurofrenatum
Sparisoma rubripinne
Sparisoma viride
Scomberomorus regalis
Cephalopholis cruentatus
Cephalopholis fulvus
Epinephelus guttatus
Hypoplectrus chlorurus
Hypoplectrus guttavarius
Hypoplectrus indigo
Hypoplectrus nigricans
Hypoplectrus puella
Hypoplectrus unicolor
Paranthiasfurcifer
Rypticus saponaceus
Serranus tabacarius
Serranus tigrinus
Sphyraena barracuda
Synodus intermedius
Canthigaster rostrata


Site Code*
RF TC LP MA PB BP RB


1 1
1
1 1


1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1


1 1
1
1


1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
1

1 1
1


1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1


No. of


SH Sites
1 1
1 8
1 7
1 8
1 7
1
1
1 8
1 8
1 7
3
1 8
1
1 8
4
1 8
1 7
5
1 4
1
1
1 2
1 7
4
1
1
3
1 8
1
2
1 7


Total No. Species


37 37 39 40 49 43 51 46 82


* See Table 1 for site codes.


p. 50







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 51
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6A. Fish count data Rubblefield (damaged site).
Fish Count No.
Total
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq No. Avg No. StDev
creole wrasse 140 120 70 29 210 55 6 100.0% 624 104.00 66.29
bicolor damselfish 111 100 120 46 72 97 6 100.0% 546 91.00 27.36
bluehead wrasse 79 82 46 13 29 16 6 100.0% 265 44.17 30.47
princess parrotfish 19 8 7 2 6 5 6 100.0% 47 7.83 5.85
redband parrotfish 7 11 8 4 6 7 6 100.0% 43 7.17 2.32
coney 6 4 5 3 3 7 6 100.0% 28 4.67 1.63
ocean surgeonfish 10 5 8 1 2 2 6 100.0% 28 4.67 3.67
yellowhead wrasse 6 5 6 2 3 6 6 100.0% 28 4.67 1.75
blue chromis 0 40 11 105 59 11 5 83.3% 226 37.67 39.59
harlequin bass 2 2 4 2 0 3 5 83.3% 13 2.17 1.33
foureye butterflyfish 2 2 2 2 0 4 5 83.3% 12 2.00 1.26
graysby 1 1 0 2 1 2 5 83.3% 7 1.17 0.75
longfin damselfish 0 6 0 6 3 5 4 66.7% 20 3.33 2.80
striped parrotfish 6 2 2 0 10 0 4 66.7% 20 3.33 3.93
sharpnose puffer 2 2 0 0 5 2 4 66.7% 11 1.83 1.83
stoplight parrotfish 1 0 0 3 2 2 4 66.7% 8 1.33 1.21
blue tang 0 0 1 2 3 1 4 66.7% 7 1.17 1.17
tobacco fish 2 1 3 0 0 1 4 66.7% 7 1.17 1.17
barjack 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 66.7% 4 0.67 0.52
brown chromis 0 20 0 140 115 0 3 50.0% 275 45.83 64.22
french grunt 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 50.0% 6 1.00 1.10
threespot damselfish 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 33.3% 5 0.83 1.60
greenblotch parrotfish 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
sand tilefish 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
spanish hogfish 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
longspine squirrelfish 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
smooth trunkfish 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
spotted goatfish 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
mahogany snapper 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 16.7% 9 1.50 3.67
yellow goatfish 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 16.7% 7 1.17 2.86
yellowhead jawfish 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 16.7% 3 0.50 1.22
queen parrotfish 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
beaugregory 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
french angelfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
peacock flounder 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
red hind 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
yellowtail hamlet 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species = 17 22 20 24 22 20 37 2,272
TotalNo. Fish= 396 418 302 383 543 230







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 52
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6B. Fish count data The Corner (damaged site).
Fish Count No.
Total
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq No. Avg No. StDev
blue chromis 63 80 46 36 50 33 6 100.0% 308 51.33 17.66
bicolor damselfish 60 50 74 22 23 20 6 100.0% 249 41.50 23.05
princess parrotfish 8 4 7 6 7 13 6 100.0% 45 7.50 3.02
coney 2 2 3 7 6 4 6 100.0% 24 4.00 2.10
french grunt 2 2 3 1 4 2 6 100.0% 14 2.33 1.03
creole wrasse 0 30 5 250 200 200 5 83.3% 685 114.17 114.21
bluehead wrasse 55 20 42 20 0 27 5 83.3% 164 27.33 19.16
longfin damselfish 7 11 1 19 0 1 5 83.3% 39 6.50 7.48
redband parrotfish 4 2 5 7 0 3 5 83.3% 21 3.50 2.43
stoplight parrotfish 0 1 1 1 5 2 5 83.3% 10 1.67 1.75
yellowhead wrasse 9 4 12 0 0 6 4 66.7% 31 5.17 4.83
bar jack 0 1 1 0 6 3 4 66.7% 11 1.83 2.32
longspine squirrelfish 0 0 1 3 4 2 4 66.7% 10 1.67 1.63
ocean surgeonfish 2 1 1 0 0 1 4 66.7% 5 0.83 0.75
brown chromis 3 48 0 18 0 0 3 50.0% 69 11.50 19.20
yellow goatfish 0 16 0 15 12 0 3 50.0% 43 7.17 7.96
striped parrotfish 2 3 5 0 0 0 3 50.0% 10 1.67 2.07
barred hamlet 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 50.0% 3 0.50 0.55
graysby 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 50.0% 3 0.50 0.55
threespot damselfish 0 9 2 0 0 0 2 33.3% 11 1.83 3.60
rainbow wrasse 0 0 6 3 0 0 2 33.3% 9 1.50 2.51
queen parrotfish 2 0 0 0 6 0 2 33.3% 8 1.33 2.42
longjaw squirrelfish 0 1 6 0 0 0 2 33.3% 7 1.17 2.40
harlequin bass 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 33.3% 5 0.83 1.33
queen triggerfish 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
rock beauty 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
smooth trunkfish 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
tobacco fish 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
trumpetfish 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
blackbar soldierfish 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 16.7% 9 1.50 3.67
banded butterflyfish 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
foureye butterflyfish 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
green moray 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
cero mackerel 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
horse-eyejack 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
spotted goatfish 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
yellowtail snapper 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species = 19 20 21 18 18 18 37 1,813
TotalNo. Fish = 226 287 224 413 340 323







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 53
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6C. Fish count data La Piedra (damaged site).
Fish Count No.
Total
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq No. Avg No. StDev
bicolor damselfish 90 160 130 180 92 95 6 100.0% 747 124.50 38.70
bluehead wrasse 77 82 102 75 77 33 6 100.0% 446 74.33 22.57
princess parrotfish 9 13 7 6 6 9 6 100.0% 50 8.33 2.66
redband parrotfish 12 9 4 8 6 6 6 100.0% 45 7.50 2.81
yellowhead wrasse 13 5 8 2 7 8 6 100.0% 43 7.17 3.66
coney 6 5 4 6 6 4 6 100.0% 31 5.17 0.98
harlequin bass 4 8 2 3 4 5 6 100.0% 26 4.33 2.07
ocean surgeonfish 3 5 2 4 5 1 6 100.0% 20 3.33 1.63
french grunt 1 2 3 5 1 2 6 100.0% 14 2.33 1.51
blue chromis 13 25 66 0 42 54 5 83.3% 200 33.33 25.15
stoplight parrotfish 0 2 2 2 2 1 5 83.3% 9 1.50 0.84
blue tang 2 2 1 1 0 2 5 83.3% 8 1.33 0.82
striped parrotfish 11 5 2 0 2 0 4 66.7% 20 3.33 4.18
longspine squirrelfish 2 3 1 0 0 1 4 66.7% 7 1.17 1.17
spotted goatfish 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 66.7% 4 0.67 0.52
creole wrasse 0 30 80 70 0 0 3 50.0% 180 30.00 36.88
rock beauty 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 50.0% 5 0.83 0.98
brown chromis 18 2 0 0 0 0 2 33.3% 20 3.33 7.23
foureye butterflyfish 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
barjack 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
graysby 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
sargassum triggerfish 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
spanish hogfish 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
butter hamlet 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
sharpnose puffer 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
yellow goatfish 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 16.7% 5 0.83 2.04
black durgon 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
blackbar soldierfish 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
barred hamlet 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
beaugregory 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
cocoa damselfish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
creolefish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
doctorfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
longfin damselfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
peacock flounder 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
queen triggerfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
red hind 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
spotfin butterflyfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
tobacco fish 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species = 20 19 21 17 18 22 39 1,915


Total No. Fish


268 363 426 368 256 234







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 54
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6D. Fish count data Midank (damaged site).
Fish Count No.
Total
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq No. Avg No. StDev
bicolor damselfish 150 120 138 138 76 100 6 100.0% 722 120.33 27.87
blue chromis 40 16 30 210 186 145 6 100.0% 627 104.50 85.97
bluehead wrasse 77 73 70 123 103 170 6 100.0% 616 102.67 38.87
striped parrotfish 4 6 3 9 11 16 6 100.0% 49 8.17 4.88
redband parrotfish 5 7 7 9 6 10 6 100.0% 44 7.33 1.86
princess parrotfish 8 8 7 5 4 9 6 100.0% 41 6.83 1.94
yellowhead wrasse 2 10 9 8 3 9 6 100.0% 41 6.83 3.43
coney 5 6 5 3 1 5 6 100.0% 25 4.17 1.83
ocean surgeonfish 4 2 2 2 3 6 6 100.0% 19 3.17 1.60
harlequin bass 2 4 4 5 1 2 6 100.0% 18 3.00 1.55
french grunt 1 2 2 1 2 2 6 100.0% 10 1.67 0.52
brown chromis 0 20 20 22 76 20 5 83.3% 158 26.33 25.69
stoplight parrotfish 0 2 1 5 10 5 5 83.3% 23 3.83 3.66
graysby 2 0 1 1 3 2 5 83.3% 9 1.50 1.05
blue tang 1 2 0 2 2 1 5 83.3% 8 1.33 0.82
banded butterflyfish 2 1 0 1 0 1 4 66.7% 5 0.83 0.75
longspine squirrelfish 0 1 0 2 1 1 4 66.7% 5 0.83 0.75
longfin damselfish 3 2 0 3 0 0 3 50.0% 8 1.33 1.51
blackbar soldierfish 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 50.0% 7 1.17 1.33
foureye butterflyfish 1 0 3 1 0 0 3 50.0% 5 0.83 1.17
butter hamlet 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 50.0% 3 0.50 0.55
threespot damselfish 0 0 0 0 5 5 2 33.3% 10 1.67 2.58
sharpnose puffer 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 33.3% 8 1.33 2.07
smooth trunkfish 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
creole wrasse 0 0 0 0 21 0 1 16.7% 21 3.50 8.57
mahogany snapper 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 16.7% 3 0.50 1.22
yellowtail snapper 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 16.7% 3 0.50 1.22
beaugregory 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
rock beauty 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
spanish hogfish 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
yellow goatfish 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
barred hamlet 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
cero mackerel 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
french angelfish 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
longjaw squirrelfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
queen parrotfish 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
red hind 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
sargassum triggerfish 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
spotted goatfish 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
yellowheadjawfish 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species= 17 21 20 24 23 23 40 2,508


308 287 310 560 526 517


Total No. Fish







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 55
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6E. Fish count data Pauls Buoy (non-impact site).
Transect No.
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq Total No. Avg No. StDev
brown chromis 34 69 37 155 75 20 6 100.0% 390 65.00 48.96
bluehead wrasse 24 37 48 72 103 17 6 100.0% 301 50.17 32.34
bicolor damselfish 20 28 32 36 28 19 6 100.0% 163 27.17 6.65
blue chromis 28 22 28 20 34 31 6 100.0% 163 27.17 5.31
threespot damselfish 24 34 26 17 14 10 6 100.0% 125 20.83 8.82
french grunt 4 36 18 45 4 2 6 100.0% 109 18.17 18.44
longfin damselfish 9 5 7 8 9 20 6 100.0% 58 9.67 5.28
princess parrotfish 7 5 8 9 14 7 6 100.0% 50 8.33 3.08
redband parrotfish 5 7 7 3 6 8 6 100.0% 36 6.00 1.79
stoplight parrotfish 3 6 3 3 4 8 6 100.0% 27 4.50 2.07
yellowhead wrasse 3 3 6 4 2 5 6 100.0% 23 3.83 1.47
graysby 1 2 3 3 2 5 6 100.0% 16 2.67 1.37
blue tang 1 1 2 2 4 3 6 100.0% 13 2.17 1.17
creole wrasse 37 18 10 145 25 0 5 83.3% 235 39.17 53.36
striped parrotfish 4 8 5 4 8 0 5 83.3% 29 4.83 2.99
ocean surgeonfish 3 3 4 1 0 2 5 83.3% 13 2.17 1.47
sergeant major 2 1 0 2 2 4 5 83.3% 11 1.83 1.33
mahogany snapper 2 20 20 0 2 0 4 66.7% 44 7.33 9.85
schoolmaster 0 4 1 5 0 3 4 66.7% 13 2.17 2.14
sharpnose puffer 1 0 0 3 3 5 4 66.7% 12 2.00 2.00
foureye butterflyfish 0 2 1 4 2 0 4 66.7% 9 1.50 1.52
spanish hogfish 1 1 2 0 2 0 4 66.7% 6 1.00 0.89
trumpetfish 0 2 1 2 0 1 4 66.7% 6 1.00 0.89
beaugregory 0 1 1 5 0 0 3 50.0% 7 1.17 1.94
queen parrotfish 0 2 0 0 3 2 3 50.0% 7 1.17 1.33
harlequin bass 2 1 0 0 0 3 3 50.0% 6 1.00 1.26
blackbar soldierfish 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 50.0% 5 0.83 1.17
yellow goatfish 0 0 2 0 26 0 2 33.3% 28 4.67 10.48
barjack 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.21
red hind 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.21
black hamlet 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
cero mackerel 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
longjaw squirrelfish 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
redfin parrotfish 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 16.7% 11 1.83 4.49
smallmouth grunt 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 16.7% 6 1.00 2.45
spotted goatfish 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 16.7% 3 0.50 1.22
banded butterflyfish 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
fairy basslet 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
barred hamlet 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
butter hamlet 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
coney 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
doctorfish 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
french angelfish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
glasseye snapper 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
greater soapfish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
longsnout butterflyfish 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
rock beauty 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
southern stingray 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
whitespotted filefish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species = 23 29 27 26 27 30 49 1.955


Total No. Fish = 217 324 282 554 379 199


I







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 56
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6F. Fish count data Black Point (non-impact site).
Fish Count No.
Total
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq No. Avg No. StDev
blue chromis 225 85 120 157 95 175 6 100.0% 857 142.83 53.18
creole wrasse 100 200 70 135 230 90 6 100.0% 825 137.50 64.32
bluehead wrasse 65 91 58 39 57 28 6 100.0% 338 56.33 21.83
brown chromis 10 67 30 60 65 70 6 100.0% 302 50.33 24.55
threespot damselfish 28 42 26 27 45 35 6 100.0% 203 33.83 8.18
bicolor damselfish 27 35 30 47 16 25 6 100.0% 180 30.00 10.43
redband parrotfish 5 3 9 11 7 10 6 100.0% 45 7.50 3.08
princess parrotfish 8 7 5 8 4 8 6 100.0% 40 6.67 1.75
striped parrotfish 5 6 4 8 4 5 6 100.0% 32 5.33 1.51
yellowhead wrasse 4 3 8 5 5 6 6 100.0% 31 5.17 1.72
stoplight parrotfish 3 7 7 2 4 3 6 100.0% 26 4.33 2.16
ocean surgeonfish 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 100.0% 13 2.17 0.41
graysby 2 0 4 3 2 4 5 83.3% 15 2.50 1.52
queen parrotfish 1 2 2 2 0 2 5 83.3% 9 1.50 0.84
french grunt 1 0 2 1 1 1 5 83.3% 6 1.00 0.63
trumpetfish 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 83.3% 5 0.83 0.41
longfin damselfish 4 0 6 10 0 4 4 66.7% 24 4.00 3.79
sharpnose puffer 2 2 0 3 0 4 4 66.7% 11 1.83 1.60
barred hamlet 0 2 1 0 1 4 4 66.7% 8 1.33 1.51
foureye butterflyfish 2 0 2 2 2 0 4 66.7% 8 1.33 1.03
mahogany snapper 1 2 1 0 4 0 4 66.7% 8 1.33 1.51
blue tang 2 1 0 0 2 1 4 66.7% 6 1.00 0.89
longspine squirrelfish 0 1 1 0 1 3 4 66.7% 6 1.00 1.10
barjack 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 50.0% 4 0.67 0.82
beaugregory 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 50.0% 3 0.50 0.55
yellow goatfish 0 0 0 0 20 11 2 33.3% 31 5.17 8.50
blackbar soldierfish 0 0 6 0 2 0 2 33.3% 8 1.33 2.42
sergeant major 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 33.3% 6 1.00 1.67
fairy basslet 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
greenblotch parrotfish 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
whitespotted filefish 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
yellowtail hamlet 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.21
caesar grunt 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
boga 0 0 80 0 0 0 1 16.7% 80 13.33 32.66
banded butterflyfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
bluespotted coretfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
coney 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
harlequin bass 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
honeycomb cowfish 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
sand diver 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
sand tilefish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
smooth trunkfish 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
spanish hogfish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species = 26 21 29 25 27 24 43 3,157
Total No. Fish = 505 563 486 533 576 494








Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project


F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6G. Fish count data Rainbow (non-impact site).
Transect No.
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq Total No. Avg No. StDev
creole wrasse 100 60 110 140 200 430 6 100.0% 1040 173.33 134.11
bluechromis 87 62 108 110 120 180 6 100.0% 667 111.17 39.57
brown chromis 69 70 22 70 30 110 6 100.0% 371 61.83 31.95
bicolor damselfish 42 38 41 30 70 55 6 100.0% 276 46.00 14.27
blueheadwrasse 41 11 19 20 23 72 6 100.0% 186 31.00 22.41
threespot damselfish 29 21 30 31 26 17 6 100.0% 154 25.67 5.57
princess parrotfish 9 10 10 4 3 8 6 100.0% 44 7.33 3.08
redband parrotfish 4 7 8 7 9 9 6 100.0% 44 7.33 1.86
striped parrotfish 3 9 5 6 5 6 6 100.0% 34 5.67 1.97
stoplight parrotfish 4 4 7 7 3 7 6 100.0% 32 5.33 1.86
yellowhead wrasse 4 7 4 3 2 5 6 100.0% 25 4.17 1.72
foureye butterflyfish 3 2 2 4 3 4 6 100.0% 18 3.00 0.89
graysby 2 2 2 4 2 4 6 100.0% 16 2.67 1.03
blue tang 2 2 1 2 1 3 6 100.0% 11 1.83 0.75
sharpnose puffer 1 1 1 3 0 4 5 83.3% 10 1.67 1.51
queen parrotfish 0 0 3 2 2 3 4 66.7% 10 1.67 1.37
ocean surgeonfish 4 3 2 0 0 0 3 50.0% 9 1.50 1.76
barjack 0 0 2 3 0 3 3 50.0% 8 1.33 1.51
mackerel scad 0 0 0 10 80 0 2 33.3% 90 15.00 32.09
blackbar soldierfish 0 0 0 4 5 0 2 33.3% 9 1.50 2.35
schoolmaster 0 0 0 6 2 0 2 33.3% 8 1.33 2.42
greenblotch parrotfish 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 33.3% 6 1.00 1.55
beaugregory 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.21
french grunt 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
harlequin bass 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
rock beauty 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
barred hamlet 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
longjaw squirrelfish 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
yellowtail hamlet 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
cero mackerel 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
fairy basslet 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
longfin damselfish 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
longspine squirrelfish 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
spanish hogfish 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
trumpetfish 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
black durgon 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
bluestriped grunt 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
butter hamlet 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
caesar grunt 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
french angelfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
great barracuda 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
indigo hamlet 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
orangespotted filefish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
red hind 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
sand diver 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
sergeant major 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
shy hamlet 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
spotted trunkfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
squirrelfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
web burrfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
yellow goatfish 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species= 21 23 27 25 24 23 51 3,116
Total No. Fish= 409 320 391 472 593 931


p. 57







Final Completion Report Part 2: Recreational Fisheries Habitat Assessment Project p. 58
F-7, Segments 19-20, Period: FY-2004 to FY-2005
Anchor Damage to Frederiksted Reef System


Appendix 6H. Fish count data Sprat Hole (non-impact site).
Transect No.
Common Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ct. Freq Total No. Avg No. StDev
blue chromis 78 60 57 135 130 94 6 100.0% 554 92.33 33.89
bicolor damselfish 65 60 48 80 50 47 6 100.0% 350 58.33 12.82
bluehead wrasse 50 32 37 61 40 11 6 100.0% 231 38.50 16.98
brown chromis 30 30 24 30 41 40 6 100.0% 195 32.50 6.63
threespot damselfish 10 7 9 35 22 17 6 100.0% 100 16.67 10.60
princess parrotfish 12 9 8 9 8 7 6 100.0% 53 8.83 1.72
redband parrotfish 5 5 5 12 10 10 6 100.0% 47 7.83 3.19
blue tang 1 2 7 3 3 2 6 100.0% 18 3.00 2.10
sharpnose puffer 2 2 2 2 3 2 6 100.0% 13 2.17 0.41
stoplight parrotfish 4 0 3 1 6 6 5 83.3% 20 3.33 2.50
foureye butterflyfish 5 2 0 3 2 4 5 83.3% 16 2.67 1.75
graysby 3 0 3 4 2 3 5 83.3% 15 2.50 1.38
ocean surgeonfish 5 3 2 0 3 1 5 83.3% 14 2.33 1.75
striped parrotfish 2 5 8 8 0 0 4 66.7% 23 3.83 3.71
longfin damselfish 6 6 2 0 1 0 4 66.7% 15 2.50 2.81
yellowhead wrasse 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 66.7% 14 2.33 1.86
fairy basslet 2 0 0 2 2 2 4 66.7% 8 1.33 1.03
queen parrotfish I1 1 0 2 2 0 4 66.7% 6 1.00 0.89
blackbar soldierfish 4 0 0 2 2 0 3 50.0% 8 1.33 1.63
french grunt 2 0 1 0 0 2 3 50.0% 5 0.83 0.98
longsnout butterflyfish 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 50.0% 5 0.83 0.98
trumpetfish 2 1 0 0 2 0 3 50.0% 5 0.83 0.98
longspine squirrelfish 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 50.0% 4 0.67 0.82
yellowtail damselfish 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 50.0% 3 0.50 0.55
creole wrasse 0 200 90 0 0 0 2 33.3% 290 48.33 82.56
rock beauty 0 1 0 0 0 11 2 33.3% 12 2.00 4.43
banded butterflyfish 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
barred hamlet 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
coney 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 33.3% 4 0.67 1.03
barjack 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
harlequin bass 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
spanish hogfish 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
spotted goatfish 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 33.3% 3 0.50 0.84
honeycomb cowfish 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
yellow goatfish 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 33.3% 2 0.33 0.52
mahogany snapper 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 16.7% 13 2.17 5.31
beaugregory 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
black durgon 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 16.7% 2 0.33 0.82
black hamlet 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
caesar grunt 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
french angelfish 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
orangespotted filefish 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
rainbow wrasse 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
sergeant major 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
whitespotted filefish 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 16.7% 1 0.17 0.41
yellowtail hamlet 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 16.7% 1 1 1 0.17 0.41
Total No. Species = 28 26 24 19 23 25 46 2,077
Total No. Fish 303 442 319 406 336 271




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs