Data Management Plan (Deprecated)

Specific areas of critical habitat for the Indo-Pacific coral species Isopora crateriformis designation include marine area around 3 island units in American Samoa (Tutuila, Ofu & Olosega, and Ta'u) with suitable hard-bottom habitat within the depth range 0-20 m, as described below.Specific areas of critical habitat were delineated in four steps: (1) General information was used to delineate soft vs. hard substrates, leaving only hard substrate areas; (2) for the hard substrate areas identified in Step 1, specific substrate information was used to delineate unsuitable vs. suitable hard substrates, leaving only the latter; (3) for the suitable hard substrate areas identified in Step 2, we used water quality information to further delineate suitable vs. unsuitable areas; and (4) from the suitable areas identified in Steps 1–3, we removed any overlapping artificial substrates and managed areas. The four steps were implemented for each of the 20 units as follows:For Step 1, we used comprehensive hard-soft substrate maps developed by PIFSC (PIFSC 2021) to delineate soft vs. hard substrates, leaving only hard substrate areas within the combined depth ranges of all listed species in each unit for 18 of the 20 units. For Wake Atoll, we used the substrate map from PIBHMC (2021). For French Frigate Shoals, we used the geomorphological structure component of the maps developed by NCCOS (2003).For Step 2, we started with the hard substrate areas identified in Step 1, then distinguished unsuitable vs. suitable hard substrates. Many hard substrates are unsuitable because: (1) highly-fluctuating physical conditions cause extreme changes in water quality (e.g., shallow pavement and rubble on reef flats, rock/boulder in the intertidal zone); (2) water motion continuously mobilizes sediment (e.g., pavement with sand channels) or unstable substrate (e.g., rubble); or (3) flat, low-relief areas provide poor settlement and growth habitat (e.g., pavement). Removal of these areas left suitable hard substrates, including spur-and- groove, individual patch reef, aggregate reef, aggregated patch reef, scattered coral/rock, and subtidal rock/boulder. For this step, primary information sources were Brainard at al. (2008, 2012, 2019), Kendall and Poti (2011), NCCOS (2003, 2005, 2010), PIBHMC (2021), PIFSC (2021), the detailed public comment letters from the Territories (AS DMWR 2021, CNMI DLNR 2021, CNMI Governor 2024, Guam DOAG 2021), and the American Samoa, Guam, CNMI, PRIA, and NWHI chapters in Waddell and Clarke (2008). Additional sources for individual units are cited in the unit sections below.For Step 3, starting with the suitable hard substrate areas identified in Step 2, we used water quality information to further delineate suitable vs. unsuitable areas. Some of the areas identified in Step 2 are chronically subject to pollution such as excessive nutrients, excessive sediment, contaminants, or other water quality problems, making them unsuitable. Generally, such areas occur in enclosed lagoons and inner harbors where there is high runoff and limited water circulation. Outside of such areas, point and non-point sources of pollution generally do not overlap with suitable hard substrates because wastewater outfalls are located on soft substrates beyond the reef slopes, and stormwater and freshwater discharge occurs primarily on soft substrates (sand or mud) or unsuitable hard substrates (pavement or rubble) along or near shorelines. For this step, primary information sources were Brainard at al. (2008, 2012, 2019), EPA (2021a-f), the detailed public comment letters from the Territories (AS DMWR 2021, 2024, CNMI DLNR 2021, CNMI Governor 2024, Guam DOAG 2021, 2024), Territory water quality assessments (AS EPA 2020, CNMI BECQ 2018, 2020), and sources for individual units cited in the unit sections below.For Step 4, from the suitable areas identified via the above three steps, we removed any artificial substrates and managed areas, because they do not provide the essential feature, as explained in section 3.2.3 above. This only applies to existing artificial substrates and managed areas, not proposed or planned artificial substrates and managed areas.For more details and complete citations see the Critical Habitat Information Report: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2025-07/final-info-report-piro-coral-pir-2025.pdfLinks to the full text of the final rule in the Federal Register and other supporting materials can be found here: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/critical-habitat-designations-threatened-corals-us-waters-pacific-islands

Lineage Statement:
Coral critical habitat for I. crateriformis includes specific areas within certain depth ranges around the following three islands in American Samoa, as described below: 1. Tutuila and Offshore Banks (American Samoa): specific areas described in Section 3.4.1 within a depth range of 0 – 20 m. 2. Ofu-Olosega (American Samoa): specific areas described in Section 3.4.2 within a depth range of 0 – 20 m. 3. Ta'u (American Samoa): specific areas described in Section 3.4.3 within a depth range of 0 – 20 m. Section numbers above refer to sections of the Final Information Report which can be found under "Supporting Materials" on the following webpage URL. See report for more details. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/critical-habitat-designations-threatened-corals-us-waters-pacific-islands Bathymetric data sources used include: • NOAA NGS 2022 Topobathy LiDAR for the islands of Ofu-Olosega, and Ta‘u; • NOAA NCEI CUDEM for Tutuila (accessed 2024-05-21); LiDAR datasets were downloaded as 1 m DEMs via NOAA Digital Coast’s Data Access Viewer, then aggregated to 10 m resolution, gap-filled with the ‘elevation void fill’ raster function in ArcGIS Pro for small gaps (if needed) and/or mosaicked with NOAA CUDEM data as needed for larger holes. Relevant depth range polygons were generated from the final bathymetry grids and NOAA CUSP shorelines (except at Rose, where the NCCOS habitat map shoreline was more accurate). These polygons were then clipped to areas of suitable hard substrate from NOAA NCCOS benthic habitat maps, and then ineligible areas, maintained navigation channels, and areas with poor water quality were erased. Resulting polygons smaller than 100 m^2 (the equivalent of a solitary 10 x 10 m pixel) were removed.