NOAA NCCOS Assessment: Priority Areas Recommended for Shallow Coral Reef Management in the South Florida Coast from 2021-04-26 to 2021-05-21

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) developed a spatial framework, process, and online application (Buja and Christensen 2019) to identify mapping needs along the south Florida coast to support shallow coral reef management by NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP). Eighteen participants from local federal, state, academic, and other institutions entered their priorities in an online participatory Geographic Information System (pGIS). Participants used virtual coins to denote their priorities in 10.4 km² hexagonal grid cells overlaid on the study area. Grid cells with more coins were higher priorities than cells with fewer coins. Participants also reported why these locations were important, what data types were needed, and data collection methodologies using a pre-set list of options. Results were compiled, summarized, and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. Identifying these high priority areas provide a critical spatial framework for prioritizing mapping efforts in shallow coral reef ecosystems in south Florida.

The overall goal of the project was to systematically gather and quantify suggestions for mapping needs to support management of shallow coral reef ecosystems along the coast of south Florida. This dataset supports these goals by compiling input from a diversity of regional experts on their recommended priorities for mapping data collection.

An advisory group was established which included individuals from NOAA CRCP and NOAA Fisheries. This advisory team customized the pGIS process specifically to meet the needs of CRCP and local coral reef manager priorities. In the online pGIS, the study area was divided into 1761 hexagonal grid cells 10.4 km² in size. Existing relevant spatial datasets (e.g., bathymetry, Sanctuary Protection Areas, etc.) were provided as a digital atlas to help participants understand information and data gaps within the project area and to identify locations they wanted to prioritize for future data collections. The pGIS was used by 18 participants to convey their recommendations. Each participant was provided with 530 virtual coins to place into grid cells that they wished to prioritize. They were instructed to place more coins in grid cells that were higher priorities. A maximum of 53 coins could be placed into an individual grid cell by each respondent. Respondents also reported why these locations were important by selecting a minimum of one, and a maximum of two, management uses from the following list: endangered species management (e.g.,), habitat restoration, monitoring, coastal vulnerability planning, watershed management, fisheries management, consultations and permitting, emergency response, and spatial protection and management. Respondents also reported what data types were needed in priority cells. A minimum of one, to a maximum of two choices were selected from the following list: habitat map/characterization, shoreline characterization, ground truthing (e.g. photos and videos collected using ROVs or AUVs), elevation (e.g. bathymetry and topography), backscatter and intensity (e.g. surfaces used to delineate between hard and soft substrate), 2D map product (e.g. static images used to visualize bottom type, presence/absence of taxa), georectified photomosaics (e.g. 3D products created from structure for motion), and water column (e.g. for fish biomass detection). Respondents also reported what method of data collection was desired in each priority cell. Only one response was required and were selected from the following list: satellite, lidar, multibeam echosounder, split beam echosounder, side-scan sonar, photogrammetry, drop-camera, and uncrewed systems. Coin values were summarized and mapped to identify high priority areas, reasons for those priorities, and information needs. This ESRI shapefile contains the 10.4 km² grid cells used in this prioritization and their associated coin values overall, as well as by management use, data product, and mapping methodology. Other summary values include the number of participants, number of participating groups, number of management uses, and number of data products. Also included is a ranking of each grid cell based on the total number of coins, management uses, and agencies allocating coins in the respective cell. For a complete description of the process and analysis see: Kraus et al., 2022.