Search Help Show/Hide Menu

Data Management Plan

DMP Template v2.0.1 (2015-01-01)

Please provide the following information, and submit to the NOAA DM Plan Repository.

Reference to Master DM Plan (if applicable)

As stated in Section IV, Requirement 1.3, DM Plans may be hierarchical. If this DM Plan inherits provisions from a higher-level DM Plan already submitted to the Repository, then this more-specific Plan only needs to provide information that differs from what was provided in the Master DM Plan.

URL of higher-level DM Plan (if any) as submitted to DM Plan Repository:
Always left blank

1. General Description of Data to be Managed

1.1. Name of the Data, data collection Project, or data-producing Program:
National Coral Reef Monitoring Program: Structure from Motion (SfM) Coral (Adult and Juvenile) Annotations derived from Stratified Random Site (StRS) Imagery across the Hawaiian Archipelago since 2019
1.2. Summary description of the data:

Coral adult and juvenile coral colony demographic data described in this dataset are derived from the GIS analysis of benthic photomosaic imagery. The source imagery was collected using a Structure from Motion (SfM) approach during in-water surveys conducted by divers. The data were collected as part of the NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) and Ecosystem Sciences Division (ESD; formerly the Coral Reef Ecosystem Division) led National Coral Reef Monitoring Program (NCRMP) missions around the Main Hawaiian Islands in 2019 aboard the NOAA Ship Oscar Elton Sette.

The SfM surveys are part of the Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) surveys for corals and fish conducted during ESD-led NCRMP missions. Surveys were conducted at sites randomly stratified across sub-island sectors and three depth strata (shallow: 0-6m, mid: 6-18m and deep: >18m). These sites represent a broad range of depths (1-25 m), habitat types (aggregate reef, patch reef, pavement, rock and boulder and rubble), coral cover, and diving conditions. Allocation of sampling effort was proportional to strata area and variance in coral density. The StRS design effectively reduces estimate variance through stratification using environmental covariates and by sampling more sites rather than sampling more transects at a site. Therefore, site-level estimates and site to site comparisons should be used with caution.

During each survey, an 18m transect line was deployed along the isobath and photographed using underwater cameras while swimming in a back and forth swim pattern for later processing using an SfM approach. At depths of 1-20 m, SfM surveys were conducted over a 3 x 20m area and at depths > 20m, a 3 x 13m area was surveyed, both with the transect running down the middle of the survey area. The photographs were processed using Agisoft Metashape software to generate orthomosaic images that were analyzed in ArcGIS for juvenile and adult coral colony demographic metrics. Data was collected for each site within four 2.5m2 segments, each 1m wide, along the transect (at 0-2.5m, 5-7.5m, 10-12.5m, and 15-17.5m). At deeper sites where a 3 x 13m area was surveyed, only the first three segments were analyzed in ArcGIS. For each adult coral colony (> 5cm in diameter), maximum diameter, ID (to lowest taxonomic level), and estimated percent old mortality were recorded. Bleaching extent (% of living tissue with reduced pigmentation) and severity were also recorded. Juvenile coral colonies (0.7 to 5cm maximum diameter) were recorded within the first 1 m2 of the first 3 segments. For juvenile colonies, only ID and maximum diameter were recorded.

Taken From: Item Identification | Abstract
Notes: Only a maximum of 4000 characters will be included.
1.3. Is this a one-time data collection, or an ongoing series of measurements?
One-time data collection
Taken From: Extents / Time Frames | Time Frame Type
Notes: Data collection is considered ongoing if a time frame of type "Continuous" exists.
1.4. Actual or planned temporal coverage of the data:
2019-04-21 to 2019-08-03
Taken From: Extents | Time Frame - Start, Time Frame - End
Notes: All time frames from all extent groups are included.
1.5. Actual or planned geographic coverage of the data:
W: -160.237, E: -154.819135, N: 22.14699, S: 19.07632

Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), including Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, Oahu, Molokai, Niihau, Kahoolawe, and Lanai.

Taken From: Extents | Geographic Area Bounds, Geographic Area Description
Notes: All geographic areas from all extent groups are included.
1.6. Type(s) of data:
(e.g., digital numeric data, imagery, photographs, video, audio, database, tabular data, etc.)
Table (digital)
1.7. Data collection method(s):
(e.g., satellite, airplane, unmanned aerial system, radar, weather station, moored buoy, research vessel, autonomous underwater vehicle, animal tagging, manual surveys, enforcement activities, numerical model, etc.)
No information found
1.8. If data are from a NOAA Observing System of Record, indicate name of system:
Always left blank due to field exemption
1.8.1. If data are from another observing system, please specify:
Always left blank due to field exemption

2. Point of Contact for this Data Management Plan (author or maintainer)

2.1. Name:
Michael W Akridge
Taken From: Support Roles (Metadata Contact) | Person
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. The support role must be in effect.
2.2. Title:
Metadata Contact
Always listed as "Metadata Contact"
2.3. Affiliation or facility:
Taken From: Support Roles (Metadata Contact) | Organization
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. This field is required if applicable.
2.4. E-mail address:
michael.akridge@noaa.gov
Notes: The email address is taken from the address listed for the Person assigned as the Metadata Contact in Support Roles.
2.5. Phone number:
(808)725-5483
Notes: The phone number is taken from the number listed for the Person assigned as the Metadata Contact in Support Roles. If the phone number is missing or incorrect, please contact your Librarian to update the Person record.

3. Responsible Party for Data Management

Program Managers, or their designee, shall be responsible for assuring the proper management of the data produced by their Program. Please indicate the responsible party below.

3.1. Name:
Corinne Amir
Taken From: Support Roles (Data Steward) | Person
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Data Steward" is used. The support role must be in effect.
3.2. Position Title:
Data Steward
Always listed as "Data Steward"

4. Resources

Programs must identify resources within their own budget for managing the data they produce.

4.1. Have resources for management of these data been identified?
Yes
4.2. Approximate percentage of the budget for these data devoted to data management (specify percentage or "unknown"):
Unknown

5. Data Lineage and Quality

NOAA has issued Information Quality Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information which it disseminates.

5.1. Processing workflow of the data from collection or acquisition to making it publicly accessible
(describe or provide URL of description):

Lineage Statement:
The benthic SfM survey methodology, employed by the NOAA Ecosystem Sciences Division (ESD), began in 2019. Benthic imagery is collected at stratified random sites and generated into orthomosaic images using Agisoft Metashape software. Orthomosaics are scaled using Viscore software and imported into ArcGIS for annotation. Annotation of SfM belt orthomosaics is modelled after in situ diver adult and juvenile coral belt surveys employed by the PIFSC Ecosystem Sciences Division and includes coral species identification, maximum diameter measurement, partial mortality estimates, and disease and condition identification.

Process Steps:

  • A stratified random sampling (StRS) design was employed to survey the coral reef ecosystems through the U.S. Pacific regions. The survey domain encompassed the majority of the mapped area of reef and hard bottom habitats. The stratification scheme included island, reef zone, and depth in all regions, as well as habitat structure type in the Main Hawaiian Islands. The habitat structure types included simple, complex, and coral-rich. Depth categories of shallow (0-6 m), mid (> 6-18m) and deep (>18-30 m) were also incorporated into the stratification scheme. Allocation of sampling effort was proportional to strata area and variance in coral density. Sites were randomly selected within each stratum. A geographic information system (GIS) and digital spatial databases of benthic habitats (NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science NCCOS), reef zones (IKONOS satellite imagery, NDGC 1998) bathymetry (NDGC 1998, CREP benthic mapping data), and marine reserve boundaries (NOAA) were used to facilitate spatial delineation of the sampling survey domain, strata, and sample units. Map resolution was such that the survey domain could be overlain by a grid using a GIS with individual cells of size 50 m by 50 m in area. A one-stage sampling scheme following Cochran (1977) was employed. Grid cells containing at least 10% hard-bottom reef habitats were designated as primary sample units (referred to as sites). (Citation: Winston M, Couch C, Ferguson M, Huntington B, Swanson D, Vargas-Ángel B. 2019. Ecosystem Sciences Division Standard Operating Procedures: Data Collection for Rapid Ecological Assessment Benthic Surveys, 2018 Update. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-92, 66 p. doi:10.25923/w1k2-0y84)
  • SfM benthic surveys were conducted by both the fish and benthic teams to record the benthic community composition. A 3 x 20 m plot was visually established centered on a transect line (at sites >18 m, a 3 x 13 m plot was visually established). 3-4 ground control points (GCPs) were placed within the plot for scale. White balance settings were adjusted in situ using a 15% gray card. JPEG images were collected using a Nikon SL2 digital camera in an underwater housing with a dome port. Images were collected at each site by swimming in a back-and-forth motion 1 m above the substrate capturing images continuously to achieve a 60-80% overlap. (Citation: Suka R, Asbury M, Couch C, Gray A, Winston M, Oliver T. 2019. Processing Photomosaic Imagery of Coral Reefs Using Structure-from-Motion Standard Operating Procedures. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-93, 54 p. doi:10.25923/h2q8-jv47)
  • Images for each site were evaluated for image quality and images deemed unsatisfactory (e.g. overexposed, images of blue water or images of divers, or images not taken perpendicular to the reef) were removed from the image set. At 7 sites, images were color corrected and at 88 sites images were exposure corrected using Adobe Lightroom because white balance was not achieved in situ or a substantial number of images were dark, respectively. Image adjustments were batch run per site for consistent correction. The Structure from Motion (SfM) approach produces an accurately scaled, two-dimensional (2D) orthomosaic model created from the overlapping imagery. Raw imagery was imported into Agisoft Metashape software (AgiSoft Metashape Professional Version 1.6.1) where images were aligned and used to build 3D dense point clouds (DPCs) following parameters described by Suka et al. (2019). DPCs were then imported into Viscore, a visualization software (Petrovic et al., 2014) where they were scaled and oriented using the GCP information. The ground sample distance (GSD) of the scaled DPC, which estimates the resolution per pixel by measuring the size of each pixel on the ground, ranged from 2-4 mm/pix. A geometrically accurate 2D projection of the DPC (orthoprojection) and scale grid are exported from Viscore and uploaded into ArcMap 10.6.1 for annotation. (Citation: Suka R, Asbury M, Couch C, Gray A, Winston M, Oliver T. 2019. Processing Photomosaic Imagery of Coral Reefs Using Structure-from-Motion Standard Operating Procedures. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-93, 54 p. doi:10.25923/h2q8-jv47)
  • In ArcMap, each site was set up for annotation by scaling the orthoprojection using the scale grid exported from Viscore, manually digitizing the transect and segments as a shapefile using the same sampling design as the PIFSC ESD-led in situ coral demography surveys, and setting up the attribute table in a geodatabase to mirror the in situ visual survey database (Swanson et al. 2018; Winston et al. 2019). To record and extract data from the orthoprojection image, each coral colony was annotated following the in situ visual survey methods. Each colony was measured by digitizing a line across the maximum diameter of the colony. Coral ID (to lowest taxonomic level), estimated percent old mortality, and bleaching extent and severity were recorded. During annotation, the original JPEG imagery was viewed alongside the orthoprojection with the Viscore Image View feature to see fine scale colony details, observe colonies from multiple angles and locate colonies not visible in the orthoprojection (e.g. under ledges). (Citation: Suka R, Asbury M, Couch C, Gray A, Winston M, Oliver T. 2019. Processing Photomosaic Imagery of Coral Reefs Using Structure-from-Motion Standard Operating Procedures. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-93, 54 p. doi:10.25923/h2q8-jv47)
  • Annotations created in ArcMap are quality controlled using a multi-stage process. Data are first exported from ArcMap and quality controlled in R with specific queries to identify and correct data entry errors (e.g. misspelled species names, missing segments, data in incorrect columns, partial mortality >100%). Then data are summarized to the segment-level by annotator to identify potential issues (e.g. anomalously high or low mean values for specific metrics relative to other annotators). If issues are identified for a given annotator, that annotator reviews and corrects each site if they did find errors. The third stage involves annotators reviewing a subset (10% of the annotated segments) of randomly selected segments (stratified by annotator) that they did not originally annotate and recording errors (e.g. species misidentification, missing or incorrect conditions, and missing colonies) to establish individual annotator error rates for each metric. If an annotator had ≥ 10% error rate for a given metric all of that annotator’s sites were reviewed and corrected for the metric in question by a different annotator. In addition, a subset of the 43 segments across 28 sites were annotated twice by SfM annotators to further quantify inter-annotator error. (Citation: Couch CS, Oliver, TA, Suka R, Lamirand M, Asbury M, Amir C, Vargas-Ángel B, Winston M, Huntington B, Lichowski F, Halperin A, Gray A, Garriques J, & Samson J. 2021. Comparing coral colony surveys from in-water observations and structure-from-motion imagery shows low methodological bias. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.647943 )
5.1.1. If data at different stages of the workflow, or products derived from these data, are subject to a separate data management plan, provide reference to other plan:
Always left blank
5.2. Quality control procedures employed
(describe or provide URL of description):

Prior to generating the 3D dense point clouds and 2D orthroprojections , the JPEG imagery was evaluated for image quality and images deemed unsatisfactory (e.g. overexposed, images of blue water or images of divers, or images not taken perpendicular to the reef) were removed from the image set. During annotation in ArcMap, the original JPEG imagery was viewed alongside the orthoprojection using the Viscore Image View feature to see fine scale colony details, observe colonies from multiple angles and locate colonies not visible in the orthoprojection. Annotations created in ArcMap were quality controlled using a multi-stage process. Data were first quality controlled in R with specific queries to identify and correct data entry errors (e.g. misspelled species names, missing segments, data in incorrect columns, partial mortality >100%). Then data were summarized to the segment-level by annotator to identify potential issues (e.g. anomalously high or low mean values for specific metrics relative to other annotators). If issues were identified for a given annotator, that annotator reviewed and corrected each site if they did find errors. The third stage involved annotators reviewing a subset (10% of the annotated segments) of randomly selected segments (stratified by annotator) that they did not originally annotate and recording errors (e.g. species misidentification, missing or incorrect conditions, and missing colonies) to establish individual annotator error rates for each metric. If an annotator had ≥ 10% error rate for a given metric all of that annotator’s sites were reviewed and corrected for the metric in question by a different annotator.

6. Data Documentation

The EDMC Data Documentation Procedural Directive requires that NOAA data be well documented, specifies the use of ISO 19115 and related standards for documentation of new data, and provides links to resources and tools for metadata creation and validation.

6.1. Does metadata comply with EDMC Data Documentation directive?
No
Notes: All required DMP fields must be populated and valid to comply with the directive.
6.1.1. If metadata are non-existent or non-compliant, please explain:

Missing/invalid information:

  • 1.7. Data collection method(s)
Notes: Required DMP fields that are not populated or invalid are listed here.
6.2. Name of organization or facility providing metadata hosting:
NMFS Office of Science and Technology
Always listed as "NMFS Office of Science and Technology"
6.2.1. If service is needed for metadata hosting, please indicate:
Always left blank
6.3. URL of metadata folder or data catalog, if known:
Always listed as the URL to the InPort Data Set record
6.4. Process for producing and maintaining metadata
(describe or provide URL of description):
Metadata produced and maintained in accordance with the NOAA Data Documentation Procedural Directive: https://nosc.noaa.gov/EDMC/DAARWG/docs/EDMC_PD-Data_Documentation_v1.pdf
Always listed with the above statement

7. Data Access

NAO 212-15 states that access to environmental data may only be restricted when distribution is explicitly limited by law, regulation, policy (such as those applicable to personally identifiable information or protected critical infrastructure information or proprietary trade information) or by security requirements. The EDMC Data Access Procedural Directive contains specific guidance, recommends the use of open-standard, interoperable, non-proprietary web services, provides information about resources and tools to enable data access, and includes a Waiver to be submitted to justify any approach other than full, unrestricted public access.

7.1. Do these data comply with the Data Access directive?
Yes
7.1.1. If the data are not to be made available to the public at all, or with limitations, has a Waiver (Appendix A of Data Access directive) been filed?
No
7.1.2. If there are limitations to public data access, describe how data are protected from unauthorized access or disclosure:

None

7.2. Name of organization of facility providing data access:
National Centers for Environmental Information - Silver Spring, Maryland (NCEI-MD)
Taken From: Support Roles (Distributor) | Organization
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Distributor" is used. The support role must be in effect. This information is not required if an approved access waiver exists for this data.
7.2.1. If data hosting service is needed, please indicate:
Taken From: Data Management | If data hosting service is needed, please indicate
Notes: This field is required if a Distributor has not been specified.
7.2.2. URL of data access service, if known:
Taken From: Distribution Info | Download URL
Notes: All URLs listed in the Distribution Info section will be included. This field is required if applicable.
7.3. Data access methods or services offered:

Data can be accessed online via the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Ocean Archive.

7.4. Approximate delay between data collection and dissemination:
Unknown
7.4.1. If delay is longer than latency of automated processing, indicate under what authority data access is delayed:

8. Data Preservation and Protection

The NOAA Procedure for Scientific Records Appraisal and Archive Approval describes how to identify, appraise and decide what scientific records are to be preserved in a NOAA archive.

8.1. Actual or planned long-term data archive location:
(Specify NCEI-MD, NCEI-CO, NCEI-NC, NCEI-MS, World Data Center (WDC) facility, Other, To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended)
NCEI_MD
8.1.1. If World Data Center or Other, specify:
Taken From: Data Management | Actual or planned long-term data archive location
Notes: This field is required if archive location is World Data Center or Other.
8.1.2. If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive or No Archiving Intended, explain:
Taken From: Data Management | If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive or No Archiving Intended, explain
Notes: This field is required if archive location is To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended.
8.2. Data storage facility prior to being sent to an archive facility (if any):
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center - Honolulu, HI
Taken From: Physical Location | Organization, City, State, Location Description
Notes: Physical Location Organization, City and State are required, or a Location Description is required.
8.3. Approximate delay between data collection and submission to an archive facility:
Unknown
8.4. How will the data be protected from accidental or malicious modification or deletion prior to receipt by the archive?
Discuss data back-up, disaster recovery/contingency planning, and off-site data storage relevant to the data collection

NOAA IRC and NOAA Fisheries ITS resources and assets.

9. Additional Line Office or Staff Office Questions

Line and Staff Offices may extend this template by inserting additional questions in this section.

Always left blank