A Standardised Biological Assessment of Potential

No-Take Marine Protected Area Locations in Tutuila,

American Samoa

DMWR Biological Report Series: lucy0007(2012)

Lucy Jacob and Risa Oram

MPA Program Leaders
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources
Pago Pago
American Samoa
96799

1
Table of Contents

Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6
Background on American Samoa............................................................................................ 6
Fisheries in the territory ......................................................................................................... 6
Management of Marine Resources though MPAs ................................................................. 7
Background to Twenty Percent No-take Target ..................................................................... 7
The Development of the Marine Protected Area Program in American Samoa.................... 8
Method ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Results of Substrate Assessments ........................................................................................ 13
Results of fish surveys........................................................................................................... 21
Results of overall point scores .............................................................................................. 23
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 25
1) Overall discussion of results ............................................................................................. 25
2) Management decisions on basis of results ...................................................................... 28
3) Connectivity and identification of oceanographic patterns............................................. 30
4) Importance of different habitat types.............................................................................. 30
5) Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................. 31
References ................................................................................................................................ 33

2
Table of Figures

Figure 1 Map showing location of fifteen Biological Reconnaissance sites. ............................ 9

Figure 2. Coral cover and diversity at proposed MPA sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u ................. 13

Figure 3. Coral cover of reef building corals at Potential MPA sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u.14

Figure 4. Coral growth assemblage at proposed MPA sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u ................. 15

Figure 5. Invertebrate abundance at potential MPA locations in Tutuila and Aunu'u, ........... 17

Figure 6. Abundance of Calcareous algae at potential MPA locations in Tutuila and Aunu'u...
.................................................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 7. Abundance of nutrient indicator Algae (Filamentous and Macroalgae) at proposed

MPA locations in Tutuila and Aunu'u ....................................................................................... 19

Figure 8. Categories of negative impacts recorded at potential MPA locations in Tutuila and
Aunu'u....................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9. Rare/Vulnerable species occurance at proposed MPA sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u . 20

Figure 10. Occurance of rare mobile or benthic organisms at proposed MPA sites in Tutuila
and Aunu'u................................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 11. Distribution of coral growthforms at potential MPA locations in Tutuia and Aunu'u
.................................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 12 Relative total fish abundance at proposed MPA locations in Tutuila and Aunu'u .. 22

Figure 13 Relative fish diversity at proposed MPA sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u ...................... 22

Figure 14 Total overall scores for all variables at proposed MPA locations in Tutuila and
Aunu'u....................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 15 Total overall scores for all variables at proposed MPA locations in Tutuila and
Aunu'u, except fish variables .................................................................................................... 24

3
Table of Tables
Table 1 List of individual variables that were recorded using the ranked scale in Table 2
during the benthic surveys on the biological reconnaissance surveys...................................... 10

Table 2 Ranked values assigned to coral and invertebrate characteristics that were evaluation
during biological reconnaissance surveys. ............................................................................... 10

Table 3 List of all potential MPA locations and their results for the following criterion: date of
survey; rugosity; visibility (meters); maximum depth (meters); slope (degrees); reef type;
benthos dominance (HC = hard coral, CA = coralline algae, SA = sand, TA = turf algae, RB =
rubble, HA = halimeda, SC = soft coral, RB). General notes about the site are provided in the
last column. ............................................................................................................................... 13

4
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their thanks to the Director, Ufagafa Ray Tulfono and
Deputy Director, Fuafuamealelei Alofa Tuaumu of DMWR for their continual support of all
activities related to the MPA Program.

The work would not have been possible without funding and support from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Grant. They have funded the program
since 2007 and will continue to do so until at least 2017.

Bert Fuiava and Marlowe Sabater assisted with data collection during surveys and never
failed to be motivated, professional and fun! In addition, the current MPA Program staff
members, Tafito Aitoato and Sione Lam Yuen have helped to ensure that all activities
relating to the MPA Program are carried out on a daily basis.

Boat driving and technical assistance were provided by Mika Letuane, Alama Tua, Ekueta
Schuster and TeeJay Letalie. These are the people that make underwater surveys possible
and without whom the work could not be done.

Finally, thanks goes to the communities that gave permission for surveys to be carried out in
their coastal waters.

5
Introduction
Background on American Samoa
American Samoa is a tropical island located at approximately 14 degrees south and 170
degrees west in the south Pacific Ocean. It is an unincorporated, unorganized territory of
the United States (U.S.) and is the only U.S. jurisdiction in the South Pacific. The territory
consists of five volcanic islands, one remote coral atoll and one remote low lying island. The
most recent population estimate according to the U.S. Census of 2010 was approximately
55,500. The main islands of American Samoa are surrounded by steeply sloping coral reefs
inhabited by over 250 species of coral and over 961 species of fish (Craig 2009). The
majority of the population lives on the main island of Tutuila. Tutuila has a land area of 138
km2 and has steeply sloping terrain which provides very little cultivable land for the
inhabitants.

The culture in American Samoa is Polynesian and the islands have been inhabited since
approximately 1000 B.C. (Craig, 2009). Like other Pacific Island cultures, the Samoans have
depended on coral reef resources for much of this 3000 year time period. Systematic fish
catch data for the coastal area is not available prior to 1950 but anecdotal evidence suggests
a heavy reliance on marine resources in the past (Bindon 1996). Not surprisingly therefore,
the relationship between Samoans and their marine environment is closely interconnected.
The introduction of western culture in American Samoa has led to a shift from a subsistence
style of living based on daily farming and fishing, to a cash-based economy where families
rely on jobs for income to buy many imported foods.

Fisheries in the Territory

Overall, the shoreline coral reef fishery on Tutuila Island appears to be slightly decreasing
(both catch landings and CPUE) over the last 19 years (Sabater and Tulafono 2011) although
this is not true for all species or methods (e.g. spearing Surgeonfish and Parrotfish and using
Rod and Reel for Grouper; Sabater and Tulafono 2011). A lack of Apex predators and large
fish species is often reported (Green 1996, Craig et al. 2005) and intensive SCUBA
spearfishing in the 1990s led to a rapid reduction in Scarids amongst other fish families
(Green, 2002). However, as pointed out by Sabater and Carroll (2009) these conclusions
were often drawn from fishery independent data such as underwater surveys (Green 1996)
and reconstruction models (Zeller et al. 2006). Analysis of inshore creel data from 1991 -
1995 has shown a decrease in catch, value of landings, effort and catch per unit effort
(Adams and Dalzell 1999, Saucerman and Kinsolving 1995).

Therefore, although CPUE has decreased for many species, the fact that total catch has also
decreased indicates that recovery of some species could take time and there may be other
underlying factors such as habitat degradation (Saucerman and Kinsolving 1995), negatively
affecting fish and invertebrate populations. It is also becoming more widely known that
coral reef fish stocks can take many years to recover from high fishing pressure even within
no-take areas (McClanahan and Graham 2005) and small areas with less permanent
protection are limited in the protection they offer to target species and ecological processes
(McClanahan et al. 2007). The fact that very few no-take areas exist in American Samoa
could therefore delay the recovery of reef fish stocks from high fishing pressure in the past.

Another factor that could contribute to relatively low fish stocks is the degradation of marine
habitat due to rapidly increasing human population and associated anthropogenic pressures
6
as well as natural disturbances that have contributed greatly to a decline in the health of
coral reef resources (Craig et al. 1997). Live Coral cover in American Samoa declined from 60
percent in 1979 (Wass 1982) to 3 13 percent in 1993 (Maragos et al. 1994) after a Crown of
Thorns (COTs) outbreak and several severe hurricanes. Other human-induced impacts such
as eutrophication, solid waste pollution, and heavy sedimentation from poor land-use
practices were cited by Saucerman and Kinsolving (1995) to be inhibiting recovery of the
reefs in American Samoa and to be a major restriction to coral reef fish abundances.
Saucerman and Kinsolving (1995) also pointed out the depleted state of Lobster and Giant
Clam stocks and recommended that existing DMWR regulations are not enough to protect
these species. They therefore recommended no-take areas and/or seasonal closures as
management measures. Enhanced fisheries management through methods such as better
enforcement of existing regulations, continuation of community-based fisheries
management and plans for the likely closure of the tuna canneries were also recommended
by Jacobs et al (2004) at the conclusion of their economic valuation of coral reefs in
American Samoa. They estimated that the current total coral reef annual value (at 2004
market prices) in American Samoa was US$10,057,000 per year.

Management of Marine Resources though MPAs

The use of marine reserves or no-take Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the management of
fisheries in general, and fisheries on coral reefs in particular, has been advocated by many as
a cost-effective strategy to sustain fish stocks (e.g., Alcala, 1988; Alcala and Russ; 1990,
Polunin and Roberts, 1993; Rowley 1994; Evans and Russ 2004; Williamson et al 2004; Lester
et al. 2009). No-take marine protected areas are proposed to maintain parts of certain
populations and ecosystems in natural states and for exploited species, it is assumed that
the protection of spawning biomass will lead to a net export of adults and propagules that
will sustain, and enhance fisheries outside reserves in the long-term (Russ et al 2005).

Background to Twenty Percent No-take Target

In 2000, the Government of American Samoa, following the initiative of the United States
(EO 13158, 2000), requested that coral reef managers establish a representative network of
no-take areas accounting for twenty percent of the coral reef habitat in American Samoa.
No-take networks encompassing twenty to thirty percent of the coral reef and associated
habitat (e.g. mangroves, seagrass beds and algal flats) in representative and replicate
proportions are supported based on scientific evidence from fishery models of spawning
potential ratio (Bohnsack et al. 2003). In general, managers do not have sufficient detailed
information on target species density and spatial distribution to be able to identify the exact
proportion of the habitat that should be protected in order to sustain fisheries. The Durban
Action Plan which resulted from the IUCNs 5th World conference on Protected Areas in 2003
called for targets to establish a network of protected areas by 2010. It recommended
establishing protected areas for 20 to 30 percent of the world's oceans by the goal date of
2012. In addition, in 2004 the member nations of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to the establishment of a comprehensive
and ecologically representative national and regional system of Marine Protected Areas by
2012 (CBD 2004). The national targets therefore recommended and now adopted by many
countries to sustain fish stocks and protect habitat (UNEP-WCMC, 2008) are a minimum of
twenty to thirty percent of all habitat types inside fully protected areas.

7
The Development of the Marine Protected Area Program in American Samoa
In 2006, following several years of strategy building and identifying appropriate funding
sources (Oram 2008), the no-take MPA Program was established within the Department of
Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) which is the Government agency mandated to
manage the territorial waters of American Samoa (0-3 miles). The research phase actually
began in 2004 with a literature review and process of consultation with experts regarding
potential sites which resulted in the development of a matrix. The matrix included detailed
information about each site which was then used to prioritize locations in a territorial
planning meeting in 2005. Sites that were prioritized as very high and high priority were
recommended for standardized biological evaluation. However, it should be noted that
sites were prioritized for a variety of factors ranging from coral cover to the presence of
unique or rare organisms.

A method was developed and named the Biological Reconnaissance survey method for all
priority sites identified by the No-take MPA Program. The objective of the survey was to
obtain a standardized semi-quantitative overview of the biological and ecological attributes
of the sites addressing the issue of variability in the reasons why sites were selected (Oram
2008). It was intended to obtain biological data allowing scientists to provide objective and
standardized observations from all sites which the managers could use to base
recommendations on for creating no-take MPAs. Surveys were carried out a total of fifteen
sites in Tutuila.

8
 Method NE

NW
Amalau
Vatia
Auto & Amaua Fagaitua

Alofau

Aasu

Poloa
Aunuu

Nafanua Bank
Taema Bank
Amanave Airport SE
Leone Lagoon

SW Larsens
Fagatele

Figure 1 Map showing location of fifteen Biological Reconnaissance sites. Multiple surveys were carried out
at most each site and are indicated by coloured circles (red, yellow and orange). The colour of the circles
does not indicate anything other than to distinguish between sites. Lines divide the four quadrants: NE =
Northeast, NW = Northwest, SE = Southeast, SW = Southwest.

Underwater visual census surveys were carried out between 2006 and 2008 at fifteen reef
slope sites in Tutuila. These surveys, known as biological reconnaissance surveys were
conducted by a two-diver team, one assessing fish and the other assessing benthic
parameters. All dives were conducted from a Boston Whaler using standard PADI diving
protocols and SCUBA equipment. Between one and three (depending on the size of the area)
non-overlapping roving dives were conducted on the reef slope of each site at depths
between 10-26m (for offshore submerged reef sites, the dive was conducted along the top
and edge of the reef).

For the benthic survey, the total dive time was divided into eight five-minute observation
stations (total dive time of forty minutes). The divers followed the reef contour starting at
deeper depths and gradually decreased the depth for each observation period. Benthic
parameters were monitored within a five meter radius at each observation station giving an
area of 78.5 m2 making the total area surveyed on each dive 628 m2 for the benthic
parameters. The benthic variables recorded are listed in Table 1. Each variable was scored
on a ranked scale of zero to ten (Table 2 shows the scale that was used). The scale was
devised in order to facilitate rapid assessments of a multitude of variables simultaneously.
However, because this was the goal, true values for abundance and percentage cover could
not be attained. The scale allows for both abundance and percentage cover estimates to be
made and categorized on a scale of zero to ten.

The fish surveyor ran a continuous visual count estimate of the fish population for each five
9
minute observation period in an imaginary five metre belt transect. The surveyor swam an
average of eighty metres per five minutes making the total area surveyed at each station
400m2 (total area surveyed per dive was therefore 3200m2 for the fish surveys). The
surveyor made a judgement on which species were dominant at each station and made
actual abundance counts for those species. A cumulative species listing was made for the
whole dive, and not per observation period, to determine relative fish species diversity per
site. Damselfish, gobies and blennies were not included in the survey. Special attention was
given to the detection of species of concern such as Bulbometopon muricatum (bumphead
parrotfish), Cheilinus undulatus (humphead wrasse), all Elasmobranchii (sharks and ray
species) all species of sea turtle and other rare species (vertebrate and invertebrate).

Benthic Parameters Individual Variables

Coral Reef Coral Cover; Coral Diversity
Coral Growth Forms Mushroom: Fire; Foliose; Submassive; Massive; Branching;
Digitate; Encrusting and Tabular)
Invertebrates Echinoidea, Tunicata; Porifera; Octocorallia; Crustacea;
Asteroidea; Holothurian)
Calcareous Algae Halimeda; Coralline
Nutrient Indicator Algae Filamentous; Macroalgae;
Negative Impact Storm/energy damage; Solid waste pollution; Siltation;
Physical damage; Disease; COTs; Bleaching)
Rare/vulnerable species Cheilinus undulatus (Humphead Wrasse); Tridacna sp. (Giant
Clam); Turtle
Rare mobile/benthic species Any rare species
Table 1 List of individual variables that were recorded using the ranked scale in Table 2 during the benthic surveys
on the biological reconnaissance surveys.

Rank Assigned Parameter Range

0 None
1 1-2 (individuals)
2 3-5 (individuals)
3 6-10 (individuals)
4 11-20 (individuals)
5 21-50 (individuals)
6 51-100 (individuals)
7 100-250 (individuals) or < 10 % cover
8 250-1000 (individuals) or 11 - 25 % cover
9 26 - 50 % cover
10 50 100 % cover
Table 2 Ranked values assigned to coral and invertebrate characteristics that were evaluated during biological
reconnaissance surveys.

10
Results
A summary list of all the biological reconnaissance surveys from which the following results
were obtained can be found in Table 2. Unfortunately fish data was not available for all the
sites. For the fish categories, the following sites were missing data: Alofau Bay, Larsens
Cove, Airport Lagoon, Aasu Bay and Poloa. The results are presented in the following order:

1) Coral (cover and diversity, cover of reef building corals, growth forms, and
distribution of growth forms at all sites): Figures 2-5
2) Invertebrate abundance (excluding corals): Figures 6
3) Algal cover (calcareous and nutrient indicator): Figure 7-8
4) Negative impacts to reefs (Storm energy damage, solid waste pollution, siltation,
physical damage, disease, crown of thorns, bleaching): Figure 9
5) Rare or vulnerable species/habitat (Humphead wrasse, Sharks, Giant Clams, Turtles):
Figures 10-11
6) Fish (relative diversity and abundance): Figures 12-13
7) Overall scores for all variables (with and without fish variables): Figures 14-15.

At sites where multiple surveys were carried out, the results of the two or three surveys
have been averaged. This was done after it had been established that the results were
generally similar between multiple surveys at the same site. As described in the methods
section, roving dives were separated into eight five minute observation periods. Each of
these observation periods were at sequentially shallower depths in order to understand the
amount of variation with depth and to allow for a satisfactory dive profile. For this reason,
no statistical analysis of the data could be carried out given that there were not sufficient
repeated samples at sites (i.e. the eight observation periods were confounded by depth and
could not therefore be treated as discrete sampling units).

11
Site name Date Rugosity Visibility Max Slope Reef Type Benthos Notes
(# of (0-5) (meters) depth (degrees) Dominance
surveys) (meters)
Taema Bank June 06, 1-3 25-40 25 0-20 Offshore CA, HC, HA, Some large table corals,
(3) Dec 06, bank reef some overturned.
Feb 07
Nafanua June 06, 2-4 15-25 23 0 Offshore HC, CA, RB Acropora tables and
Bank (3) Feb 07 bank reef large fish including
sharks. Areas of turf
algal fields and rubble.
Leone Bay Jul 06 5 10 16 0-80 Fringing HC, CA, SC Some large corals and
(2) Reef probs of sedimentation,
part. Near channels.
Fagatele Oct 06 3 30 21 0-180 Fringing HC, CA Some overturned table
Bay (2) Reef corals
Auto- Nov 06 1-2 20-30 22 0-65 Fringing HC, HA, SC, interesting coral
Amaua (2) Reef TA formations with some
signs of nutrient input
(cyanobacteria); some
debris
Fagaitua (2) Jan 07 3-4 15-30 21 70-80 Fringing CA, HC, HA, Some interesting coral
Reef formations, signs of
nutrient input
(cyanobacteria); some
overturned table corals
and debris.
Aunu'u (2) Feb 07 2-4 20 19 80 Fringing HC, SA Some rubble areas.
Reef
Amanave Feb 07 2-3 20 22 75-90 Fringing HC, CA, SC Some bright red CA; lots
(2) reef of fish; large massive
corals, polyps open on
many corals. Spur and
groove formation
Airport Sep 07 2 5-10 6 0 Lagoon HC Mostly branching corals
Lagoon (1) and some areas of dead
branching coral and
sand.
Alofau (2) Sep 07 4 10 20 50-90 Fringing HC, CA cynobacteria, green
reef algae, and litter in
places. Some rubble and
a lot of Porites rus
Larsens Sep 07 2 20 20 45-60 Fringing HC, SC, CA Some evidence of
Cove (2) Nov 08 reef damaged/broken corals,
rubble and bleaching.
Beautiful reef in places.
Poloa (1) Sep 07 4 15 16 180 Fringing HC, SC Not much growing, flat
reef, bottom, some
volcanic cyanobacteria.
pavement

12
Site name Date Rugosity Visibility Max Slope Reef Type Benthos Notes
(# of (0-5) (meters) depth (degrees) Dominance
surveys) (meters)
A'asu Bay Dec 07 4 10 13 40 Fringing HC, CA Interesting mounds and
(1) reef pillars, Porites rus and
massive Porites.
Amalau (1) Sep 08 20 23 45 Fringing HC Diverse and healthy
reef (encrusting, foliose and
Porites mounds). Coral
outcrops nearby reef
slope.
Vatia (2) Oct 07 10-30 27 45-180 Barrier, HC, HA Mixture of hard corals
sunken (encrusting, branching,
reefs tables). Almost 100% in
places of table and
branching Acropora.
Table 3 List of all potential MPA locations and their results for the following criterion: date of survey; rugosity;
visibility (meters); maximum depth (meters); slope (degrees); reef type; benthos dominance (HC = hard coral, CA =
coralline algae, SA = sand, TA = turf algae, RB = rubble, HA = halimeda, SC = soft coral, RB). General notes about
the site are provided in the last column.

Results of Substrate Assessments

Coral Cover and Diversity at Proposed MPA sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u

Aunu'u
Fagaitua
Leone
Amanave
Vatia
Auto-Amaua
Site Name

Larsen's Cove
Fagatele Bay
Amalau
Taema
Nafanua
Diveristy (South)
Alofau
Coral Cover (South)
Airport Lagoon
Diversity (North)
Poloa
A'asu Coral Cover (North)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Total Ranked Values for Coral Cover and Diversity
Figure 2. Coral cover and diversity were ranked on the scale shown in table 1. Pale bars indicate diversity
and opaque bars indicate coral cover. Blue bars are sites on the south of Tutuila and red bars are in the
North. Values on the X axis are total ranked values scored across all 5 minute observation periods.

Figure 2 indicates that Aunuu, Fagaitua, Leone, Amanave and Vatia had the highest coral
cover (relative estimates of total coral cover including hard and soft corals using a ranked
scale were taken every five minutes within a 78m2 radius). Although the correlation
between coral cover and diversity is not very clear, Figure 2 does show that at least three of
13
 the sites with the highest coral cover also had relatively high diversity values (Aunuu, Leone
and Amanave). The sites with the two lowest coral cover scores are two of the four sites in
the Northwest of Tutuila (Poloa and Aasu).

Figure 3 shows the coral cover of reef building corals (all scleractinians in addition to fire
coral but excluding the mushroom corals). The patterns to be seen here are not exactly the
same as which included mushroom and soft corals. The sites which had the highest cover
according to this form of analysis are Aunuu, Amalau, Amanave, Fagatele and Larsens. The
four northern sites have even distribution throughout the overall results. The two notable
results are those sites which appear in the top five ranked on both figures 2 and 3; Aunuu
and Amanave.

Coral Cover of Reef Building Corals at Potential MPA sites in Tutuila

Aunu'u
Amalau
Amanave
Fagatele
Larsens
Vatia
Site Name

Alofau
Taema
Leone
Poloa
Auto-Amaua
Nafanua
A'asu South

Fagaitua North
Airport Lagoon
0 50 100 150 200

Total Ranked Values for Reef Building Corals per 628m2

Figure 3. Sum of all ranked values assigned by recorders for reef building corals, includes: fire, foliose,
submassive, massive, branching, digitate, encrusting and tabular. Blue bars are sites on the South of Tutuila
2
and red bars are in the North. Values on the X axis are total ranked values scored across all stations (628m )

14
 Coral Growth Assemblage at Proposed MPA Sites in Tutuila and
Aunu'u
200
Total Ranked Value for Coral Growth Forms per 628m2

180 Mushroom
160 Fire
140
Foliose
120
Submassive
100
Massive
80
Branching
60
Digitate
40
Encrusting
20
Tabular
0

Site Name

Figure 4. Abundance of different coral growth forms at proposed MPA sites in Tutuila. Growth forms are
2
indicated by colour. Values on the Y axis are total ranked values scored across stations (per 628m )

Figure 4 shows the breakdown of coral growth forms (mushroom, fire, foliose, submassive,
massive, branching, digitate, encrusting and tabular) at all the proposed MPA sites. The
majority of sites had a relatively high proportion of encrusting coral (with the exception of
airport lagoon) and branching coral (with the exception of Amalau, Auto-Amaua and
Fagaitua). Taema Bank had the highest amount of tabular coral out of any of the sites
followed by Amalau, Amanave and Alofau. The three sites in Fagaitua Bay (Alofau, Auto-
Amaua and Fagaitua) had the highest values for mushroom corals out of any of the sites.
Auto-Amaua also had the highest amount of submassive coral. The only site to show very
little diversity of growth forms was Airport lagoon which is a unique site due to its being a
back reef lagoon that was only recently dredged for the building of the airport runway.

15
 Distribution of coral growth forms at potential MPA locations in
Tutuila and Aunu'u.

2.2% 0.3% Encrusting

6.0% Branching
7.4% 26.6%
7.8%
Tabular
Massive
11.9% Mushroom
Submassive
22.7%
15.0% Foliose
Digitate
Fire

Figure 5 Distribution of different coral growth forms at reef slope sites in Tutuila as assessed by biological
reconnaissance surveys at potential no-take areas. Colours distinguish reef types. Data is the result of 28
2 2
surveys, each covering an area of 628m (total = 17.5km ).

Figure 5 shows the distribution of coral growth types across all the sites surveyed. The most
dominant growth form was encrusting, accounting for 26.6 percent of all hard coral recorded. This
was followed by branching coral (22.7%), table coral (15 percent); massive coral (11.9%); mushroom
coral (7.8%); submassive coral (7.4%); foliose coral (6%), digitate coral (2.2%) and fire coral (0.3%).

16
 Invertebrate Abundance at Proposed MPA Sites in Tutuila and Aunu'u
45
40 Other
Total Ranked Abundance per 628m2

35 Echinoidea
30 Tunicata
25
Porifera
20
Octocorallia
15
10 Crustracea
5 Asteroidea
0
Holothurian

Site Name

Figure 6. Invertebrate abundance at potential MPA locations in Tutuila, American Samoa. Invertebrate
categories (Echinoidea, Tunicata, Porifera, Octocorallia, Crustracea, Asteroidea and Holothurian) are
2
indicated by colour. Values on the Y axis are total ranked values scored across all stations (per 628m )

Figure 6 shows the invertebrate abundance at all the proposed MPA sites which includes
Echinoidea, Tunicata, Porifera, Octocorallia, Crustracea, Asteroidea and Holothurians. The
values on the X axis do not add up to actual abundances and are total ranked values
indicating relative abundance. However, it is possible to see that although Larsens Cove had
a higher invertebrate abundance than the other sites, this is mainly due to the large
numbers of soft corals (Octocorallia) present at this site. Other sites with relatively large
numbers of Octocorals were Amanave, Fagatele and Auto-Amaua. Porifera were prevalent
at Alofau, Amalau, Aasu and Leone in particular. The only site recorded to have a relatively
large number of Holothurians was Airport lagoon. Sites with relatively large numbers of
Echonoidea were Amanave, Nafanua, Fagatele, Poloa and Aasu. Those sites with the
highest relative occurrence of invertebrates recorded also tended to be the sites that were
recorded to have high coral cover (e.g. Larsens, Amanave, Fagatele, Amalau).

17
 Abundance of Calcareous Algae at Proposed MPA Sites in
140
Tutuila and Aunu'u

120
Total Ranked Values per 628m2

100 Halimeda
Coralline Algae
80

60

40

20

Site Name

Figure 7. Abundance of Calcareous algae at potential MPA locations in Tutuila, American Samoa. Pink
indicates Coralline algae and green indicates Halimeda. Values on the Y axis are total ranked values scored
2)
at all stations (per 628m .

Figure 7 shows the relative amount of calcareous algae at all the proposed MPA sites
(Halimeda and Coralline algae). Whilst coralline algae is generally presumed to be positive
because it provides a suitable habitat for coral settlement, it could also be indicative of
previous damage to corals (because coralline is usually the precursor to coral colonization),
especially in rubble fields. All sites with the exceptions of Airport lagoon and Amalau had
relatively large ranked values for coralline algae which was to be expected (Craig 2009).
Halimeda was also relatively common throughout the sites with more in certain locations,
namely Auto-Amaua, Fagaitua, Alofau, Amalau and Vatia. It is notable that these sites are
clustered in the Southeast (in Alofau Bay) and the Northeast (Vatia and Amalau).

Figure 8 has the total ranked values for nutrient indicator algae at all the proposed MPA sites
(macroalgae and filamentous algae). The three sites with the highest values for macroalgae
were Aasu, Airport lagoon and Alofau, all of which had in excess of an order of magnitude
more macroalgae than any of the other sites. Relatively large amounts of filamentous algae
were observed at Fagaitua, Nafanua and Vatia. No nutrient indicator algae was observed at
Taema Bank and very little was recorded from Amanave, Leone, Aunuu, Larsens and Auto-
Amaua.

18
 Abundance of Nutrient Indicator Algae in Proposed MPA Sites in Tutuila and
Aunu'u
45
Total Ranked Values per 628m2

40
35
30 Filamentous
25 Macroalgae
20
15
10
5
0

Site Name

Figure 8. Abundance of nutrient indicator Algae (Filamentous and Macroalgae). Values on the Y axis are total
2
ranked values scored across all stations (per 628m )

Categories of Negative Impact Recorded at Proposed MPA sites in Tutuila.

20
Total Ranked Values for Negative Impact

18
Storm/Energy
16 Damage
Solid Waste
14
Categories per 628m2

Pollution
12 Siltation

10 Physical
8 Damage
Disease
6
COTs
4
2 Bleaching

0
Nafanua

Taema
Alofau

Amalau
Amanave

Leone
Auto-Amaua
A'asu

Vatia

Fagaitua
Airport Lagoon

Aunu'u

Fagatele Bay

Larsen's
Poloa

Site Name

Figure 9. Prevalence of negative impacts at potential MPA locations in American Samoa. Impacts
(storm/energy damage, solid waste pollution, siltation, physical damage, disease, COTS and bleaching) are
2
differentiated by colour. Values on the Y axis are total ranked values scored across all stations (per 628m )

19
Figure 9 shows the results for other negative impacts that were observed on the surveys
(storm/energy damage, solid waste pollution, siltation, physical damage, disease, crown of
thorns and coral bleaching). Overall the sites which had noticeably more negative impacts
were Fagaitua, Leone and Amalau as compared with Poloa, Aasu and Amanave that all had
relatively low occurrences of negative impact. The most common negative impact observed
was bleaching with the Airport lagoon and Fagaitua sites standing out. Siltation was notably
heavy at Amalau and Leone. Solid waste was heavier at Alofau, Fagaitua and Aunuu and
storm/energy damage were more prevalent at Fagaitua, Leone, Nafanua and Fagatele.
Other impacts were seen at minimal levels throughout the sites.

Rare and/or Valuable Species Occurance at Proposed MPA Sites

in Tutuila and Aunu'u
9
8
7 Humphead
Number of Individuals per 3200m2

6 Wrasse (Adult)

5 Sharks

4
Giant Clams
3
2
Turtles
1
0

Site Name

Figure 10. Abundance of rare/valuable species: adult Humphead Wrasse (red), Sharks (grey), Giant Clams
2
(turquoise) and Turtles (green). Values on the Y axis indicate the actual number of individuals per 3200m

Figure 10 shows actual number of individuals (Humphead wrasse, Sharks, Giant Clams and
Turtles) that were encountered on dive surveys. Fagaitua stands out as a site where eight
turtles were observed and Poloa stands out as having six Giant Clams where all other sites
had a maximum of two or three (in the case of Aunuu). Four sharks were recorded on
Nafanua Bank and the only other sites where sharks were observed were Aunuu (n = 1) and
Amanave (n = 1). The only site where an adult Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) was
observed was Nafanua Bank.

A range of other habitat types and species of value were also observed during the surveys
and attributed with a value of ten points per species/habitat type. The results can be seen in
Figure 11. This range includes things such as rare molluscs and other invertebrates (e.g.
Culcita spp), Large Porites sp. mounds, Acropora sp. tables and fish species of interest such
as Great Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda). The scores also include those named individuals
20
recorded in Figure 10. Note that where Figure 10 shows actual numbers of individuals
observed across all survey sites (which were two to three surveys in some sites and only one
in others), whereas the data in Figure 11 has been averaged between surveys at the same
sites. Poloa had the highest score, mainly due to the large numbers of Giant Clams observed
there. Considering the importance of including unique and diverse habitats in no-take
networks, the sites that scored highly in this category are of particular interest, namely
Fagaitua (20), Aasu (20), Amanave (20) and Aunuu (15).

Valuable Species/Habitat Occurance at Proposed MPA Sites in Tutuila and

Aunu'u
140
Valuable Species/Habitat Scores (10 per

120
species/habitat type) per 628m2

100

80 Valuable Habitat
Valuable Species
60

40

20

Site Name

Figure 11. Points attributed for valuable species and habitats (including species from figure 10). Ten points were
attributed for each rare or valuable mobile or benthic organism per 628m2

Results of Fish Surveys

Figures 12 and 13 show results for two fish variables (relative fish abundance and fish
diversity). Ten of the fifteen sites are represented in these data sets (due to unavailability of
data for all sites). Figure 12 shows that the sites that had the highest total fish abundance
(as indicated by the sum of the ranked values from eight observation periods) were Aunuu,
Amanave, whereas those with the lowest scores were Vatia and Leone. The colours in the
figures indicate whether the sites are populated bays, unpopulated bays, fringing reefs or
banks. Aunuu and Amanave are both fringing reefs in the vicinity of populated villages. The
two banks had medium relative values for fish abundance and the two sites that scored
lowest for this variable were both populated bays, Vatia and Leone. Figure 13 shows that
the four sites categorized as fringing reefs and unpopulated bays had the greatest fish
diversity (total cumulative number of species recorded on dives). These sites were Fagatele
(n = 84), Amanave (n = 78) and Aunuu (n = 74) and Amalau (n = 64). The two sites with the
lowest diversity were Nafanua, an offshore bank (n = 54) and Vatia, a populated bay (n = 55).

21
 Comparison in abundances of dominant fish species at proposed MPA sites in
Tutuila.
40
Average abundance of dominant fish species per 78.5m2

Fringing
35 Reefs

30 Populated
Bays
25
Offshore
20 Banks

15 Unpopulated
Bays
10

Site Name

Figure 12 Average abundance of dominant fish species per 78.5m2 at fifteen potential MPA locations. Values on Y axis
are average abundance of dominant fish species per five minute observation period.

Fish Relative Diversity at Proposed MPA Sites in Tutuila

90
3200m2

80 Fringing
Reefs
70
Number of Fish Species per

60 Populated
Bays
50
Offshore
40
Banks
30
Unpopulated
20 Bays
10
0

Site Name

Figure 13 Relative fish diversity per 3200 m2 at ten of fifteen potential MPA locations. Values on Y axis are total
number of fish species across all 5 minute observation periods. Colours distinguish between fringing reefs red);
populated bays (blue); offshore banks (yellow) and unpopulated bays (green).

22
Results of Overall Point Scores
Total overall scores for all variables at proposed MPA sites
(including fish variables)

600
Total overall score, including fish variables

Fringing Reef
500
Populated Bay
400
Offshore Bank
300
Unpopulated
200 Bay

Backreef
100
Lagoon

Site
Figure 14 Total overall scores for all variables at potential MPA locations. Values on Y axis are total ranked values
scored positively with exception of nutrient indicator algae which had a negative value. Rare mobile or benthic
organisms attributed a weighted value of ten per occurrence. N scores were attributed for individuals in figure 10 and
fish diversity (figure 12). Colours distinguish between fringing reefs (red); populated bays (blue); offshore banks
(yellow) unpopulated bays (green) and back reef lagoon (purple).

When the biological reconnaissance survey was originally designed, the intention was to
rank all the sites with a point score relative to each other in order that the highest scoring
sites could be prioritized for inclusion in the network (Oram 2008). Negative impacts and
nutrient indicator algae were given a negative value whilst all other ranked values were
added up positively. In addition, the valuable mobile or benthic organisms were given a
weighted score (10 per individual). In order to include the fish data in this analysis, a fish
score was assigned to those sites missing data (by taking the average of the other sites in the
same geographic quadrant or closest quadrant with available data). Quadrant means
Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, Southwest. Figure 14 shows the order of total scores
including the fish data and figure 15 shows the order of total scores without the fish data.

This form of data representation shows that the highest ranking site overall was Amanave
(542), followed closely by Amalau (532), Larsens (505), Aunuu (505), Poloa (488) and Alofau
(487) all ranked with total scores above 480. Airport lagoon scored consistently low on all
assessments and neither of the offshore banks scored in the top half of the sites. The sites in
the North and South of Tutuila appeared to be evenly distributed throughout the scores.

23
 Total overall scores for all variables at proposed MPA sites
(excluding fish variables)

450
Fringing
400 Reef
350 Populated
Bay
Total Score

300
Offshore
250
bank
200
Unpopulated
150 Bay
100 Backreef
50 Lagoon

Site
Figure 15 Total overall scores for all except fish variables at potential MPA locations. Values on Y axis are total
ranked values scored positively with exception of nutrient indicator algae which had a negative value. Rare mobile or
benthic organisms attributed a weighted value of ten per occurrence. N scores were attributed for individuals in
figure 10. Colours distinguish between fringing reefs (red); populated bays (blue); offshore banks (yellow) and
unpopulated bays (green) and back reef lagoon (purple).

By excluding the fish variables from this analysis, Poloa rose to third in the ranking instead of
fifth and Aunuu became sixth rather than fourth. Other than those two sites in the top end
of the scale, no other sites moved more than one ranking by excluding fish variables.
However, at the bottom end of the scale, Vatia has a slightly higher ranking (11) when fish
are excluded (compared with 13). Opposing this pattern is Aasu which ranked eleventh with
fish variables and thirteenth without fish variables. The airport lagoon had consistently
lower rankings than any of the other sites, and Amanave (fringing reef) and Amalau
(unpopulated bay) were consistently high ranking overall whether or not fish variables were
included in the analysis.

24
Discussion

1) Overall Discussion of Results

1.1 Coral cover and diversity

The four highest ranking sites for the coral cover variable (Aunuu, Fagaitua, Leone and
Amanave) are all in the south of Tutuila. These sites scored approximately 75 on the survey
which would be an average rank of nine for each five minute observation period. This
equates to coral cover in the 26 50 percent range according to the ranked scale in table 1.
These values are consistent with surveys that have calculated coral cover quantitatively in
Tutuila (Fenner 2008) and find an average coral cover ranging from 23 30%.

The two lowest ranking sites (Aasu and Poloa) are in the Northwest, although it should be
noted that these two sites were only assessed by one survey unlike most other sites that had
at least two surveys in the same area. Three of the four sites in the north also had relatively
low diversity values (Aasu, Vatia and Amalau) but it was not surprising that the lowest
diversity ranking was scored by the only backreef lagoon (airport lagoon) which is dominated
by only a few species of coral. It should also be noted that coral cover and diversity are hard
variables to assess subjectively whilst also attempting to make judgements on many other
variables simultaneously. However, these findings do provide supporting evidence for the
theory that sites in the north of Tutuila have more turf algae and a lower coral cover (Fenner
2008) than sites in the south which have more coralline algae (Sabater and Tafaeono 2006).

Sabater and Tafaeono (2007) recorded average coral covers of 17 and 25 percent on
headlands in the North and South respectively and 38 and 22 percent at bays in the North
and South respectively. These results, although not statistically significant are interesting
because they differentiate between headlands and bays rather than between north and
south alone. However, despite higher live coral cover in bays on the North shore, higher
mean fish biomass was found on the south shore (Sataber and Tofaeono 2007; Green 2002).
Sabater and Tofaeono purported that coral reef extent was a more important determinant
of reef fish abundance than quality of habitat after observing a greater abundance of
dominant fish species (herbivores) on the South shore. This has also been found in other
areas such as the Mediterranean (Garcia-Charton and Perez-Ruzafa 2001) and the Red Sea
(Luckhurst and Luckhurst 1978, Roberts and Ormond 1987). Moreover, Sabater and
Tofaeono asserted that the reason for the greater extent of the reef on the south shore was
due to lower wave exposure because of the protection offered by the south shore banks
(Taema, Nafanua and other barrier reefs). Therefore in selecting potential no-take MPA
areas, it is important to look at the extent of habitat available and the exposure of an area in
addition to the amount of live coral cover and the amount of habitat degradation.

1.2 Coral growth forms

The data on coral growth forms supports previous studies and highlights the importance of
encrusting corals in American Samoan reefs as major reef builders. Encrusting corals are
observed to be dominant in American Samoa by most monitoring programs followed by
branching, massive and table corals (Fenner et al. 2008). The present study actually found
table corals to be the third most dominant species after branching corals rather than
massive corals as reported by the American Samoa Territorial Monitoring Program in 2006
(Fenner et al. 2008).
25
Fenner (2008) stated that table corals were a major component of the reef prior to the COTS
outbreak in 1978 and witnessed a recruitment pulse of small table corals (Acropora
hyacinthus) in certain areas that were estimated to be several years old in 2007. It is
therefore possible that table corals could once again become dominant in the future. Sites
with more table coral could have more potential as no-take MPA sites due to the suitable
habitat that they provide for target fish species. Whilst encrusting coral is ideal for
cementing the reef together it does not provide a very rugose habitat to afford protection
for fish and invertebrate species. Taema Bank had the highest amount of table coral out of
all sites, and this combined with the fact that it represents an important reef type (offshore
bank) with relatively low fishing pressure make it an ideal site for a No-take area.

From observing the coral cover, diversity and reef building data alone (figures 2 4) two
sites stand out as being consistently high ranking. These sites are Amanave and Aunuu
which are both classified as fringing reefs rather than bays on the South shore of Tutuila.
Whilst actual data is not currently available, this could be indicative of quicker flushing times
possibly benefiting the areas with more abundant fresh food supply and the effective
removal of excess nutrients. In addition to this, the south shore has more extensive reef
formation and higher mean fish abundance according to other monitoring programs (Fenner
2008). These two sites are also interesting because they are towards the eastern and
western ends of the main island of Tutuila and Aunuu is actually a separate island. Recent
current surveys indicate that stronger currents at these localities and a possibility of eddies
around the headlands could retain larvae and other plankton (Wiles et al. 2011). This
recently attained oceanographic data also indicates that it is possible that other similar sites,
not on the original list of proposed sites, could make good choices for no-take areas e.g. Pola
in the north and Vaitogi in the South.

1.3 Invertebrate results

In terms of invertebrate abundance which could be an important food source for some
communities making adult breeding stock worthwhile protecting, the four sites that had the
highest abundance overall were unpopulated bays and fringing reefs (in the case of
Amanave). Soft corals are not highly abundant throughout American Samoa. Three of the
sites that had the greatest overall numbers of invertebrates also had the greatest relative
amount of soft coral (Amanave, Larsens and Fagatele) making these favourable potential
MPA units. Of all the invertebrates recorded, the ones that are consumed in American
Samoa are Crustracea, Echinoidea and Holothurians (and Tradacnids that were recorded
separately in Figure 9). Certain sites exhibited more of these species than others but they
are also often cryptic during the day and given that the survey was designed to be a rapid
assessment of many variables, sufficient time was not available to effectively enumerate
such invertebrates.

1.4 Algae
Whilst calcareous algae is generally presumed to be a positive attribute on reefs, it is not
usually a prerequisite for MPA selection. It was interesting that Aunuu which ranked
highest for live coral cover, was also the second lowest scoring for calcareous algae (having
low values for both Coralline Algae and Halimeda). Similarly, the five sites with the highest
values for calcareous algae were among the lowest scorers for live coral cover in figures two
and three. The beneficial effect of certain Crustose Corraline Algae on coral recruitment has
26
been widely documented (e.g. Morse et al. 1988) but these results do not really support a
theory that there is more live coral cover where these is more coralline algae. However,
whilst coralline algae may inhibit the growth of macro algae (Vermeij et al 2011) and
encourage the settlement of coral, it in itself is not live coral and it is possible that sites with
a lot of coralline algae are sites that have suffered damage in the past and are in the process
of recovery.

Sites with high amounts of macroalgae are likely to be affected by excessive nutrients which
are not ideal criterion for establishing a new no-take area. The sites that scored the highest
were mostly populated bays (e.g. Fagaitua Bay) and the backreef lagoon at the airport which
may not experience as much flushing as fringing reefs and are also impacted by nutrients
from the nearby population or the airport for example. Aasu was the site that scored the
highest on this variable but it is not located near a village or in a highly populated area so it is
not clear what the cause of the macroalgae at Aasu was. The bay is used by certain
members of the community on a part time basis and there could also be other factors such
as feral pigs or farming in the watershed that could cause nutrients to enter the reef flat. It
would be interesting to compare these results with data from the American Samoan
Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) who carry out regular stream monitoring for
nutrients.

1.5 Negative impact

There appeared to be no pattern as to where the sources of negative impact were worst (i.e.
north versus south; reef slope versus reef flat; populated versus unpopulated etc). The
patchiness of the bleaching, which was observed in moderate amounts throughout the
surveys was most likely to be caused by disease and other organisms such as COTs rather
than increased water temperatures although certain areas could be more susceptible to
thermal bleaching than others, e.g. airport lagoon (D Fenner 2010, pers. comm.). Siltation
was heaviest at Leone and Amalau which is most probably the result of poor land use
practices in Leone and possibly natural from the steeply sided mountain in Amalau. Not
surprisingly, solid waste was also found near populated areas such as Fagaitua, Aunuu,
Alofau and Poloa. Whilst Fagaitua, Leone and Amalau had relatively large amounts of
negative impact, it should not prevent them from being considered for inclusion in the no-
take network because many of these impacts are related to behaviour which can be
managed and because nothing was extremely serious at any of the sites.

1.6 Rare/vulnerable species

This included sharks, adult Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus Undulatus), Giant Clams (Tridacna
sp.) and Turtles. Whilst these species are biologically important due to their low
abundances, the only one that is a food source for the population are the Giant Clams. It is
either illegal to consume the other species, or management agencies are in the process of
attempting to make it illegal (in the case of Humphead Wrasse and Sharks). It may therefore
not be important to protect sites based on the presence of these species, given that some of
them are already protected. However, the presence of sharks and Humphead Wrasse could
be indicative of low fishing pressure and a relatively healthy ecosystem. It is interesting
that such large numbers of turtles are present in Fagaitua bay which is adjacent to a large
human population. The fact that Nafanua Bank had four sharks and the only adult
Humphead Wrasse observed throughout the surveys is also interesting because this site is

27
protected from the shoreline fishery by its position and has fish populations that are, as yet,
unsurveyed (Fenner et al 2008).

In addition to the particular species above, sites were also allocated bonus points for other
important species or habitats. As can be seen in the results section, Poloa was a particularly
high scorer which is interesting because this is one of the villages that is in the Community
Based Fishery Management Program (CFMP) suggesting that the program is working to
protect certain species. Looking back to the data it was possible to see that the points were
allocated due to the presence of Giant Clams (n=6) and large Steephead Parrotfish
(Chlorurus microrhinos). These are species that are likely to be protected under the
management plan of the CFMP. Examples of other types of habitats and species that were
observed in the high scoring villages (Amalau, Fagaitua, Aasu, Amanave and Alofau) were
Porites mounds, sharks, and large Parrotfish which would all be worthwhile protecting.

1.7 Fish surveys

It was interesting to note that the two sites that had substantially higher fish abundances
than any other sites were both fringing reefs, and were two of the sites that had ranked in
the top four for all of the coral variables (figures 2 4) and in the bottom four for nutrient
indicator algae (figure 7). In particular, Aunuu was consistently the highest scorer for the
coral reef variables. It was also interesting that the four sites with the higest diversities were
all fringing reefs or unpopulated bays, i.e. all those sites categorized as populated bays did
not have high fish diversity values. In addition, although Fagatele Bay had the highest fish
diversity of all sites, it did not have relatively high fish abundance despite having been a
National Marine Sanctuary since 1984. It was unfortunate that fish data was not available
for all sites, particularly sites such as Poloa and Alofau which are both CFMP villages and
Larsens Cove which is a proposed National Marine Sanctuary.

1.8 Results from all variables combined

The top four overall sites (including fish variables) were either fringing reefs or unpopulated
bays. Whilst there is no supporting data, it could be expected that these sites that are a little
isolated from anthropogenic impacts, have high live coral cover and lower negative impact
or nutrient indicator algae than sites inside populated bays. Whilst there are other reasons
to select no-take sites (see paragraphs below on connectivity and habitat representation),
the sites that scored highly on this overall score should still be prioritized for inclusion in the
MPA network. The following section explains in detail what management decisions have
been taken on the basis of these findings.

2) Management Decisions

Of these top four sites, Amanave, Aunuu and Larsens had no existing or proposed
management at the time of the surveys. However, it was anticipated that Larsens Cove
would be proposed for management by the National Marine Sanctuary as part of the
management plan review. For this reason, the no-take program did not consider Larsens
Cove as a potential site. In addition, Amalau Bay was already included in the management of
the CFMP and the National Park of American Samoa. At the initial time of analysing this
data, there was no management in effect in Amanave village.

2.1 Amanave
28
Amanave village decided to join the CFMP Program in 2009 but due to the impact suffered
as a result of the 2009 tsunami, the village was delayed in completing their management
plan. Given that Amanave consistently scored highly on positive variables and had low
scores for negative variables, and that it had the second highest overall score, Amanave
should be treated with high priority for inclusion in the no-take network. In addition to this,
as pointed out in section 1.2, Amanave (along with Aunuu) also scored highly on coral
variables (possibility of unique oceanographic conditions described in section 1.2). The no-
take program has therefore requested the opportunity to give a presentation to Amanave
village about no-take areas and their benefits and to ask them to consider making a long
term no-take area in part of their coastal area. However, the opportunity has not yet been
granted to the program and it would not be appropriate for the No-take Program to
approach the village without such as invitation. It is recommended that the No-take
Program continue to work with the CFMP Program to attempt to establish a long-term no-
take area as it is proposed that this would be of benefit to the fisheries in that village and
possible to the island as a whole.

2.1 Aunuu
Given the consistently high scores for variables from the surveys in Aunuu and the fact that
there was no management in Aunuu at the time of carrying out initial analysis on this data,
Aunuu was identified as an ideal place for a no-take MPA and resources were focused
accordingly. One of the aims of this process was to assess the potential positive and
negative impacts of a no-take area on the community and to measure the level of support
for such a management effort. A full household socioeconomic assessment was carried out
(DMWR, 2009) and a community Participatory, Learning and Action workshop (DMWR,
2010) was also held in the village. After holding a Village Council meeting to present the
results of these assessments (and the biological data) to the village chiefs, the community
were considering their options. Unfortunately, subsequent village council meetings were
not held despite the village council deciding that they would like to begin by having a CFMP
in their village. This was due to the fact that the National Marine Sanctuary approached the
village separately and initiated their own process with the village. The fact that there are a
number of management entities in American Samoa (local and federal) is sometimes a
challenge and effective collaboration and communication between these entities is
therefore essential.

2.2 Taema Bank

As described above, Taema Bank had relatively large amounts of table coral in addition to
being an important habitat type (see point 4.0). Taema Bank also has potential as a no-take
area because effective management would be relatively easy in this area compared to more
remote sites in the North of Tutuila (e.g. monitoring and enforcement). Effective
management is one of the key principles in designing effective MPAs because without
effective management the MPA becomes nothing more than a paper park. In October
2011, a meeting was held for local fishermen and other stakeholders in America Samoa to
discuss the possibility of establishing a no-take site at Taema Bank. The timing of the
meeting coincided with the release of the proposed management plan for the National
Marine Sanctuary who were proposing to increase the area of federally managed
Sanctuaries from 0.25 square miles to 14,378 square miles. The outcome of the meeting was
not favourable for the establishment of an MPA on Taema bank and reasons stated were
that cultural and subsistence fishing are important activities there; fishing pressure is low
29
there; more data is needed; alternative sites should be considered; there are too many
MPAs being planned for the territory already. Due to confusion from the public between the
local DMWR programme and the federal Sanctuary programme and as a result of the
requests made by the public in this meeting, a new stakeholder engagement process is being
developed and funding being secured. The revised strategy will target island wide
fishermen/women and any other interested stakeholders and will aim to identify the
location for one no-take site representing the offshore banks in Tutuila, and replicating the
bank that is protected inside Fagamalos no-take area (Fagamalo VMPA Management Plan
2011)

3) Connectivity and Identification of Oceanographic Hotspots

As a result of the findings that there appeared to be high biodiversity values at the eastern
and western tips of the island, and to satisfy the need for information on connectivity, two
funding sources were obtained in order to carry out current surveys at priority areas in
Tutuila. An acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was purchased with the assistance of a
grant provided by the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC).
Current surveys were carried out at priority locations throughout 2010/11. These sites were
Amanave, Aunuu, Taema Bank and Fagamalo (a newly designated no-take area). Funding
was also sought to validate a coastal circulation model for Tutuila by deploying drifters and
running a connectivity model (ADCIRC). Particle tracking software is also being enabled to
run larval simulations from one proposed or established no-take area to another.
Connectivity in MPA networks includes connections of adjacent or continuous habitats,
connectivity through larvae and connectivity through the movements of adult individuals
(White et al. 2006). The latter form of connectivity could be investigated through the
tracking of target of fish species and funding has been ascertained by the no-take staff to
carry out passive tracking of target fish species inside the established no-take area at
Fagamalo. The results of these studies will be available in subsequent reports.

In addition to these oceanographic connectivity studies, genetic studies can also give an idea
of the connections between different marine areas. For these reasons, funding has been
attained by biologist within DMWR to begin to establish genetic markers for certain coral
reef fish species in American Samoa (Ochavillo pers. Comm.). This is expected to take place
in 2013-14.

4) Importance of Different Habitat Types

As different habitat types support unique communities and most marine organisms use
more than one habitat type during their lives it is very important to represent all habitat
types in American Samoas no-take network. It is recommended that areas containing
several key biodiversity elements (rare habitats, high quality areas and areas with multiple
contiguous habitats) should be targeted for protection (IUCN 2008). MPAs should aim to
protect the ontogenetic shifts of species by protecting both onshore and offshore habitats as
well as reef-flat and reef slope areas. In addition to habitat types; differing oceanographic
conditions, bathymetry and geology should also be represented in the MPA network (IUCN
2008). For this reason, it is necessary to proceed with MPA development at not only the
sites that come out with the highest scores on the biological reconnaissance surveys
(although some of those should be prioritized) but also the sites that represent different
habitats, depth ranges or oceanographic conditions.

30
5) Summary and Conclusion
The goal of this assessment was to obtain a standardized semi-quantitative overview of the
biological and ecological attributes of the prioritized sites. Whilst this has been done to a
certain extent, the data cannot be taken with absolute validity because so few surveys were
done and because the sampling units (five minutes) could not be treated as discrete and did
not therefore allow for statistical significant testing. However, it is possible to compare the
data with results obtained from other monitoring programs as has been done throughout
the discussion. The fact that our data were similar to that of other monitoring programs,
gives it more validity. However, it is recommended for future surveys that repeated samples
are taken in order to allow for reliable comparison between sites.

In addition to the problem of sampling design, is the issue of using a ranked scale making the
results difficult to interpret. For example, Aunuu and Leone look like they have similar
amounts of live coral cover in figure 2. However, in surveys by the Territorial Monitoring
Program in 2006 (Fenner 2006), Aunuu was recorded to have approximately 50 percent live
coral cover whilst Leone had 35 percent. Both of these values are relatively high but there is
still a substantial difference. Using the ranked scale, they would both have been attributed a
value of nine indicating 26 50 percent which would not give a clear indication of the
relatively high coral cover in Aunuu.

It was intended that the biological data obtained from this assessment would allow scientists
to provide objective and standardized observations from all sites, upon which the managers
base recommendations on. Whilst this data cannot be used in isolation, it does indeed
provide a good indication of how the sites compare to one another and can indeed provide
managers with information on which sites clearly stand out as being high value and which
do not. It is for these reasons that the management actions outlined in section 2 of the
discussion, have been taken. However, in addition to the results of the biological
reconnaissance surveys, other data and information is necessary when determining where to
place no-take MPAs. Some such information includes the connectivity and habitat data
described in sections 3 and 4.

Perhaps the most important determining factor in where no-take areas should be located in
American Samoa, is the consensus of the village council. In American Samoa, villages each
have their own decision making authority made up of chiefs from the families in the village.
These councils meet on a regular basis to make decisions on behalf of the village. The
coastal area (from zero to three miles) in American Samoa is technically owned by the
American Samoan Government. However, for management purposes, the DMWR co-
manages these areas with the villages living adjacent to the coastal area. This is a key facet
to the successful management of MPAs throughout the Pacific where management of
resources has traditionally been carried out at the community level. It is therefore equally
as important to develop effective outreach programs and community-based strategies as it is
to attain biological and physical data. Authority is respected in American Samoa and it is
therefore recommended that support from a high level (e.g. the Governor of American
Samoa or the Director of DMWR) will also assist the No-take Program to gain community
buy-in.

There is more than one management authority when it comes to marine resources in
American Samoa. Not only does DMWR have multiple MPA programs, there are also several
31
federal programs (e.g. The National Parks Service and the National Marine Sanctuary). It
could be beneficial for the No-take MPA Program to partner with one of these agencies if the
roles of each agency can be clearly differentiated and if the benefit to the community is
clear. However, in some circumstances, such as where there is a conflict between the
mandates of the authorities or where there is no additional benefit, it makes more sense for
DMWR to concentrate its resources and efforts elsewhere. Effective collaboration has been
carried out between DMWR and NPS with a view to attempting to enhance the level of
protection offered within certain areas of the National Park. However, to date it has not
been possible to establish effective collaboration with the National Marine Sanctuaries for
the enhancement of marine conservation in the territory. In fact, the effect that the release
of their Draft Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Oct 2011) had
on the public, due to insufficient public participation in its development could have
detrimental effects on effective marine conservation in American Samoa long into the
future.

In summary, the results of the biological reconnaissance survey have highlighted the relative
value of a number of sites that have led to management actions. New information on MPA
network development has also led to a number of other funded projects being carried out
(e.g. projects on physical connectivity), the results of which will be fed into the no-take
network design. Ultimately, the success of implementation will be limited by the
effectiveness of the community outreach strategy and the decisions made by village
councils. Political will will play a role in determining this and should therefore be included
in the no-take programs strategy. It is recommended that this data be summarised for the
benefit of the public and the politicians and that the no-take program continue to proceed
with implementation in areas that were highlighted by the current study.

32
References
1. Adams and Dalzell. 1999. Sustainability and management of reef fisheries in the Pacific Islands.
South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia. Paper prepared for presentation at the 8th
International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama City, Panama, pp. 24-29.

2. Alcala, A. C. 1988. Effects of protective management of marine reserves on fish abundances and
fish yields in the Philippines. Ambio 17: 194-199.

3. Alcala, A. C., and G. R. Russ. 1990. A Direct test of the effects of protective management on
abundance and yield of tropical marine resources. Journal du Conseil Internationale Exploration Mer
46: 40-47.

4. Bindon JR. (1995). Polynesian responses to modernization: Overweight and obesity in the South
Pacic. In de Garine I and Pollock NJ (eds.): Social Aspects of Obesity. London: Gordon and Breach,
pp. 227251.

5. Bohnsack, J.A., B. Causey, M.P. Crosby, R.G. Griffis, M.A. Hixon, T.F. Hourigan, K.H. Koltes, J.E.
Maragos, A. Simons, and J.T. Tilmant. 2003. A rationale for minimum 20-30% no-take protection.
Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium; Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 October, 2000,
Vol. 2: pp 615-619. Ministry of Environment, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, International Society
for Reef Studies.

6. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2004. United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change, Decision VII/28

7. Craig PC, Green AL, Tuilagi F. 2008. Subsistence harvest of coral reef resources in the outer
islands of American Samoa: Modern, historic, and prehistoric catches. Fisheries Research 89: 230
240.

8. Craig, P. 2009. Natural History Guide to American Samoa. 3rd Eds. National Park of American
Samoa.

9. Craig, P., Choat, J.H, Axe. L.M., Saucerman, S. 1997. Population biology and harvest of the coral
reef surgeonfish Acanthurus lineatus in American Samoa. Fish. Bull. 95: 680-693

10. Green, A. 1996. Status of the Coral Reefs of Samoan Archipelago. DMWR Biol. Rep. Ser. 125pp.

11. Green, A. 2002. Status of coral reefs on the main volcanic islands of American Samoa.
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, 86 p.

12. EO 13158. 2000. Marine Protected Areas. Federal Register . Vol. 65, No. 105 .

13. Evans, R.D., Russ, R.D. 2004. Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on
the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 505519.

14. Fenner, D. and B. Carroll. In review. Results of the American Samoa Territorial Coral Reef
Monitoring Program for 2006. Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Government of
American Samoa. Pago Pago, American Samoa.

15. Fenner, D., Speicher, M., Gulick, S. 2008. The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of American
Samoa. Pp 307 - 351. In: J.E. Waddell and A.M. Clarke (eds.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of
33
the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
NCCOS 73. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessments Biogeography Team.
Silver Spring, MD. 569 pp.

16. Garcia-Charton, J. A., and A. Perez-Ruzafa. 2001. Spatial pattern and the habitat structure of a
Mediterranean rocky reef sh local assemblage. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 138: 917934.

17. Garpe, K. C., and M. C. Ohman. 2003. Coral and sh distribution patterns in Maa Island Marine
Park, Tanzania: Fish-habitat interactions. Hydrobiologia 498: 191211.

18. Green, A. 2002. Status of coral reefs on the main volcanic islands of American Samoa.
Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources, Pago Pago, American Samoa

19. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) (2008). Establishing Resilience
Marine Protected Area Networks Making it Happen. Washington, DC: IUCN-WCPA, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy. 118p.

20. Jacobs, MRAG Americas, Inc., USA. National Institution of Water & Atmospheric Research, NZ
and Polunin. 2004. Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs and Adjacent Habitats in American Samoa.
Final Report.

21. Kilarski, Stacey, and Alan Everson (ed). Proceedings for the American Samoa Coral Reef Fishery
Workshop (October 2008). U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO114, 143p.

22. Lester, S.E., Halpern, B., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines, S.D., Airam,
S., Warner, R.R. 2009. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar Ecol
Prog Ser. 384: 3346

23. Luckhurst, B. E., and K. Luckhurst. 1978. Analysis of the inuence of substrate variables on coral
reef sh communities. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 49: 317323.

24. Maragos, J.E., C.L. Hunter, and K.Z. Meier. 1994. American Samoa Coastal Resources Inventory.
Final Report to the ASG Dept. of Marine and Wildlife Resources.

25. McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Recovery trajectories of coral reef fish assemblages within
Kenyan marine protected areas, Marine Ecology Progress Series. 294: 241248.

26. McClanahan, T.R., Graham, A.J., Calnan, J.M., MacNeil, M.A., Towards Prsitine Biomass: Reef
Fish Reconvery in Coral Reff Marine Protected Areas in Kenya. 2007. Ecol. App. 17(4): 1055-1067.

27. Morse DE, Hooker N, Morse ANC, Jensen RA (1988) Control of larval metamorphosis and
recruitment in sympatric agariciid corals. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 116: 193217

28. Oram, R.G. 2008. Marine protected area master plan: A manual to guide the establishment and
management of no take marine protected areas. American Samoa Government, Department of
Marine and Wildlife Resources. Biological Report Series 2008-01. January 2008. Pago Pago, American
Samoa. 64 pp.

29. Polunin, N. V. C., and C. M. Roberts. 1993. Greater biomass and value of target coral-reef fishes
in two small Caribbean marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 100: 167-176.

34
30. Roberts, C. M., and R. F. G. Ormond. 1987. Habitat complexity and coral reef sh diversity and
abundance on Red Sea fringing reefs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 41: 1 8.

31. Rowley, R. J. 1994. Marine reserves and fisheries management. Aquatic Conservation 4: 233-
254.

32. Russ, G.R., Stockwell, B., Alcala, Angel. 2005. Inferring versus measuring rates of recovery in
no-take marine reserves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 292: 112, 2005.

33. Sabater, M.G. and S. Tofaeono. 2006. Spatial variation in biomass, abundance, and species
composition of key reef species in American Samoa. Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources,
Government of American Samoa. Pago Pago, American Samoa. 62 pp.

34. Sabater MG, Carroll BP. 2009. Trends in Reef Fish Population and Associated Fishery after Three
Millennia of Resource Utilization and a Century of Socio-Economic Changes in American Samoa.
Reviews in Fisheries Science 17 (3): 318-335.

35. Sabater, M., Tulafono, R. 2011. American Samoa Archipelagic Fishery Ecosystem Report. Pacific
Island Fishery Monographs. 3. Pp 31. Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council.

36. Saucerman, S. & A. Kinsolving. 1995. Fisheries management and conservation in American
37. Samoa. In P. Dalzell & T.J.H. Adams (eds). 1995. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries
Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries, Manuscript Collection of
Country Statements and Background Papers, Volumes I, 68-74.

38. UNEP-WCMC (2008). National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of
Progress. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

39. US Census. 2010. U.S. Census Bureau for American Samoa. www.census.gov

40. Vermeij, M.J.A., Dailer, M.L., Smith, C.M. 2011. Crustose coralline algae can suppress macroalgal
growth and recruitment on Hawaiian coral reefs. Mar Ecol. Prog Ser. 422: 1-7.

41. Wass, R. 1982. Characterization of inshore Samoan fish communities. Department of Marine
and Wildlife Resources, American Samoa Government, Biol. Rept. Ser. No. 2.

42. White, A., Alino P, Meneses, A. 2006. Creating and managing marine protected areas in the
Philippines. Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest Project. Coastal Conservation and Education
Foundation, Inc. and University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute, Cebu City, Philippines,
83p.

43. Wiles, P., Sabater, M., Jacob, L. 2011. Current Surveys between Potential Marine Managed
Areas in American Samoa. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Honolulu, HI.
ISBN: 1-934061-56-5.

44. Williamson, D.H., Russ, G.R, Ayling ,A.M. 2004. No-take marine reserves increase abundance and
biomass of reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation
31 (2): 149159

45. Williams, I.D., Richards, B.L., Sandin, S.A., Baum, J.K., Schroeder, R.E., Nadon, M.O., Zgliczynski,
B., Craig, P., McIlwain, J.L., Brainard, R.E. 2010. Differences in reef fish assemblages between

35
populated and remote reefs spanning multiple archipelagos across the Central and Western Pacific.
Journal of Marine Biology: 2011: 1-14.

46. Zeller D, Booth S, Craig P, Pauly D. 2006. Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in
American Samoa, 19502002. Coral Reefs 25: 144152.

36