DRAFT REPORT


Seagrass Assessment for the Negril Environmental Protection Area


Submitted to:

National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) 10-11 Caledonia Ave, Kingston 5


Submitted by:

C.L. Environmental Company Limited 20 Windsor Avenue, Kingston 5




DRAFT REPORT


Seagrass Assessment for the Negril Environmental Protection Area


Submitted to:

National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) 10-11 Caledonia Ave, Kingston 5


Submitted by:

C.L. Environmental Company Limited 20 Windsor Avenue, Kingston 5


July 28, 2021


Copyright Page


DRAFT REPORT - Seagrass Assessment for the Negril Environmental Protection Area


Prepared by C. L. Environmental Co. Ltd. for the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA)


10 & 11 Caledonia Avenue

Kingston 5 Jamaica W.l.


Telephone: (876) 754-7540

Fax: (876) 754-7596

E-mail: pubed@nepa.gov.jm Website: www.nepa.gov.jm


All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced in whole or part for education or non-profit purposes without the special permission from the copyright holder. Acknowledgement of the source must be made, and the National Environment & Planning Agency would appreciate receiving a copy of any such publication.


Copyright © 2021 by the National Environment and Planning Agency


Table of Contents

Copyright Page iii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ix

List of Tables xi

List of Figures xv

List of Plates xxi

List of Appendices xxiv

Executive Summary xxvi

Introduction and Background 1

Seagrass Introduction 3

Objective, Scope and Methodology 5

Mapping 5

Seagrass Health Assessment 6

Ground-truthing 6

Seagrass meadow line transect sampling 6

Core Sampling and Data Collection 10

Seagrass Productivity Collection 13

Seagrass Lab Analysis 15

Benthic Surveys 18

Seagrass Meadow Invertebrate Transects 19

Booby Cay Photo and Invertebrate Transects 20

Other Survey Areas- Roving Surveys and Benthic Composition Identification 21

Reef Health Index 23

Water Quality 26

Oceanography and Hydrodynamics 29

Wave Climate and Storm Surge 29

Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storm Surge 33

Data Collection 36

Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 41

Method 42

Stakeholder Engagement 42

Group Discussions 42

Stakeholder Workshops and Community Consultations 43

Mini Surveys 45

Results 46

Seagrass Mapping 46

Replanted Seagrass Beds 49

Seagrass Health Assessment 51

Observational Results within the Long and Bloody Bay project area. 51

Grouping of transect and core samples into zones for statistical analysis 53

Bloody Bay 55

Long Bay 71

Comparative Total Carbon Storage within Sampled Area and Estimated Carbon within the Long and Bloody Bay Project Area. 87

Anthropogenic and Natural Impacts to Seagrass 90

Anthropogenic Impacts 90

Natural Impacts 108

Other Observations 109

Benthic Results 113

General Results and Observations 113

Booby Cay 116

Bloody Bay 129

Long Bay 139

Bloody Bay and Long Bay Macro-Invertebrate Comparison 147

Fish Comparison between Long and Bloody Bay 151

Other Survey Areas 151

Reef Health Index 159

Water Quality 160

Temperature 164

Specific Conductivity 165

Salinity 166

pH 166

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 167

Turbidity 168

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 169

Light Extinction Coefficient (EC) 170

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 171

Nitrates 173

Phosphates 174

Spatial Patterns in Long and Bloody Bay 175

Historical Comparisons within Long and Bloody Bay 182

Oceanography and Hydrodynamics 185

Wave Climate and Storm Surge 185

Hydrodynamics 186

Nearshore Waves 196

Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storm Surge 201

Climate Change Projections 207

Introduction 207

Model Projections 209

Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 217

General approach 217

Assessment 218

Summary 229

Stakeholder Workshops and Community Consultations 231

Group Discussion Findings 231

Stakeholder Workshops 237

Conclusion and Rating of Project Implementation Success 240

Seagrass Health Assessment 240

Replanted Seagrass 241

Seagrass Mapping 241

Benthic Survey 241

Water Quality 242

Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 242

Sea Level Rise 244

Sea Surface Temperature 244

Current Speeds 244

Stakeholder Consultations 245

Lessons Learnt, Limitations and Assumptions 246

General 246

Climate Change Projections 246

Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 246

Stakeholder Consultations 246

Benthic Survey 247

Seagrass Mapping 247

Seagrass Health Assessment 247

Water Quality 248

Benefit Transfer Valuation Analysis 248

Recommendations 249

Baseline Data 249

Monitoring 250

References 252

Appendices 256


List of Acronyms and Abbreviations


Acronym / Abbreviation


Meaning

AGRRA

Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment

ANOVA

Analysis of Variance

CC

Climate Change

CPCe

Coral Point Count with Excel Extensions

Corg

Organic Carbon

CRHI

Coral Reef Health Index

DO

Dissolved Oxygen

EC

Extinction Coefficient

EPA

Environmental Protection Area

GCM

Global Climate Model

GIS

Geographic Information System

GMSL

Global Mean Sea Level

GOJ

Government of Jamaica

HSD

Honesty Significance Difference

IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

JFCU

Jamaica Fishermen Cooperation Union

KNMI

Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

MgC

MegaGrams of Carbon

MPA

Marine Protected Area

MSL

Mean Sea Level

NEPA

National Environment and Planning Agency

NFB

Negril Fishing Beach

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NTU

Nephelometric Turbidity Units

NRCA

Natural Resources Conservation Authority

ODPEM

Office Of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management

PA

Protected Area

PgCyr-1

Petagrams of carbon per year

RCP

Representative Concentration Pathway

RHI

Reef Health Index

SA

Survey Assistants

SE

Standard Error

SLR

Sea Level Rise

SCTLD

Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease

SpC

Specific Conductivity

Acronym /

Abbreviation


Meaning

SST

Sea Surface Temperature

STATIN

Statistical Institute of Jamaica

STDEV

Standard Deviation

TgCyr-1

Teragrams of carbon per year

TDS

Total Dissolved solids

TSS

Total suspended solids

UWI

University of the West Indies

WMO

World Meteorological Organization


List of Tables

Table 2-1 Coordinates of seagrass sampling transects in JAD2001 7

Table 2-2 Coordinates of Seagrass Cores in JAD 2001 10

Table 2-3 Coordinates of Productivity Quadrats in JAD2001 13

Table 2-4 Coordinates of Booby Cay Transects in JAD2001 21

Table 2-5 Water quality sampling location coordinates 26

Table 2-6 The Vmax and Rmax for the simulations represented the intensity of the category of hurricane chosen. 35

Table 2-7 Group discussion numbers according to gender 43

Table 2-8 Sample size calculation based on Enumeration Districts (ED) 45

Table 3-1 Grouping of Long Bay transect names into zones 53

Table 3-2 Grouping of Bloody Bay transects names into zones 54

Table 3-3 Grouping of Booby Cay core sites into zones 54

Table 3-4 Summary results from analysis of variance and ranking among seagrass parameters in Bloody Bay 55

Table 3-5 Average Canopy Height (cm) per transect within Bloody Bay 67

Table 3-6 Water quality stations for corresponding transects sampled within zone 70

Table 3-7 Average values for physicochemical results per zone within Bloody Bay 70

Table 3-8 Summary results from analysis of variance and ranking among seagrass parameters per zone in Long Bay 71

Table 3-9 Average Canopy Height (cm) per transect within Long Bay 83

Table 3-10 Physicochemical parameters per transect in Long Bay 86

Table 3-11 Coordinates of Boat launching and landing sites in JAD 2001 91

Table 3-12 Coordinates of boat moorings in JAD 2001 97

Table 3-13 Coordinates of drains and gullies in project area in JAD2001 101

Table 3-14 Major Species Categories and Locations 115

Table 3-15 Percentage Composition of Major Benthic Categories 120

Table 3-16 Hard and Soft Coral Transect Species 121

Table 3-17 Invertebrate Transect Results 127

Table 3-18 Number of individuals per square metre based on feeding category 129

Table 3-19 Bloody Bay Transect results, Species numbers and Density 131

Table 3-20 Number of individuals per square metre based on feeding category 138

Table 3-21 Transect species density 140

Table 3-22 Showing the Fish Family Groups found in Long Bay during the seagrass surveys 145

Table 3-23 Number of individuals per square metre based on feeding category 146

Table 3-24 Average in-situ water quality data 161

Table 3-25 Average Laboratory water quality data 162

Table 3-26 Forward Stepwise Multiple Regression for Long and Bloody Bay at the 95% confidence level 175

Table 3-27 Historical water quality for 2001, 2014, 2015, 2019 and 2021 182

Table 3-28 Swell and Operational Conditions used on the model boundary 185

Table 3-29 Average speed and direction of surface and sub-surface drogues 186

Table 3-30 Model results of currents for Present and Future Climate under Operational Conditions 190

Table 3-31 Model results of currents for Present and Future Climate under Swell Conditions 191

Table 3-32 Model results of currents for Future Climate under Hurricane Conditions 191

Table 3-33 Summary of Operational wave heights arriving at the shoreline based on deep-water wave transformation modelling 200

Table 3-34 Swell wave heights (m) at the existing shoreline 201

Table 3-35 Calibration storm surge results from model for Hurricane Ivan 201

Table 3-36 Summary of wave height at project area from probabilistic hurricanes 206

Table 3-37 Summary of storm surge inundation at project area from probabilistic hurricanes 206

Table 3-38 Models that will be used for future projections for the respective variables 210

Table 3-39 Projected Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) rise for three RCP Scenarios 218

Table 3-40 Difference between Irradiance at seagrass canopy in the present climate vs the future climate 220

Table 3-41 Vulnerability levels for seagrass against current speeds 225

Table 3-42 Summary of Impact level of the hazards assessed. 230

Table 3-43 Fish Catch Method and Times 234

Table 3-44 Simple Average Calculation of Gross Income at Negril Fishing Beach 236

Table 3-45 Schedule of input costs 236

Table 3-46 Attendees for the June 3rd, 2021 Stakeholder Sensitization Workshop 237

Table 3-47 Discussions regarding: Who/what causes pressure on seagrass ecosystems? 238

Table 3-48 Discussions regarding: Conflicts within the EPA 238

Table 3-49 Discussions regarding: Possible Solutions 239

Table 3-50 Discussions regarding: Training Needs 239

Table 4-1 Summary of the Seagrass Health Assessment 240

Table 4-2 Summary of present trends and future projections 243

Table 8-1 Seagrass Species and Location Identified 257

Table 8-2 Hard and Soft Coral Species and Location Identified 257

Table 8-3 Macroalgae Species and Locations Identified 258

Table 8-4 Sponge Species and Location Identified 259

Table 8-5 Hydroids, Jellyfish, Corallimorphs and Zooanthid Species and Location Identified 259

Table 8-6 Segmented Worms Species and Location Identified 260

Table 8-7 Echinoderm Species and Location Identified 261

Table 8-8 Crustacean Species and Locations Identified 261

Table 8-9 Mollusc Species and Location Identified 262

Table 8-10 Average in-situ Water Quality Data - 14/05/21 270

Table 8-11 Average in-situ Water Quality Data - 10/06/21 271

Table 8-12 Average in-situ Water Quality Data - 02/07/21 272

Table 8-13 Significant Differences in Temperature within Long and Bloody Bay 309

Table 8-14 Significant Differences in Conductivity within Long and Bloody Bay 310

Table 8-15 Significant Differences in Salinity within Long and Bloody Bay 311

Table 8-16 Significant Differences in pH within Long and Bloody Bay 312

Table 8-17 Significant Differences in D.O. within Long and Bloody Bay 313

Table 8-18 Significant Differences in Turbidity within Long and Bloody Bay 314

Table 8-19 Significant Differences in TDS within Long and Bloody Bay 315

Table 8-20 Significant Differences in Nitrates within Long and Bloody Bay 316

Table 8-21 Significant Differences in Phosphates within Long and Bloody Bay 317

Table 8-22 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2001 (2001-2021) 318

Table 8-23 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2014 (2001-2021) 319

Table 8-24 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2015 (2001-2021) 320

Table 8-25 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2019 (2001-2021) 321

Table 8-26 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2021 (2001-2021) 322


List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Map showing project boundaries 2

Figure 2-1 Seagrass transects (Note: Transect lines labelled BC T1, BC T2, BCT3 and BCT4 were transects used to assess the reef at Booby Cay.) 9

Figure 2-2 Locations of seagrass cores 12

Figure 2-3 Locations of seagrass productivity quadrats 14

Figure 2-4 Standard Reef Check Protocol 19

Figure 2-5 Benthic Transect and Roving Survey Areas 25

Figure 2-6 Water quality sampling stations 28

Figure 2-7 Mesh used for modelling of operational and swell scenarios 30

Figure 2-8 Wind rose generated using data from underground weather for the dates of the survey May 2nd - 4th 2021. 32

Figure 2-9 Predicted tides for Negril from May 2nd – May 4th, 2021. 33

Figure 2-10 Probabilistic Best Track 35

Figure 2-11 Bathymetry surrounding Long Bay and Bloody Bay, Negril. 37

Figure 2-12 Deployment locations utilized for drogue tracking 39

Figure 2-13 Stakeholder Engagement survey tools log 44

Figure 3-1 Seagrass extent within Long Bay and Bloody Bay 47

Figure 3-2 Non-seagrass areas within the study area 48

Figure 3-3 Locations of replanted seagrass within Long Bay and Bloody Bay 50

Figure 3-4 Mean blade density collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 57

Figure 3-5 Mean blade length collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 58

Figure 3-6 Mean blade width collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 59

Figure 3-7 Mean above ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 60

Figure 3-8 Mean epiphyte weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 61

Figure 3-9 Mean above ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 62

Figure 3-10 Mean above ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 63

Figure 3-11 Mean below ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 63


Figure 3-12 Carbon in shoot biomass per zone located within Bloody Bay 64

Figure 3-13 Mean carbon in root/rhizome component (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay 65

Figure 3-14 Seagrass productivity per zone within Bloody Bay 66

Figure 3-15 Average percentage cover and canopy height per transect within Bloody Bay 67

Figure 3-16 Average soil wet, dry and ash free dry weights (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 68

Figure 3-17 Mean soil carbon content per zone (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay. 69

Figure 3-18 Mean blade density collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 72

Figure 3-19 Mean blade length collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 73

Figure 3-20 Mean blade width collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 74

Figure 3-21 Mean above ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 75

Figure 3-22 Mean epiphyte weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 76

Figure 3-23 Mean above ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 77

Figure 3-24 Mean below ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 78

Figure 3-25 Mean below ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay 79

Figure 3-26 Mean carbon in grass component (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay. 80

Figure 3-27 Mean carbon in root/rhizome component (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay. 81

Figure 3-28 Seagrass productivity per zone within Long Bay 82

Figure 3-29 Average percentage cover and canopy height per transect within Long Bay 83

Figure 3-30 Average soil wet, dry and ash free dry weights (g) per zone in Long Bay 84

Figure 3-31 Mean soil carbon content per zone (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay. 85

Figure 3-32 Total Vegetative Carbon in Sampled Area 87

Figure 3-33 Total Vegetative Carbon Estimated within Project Areas 88

Figure 3-34 Total Soil Carbon Content in Sampled Area (MgC) 89

Figure 3-35 Total Soil Carbon in Project Area (MgC) 90

Figure 3-36 Boat launching and landing sites 96

Figure 3-37 Boat moorings within the project area 100

Figure 3-38 Drains and Gullies in the project area 107

Figure 3-39 Percentage Cover of Major Transect Categories 121

Figure 3-40 Number of individuals per Family in Booby Cay, Negril 128

Figure 3-41 Size class (cm) of individuals in Bloody Bay, Negril 129

Figure 3-42 Number of individuals per Family in Bloody Bay, Negril 137

Figure 3-43 Size class (cm) of individuals in Bloody Bay, Negril 138

Figure 3-44 Graph showing the amount fish by families counted. 144

Figure 3-45 Pie Chart showing the distribution of the individuals according to their size class (cm) 146

Figure 3-46 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Sea Urchins, Sea Biscuits/ Sand Dollars 148

Figure 3-47 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Sea Stars, Sea Cucumbers and Sea Hares 149

Figure 3-48 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Shrimp, Hermit Crabs, Crabs, Lobster and Conch 149

Figure 3-49 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Anemones, Jellyfish, Pen Shells and Segmented Worms 150

Figure 3-50 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Hard and Soft Corals 151

Figure 3-51 Average temperature values for each station 164

Figure 3-52 Conductivity values at various stations 165

Figure 3-53 Salinity values at the various stations 166

Figure 3-54 pH values at the various stations 167

Figure 3-55 Dissolved oxygen values at the various stations 168

Figure 3-56 Turbidity values at the various stations 169

Figure 3-57 TDS values at the various stations 170

Figure 3-58 Light Extinction Coefficient values at the various stations 171

Figure 3-59 TSS values at the various stations 172

Figure 3-60 Nitrate values at the various stations 173

Figure 3-61 Phosphate values at the various stations 174

Figure 3-62 Conductivity trends within Long and Bloody Bay 177

Figure 3-63 Light Extinction Coefficient trends within Long and Bloody Bay 179

Figure 3-64 Phosphate trends within Long and Bloody Bay 181

Figure 3-65 Current Speed comparisons between field data and the MIKE 21 HD model simulation 188

Figure 3-66 Current speed calibration plot for operational wave climate for 2nd May 2021, at 9 am. 189

Figure 3-67 Current speeds for bottom currents under hurricane conditions in the future climate 192

Figure 3-68 Current speeds for surface currents under hurricane conditions in the future climate 192

Figure 3-69 The difference between present and future bottom currents under swell conditions 194

Figure 3-70 Current speeds (m/s) for present and future climate under the operational and swell condition 194 Figure 3-71 Present operational wave plot (South-West) 196

Figure 3-72 Future operational wave plot (South-West) 197

Figure 3-73 Present Climate Swell Waves Plot (Southeast - Worst Case) 198

Figure 3-74 Future Climate Swell Waves Plot (Southeast- Worst Case) 199

Figure 3-75 Difference in swell wave heights 200

Figure 3-76 Storm surge results generated from Hurricane Ivan (2004) simulation 202

Figure 3-77 Storm surge results for Direct Parallel hit (Category 5) 203

Figure 3-78 Storm surge results for Direct Parallel hit (Category 4) 203

Figure 3-79 Storm surge results for Direct Parallel (Category 3) 204

Figure 3-80 Wave height results for Direct Parallel (Category 5) 205

Figure 3-81 Wave heights results for Direct Parallel (Category 4) 205

Figure 3-82 Wave height results for Direct Parallel (Category 3) 206

Figure 3-83 Project Area showing Bloody Bay to the north and Long Bay to the south 208

Figure 3-84 Headland which divides Long Bay and Bloody Bay 209

Figure 3-85 Booby Cay 209

Figure 3-86 Mangroves in Bloody Bay 209

Figure 3-87 Seagrass in Long Bay (red circle) 209

Figure 3-88 Projected Sea level rise (SLR) until 2300 for RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 up to 2100 (medium confidence). Projections for longer time scales are highly uncertain but a range is provided (4.2.3.6; low confidence). For context, results are shown from other estimation approaches in 2100 and 2300. The two sets of two bars

labelled B19 are from an expert elicitation for the Antarctic component (Bamber et al., 2019), and reflect the likely range for a 2ºC and 5ºC temperature warming (low confidence. The bar labelled “prob.” indicates the likely range of a set of probabilistic projections. Source: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Community 211

Figure 3-89 Present trends and future projections of increasing sea surface temperature using the HadGEM2- CC model for CMIP5 for RCP 8.5 for the period 1861-2100. 212

Figure 3-90 Present trends and future projections of increasing sea surface temperature using the HadGEM2- CC model for CMIP5 RCP 8.5 for period 1861-2005 and 2005 - 2100. The box extends from 25% to 75%, the whiskers from 5% to 95% and the horizontal line denotes the median (50%) 213

Figure 3-91 Present trends and future projections of increasing air temperature using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 for RCP8.5 for period 1860-2100. 214

Figure 3-92 Present trends and future projections of increasing air temperature using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 for RCP8.5 for period 1860-2005 and 2005-2100. The box extends from 25% to 75%, the whiskers from 5% to 95% and the horizontal line denotes the median (50%) 214

Figure 3-93 Present trends and future projections of decreasing precipitation using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 RCP8.5 for the period 1860-2100 215

Figure 3-94 Present trends and future projections of decreasing precipitation using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 RCP8.5 for period 1860-2005 and 2005 - 2100. The box extends from 25% to 75%, the whiskers from 5% to 95% and the horizontal line denotes the median (50%) 216

Figure 3-95 ERA-5 Present reanalysis wind data for the period 1979-2021 217

Figure 3-96 Change of the total downwelling irradiance with depth. Source: (Abdelrhman, 2016) 219

Figure 3-97 Thresholds for the survival of seagrass species under elevated sea surface temperatures (SST) and increasing exposure. Source: (Campbell, McKenzie, & Kerville, 2006) 222

Figure 3-98 Conceptual model of the effects of current velocity on biomass and species composition of submerged freshwater macrophytes in streams and rivers adapted from a more general model for all aquatic plants by Biggs (1996) 224

Figure 3-99 Vulnerability of Long Bay and Bloody Bay towards bottom currents under present swell conditions

............................................................................................................................................................................. 226

Figure 3-100 Vulnerability of Long Bay and Bloody Bay towards bottom currents under future swell conditions

............................................................................................................................................................................. 227

Figure 3-101 Vulnerability of Long Bay and Bloody Bay towards bottom currents under swell conditions for hurricane conditions 228

Figure 3-102 Relationship between seagrass leaf density and bottom current velocity 229

Figure 3-103 Estimated number of fishing boats operating from Negril Fishing Beach 232


List of Plates

Plate 2-1 Alternating belt transect sampling method 8

Plate 2-2 Core sampling method 11

Plate 2-3 Seagrass Samples in Despatch Lab Oven 15

Plate 2-4 Samples in Despatch Lab Oven 17

Plate 2-5 Samples in Muffle Furnace 18

Plate 2-6 CPCe point count analysis 20

Plate 3-1 Male flower of Thalassia testudinum (arrow) found in core sample taken in Bloody Bay 52

Plate 3-2 Female flower of Syringodium filiforme found in Long Bay 53

Plate 3-3 Boat on trailer parked on beach 92

Plate 3-4 Boats docked along shoreline 93

Plate 3-5 Boat repair and maintenance 93

Plate 3-6 Fuel container on beach 94

Plate 3-7 Anchor in seagrass meadow 94

Plate 3-8 Scarring in seagrass from boat anchor or boat propeller 95

Plate 3-9 Evidence of an anchor dragging through a seagrass meadow 95

Plate 3-10 Drums and concrete blocks used as a base for mooring, located within seagrass meadow 99

Plate 3-11 Base of mooring devoid of seagrass 99

Plate 3-12 Rock drain 103

Plate 3-13 PVC drain 103

Plate 3-14 Old drain observed in seagrass bed 104

Plate 3-15 Concrete Drain 104

Plate 3-16 Drain formed in sand along beach 105

Plate 3-17 Drain formed in sand along beach 105

Plate 3-18 Underneath bridge at South Negril River 106

Plate 3-19 Mouth of the North Negril River 106

Plate 3-20 Insufficient garbage bins and skips in public areas; Solid waste overflowing from garbage drum with the potential of ending up in the marine environment 109


Plate 3-21Solid waste (mask) on beach 110

Plate 3-22 Solid waste on seafloor 110

Plate 3-23 Queen Conch shells for sale (likely harvested in and around seagrass meadows nearby) 111

Plate 3-24 Horseback riding activities on the beach. 111

Plate 3-25 Derelict boat on beach 112

Plate 3-26 Lytechinus, using debris as camouflage 116

Plate 3-27 Large M. cavernosa colony at Booby Cay 123

Plate 3-28 Fleshy algae pavement area of Booby Cay 123

Plate 3-29 Fleshy algae covering large section of Booby Cay 124

Plate 3-30 Chondrilla covering old dead coral at Booby Cay 124

Plate 3-31 Diseased O. annularis colony at Booby Cay 125

Plate 3-32 Diseased Pseudodiploria colony 126

Plate 3-33 SCTLD on a large Orbicella colony at Booby Cay 126

Plate 3-34 SCTLD on a large Orbicella colony 127

Plate 3-35 Mancenia areolata in a seagrass bed 133

Plate 3-36 Porites divaricata in the seagrass meadow 133

Plate 3-37 Cladocora colony with sponges and fireworm 134

Plate 3-38 Ragged Sea Hare in a seagrass halo 134

Plate 3-39 Three-Rowed Sea Cucumber 135

Plate 3-40 Anemone with a Pedersons Cleaner Shrimp 135

Plate 3-41 Corallimorph colony on a small patch reef in the seagrass meadow 136

Plate 3-42 Magnificent Urchin 136

Plate 3-43 Balloon fish hiding in the seagrass meadow 139

Plate 3-44 Juvenile French Angel fish around a small patch reef in a seagrass meadow 139

Plate 3-45 Colpophyllia colony on a patch reef 142

Plate 3-46 King Helmet in a blowout 142

Plate 3-47 Large Pencil urchin in the seagrass meadow 143

Plate 3-48 Spit Crown feather duster, Chondrilla and a small waving hands colony (arrow) 143

Plate 3-49 Yellow stingray in the seagrass meadow 147

Plate 3-50 Large southern stingray swimming between the Pyramids 147

Plate 3-51 Boat hull colonized by encrusting species and fish 152

Plate 3-52 Pyramid colonized by encrusting species, macroalgae and hard coral 152

Plate 3-53 Plastic bag wrapped around a Porites colony 153

Plate 3-54 Section of an Artificial Reef near Sandals Negril 153

Plate 3-55 Large shallow patch reef with both hard and soft corals 154

Plate 3-56 Small patch reef in a seagrass halo 154

Plate 3-57 Small patch reef showing several species 155

Plate 3-58 Macroalgae covering a large sandy area 155

Plate 3-59 Section of the larger barrier reef system at a snorkel site 156

Plate 3-60 Recently dead Pillar coral in a snorkel site (this is likely due to SCTLD) 156

Plate 3-61 Beaded Starfish in a silty section of the study area 157

Plate 3-62 Patch reef with several schools of fish and lionfish 157

Plate 3-63 Sea cucumber in the seagrass meadow 158

Plate 3-64 Large A. palmata colony near the Booby Cay snorkel site 158

Plate 3-65 Typical intertidal zonation along sections of a rocky shore 159

Plate 3-66 Lobster fisherman in Long Bay (live lobster cage) 235

Plate 3-67 Sale of lobster on beach in Long Bay 235

List of Appendices

Appendix 8-1 Study Team 256

Appendix 8-2 Benthic Species List 257

Appendix 8-3 Hach Hydrolab DS-5 Water Quality Multiprobe Meter Calibration Test Sheet 268

Appendix 8-4 Water Quality Data 270

Appendix 8-5 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Bloody Bay Parameters 275

Appendix 8-6 Average Blade Length (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay 276

Appendix 8-7 Mean Blade Widths (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay 276

Appendix 8-8 Mean Number of Blades (n) per zone in Bloody Bay 277

Appendix 8-9 Mean Above Ground Wet Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 277

Appendix 8-10 Mean Epiphyte Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 278

Appendix 8-11 Mean Above Ground Dry Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 278

Appendix 8-12 Mean Below Ground Wet Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 279

Appendix 8-13 Mean Below Ground Dry Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 279

Appendix 8-14 Mean Soil Wet Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 280

Appendix 8-15 Mean Soil Dry Weight (g) per zone 280

Appendix 8-16 Mean Soil Ash Free Dry Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay 281

Appendix 8-17 Mean Depth (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay 281

Appendix 8-18 Mean Core Depth (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay 282

Appendix 8-19 Mean Soil Carbon in Core (Mg/ha) per zone in Bloody Bay 282

Appendix 8-20 Mean Carbon in Shoot Biomass (MgC/ha) per zone in Bloody Bay 283

Appendix 8-21 Mean Carbon in Root/Rhizome Layer (MgC) per zone in Bloody Bay 283

Appendix 8-22 Mean Total Vegetative Carbon (MgC) per zone in Bloody Bay 284

Appendix 8-23 Correlation table across parameters measured across zones in Bloody Bay as generated by STATISTICA 285

Appendix 8-24 Mean Blade Density (n) per zone in Long Bay 286

Appendix 8-25 Mean Blade Length (cm)/ zone in Long Bay 286

Appendix 8-26 Mean Blade Width (cm)/ zone in Long Bay 287

Appendix 8-27 Mean Above Ground Wet Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay 287

Appendix 8-28 Mean Epiphyte Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay 288

Appendix 8-29 Mean Above Ground Dry Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay 288

Appendix 8-30 Mean Below Ground Wet Weight (g) / zone in Long Bay 289

Appendix 8-31 Mean Below Ground Dry Weight (g) / zone in Long Bay 289

Appendix 8-32 Mean Carbon in Shoot Biomass (MgC) per zone in Long Bay 290

Appendix 8-33 Mean Carbon in root/rhizome layer (MgC) per zone in Long Bay 290

Appendix 8-34 Mean Soil Wet Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay 291

Appendix 8-35 Mean Soil Dry Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay 291

Appendix 8-36 Mean Soil Ash Free Dry Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay 292

Appendix 8-37 Mean Soil Carbon in Core (MgC)/ zone in Long Bay 292

Appendix 8-38 Results of Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test performed on the parameter ‘carbon in root/rhizome layer per zone’ in Long Bay 293

Appendix 8-39 Analysis of Variance within water quality parameters in Long Bay per Transect 293

Appendix 8-40 Correlation table across parameters measured across zones in Long Bay as generated by STATISTICA 294

Appendix 8-41 Laboratory Water Quality Data 295

Appendix 8-42 ANOVA Tables for Significant differences in WQ Parameters at p = < 0.50 309

Appendix 8-43 ANOVA Tables for Significant differences in WQ Parameters from 2001 to 2021 at p = < 0.50 318

Appendix 8-44 Sample of Workshop Sensitization Invitation Letter sent to Stakeholders via email 323

Appendix 8-45 Agenda for Sensitization Workshop 324

Appendix 8-46 Stakeholder Sensitization Workshop Register 328

Appendix 8-47 Group Discussion Promotional Flyers 334

Executive Summary

Seagrass Mapping

The total estimated area of seagrass within Long Bay was 481.9 hectares (1,190.8 acres) and the estimated total for Bloody Bay was 95.1 hectares (235 acres). Both bays are dominated by Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), with some areas having Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass) and Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) as discrete beds and other areas with a mixed species composition.

Seagrass Health


Analyzed datasets for the Long and Bloody Bay areas indicated a high influence of water quality, wave activity and anthropogenic factors on the status of seagrass meadows. Blue carbon values are highest within Long Bay; this may be due to outputs from of the Negril River and the large influence of the mangrove ecosystem (organic/peaty) soils.

Within the Bloody Bay sampled area, visibility through the water column was very clear, extending approximately thirty (30) meters. Seagrass meadows within the Bloody Bay area were observed to be less continuous towards the western end of Bloody Bay as well as around regions of patch reefs present. Syringodium sp. was observed to be more prevalent along transects within these western sections.

Within Long Bay, visibility extended approximately ten (10) meters with less visibility being associated with sites of high silt inputs including those located adjacent to the Pyramids as well as The Negril River. Seagrass meadows within Long Bay though dense and extensive were observed to be affected by siltation throughout the entire area as most areas had various levels of smothering by sediment.

Fish and Invertebrate Species Density and Diversity


Within Bloody Bay, fish and benthic faunal communities were observed to have higher densities in comparison to Long Bay. This may suggest that Bloody Bay serves a greater function as a nursery area than Long Bay.

Anthropogenic Influences


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Instances of anthropogenic alterations to seagrass meadows including propeller, anchor and hull damage which was noted within the nearshore portion of Bloody Bay. Within Long Bay, propellor damage was observed within the eastmost end of the project area (beach associated with Hedonism Hotel) as well as various anchoring sites being observed along the nearshore. Other potential seagrass impacts included: fish pots, vessel refuelling, construction activities, coastal modification, trampling by recreational users, smothering from solid waste, water quality deterioration, removal of seagrass, high activity areas and solid waste (land-based and from vessels).

Seagrass Flowering


Within the entire project area, a multiple-species (Syringodium sp and Thalassia sp.) seagrass flowering event was observed. This is a notable sighting as significant knowledge gaps regarding this information are present within the Caribbean region.

Benthic Survey


This fringing reef of Booby Cay is the closest defined coral reef in the study area and is most likely to be negatively impacted by the deteriorating water quality and overgrowth of macroalgae. Observed fish species were in general, diverse in and outside the study area, however, mainly concentrated around patch reefs and coral heads interspersed throughout the seagrass meadows and Booby Cay.

Booby Cay was given a RHI rating of very poor; Hard and soft coral was very low; Macroalgae was very high; The aggressive invertebrate Chondrilla coverage was also high. Overall herbivore densities (fish and invertebrates) were low to moderate. Carnivorous fish were the most dominant feeding group at Booby Cay. The substrate in the backreef consisted of sand, rubble and pavement and is less ideal for coral recruitment.

Lytechinus was the most common urchin in both Long and Bloody Bay. In general, Bloody Bay had higher invertebrate densities than Long Bay. Long Bay however had higher density of small seagrass corals.

Fish densities were also higher in Long Bay than in Bloody Bay. The most dominant families in both Long and Bloody Bay were Wrasse, followed by Parrotfish and Grunts.

The effects of the heavily utilized area may have varying effects in seagrasses versus reef environments. High traffic/usage areas in general cause some species displacement in both seagrass meadows and coral reefs.


However, fish feeding practices can increase bread-feeding fish species abundance but may disrupt feeding behaviour such as reducing algal grazing.

Water Quality


Results obtained indicated that Temperature, Salinity, pH, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, Conductivity, TDS and TSS were acceptable across all stations except for discrepancies in Stations 29, 31 and 33. These stations were however largely affected by freshwater input from the North and South Negril rivers which would explain these discrepancies. Nitrate and Phosphate values were non-compliant at all stations, however these nitrate and phosphate values are typical for Jamaican coastal waters and seldom vary outside this range.

Water quality within the Long and Bloody Bay area has worsened since 2001, however with the development of the area since 2014 this reduction in water quality has generally plateaued up till 2019 at which point the water quality then marginally worsened till present day. Two of the key indicators for poor water quality, phosphates and nitrates were noted to have increased with the increasing population over the years, entering the bays though terrestrial water sources such as rivers, gullies and upwellings. This degradation of water quality may adversely affect the seagrass meadows and as such it will need to be closely monitored.

Oceanography and Hydrodynamics


Jamaica’s coast is constantly under environmental pressures from both natural hazards, and climate change- related events such as hurricanes, storm surges, increase temperature, and sea-level rise. Over the past decades, the direct impact of such hazards has resulted in grave environmental degradation and socioeconomic disturbances along Jamaica’s coast. This situation is further exacerbated where dense urban settlements and critical structures are sited in areas deemed susceptible to coastal hazards. The intense winds from hurricanes and subsequent tidal and wave energy can cause significant damage to seagrass leaves through tearing and may uproot the plants completely. This was evidenced in 2004 after the passing of Hurricane Ivan where uprooted seagrass was washed ashore along the shoreline of Rocky Point and Alligator Pond and extending several metres seaward (Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), PNUD, NU. CEPAL. Subsede de México 2004). Therefore, the vulnerability of the seagrass located along Long Bay and Bloody Bay in Negril, Jamaica was determined based on climate change analysis, wave climate, and site-specific characteristics. The analysis considered both current and future climate scenarios.


Overall, the projected trends suggest that current speeds will increase for the future climate under both swell and operational conditions. The swell conditions will however, see the greatest percentage increase in current speeds, up to 63.6% for surface and 61.9% for bottom currents. The operational currents are also expected to increase significantly with 45% increase in surface current speeds and 36.4% increase in bottom current speeds. The bottom currents will have the greatest impact on seagrass and as such, these were the ones analyzed in the vulnerability assessment.

Under hurricane conditions in the future climate, currents in Long Bay are generally projected to be faster than currents in Bloody Bay, although the lower end of the current range is usually higher in Bloody Bay. The bottom currents in Bloody Bay range between 0.2m/s – 0.43m/s and 0.2m/s – 0.9m/s in Long Bay. Long Bay surface current speed projections range from 0.2m/s to 2.7m/s, while in Bloody Bay, the speeds range from 0.32m/s to 1m/s during a hurricane.

Nearshore Waves


Modelling results illustrated that operational and swell waves in the present climate are of average height, approximately 0.65m and 1.15m respectively in the nearshore area. In the future climate however, the operational wave averages increasing to 0.9m while swell wave averages increase to 1.55m. During both the operational and swell conditions, the dominant wave direction is south-east.

Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storms


The analysis suggested that the site would be partially inundated by the storm surge projected for the area in the event of a direct hit from a hurricane. It was estimated that the worst-case scenario (Category 5) storm surge elevations would cause damage within the project area. The storm surge inundation levels for a direct hit are between 1.2 m and 2.8 m. While the predicted nearshore wave heights for the direct hits are 1.5 m, 2 m and 3.3 m for Categories 3, 4, and 5 respectively.

Climate Change Projections


Sea Level Rise


Combining process-model-based studies, there is medium confidence that Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) is projected to rise between 0.29–0.59 m (likely range) globally under RCP 2.6 and 0.61–1.10 m (likely range) under RCP 8.5 by 2100. (Oppenheimer, 2019).

Sea Surface Temperature


There is an increasing trend in sea surface temperature projected to continue to 2099 with average temperatures increasing by 3.6°C for a projected temperature of 30.3°C.

Air Temperature


According to the IPCC AR Synthesis Report 5 (AR5), air temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios and continue through to the end of the century (2100). The HadGEM2-ES climate model results confirm these predictions showing that average annual temperatures could increase to 3

°C or greater by the end of the century. Precipitation

Overall rainfall is expected to decrease from an average of 2.5mm/day to 2.1mm/day by the end-of-century. This would reduce annual rainfall of 912mm by 146mm, bringing new annual rainfall averages to 766.5mm/yr.

Wind


Reanalysis wind data was derived from the ERA-5 model to determine present wind speed averages in the Western Caribbean region. It shows there has been a slight increase in average wind speeds from 1979 - 2021. Wind speed ranges are projected to increase slightly from historical ranges of between 4.5m/s and 8.6m/s from 1979 to 5.2m/s -9m/s for present climate.

Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment


The seagrass within the project area is at moderate risk of impact from Sea-Level Rise as well as surface temperature. The impact of increasing SST will depend on light availability, with interactions between elevated temperatures and reduced light levels resulting in greater potential impacts. Where seagrasses are already experiencing lower light levels, meadows will have a high vulnerability to increases in SST because their relatively high respiration demands are expected to exceed their capacity for gaining carbon through photosynthesis.


However, the greatest threat of the future climate on seagrass based on the data available was ocean currents. It was observed that large sections of the project area will be affected by fast bottom current speeds, most notable at the headland which divides the two bays. These fast currents would attribute to critical erosion of sediments on the seafloor thus reducing the stability of the grass. There is, therefore, a strong need for a mitigation plan to be implemented.

Stakeholder Consultations


There is consensus among all the groups (fishers, farmers, craft vendors, residents) that the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is in social and environmental decline. This has been blamed mostly due to the lack of preventative maintenance and supervision as well as the failure to equally implement the laws.


Based on anecdotal evidence gathered from fishers and the national and local fishing cooperative, an estimated 100 boats sail with between one operator and up to a crew of nine (9). Most boats are manned by a crew of four (4). All boats are engaged in fishing for commercial purposes. Some 55% are engaged in trap fishing with the majority venturing out to set pots (40%) and the rest using nets. Another 40% engage in line or spear fishing. Of that amount, some 30% of all boats (30 boats) remain inshore specializing in catching “Bonita”.

Fishers operate in the Long Bay and Bloody Bay area, and even as far as Pedro Bank, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia and Nicaragua. The Bonita, Tuna, Snapper, Parrot and Grunt were the most popular fish species caught.

All fishers operate for commercial purposes and to earn a living with fishing being their main source of income. Many have been fishing for more than half their lifetime and knows no other vocation. Time in the fishing business ranged from 13 years to over 40 years. It is felt that most fishers operating small boats close to shore would be unprofitable. Larger boats that are well-equipped and have the capacity to go far offshore for large catches and are more profitable. A profitable catch is considered by the fishers to be over 200 pounds but over 95% of boats are not equipped to venture offshore.


Gross weekly income for fishers is estimated to be JM$22,500.00. Fishers also report high input costs. As a result, fishers engage in other activities such as farming, construction, shop/grocery/bar/restaurant operations to supplement their income.


Recommendations

Baseline Data


Additional data sets would provide a more accurate and detailed description of the existing environment. These include:

Water Quality


Introduction and Background


This draft report details an assessment of seagrass meadows within Long Bay and Bloody Bay, Negril and is one of many sub-projects focusing on the Negril Environmental Protection Area. The project is being managed by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and is part of a wider regional project implemented by The Integrating Water, Land and Ecosystems Management in Caribbean Small Island Developing States (IWEco Project), financed by the Global Environment Facility.

This assessment of seagrass meadows takes place within the confines of Long Bay and Bloody Bay (Figure 1-1).



Figure 1-1 Map showing project boundaries

Seagrass Introduction

Seagrasses are deemed one of the most important habitat organisms in tropical costal and estuarine areas throughout the developing world. Seagrass ecosystems are one of the most productive ecosystems on earth (Grech, et al., 2012) as they provide a habitat for fish nurseries, a food source as a major primary producer in the tropical ecosystem, an anti- erosion sediment stabilizer and are carbon producers for the food web (Thorhaug, Miller, & Jupp, 1984) (Thorhaug, Miller, Jupp, & Booker, 1985). Seagrass ecosystems prevent siltation within highly trafficked areas and significantly reduce the rate of erosion from coastal areas (Kirkman, McKenzie, & Finkbeiner, 2001).


According to Green (2019), within Jamaica, there are three species of seagrasses, namely Thalassia testudinum (Turtle grass), Syringodium filforme (Manatee grass) and Halodule wrightii, T. testudinum being the most dominant of the three with the largest growth form. These species can be found in most, if not all marine areas under suitable conditions island wide (De Kluijver, Gijswijt, De Leon, & Da Cunda, 2016); (McKenzie & Hq, 2008). In a past survey done in Bloody Bay, Negril, Jamaica, the bay area contained extensive beds of seagrass, predominantly composed of T. testudinum with interspersed S. filforme within the turtle grass and indvidual beds of S. filforme (DHV Interantional UK Ltd, 1999).


Carbon forms the basic building block of life on Earth, and is stored in the atmosphere, land and ocean. Within the terrestrial and aquatic environment, plants will remove carbon from the atmosphere through primary production and produce reduced organic carbon (Corg). This carbon-based food is then consumed and when that organism or plant dies and decays, most of the carbon is re-mineralized and transformed into inorganic carbon within atmospheric or oceanic reservoirs (Avelar, van der Voort, & Eglinton, 2017). Blue carbon refers to carbon which is stored in mangroves, salt tidal marshes and seagrass meadows within the soil, the living biomass above ground, that below ground as well as the non-living biomass (Howard , Hoyt , Isensee, Telszewski, & Pidgeon, 2014). Of many natural carbon sinks, seagrass ecosystems are among the most efficient on Earth (Macreadie, et al., 2015). These systems sequester large amounts of blue carbon each year due to their high production and organic matter burial (Johnson, Gulick, Bolten, & Bjorndal, 2017).


Various biotic and abiotic factors will affect the health of seagrass meadows. Abiotic factors include depth, pH, light availability, temperature, salinity, water current flow, substrate type and nutrient availability. Such abiotic factors are key requirements for seagrass meadows to be able to survive (Jackson, 2019) (Jackson, 2019) notes that biotic factors are limited to feeding relationships between seagrass meadows, associated grazers and epiphytic interactions on the surface of seagrass blades and anthropogenic influences that inhibit the access to available plant resources (nutrient and sediment loading) (Short & Coles, 2002). Such abiotic factors are key requirements for seagrass meadows to be able to survive (Jackson, 2019). Jackson (2019) notes that biotic factors are limited to feeding relationships between seagrass meadows, associated grazers and epiphytic interactions on the surface of seagrass blades and anthropogenic influences that inhibit the access to available plant resources (nutrient and sediment loading) (Short & Coles, 2002). These factors will result in morphological differences between blades including but not limited to blade length, shoot and root biomass, spatial distribution and the overall productivity of the seagrass meadow.


Globally, seagrass communities have been decreasing on a rapid scale for approximately thirty years as they are extremely sensitive to environmental perturbations (Pillay, Branch, Griffiths, Williams, & Prinsloo, 2010). According to Short & Wyllie-Echeverria (1996), this decline can be attributed in part to global climate change however the main catalysts are pollution (eutrophication) and unsustainable global coastal development. In developing areas such as Negril, Jamaica, mainly is utilized for tourist attractions, seagrass meadows are altered by shoreline construction and development, land reclamation, deforestation, overfishing, garbage dumping, dredging, filling, marine vessel disturbances, industrial and urban effluents and accidental spills (Thorhaug, Miller, & Jupp, 1984) (Unsworth, et al., 2018)Loss of seagrasses can have important repercussions for marine ecosystems and communities (Pillay, Branch, Griffiths, Williams, & Prinsloo, 2010).


Objective, Scope and Methodology


The scope and objectives for this project include: GPS mapping of various features (as outlined in Section 2.1), an assessment of seagrass health, benthic surveys (including reef, fish and invertebrate surveys), water quality assessments, baseline oceanographic studies, various impacts (including climate-change related impacts) on seagrass, vulnerability assessment, seagrass valuation analysis and conducting of stakeholder consultations and workshops. The results and data from the overall assessment will be used to recommend management practices in order to improve seagrass conservation and secure long-term seagrass ecosystem service benefits.


Mapping

GPS Mapping of various features was conducted using one (1) Trimble Geo 7x GPS with Laser Technologies Inc. TruPulse 360 B Rangefinder and one (1) Trimble Geo 7x (H-Star) with attached Trimble Rangefinder. Data dictionaries were created to facilitate mapping of the various features. Data collected by the GPS were postprocessed corrected using GPS Pathfinder Office vers. 5.60. Thematic Maps of the various features were created using ArcGIS 10.8.1. Features mapped included:


Seagrass Health Assessment


Ground-truthing

Within the project area, reconnaissance was first conducted on land and by boat in order to identify and ground truth degraded, natural and new areas of seagrass beds according to previous studies and Environmental Impact Assessments. In water methods included snorkelling to identify degraded areas, species of seagrass present as well as the type of substrate associated within the seagrass meadow present. Where seagrass meadows were accessible from land, these parameters were also noted along with anthropogenic influences present along the coastline which may possibly affect the seagrass meadows present within the project area.


Seagrass meadow line transect sampling

Seagrass health and status research was conducted at a total of eighteen (18) sites which were designated between the Long Bay and Bloody Bay project area. Within Bloody Bay, seven (7) two hundred meter (200m) transect lines were run perpendicular to the shoreline (Figure 2-1). Along each transect line, using the alternating belt transect method, a one meter squared (1m2) PVC quadrat was used to determine seagrass and macroalgal species percentage cover as well as canopy height. Here, quadrats were placed at twenty-meter (20m) intervals at alternating sides along the transect line resulting in a total of ten (10) data collection points. At each point, the quadrat was carefully laid as not to disturb any benthic fauna present within the underlying bed. Seagrass species percentage cover within the quadrat was then noted along with macroalgae percentage cover. Three blades within the quadrat were then randomly selected and their lengths measured and noted in order to determine canopy height of the bed present. This method was repeated until the transect line was completed. Transect lines labelled BC T1, BC T2, BCT3 and BCT4 were transects used to assess the reef at Booby Cay.


Table 2-1 Coordinates of seagrass sampling transects in JAD2001


Transect #

Eastings

Northings

Eastings

Northings

Eastings

Northings


START

MIDDLE

END

LONG BAY







LB T1

608163.271

687458.813

608228.553

687535.982

608316.612

687585.546

LB T2

608251.286

686912.704

608333.623

686969.929

608344.643

687069.345

LB T3

608373.472

686276.140

608506.020

686325.852

608457.435

686324.974

LB T4

608200.570

685664.251

608240.743

685754.255

608310.648

685823.784

LB T5

608148.970

684827.689

608242.275

684805.288

608334.110

684777.469

LB T7

607941.371

683328.146

608033.569

683307.603

608125.680

683286.674

LB T8

607689.341

682390.772

607686.804

682291.485

607684.259

682192.197

LB T10

607128.660

681730.679

607215.571

681681.541

607302.801

681632.967

BLOODY BAY







BB T1

608056.221

689647.663

608136.222

689707.639

608216.223

689767.615

BB T2

608555.963

689688.584

608492.432

689611.368

608428.900

689534.153

BB T3

608771.756

689398.569

608690.224

689340.861

608608.693

689283.153

BB T4

608502.524

688856.730

608584.551

688910.486

608666.578

688964.242

BB T5

608213.316

688572.125

608257.929

688481.208

608302.542

688390.292

BB T6

608090.129

689336.817

608180.119

689381.703

608276.000

689412.158

BB T7

608113.034

688911.609

608260.573

688927.138

608211.999

688923.303



Plate 2-1 Alternating belt transect sampling method


Figure 2-1 Seagrass transects (Note: Transect lines labelled BC T1, BC T2, BCT3 and BCT4 were transects used to assess the reef at Booby Cay.)

Core Sampling and Data Collection

Within Bloody Bay a total of fourteen (14) cores were extracted while in Long Bay, a total of sixteen (16) cores extracted (Table 2-2, Figure 2-2). At each site, diving was utilized to extract core data. This was done by carrying a graduated and labelled PVC tube of dimensions 2.5 meters length by eight 8 centimetres width unto the substrate below. The depth of the water column was then noted and with slow swaying motions (in order to reduce the chances of cropping seagrass blades) the PVC core was used to encircle the seagrass below, ensuring all blades were properly within the core. The core was then forced into the substrate using a sledgehammer until resistance was achieved and depth of core into the substrate noted using the graduation markings. A PVC cap was then placed atop the core tube and pounded until a seal was created. The core tube was then swayed back and forth in order to loosen the surrounding substrate to create space in order to remove and cap the working end of core. The removed core and contents (vegetative and soil plug) were then carried to the surface and stored for later processing. This process was repeated twice at each sampled site in Bloody Bay and Long Bay (Plate 2-2).

Table 2-2 Coordinates of Seagrass Cores in JAD 2001


Seagrass Core

Eastings

Northings

LONG BAY



LB C1A

608146.622

687468.599

LB C1B

608311.769

687588.064

LB C2A

608244.541

686921.470

LB C2B

608343.454

687067.568

LB C3A

608361.424

686284.196

LB C3B

608559.378

686326.814

LB C4A

608196.471

685667.618

LB C4B

608311.965

685824.548

LB C5A

608143.630

684837.556

LB C5B

608333.216

684781.849

LB C7A

607928.121

683338.390

LB C7B

608130.572

683286.878

LB C8A

607674.801

682195.966

LB C8B

607678.812

682333.881

LB C10A

607160.933

681721.927

LB C10B

607288.833

681647.525

BLOODY BAY



BB C1A

608056.221

689647.663

Draft Report: Seagrass Assessment for the Negril Environmental Protection Area

P a g e | 11



Seagrass Core

Eastings

Northings

BB C2

608152.271

689718.436

BB C2A

608554.270

689697.678

BB C2B

608544.622

689657.642

BB C3A

608786.073

689393.500

BB C3B

608601.618

689269.807

BB C4A

608676.473

688961.934

BB C4B

608502.752

688843.249

BB C5A

608211.785

688536.581

BB C5B

608300.065

688389.848

BB C6A

608087.612

689336.437

BB C6B

608273.621

689406.576

BB C7A

608111.023

688922.588

BB C7B

608305.013

688914.039




Plate 2-2 Core sampling method


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Figure 2-2 Locations of seagrass cores

Seagrass Productivity Collection

Four (4) 0.027m2 quadrats were randomly anchored in the seagrass meadow at the shoreward end of each transect (Table 2-3, Figure 2-3). Quadrats were carefully marked with flagging tape and GPS markers to accurately pinpoint the exact location. The seagrass blades enclosed by the quadrat were properly fixed to ensure that none of the blades were folded underneath the quadrat boundary. A hole punch was then used to make a hole as close to the base of the blade as possible. This was done for at least 5 blades in each quadrat. The samples were left for a period of 2 weeks following which, the blades were reaped by removing the entire shoot from the quadrats. All shoots were removed from the quadrats and carefully placed in labelled Ziploc bags to be processed at the lab.

Table 2-3 Coordinates of Productivity Quadrats in JAD2001


Productivity

Quadrat


Eastings


Northings

LONG BAY



LB P1

608315.612

687585.760

LB P2

608347.899

687065.257

LB P3

608553.513

686323.978

LB P4

608314.470

685820.275

LB P5

608330.865

684777.161

LB P7

608130.572

683286.878

LB P8

607686.008

682187.877

LB P10

607301.779

681635.442

NEPA P1

608314.312

684857.083

BLOODY BAY



BB P1

608045.256

689681.694

BB P2

608152.527

689721.157

BB P3

608804.312

689404.236

BB P4

608672.161

688954.503

BB P5

608299.743

688391.652

BB P6

608274.685

689409.711

BB P7

608308.671

688936.892

BB RIU P1

608697.827

689705.181

BB RIU P2

608668.862

689703.209


Figure 2-3 Locations of seagrass productivity quadrats

Seagrass Lab Analysis


Vegetative Biomass Separation

Upon the removal of core contents, from PVC cores, seagrass samples were carefully separated into below and above ground sections and placed into separate labelled Ziploc bags for later processing.


Above Ground Biomass Processing

Seagrass samples (each blade from each sample) were then removed and measured individually for length and width. After measuring, samples were then weighed for wet weight and recorded with epiphytes still attached. The prominent epiphytes present on the blades were noted after which they were removed by immersing the samples in ten percent (10%) hydrochloric acid (HCL) for twenty (20) minutes. Blades were then carefully wiped clean of all remaining epiphytes, weighed and recorded once more for weight after epiphyte removal (epiphyte weight). Samples were then packaged in newspaper and placed in the Despatch LDB Lab Oven for seventy-two (72) hours at sixty degrees (60o) for drying (Plate 2-3).



Plate 2-3 Seagrass Samples in Despatch Lab Oven


Below Ground Biomass Processing

Belowground seagrass biomass was determined using a 5KW Digital Scale which was used to record wet and dry weights. Here, seagrass roots and rhizomes were washed free of sediments, blotted with a paper towel and weighed for wet weight. Samples were then placed in newspaper and left in a Despatch LDB Lab Oven for seventy-two (72) hours at sixty (60o) degrees, removed and allowed to cool before being weighed for dry weight.


Productivity Processing

The seagrass shoots were removed from labelled bags and all the individual blades were removed from the shoot. All blades were examined to see if the hole could be found. The area of the seagrass blade above the hole was cut with a scissors and removed. The region below the hole to the white subsurface area was also cut at the interface area and removed. If no holes were found, all the blades that were short with rounded tips were grouped together as new growth blades while the long blades with jagged tips were grouped together as old blades. The freshly cut blades or the grouped blades were now weighed and recorded. After which they were placed in a 10% HCl solution for approximately twenty (20) minutes. After the blades were removed and carefully wiped with a paper towel, there were reweighed and recorded. The blades were carefully packaged in newspaper, labelled and placed in the Despatch LDB lab oven to be dried for approximately seventy-two (72) hours. After the samples were dried, they were re-weighed for dry weight. The productivity data was obtained by transposing the weighted results into the formula:

Dry weight(g) x 0.027258 x 1/14


Substrate and Peat Analysis

The remaining soil collected in the core was allowed to settle. Upon settling, the remaining water is poured through a 64 µm filter in order to collect any remaining suspended sediment particles. Once the majority of this water is removed, the remaining soil samples are collected and placed into plastic containers being sure to add the filtered particles. Once settled excess water is removed using a syringe with tubing attached. Samples are then split into two replicates, placed into labelled aluminium containers and weighed for wet weight.


Samples were then placed into the Despatch LDB Lab Oven for seventy-two (72) hours and dried at sixty degrees (60o) (Plate 2-4).



Plate 2-4 Samples in Despatch Lab Oven


Samples were then allowed to cool for one (1) hour after which they were weighed for dry weight and placed into a Thermolyne B1 TableTop Muffle Furnace for five (5) hours at four hundred and fifty degrees (450o) (Plate 2-5). Samples are then removed after cooling and ash free dry weights recorded and analyzed.



Plate 2-5 Samples in Muffle Furnace


Benthic Surveys

The large study area consists of a mixed benthos backreef environment, which included extensive seagrass meadows, patch reefs, individual coral colonies, an expansive fringing reef of Booby Cay, several sand patches and hard bottom/ pavement areas. As. As described by Henry 1981 in (CL Environmental, 2014), as such various survey methods and modifications were utilized.

Roving surveys were conducted throughout the study to generate a species list and photo inventory as well as to document features such as coral disease, impacts in seagrass meadows and other features. Belt and Photo transects were used in various sections of the project area for greater detail and quantitative assessment.

Figure 2-5 shows the various survey areas.


Seagrass Meadow Invertebrate Transects

Two-hundred metre (200m) long x 2m wide Reef Check belt transects (recording individuals in 20m segments along the line, skipping 5m between) were used in seagrass meadow areas, shown in Figure 2-4. The Reef Check data sheet was modified to include all macro invertebrates, hard and soft corals seen within the belt. Roving surveys were also conducted around transect area. Species seen outside transect areas were added to the species list table ()Appendix 8-2). This was done in both Bloody Bay and Long Bay (Figure 2-1).


Fish Transects

Within Bloody Bay and Long Bay, the fish communities were surveyed using a modified Reef Check technique (Figure 2-4). To minimize disturbance to the habitat, fish surveys were the first surveys to be performed. Five

  1. 200m long lines were laid perpendicular to the coastline throughout Bloody Bay, while eight (8) were laid in a similar fashion throughout the larger Long Bay. Along the 200m line, eight 5m wide (centred on the transect line) by 20m long segments were sampled for fish, enumerating the number of individuals per species within each segment. The size of the individuals was also noted and categorized using size classes with the aid of a T-bar graduated in 5cm intervals. Fish seen within the water column up to 5m above the transect line were also included. To reduce the risk of duplicating counts, there was a 5m gap in between each 20m segment.



    Figure 2-4 Standard Reef Check Protocol


    Booby Cay Photo and Invertebrate Transects

    A total of 4 modified 30m long Transect lines were used to assess the leeward backreef of Booby Cay (Figure 2-1, Table 2-4). Urchins and other features were recorded 1m on either side of the line. A 1x1 m photo framer was used every 3m along the transect line (a total of 10 photos per transect). These were then analyzed in CPCe in order to determine major categories such as Percentage cover for Hard Corals, Macroalgae, Nuisance/Aggressive Invertebrates, Disease and other features (Plate 2-6). Total urchin counts (species and number) were recorded 1m on either side of the 30m line. A manual count of key herbivores, mainly Diadema was necessary as they are cryptic and often not accurately represented in photo transects. Roving surveys were conducted around the leeward side of Booby Cay.



    Plate 2-6 CPCe point count analysis


    Fish Transect

    Within the back reef of Booby Cay, a modified Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) Detailed Fish Protocol was conducted. Along a 30m line placed randomly on the reef, all fish individuals were noted and enumerated to the species level within a 2m wide belt. The size of the individuals was also noted and


    categorized using size classes with the aid of a T-bar graduated in 5cm intervals. This survey was conducted four times, ensuring that each line was at least 5m apart.

    Table 2-4 Coordinates of Booby Cay Transects in JAD2001


    Transect #

    Eastings

    Northings

    Eastings

    Northings

    Eastings

    Northings


    START

    MIDDLE

    END

    BC T1

    607625.089

    688177.671

    607631.093

    688163.661

    607637.096

    688149.650

    BC T2

    607641.250

    688197.768

    607642.807

    688182.559

    607644.364

    688167.349

    BC T3

    607638.446

    688242.845

    607642.509

    688229.693

    607646.572

    688216.541

    BC T4

    607593.858

    688241.196

    607593.799

    688225.763

    607593.741

    688210.329


    Other Survey Areas- Roving Surveys and Benthic Composition Identification

    Roving surveys were conducted throughout the project area including at the Pyramids/Artificial reef areas and nearby snorkel sites. Other survey areas included some rocky shores of Rutlands point, Booby Cay and Bloody Bay. A species list was generated for each roving survey area, including some intertidal species.

    Surveys were carried on the leeward side of Booby Cay (Figure 2-5), which have not previously been included as part of a long-term reef monitoring program. The survey area therefore serves as baseline data and is not comparable to other reef surveys carried out in the general area. Invertebrate surveys in the seagrass meadows are also baseline data and not comparable to other surveys. A detailed species list (Appendix 8-1

    Study Team

    Carlton Campbell: Cartography, GIS Analysis, Seagrass Mapping

    Matthew Lee: Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

    Rachel D’Silva: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Coral and Invertebrate Surveys

    Alec Silvera: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Water Quality

    Le’Anne Green: Seagrass Health Assessment

    Chauntelle Green: Fish Surveys

    Gina-Marie Maddix: Fish Surveys

    Christopher Burgess: Climate Change Projections, Oceanography and Hydrodynamics Hannah Marshall: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Tashae Thompson: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment


    Nicole West-Hayles: Stakeholder Consultations

    Appendix 8-2) and photo inventory were created.


    Reef Health Index

    In order to create a Reef Health Index, the following factors were considered and recorded:



    A score of 1-5 for each category was assigned; 1 being of poor health/quality; 5 being of excellent health. Anecdotal information and observations will also be considered in the overall health and description.


    Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.

    Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


    Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


    Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


    Figure 2-5 Benthic Transect and Roving Survey Areas


    Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


    Water Quality

    Water quality sampling exercises were conducted at thirty (30) stations (N1-N30) on May 14th, June 10th and July 2nd, 2021, with three more stations (N31, N32 and N33) being done as a one-time sample on July 10th, 2021, for a total of thirty-three (33) water quality sampling stations. Table 2-5 gives coordinates of sampling locations and is illustrated in Figure 2-6.

    Temperature, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) – light irradiance, total dissolved solids (TDS) and pH were collected using a Hydrolab DataSonde-5 water quality multi probe meter (Appendix 8- – Calibration Test Sheet) and light extinction through the water column was calculated from PAR values recorded.

    Water quality samples were collected in pre-sterilized bottles, stored on ice and taken to Caribbean Environmental Testing and Monitoring Services Limited (CETMS Ltd.) for analysis of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), phosphates and nitrates.

    The results of the data collected were compared with the Draft NRCA Ambient Marine water standards, 2009, where applicable.

    Table 2-5 Water quality sampling location coordinates


    STATION

    LOCATION (JAD2001)


    NORTHINGS

    EASTINGS

    N1

    689340.735872

    606808.672181

    N2

    689881.499661

    607936.142025

    N3

    689744.732119

    608198.224237

    N4

    689839.298468

    608384.200681

    N5

    689510.769045

    608626.683068

    N6

    689201.681753

    608206.460610

    N7

    689048.636247

    608804.762023

    N8

    688607.431150

    608752.962357

    N9

    688805.719274

    608401.282746

    N10

    688926.940000

    607863.560000

    N11

    688377.458101

    608211.796102

    N12

    688034.760000

    607641.310000

    N13

    687337.440000

    606902.320000

    N14

    687190.740000

    607792.300000


    STATION

    LOCATION (JAD2001)


    NORTHINGS

    EASTINGS

    N15

    687718.860000

    608232.400000

    N16

    686975.580000

    608428.004000

    N17

    686325.533583

    607875.848131

    N18

    686142.320000

    606687.160000

    N19

    685432.290000

    605728.710000

    N20

    685158.450000

    607616.260000

    N21

    685623.980000

    608369.320000

    N22

    684753.952504

    608304.887645

    N23

    683970.467452

    608259.652499

    N24

    684512.970000

    606472.000000

    N25

    683554.520000

    607391.320000

    N26

    683114.420000

    606276.400000

    N27

    682801.187097

    607073.476823

    N28

    682664.540000

    607997.680000

    N29

    681519.395840

    607464.932536

    N30

    681872.360000

    606696.940000

    N31

    681543.430135

    607915.813581

    N32

    690853.744713

    608405.440621

    N33

    690723.358199

    608562.469228



    Figure 2-6 Water quality sampling stations


    Oceanography and Hydrodynamics


    Wave Climate and Storm Surge

    The MIKE 21/3 Coupled FM Module Suite of computer programs was used to calculate the corresponding distribution of surface water elevation and waves in the area. MIKE 21/3 Coupled Model FM is a dynamic modelling system for application within coastal, estuaries, and river environments. The Suite simulates the mutual interaction between waves and currents using a dynamic coupling between the Hydrodynamic Module and the Spectral Wave Module. The two (2) modules are employed as:



Model Inputs

Wind Data

Wind data were gathered from predictive models and suggested relatively calm wind speeds (8m/s) from the dominant South-Eastern direction as seen in Figure 2-8. Wind data were retrieved from Hedonism II Station (IJAMAICA3) for the dates of the survey May 2nd to May 4th, 2021. This data was used to facilitate the calibration of the HD model.




Figure 2-8 Wind rose generated using data from underground weather for the dates of the survey May 2nd - 4th 2021.


Astronomical Tides

Tides have to do with the rise and fall of the sea level due to the effects of the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon and the rotation of the Earth. The Mike 21 software was introduced to produce acceptable and


Tidal Predictions

0.2


0.15


0.1


0.05


0


-0.05


-0.1


-0.15


-0.2

Date

Tidal Level (m)

accurate tidal height data. Mike 21 provided two (2) different tidal analysis and prediction modules. The tidal range for the Negril area was determined to be approximately 0.3m.


5/2/2021 0:00

5/2/2021 12:00

5/3/2021 0:00

5/3/2021 12:00

5/4/2021 0:00

5/4/2021 12:00

5/5/2021 0:00

Figure 2-9 Predicted tides for Negril from May 2nd – May 4th, 2021.


Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storm Surge

The methodology involves two sub-components; the generation of wind and pressure fields for each hurricane; modelling of wind fields in MIKE 21/3 FM Coupled Model to assess surface elevations at Negril.

Two modules in MIKE DHI were utilized to complete this assessment is outlined below:


  1. Tropical Cyclone Generator

  2. MIKE 21/3 FM Coupled Model

Tropical Cyclone Generation

The MIKE Cyclone Generation Tool was used to simulate the wind stress and atmospheric pressure gradients. The Young and Sobey parametric model was used to generate the wind and pressure field due to it being a


well-known strategy to mimic tropical cyclone surges. The input parameters to the model were extracted from the probabilistic tracks which were characterized by category 3-5 hurricane properties. The Saffir Simpson scale was used to categorize the storm wind speed, and central pressures, while the radius to maximum winds was done using an equation.

Equation 1 Radius to maximum winds (Rmax)



Figure 2-10 Probabilistic Best Track


A summary of the input parameters for the sensitivity models is presented in Table 2-6.


Table 2-6 The Vmax and Rmax for the simulations represented the intensity of the category of hurricane chosen.


Hurricane Category

Radius to maximum winds (Rmax) (km)

Maximum Sustained (Vmax) (mph)

Central Pressure (hPa) (mb)

3

46.0

111-129

945-965

4

43.0

130-156

920 -945

5

41.0

>157

<920


Data Collection

Bathymetry

Bathymetry can be described as the underwater topography of the seafloor. It generally describes the depths relative to a datum (mean sea level). It was necessary to collect this data and build a digital terrain model of the seafloor to better understand how deep-water waves will propagate into shallow waters and affect the shoreline.


Bathymetric Surveys (2021)

A bathymetric survey was conducted in June 2021 using an echo sounder. The survey was done along predefined gridlines running in a zig zap pattern from nearshore to a depth of 3 m. The data was corrected for tides and keel offset to ensure it was properly referenced to mean sea level (see Figure 2-11). Once this was completed, the new data was cross-referenced with the old data to ensure that there was no change in the bathymetric makeup of the project area. From the analysis it was deduced that they have been very minimal change in the seafloor characteristics, therefore the previous bathymetry data was deemed good for use. The project area characterized by seagrass meadows and patch reefs and a gentle nearshore slope. Wave transformation analysis was key in understanding the transformation of the deep-water waves to the shoreline, as they undergo refraction, shoaling, and diffraction.



Figure 2-11 Bathymetry surrounding Long Bay and Bloody Bay, Negril.


Drogue tracking


The current regime (i.e., patterns and speeds) in the coastal setting determines the ability of an area to flush and maintain sufficiently good water quality. Currents are generated mostly by winds, tides, and waves. For tides and winds the simplified mechanisms are as follows:


Tides - Rising tides will cause water to enter the bay and a portion will leave on a falling tide that follows. This will result in some exchange of water between the outside and inside of the project area. This result is dependent on the ratio of the water entering to the water leaving; this ratio is dependent on the tide range, hydraulic efficiency of the entrance, and the water internal depths.


Wind - Wind action over the water surface will generate a surface current that will essentially be in the direction of the wind. The wind-generated current will be a few degrees to the right of the wind, (in the northern hemisphere), owing to the Coriolis effect. If the fetch and duration are sufficient, the surface current speeds may approach 2-3% of the wind speeds.


Circulation patterns can be predicted by numerical, physical models or by field studies. Numerical models are most often used as they are more flexible and easier to use. They require field data with which to calibrate verify the model for use in a predictive model. The models are also robust enough to include the prediction of suspended sediments in the Bays.


Methodology


The drogue tracking missions took place from Sunday, May 2nd – to Tuesday, May 4th, 2021. Figure 2-12 shows deployment locations for drogue tracking. Eight (8) drogues were deployed; four (4) surface and four (4) sub- surface drogues (with depths ranging from 1 – 4 meters). At each location, the drogues were tracked during two

  1. separate sessions. One (1) session was held in the morning and one (1) session in the evening, to capture the falling and rising tides. The GPS and drogue log sheet results from the drogue tracking missions were incorporated into a database. The data was then analyzed to determine the current speed and directions, and current speed vectors were produced for the rising and falling tides.



    Figure 2-12 Deployment locations utilized for drogue tracking


    Drogue tracking measurements


    Sub-surface currents are generally slower than surface currents and range between 0.7 to 5.6cm/s in the seagrass meadows during the measurements.


    Sessions 1 and 2 (May 2nd, 2021)


    Falling Tide


    In session 1, the drogues were deployed at three (3) nearshore locations, and it was observed that the surface and subsurface currents moved generally in a southern direction. The speeds for the surface currents were observed to be faster and varied from 3.2 cm/s to 6.2 cm/s in a southern direction. While the subsurface currents varied from 3.6 cm/s to 5.6 cm/s in a southern direction.


    Rising Tide


    In session 2, the drogues were deployed at three (3) nearshore locations, and it was observed that the surface and subsurface currents moved mostly in a north-easterly direction. The speeds for the surface currents were observed to be faster and varied from 4.1 cm/s to 9.9 cm/s in a north-easterly direction. Whereas the subsurface currents varied from 1.5 cm/s to 5.3 cm/s in a north-easterly direction.


    Sessions 3 and 4 (May 3rd, 2021)


    Falling Tide


    In session 3, the drogues were deployed at five (5) offshore locations, and it was observed that the surface and subsurface currents moved generally in a southern direction. The speeds for the surface currents were observed to be faster and varied from 1.3 cm/s to 4.1 cm/s in a Southerly direction. While the subsurface currents varied from 0.3 cm/s to 3.4 cm/s in a South-Westerly direction.


    Rising Tide


    In session 4, the drogues were deployed at five (5) offshore locations, and it was observed that the surface and subsurface currents moved generally in a southern direction. The speeds for the surface currents were observed to be faster and varied from 1.8 cm/s to 5.3 cm/s in a Southerly direction. Whereas the subsurface currents varied from 0.9 cm/s to 2.6 cm/s in a Southerly direction.


    Sessions 5 and 6 (May 4th, 2021)


    Falling Tide


    In session 5, the drogues were deployed at two (2) offshore locations, and it was observed that the surface and subsurface currents moved generally in a south-eastern direction. The speeds for the surface currents were observed to be faster and varied from 1.0 cm/s to 5.3 cm/s in an Easterly direction. Whereas the subsurface currents varied from 0.7 cm/s to 5.7 cm/s in a South-Eastern direction.


    Rising Tide


    In session 6, the drogues were deployed at two (2) offshore locations, and it was observed that the surface and subsurface currents moved generally in a south-eastern direction. The speeds were generally faster for the surface currents and varied from 4.1 cm/s to 7.0 cm/s in an Easterly direction. Whereas the subsurface currents varied from 2.6 cm/s to 6.1cm/s in a south-easterly direction.


    Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment

    Raw bathymetric data and ocean current data were collected throughout the project areas of Long Bay and Bloody Bay. Future projections were done utilizing climate models that – according to previous studies – show more accurate predictions for the Caribbean region and Jamaica in particular. All other data used for this assessment have been collected from numerous secondary sources. Data was accumulated by reviewing articles, reports, and studies on the effect of climate change on seagrass. These were gathered and comprehensively reviewed and synthesized to deduce the vulnerability of the seagrass to increases in Mean Sea Level (MSL), Sea Surface Temperature (SST), and Ocean subsurface currents. Other factors such as wind, waves,


    rainfall and surface currents are not likely to have a great direct impact on seagrass distribution and as such were not included in this assessment.


    Method

    The following method was used to execute the vulnerability assessment:


    1. Determine seagrass vulnerability to climate related hazards


      1. Review of literature on the impact of temperature, currents and SLR on related variables on seagrass

    2. Assessing risk - The vulnerability and severity of the hazards were superimposed to estimate the potential impacts and losses of seagrass.

      1. Risk was determined by estimating the loss of seagrass from areas of critical value for each hazard.


      2. Susceptibility was estimated by looking at the changes between future and present climate values for each of the variables and comparing each, to relevant benchmarks for low, moderate and high susceptibility.


Stakeholder Engagement


Group Discussions

Group discussions were planned to be executed over a 3-day period targeting various demographic groupings:

  1. Craft vendors

  2. Farmers

  3. Fishers

  4. Residents

  5. Water sport operators


    Four (4) of the five (5) planned group discussion were successfully executed. The water sport group did not attend the scheduled session. Approximately forty-seven (47) individuals were reached as per Table 2-7.


    Table 2-7 Group discussion numbers according to gender


    #

    Stakeholder Group

    # Engaged

    Male

    Female

    Total

    1.

    Craft vendors

    0

    2

    2

    2.

    Farmers

    4

    0

    4

    3.

    Fishers

    28

    6

    34

    4.

    Residents

    3

    4

    7

    5.

    Water sport operators

    0

    0

    0

    6.

    TOTAL

    35

    12

    47


    Qualitative approaches were utilised guided by a semi-structured tool. The Tool explored various uses of the zone, key social challenges and solutions, social pressure on the zone, economic and social activities within the zone as well as overall perspectives for inclusive and sustainable management of the zone.


    Stakeholder Workshops and Community Consultations

    Stakeholder workshops and community consultations supports the seagrass meadows spatial distribution assessment in Bloody Bay and Long Bay within the Negril Environmental Protection Area (EPA). These activities are expected to some of the social drivers and threats to seagrass ecosystems and identify inclusive solutions.


    In this regard, primary and secondary sources utilizing qualitative and quantitative approaches were utilized in the capture of data. Three (3) main categories of activities were planned targeting stakeholders within the EPA. These include:



In addition to the methods above, it became necessary to complement these activities with targeted interviews as some key stakeholders were missed when other methods were utilised. To date, five (5) of the 8

- 10 planned activities have been executed in addition to two (2) unplanned interviews. The delivery rate is estimated at 70%.



Figure 2-13 Stakeholder Engagement survey tools log


A call was issued for trainees on the importance of Seagrass Ecosystems and Restoration Techniques. Approximately 60 individuals have expressed interest. The training will be delivered in two modules. Module 1 will focus on the importance of seagrass and will target all applicants. Module 2 will concentrate on the restoration techniques and will be delivered to individuals whose job requires the skills. These training are expected to be delivered on August 17, 2021, and September 2, 2021 respectively.

The final workshop for the presentation and validation for the seagrass meadows spatial distribution assessment is in the planning stage and tentatively set for Wednesday, September 8, 2021, at 9.00 a.m. via Zoom and a possible satellite location to enable the participation of those without digital access.


Mini Surveys

The main findings from the qualitative approach are being used to inform the design of the quantitative approach. The 20-point mini survey is in its final design state and is expected to be executed over a 2-day period beginning on Thursday, July 29, 2021. Ten survey assistants (SAs) identified and selected from within the EPA will implement the questionnaire on both the seaside and landside of the project area under the direct supervision of two members of the social scientist team.

Prior to field work, the SAs will undergo a brief training exercise that will expose them to the requirements of the TOR, the overall objective of the assignment, interviewing procedures, protocols, and ethical considerations. Additionally, the sampling methodology and the selection of respondents will be expounded on.

The spatial boundaries were demarcated at a 2km radius of the study area (Bloody Bay and Long Bay) to define the zone of influence. The 2011 population census published by the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) was used to determine the population of 5,581 by selecting the category of adults 20 years and older within the zone of influence. A confidence level was set at 90% with a margin of error of +/-5%. The sample size was calculated using Survey Monkey’s sample size calculator which returned a sample size of 260. Using the population figures within the zone of influence, a quota was set based on representative population of each parish. The survey will target general users, residents, business owners and operators as well as visitors to the space.

Table 2-8 Sample size calculation based on Enumeration Districts (ED)


#

Parish

# EDs

Population

Sample

(Quota)

Male

Female

Total

%

1.

Hanover

2

154

156

310

6

16

2.

Westmoreland

20

2,839

2,432

5,271

94

244

3.

TOTAL

22

2,993

2,588

5,581

100

260


Results


Seagrass Mapping

Figure 3-1 depicts the extent of seagrass within Long Bay and Bloody Bay. Both bays are dominated by Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), with some areas having Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass) and Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) as discrete beds and other areas with a mixed species composition.

The total estimated area of seagrass within Long Bay was 481.9 hectares (1,190.8 acres) and the estimated total for Bloody Bay was 95.1 hectares (235 acres).

Figure 3-2 depicts non-seagrass areas within the study area (pavement and patch reefs).





Replanted Seagrass Beds

At least three (3) different seagrass replanting projects have occurred within Long Bay and Bloody Bay over the past 18 years.

In March 2003, approximately 3,000 m2 of seagrass was removed from the nearshore of RIU Bloody Bay Hotel and replanted to the east of the donor areas (C.L. Environmental, 2004). This was done to facilitate the creation of a bathing beach for the hotel. The seagrass to be removed and replanted consisted primarily of Thalassia testudinum (96%), with the remainder being Syringodium filiforme and Halodule wrightii.

In September 2012, seagrass restoration activities were conducted in the Negril Marine Park area as part of the ‘Increasing Resilience of Coastal Ecosystems’ implemented by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA, 2015a). Shortly after, in October 2012, Hurricane Sandy uprooted 84% of the planted beds as well as naturally occurring seagrass beds along the entire length of the Negril coastline. Remedial planting took place in June 2013, where approximately 1,500 m2 of seagrass was replanted.

In December 2016, an estimated 570 m2 of seagrass was removed from the nearshore of the Royalton Negril Hotel and replanted nearby (Smith Warner International Ltd., 2017). This was done to facilitate the creation of a bathing beach for the hotel. The seagrass to be removed and replanted consisted primarily of Thalassia testudinum with interspersed Syringodium filiforme.

Figure 3-3 depicts the locations of the replanted seagrass beds.



Figure 3-3 Locations of replanted seagrass within Long Bay and Bloody Bay


Seagrass Health Assessment


Observational Results within the Long and Bloody Bay project area.

Water Quality and Bed Continuity


Within the Bloody Bay sampled area, siltation throughout the seagrass meadows was less prevalent within zones 1 and 2 and visibility through the water column was very clear, extending approximately thirty (30) meters. Seagrass meadows within the Bloody Bay area were observed to be less continuous towards the western end of Bloody Bay as well as around regions of patch reefs present. Syringodium sp. was observed to be more prevalent along transects within these western sections.

Within Long Bay, visibility extended approximately ten (10) meters with less visibility being associated with sites of high silt inputs including those located adjacent to the Pyramids (zone 3) as well as The Negril River (zone 10). Seagrass meadows within Long Bay though dense and extensive were observed to be affected by siltation throughout the entire area as most areas had various levels of smothering by sediment.

Fish and Invertebrate Species Prevalence


Within Bloody Bay, fish and benthic faunal communities were observed to have higher densities in comparison to Long Bay. This may suggest that Bloody Bay serves a greater function as a nursery area than Long Bay.

Anthropogenic Influences


Instances of anthropogenic alterations to seagrass meadows including propeller, anchor and hull damage which was noted within the nearshore portion of Bloody Bay. Within Long Bay, propellor damage was observed within the eastmost end of the project area (beach associated with Hedonism Hotel) as well as various anchoring sites being observed along the nearshore.

Seagrass Flowering


Within the entire project area, a multiple species (Syringodium sp and Thalassia sp.) seagrass flowering event was observed. This is a notable sighting as significant knowledge gaps regarding this information are present within the Caribbean region (Plate 3-1, Plate 3-2).



Plate 3-1 Male flower of Thalassia testudinum (arrow) found in core sample taken in Bloody Bay



Plate 3-2 Female flower of Syringodium filiforme found in Long Bay


Grouping of transect and core samples into zones for statistical analysis

In order to conduct statistical analysis on the collected datasets, the statistical program STATISTICA was utilized. Data collected was then manipulated into the grouping variable ‘zone’ which was based on corresponding transect names (Table 3-2) as well as core samples taken along a transect line (Table 3-3).

Table 3-1 Grouping of Long Bay transect names into zones.


Zone

Transect

1

LBT1

2

LBT2

3

LBT3

4

LBT4

5

LBT5

7

LBT7


Zone

Transect

8

LBT8

10

LBT10


Table 3-2 Grouping of Bloody Bay transects names into zones


Zone

Transect

1

BBT1

2

BBT2

3

BBT3

4

BBT4

5

BBT5

6

BBT6

7

BBT7


Table 3-3 Grouping of Booby Cay core sites into zones


Zone

Site

1

BB C1A

BB C1B

2

BB C2A

BB C2B

3

BB C3A

BB C3B

4

BB C4A

BB C4B

5

BB C5A

BB C5B


Zone

Site

6

BB C6A

BB C6B

7

BB C7A

BB C7B


The Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) Test is used to determine if the relationship between two sets of data are statistically significant. Where significant, it is suggested that there is a strong chance that an observed numerical change in one value is related to an observed change in another value.

Within the dataset, this test was utilized to further describe sampled parameters related to replicate cores taken at each transect which was grouped into the category ‘zone’ (Table 3-3).

Statistical tests conducted on the biological and physiochemical parameters sampled within designated zones (Table 3-2, Table 3-3) indicated few instances of statistical difference among sampled parameters as indicated by analysis of variance tests conducted on datasets for each Bloody Bay () and Long Bay (Table 3-8).

According to blue carbon analysis conducted within the studied areas, results generated suggests that the Long Bay project area indicated higher levels of carbon storage within seagrass meadows (soil and vegetative components) present.


Bloody Bay

Table 3-4 Summary results from analysis of variance and ranking among seagrass parameters in Bloody Bay


Parameter

Transformation

df

p. value

Tukey’s range test (highest to lowest)

Avg. Blade Length (cm)

N/A

7

0.474

3-2-7-4-1-5-6

Avg. Blade Width (cm)

N/A

7

0.862

3-2-1-7-4-5-6

Number of Blades (n)

N/A

7

0.247

6-7-1-5-4-2-3

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.473

3-2-5-1-4-7-6


Epiphyte wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.151

3-5-4-2-7-1-6

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.993

5-2-1-3-7-4-6

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.426

3-1-5-2-7-6-4

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.537

3-1-5-6-7-2-4

Avg. Soil Wet wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.251

6-7-5-1-3-2-4

Soil Dry wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.154

6-7-5-1-3-4-2

Soil Ash Free Dry wt. (g)

N/A

7

0.113

6-7-5-1-3-4-2

Depth (cm)

N/A

7

0.073

7-6-3-5-2-4-1

Core Depth (cm)

N/A

7

0.472

6-3-7-5-1-2-4

Amount of Soil Carbon in Core (MgC)/ zone

N/A

7

0.728

1-3-6-7-5-2-4

Carbon in shoot biomass (MgC)/ zone

N/A

7

0.583

6-7-5-4-2-1-3

Carbon in root/rhizome layer (MgC)/ zone

N/A

7

0.077

6-7-3-5-4-2-1

Total Vegetative Carbon (MgC)/ site

N/A

7

0.154

6-7-5-3-4-2-1


Vegetative Component

Shoot Component


Mean Blade Density (numbers/m2)


The highest mean number of blades was found in zone six (6) with a value of eighteen (18) blades per square meter while the lowest was found in zones 3 and 2 with a value of seven (7) blades each (Figure 3-4).

According to the Tukey’s range test conducted for this parameter (Table 3-4) these zones were ranked from the lowest to highest in the order (3,2,4,5,1,7,6). Of these, it was determined that all belonged to the same homologous group.



Figure 3-4 Mean blade density collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Mean Blade Length (cm)


Mean blade length across zones ranged from 26.52cm – 11.87cm (Figure 3-5). The greatest mean blade length was recorded at zone 3, this was followed by zones 2, 7, 4, 1, 5 and 6. According to statistics carried out on this dataset, zone 3 was seen to possess the greatest variation around the mean (STDEV and SE) (Appendix 8-). All zones sampled shared the same homologous grouping within this parameter.



Figure 3-5 Mean blade length collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Mean Blade Width (cm)


Blade widths per zone ranged from 0.76 cm – 0.37 cm with the highest width being located along zone 3 followed by zones 2, 1, 7, 4, 5 and 6 respectively (Figure 3-6). Within this dataset, zone 6 recorded the greatest variations about mean values (STDEV and SE) while zone 2 was found to possess the least (Appendix 8-).

Values here are seen to decrease gradually from zones 2 to 6 after which a slight increase is seen at zone 7.



Figure 3-6 Mean blade width collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Mean Above Ground Wet Weight (g)


Mean above ground wet weight among zones indicated that weights varied between 14.45g at zone 3 and 4.45g at zone 6 (Figure 3-7). Ranking of zones according to Tukey’s range test (3, 2, 5, 1, 4, 7, 6) indicated that the data formed one homologous grouping. Values here are seen to increase steadily from zones 1 to 3 after which a downward trend is seen.



Figure 3-7 Mean above ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Zones located closer to the eastmost section of Bloody Bay therefore possess higher above ground wet weight values than those within western zone (4, 5) as well as central and deeper zones (6,7). The wet weight of aboveground (grass/shoot/blade) components of seagrasses can be attributed to blade lengths and widths as surface area of these seagrass blades may create greater potential for epiphytic growth, water storage. This may also result in higher biomasses present. These factors however are not definitive. The intensity of feeding relationships by grazing species within seagrass meadows as well as blade damage from natural and anthropogenic factors have the potential to influence the aboveground biomass present with a seagrass area.

Epiphyte Weight (g)


Mean epiphyte weights among zones indicated that weights varied between 3.20g at zone 3 and 0.65g at zone 6 (Figure 3-8). Ranking of zones from lowest to highest according to Tukey’s range test (6, 1, 7, 2, 4, 5, 3) indicated that the data formed one homologous group.



Figure 3-8 Mean epiphyte weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


The presence and type of epiphytes though not ubiquitous, can be used as a factor in the determination of nutrients present within an area. Where epiphytes present are predominantly fleshy or filamentous it can be suggested that higher nutrient values may be present. Within the dataset, the largest number of epiphytes were noted at the innermost sampled zone, zone 3 (Figure 2-1). This zone also possessed the highest average blade length observed within samples.

Mean above ground dry weight (g)


Mean above ground dry weight indicated that the highest weight was found in zone 5 (1.05g) while the lowest was found in zone 6 (0.71g) (Figure 3-9). Among zones, zone 6 was seen to show the highest variability around mean values (STDEV and STE) while zones 2 and 3 showed the lowest. Ranking of zones according to Tukey’s range test from lowest to highest (6, 7, 4, 3, 1, 2, 5) indicated that the data formed one homologous group

(Figure 3-9).



Figure 3-9 Mean above ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Mean below ground wet weight (g)


Mean below ground wet weight per zone was seen to vary between values of 43.95g in zone 4 and 150.60g in zone 3 (Figure 3-10) Across zones, zone 5 and 6 showed the highest variability about mean values (Appendix 8-). Due to the highly trafficked nature of the seagrass meadows within Bloody Bay, to ensure community stability and growth, grasses present may need to adapt high wave and current energy. Zone 1, located at the eastern end of Bloody Bay receives high current and wave energy from the water sports entertainment industry. These zones, as indicated in Table 3-7 are two of the shallower zones within Bloody Bay and so are affected by these higher wave energies which may result in more extensive belowground components. The

influence of nutrients from runoff and groundwater upwellings may also be attributed to increased vegetative growth.



Figure 3-10 Mean above ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Mean below ground dry weight (g)


Mean below ground dry weight per zone was seen to be highest at zone 3 with a value of 43.45g and lowest at zone 4 reported at 10.75g (Figure 3-11). According to further statistical analysis within this dataset, zone 5 had the highest variability among mean values while zone 4 possessed the least variability (Appendix 8-).



Figure 3-11 Mean below ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay


Mean Carbon in Grass Component (MgC/ha)/zone.


Within the aboveground (grass) components of the samples taken, zone 7 had the highest carbon per hectare with a value of 0.09MgC/ha while zone 3 indicated the least (Figure 3-12). Of this dataset, zone 6 had the highest variability about mean values (Appendix 8-).



Figure 3-12 Carbon in shoot biomass per zone located within Bloody Bay


The aboveground/ shoot component within seagrasses is the most vulnerable as they are subjected to grazing by fauna present within the seagrass meadow, high wave activity, boat damage, trampling and other natural and anthropogenic factors. As a result, seagrasses within shallow but undisturbed areas have the potential to proliferate at optimal rates under limiting factors such as water depth, nutrient availability, grazing and so on. However, when subjected to constant disturbances, loss of shoots will become more common through cropping and breakage. Zone 7 indicated the highest man carbon shoot value across datasets, this may be due to the depth at which samples were taken. Where depth increases, a buffer zone between sea surface disturbances and seagrass is created as wave energy may not create a significant prolonged disturbance of the seagrass meadow present. This may also be applied to zone 3, the shallowest zone across sampled areas.

Mean Carbon in Root/Rhizome Component (MgC/ha)


Within the belowground component of samples taken, zone 6 indicated the highest values at 0.24 MgC/ha followed by zones 7, 3, 5, 4, 1 and 2 respectively (Figure 3-13). Of these zones, zone 3 indicated the highest variability about mean values (Appendix 8-).



Figure 3-13 Mean carbon in root/rhizome component (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay

When referring to carbon storage in seagrasses, it is necessary to break down vegetative components into both shoot and root portions. This is due to the capacity of roots to store carbon more effectively than shoots (above ground components) as seagrass blades are subject to a wider range of disturbances. The root and rhizome layer are also significant in the transferral of carbon to surrounding substrates. This layer is therefore a significant factor in the capacity for seagrass meadows to sequester and store carbon over long periods of time.


Productivity

Productivity quadrat analysis was carried out within aforementioned zones along with two (2) seagrass relocation sites located adjacent to the RIU hotel located within Bloody Bay. Within this dataset, results from seagrass productivity methods indicated that the site with the highest productivity was BB RIU P2 with a value


of 0.011 g/m2/day while the lowest productivity was seen at BB P7 (the deepest zone) with a value of 0.002 g/m2/day (Figure 3-14).



Figure 3-14 Seagrass productivity per zone within Bloody Bay.


Results seen within this parameter may be due to the shallow and nearshore nature of the seagrass meadows present within this area. These characteristics allow for increased light penetration through the water column to aid in photosynthetic processes for longer periods of time. Notably, samples were taken while the adjacent RIU hotel was not in use and so were not heavily influenced by human traffic which would result in trampling of the seagrass bed as well as increased turbidity within the water column, otherwise significant influences in seagrass growth. Productivity being the least at zone 7 may be due to the inverse relationship between depth and light penetration.


Percentage Cover and Canopy Height

Average percentage cover and canopy height per transect indicated that along transects, the seagrass species Thalassia testudinum was seen to have the highest percentage cover along zones sampled (Figure 3-15). The highest percentage cover was seen within the east-most transect, BBT1. The seagrass species Syringodium filiforme was seen to become increasingly prominent towards the western portion of the sampling area with highest percentage cover being recorded at BBT5 at a value of twenty-one percent (21.7%). Within this transect Halodule wrightii was noted along BBT6 and had an average value of 0.02%. This species was not observed along the other sampled areas. Macroalgal species within this area had the highest percentage cover along BBT1 with a percentage cover of 4.9% and was lowest at BBT2 (0.2%).



Figure 3-15 Average percentage cover and canopy height per transect within Bloody Bay


Average canopy height within the sampled transects within Bloody Bay indicated that BBT3 possessed blades with the highest canopy height of the zones sampled within Bloody Bay with an average canopy height value of 27.9cm (Table 3-5). The transect which was seen to have the lowest canopy heights was BBT6 with an average value of 16.0cm per m2.

Table 3-5 Average Canopy Height (cm) per transect within Bloody Bay


Transect

Average Canopy

Height (cm)

BBT1

20.6

BBT2

17.3

BBT3

27.9

BBT4

25.2

BBT5

19.5

BBT6

16.0

BBT7

17.3


Soil Component

Mean Soil Wet Weight, Dry Weight and Ash Free Dry Weight (g)


Mean soil wet weights varied between 1462g at zone 6 to 780g at zone 4 (Figure 3-16). Here, mean soil wet weights showed no statistically significant variations with an ANOVA test p-value of 0.251 and one homologous grouping generated by Tukey’s range test (4, 2, 3, 1, 5, 7, 6) (Table 3-4). Mean values for soil dry weight indicated the highest mean being located at zone 6 with a value of 970g, while the lowest mean value was present in zone 4 with a value of 506g (Figure 3-16). Across the dataset for the soil parameters mentioned, zone 1 possessed the highest variability about mean values while zone 7 possessed the least (Appendix 8-). The parameter average soil dry weight showed no statistically significant variations with an ANOVA test p-value of 0.153 within which all zones were grouped within one homologous group and ranked from lowest to highest (2, 4, 3, 1, 5, 7, 6) (Table 3-4). Mean weight values for this parameter indicated highest values within zone 6 and lowest mean within zone 2. Ash free dry weight per zone showed no statistical difference among zones with an ANOVA test p-value of 0.113 (Table 3-4). The highest mean value among zones was seen in zone 6 (947.35g) and the lowest at zone 2 (454.75g).



Figure 3-16 Average soil wet, dry and ash free dry weights (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Mean Soil Carbon Content per zone (MgC/ha)


Of the seven (7) zones, soil carbon content was highest in zone 1 with a value of 75.44 MgC/ha and lowest at zone 4 (25.76 MgC/ha) (Figure 3-17). Within this dataset, zone 1 was seen to have the highest variability about mean values while zones 4 and 7 possessed the least (Appendix 8-). According to Tukey’s range test, zones


were ranked from lowest to highest carbon values in the order of zone 4, 2, 5, 7, 6, 3, 1 with all groups forming one homogenous grouping (Table 3-4).



Figure 3-17 Mean soil carbon content per zone (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Bloody Bay.

Zone 1, the east-most dataset indicated highest levels of soil carbon. This may be due to the nature of its location. Within the sampling period, traffic within this area was minimal and not heavily utilized by marine vessel operators. This zone is also fairly shallow, resulting in a greater potential for photosynthetic activity and primary production. This will then influence the capacity for seagrass meadows here to store carbon. Other influences within the area include the adjacent mangrove forest along this portion of Bloody Bay. Here, wave activity may carry nutrient rich sediments from these adjacent areas and deposit them in the nearby seagrass meadow located at zone one where they are allowed to settle due to reduced wave energies.


Physicochemical Component

Of the water quality samples collected within Bloody Bay. The following stations were selected and used to describe transects taken with this area (Table 3-6).


Table 3-6 Water quality stations for corresponding transects sampled within zone


Transect

WQ Station

BBT1

N3

BBT2

N4

BBT3

N5

BBT4

N8

BBT5

N11

BBT6

N6

BBT7

N9


Physicochemical parameters within Bloody Bay indicated various trends across parameters (Table 3-7). According to the results obtained, depth across zones indicated an increasing trend from zones 1 -7 with highest depth values being recorded at zones 6 and 7 while lowest depths were located at zones 1, 2 and 4 respectively (Table 3-7). Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) within the seagrass area sampled within Bloody Bay indicated highest values within zones 2 and 1 (the shallowest zones within the Bloody Bay sample area). Lowest PAR values were located at zones 5 and 6. Average turbidity across zones sampled indicated turbidity was highest within the sampled areas of shallow depths (zones 1 and 2). Average pH, TDS and conductivity values remained stable at an average of 8.2, 35 (g/l) and 55 (mS/cm) throughout the sample area and are not statistically significant throughout the sampled area. Average dissolved oxygen (mg/l) fluctuated between values of 5.68 at zone 1 and 6.08 at zone 4.

Table 3-7 Average values for physicochemical results per zone within Bloody Bay


ZONE

Depth

(cm)

AVG TEMP. °C

AVG COND

(mS/cm)

AVG SAL

(ppt)

AVG pH

AVG D.O.

(mg/l)

AVG Turb

(NTU)

AVG TDS

(g/l)

AVG PAR

(uE/cm/s)

1

274.32

29.49

55.71

37.05

8.21

5.68

0.64

35.66

1171.78

2

320.04

29.59

55.54

36.92

8.20

5.89

1.75

35.54

1377.00

3

335.28

29.47

55.77

37.08

8.21

5.97

0.25

35.69

892.07

4

320.04

29.60

55.69

37.04

8.22

6.08

0.21

35.69

936.89

5

335.28

29.37

55.76

37.08

8.21

5.92

0.35

35.69

687.53

6

533.40

29.32

55.79

37.11

8.22

5.97

0.11

35.71

702.86

7

579.12

29.40

55.79

37.11

8.21

5.96

0.13

35.71

931.10


Long Bay


Table 3-8 Summary results from analysis of variance and ranking among seagrass parameters per zone in Long Bay


Parameter

Transformation

df

p. value

Tukey’s range test (highest to lowest)

Avg. Blade Length (cm)

N/A

8

0.659

4-3-8-5-10-7-2-1

Avg. Blade Width (cm)

N/A

8

0.459

3-7-4-2-8-1-5-10

Number of Blades (n)

N/A

8

0.221

4-10-2-5-8-1-3-7

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.395

4-8-5-10-2-3-7-1

Epiphyte wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.336

5-8-2-10-4-7-3-1

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.315

4-3-10-7-8-5-2-1

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.107

2-4-3-5-1-7-8-10

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.118

2-4-3-5-1-7-8-10

Soil Wet wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.359

1-4-2-5-3-7-10-8

Soil Dry wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.877

4-2-1-5-10-7-8-3

Soil Ash Free Dry wt. (g)

N/A

8

0.784

4-2-1-5-8-7-3-10

Depth (cm)

N/A

8

0.698

10-8-5-7-4-3-2-1

Core Depth (cm)

N/A

8

0.098

1-5-3-4-2-10-7-8

Amount of Soil Carbon in Core (MgC)/ zone

N/A

8

0.563

10-7-4-3-1-5-2-8

Carbon in shoot biomass (MgC)/ zone

N/A

8

0.559

7-3-10-4-1-2-5-8

Carbon in root/rhizome layer (MgC)/ zone

N/A

8

0.059

7-1-3-4-5-8-10

2-7-1-3-4-5-8

Total Vegetative Carbon (MgC)/ site

N/A

8

0.227

2-7-3-1-4-5-10-8


Vegetative Component

Shoot Component


Mean Blade Density (numbers/m2)


The highest mean number of blades was found in zone four (4) with a value of sixteen (16) blades per square meter while the lowest was found in zone 7 with a value of seven (7) blades each (Figure 3-18). According to the Tukey’s range test conducted for this parameter (Table 3-8) these zones were ranked from the lowest to highest in the order (3,2,4,5,1,7,6). Of these, it was determined that all belonged to the same homologous group.



Figure 3-18 Mean blade density collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay


Mean Blade Length (cm)


Within Long Bay, mean blade length across zones ranged from 22.73cm – 14cm (Figure 3-19). The greatest mean blade length was recorded at zone 4, this was followed by zones 3, 8, 10, 5, 7, 2 and 1 respectively (). According to statistics carried out on this dataset, zone 5 was seen to possess the greatest variation around


the mean (STDEV and SE) (Appendix 8-). All zones sampled shared the same homologous grouping within this parameter.



Figure 3-19 Mean blade length collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay


Mean Blade Width (cm)


Blade widths per zone ranged from 0.94 cm – 0.62 cm with the highest width being located along zone 3 followed by zones 7,4,2,8,1,5 and 10 respectively (Figure 3-20). Of these zones, blade widths did not vary significantly (Table 3-8). Zone 10 recorded the greatest variations about mean values (STDEV and SE) while zone 2 was found to possess the least (Appendix 8-).



Figure 3-20 Mean blade width collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay


Mean Above Ground Wet Weight (g)


Mean above ground wet weight among zones indicated that weights varied between 9.9g at zone 4 and 4.2g at zone 1 (Figure 3-21). Ranking of zones according to Tukey’s range test (4, 10, 2, 5, 8, 1, 3, 7) indicated no homologous groupings (Table 3-8).



Figure 3-21 Mean above ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.


Epiphyte Weight (g)


Mean epiphyte weights among zones indicated that weights varied between 2.50g at zone 5 and 0.55g at zone 1 (Figure 3-22). Ranking of zones from lowest to highest according to Tukey’s range test (5, 8, 2, 10, 4, 7, 3, 1) indicated that the data formed one homologous group (Table 3-8).



Figure 3-22 Mean epiphyte weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.


Mean above ground dry weight (g)


Mean above ground dry weight indicated that the highest weight was found in zone 4 (0.95g) while the lowest was found in zone 1 (0.35g) (Figure 3-23). Among zones, zone 3 was seen to show the highest variability around mean values (STDEV and STE) while zones 5 and 8 showed the lowest. Ranking of zones according to Tukey’s range test from lowest to highest (4, 3, 10, 7, 8, 5, 2, 1) indicated that the data formed one homologous group (Table 3-8).



Figure 3-23 Mean above ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay


Mean below ground wet weight (g)


Mean below ground wet weight per zone was seen to vary between values of 148.70g in zone 2 and 11.10g in zone 10 (Figure 3-24). Across zones, zone 2 showed the highest variability about mean values (Appendix 8-). No homologous groups were present here (Table 3-8).



Figure 3-24 Mean below ground wet weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.


Mean below ground dry weight (g)


Mean below ground dry weight per zone was seen to be highest at zone 2 with a value of 48.70g and lowest at zone 10 reported at 1.85g (Figure 3-25). According to further statistical analysis within this dataset, zone 2 had the highest variability among mean values while zone 3 possessed the least variability (Appendix 8-).



Figure 3-25 Mean below ground dry weight (g) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.


Mean Carbon in Grass Component (MgC/ha)/zone.


Within the aboveground (grass) components of the samples taken, zone 7 had the highest carbon per hectare with a value of 0.074MgC/ha while zone 4 indicated the least (0.046 MgC/ha) (Figure 3-26). Of this dataset, zone 5 had the highest variability about mean values (Appendix 8-).



Figure 3-26 Mean carbon in grass component (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.


Mean Carbon in Root/Rhizome Component (MgC/ha)


Within the belowground vegetative (root/rhizome) component of samples taken, zone 2 indicated the highest values at 0.22 MgC/ha followed by zones 7, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10 respectively (Figure 3-27). Of these zones, two homologous groupings were determined by statistical analysis (Tukey’s HSD) (Table 3-8).



Figure 3-27 Mean carbon in root/rhizome component (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.


Of the zones sampled within Long Bay, this was the only parameter to show more than one homologous grouping. In order to further describe the data presented, A Tukey’s analysis was conducted to determine this variance. Results showed significant differences between zones 2 and 8 (p=0.034).


Productivity

Productivity quadrat analysis was carried out within aforementioned zones along with one (1) seagrass relocation within Long Bay. Results obtained from seagrass productivity quadrats indicated that the site with the highest productivity was LB P5 with a value of 0.0097 g/m2/day while the lowest productivity was seen at LB P2 with a value of 0.00 g/m2/day (Figure 3-28).



Figure 3-28 Seagrass productivity per zone within Long Bay.


Percentage Cover and Canopy Height

Average percentage cover and canopy height per transect indicated that along transects, the seagrass species Thalassia testudinum was seen to have the highest percentage cover along zones sampled with a maximum cover of seventy-four present (74%) within zone 2 (Figure 3-29). The lowest percentage cover of this species was seen within the transect, LBT7. Among other species, the presence of Syringodium sp. Is seen to gradually increase towards the western portion of Long Bay with the highest percentage being located along LBT7 along with that of various macroalgal species. Halodule was not recorded within the sample area.



Figure 3-29 Average percentage cover and canopy height per transect within Long Bay.


Average canopy height within the sampled transects within Long Bay indicated that LBT3 possessed blades with the highest canopy height of the zones sampled within Bloody Bay with an average canopy height value of 24.1cm (Table 3-9). The transect which was seen to have the lowest canopy heights was LBT10 with an average value of 16.0cm per m2. This result may be due to light being a limiting factor within this area (Negril River Mouth).

Table 3-9 Average Canopy Height (cm) per transect within Long Bay.


Transect

Average Canopy Height

LBT1

21.7

LBT2

18

LBT3

24.1

LBT4

22.3

LBT5

17.9

LBT7

16.9

LBT8

15.6

LBT10

16


Soil Component

Mean Soil Wet Weight, Dry Weight and Ash Free Dry Weight (g)


Mean soil wet weights varied between 1513.4g at zone 1 to 1072.15g at zone 8 (Figure 3-30). Here, mean soil wet weights showed no statistically significant variations with an ANOVA test p-value of 0.251 and one homologous grouping generated by Tukey’s range test (4, 2, 3, 1, 5, 7, 6) (Table 3-8)Mean values for soil dry weight indicated the highest mean being located at zone 6 with a value of 970g, while the lowest mean value was present in zone 4 with a value of 506g. Across the dataset for the soil parameters mentioned, zone 1 possessed the highest variability about mean values while zone 7 possessed the least (Appendix 8-, Appendix 8-, Appendix 8-). The parameter average soil dry weight showed no statistically significant variations with an ANOVA test p-value of 0.153 within which all zones were grouped within one homologous group and ranked from lowest to highest (2, 4, 3, 1, 5, 7, 6) (Table 3-8)Mean weight values for this parameter indicated highest values within zone 6 and lowest mean within zone 2. Ash free dry weight per zone showed no statistical difference among zones with an ANOVA test p-value of 0.113 (Table 3-8)The highest mean value among zones was seen in zone 6 (947.35g) and the lowest at zone 2 (454.75g).



Figure 3-30 Average soil wet, dry and ash free dry weights (g) per zone in Long Bay


Mean Soil Carbon Content per zone (MgC/ha)


Of the eight (8) zones, soil carbon content was highest in zone 10 with a value of 142.64 MgC/ha and lowest at zone 8 (53.94 MgC/ha) (Figure 3-31). Within this dataset, zone 10 was seen to have the highest variability about mean values while zones 8 possessed the least (Appendix 8-). According to Tukey’s range test, zones were ranked from lowest to highest carbon values in the order of zone 10, 7, 4, 3, 1, 5, 2 and 1 with all groups forming one homogenous grouping (Table 3-8).



Figure 3-31 Mean soil carbon content per zone (MgC/ha) collected in core samples per zone within Long Bay.

Results observed in zone 10 may be due to the presence of the Negril River. Being heavily influenced by mangrove forests, this area is expected to have fairly high carbon values as organic carbon stored within vegetative components within mangrove ecosystems will continuously empty into the adjacent marine ecosystem.


Physicochemical Component

Physicochemical parameters within Long Bay indicated various trends across parameters (Table 3-10). According to results from water quality analysis conducted, depth across zones indicated an increasing trend from zones 1 -10 with highest depth values being recorded at zones 10 and 8 while lowest depths were


located at zones 1, 2 and 3 respectively (Table 3-10). Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) within the seagrass area sampled within Long Bay indicated highest values within zones 8, 5 and 1. The lowest PAR value was located at zone 10, located just adjacent to the mouth of the Negril River. Average turbidity across zones sampled indicated turbidity was highest within zones 1 and 2. High average turbidity within zone 1 may be due to the high marine vessel traffic experiences within this area as well as shallow depths while zone 10 may be a result of river inputs into this area. Average pH, TDS and conductivity values remained stable at averages of 8.2, 35 (g/l) and 55 (mS/cm) throughout the sampled area. Average dissolved oxygen (mg/l) fluctuated between values of 5.60 at zone 1 and 6.23 at zones 3 and 8.


Table 3-10 Physicochemical parameters per transect in Long Bay



Zone

Depth (cm)

Avg.Temp.

°C

Avg. Cond (mS/cm)

Avg. Sal (ppt)

Avg. pH

Avg. D.O.

(mg/l)

Avg. Turb (NTU)

Avg. TDS

(g/l)

Avg. PAR

(uE/cm/s)

LB T1

1

350.292

29.4

55.73

37.0617

8.1814

5.6031

4.4833

35.6547

965.8

LB T2

2

365.76

29.4

55.75

37.0847

8.2135

6.1072

0.6533

35.6927

776.5

LB T3

3

381

29.3

55.76

37.0756

8.2309

6.2362

0.0000

35.6911

691.7

LB T4

4

411.48

29.6

55.77

37.1062

8.2251

6.1429

0.0000

35.7222

843.8

LB T5

5

457.2

29.6

55.75

37.1117

8.2300

6.3425

0.0000

35.7117

984.5

LB T7

7

457.2

29.3

55.82

37.1321

8.2242

6.1138

0.0875

35.7317

735.2

LB T8

8

487.68

29.5

55.86

37.1513

8.2300

6.2313

0.0000

35.7420

998.3

LB T10

10

502.97

29.0

49.50

33.5144

8.1600

5.6264

2.9000

32.2936

392.7


Comparative Total Carbon Storage within Sampled Area and Estimated Carbon within the Long and Bloody Bay Project Area.


Within both sampled areas, Bloody Bay possessed the lower carbon value with a total sampled vegetative carbon value of 3.36 megagrams of carbon (MgC) being observed while Long Bay had a vegetative carbon storage value of 3.40 megagrams of carbon (MgC) (Figure 3-32).



Figure 3-32 Total Vegetative Carbon in Sampled Area


Based on the results obtained from sampled and analysed datasets, estimates were made to further describe the status of blue carbon storage within the project area. Using the determined total seagrass area within the Long and Bloody Bays, blue carbon storage within the Bloody Bay vegetative component was estimated at approximately 319.95 megagrams of carbon (MgC) (Figure 3-33). Blue carbon storage within this component in Long Bay was estimated at 1639.03 megagrams of carbon (MgC).



Figure 3-33 Total Vegetative Carbon Estimated within Project Areas.


Formal reporting of these figures with standard deviations within the datasets results in the following:


Total Vegetative Carbon within Bloody Bay Project Area is 319.95 ± 0.044 Total Vegetative Carbon within Long Bay Project Area is 1639.03 ± 0.033


Within the sampled areas designated within Long and Bloody Bay, total soil blue carbon content was found to be greatest within Long Bay with a total value of 1351.77 MgC. Total soil carbon within Bloody Bay was found to be 567.70 MgC (Figure 3-34).



Figure 3-34 Total Soil Carbon Content in Sampled Area (MgC)


Based on the results gathered within soil samples, blue carbon storage was greatest within Long Bay, accounting for 651419.54 MgC while Bloody Bay reported a total soil carbon value of 53988.02 MgC (Figure

3-35). Information notable within the Long Bay dataset indicated a spike in carbon values at zone 10. This zone is located adjacent to the Negril River. It can be suggested that this spike in organic carbon within the dataset is due to the influences of carbon with peat and vegetative components of the nearby mangrove forest present along this river. Water here appeared brownish/red a common characteristic of “peaty” soils which tend to be much higher in carbon content due to the greater presence of organic matter and thus organic carbon.



Figure 3-35 Total Soil Carbon in Project Area (MgC)


Formal reporting of soil carbon values within Long and Bloody Bay including standard deviations within the dataset are as follows:

Total Soil Carbon within Bloody Bay Project Area is 53988.02 ± 17.638 Total Soil Carbon within Long Bay Project Area is 651419.54 ± 31.121

Anthropogenic and Natural Impacts to Seagrass


Anthropogenic Impacts

Observed potential influences and impacts (both natural and anthropogenic) on seagrass communities were mapped throughout the project areas. These included; Boat Launching and Landing Sites, Boat Moorings and Drains and Gullies. Other potential seagrass impacts included: anchor damage, propeller damage, fish pots, vessel refuelling, construction activities, coastal modification, trampling by recreational users, smothering from solid waste, water quality deterioration, removal of seagrass, high activity areas and solid waste (land- based and from vessels).

Other solid waste sources include; littering within study area was observed from multiple sources:



Boat Launching and Landing Sites

Twenty-six (26) boat/vessel launching and landing sites (Plate 3-3, Plate 3-4) were observed and mapped throughout the project area (Table 3-11, Figure 3-36). Related activities such as evidence of boat repair/maintenance (Plate 3-5) and fuelling activities (Plate 3-6), propeller damage and anchor damage (Plate 3-7 - Plate 3-9) was also observed. These activities result in high usage area in and around the seagrass meadows.

Table 3-11 Coordinates of Boat launching and landing sites in JAD 2001


Eastings

Northings

607941.910

682050.578

608783.450

689699.208

608961.060

689172.942

608206.648

687850.716

608771.393

689677.657

608929.812

689159.255

608933.612

688981.335

608994.471

689172.375

608832.278

688558.883

608649.202

687190.146

608682.636

686904.538

608356.630

685476.934

608499.737

684956.236

608508.446

684485.847

608481.243

683933.887

608418.769

683226.989

608340.545

682891.103

608310.492

682868.604

608264.406

682734.927

607932.534

682048.387

608820.175

688577.850

608511.586

688204.877

608717.375

686507.323


Eastings

Northings

608551.540

685486.747

608365.608

683148.238

608345.253

682977.299



Plate 3-3 Boat on trailer parked on beach



Plate 3-4 Boats docked along shoreline



Plate 3-5 Boat repair and maintenance



Plate 3-6 Fuel container on beach



Plate 3-7 Anchor in seagrass meadow



Plate 3-8 Scarring in seagrass from boat anchor or boat propeller



Plate 3-9 Evidence of an anchor dragging through a seagrass meadow




Figure 3-36 Boat launching and landing sites


Boat Moorings

One hundred and sixty-four (164) boat moorings were observed and mapped throughout the project area (Table 3-12, Figure 3-37). Some moorings were observed within seagrass meadows, while others were observed in sand patches and patch reefs. There were noticeable halos around the base of some moorings, devoid of seagrass.

Table 3-12 Coordinates of boat moorings in JAD 2001


Easting (X)

Northing (Y)

608403.671

689796.214

608427.563

689813.668

608428.217

689809.575

608774.955

689659.771

608722.842

689665.106

608776.855

689640.522

608765.959

689600.559

608848.225

689542.481

608624.238

689439.894

608749.936

689306.769

608817.236

689225.306

608743.845

689137.887

608812.443

689120.853

608772.038

689071.956

608902.079

689175.249

608908.618

689194.116

608892.096

689201.677

608780.584

688601.569

608776.299

688599.083

608687.878

689649.385

608720.432

689615.908

608145.873

689808.209

608236.546

689839.150

608214.590

689853.080

608203.118

689859.201

608189.589

689862.377

608170.642

689864.553

608441.779

689536.310

606959.224

681587.446

606946.185

681545.439

606883.526

681541.929

608436.364

687692.973

608454.393

687646.384

608715.465

689663.916

608740.072

689650.718

608811.915

689514.893

608757.662

689581.153

Easting (X)

Northing (Y)

608788.947

689591.147

608903.774

689315.501

608913.815

689154.695

608758.635

689064.399

608784.578

688612.744

608794.768

688569.292

608771.909

688560.265

608652.093

688649.854

608660.640

688665.226

608607.881

688585.183

608584.739

688539.494

608422.693

688624.586

608345.628

688537.929

608513.301

688262.779

608140.256

687477.318

607755.364

686779.196

607627.101

686777.339

607127.940

685785.928

607202.146

685771.996

606772.383

685177.277

607434.216

687772.772

608250.891

687699.621

608328.553

687455.169

608355.492

687327.030

608356.978

687322.147

608447.650

687298.745

608433.943

687060.056

608602.428

686918.569

608567.049

686644.093

608588.129

686588.922

608609.267

686702.836

608498.543

685498.638

608348.066

685240.215

608419.499

685070.920

608370.600

684520.086

608386.808

684353.346

608198.872

684085.172

608314.355

683734.009

608468.311

683628.274


Easting (X)

Northing (Y)

608178.934

683523.299

608251.100

683518.263

608180.619

683428.651

608361.640

683134.576

608112.197

682952.822

607924.843

682071.587

607519.774

681974.605

608600.240

689634.669

608708.916

689601.437

608775.240

689656.783

608780.533

689646.596

608815.343

689630.332

608624.901

689449.777

608749.323

689302.836

608820.471

689222.540

608911.554

689136.935

608744.381

689133.756

608829.714

689130.124

608878.854

688793.923

608490.505

688227.679

608084.343

687896.369

608076.747

687564.608

608129.451

687647.123

608091.451

687516.835

608155.257

687583.131

608165.407

687696.080

608160.190

687579.098

608267.372

687580.628

608289.871

687629.555

608270.049

687463.478

608283.617

687423.895

608373.482

687547.994

608391.009

687459.880

608339.219

687428.244

608303.231

687374.066

608328.638

687588.109

608265.500

687281.316

608299.427

687216.981

608347.936

687259.840

608410.585

687236.252

608508.265

687273.274



Plate 3-10 Drums and concrete blocks used as a base for mooring, located within seagrass meadow




Plate 3-11 Base of mooring devoid of seagrass



Figure 3-37 Boat moorings within the project area


Drains, Gullies and Rivers

Sixty-three (63) drains, gullies and rivers discharge into Long Bay and Bloody Bay (Figure 3-38). These were mapped throughout the project area. The drains consisted of a variety of types, such as properly constructed concrete drainage structures, rock drains, PVC and formation of sand channels along the beach. Examples of these waterways can be seen in Plate 3-12 - Plate 3-19. Discharge from these waterways, including the North and South Negril Rivers, may reduce water quality and negatively affect seagrasses in Long and Bloody Bays.

Table 3-13 Coordinates of drains and gullies in project area in JAD2001


Eastings

Northings

608023.962

682174.271

608255.435

682724.983

608503.152

684076.996

608497.524

684469.493

608538.491

688137.772

608588.920

684753.560

608179.890

689903.944

608775.734

689674.790

608647.207

689788.933

608530.236

689843.635

608442.477

689849.252

608363.439

689854.365

608189.539

687873.423

608196.513

687873.454

608231.457

687865.564

608312.857

687839.654

608583.096

687338.236

608580.840

687354.417

608624.046

687202.572

608464.005

688234.091

608339.512

688244.085

608211.344

688243.052

608089.775

688332.372

608476.964

684597.262

608254.282

682726.172

608959.631

689125.378

608949.139

689019.009

608942.817

688929.889

608932.769

688889.148

608927.553

688851.274


Eastings

Northings

608902.575

688770.685

608889.803

688735.567

608871.965

688675.782

608800.472

688532.698

608786.722

688503.416

608719.067

688399.234

608680.986

688345.346

608649.965

688311.574

608410.395

688271.980

608359.346

688270.128

608310.669

688243.359

608253.047

688225.590

607935.822

688296.517

607969.010

688187.964

607923.872

687946.388

607988.141

687900.116

608627.947

685810.333

608288.992

687834.683

608633.864

685913.778

608611.128

685815.705

608602.771

685790.704

608517.913

685149.793

608502.907

685084.398

608507.158

685057.660

608499.098

685047.244

608504.124

685008.075

608491.635

684945.369

608485.350

684924.877

608474.372

684670.976

608479.225

684629.121

608481.156

684606.588

608469.982

690774.526

607671.594

681450.165



Plate 3-12 Rock drain



Plate 3-13 PVC drain



Plate 3-14 Old drain observed in seagrass bed



Plate 3-15 Concrete Drain



Plate 3-16 Drain formed in sand along beach



Plate 3-17 Drain formed in sand along beach



Plate 3-18 Underneath bridge at South Negril River



Plate 3-19 Mouth of the North Negril River




Figure 3-38 Drains and Gullies in the project area

Habitat Disturbance

Fish and Invertebrate species assemblages may be impacted several factors, including by the high usage (swim areas and snorkel sites) and high traffic (numerous fast-moving boats) within each Bay, that is habitat disturbance. This in turn may cause disruption in trophic levels, overall species displacement (reduced foraging and feeding habitats) and the overall function of seagrass meadows.

Fish feeding activities take place at snorkel and dive sites in and adjacent to the study area. The impacts of fish feeding are debatable. Milazzo (2005) found that it is very likely that aggregations of fishes that evolve as a result of fish feeding by the public may have negative effects on local populations of fishes and invertebrates that make up their prey. Recreational use of coastal areas and MPAs is increasing elsewhere, making fish feeding a generalised human activity. Accurate information about its effect on the fish assemblage is essential to make responsible management decisions. The effect of bread-feeding events on natural foraging rates differed between the model species (Prinz. M., 2020).


Fishing and Invertebrate harvesting

Overfishing, along with fishing practices which target young and juvenile fish can have deleterious effects to overall fish populations in seagrass meadows and the wider area. Invertebrates such as sea cucumbers and conch are also fished in the area. Additionally, non-food species are targeted for sale to tourists. These include shelled species as well as sea stars, sand dollars and sea biscuits.


Seagrass Removal and Relocation

Seagrass has been actively removed throughout the project area for the creation and maintenance of swim areas for tourists. Larger seagrass relocation mitigation projects have also been undertaken with varying degrees of success.


Natural Impacts

Macroalgal proliferation within seagrass meadows, as a result of changes in water quality (increased nutrient content), can become a deterrent to grazing by herbivores and may smother and otherwise impact growth of and colonization by seagrass.


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Natural impacts to seagrass include; Erosion from storm surge and wave action and bioturbation by macrofauna. Grazing from herbivores and general species assemblages may be impacted by Lionfish predation. Changes in species composition- richness/ diversity- competitive interactions and disruptions in food chains and other ecological processes.

Natural Succession and natural changes in substrate composition can occur as a result of natural events and natural disasters.


Other Observations



Plate 3-20 Insufficient garbage bins and skips in public areas; Solid waste overflowing from garbage drum with the potential of ending up in the marine environment



Plate 3-21Solid waste (mask) on beach



Plate 3-22 Solid waste on seafloor



Plate 3-23 Queen Conch shells for sale (likely harvested in and around seagrass meadows nearby)



Plate 3-24 Horseback riding activities on the beach.



Plate 3-25 Derelict boat on beach


Benthic Results


General Results and Observations

The study area consists of a mixed benthos backreef environment, dominated by an expansive Thalassia seagrass meadow. Occurring within the study area are several small patch reefs, individual coral colonies and a more expansive fringing reef of Booby Cay, several sand patches and hard bottom/ pavement areas. Henry 1982 in (CL Environmental, 2014) describes the area as, two coastal shelves characterise the offshore topographic, submarine environment of both Negril and Bloody Bay. The first, an inner shelf, is a relatively flat shallow shelf which coincides with the inshore area of Bloody Bay and the offshore region immediately outside the extent of Bloody Bay itself. This inner shelf terminates at a submarine patch reef/cliff structure, approximately 1.3 km offshore, beyond which is found an outer shelf, inner slope, deep reefs and outer slope.

Seagrass meadows support fisheries through the provision of nursery areas and trophic subsidies to adjacent habitats such as coral reefs. As shallow coastal habitats, they also provide key fishing grounds; however, the nature and extent of such exploitation are poorly understood (Nordlun. L.M, 2017). Seagrass meadows have extremely high primary and secondary productivity and support a great abundance and diversity of fish and invertebrates. However, this productivity decreases when there are constant natural or anthropogenic disturbances within the habitat. Anthropogenic activities have led to the biotic homogenization of many ecological communities. Coastal activities that locally affect marine habitat-forming foundation species may perturb habitat and promote species with generalist, opportunistic traits, in turn affecting spatial patterns of biodiversity (Iacarella. J.C, 2018). Seagrass meadows represent extensive fishery grounds with both invertebrates and finfish targeted, for both subsistence and commercial purposes, thus they play a multifunctional role in human well-being (Unsworth. R.K., 2014). Knowledge of seagrass ecosystems is essential not just for conservation and biodiversity purposes but food security (Unsworth. R.K., 2014).

The complete species list is given in Appendix 8-1 Study Team Carlton Campbell: Cartography, GIS Analysis, Seagrass Mapping Matthew Lee: Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

Rachel D’Silva: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Coral and Invertebrate Surveys

Alec Silvera: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Water Quality

Le’Anne Green: Seagrass Health Assessment


Chauntelle Green: Fish Surveys

Gina-Marie Maddix: Fish Surveys

Christopher Burgess: Climate Change Projections, Oceanography and Hydrodynamics Hannah Marshall: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Tashae Thompson: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Nicole West-Hayles: Stakeholder Consultations

Appendix 8-2. A summary of the major species categories and locations is given in Table 3-14.


Table 3-14 Major Species Categories and Locations


Category

TOTAL Species Identified

Booby Cay

Bloody Bay

Long Bay

Algae

28

24

23

25

Hard Coral

16

15

15

13

Soft Coral

5

2

3

4

Sponges

11

7

8

8

Molluscs

16

4

12

12

Echinoderms

17

11

15

16


Major species groups were in general, similar throughout the study area.


Coral disease was most common around Booby Cay and the snorkel areas and less so in stand-alone colonies at patch reefs within the seagrass meadows. Lytechinus was the most common macroinvertebrate in both Long and Bloody Bay. Small Wrasse were the most abundant group seen in all survey areas.


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency



Plate 3-26 Lytechinus, using debris as camouflage


Booby Cay

The transect lines and roving surveys were conducted on the shallow, leeward side of Booby Cay’s backreef. This area has low relief with small patch reefs, dominated by pavement, rubble and sand, previously surveyed 2014 (CL Environmental, 2014) but has not been included as part of a long-term reef monitoring program. A detailed species list (Appendix 8-1 Study Team

Carlton Campbell: Cartography, GIS Analysis, Seagrass Mapping

Matthew Lee: Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

Rachel D’Silva: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Coral and Invertebrate Surveys

Alec Silvera: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Water Quality

Le’Anne Green: Seagrass Health Assessment

Chauntelle Green: Fish Surveys

Gina-Marie Maddix: Fish Surveys

Christopher Burgess: Climate Change Projections, Oceanography and Hydrodynamics Hannah Marshall: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Tashae Thompson: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment

Nicole West-Hayles: Stakeholder Consultations

Appendix 8-2) and photo inventory were created.


Coral

Notable features in both the transect and roving survey areas was the low coral cover and large blankets of soft, fleshy macroalgae which covered much of the shallow areas of Booby Cay (these areas were too shallow to conduct photo transects). Major categories are outlined in Table 3-15. There was a significant difference in coral cover compared to macro algae and Chondrilla (Figure 3-39). The mean coral cover was low (2.87%) while macroalgae was very high (38.56%). Sponges (Chondrilla sp.) account for 6.55% of the survey area, this is a critical feature of the benthic community; Chondrilla sp. is considered an aggressive invertebrate, preventing larval settlement, and overgrowing hard corals and other species. Sand, Pavement and Rubble account for a large proportion of the survey area, these substate types are less suitable for coral recruitment.

The prevalence of both macroalgae and Chondrilla, the low percent cover of both hard and soft corals suggests that the reef is poor health. Hard coral disease was not seen in the transects but observed during roving surveys, this included the new Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD). P. asteroides and S. siderea were the most common species in transect areas. All species seen at Booby Cay can be found in the full species list table (Appendix 8-1 Study Team

Carlton Campbell: Cartography, GIS Analysis, Seagrass Mapping

Matthew Lee: Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

Rachel D’Silva: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Coral and Invertebrate Surveys

Alec Silvera: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Water Quality

Le’Anne Green: Seagrass Health Assessment

Chauntelle Green: Fish Surveys

Gina-Marie Maddix: Fish Surveys

Christopher Burgess: Climate Change Projections, Oceanography and Hydrodynamics Hannah Marshall: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Tashae Thompson: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Nicole West-Hayles: Stakeholder Consultations


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency

Draft Report: Seagrass Assessment for the Negril Environmental Protection Area


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.

Appendix 8-2).


Dive shop operators have reported a die-off of the large pillar corals at many of their dive and snorkel sites. According the (DHV Interantional UK Ltd, 1999) both Dendrogyra and Eusimila were seen during surveys in Bloody Bay in 1999. Neither species was seen in any of the survey areas. Dead Dendrogyra colonies were seen in the snorkel areas.

Table 3-15 Percentage Composition of Major Benthic Categories


MAJOR CATEGORY (% of transect)

MEAN

Coral

2.87

Gorgonians

2.85

Sponges - Chondrilla

6.55

Zoanthids

0.13

Macroalgae

38.56

Other live

3.95

Dead coral with algae

3.72

Coralline algae

0.27

Diseased corals

0.00

Sand, pavement, rubble

41.09


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Major Categories Percentage of Transect

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

-5.00

Percentage Cover

Figure 3-39 Percentage Cover of Major Transect Categories


C.L. Environmental (2014) found Seagrass to account for 70%, Algae 5%, Coral 0%, Macrofauna 0%, Sponges 0% and other Substrate 25%. The differences in major category composition are likely due to the variation in survey area. The 2014 reports detail an area dominated by seagrass while the current survey is an hardbottom/patch reef environment, both present in the backreef of Booby Cay.

Table 3-16 Hard and Soft Coral Transect Species


Species

Mean

Porites astreoides

1.68

Porites furcata

0.56

Siderastrea radians

0.56

Siderastrea siderea

1.68

Erythropodium

0.56

Gorgonian

1.68

Iciligorgia

0.56

Pterogorgia

0.56


Diversity at Booby Cay

Simpson's Diversity Indices


Simpson's Diversity Index is a measure of diversity. It measures the probability that two individuals randomly selected from a sample will belong to the same species (or some category other than species). In ecology, it is often used to quantify the biodiversity of a habitat. It takes into account the number of species present, as well as the abundance of each species. Simpson's Index of Diversity 0-1; The value of this index ranges between 0 and 1, the greater the value, the greater the sample diversity. In this case, the index represents the probability that two individuals randomly selected from a sample will belong to different species.


The Shannon-Weaver Index


The Shannon-Weaver or Shannon-Wiener Index, indicates species diversity of a community or area. The higher the value, the higher the diversity. If there is more diversity, this indicates less competition between species. If the value is lower, this indicates that competition has narrowed down the amount of species able to make a living in that community or area. The Shannon-Weiner index cannot really determine the richness of the species or the evenness as separate calculations for those exist. However, richness of the species and the evenness of the community is used to calculate the diversity.

The Shannon-Weaver Index ranged from 1.10- 1.40 while the Simpson Index of Diversity (1-D) ranged from 0.58-0.69. Both indices indicated low species diversity.

The low species diversity, low coral cover along with high macroalgal cover and proliferation on Chondrilla, may indicate the reef at Booby Cay is in poor health. Plate -Plate show general observations around Booby Cay.



Plate 3-27 Large M. cavernosa colony at Booby Cay



Plate 3-28 Fleshy algae pavement area of Booby Cay



Plate 3-29 Fleshy algae covering large section of Booby Cay



Plate 3-30 Chondrilla covering old dead coral at Booby Cay



Disease Chondrilla overgrowing a Dichocoenia colony



Plate 3-31 Diseased O. annularis colony at Booby Cay



Plate 3-32 Diseased Pseudodiploria colony



Plate 3-33 SCTLD on a large Orbicella colony at Booby Cay



Plate 3-34 SCTLD on a large Orbicella colony


Invertebrates

Diadema was the most abundant urchin in the transect area 0.93 per m2, Eucidaris tribuloides 0.11 per m2 and

Lytechinus variegatus was 0.01 per m2. Table 3-17 Invertebrate Transect Results

Species

Total Numbers

Numbers per m2

Diadema antillarum

222

0.93

Eucidaris tribuloides

27

0.11

Lytechinus variegatus

2

0.01


Fish

Within Booby Cay, a total of 735 individuals were counted with a density of 3.06 fish per square metre. These individuals represented 36 species over 17 families. The largest family represented during the survey was Labridae, commonly known as Wrasse with 206 individuals (Figure 3-40). Following this, Scaridae (Parrotfish)


No. of individuals at Booby Cay, Negril

250

207

200                                                                                                                185                                                                                                      

150

                             140                                                                           

100

87

47

50

26

1

4

8

6

1

1

1

3

1

2

13

0

Family

No. of individuals

and Pomacentridae (Damselfish) were the second and third largest families with 185 and 140 individuals, respectively.


Figure 3-40 Number of individuals per Family in Booby Cay, Negril


Many of the individuals counted were within the 6-10cm size class (Figure 3-41).



Size class (cm) of individuals at Booby Cay, Negril


11-20

cm


0-5 cm


6-10 cm


0-5 cm 6-10 cm 11-20 cm 21-30 cm 31-40 cm 41-50 cm 51-60 cm

Figure 3-41 Size class (cm) of individuals in Bloody Bay, Negril


Approximately forty-four percent (44%) of individuals observed in Booby were carnivores with 1.33 carnivores present per square meter. This was followed by 1.13 herbivores per square meter and 0.59 omnivores per square meter (Table 3-18).

Table 3-18 Number of individuals per square metre based on feeding category


Feeding Category

No. of individuals/m2

Herbivore

1.13

Carnivore

1.33

Omnivore

0.59


Bloody Bay

Bloody Bay is a mixed benthos, sheltered, lagoon. Lytechinus variegatus was the most abundant species, followed by sea biscuits and sand dollars. Siderastrea siderea was the most common hard coral followed by Mancenia areolata. Siderastrea was found mainly in pavement and patch reef areas while Mancenia areolata was found throughout the seagrass meadows.

The transect results are given below (Table 3-19), the full species list of Bloody Bay can be found in Appendix 8-1 Study Team


Carlton Campbell: Cartography, GIS Analysis, Seagrass Mapping

Matthew Lee: Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

Rachel D’Silva: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Coral and Invertebrate Surveys

Alec Silvera: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Water Quality

Le’Anne Green: Seagrass Health Assessment

Chauntelle Green: Fish Surveys

Gina-Marie Maddix: Fish Surveys

Christopher Burgess: Climate Change Projections, Oceanography and Hydrodynamics Hannah Marshall: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Tashae Thompson: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Nicole West-Hayles: Stakeholder Consultations


Appendix 8-2. Table 3-19 also shows the density of each species (numbers per m2). Table 3-19 Bloody Bay Transect results, Species numbers and Density

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

TOTAL

DENSITY #m2

SHRIMP




Banded coral shrimp

Stenopus hispidus

3

0.009

Yellowline Arrow Crab

Stenorhyncus seticornis

1

0.003

Hermit Crab


1

0.003

SEA URCHINS




Long-Spined Urchin

Diadema antillarum

23

0.072

Slate-Pencil Urchin

Eucidaris tribuloides

1

0.003

Variegated Urchin

Lytechinus variegatus

1763

5.509

West Indian Sea Egg

Tripnuestes ventricosus

27

0.084

Magnificent Urchin

Astropyga magnifica

1

0.003

SEA STAR




Cushion Sea Star

Oreaster reticulatus

22

0.069

Two Spined Sea Star/ Beaded Starfish

Astropecten spp.


12


0.038

SEA CUCUMBER




Donkey Dung Sea Cucumber

Holothuria Mexicana

33

0.103

Furry Sea Cucumber

Astichopus multifidus

1

0.003

Three-Rowed Sea Cucumber

Isostichopus badionotus

16

0.05

SEA HARE




Spotted Seahare

Aplysia dactylomela

3

0.009

SEA BISCUIT / SAND DOLLAR




Inflated Sea Biscuit

Clypeaster rosaceus

357

1.116

ANEMONE




Giant Anemone

Condylactis gigantea

44

0.138

Corkscrew

Macrodactyla doreensis

59

0.184


COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

TOTAL

DENSITY #m2

Sun Anemone

Stichodactyla helianthus

2

0.006

JELLYFISH




Upside-down Jelly

Cassiopea forndosa

3

0.009

PEN SHELL




Amber Pen Shell

Pinna carnea

20

0.063

SEGMENTED WORMS




Magnificent Feather Duster

Sabellastarte magnifica

9

0.028

Southern Lugworm

Arenicola cristata

31

0.097

HARD CORAL




Rose Coral

Manicina areolata

42

0.131

Mustard Hill Coral

Porites astreoides

5

0.016

Lettuce Coral

Agaricia spp.

14

0.044

Thin Finger Coral

Porites divaricata

25

0.078

Massive Starlet Coral

Siderastrea siderea

79

0.247

Tube Coral

Cladocora arbuscula

8

0.025

SOFT CORAL




Common Sea Fan

Gorgonia ventalina

1

0.003


Examples of species seen in the Transect and Roving Survey Areas are given (Plate - Plate 3-42).



Plate 3-35 Mancenia areolata in a seagrass bed




Plate 3-36 Porites divaricata in the seagrass meadow



Plate 3-37 Cladocora colony with sponges and fireworm



Plate 3-38 Ragged Sea Hare in a seagrass halo



Plate 3-39 Three-Rowed Sea Cucumber



Plate 3-40 Anemone with a Pedersons Cleaner Shrimp



Plate 3-41 Corallimorph colony on a small patch reef in the seagrass meadow



Plate 3-42 Magnificent Urchin


Fish

Within Bloody Bay, a total of 1,241 individuals were counted with a density of 0.31 fish per square metre. These individuals represented 35 species over 21 families. The largest family represented during the survey was Labridae, commonly known as Wrasse with 664 individuals (Figure 3-42). Following this, Scaridae


Number of Individuals in Bloody Bay, Negril


700                                                                                                                                                                                         664


600


500


400


300

200

167

112

100

86

35

56

35

1

20 25

5

6 1 1 1

10 6 1 1 5 1

0

Family

No. of individuals

(Parrotfish) and Haemulidae (Grunt) were the second and third largest families with 167 and 112 individuals, respectively.


Figure 3-42 Number of individuals per Family in Bloody Bay, Negril


Many of the individuals counted were within the 0-5cm size class (Figure 3-43) and due to the high seagrass cover, most fish were observed among the blades of the seagrass.



Size class (cm) of individuals in Bloody Bay,

Negril

11-20 cm

6-10 cm

0-5 cm

0-5 cm 6-10 cm 11-20 cm 21-30 cm 31-40 cm 41-50 cm 51-60 cm

Figure 3-43 Size class (cm) of individuals in Bloody Bay, Negril


Approximately seventy-six percent (76%) of individuals observed in Bloody Bay were carnivores with 0.24 carnivores present per square meter. This was followed by 0.06 herbivores per square meter and 0.01 omnivores per square meter (Table 3-20). Plate and Plate are examples of fish seen in seagrass meadows and patch reef areas.

Table 3-20 Number of individuals per square metre based on feeding category


Feeding Category

No. of individuals/m2

Herbivore

0.06

Carnivore

0.24

Omnivore

0.01



Plate 3-43 Balloon fish hiding in the seagrass meadow




Plate 3-44 Juvenile French Angel fish around a small patch reef in a seagrass meadow


Long Bay

Long Bay is a semi-sheltered backreef/lagoon Sections of Long Bay such as the Pyramids and snorkel sites were considered as separate survey areas and not part of the typical seagrass meadow survey area. The density of species seen in transect areas is given in Table 3-21.


Transect Invertebrates and Corals

Table 3-21 Transect species density


COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

TOTAL

DENSITY #m2

Hermit crab


1

0.001

Crab


1

0.001

Lobster


1

<0.001

CONCH




King Helmet

Cassis tuberosa

2

0.002

Rooster Conch

Strombus gallus

1

<0.001

SEA URCHINS




Long-Spined Urchin

Diadema antillarum

7

0.005

Slate-Pencil Urchin

Eucidaris tribuloides

1

<0.001

Variegated Urchin

Lytechinus variegatus

1547

1.209

West Indian Sea Egg

Tripnuestes ventricosus

17

0.013

SEA STAR




Cushion Sea Star

Oreaster reticulatus

9

0.007

Two Spined Sea Star/ Beaded Starfish

Astropecten spp.


2


0.002

Common Comet Star

Linckia guildingii

4

0.003

SEA CUCUMBER




Donkey Dung Sea Cucumber

Holothuria Mexicana

5

0.004

Furry Sea Cucumber

Astichopus multifidus

1

<0.001

Three-Rowed Sea Cucumber

Isostichopus badionotus

6

0.005

Tiger Tail Sea Cucumber

Holothuria thomasi

1

<0.001

SEA BISCUIT / SAND DOLLAR




Inflated Sea Biscuit

Clypeaster rosaceus

446

0.348

ANEMONE




Giant Anemone

Condylactis gigantea

25

0.020


COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

TOTAL

DENSITY #m2

Corkscrew

Macrodactyla doreensis

3

0.002

PEN SHELL




Amber Pen Shell

Pinna carnea

11

0.009

SEGMENTED WORMS




Magnificent Feather Duster

Sabellastarte magnifica

8

0.006

HARD CORAL




Rose Coral

Manicina areolata

523

0.409

Thin Finger Coral

Porites divaricata

104

0.081

Lesser Star Coral

Siderastrea radians

5

0.004

Thin Finger Coral

Porites divaricata

65

0.051

Tube Coral

Cladocora arbuscula

10

0.008

Golfball Coral

Favia fragum

1

<0.001

SOFT CORAL




Corky Sea Finger

Briareum asbestinum

1

<0.001


Examples of species seen in and around transect areas, seagrass meadows and patch reefs (Plate - Plate ).



Plate 3-45 Colpophyllia colony on a patch reef



Plate 3-46 King Helmet in a blowout



Plate 3-47 Large Pencil urchin in the seagrass meadow



Plate 3-48 Spit Crown feather duster, Chondrilla and a small waving hands colony (arrow)


Fish

Long Bay is situated along the Negril seven-mile white sand beach stretch and its waters are heavily influenced by the various recreational and fishing activities which take place along the coast. A total of 16 transects were completed in 8 different localities within the bay varying in depth from 3.5m-6.4m.

The area surveyed had a total abundance of seven hundred and forty-one (741) fish from 20 different families (Figure 3-44 and Table 3-22) identified during the survey. Long Bay had an avergae density of 0.6 individulas per m2. The families of Wrasse, Parrotfish and Grunts were the top 3 most surveyed fish families respectively. Long Bay had a fish species richness of 32 species which were found directly within the seagrass meadows or surrounding patch reefs found within the seagrass meadows. Halichoeres bivittatus and Halichoeres poeyi of the Wrasse family were observed at every location in Long Bay, whereas Sparisoma radians of the Parrotfish family was observed and counted at 7 out of the 8 locations. Though LB10 had the highest number of fish family counted (15), LB5 and LB1 both had the most fish observed and counted for any location.



Figure 3-44 Graph showing the amount fish by families counted.


Table 3-22 Showing the Fish Family Groups found in Long Bay during the seagrass surveys.


Family

Amount

Butterfly

8

Angelfish

1

Snapper

17

Wrasse

492

Surgeonfish

21

Grunt

39

Parrotfish

91

Lionfish

1

Goby

20

Drum

1

Squirrelfish

1

Goatfish

14

Jack

3

Puffer

9

Damselfish

9

Ray

3

Searobin

1

Eel

4

Porgy

1

Leatherjacks

3

Mackerel

2

Total

741


Similarly to Bloody Bay and Booby Cay, most of the individuals counted fell into the 0-5cm (55%) and 6-10cm (31%) size class (Figure 3-45) indicating that 86% of the fish observed were relatively small.



Figure 3-45 Pie Chart showing the distribution of the individuals according to their size class (cm).


Approximately seventy-six percent (76%) of individuals counted in long bay were carnivores with 0.0875 carnivores present per square meter. This was followed by 0.014 herbivores (12%) per square meter and 0.014 omnivores (12% per square meter (Table 3-23).

Table 3-23 Number of individuals per square metre based on feeding category


Feeding Category

Percentage

No. of individuals/m2

Herbivore

12

0.0875

Carnivore

76

0.014

Omnivore

12

0.014


Plate and Plate are examples of stingrays seen transect and survey areas.



Plate 3-49 Yellow stingray in the seagrass meadow



Plate 3-50 Large southern stingray swimming between the Pyramids


Bloody Bay and Long Bay Macro-Invertebrate Comparison

Species densities were slightly higher in Bloody Bay when compared to Long Bay while both has similar species diversity.

Sea urchins were the dominate group in both Long and Bloody Bay, with Lytechinus being the most dominant species. Urchin density was slightly higher in Bloody Bay when compared to Long Bay, while Sand Dollars and Sea Biscuits had similar densities Figure 3-46.


Bloody Bay vs Long Bay

Sea Urchins, Sea Biscuit/Sand Dollar

1.600 1.500

1.400

1.228

1.200

1.000

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.295

0.348

0.200

0.000

Bloody Bay

Long Bay

SEA URCHINS

SEA BISCUIT / SAND DOLLAR

Numbers per m2

Figure 3-46 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Sea Urchins, Sea Biscuits/ Sand Dollars


Sea Stars and Sea Cucumbers had much great density in Bloody Bay than in Long Bay. No Sea Hares were recorded in any Long Bay transect areas, they were however seen outside transect areas in Long Bay (Figure 3-47).


0.045

0.040

0.035

0.030

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Bloody Bay vs Long Bay

Sea Stars, Sea Cucumbers, Sea Hares

0.041

0.028

0.012

0.010

0.002

0.000

SEA STAR SEA CUCUMBER SEA HARE


Bloody Bay Long Bay

Number per m2

Figure 3-47 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Sea Stars, Sea Cucumbers and Sea Hares


0.005

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.000

Bloody Bay vs Long Bay

Shrimp, Hermit Crabs, Crabs, Lobster, Conch

0.004

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

SHRIMP HERMIT CRAB CRAB LOBSTER CONCH


Bloody Bay Long Bay

Numberper m2

The only Shrimp recorded in transect areas were in Bloody Bay while the only Hermit Crabs, Crabs, Lobsters and Conch were recorded in Long Bay transect areas. Both Long and Bloody Bay had these groups outside the transect areas (Figure 3-48).


Figure 3-48 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Shrimp, Hermit Crabs, Crabs, Lobster and Conch


Bloody Bay vs Long Bay

Anemones, Jellyfish, Pen Shells and Segmented Worms

0.100

0.090

0.080

0.070

0.060

0.050

0.040

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000

        0.087                                                                                                                                              

0.033

0.022

0.017

0.009

0.002 0.000

 0.006         

ANEMONE JELLYFISH PEN SHELL SEGMENTED WORMS


Bloody Bay Long Bay

Numbers per m2

Similar to other groups, Bloody Bay had higher densities of Anemones, Jellyfish, Pen Shells and Segmented Worms (Figure 3-49).


Figure 3-49 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Anemones, Jellyfish, Pen Shells and Segmented Worms


Unlike other groups Long Bay had a higher density of Hard Corals and the only Soft Coral in Transect areas (Figure 3-50).


Bloody Bay vs Long Bay

Hard and Soft Corals

0.600

0.553

0.500


0.400


0.300


0.200

0.143

0.100

0.000

0.001

0.000

Bloody Bay

Long Bay

HARD CORAL SOFT CORAL

Numbers per m2

Figure 3-50 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Hard and Soft Corals


Fish Comparison between Long and Bloody Bay

Fish densities were higher in Long Bay (0.62 fish/m2) than in Bloody Bay (0.31 fish/m2). Bloody Bay however had greater diversity, 35 species of fish from 21 families, while Long Bay had species from 20 families. Both had similar dominant families, the most dominant being Wrasse, followed by Parrotfish and Grunts.


Other Survey Areas

Roving surveys were conducted throughout the project area including at the Pyramids/Artificial reef areas and nearby snorkel sites. Other survey areas included some rocky shores of Rutlands point, Booby Cay and Bloody Bay. A species list was generated for each roving survey area, including some intertidal species. Plate - Plate show various species and habitats within the study area.

Tourists are also known to negatively impact reef system by physical damaging to corals, trampling seagrasses and other biota. Studies have suggested that coral diseases may be spread by contaminated dive gear.



Plate 3-51 Boat hull colonized by encrusting species and fish



Plate 3-52 Pyramid colonized by encrusting species, macroalgae and hard coral



Plate 3-53 Plastic bag wrapped around a Porites colony



Plate 3-54 Section of an Artificial Reef near Sandals Negril



Plate 3-55 Large shallow patch reef with both hard and soft corals



Plate 3-56 Small patch reef in a seagrass halo



Plate 3-57 Small patch reef showing several species



Plate 3-58 Macroalgae covering a large sandy area



Plate 3-59 Section of the larger barrier reef system at a snorkel site



Plate 3-60 Recently dead Pillar coral in a snorkel site (this is likely due to SCTLD)



Plate 3-61 Beaded Starfish in a silty section of the study area




Plate 3-62 Patch reef with several schools of fish and lionfish



Plate 3-63 Sea cucumber in the seagrass meadow



Plate 3-64 Large A. palmata colony near the Booby Cay snorkel site



Plate 3-65 Typical intertidal zonation along sections of a rocky shore


Reef Health Index

The following categories were assessed at Booby Cay in order to determine an overall Reef Health Index (RHI); Percentage Hard Coral Cover- Rating 1

Coral cover at Booby Cay was found to be very low 2.87% in transect areas. Some large stand-alone colonies were seen during roving surveys, including a small stand of A. palmata. SCTLD and other disease were seen in the general area. Species diversity in the transect areas was also low.

Percentage Macroalgal Cover- Rating-2


Macroalgae was high, 38.56% in transect areas, this was found to be significantly higher than any other living benthos component. Large blankets of fleshy algae were seen covering large areas of shallow sections on the Cay, while individual patch reefs were dominated by mixed species of algae. Dictyota was common in transect and survey areas.

Herbivore Density and Fish and Invertebrate- Rating- 3


Diadema were the dominate invertebrate in transect areas, approximately 1 individual per m2. In areas where Diadema densities were high, less macroalgae was seen, however the grazing of these species appears to be insufficient in some areas

The diversity and abundance of fish at Booby Cay was low, with carnivores as the dominant feeding group, followed by herbivores. Most fish were medium(6-10cm) to small (0-5cm). This suggest that the Booby Cay has limited fish grazing, further resulting in a shift to an algal dominated reef.

Substrate suitability- Rating- 3


The suitability of the substrate for coral recruitment is essential of the viability and recovery of any reef area. Coral recruit surveys were not done due to time limitations. Suitability includes the type of surface available such as old dead coral with crustose coralline algae which is ideal for recruitment. Sand, rubble and pavement are less ideal for most species. Some encrusting and hardier species such as Siderastrea recruit in this environment. Macroalgae prevent larvae from settling/recruiting as do other encrusting species. Booby Cay was found to have a proliferation of Chondrilla ‘Chicken Liver Sponge’, 6.55%. This is an aggressive invertebrate; it not only prevents larval settlement but also can overgrow and smother well established coral colonies. The occurrence of Chondrilla along with the large areas of sand, pavement and rubble will likely make coral recruitment very difficult.

Booby Cay was given a score of 9 out of 20, and an overall score of 1- very poor condition.


Water Quality

Table 3-24 depicts the average in-situ data results and Table 3-25 shows the average laboratory data results which were compared with NRCA Marine Water Quality Standards.

In-situ Hydrolab readings varied amongst sampling stations. Temperature, Salinity and pH were deemed normal and was within the ambient NRCA standard of 7.00-8.40, with the lower pH at Station 31 being attributed to it being influenced by the South Negril River. Turbidity was lowest at multiple Stations located offshore, with a value of 0.00 NTU and highest at Station 31 which had a value of 37.00 NTU, all turbidity values were deemed acceptable, Dissolved oxygen levels at all locations except for station 31, were within acceptable levels (>4.00 mg/l) and above the level that would be considered detrimental to aquatic life (3.00


mg/l). Low D.O. is indicative of eutrophication which create anoxic or oxygen-depleted environments due to excess nutrients from pollution and poorly treated wastewater.

Conductivity and TDS values were deemed normal for marine environments at all stations except for Stations 29, 31 and 33 which had relatively low conductivity and TDS values for marine water due to their locations within and in proximity to the South and North Negril rivers

Table 3-25 below shows the laboratory water quality results, TSS was deemed acceptable across all stations with the highest value being at Station 31, Nitrate and Phosphate values were non-compliant at all stations, however these nitrate and phosphate values are typical for Jamaican coastal waters and seldom vary outside this range. High nitrate and phosphate levels are due to water contamination from wastewater or fertilizer and can cause increased growth of algae and large aquatic plants, which can result in decreased levels of dissolved oxygen leading to eutrophication.


Table 3-24 Average in-situ water quality data


STN.

Temp.

(°C)

Cond.

(mS/cm)

Salinity

(ppt)

pH

D.O.

(mg/l)

Turbidity

(NTU)

TDS

(g/l)

PAR

(uE/cm/s)

Light

Extinction




1

28.94

55.84

37.15

8.22

6.35

0.37

35.75

369.57

0.0741

2

29.22

55.82

37.11

8.21

5.69

0.08

35.67

960.69

0.3346

3

29.49

55.71

37.05

8.21

5.68

0.64

35.66

1171.78

0.2320

5

29.59

55.54

36.92

8.20

5.89

1.75

35.54

1377.00

0.2799

6

29.47

55.77

37.08

8.21

5.97

0.25

35.69

892.07

0.2188

7

29.32

55.79

37.11

8.22

5.97

0.11

35.71

702.86

0.1006

8

29.58

55.71

36.95

8.22

6.60

0.08

35.67

955.56

0.4002

9

29.60

55.69

37.04

8.22

6.08

0.21

35.69

936.89

0.1928

10

29.40

55.79

37.11

8.21

5.96

0.13

35.71

931.10

0.1113

11

29.25

55.80

37.13

8.23

6.15

0.11

35.72

543.63

0.1100

12

29.37

55.76

37.08

8.21

5.92

0.35

35.69

687.53

0.2818

13

29.35

55.85

37.13

8.23

6.47

0.04

35.73

839.17

0.1837

14

28.96

55.83

37.14

8.23

6.05

0.39

35.74

462.87

0.0846

15

29.33

55.77

37.12

8.21

5.93

0.00

35.71

617.09

0.1733

16

29.39

55.73

37.06

8.18

5.60

4.48

35.65

965.81

0.1620

17

29.43

55.75

37.08

8.21

6.11

0.65

35.69

776.53

0.5662

18

29.34

55.76

37.08

8.23

6.24

0.00

35.69

691.70

0.2448

19

29.03

55.80

37.14

8.23

6.28

0.47

35.73

600.07

0.1199

20

29.02

57.53

37.17

8.24

6.33

0.10

35.76

497.74

0.0678

21

29.26

55.77

37.11

8.23

6.23

0.00

35.70

627.59

0.2520

22

29.61

55.77

37.11

8.23

6.14

0.00

35.72

843.82

0.1568

23

29.60

55.75

37.11

8.23

6.34

0.00

35.71

984.50

0.1585

24

29.61

55.79

37.12

8.22

6.11

0.65

35.73

1094.77

0.1950


STN.

Temp. (°C)

Cond. (mS/cm)

Salinity (ppt)

pH

D.O.

(mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

TDS

(g/l)

PAR

(uE/cm/s)

Light Extinction

25

29.09

55.79

37.11

8.23

6.11

0.40

35.71

562.37

0.2161

26

29.33

55.82

37.13

8.22

6.11

0.09

35.73

735.21

0.1303

27

29.11

55.82

37.13

8.23

6.24

0.00

35.73

465.37

0.1118

28

29.18

55.80

37.13

8.23

6.16

0.00

35.70

470.50

0.1839

29

29.49

55.86

37.15

8.23

6.23

0.00

35.74

998.33

0.1475

30

29.02

49.50

33.51

8.16

5.63

2.90

32.29

392.72

0.5368

31

31.00

33.51

21.50

7.58*

3.08

37.00

21.92

573.50

1.7676

32

29.47

55.33

36.57

8.20

6.54

7.83

35.03

1049.00

0.3360

33

29.13

40.41

26.53

8.00

4.61

30.93

25.86

660.33

1.1356

NRCA

Marine Water Standard


-


-


-


8 - 8.4


-


-


-


-


-

Values in red were non-compliant with their respective NEPA Standard.

Values in red and * were non-compliant with their respective NRCA Standard however were adversely affected by freshwater.


Table 3-25 Average Laboratory water quality data


Station

TSS (mg/l)

Nitrate (mg/l)

Phosphate (mg/l)

N1

<5

1.67

0.13

N2

<5

2.43

1.44

N3

<5

2.57

0.17

N4

<5

2.00

0.05

N5

<5

1.80

0.09

N6

<5

2.13

0.20

N7

<5

1.87

0.43

N8

<5

1.50

0.69

N9

<5

2.30

0.87

N10

<5

2.53

0.84

N11

<5

1.40

0.52

N12

<5

2.17

0.73

N13

<5

2.20

0.78

N14

<5

1.87

0.61

N15

<5

2.40

0.32

N16

<5

2.07

0.05

N17

<5

2.27

0.16

N18

<5

1.97

0.13

N19

<5

2.70

0.11

N20

<5

1.87

0.13

N21

<5

1.73

0.13

N22

<5

2.07

0.06

N23

<5

1.63

0.05


Station

TSS (mg/l)

Nitrate (mg/l)

Phosphate (mg/l)

N24

<5

1.77

0.93

N25

<5

2.03

0.08

N26

<5

1.90

0.25

N27

<5

1.87

0.14

N28

<5

2.13

0.09

N29

<5

1.47

0.28

N30

<5

2.03

0.09

N31

8

0.60

0.41

N32

<5

2.50

0.15

N33

<5

0.40

0.16

NRCA Marine Water Std.

-

0.007-0.014

0.001-0.003

Values in red were non-compliant with their respective NEPA Standard.


Temperature

Temperature values varied across the stations ranging from 28.9°C – 31.0°C. Highest temperatures were obtained at Station 31 whereas the lowest was obtained at Station 13, located far offshore, outside of Long Bay (Figure 3-51). The water temperatures recorded were expected in a tropical marine area influenced by the Trade Winds (27 - 30°C), except for Station 31, which had a relatively high temperature, however this station was located within the South Negril River.


Figure 3-51 Average temperature values for each station


Specific Conductivity

Specific conductivity varied across the stations ranging from 33.05 – 57.50 mS/cm which are deemed normal for a tropical marine area, however Stations 29, 31 and 33 had relatively low conductivity for marine water due to their locations within and in proximity to the South and North Negril rivers. Highest specific conductivity was obtained at station 19 whereas the lowest specific conductivity was obtained at Station 31 (Figure 3-52).


Figure 3-52 Conductivity values at various stations


Salinity

Salinity varied across the stations ranging from 21.50 – 37.10 ppt, most stations were deemed normal for a tropical marine area, except for Stations 29, 31 and 33, which were influenced by freshwater from the Negril South and North rivers. Multiple stations had the highest salinity value of 37.10 ppt, whereas Station 31 had the lowest value (Figure 3-53).


Figure 3-53 Salinity values at the various stations


pH

The pH values showed some variation across the stations ranging from 7.58 - 8.24. The highest pH values were obtained at Station 19 whereas the lowest pH was obtained at Station 31. In marine waters, pH levels tend to range between 8-9 pH units and all marine stations were within the


respective NEPA marine standard (8 – 8.4). Higher pH indicates the possibility of photosynthesis changing the pH within the zone. The pH values obtained at Stations 29, 31 and 33 were lower due to the influence of fresh water from the North and South Negril rivers, the NRCA ambient freshwater standard is 7.00 – 8.40 (Figure 3-54).


Figure 3-54 pH values at the various stations


Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Dissolved oxygen is the amount of elemental oxygen dissolved in water. Dissolved oxygen values varied across the stations ranging from 3.08 – 6.60 mg/l. Station 31 had the lowest dissolved oxygen value whereas the highest value was obtained at Station 7 (Figure 3-55). Dissolved oxygen levels at all locations except for Station 31, were within acceptable levels (>4.00 mg/l) and above the level that would be considered detrimental to aquatic life (3.00 mg/l). Station 31 had a dissolved oxygen level of 3.08 mg/l, which was above (3.00 mg/l) the level that would be considered


damaging to aquatic life by 0.8mg/l, this low value (3.08 mg/l) is an indicator of excessive algae growth due to pollutants.



Figure 3-55 Dissolved oxygen values at the various stations


Turbidity

Turbidity varied across the stations ranging from 0.00 NTU to 37.00 NTU at Station 31. The lowest turbidity occurred across multiple marine stations, while Station 31 had the highest turbidity value (Figure 3-56) this station was within the visibly turbid South Negril River and was affected


by shallow depth.



Figure 3-56 Turbidity values at the various stations


Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Total dissolved solids is a representation of the combined inorganic and organic dissolved content in the water, such as minerals and salts. The TDS values varied across the stations ranging from 21.90 – 35.70 g/l. The highest values were obtained from multiple marine stations, whereas the lowest value was obtained at station 31 (Figure 3-57). Stations 29, 31 and 33 had lower TDS values doe to the influence of


freshwater from the North and South Negril rivers, the other TDS values are normal for seawater.



Figure 3-57 TDS values at the various stations


Light Extinction Coefficient (EC)

Light Extinction Coefficient (EC) refers to measures of light absorption within water or the rate of loss of light with depth. The larger the extinction coefficient the more particles (Biological or Non-Biological) are present within the water column which affect light penetration. EC values varied across the stations ranging from 0.06 – 1.76. Station 19 had the lowest EC value whereas the highest value was obtained at Station 31 (Figure 3-58) Stations 16, 29, 31 and 33 showed the greatest loss of light with depth, indicating a greater presence of particles, with Station 31 having the highest


value which may be caused by pollutants and high turbidity.



Figure 3-58 Light Extinction Coefficient values at the various stations


Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

TSS concentrations were <5 mg/l at all stations except for Station 31 which was 8.0 mg/l. TSS concentrations indicate water clarity, with clear conditions being below 20mg/l, this indicates that all stations sampled had clear waters with the least clarity being at Station 31 (Figure 3-59). The higher value at Station 31 may be due to it being within the South Negril River channel.



Figure 3-59 TSS values at the various stations


Nitrates

Nitrate values varied across the stations ranging from 0.4 – 2.7 mg/l. All stations were above the NRCA marine standard for Seawater for nitrates. These nitrate values are typical for Jamaican coastal waters and seldom vary outside this range. High nitrate levels are due to water contamination from wastewater or fertilizer. The highest value was at Station 19 which is located furthest offshore (Figure 3-60). Nitrate concentrations were non-compliant with NRCA Marine Water Quality Standards of 0.007 – 0.014 mg/l.



Figure 3-60 Nitrate values at the various stations


Phosphates

All stations were above the NRCA marine standard for Seawater for phosphates however these phosphate values are typical for Jamaican coastal waters. High phosphate levels are due to water contamination from poor agricultural practices, runoff from urban areas, or discharges from sewage treatment plants. Too much phosphorus can cause increased growth of algae and large aquatic plants, which can result in decreased levels of dissolved oxygen leading to eutrophication. Phosphate concentrations were non-compliant with NEPA Marine Water Quality Standards of 0.001-0.003 mg/l with phosphate values ranging from 0.047 – 1.443 mg/l (Figure 3-61).



Figure 3-61 Phosphate values at the various stations


Spatial Patterns in Long and Bloody Bay

The Northern and Southern ends of Long and Bloody Bay generally had the worst water quality. Within these areas Stations 29, 31 and 33 were the stations that showed the most effects. These zones were noted to be within or adjacent to the North and South Negril rivers, influencing these stations with freshwater and land runoff/discharge. These areas had lower salinities, pH, dissolved oxygen, and high turbidity and light extinction coefficients however nitrate and phosphate levels were not significantly higher than many other stations, with lower nitrate levels at Stations 31 and 33 than all other stations. The bays did not exhibit any special zonation for temperature at the surface or subsurface, with all other parameters showing greater variation at the surface and decreasing variation with depth. Stations 29, 31 and 33 showed the greatest loss of light with depth which indicated the greater presence of particles which may be caused by pollutants and high turbidity. The Forward Stepwise Multiple Regression for Long and Bloody Bay at the 95% confidence level can be viewed below in Table 3-26 and the Significant Differences can be viewed in Appendix 8-42.


Table 3-26 Forward Stepwise Multiple Regression for Long and Bloody Bay at the 95% confidence level


Parameter

Corrected R2 (%)

df

P

Affecting Parameters

Temperature

0.57

10,82

0.000

pH(+) TSS(+) EC(+)

DO(-)

Conductivity

0.97

10,82

0.000

TDS(+) Sal(+)

Salinity

0.99

10,82

0.000

TDS(+) TSS(-) EC(-)

Dissolved Oxygen

0.45

10,82

0.000

pH(+)

pH

0.84

10,82

0.000

Temp(+) DO(+) TSS(-)

Total Dissolved Solids

0.99

10,82

0.000

Sal(+) TSS(+) EC(+)

Extinction

Coefficient

0.76

10,82

0.000

TDS(+)

Total Suspended

Solids

0.85

10,82

0.000

TDS(+) Temp(+) Sal(-)

Turbidity

0.85

10,82

0.000

Cond(+) Temp(+)

Nitrates

0.19

10,82

0.002

Cond(+)

Phosphates

0.10

10,82

0.522

Temp(-)

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the changes in temperature within Long and Bloody Bay was related to changes in pH(direct), total suspended solids TSS (direct), extinction coefficient EC (direct) and dissolved oxygen DO


(inverse). Station 31 had the highest mean temperature with the lowest mean pH. This station falls into the zone of the bay with the worst water quality, most likely due to the influence of the river. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the changes in conductivity was related to total dissolved solids TDS (direct) and salinity (direct). Stations 29, 31 and 33 were largely impacted due to the influence of freshwater input from the North and South Negril rivers. Freshwater lowers TDS and salinity which in turn reduces the conductivity which depends on particles within the water. The conductivity trends, as seen below in Figure 3-62, shows lower levels to the south of Long Bay which would be expected due to the influence of the freshwater input from the South Negril River, however lower conductivities were also noted further out to sea within Long and Bloody Bay. These fluctuations may be due to freshwater upwellings and particularly in Bloody Bay, run-off, and drainage.

Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the changes in salinity were related to TDS (direct), TSS (inverse), turbidity (inverse) and EC (inverse). High TDS in relation to salinity indicate high levels of dissolved salts within the water, which is indicative of marine waters. The inverse relationship with salinity to TSS, Turbidity and EC, relates to the increased volume of suspended materials within the river water. Forty-five percent (45%) of the changes in dissolved oxygen could be related to changes in pH (direct). Dissolved oxygen levels were not within the magnitude which would be considered detrimental to aquatic life, however there were large fluctuations between stations 31 and 33 which were lower on the spectrum. Stations 31 and 33 had generally worse water quality and may have been eutrophic, reducing DO levels.



Figure 3-62 Conductivity trends within Long and Bloody Bay


Eighty-four percent (84%) of the changes in pH were related to changes in temperature (direct), dissolved oxygen (direct) and total suspended solids(inverse). An increase in dissolved oxygen is an indicator of increased photosynthetic activity or increased mixing of the water. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the changes in turbidity was related to changes in conductivity (direct) and temperature (direct), increased conductivity relates to an increase in suspended solids within the water column which may increase turbidity, however higher turbidities were noted within the North and South Negril rivers, most likely due to shallow, turbulent waters. Ninety-nine percent (99%) percent of the changes in total dissolved solids was related to changes in salinity(direct), total suspended solids(direct) and EC (direct), salinity greatly influences TDS levels as salts and minerals dissolve within bodies of water, correspondingly high TDS levels are thus expected within marine water, with freshwater influences lower the value.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of the changes in the light extinction coefficient (EC) was related to TDS (direct), EC refers to measures of light absorption within water or the rate of loss of light with depth. The larger the extinction coefficient the more particles (Biological or Non-Biological) are present within the water column.

These particles increase light absorption within water or the rate of loss of light with depth reducing light penetration and is often an indicator of poor water quality due to pollutants within the water column. Figure 3-63 illustrates the light extinction coefficient trends observed within Long and Bloody Bay. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the changes in total suspended solids was related to changes in total dissolved solids (direct), temperature (direct) and salinity (inverse). TSS was similar across almost every station excluding station 31 which had a higher value, this was most likely due to the turbulence of the location, within the South Negril River.



Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency



Figure 3-63 Light Extinction Coefficient trends within Long and Bloody Bay


Nineteen percent (19%) of the changes in nitrate values was related to conductivity (direct) and one percent (1%) of changes in phosphate values were related to temperature (inverse), these lower percentiles indicate that nitrate and phosphate values were not highly influenced by other parameters tested for during sampling, and are most likely influenced by other factors. Nitrate and phosphates are due to water contamination from poor agricultural practices, runoff from urban areas, or discharges from sewage treatment plants and may lead to increased growth of algae and large aquatic plants, which can result in decreased levels of dissolved oxygen, leading to eutrophication. Phosphate levels were notable outside of the expected input due to the North and South Negril rivers, with higher readings further from shore in Long Bay as seen in Figure 3-64.

These increased levels may be an indication of groundwater transporting phosphates and other substances out to sea in freshwater upwellings.



Figure 3-64 Phosphate trends within Long and Bloody Bay


Historical Comparisons within Long and Bloody Bay

Five projects were used to compare historical water quality data within Long and Bloody Bay ranging from 2001 to 2021 and compared using group correlations. There were significant differences between the current 2021 project in most areas of comparison except for temperature and phosphate concentrations.

This trend suggests an increase in nitrate and phosphate levels between 2001 and 2014 with fewer changes between 2014 and 2019 leading into marginal increased till 2021. This indicates that there was a significant increase in general pollutants between 2001 and 2014 which evened out over the years towards 2021.

Increased nitrate levels are often due to water contamination from poor agricultural practices, groundwater upwellings, runoff from urban areas, or discharges from sewage treatment plants. This increase over the years may be caused by increased population within the area leading to greater volumes of waste runoff into local rivers and drains. The the Significant Differences can be viewed in Appendix 43.

There has been a lack of standardization of water quality data collection and reporting over the years, which has led to the omission of certain water quality parameters in certain years.


Table 3-27 Historical water quality for 2001, 2014, 2015, 2019 and 2021



Year


Stn

TEMP.

°C

COND

(mS/cm)


SAL (ppt)


pH

D.O.

(mg/l)

Turb

(NTU)

TDS

(g/l)

TSS

(mg/l)

NIT

(mg/l)

PHOS

(mg/l)

2021

1

28.94

55.84

37.15

8.22

6.35

0.37

35.75

5.00

1.667

0.127

2021

2

29.22

55.82

37.11

8.21

5.69

0.08

35.67

5.00

2.433

1.443

2021

3

29.49

55.71

37.05

8.21

5.68

0.64

35.66

5.00

2.567

0.170

2021

4

29.59

55.54

36.92

8.20

5.89

1.75

35.54

5.00

2.000

0.050

2021

5

29.47

55.77

37.08

8.21

5.97

0.25

35.69

5.00

1.800

0.087

2021

6

29.32

55.79

37.11

8.22

5.97

0.11

35.71

5.00

2.133

0.200

2021

7

29.58

55.71

36.95

8.22

6.60

0.08

35.67

5.00

1.867

0.433

2021

8

29.60

55.69

37.04

8.22

6.08

0.21

35.69

5.00

1.500

0.237

2021

9

29.40

55.79

37.11

8.21

5.96

0.13

35.71

5.00

2.300

0.233

2021

10

29.25

55.80

37.13

8.23

6.15

0.11

35.72

5.00

2.533

0.047

2021

11

29.37

55.76

37.08

8.21

5.92

0.35

35.69

5.00

1.400

0.073

2021

12

29.35

55.85

37.13

8.23

6.47

0.04

35.73

5.00

2.167

0.083

2021

13

28.96

55.83

37.14

8.23

6.05

0.39

35.74

5.00

2.200

0.087

2021

14

29.33

55.77

37.12

8.21

5.93

0.00

35.71

5.00

1.867

0.083

2021

15

29.39

55.73

37.06

8.18

5.60

4.48

35.65

5.00

2.400

0.317

2021

16

29.43

55.75

37.08

8.21

6.11

0.65

35.69

5.00

2.067

0.047



Year


Stn

TEMP.

°C

COND

(mS/cm)


SAL (ppt)


pH

D.O.

(mg/l)

Turb

(NTU)

TDS

(g/l)

TSS

(mg/l)

NIT

(mg/l)

PHOS

(mg/l)

2021

17

29.34

55.76

37.08

8.23

6.24

0.00

35.69

5.00

2.267

0.160

2021

18

29.03

55.80

37.14

8.23

6.28

0.47

35.73

5.00

1.967

0.133

2021

19

29.02

57.53

37.17

8.24

6.33

0.10

35.76

5.00

2.700

0.107

2021

20

29.26

55.77

37.11

8.23

6.23

0.00

35.70

5.00

1.867

0.130

2021

21

29.61

55.77

37.11

8.23

6.14

0.00

35.72

5.00

1.733

0.127

2021

22

29.60

55.75

37.11

8.23

6.34

0.00

35.71

5.00

2.067

0.060

2021

23

29.61

55.79

37.12

8.22

6.11

0.65

35.73

5.00

1.633

0.050

2021

24

29.09

55.79

37.11

8.23

6.11

0.40

35.71

5.00

1.767

0.930

2021

25

29.33

55.82

37.13

8.22

6.11

0.09

35.73

5.00

2.033

0.077

2021

26

29.11

55.82

37.13

8.23

6.24

0.00

35.73

5.00

1.900

0.247

2021

27

29.18

55.80

37.13

8.23

6.16

0.00

35.70

5.00

1.867

0.143

2021

28

29.49

55.86

37.15

8.23

6.23

0.00

35.74

5.00

2.133

0.090

2021

29

29.02

49.50

33.51

8.16

5.63

2.90

32.29

5.00

1.467

0.283

2021

30

29.17

55.77

37.09

8.22

6.19

0.16

35.66

5.00

2.033

0.090

2021

31

31.00

33.51

21.50

7.58

3.08

37.00

21.92

8.00

0.400

0.160

2021

32

29.47

55.33

36.57

8.20

6.54

7.83

35.03

5.00

2.500

0.150

2021

33

29.13

40.41

26.53

8.00

4.61

30.93

25.86

5.00

0.600

0.410

2019

13

29.20

-

35.94

-

5.66

0.41

-

3.50

0.010

0.020

2019

15

29.30

-

36.04

-

5.18

0.71

-

3.50

0.010

0.020

2019

16

29.40

-

36.10

-

6.03

0.78

-

3.30

0.010

0.020

2015

1

27.26

56.53

37.64

8.25

6.05

0.41

36.17

4.00

1.870

0.150

2015

8

26.93

56.41

37.57

8.26

6.20

12.99

36.10

4.33

1.800

0.080

2015

9

27.12

56.40

37.72

8.25

6.11

0.24

36.23

5.00

1.970

0.070

2015

11

26.91

56.62

37.57

8.20

5.37

0.25

36.11

4.00

1.930

0.400

2015

12

27.00

56.52

37.65

8.24

6.02

0.00

36.18

4.00

2.170

0.300

2014

13

29.04

52.98

35.01

8.34

6.06

49.90

33.89

1.00

1.000

0.850

2014

14

29.00

52.93

34.99

8.33

5.85

2.80

33.86

1.70

0.500

0.150

2014

15

28.74

52.89

34.96

8.33

5.01

10.13

33.84

2.30

2.600

0.140

2014

16

28.91

52.93

34.98

8.32

5.55

19.43

33.88

1.70

1.900

0.740

2014

18

29.03

52.97

35.00

8.34

6.07

1.47

33.89

1.70

1.400

0.250

2014

19

29.04

52.93

34.98

8.35

6.27

2.93

33.87

1.30

1.700

0.200

2014

20

29.06

52.91

34.95

8.22

5.95

26.20

33.85

1.00

0.600

0.540

2014

21

29.01

52.89

34.95

8.26

5.98

8.17

33.84

1.70

0.700

0.440

2014

23

29.10

52.85

34.93

8.21

5.88

3.83

33.82

1.00

1.400

0.110

2014

24

29.00

52.88

34.94

8.39

5.95

3.13

33.84

1.00

0.600

0.320

2014

25

29.12

52.90

34.96

8.21

5.93

3.40

33.85

1.30

0.800

0.240

2014

26

29.16

52.93

34.98

8.22

6.00

2.80

33.85

0.70

0.900

0.810

2014

28

28.96

52.83

34.91

8.22

5.95

2.17

33.81

1.70

1.000

0.660

2014

29

27.67

32.66

21.14

8.3

4.04

5.67

31.24

5.00

0.500

1.080

2014

30

29.23

52.85

34.92

8.24

6.06

1.53

33.83

2.30

1.600

0.120

2001

1

30.30

-

37.50

7.64

5.93

-

36.00

-

0.004

0.000



Year


Stn

TEMP.

°C

COND

(mS/cm)


SAL (ppt)


pH

D.O.

(mg/l)

Turb

(NTU)

TDS

(g/l)

TSS

(mg/l)

NIT

(mg/l)

PHOS

(mg/l)

2001

2

30.47

-

37.45

7.25

5.31

-

36.03

-

0.558

0.001

2001

3

30.96

-

37.35

7.54

5.67

-

35.92

-

0.277

0.000

2001

5

31.50

-

37.38

7.63

7.38

-

35.91

-

0.020

0.007

2001

6

31.88

-

37.13

7.60

6.41

-

35.73

-

0.477

0.002

2001

10

30.89

-

37.62

7.19

6.77

-

36.25

-

0.326

0.008

2001

11

30.95

-

37.55

7.49

6.17

-

36.01

-

0.430

0.003


Oceanography and Hydrodynamics


Wave Climate and Storm Surge Nearshore Wave Climate Introduction

Nearshore wave climate is crucial for the assessment of coastal processes and their effects on the natural flora

found in the nearshore environment. This type of wave condition is derived from deep-water wave parameters since offshore waves translate to nearshore waves as they approach the shore. The direct transformation of such a large amount of wave observations is not feasible thus advanced techniques through the use of numerical wave models are used to quickly drive nearshore wave conditions from offshore wave data. Present and future wave climate scenarios were simulated in MIKE for 50-year return periods for deep-water waves.


Operational and Swell Conditions


The current speeds were investigated for operational and swell waves to deduce their potential impacts on the nearshore marine environment. The present operational and swell wave conditions were extracted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Wave Watch III model. The future climate operational and swell waves were extracted from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), based in Australia, to execute the model. See below Table 3-28 for the swells and operational wave heights and periods used. These parameters were put on the boundary of the model.

Table 3-28 Swell and Operational Conditions used on the model boundary



Swell Height (m)

Period (s)

Operational

Height (m)

Period (s)

Present Climate

2.5

12

1

11

Future Climate

3.4

14

1.5

12


Hydrodynamics

Drogue Tracking Results


The drogue tracking mission comprised of six (6) sessions – three (3) falling tide and three (3) rising tide sessions. From May 2nd – 4th 2021, the current speeds for the falling tides varied from 2.8– 5.0 cm/s and 1.8 –4.1 cm/s for surface and sub-surface drogues respectively. While for the rising tides the current speeds varied from 3.0 – 6.5 cm/s and 2.3 – 4.3 cm/s for the surface and sub-surface drogues respectively. The currents appear to be mostly circulation-driven by longshore wave-induced currents or prevailing oceanographic currents.


Table 3-29 Average speed and direction of surface and sub-surface drogues.



Average Speed (cm/s)

Average Direction (Degrees)

Average Direction

May 2 Session 1




Surface

5.000

184.420

Southerly

Subsurface

4.138

173.768

Southerly

May 2, Session 2




Surface

6.352

54.814

North-Easterly

Subsurface

3.664

65.772

North-Easterly

May 3, Session 3




Surface

2.820

169.849

Southerly

Subsurface

1.830

235.810

South-Westerly

May 3, Session 4




Surface

3.094

158.320

Southerly

Subsurface

2.371

167.038

Southerly

May 4, Session 5




Surface

3.661

151.301

South-Easterly

Subsurface

3.236

90.787

Easterly

May 4, Session 6




Surface

5.551

77.618

Easterly

Subsurface

4.353

134.726

South-Easterly


Calibration of Model

Calibration was a necessary step employed in the hydrodynamic modelling exercise to reduce predictive error. For the model to be used in any type of predictive role, it must be demonstrated that the model can successfully simulate observed behaviour. The model was calibrated by systematically adjusting model parameters such as turbulence and viscosity.


Calibration Results

The correlation between the results observed in the field and results taken from the model on average were within a reasonable tolerance. Comparative analysis in Figure 3-65 shows that currents during the rising tide on May 2nd, 2021, deviated a maximum of 0.0175m/s with an average difference of 0.0074m/s (13%). The divergence between the model and observed results are most notable for surface currents in shallow water. The observed data in this instance may have been affected by friction between the drogue and the seabed or rocks in the water. The calibration results give confidence to the results of the simulation and were used for modelling present and future operational and swell conditions.



Figure 3-65 Current Speed comparisons between field data and the MIKE 21 HD model simulation.


Figure 3-66 Current speed calibration plot for operational wave climate for 2nd May 2021, at 9 am.


Operational Conditions

Present Climate

Bottom currents are generally slower than surface current in the model results for the current climate. Bottom current speed ranged from 0.02 – 0.09m/s in a northerly to north-westerly direction. Long Bay had the fastest current speeds which were approximately 0.06 – 0.09m/s while in Bloody Bay, the current speeds were approximately 0.02m/s.

Surface current speeds varied between 0.06 - 0.08 m/s in Bloody Bay in a South-Easterly (SE) Direction. Surface currents in Long Bay however, varied between 0.04 – 0.06m/s in an SSE direction. It should be noted


that the surface currents increased at the headland which separates the two bays. The speeds modelled within reasonable tolerance to the speeds measured during the data collection exercise.


Future Climate

The results indicated that bottom current speeds under operational conditions for the future climate range from 0.03m/s to 0.12m/s in varying directions (sometimes in a circular motion) for both Long Bay and Bloody Bay. For surface currents however, in comparison to the present climate, the results displayed that there will be an increase in current speeds up to the year 2100. The speeds ranged from 0.04m/s - 0.25m/s for both Long Bay and Bloody Bay. These are an expected 36% and 45% increase for bottom currents and surface currents respectively.

Table 3-30 Model results of currents for Present and Future Climate under Operational Conditions



Present (m/s)

Future (m/s)

Percentage Difference (%)

Bottom Currents

0.02 – 0.09

0.03 – 0.12

+36.36

Surface Currents

0.04 – 0.16

0.04 – 0.25

+45


Swell Conditions

Present Climate

For the present climate, the results indicated that bottom current speeds under swell conditions range from 0.04m/s in a northerly direction to 0.17m/s in a north-westerly direction. A section of Long Bay showed currents travelling southerly at 0.06m/s and westerly in Bloody Bay 0.02m/s.

The results indicated that surface current speed in Bloody Bay in the present climate range between 0.04- 0.08m/s in a South-Easterly (SE) direction, while in Long Bay will range between 0.08-0.36 m/s. These are on average, faster than bottom currents.


Future Climate

Bottom current speed under swell conditions for the future climate ranged from 0.09m/s to 0.25m/s mostly in a Northeastern (NE) or Northwestern (NW) direction in Long Bay, while the bottom currents in Bloody Bay increased to an average of 0.11m/s. This shows an average increase in current speeds of 61.9% for both bays.

Surface current simulations under swell conditions in the future climate show a 63.6% increase in both Long Bay and Bloody Bay with future speeds ranging from a minimum of 0.13m/s to a maximum of 0.60m/s in both


bays. Table 3-31 compares the results of present and future climate average current speeds in both bays under swell conditions.

Table 3-31 Model results of currents for Present and Future Climate under Swell Conditions



Present (m/s)

Future (m/s)

Percentage Difference (%)

Bottom Currents

0.04 – 0.17

0.09 – 0.25

+61.9%

Surface Currents

0.08 – 0.36

0.13 – 0.60

+63.6%


Hurricane Conditions

Under hurricane conditions in the future climate, bottom current speeds are expected to vary from 0.18m/s at the shoreline and 0.9m/s in the nearshore regions of Long Bay. Bloody Bay bottom current speeds are expected to range between 0.2m/s – 0.43m/s.

Surface currents under hurricane conditions for the future climate are expected to be in the range of 0.2m/s – 2.7m/s in Long Bay and 0.32m/s – 1m/s in Bloody Bay.

Table 3-32 Model results of currents for Future Climate under Hurricane Conditions



Long Bay (m/s)

Bloody Bay (m/s)

Bottom Currents

0.18 – 0.9

0.2 – 0.43

Surface Currents

0.2 – 2.7

0.32 – 1



Figure 3-67 Current speeds for bottom currents under hurricane conditions in the future climate.



Figure 3-68 Current speeds for surface currents under hurricane conditions in the future climate.


Difference in Bottom currents between Present and Future Climate

The results yielded from the five (5) scenarios generated, denoted that the bottom current velocities varied depending on the oceanographic conditions. Overall, it was observed that under the future climate scenario, the bottom speeds are expected to increase.


The bottom currents speeds, under swell conditions, varied between 0.04 – 0.17 m/s for the present climate while for the future climate varied between 0.09–0.25 m/s. The increase in current speeds between the present and future climate was estimated to be as high as 1335% (mostly observed within the nearshore area and the surf zone). The areas demarcated by the yellow (46-236%), orange (232-694%) and red colours are recommended to be closely monitored (see Figure 3-69). The increases in current speeds within those areas are likely to have sub-lethal effects on the seagrass present.


The operational bottom current speeds varied and averaged 0.09 m/s in the present climate, while for the future climate this average increased to 0.12 m/s, see Figure 3-70. This is representative of a 33% increase in current bottom current speeds within the project area. The increase in current speeds is likely as a result of an increase in wind speed and subsequent increase in wave heights.



Current Speed Under Present and Future Conditions under

operational and swell wave condtions

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

Operational waves (bottom currents) Swells (bottom currents)

Present 0.09 0.17

Future 0.12 0.25

Current Speed (m/s)

Figure 3-69 The difference between present and future bottom currents under swell conditions


Figure 3-70 Current speeds (m/s) for present and future climate under the operational and swell condition


Summary

The results of the modelling showed that current speeds for the present climate average 0.055m/s for the bottom currents and 0.1m/s for surface currents under operational conditions. These operational conditions increase to 0.075m/s for bottom currents and 0.145m/s for surface currents. These speeds represent a 36.4% and 45% increase for bottom and surface currents respectively.

Current speeds were project to increase in both Long Bay and Bloody Bay in the future climate under swell conditions. Current speeds for the present climate under swell conditions average at 0.11m/s for bottom currents and 0.22m/s for top currents. The projected current speeds increase to 0.17m/s for bottom currents and 0.37m/s for surface currents. The percentage increase in current speeds in the future climate are 61.9% for bottom currents and 63.6% for surface currents.

Overall, the projected trends suggest that current speeds will increase for the future climate under both swell and operational conditions. The swell conditions will however, see the greatest percentage increase in current speeds, up to 63.6% for surface and 61.9% for bottom currents. The operational currents are also expected to increase significantly with 45% increase in surface current speeds and 36.4% increase in bottom current speeds. The bottom currents will have the greatest impact on seagrass and as such, these were the ones analyzed in the vulnerability assessment.

Under hurricane conditions in the future climate, currents in Long Bay are generally projected to be faster than currents in Bloody Bay, although the lower end of the current range is usually higher in Bloody Bay. The bottom currents in Bloody Bay range between 0.2m/s – 0.43m/s and 0.2m/s – 0.9m/s in Long Bay. Long Bay surface current speed projections range from 0.2m/s to 2.7m/s, while in Bloody Bay, the speeds range from 0.32m/s to 1m/s during a hurricane.


Nearshore Waves Operational Waves Present Climate

Day-to-day or operational waves were modelled using data from the NOAA Wave Watch weather service

database for the period 1999 to 2012 at 6-hour intervals for an offshore node. The model was calibrated to run operational waves for the southeast direction (dominant direction). The existing shoreline was modelled to better understand the areas which are most vulnerable as well as to estimate the magnitude of wave heights reaching the shoreline, based on the wave predictions. The model showed that the shoreline, under operational conditions, may experience average wave heights of 0.23m in Long Bay while in Bloody Bay the wave height was approximately 0.18m.


Figure 3-71 Present operational wave plot (South-West)


Future Climate

In the future climate, the results showed a similar direction (south-westerly) to operational waves in the present climate. Wave heights however were predicted to increase to 0.6m – 1.2m in the nearshore area in both Long Bay and Bloody Bay.



Figure 3-72 Future operational wave plot (South-West)


Swell Waves

Present Climate

The model showed that the nearshore area, under swell wave conditions, may experience wave heights of up to 0.7m – 1.6m from the South-West (SW) direction. See Figure 3-73 which shows the waves generated due to swells.




Figure 3-73 Present Climate Swell Waves Plot (Southeast - Worst Case)


Future Climate

The model shows that for the future climate, nearshore wave heights will increase to 0.9m – 2.2m from the South-East (SE) direction as seen in Figure 3-74.



Figure 3-74 Future Climate Swell Waves Plot (Southeast- Worst Case)


Difference in swell heights between Present and Future Climate

It was observed that the nearshore zone will be minimally affected by the increase in swell heights however, within the surf zone, an exponential increase was observed in swell heights. The wave heights are expected to increase 40-80% within the surface zone, (light green and yellow areas), see Figure 3-75. Therefore, close monitoring should be implemented within this area, due to the great seagrass within that area.




Figure 3-75 Difference in swell wave heights


Summary and Discussion

The results of the modelling illustrated operational and swell waves in the present climate are of average height, approximately 0.65m and 1.15m respectively in the nearshore area. The model shows, under future climate, the operational wave averages increasing to 0.9m while swell wave averages increase to 1.55m.

During both the operational and swell conditions, the dominant wave direction is south-east.


Table 3-33 Summary of Operational wave heights arriving at the shoreline based on deep-water wave transformation modelling.


Operational Waves





Directions

SE

SE

Significant wave height (m)

0.18 – 0.2

0.6 – 1.2


Table 3-34 Swell wave heights (m) at the existing shoreline


Swell Waves




Directions

SE

SE

Significant wave height (m)

0.7 – 1.6

0.9 – 2.2


Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storm Surge

In recent years, the dynamics of storm surge and wave prediction generated from hurricanes have been vastly researched by the scientific community. Notwithstanding, there are still key areas of storm surge generation which are poorly understood. The study is therefore aimed at conducting a numerical investigation to gain an understanding of storm surge elevation and wave height produced from catastrophic hurricanes in the Negril area.


Hurricane Ivan Results

The outcome of the storm surge model showed fairly good approximations of the surface elevation generated by Hurricane Ivan. The model results generated a storm surge elevation at Long Bay and Bloody Bay of 1.06 and 1.1 meters respectively, whilst the anecdotal elevation was 1.01 m (Table 3-35).

Table 3-35 Calibration storm surge results from model for Hurricane Ivan.



Long Bay & Bloody Bay

Observed results (m)

0.94

ODPEM Results2014 (m)

1.01

MIKE Results (m) (2021)

1.06



Figure 3-76 Storm surge results generated from Hurricane Ivan (2004) simulation


Hydrodynamic Results

Overall, the results indicated that the probabilistic hurricanes generated for Category three (3), Category four (4), and Category five (5), had surface elevations of 1.2, 2.0, and 2.8m respectively. As shown in Table 3-37, the shoreline along the project site would be partially inundated by the storm surges during the Category 3-5 hurricane events.


Figure 3-77 Storm surge results for Direct Parallel hit (Category 5)



Figure 3-78 Storm surge results for Direct Parallel hit (Category 4)



Figure 3-79 Storm surge results for Direct Parallel (Category 3)


Hurricane Waves

The MIKE 21 SW module tool was utilized to model the significant wave height (Hs) during the cyclone.


Spectral WAVE Results

Overall, the results indicated that the probabilistic hurricanes generated for Category three (3), Category four (4), and Category five (5), had nearshore wave heights of 1.5m, 2.0m, and 3.3m respectively. As shown in Table 3-36, the site would be fully inundated by the wave heights during the Category 4 and 5 hurricane events.




Figure 3-80 Wave height results for Direct Parallel (Category 5)


Figure 3-81 Wave heights results for Direct Parallel (Category 4)



Figure 3-82 Wave height results for Direct Parallel (Category 3)


Table 3-36 Summary of wave height at project area from probabilistic hurricanes


Location

Parallel Direct Hit (Category 3)

Parallel Direct Hit (Category 4)

Parallel Direct Hit (Category 5)

Wave Height

1.5

2.0

3.3


Table 3-37 Summary of storm surge inundation at project area from probabilistic hurricanes


Location

Parallel Direct Hit (Category 3)

Parallel Direct Hit (Category 4)

Parallel Direct Hit (Category 5)

Surface Elevation

1.2

2.0

2.8


Summary and Conclusions

The analysis suggested that the site would be partially inundated by the storm surge projected for the area in the event of a direct hit from a hurricane. It was estimated that the worst-case scenario storm surge elevations (Category 5) would cause damage within the project area. The storm surge inundation levels for a direct hit are between 1.2 m and 2.8 m. While the predicted nearshore wave heights for the direct hits are 1.5


m, 2 m and 3.3 m for Categories 3, 4, and 5 respectively. This is a key indicator that evacuation will be necessary within the project area.


Climate Change Projections


Introduction

Jamaica’s coast is constantly under environmental pressures from natural hazards (hurricanes, storm surges), accelerated by climate change-related extreme events such as increase temperature and sea-level rise. Over the past decades, the direct impact of such hazards has resulted in grave environmental degradation and socioeconomic disturbances along Jamaica’s coast. This situation is further exacerbated where dense urban settlements and critical structures are sited in areas deemed susceptible to coastal hazards.

The intense winds from hurricanes and subsequent tidal and wave energy can cause significant damage to seagrass leaves through tearing and may uproot the plants completely. This was evidenced in 2004 after the passing of Hurricane Ivan where uprooted seagrass was washed ashore along the shoreline of Rocky Point and Alligator Pond and extending several metres seaward (Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), PNUD, NU. CEPAL. Subsede de México, 2004). Additionally, the wind suspends sand and sediment, moving them into the coastal zone and occasionally covering or eroding the seagrass. The combined effects can impact seagrass meadows depending on site characteristics. Seagrass meadows serve as a nursery habitat for a variety of commercially important fish and increase water clarity by trapping material as it settles from the water column. Thus, the loss of seagrass meadows due to hurricanes can harm ecosystem services even after the storm has passed.

Most notably Hurricane Harvey damaged seagrass habitats along the Coastal Bend, this was reflected by a decrease in cover and blade length directly related to wind intensity.

Therefore, the vulnerability of the seagrass located along Long Bay and Bloody Bay was determined based on climate change analysis, wave climate, and site-specific characteristics. The analysis considered both current and future climate scenarios.




Figure 3-83 Project Area showing Bloody Bay to the north and Long Bay to the south


Context

The project area is in a headland-controlled bay. This makes the shoreline of the project area particularly vulnerable to erosion due to the likely focusing of wave energy obliquely to the shoreline, resulting in fast longshore sediment transport rates. The project area is characterized by wide beaches, seagrass, corals, mangroves, and streams/rivers. The area is also heavily utilized by tourists for recreational activities such as snorkelling and boat anchorage which can be a threat to seagrass. Seagrass ecosystems play an integral role in the project area, therefore, it is crucial to explore the future climate change impacts and to protect it against future damage.


Figure 3-84 Headland which divides Long Bay and Bloody Bay

Figure 3-85 Booby Cay



Figure 3-86 Mangroves in Bloody Bay



Figure 3-87 Seagrass in Long Bay (red circle)


Model Projections

Various models were used to deduce present and future climate projections. The KNMI Climate Explorer tool, part of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Regional Climate Centre, is a web application to analyze climate data statistically which contains more than 10 TB of climate data and dozens of analysis tools. Much of the observational data is updated monthly, part of the daily data is updated every day. This tool


facilitated the extraction of both past/current climate trends and future projections utilizing a variety of models based on these trends.


Overview of Models

Table 3-38 shows the variables that were analyzed in this project and the climate models that are suited for reanalysis and future projections for the Caribbean Region.

Table 3-38 Models that will be used for future projections for the respective variables.


Variables

Climate Model

Sea level rise

IPCC Literature (AR 5 and Global Warming of 1.5◦)

Sea surface temperature

HadGem2-CC

Wind

HadGem2-CC & ERA-5

Air Temperatures

HadGEM2-ES

Rainfall

HadGEM2-ES

Waves

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organization (CSIRO)

Currents

Mike 21 Coupled Model


HadGEM2

The HadGEM2 family of climate configurations of the Met Office Unified Model includes atmosphere and ocean components, include a well-resolved stratosphere, and an Earth-System (ES) component including the terrestrial and oceanic carbon cycle and atmospheric chemistry.


Sea Level Rise

Combining process-model-based studies, there is medium confidence that GMSL is projected to rise between 0.29–0.59 m (likely range) globally under RCP 2.6 and 0.61–1.10 m (likely range) under RCP 8.5 by 2100 (Figure 3-88). (Oppenheimer, 2019).




Figure 3-88 Projected Sea level rise (SLR) until 2300 for RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 up to 2100 (medium confidence). Projections for longer time scales are highly uncertain but a range is provided (4.2.3.6; low confidence). For context, results are shown from other estimation approaches in 2100 and 2300. The two sets of two bars labelled B19 are from an expert elicitation for the Antarctic component (Bamber et al., 2019), and reflect the likely range for a 2ºC and 5ºC temperature warming (low confidence. The bar labelled “prob.” indicates the likely range of a set of probabilistic projections. Source: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Community.


Sea Surface Temperature

The HadGEM2-CC climate model was used to model historical and future projections of sea surface temperatures in the Western Caribbean region (see Figure 3-89 and Figure 3-90). It shows a relatively steady temperature fluctuation from 1861-1961, averaging 26.8 °C. Then a slight dip in temperatures between 1961 and 1981 by up to 0.7°C, and then a sharp increase from 1981 to 2021, bringing the average temperature in 2021 to 26.8 °C. This increasing trend is projected to continue to 2099 with average temperatures increasing by 3.6°C for a projected temperature of 30.3°C. These trends align with the IPCC AR5 report of sea surface temperature rise in SST for both historical and future projection models.


Present and Future Sea Surface Temperature


30.50


29.50


28.50


27.50


26.50


25.50


24.50


Years

Temperature (°C)

1861

1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1951

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

2021

2031

2041

2051

2061

2071

2081

2091

2101

Figure 3-89 Present trends and future projections of increasing sea surface temperature using the HadGEM2- CC model for CMIP5 for RCP 8.5 for the period 1861-2100.




Figure 3-90 Present trends and future projections of increasing sea surface temperature using the HadGEM2- CC model for CMIP5 RCP 8.5 for period 1861-2005 and 2005 - 2100. The box extends from 25% to 75%, the whiskers from 5% to 95% and the horizontal line denotes the median (50%).


Air Temperature

The HadGEM2-ES climate model was used to model historical and future projections of air temperatures in the Western Caribbean region (see Figure 3-91 and Figure 3-92). Historical temperatures from 1860 – 1980 are fairly consistent, averaging 26 °C, after which temperatures have been rising consistently. According to the IPCC AR Synthesis Report 5 (AR5), air temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios and continue through to the end of the century (2100). The HadGEM2-ES climate model results confirm these predictions as well as those made in the State of the Jamaican Climate 2015 report, that average annual temperatures could increase to 3 °C or greater by the end of the century.


Present and Future Air Temperature


30.50


29.50


28.50


27.50


26.50


25.50


24.50


Years

Temperature (°C)

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Figure 3-91 Present trends and future projections of increasing air temperature using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 for RCP8.5 for period 1860-2100.



Figure 3-92 Present trends and future projections of increasing air temperature using the HadGEM2-ES model

for CMIP5 for RCP8.5 for period 1860-2005 and 2005-2100. The box extends from 25% to 75%, the whiskers from 5% to 95% and the horizontal line denotes the median (50%)


Precipitation

Data output from the HadGEM2-ES climate change model shows a relatively steady trend in rainfall for the present climate (not increasing or decreasing). However, for future climate predictions, there is an obvious decrease showing a drying trend toward the end of the century. These present and future trends were also highlighted in the All-Jamaica rainfall index for the current climate and the CSGM 2017 and NEPA 2014 reports.

Present and Future Precipitation

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00


Years

Precipitation (mm)

Overall rainfall is expected to decrease from an average of 2.5mm/day to 2.1mm/day by the end-of-century. This would reduce annual rainfall of 912mm by 146mm, bringing new annual rainfall averages to 766.5mm.






1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Figure 3-93 Present trends and future projections of decreasing precipitation using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 RCP8.5 for the period 1860-2100



Figure 3-94 Present trends and future projections of decreasing precipitation using the HadGEM2-ES model for CMIP5 RCP8.5 for period 1860-2005 and 2005 - 2100. The box extends from 25% to 75%, the whiskers from 5% to 95% and the horizontal line denotes the median (50%)


Wind

Reanalysis wind data was derived from the ERA-5 model to determine present wind speed averages in the Western Caribbean region (see Figure 3-95). It shows there has been a slight increase in average wind speeds from 1979 - 2021.

Wind speed ranges are projected to increase slightly from historical ranges of between 4.5m/s and 8.6m/s from 1979 to 5.2m/s -9m/s for present climate.



Figure 3-95 ERA-5 Present reanalysis wind data for the period 1979-2021


Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment


General approach

Climate change is described as a significant variation of average weather conditions over several decades or more. The global climate has changed relative to the pre-industrial period, and evidence suggests that these changes have had impacts on organisms and ecosystems, as well as on human systems and well-being. (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2018).

More extreme weather and climate-related events are expected as the climate continues to change. The frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of events are expected to increase while slow-onset incremental changes may lead to a fundamental transformation of the socio-economic system. The climate


analysis conducted in Section 3.8.2, highlighted the potential hazards such as temperature, sea-level rise, current speeds and sea-surface temperatures which pose a threat to the seagrass. These potential impacts were compiled and assessed, to determine the changes between the present and future climate and the level of risk posed to the seagrass habitat.

Knowledge gaps (limited research) hamper our ability to give precise predictions on the adverse impact of climate change on seagrass ecosystem.


Assessment

Sea Level Rise

Global sea levels are expected to rise between 0.43m and 0.84m under RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 scenarios respectively up to the year 2100 as shown in Table 3-39 (Oppenheimer, 2019). This increased depth has the potential to reduce the light penetration to seagrass meadows and may limit their photosynthetic ability. This may alter the maximum depth, limit plant growth and affect seagrass distribution. Sea Level Rise (SLR) will also increase tidal range which may restrict the depth to which plants can grow by increasing the stress of light limitation. Tidal height and tidal range effects on light availability, current velocities, depth, and salinity distribution will regulate the distribution and abundance of seagrasses. The greater tidal flows will increase water movement in coastal and estuarine areas which increases leaf biomass, width, and canopy height with increasing current velocity. In seagrass meadows, changing tidal channels may also erode beds in some areas or create new depositional areas (Sunny, 2017).

Table 3-39 Projected Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) rise for three RCP Scenarios



RCP2.6

RCP4.5

RCP8.5

GMSL 2031–2050 (m)

0.17

0.18

0.20

GMSL 2046–2065 (m)

0.24

0.26

0.32

GMSL 2081–2100 (m)

0.39

0.49

0.71

GMSL in 2100 (m)

0.43

0.55

0.84

Rate (mm yr.–1)

4

7

15


Light attenuation is an important parameter for determining the photic zone, which is the zone with sufficient light for photosynthesis and thus relevant for total primary production as well as the distribution between pelagic and benthic primary production. Figure 3-96 shows the exponential relationship between water depth and percentage irradiance. This curve is influenced by water quality.


Change of total downwelling irradiance with depth


Irradiance %

0 20 40 60 80 100

0

y = -3.03ln(x) + 13.955

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9

Depth (m)

Figure 3-96 Change of the total downwelling irradiance with depth. Source: (Abdelrhman, 2016)


With sea levels in the Caribbean projected to rise 0.98m up to the year 2100, assessing the impact this will have on seagrass is imperative. Light intensity declines exponentially with depth, as described by the Beer- Lambert Law:

𝑰𝑰 = 𝑰𝑰𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔−𝒌𝒌𝒅𝒅𝒉𝒉𝒅𝒅


𝐼𝐼: Irradiance at seagrass canopy (W m-2)


𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠: Irradiance at immediate sub-surface (654 W m-2)


𝑑𝑑: Depth interval between I and Isurface (maximum =7m)


𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑: Light attenuation coefficient, (0.33m-1)


Under the present climate, light intensity is on average 9.9% at 7m depth (maximum seagrass habitat within the project areas. For the future climate, SLR is estimated to be about 0.98m, which would increase water depth at the initial point from 7m to 7.98m. This would result in a decrease in Irradiance at the seagrass canopy to 7.2%.

Table 3-40 Difference between Irradiance at seagrass canopy in the present climate vs the future climate



Present

Future (with 0.98m

SLR)

Percentage

Difference (%)

Irradiance at immediate sub-surface,

Isurface (W m-2)

1000

1000

--

Light availability at surface (%)

100%

100%

--

hd (m)

7

7.98

+14%

Irradiance at seagrass canopy, I (W m-2)

99.3

71.8

-27.6%

Light availability at depth hd (%)

9.9%

7.2%

-27.6%


Irradiance in 2100 at the same point (seaward edge of seagrass meadows) is expected to decrease by 2.7%. The species at the project site were Thalassia testudinum, Syringodium filiforme and Halodule wrightii. The deepening water and resultant reduced irradiance could lead to decreased photosynthetic productivity which may be compensated by migrating through rhizome branching and seedling establishment toward shallower water, with the deeper meadow edge dying off, if extensive shallow mudflats are present (Short F.T., 2016). If rates of sea-level rise outpace the ability of the meadow to migrate toward shallower water, the meadows will be lost. This migration may be impacted by other factors of climate change such as sea surface temperature and currents as well as anthropogenic stressors if proper mitigation measures are not implemented.

Alternately, photo-adaptive responses have been recorded in seagrasses. Reductions in irradiance have been reflected in seagrasses through decreases in plant size, shoot density, biomass, leaf production rates, etc. (Kun-Seop Lee, 2007). These responses cannot be quantified however, as they have not been adequately studied.


Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

Temperature is a critical factor for the survival and growth of plants because the enzymes involved in most cellular processes operate most efficiently within specific temperature ranges. Seagrasses are likely to be


highly sensitive to increases in Sea Surface Temperature (SST), whether they occur as short-term ‘spikes’ in maximum temperature over periods of hours, or as chronic exposures for weeks or months. In many locations’ seagrasses are already growing at their maximum temperature tolerance.

Experimental studies on tropical seagrasses demonstrated that the sensitivity of photosynthesis was species- specific as Halodule uninervis and Thalassia hemprichii are more tolerant to short-term (1 to 4 hour) exposures of thermal stress (35 to 45°C) than Syringodium isoetifoilum. Short-term exposure to temperatures > 40°C causes the death of seagrass leaves as seen in Figure 3-97.

In a study conducted on several species of seagrass, after 3 days of 4h temperature treatments ranging from 26° to 40°C, the H. uninervis and T. hemprichi species were more adaptive to high temperatures while S. isoetifoilum had lower thermal tolerance and was more susceptible to eco-physiological damage at higher temperatures. The overall results of the experiments suggest that the photosynthetic condition of all seagrass species tested is likely to suffer irreparable effects from short-term or episodic changes in seawater temperatures as high as 40–45°C (Stuart J. Campbell, 2006).



Figure 3-97 Thresholds for the survival of seagrass species under elevated sea surface temperatures (SST) and increasing exposure. Source: (Campbell, McKenzie, & Kerville, 2006)

Seagrasses in the Long Bay and Bloody Bay region are projected to be exposed to increases in SST of up to 3.0°C by 2100, moving from 27.7°C in the present climate, up to 30.9°C by 2100. Chronic elevated SST of up to

+3°C results in increased respiratory demand and loss of seagrasses where respiration outstrips photosynthesis. Such damage could slow growth, delay development and lead to mortality.

The impact of increasing SST is expected to be exacerbated by decreased light availability, with interactions between elevated temperatures and reduced light levels resulting in greater potential impacts. This would further increase their already high respiration demands which are expected to exceed their capacity for gaining carbon through photosynthesis, which would delay growth and reduce seagrass resilience. Extended periods (>30 days) of exposure to increased temperature of ≥3°C throughout the year may however result in seagrass leaf death based on the results seen in plants of similar species in previous studies. The inability of


the seagrass to photosynthesize due to leaf death, and expected prolonged temperature increases, seagrass meadows will likely be depleted.

Increases in seawater temperature also translates into stronger extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall and tropical cyclones and storms, which put additional stress on seagrass habitats through direct physical damage and an increase in turbidity which causes reductions in photosynthetic rates and growth, and a general loss of ecosystem resilience and productivity (N’Yeurt, 2018).


Ocean Currents

Current velocity plays an integral role in the seagrass ecosystem such as it defines the conditions of overall water temperature, nutrient supply, salinity, and transport of pollutants from remote sources. Current velocities were examined within the project area, both numerically and physically to gain a holistic understanding of the environment and to assess the potential risk to the seagrass in the future. It should be noted that both surface and subsurface currents were analyzed, however, this study focused on subsurface currents. Surface currents are attributed to wind and have no integral interaction with the seafloor.


Impacts

Positive Impacts

There are several advantages for seagrass meadows growing at low current velocity. The transparency of the water is greater due to limited sediment re-suspension, which in turn promotes light availability and a reduction in self-shading as leaves tend to adopt a more vertical position in the water column when drag is reduced (Fonseca, 1998).

Another advantage is the greater availability of nutrients in the sediments which enhances seagrass growth and health. Low currents are also important for seed dispersion to facilitate germination.


Negative Impacts

In environments where currents are strong, it can result in the leaves lying flat on the seabed and reduces erosion under the leaves. The high-velocity currents can thus change the configuration of patches within a meadow, creating striations and mounding in the seagrass meadows. Such turreted profiles destabilize the meadow and increase the risk of 'blowouts'. The bending of the leaves can also cause photosynthesis rates to decrease because of self-shading. A larger fraction of the incoming light is absorbed in the upper part of the canopy where photosynthesis is no longer limited by light availability.


The speed of the currents can also prohibit the growth indirectly by determining the particle size of sediments. Sand particles' ability to be suspended and transported is a function of current velocity. Thus, sand particles have a critical erosion velocity of about 0.20 m/s, whereas larger particles require faster current speeds to initiate movement (about 1.0 m s−1 for coarse gravel) (J. D. Madsen, 2001). A conceptual framework model was developed by J.D. Madsen (2001), for the effects of current velocity on submersed macrophytes in a stream, see Figure 3-98. The framework indicated that in speeds of less than 0.10 m/s the biomass would be high and high diversity would be present, however, for speeds ranging between 0.60 m/s to 0.90 m/s, low biomass and delay in onset of growth is identified. Populations found in stronger currents are usually smaller, patchy, and more vulnerable to storm damage (d’Avack, 2014).

Aquatic environments are classified as having slow, medium, fast, or very fast current velocities, and those having either low or high variability of flows or stages over the growing season. In environments with high variability inflow, this variability can occur either early or late in the growing season.



Figure 3-98 Conceptual model of the effects of current velocity on biomass and species composition of submerged freshwater macrophytes in streams and rivers adapted from a more general model for all aquatic plants by Biggs (1996).


Vulnerability Assessment

The increase in current speeds can cause a detrimental effect on the seagrass community within the project areas, most notably current speeds under future swell and hurricane conditions. Therefore, vulnerability assessment criteria were generated using the conceptual framework produced by D’Avack (2014), to highlight the possible levels of risk that bottom current speed can pose to the seagrass. The scale developed ranges from 0.09 to 0.9 m/s and is categorized into four (4) classes as shown in Table 3-41 below.


Table 3-41 Vulnerability levels for seagrass against current speeds



Level of Impacts


Trivial

Minor

Moderate

Serious


Current Speed


Very Low


(0-0.03 m/s)


Low


(0.03-0.09 m/s)


Moderate


(0.09-0.6 m/s)


High


(0.6-0.8 m/s)


The analysis of the generated bottom currents for the different scenarios allowed for a direct comparison of the hazard. Based on modelling to date, it was determined that some of the seagrasses within Long Bay and Bloody Bay may be at risk from bottom currents generated from hurricanes (100 yr RP) and future swell waves. It was observed that, under hurricane conditions, large sections of the project area would be deemed vulnerable. This is denoted in the areas highlighted in red (Serious Risk) and orange (Moderate risk) in Figure 3-101. While, under swell wave conditions in the future climate, the level of vulnerability decreases in

comparison to hurricanes. Seagrasses located in orange areas are at moderate risk. Swell conditions under the present climate however, displayed that the vulnerable areas decreased, most notably in Long Bay (Figure

3-99). These fast velocities may cause erosion, uprooting and may prohibit growth.




Figure 3-99 Vulnerability of Long Bay and Bloody Bay towards bottom currents under present swell conditions




Figure 3-100 Vulnerability of Long Bay and Bloody Bay towards bottom currents under future swell conditions




Figure 3-101 Vulnerability of Long Bay and Bloody Bay towards bottom currents under swell conditions for hurricane conditions


Vulnerability Curve for Bottom Currents

Relationship between leaf density and bottom current velocity

1


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5

Density

0.4

Expon. (Density)

0.3


0.2


0.1


0

0

100

200

300

400

Leaf density/m2

500

600

700

800

Bottom current velocity (m/s)

A summary of the relationship between seagrass density and bottom currents velocity is depicted in Figure 3-102. The increase in current speeds might contribute directly as well as indirectly to deterioration or even loss of seagrass meadows. Hence, it indicates that as current speeds increase, a decrease in seagrass density is expected to occur due to the ideal velocity being 0.2m/s. It can be reasonably argued that some of the seagrasses will adapt to such strong currents as observed in many previous studies.



















































































Figure 3-102 Relationship between seagrass leaf density and bottom current velocity.


Summary

The seagrass within the project area is at moderate risk of impact from Sea-Level Rise as well as surface temperature. The impact of increasing SST will depend on light availability, with interactions between elevated temperatures and reduced light levels resulting in greater potential impacts. Where seagrasses are already experiencing lower light levels, meadows will have a high vulnerability to increases in SST because their relatively high respiration demands are expected to exceed their capacity for gaining carbon through photosynthesis. However, the greatest threat of the future climate on seagrass based on the data available was ocean currents. It was observed that large sections of the project area will be affected by fast


bottom current speeds, most notable at the headland which divides the two bays. These fast currents would attribute to critical erosion of sediments on the seafloor thus reducing the stability of the grass. There is, therefore, a strong need for a mitigation plan to be implemented.

Table 3-42 Summary of Impact level of the hazards assessed.


Hazard

Impact

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

Moderate Risk

Sea Surface Temperature (SST)

Moderate Risk

Ocean Currents

High Risk


Stakeholder Workshops and Community Consultations


Group Discussion Findings

There is consensus among all the groups (fishers, farmers, craft vendors, residents) that the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is in social and environmental decline. This has been blamed mostly due to the lack of preventative maintenance and supervision as well as the failure to equally implement the laws.

Fisher Profile

Fishers were in the business from 13 to over 40 years and their ages ranged from 29 to 65 years. The median age for fishers was the age group 40 to 49. Some 32% fell within that age bracket.

Age breakdown of participants:

o 20-29 – 2 (6%)

o 30-39 – 7 (23%)

o 40-49 – 10 (32%)

o 50-59 – 7 (23%)

o 60+ - 5 (16%)


About 50% had no schooling or had dropped out of schools. They presented low literacy levels. Some could not read nor write. Others have a primary education. A few were educated to the secondary level. It is estimated that over 400 fishers, registered and unregistered; full-time and seasonal, operate from the Negril Fishing Beach (NFB). Based on anecdotal evidence gathered from fishers and the national and local fishing cooperative, an estimated 100 boats sail with between one operator and up to a crew of nine (9). Most boats are manned by a crew of four (4). All boats are engaged in fishing for commercial purposes. Some 55% are engaged in trap fishing with the majority venturing out to set pots (40%) and the rest using nets. Another 40% engage in line or spear fishing. Of that amount, some 30% of all boats (30 boats) remain inshore specializing in catching “Bonita”.



Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency



Figure 3-103 Estimated number of fishing boats operating from Negril Fishing Beach


Fisher Licencing, Boat Licencing and Ownership

Of the 31 fishers that participated in the group discussions, five of which were female, all reported to be licensed though some admitted that their license had expired. The Negril Fishermen Cooperative (NFC) reports some 300 members with less than 100 being active. At the national level, the Jamaica Fishermen Cooperation Union (JFCU) reports that less than 100 of its members are registered to the NFB. While there remains uncertainty about the number of fishers registered to operate from the NFB, there are reports of an influx of new operators since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 presenting as CoViD-19.

It is felt that all boats launching from the NFB are owned by fishers and up to 80% are directly operated by the owners.


Launching, Mooring and Fishing Areas

All boats launch from and moor at the NFB. Based on the size of the boat, the majority (95%) of fishers operate within a 15km radius of the banks of Bloody Bay and Long Bay. Less than 5% have the capacity for offshore fishing such as Pedro Bank or further. The minimum boat size for a trip to Pedro Bank is 33 feet. A few fishers reported fishing outside of Jamaican waters.


Based on the reports, fishers operate in the following areas:

  1. Sections of Bloody Bay

  2. Long Bay

  3. Lucea

  4. Negril River

  5. Savana La Mar

  6. 1.6 km (1 mile) in any direction from NFB for trap fishing

  7. 24.1 km (15 miles) from NFB in any direction for line fishing

  8. Pedro Bank

  9. Lowered banks of Kingston

  10. Outside of Jamaican waters:

    1. Bossa Nova

    2. Mexico

    3. Honduras

    4. Colombia

    5. Nicaragua

    6. Roslyn Bank


Vessel Type and Size

Approximately 90% of boats operating from the NFB are 28’ fibre glass. Other sizes reported are 18’, 25’, 29’, and 32’ fibre glass. A few are 16’ and 18” ply. It was reported that no 100’ boats are licensed to the NFB and none launched from there.


Fishing Frequency, Duration, Attempts, Methods and Gear

Most fishers go fishing six (6) days per week with a few fishing daily. Many go out to fish twice per day. On an average, a fishing trip last for six (6) hours with some spending three (3) hours and others up to twelve (12) hours at sea. The most popular time to fish is between 5.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. when trap fishing is practiced.

Pots are checked every 24 hours, re-baited and re-set. Where net fishing is concerned, nets are casted two to three times resulting in a catch of between 20lbs to 30lbs which most fishers consider to be a “reasonable catch”. Overall, fishers report spending longer hours and making more attempts to harvest the same or less catch.


Table 3-43 Fish Catch Method and Times


#

Fishing Time

Catch Method

1.

5.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Pot, Net

2.

2.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

Line, Net

3.

6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Spear,


Catch Type

The Bonita, Tuna, Snapper, Parrot and Grunt were the most popular species seen. Other less popular species include:

  1. Wenchman

  2. Yellow Fin

  3. Lobster

  4. Conch

  5. Crab

  6. Shark

  7. Marlin

  8. Doctor Fish

  9. King fish


Sightings were also reported for Tiger sharks, Bullhead sharks, Nurse sharks, Hammerheads and Reef sharks. Dolphins are considered to be invasive, and an overpopulation is present within the Bay.



Plate 3-66 Lobster fisherman in Long Bay (live lobster cage)



Plate 3-67 Sale of lobster on beach in Long Bay


Time Fishing, Income and Catch Quantity

All fishers operate for commercial purposes and to earn a living with fishing being their main source of income. Many have been fishing for more than half their lifetime and knows no other vocation. Time in the fishing business ranged from 13 years to over 40 years. It is felt that most fishers operating small boats close to shore would be unprofitable. Larger boats that are well-equipped and have the capacity to go far offshore for large catches and are more profitable. A profitable catch is considered by the fishers to be over 200 pounds but over 95% of boats are not equipped to venture offshore. Table 3-44 gives a simple calculation of gross income of fishers at NFB.

Fishers also report high input costs. (Table 3-45). As a result, fishers engage in other activities such as farming, construction, shop/grocery/bar/restaurant operations to supplement their income.

Table 3-44 Simple Average Calculation of Gross Income at Negril Fishing Beach


# of Boats

Days Fishing

Average Daily Catch (lbs)

Average Weekly Catch (lbs)

Average Price lbs/pound

Gross Weekly Income

# Of Fishers at NFB

Gross Weekly Income per fisher

100

6

30lbs

18,000

JM$500

JM$9.0M

400

JM$22,500


Table 3-45 Schedule of input costs


#

Item

Cost JM$

Frequency

1.

Fisher license

1,700.00

Annual

2.

Boat license

3,500.00

Annual

3.

Wire roll

34,000.00

Month

4.

Net

1,200.00


5.

Gas

5,000.00

Trip

6.

Oil

1,100.00


7.

Bread

3,000.00



Stakeholder Workshops

Of the three (3) planned workshops, one (Stakeholder Sensitization Workshop) was fully executed digitally via Zoom on June 3, 2021, attended by fifty-nine (59) individuals. The attendee breakdown is shown in Table 3-46.

Table 3-46 Attendees for the June 3rd, 2021 Stakeholder Sensitization Workshop



Male

Female

TOTAL

Categories

#

%

#

%

#

%

GOJ

8

13

14

24

22

37

Negril EPA

8

13

18

30

26

43

Consultant Team

3

6

8

14

11

20


19

32

40

68

59

100


For the meeting, five (5) digital break-out rooms were created according to the categories:


  1. Agriculture

  2. Fisheries

  3. Tourism

  4. General and Community

  5. Regulatory


Topics discussed included: Who/What causes pressure on seagrass ecosystem?; Conflicts within the EPA; Possible Solutions; and Training Needs. The discussions are summarized in Table 3-47 - Table 3-50 below.


Table 3-47 Discussions regarding: Who/what causes pressure on seagrass ecosystems?



Table 3-48 Discussions regarding: Conflicts within the EPA




Table 3-49 Discussions regarding: Possible Solutions



Table 3-50 Discussions regarding: Training Needs



Room 1 – Agriculture

Room 2 – Fisheries

Room 3 – Tourism

Room 4 – General & Community

Room 5 - Regulatory

How to protect EPA





Targeted, in-depth training
















Conclusion and Rating of Project Implementation Success


Seagrass Health Assessment

Analyzed datasets for the Long and Bloody Bay areas indicated a high influence of water quality, wave activity and anthropogenic factors on the status of seagrass meadows. Blue carbon values are highest within Long Bay; this may be due to outputs from of the Negril River and the large influence of the mangrove ecosystem (organic/peaty soils) on these outputs.

Across the dataset for Long and Bloody Bay, seagrass vegetative component parameters were higher within the Long Bay project area (Table 4-1). This may be due to influences from the settling of outputs from the Negril River, groundwater upwelling and prevalent wave energy resulting in the introduction, mixing and deposition of nutrients into this ecosystem. Depth variations between the two bays will also affect the capacity for the ecosystem to operate at full potential.

Table 4-1 Summary of the Seagrass Health Assessment



Bloody

Bay

Long Bay

Shoot Component (MgC)

83.06

470.74

Root/Rhizome Component (MgC)

237.04

1168.30

Vegetative Component (MgC)

319.95

1639.03

Soil Component (MgC)

53988.02

651419.5

Max. Productivity (g/m2/day)

0.039

0.049


Bloody Bay being the smaller, more enclosed and the area possessing no areas of pavement is expected to have higher levels of carbon within its ecosystem. Despite this, of the two bays, it is seen as possessing lower carbon values within aboveground, belowground as well as soil components. This may be due to the excessive organic carbon input introduced and deposited within the Long Bay Area. These inputs include introduced dissolved nutrients from the Negril River as well as inputs from solid waste and runoff along Long Bay. Due to its larger area, more nutrients are emptied within this area through drainage systems when compared to Bloody Bay.

These factors are also important when describing the status of vegetative components within both areas. Due to reduced inputs within Bloody Bay, the area appears to have a better water quality when noting light


penetration through the water column, the appearance of seagrass meadows, levels of siltation and the presence of dissolved solids.

As a result, between both areas, Long Bay functions more as a carbon sink while Bloody Bay, being the less disturbed area acts as more of a nursery ground for marine fauna.


Replanted Seagrass

Additional productivity analysis was conducted at two (2) seagrass relocation sites, in Long and Bloody Bay. RIU P2 was found to be the most productive (0.011 g/m2/day) of all of areas assessed during the study and the productivity of RIU P1 (0.05 g/m2/day) which was similar to the other areas in Bloody Bay. The productivity of NEPA P1 of 0.0042 g/m2/day, which was moderate when compared to other Long Bay survey areas.

The differences in productivity in each survey area may be due to the shallow and nearshore nature of the seagrass meadows present within this area. These results also suggest that seagrass relocations can be successful.


Seagrass Mapping

The total estimated area of seagrass within Long Bay was 481.9 hectares (1,190.8 acres) and the estimated total for Bloody Bay was 95.1 hectares (235 acres).


Benthic Survey

The fringing reef of Booby Cay is the closest defined coral reef in the study area and is most likely to be negatively impacted by the deteriorating water quality and overgrowth of macroalgae. Observed fish species were in general diverse in and outside the study area, however, mainly concentrated around patch reefs and coral heads interspersed throughout the seagrass meadows and Booby Cay. Coral diseases were mainly seen in large patch reef areas, outside the main seagrass meadows.

Booby Cay was given a RHI rating of very poor; Hard and soft coral was very low; Macroalgae was very high; The aggressive invertebrate Chondrilla coverage was also high. Overall herbivore densities (fish and invertebrates was low to moderate). Carnivorous fish were the most dominant feeding group at Booby Cay. The substrate in the backreef consisted of sand, rubble and pavement and is less ideal for coral recruitment.


Booby Cay had the highest fish density, 3.06 fish/m2, with 36 species from 17 families. The largest family was Wrasse followed by Parrotfish and Damselfish.

Sea Urchins were the most abundant species in both Long and Bloody Bay (1.2/m2 and 1.5/m2 respectively). Lytechinus was the most common urchin in both Long and Bloody Bay. In general, Bloody Bay had higher invertebrate densities than Long Bay. Long Bay however had higher density of small seagrass corals.

Fish densities were also higher in Long Bay (0.62 fish/m2) than in Bloody Bay (0.31 fish/m2). The most dominant families in both Long and Bloody Bay were Wrasse, followed by Parrotfish and Grunts.

The effects of the heavily utilized area may have varying effects in seagrasses versus reef environments. High traffic/usage areas in general cause some species displacement in both seagrass meadows and coral reefs.

However, fish feeding practices can increase bread feeding fish species abundance but may disrupt feeding behavior such as reducing algae grazing.


Water Quality

Results obtained indicated that Temperature, Salinity, pH, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, Conductivity, TDS and TSS were acceptable across all stations except for discrepancies in Stations 29, 31 and 33. These stations were however largely affected by freshwater input from the North and South Negril rivers which would explain these discrepancies. Nitrate and Phosphate values were non-compliant at all stations, however these nitrate and phosphate values are typical for Jamaican coastal waters and seldom vary outside this range.

Water quality within the Long and Bloody Bay area has worsened since 2001, however with the development of the area since 2014 this reduction in water quality has generally plateaued up till 2019 at which point the water quality then marginally worsened till present day. Two of the key indicators for poor water quality, phosphates and nitrates were noted to have increased with the increasing population over the years, entering the bays though terrestrial water sources such as rivers, gullies and upwellings. This degradation of water quality may adversely affect the seagrass meadows and as such it will need to be closely monitored.


Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment

A climate analysis was conducted to determine the baseline trend which identified the historical climate pattern for the area. This analysis also compromised of determining the predictions under the future climate (end-of-century) for RCP 8.5 using the HadGEM2-ES model. The variables for which baseline trends and


projections were made included air temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation (means and extremes), wind and sea-level rise. Hydrodynamic and oceanographic modelling was done to determine future waves and currents under operational, swell and hurricane conditions. Based on recent studies, it was determined that not all these factors would have a direct impact on seagrass habitat and health, or impact would be minimal. As such, the vulnerability assessment conducted was focused on the effects of increased ocean current speeds, sea surface temperature and sea-level rise on seagrass.

Table 4-2 Summary of present trends and future projections



Parameter

Present Trends

Future Projections up to 2100

Difference

Air Temperature

26 °C

30.5 °C

+4.5 °C

Sea Surface Temperature

26.8 °C

30.3 °C

+3.5 °C

Precipitation

2.5mm/day (912.5mm/year)

2.1mm/day


(766.5mm/year)

-0.4mm/day


(-146mm/year)

Wind

4.5m/s – 8.6m/s

5.2m/s – 9m/s

+0.55m/s

Sea Level Rise

--

+ 0.98m

+0.98m

Irradiance at Max Seagrass Depth

9.9%

7.2%

-2.7%

Operational Wave Height

0.18m – 0.2m (SE)

0.6m – 1.2m (SE)

+0.9m (SE)

Operational Bottom Currents

0.02m/s – 0.09m/s

0.03m/s – 0.12m/s

+0.02m/s

Swell Wave Height

0.7m – 1.6m (SE)

0.9m – 2.2m (SE)

+0.4m (SE)

Swell Currents

0.04m/s – 0.17m/s

0.09m/s – 0.25m/s

+0.065m/s

Hurricane Wave Heights (Cat 5)

--

3.3m

--

Hurricane Surface Elevations (Cat 5)

--

3.3m

--

Hurricane Bottom Currents


(Long Bay)

--

0.18m/s – 0.9m/s

--

Hurricane Bottom Currents


(Bloody Bay)

--

0.2m/s – 0.43m/s

--


Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is anticipated to increase by 0.98m up to 2100, this increase in water level can result in reducing light attenuation at the seagrass canopy. Light attenuation is pertinent to the growth of seagrass and it plays a vital role in the photosynthesis process. However, it was concluded that the increase in sea level risk poses a minor threat to the seagrass in terms of light attention, it should be noted that no other external were examined.


Sea Surface Temperature

The climate model indicated that sea surface temperature is expected to increase from 26.8 °C to 30.3 °C in the future climate. Increase in sea temperature is likely to pose a threat to the seagrass within the project site. While limited exposure to temperatures over 40°C are not expected at the end-of century, there is an expected temperature averages of >3°C by 2100. Studies indicate, exposure to temperature increases of ≥3°C begins the process of slowed growth and delayed development. Prolonged exposure of >30 days causes leaf death and could eventually lead to plant mortality. Where seagrasses are already experiencing lower light levels, meadows will be highly vulnerable to the increase in sea surface temperature because their relatively high respiration demands are expected to exceed their capacity for gaining carbon through photosynthesis.

This exacerbates the temperature stress and may make the seagrass meadows even more susceptible to mortality sooner than previous studies have indicated.


Current Speeds

After examining the bottom current speeds for operational, swells and future storms, it was observed that in the future climate, speeds are expected to increase. The results generated, displayed that some sections within the project area will become highly vulnerable.

In the present climate under swell conditions, the bottom current speeds varied between 0.04m/s and 0.17m/s, while in the future climate the bottom currents speed varied between 0.09m/s and 0.25m/s. Bottom current speeds under future hurricane conditions ranged from 0.18m/s – 0.9m/s in Long Bay, and 0.2m/s – 0.43m/s in Bloody Bay. Based on the results, minor to moderate damage would occur to seagrass from the bottom currents under swell and hurricane conditions, respectively.


Stakeholder Consultations

There is consensus among all the groups (fishers, farmers, craft vendors, residents) that the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is in social and environmental decline. This has been blamed mostly due to the lack of preventative maintenance and supervision as well as the failure to equally implement the laws.

Based on anecdotal evidence gathered from fishers and the national and local fishing cooperative, an estimated 100 boats sail with between one operator and up to a crew of nine (9). Most boats are manned by a crew of four (4). All boats are engaged in fishing for commercial purposes. Some 55% are engaged in trap fishing with the majority venturing out to set pots (40%) and the rest using nets. Another 40% engage in line or spear fishing. Of that amount, some 30% of all boats (30 boats) remain inshore specializing in catching “Bonita”.


Fishers operate in the Long Bay and Bloody Bay area, and even as far as Pedro Bank, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia and Nicaragua. The Bonita, Tuna, Snapper, Parrot and Grunt were the most popular fish species caught. All fishers operate for commercial purposes and to earn a living with fishing being their main source of income. Many have been fishing for more than half their lifetime and knows no other vocation. Time in the fishing business ranged from 13 years to over 40 years. It is felt that most fishers operating small boats close to shore would be unprofitable. Larger boats that are well-equipped and have the capacity to go far offshore for large catches and are more profitable. A profitable catch is considered by the fishers to be over 200 pounds but over 95% of boats are not equipped to venture offshore.


Gross weekly income for fishers is estimated to be JM$22,500.00. Fishers also report high input costs. As a result, fishers engage in other activities such as farming, construction, shop/grocery/bar/restaurant operations to supplement their income.

Lessons Learnt, Limitations and Assumptions


General


References


Abdelrhman, M. A. (2016). Modeling Water Clarity and Light Quality in Oceans. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Avelar, S., van der Voort, T. S., & Eglinton, T. I. (2017). Relevance of carbon stocks of marine sediments for national greenhouse gas inventories of maritime nations. Carbon Balance and Management. (12(1),10).

C.L. Environmental. (2004). Environmental Monitoring Report - Seagrass Removal and Replanting at RIU Bloody Bay. Negril: C.L. Environmental.

Campbell, S. J., McKenzie, L. J., & Kerville, S. P. (2006). Photosynthetic responses of seven tropical seagrasses to elevated seawater temperature. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.

CL Environmental. (2014). Environmental Impact Assesment of the Proposed Development of RIU Hotel, Hanover.

Collier, C., & Waycott, M. (2009). Drivers of Change to Seagrass Distributions and Communities on the Great Barrier Reef: Literature Review and Gaps Analysis. Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

d’Avack, E. A.-W. (2014). Assessing the sensitivity of seagrass bed biotopes to pressures associated with marine activities.

De Kluijver, M., Gijswijt, G., De Leon, R., & Da Cunda, I. (2016). Marine Species Identification Portal : Turtle- grass - Thalassia testudinum. Retrieved from http://species- identification.org/species.php?species_group=caribbean_diving_guide&id=477&menuentry=soorten

DHV Interantional UK Ltd. (1999). RIU Hotels Proposed Boody Bay, Negril Jamaica, Final Report. Devon.


Fonseca, M. S. (1998). Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes near Beaufort. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 109-121.


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Grech, A., Chartrand-Miller, K., Erftemeijer, P., Fonseca, M., McKenzie, L., & Rasheed, M. (2012). A comparison of threats, vulnerabilities and management approaches in global seagrass bioregions. Environmental Research Letters, 7(2), 02400.

Green, L. (2019). AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTENT AND ABOVE/BELOW GROUND BIOMASS OF THE KINGSTON HARBOUR SEAGRASSES; HOW MUCH CARBON DO WE HAVE STORED? AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTENT AND ABOVE/BELOW GROUND BIOMASS OF THE KINGSTON HARBOUR SEAGRASSES; HOW MUCH CARBON DO WE HAVE STORED?

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. D. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5ºC. IPCC.


Howard , J., Hoyt , S., Isensee, K., Telszewski, M., & Pidgeon, E. (2014). Coastal Blue Carbon: Methods for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal marshes, and seagrasses. . Arlington, Virgina, USA: Conservation International, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commisson of UNESCO, International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Iacarella. J.C, A. E. (2018). Anthropogenic disturbance homogenizes seagrass fish communities. Global Change Biology, 1904-1918.

J. D. Madsen, P. A. (2001). The interaction between water movement, sediment dynamics and submersed macrophytes. Modelling Sediment Resuspension, 71–84.

Jackson, G. (2019). A BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY AND SEAGRASSES WITHIN THE KINGSTON HARBOUR AND A PORT ROYAL CAY. A BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY AND SEAGRASSES WITHIN THE KINGSTON HARBOUR AND A PORT ROYAL CAY.

Johnson, R. A., Gulick, A. G., Bolten, A. B., & Bjorndal, K. A. (2017, 12). Blue carbon stores in tropical seagrass meadows maintained under green turtle grazing. Scientific Reports, 7, 13545. doi:10.1038/s41598-017- 13142-4

Kirkman, H., McKenzie, L., & Finkbeiner, M. A. (2001, 1). Global Seagrass Mapping Methods.


Kun-Seop Lee, S. R. (2007). Effects of irradiance, temperature, and nutrients on growth dynamics of seagrasses: A review. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.


Macreadie, P. I., Trevathan-Tackett, S. M., Skilbeck, C. G., Sanderman, J., Curlevski, N., Jacobsen, G., & Seymour, J. R. (2015, 10). Losses and recovery of organic carbon from a seagrass ecosystem following disturbance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282, 20151537. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1537

McKenzie, L., & Hq, S.-W. (2008). Seagrass Educators Handbook.


Mcleod, E., Chmura, G. L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C. M., . . . Silliman, B. R. (2011, 12). A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering {CO} $_{\textrm{2}}$. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 552–560. doi:10.1890/110004

Milazzo. M, B. F. (2005). Effects of fish feeding by snorklers on the density and size distribution of fishes in a Mediterranean marine protected area. Researchgate.

N’Yeurt, G. B. (2018). Effects of Climate Change on Seagrasses and Seagrass Habitats Relevant to the Pacific Islands. PACIFIC MARINE CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT CARD.

NEPA. (2015a). Seagrass Restoration Monitoring Report. Negril: NEPA.

Nordlun. L.M, U. ..-U. (2017). Global significance of seagrass fishery activity. Fish and Fisheries. Oppenheimer, M. B.-E.-J. (2019). Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and

Communities. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.


Pillay, D., Branch, G., Griffiths, C., Williams, C., & Prinsloo, A. (2010). Ecosystem change in a South African marine reserve (1960–2009): role of seagrass loss and anthropogenic disturbance. Marine Ecology Progress Series,, 415, 35-48.

Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), PNUD, NU. CEPAL. Subsede de México. (2004). Assessment of the socioeconomic and environmental impact of hurricane Ivan on Jamaica.

Prinz. M., S. R. (2020). To Feed or Not to Feed? Coral Reef Fish Responses to Artificial Feeding and Stakeholder Perceptions in the Aitutaki Lagoon, Cook Islands. Marine Conservation and Sustainability.


Short F.T., K. S. (2016). Impacts of climate change on submerged and emergent wetland plants. Aquatic Botany.

Short, F., & Coles, R. (2002, 9). Global Seagrass Research Methods (Vol. 212). doi:10.1016/S0044- 8486(02)00307-1

Short, F., & Wyllie-Echeverria, S. (1996, 3). Natural and human-induced disturbance of seagrasses.

Environmental Conservation, 23, 17–27. doi:10.1017/S0376892900038212


Smith Warner International Ltd. (2017). Seagrass Relocation Report for Royalton Resorts Negril Jamaica.


Stuart J. Campbell, L. J. (2006). Photosynthetic responses of seven tropical seagrasses to elevated seawater temperature. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.

Sunny, A. R. (2017). A review on effect of global climate change on seaweed. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 19-22.

Thorhaug, A., Miller, B., & Jupp, B. (1984). Seagrass Restoration in Caribbean Nearshore Areas Grant No: DAN- 5542-G-SS-2101-00.

Thorhaug, A., Miller, B., Jupp, B., & Booker, F. (1985). Effects of a variety of impacts on seagrass restoration in Jamaica. Marine pollution bulletin, 16(9), 355-360.

Unsworth, R., Ambo-Rappe, R., Jones, B., Nafie, Y., Irawan, A., Hernawan, U., & Cullen-Unsworth, L. (2018). Indonesia's globally significant seagrass meadows are under widespread threat. Science of the Total Environment, 634, 279-286.

Unsworth. R.K., H. S.-U. (2014). Food supply depends on seagrass meadows in the coral triangle.

Environmental Resarch .

Appendices


Appendix 8-1 Study Team

Carlton Campbell, Ph.D: Cartography, GIS Analysis, Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

Matthew Lee, M.Sc.: Seagrass Mapping, Water Quality

Rachel D’Silva, M.Phil (pending), B Sc.: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Coral and Invertebrate Surveys

Alec Silvera, B.Sc.: Seagrass Mapping, Mapping of Natural/Anthropogenic Impacts, Water Quality

Le’Anne Green, M.Sc: Seagrass Health Assessment

Chauntelle Green, M.Sc.: Fish Surveys

Gina-Marie Maddix: M.Phil (pending), B Sc.: Fish Surveys

Christopher Burgess, Ph.D: Climate Change Projections, Oceanography and Hydrodynamics Hannah Marshall, M.Sc.: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Tashae Thompson, B.Eng.: Oceanography and Hydrodynamics, Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment Nicole West-Hayles, M.Sc., M.A.: Stakeholder Consultations

Appendix 8-2 Benthic Species List


Table 8-1 Seagrass Species and Location Identified


SEAGRASS

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


Manatee Grass

Syringodium filiforme

Long Bay, Bloody Bay

Shoal Grass

Halodule wrightii

Long Bay, Bloody Bay

Turtle Grass

Thalassia testudinum

All


Table 8-2 Hard and Soft Coral Species and Location Identified


CORAL

SOFT CORAL

Scientific Name

LOCATION

Common Name

Bent Sea Rod

Plexaura flexuosa

Snorkel sites

Common Sea Fan

Gorgonia ventalina

All

Corky Sea Finger

Briareum asbestinum

All

Encrusting

Gorgonian

Erythropodium caribaeorum

Long Bay/Bloody Bay

Sea Plume

Pseudopterogorgia spp

Long Bay

HARD CORAL

Scientific Name

LOCATION

Common Name


Agaricia spp.

All

Elkhorn Coral

Acropora palmata

All

Finger Coral

Porites

All

Giant Brain Coral

Colpophyllia natans

Pyramids / Long Bay

Golfball Coral

Favia fragum

All

Great Star Coral

Montastraea cavernosa

Bloody Bay, Booby Cay, Long

Bay

Knobby Brain Coral

Pseudo diploria clivosa

All

Lobed Star Coral

Orbicella annularis

All

Massive Starlet

Coral

Siderastrea siderea

All

Mustard Hill Coral

Porites astreoides

All

Rough Star Coral

Isophyllastrea rigida

All

Smooth Brain Coral

Pseudo diploria strigosa

All

Spiny Flower Coral

Mussa angulosa

Long Bay, Booby Cay

Ten-Ray Star Coral

Madracis decactis

Booby Cay


CORAL

SOFT CORAL

Scientific Name

LOCATION

Common Name

Thin Finger Coral

Porites divaricata

Bloody Bay/Long Bay/ Booby Cay

Tube Coral

Cladocora arbuscula

Bloody Bay, Long Bay, Booby

Cay

HYDROCORAL

Scientific Name


Common Name


Branching Fire Coral

Millepora alcicornis

All


Table 8-3 Macroalgae Species and Locations Identified


ALGAE


LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


Bristle Ball Brush

Penicillus dumetosus

All

Crustose Coralline Algae

Corallinales

All

Fuzz Ball Alga


All

Green Feather Alga

Caulerpa sertularioides

Pyramids

Green Grape Alga

Caulerpa racemosa

Pyramids

Lavender Crust Algae


All

Leafy Flat Blade Alga

Stypopodium zonale

All

Mermaid’s Fans/Teacup

Udotea sp.

All

Pinecone Alga

Rhipocephalus phoenix

All

Reef Cement

Porolithon pachydermum

Snorkel sites/Pyramids

Sargassum

Sargassum spp.

All

Saucer Leaf Algae

Turbinaria turbinata

Pyramids/Booby Cay/Long Bay

Sea Pearl

Ventricaria ventricosa

All

Three Finger Leaf Alga

Halimeda incrassata

All

Tubular Thicket Algae

Galaxura sp.

All

White Mermaid’s Wine

Glass

Acetabularia crenulata

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Y Branched and Strap

Algae

Dictyota sp.

All


Padina

All


Valonia spp.

All


Valonia macrophysa

All


Turf Algae

All


Dictyospheria cavernosa

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay/Pyramids


Padina jamaicensis

Snorkel sites


Halimeda sp.

All


ALGAE


LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name



Caulerpa rcurpressoides



Cyanophya

All


Enteromorpha



Labophora variegata



Rhipocephalus phoenix



caulerpa taxifolia

Pyramids


Table 8-4 Sponge Species and Location Identified


SPONGES

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


Black Ball Sponge

Ircina strobilina

All

Branching Tube Sponge

Pseudoceratina crassa

Booby Cay

Brown Bowl Sponge

Cribrochalina vasculum

Bloody Bay

Chicken Liver Sponge

Chondrilla spp.

All

Fire Sponge

Tedania ignis

Long Bay/ Bloody

Bay

Pink Lumpy Sponge

Monachora unguifera

Long Bay

Pink Vase Sponge

Niphates digitalis

Snorkel Sites

Pitted Sponge

Verongula rigida

Booby Cay

Red Boring Sponge

Cliona delitrix

All

Rope Sponge


Long Bay/ Bloody

Bay

Volcano Sponge


All


Cliona tenius

All




TUNICATE



Common Name

Scientific Name


Overgrowing Mat Tunicate

Trididemnum solidum

Booby Cay


Table 8-5 Hydroids, Jellyfish, Corallimorphs and Zooanthid Species and Location Identified


HYDROIDS AND JELLYFISH

Common Name

Scientific Name

LOCATION

CORALLIMORPH



Florida corallimorph

Ricordea florida

All

Warty corallimorph

Rhodactis osculifera

All


HYDROIDS AND JELLYFISH

Common Name

Scientific Name

LOCATION




CTENOPHORES



Comb Jelly


All

Sea Walnut

Mnemiopsis leidyi

All




FIRE CORAL



Blade Fire Coral

Millepora complanata

Booby Cay

Branching Fire Coral

Millepora alcicornis

All




HYDROID - ATHECATE



Christmas Tree Hydroid

Halocordyle disticha

All




JELLYFISH



Moon Jelly

Aurelia aurita

Long Bay

Upsidedown Jelly

Cassiopea forndosa

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Box Jellyfish

Tamoya ohboya

Pyramids




ZOOANTHID



Mat Zooanthid

Zoanthus pulchellus

All

Waving Hands


Booby Cay

White Encrusting Zooanthid

Palythoa caribaeorum

All


Table 8-6 Segmented Worms Species and Location Identified


SEGMENTED WORMS

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


Bearded Fireworm

Hermodice carunculata

All

Magnificent Feather Duster

Sabellastarte magnifica

All

Social Feather Duster

Bispira brunnea

All

Southern Lugworm*

Arenicola cristata

Bloody Bay

Spaghetti Worm

Eupolymnia crassicornis

All

Split-Crown Feather Duster

Anamobaea orstedii

All

* Mounds observed but not actual

organisms




Table 8-7 Echinoderm Species and Location Identified


Common Name

Scientific Name


BRITTLE STAR



Brittle Star

Ophioderma sp

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Sponge Brittle Star

Ophiothrix suensonii

Long Bay




SEA BISCUIT / SAND DOLLAR



Inflated Sea Biscuit

Clypeaster rosaceus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




SEA CUCUMBER



Brown Sea Cucumber


All

Donkey Dung Sea Cucumber

Holothuria Mexicana

All

Furry Sea Cucumber

Astichopus multifidus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Three-Rowed Sea Cucumber

Isostichopus badionotus

All




SEA STAR



Common Comet Star

Linckia guildingii

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay/ Snorkel

Sites

Conical Spined Sea Star

Echinaster sentus

Booby Cay

Cushion Sea Star

Oreaster reticulatus

All

Two Spined Sea Star/ Beaded

Starfish

Astropecten spp.

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




SEA URCHINS



Long-Spined Urchin

Diadema antillarum

All

Magnificent Urchin

Astropyga magnifica

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Reef Urchin

Echinometra viridis

Booby Cay

Rock Boring Urchin

Echinometra lucunter

All

Slate-Pencil Urchin

Eucidaris tribuloides

All

Variegated Urchin

Lytechinus variegatus

All

West Indian Sea Egg

Tripnuestes ventricosus

All


Table 8-8 Crustacean Species and Locations Identified


CRUSTACEANS

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


HERMIT CRAB



Giant Hermit

Petrochirus diogenes

Booby Cay




SHRIMP




CRUSTACEANS

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


Banded coral shrimp

Stenopus hispidus

All

Pederson Cleaner Shrimp

Periclimenes pedersoni

All

Peppermint Shrimp

Lysmata wurdemanni

All




SPIDER CRAB



Green Clinging Crab / Emerald

Crab

Mithrax sculptus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Yellowline Arrow Crab

Stenorhyncus seticornis

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay/

Booby Cay




SPINY LOBSTER



Caribbean Spiny Lobster

Panulirus argus

All


Calappa flammea





SPONGE CRAB



Blue swimming crab

Portunus armatus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




BRYOZOANS



Common Name

Scientific Name


White Tangled Bryozoan

Bracebridgia subsulcata



Table 8-9 Mollusc Species and Location Identified


MOLLUSKS

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


CERITH



Stocky Cerith

Cerithium litteratum

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




CHITON



Fuzzy Chiton

Acanthopleura

granulata

All where rocky shores

Barbados Keyhole

limpet

Fissurella barbadensis

All where rocky shores




CONCH / HELMET



King Helmet

Cassis tuberosa

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Queen Conch

Strombus gigas

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Rooster Conch

Strombus gallus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay





FILE SHELL




Rough File Clam

Lima scabra

All




INSHORE SQUID



Caribbean Reef Squid

Sepioteuthis

sepiodidea

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay/ Booby

Cay




PEN SHELL



Amber Penshell

Pinna carnea

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




SEA HARE



Ragged Sea Hare

Bursatella leachii

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Spotted Seahare

Aplysia dactylomela

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




SEA SLUG



Lettuce Sea Slug

Elysia crispata

All




SIMNIA



Flamingo Tongue

Cyphoma gibbosum

Snorkel Sites/ Booby Cay/Long

Bay




TULIP SHELL



Tulip Shell/True Tulip

Fasciolaria tulipa

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




TURBAN



Long Spinned Star

Snail

Astralium phoebium

Long Bay

West Indian Starsnail

Lithopoma tectum

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

FISH

LOCATION

Common Name

Scientific Name


ANGELFISH



Blue Angelfish

Holacanthus

bermudensis

Booby Cay

French Angelfish

Pomacanthus paru

Pyramids/Bloody Bay

Queen Angelfish

Holacanthus ciliaris

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay/ Pyramids




BARRACUDA



Great Barracuda

Sphyraena barracuda

Bloody Bay, Booby Cay, Long Bay




BUTTERFLYFISH




Four-Eyed Butterflyfish

Chaetodon capistratus

All




CHROMIS/DAMSELFISH



Bicolor Damselfish

Stegastes partitus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay

Blue Chromis

Chromis cyanea

Snorkel

Brown Chromis

Chromis multilineata

Snorkel Site

Cocoa Damselfish

Stegastes variabilis

Pyramids/ Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Dusky Damselfish

Stegastes adustus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid

Longfin Damselfish

Stegastes diencaeus

Snorkel Site/Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Sergeant Major

Abudefduf saxatilis

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Bobby Cay/Bloody Bay

Three Spot Damsel

Stegastes planifrons

Pyramids/Booby Cay

Yellowtail Damselfish

Microspathodon

chrysurus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay




DRUM



Highhat

Pareques acuminatus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Spotted Drum

Equetus punctatus

Pyramids




EAGLE RAY



Spotted Eagleray

Aetobatus narinari





EEL-MORAY



Spotted Moray

Gymnothorax moringa

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Yellow Moray

Gymnothorax prasinus





EEL - SNAKE



Gold Spotted Eel

Myrichthys ocellatus

Long Bay / Bloody Bay

Sharp Tail Eel

Myrichthys breviceps

Long Bay / Bloody Bay




FILEFISH



Fringed Filefish

Monacanthus ciliatus

Long Bay/Bloody Bay

Reefkeeping Filefish

Acreichthys tomentosus


Slender Filefish

Monacanthus tuckeri

Bloody Bay, Booby Cay, Long Bay




FLOUNDER - LEFTEYE



Peacock Flounder

Bothus lunatus

Bloody Bay / Booby Cay




FLYING GURNARD



Flying Gurnard

Dactylopterus volitans

Snorkel




GOATFISH



Goatfish

Mullidae

All


Spotted Goatfish

Pseudupeneus maculatus

Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Yellowtail Goatfish

Mullidae vanicolensis

Pyramids




GOBY/BLENNY



Big Lip Blenny

Labrisomus spp.

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid

Bridle Goby

Coryphopterus

glaucofraenum

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Glass Goby

Gobiopterus chuno

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid

Neon Goby

Elacatinus spp.

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay/Booby Cay

Palid Goby

Coryphopterus eidolon

Pyramids

Saddled Blenny

Malacoctenus

triangulates

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay




GRUNT/MARGATE



Black Margrate

Anisotremus

surinamensis

Pyramids

Blue Striped Grunt

Haemulon sciurus

All

Cesar Grunt

Haemulon carbonarium

Pyramids

French Grunt

Haemulon flavolineatum

All




GUITARFISH



Atlantic Guitarfish

Rhinobatus lentiginosus





HAMLET/SEABASS



Barred Hamlet

Hypoplectrus puelia

Pyramids

Butter Hamlet

Hypoplectrus unicolor

Pyramids




JACK



Bar Jack

Caranx ruber

Bloody Bay/Long Bay/ Snorkel

Blue Runner

Caranx crysos

Pyramids/ Bloody Bay




LIZARDFISH



Blue Striped Lizard

Synodus saurus

Bloody Bay/ Long Bay

Sand Diver

Synodus intermedius

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay




MOJARRA



Flagfin Mojarra

Eucinostomus

melanopterus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid

Yellowfin Mojarra

Gerres cinereus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay




MULLET



Stripped Mullet

Mugil cephalus

Pyramids





PARROTFISH



Bluelip Parrotfish

Cryptotomus roseus

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay

Bucktooth Parrotfish

Sparisoma radians

Bloody Bay

Green Blotch Parrotfish

Sparisoma atomarium

Snorkel

Princess Parrotfish

Scarus taeniopterus

Snorkel/Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Redband Parrotfish

Sparisoma aurofrenatum

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Stoplight Parrotfish

Sparisoma viride

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay

Stripped Parrotfish

Scarus iseri

All

Yellowtail Parrotfish

Sparisoma rubripinne

Booby Cay




PORCUPINEFISH



Balloonfish

Diodon holocanthus

All

Porcupinefish

Diodon hystrix

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid




PORGY



Pluma Porgy

Calamus pennatula

Bloody Bay, Booby Cay, Long Bay




PUFFERFISH



Bandtail Pufferfish

Sphoeroides spengleri

Booby Cay/ Bloody Bay

Sharpnose Puffer

Canthigaster rostrata

Booby Cay




REMORA



Sharksucker/Remora

Echeneis naucrates

Long Bay/ Bloody Bay




SCORPIONFISH



Lionfish

Pterois volitans

All




SNAPPER



Lane Snapper

Lutjanus synagris

All

Mutton Snapper

Lutjanus analis

Pyramids

Schoolmaster

Lutjanus apodus

Pyramids/Booby Cay

Yellowtail Snapper

Ocyurus chrysurus

All




STINGRAY



Southern Stingray

Dasyatis americana

Snorkel




STINGRAY - ROUND



Yellow Stingray

Urolophus jamaicensis

All




SQUIRRELFISH



Blackbar Soldierfish

Myripristris jacobus

Bloody Bay


Longspine Squirrelfish

Holocentrus rufus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Bloody Bay

Squirrelfish

Holocentrus adscensionis

All




SURGEONFISH



Blue Tang

Acanthurus coeruleus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay

Doctorfish

Acanthurus chirurgus

Pyramids/Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Ocean Surgeon

Acanthurus bahianus

All




TRUMPETFISH



Trumpet Fish

Aulostomus maculatus

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid




WRASSE/HOGFISH/RAZORFISH



Blackear Wrasse

Halichoeres poeyi

Long Bay/Bloody Bay

Bluehead Wrasse

Thalassoma bifasciatum

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid/Booby Cay/Bloody Bay

Clown Wrasse

Coris gaimard

All

Puddingwife

Halichoeres radiatus

Booby Cay

Rainbow Wrasse

Coris julis

Pyramids/Booby Cay

Slippery Dick

Halichoeres bivittatus

All

Yellowhead Wrasse

Halichoeres garnoti

Snorkel Site/ Pyramid


Appendix 8-3 Hach Hydrolab DS-5 Water Quality Multiprobe Meter Calibration Test Sheet





Appendix 8-4 Water Quality Data

Table 8-10 Average in-situ Water Quality Data - 14/05/21


Stn

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

PAR (uE/cm/s)

EC

1

28.47

55.91

37.20

8.20

6.39

0.00

35.79

225.25

0.0741

2

29.02

55.87

37.12

8.17

6.00

0.00

35.75

1426.33

0.3346

3

29.64

55.77

37.13

8.21

6.63

1.50

35.77

1487.33

0.2320

4

29.96

55.73

37.08

8.21

7.40

2.95

35.68

2094.50

0.2799

5

29.18

55.89

37.16

8.16

5.94

0.00

35.77

1224.40

0.2188

6

29.01

55.87

37.17

8.16

5.85

0.00

35.77

418.67

0.1006

7

29.66

55.83

37.16

8.15

5.84

0.00

35.75

1180.33

0.4002

8

29.88

55.89

37.21

8.14

5.79

0.00

35.77

906.33

0.1928

9

29.14

55.88

37.19

8.17

5.99

0.40

35.77

1009.50

0.1113

10

28.88

55.87

37.18

8.18

6.10

0.10

35.77

329.00

0.1100

11

29.15

55.87

37.16

8.16

5.96

0.00

35.77

420.00

0.2818

12

29.29

55.93

37.18

8.20

6.57

0.00

35.77

535.25

0.1837

13

28.49

55.88

37.17

8.17

6.14

0.00

35.76

146.77

0.0846

14

29.16

55.84

37.25

8.17

6.15

0.00

35.78

373.67

0.1733

15

29.32

55.89

37.18

8.18

6.24

0.00

35.74

1280.25

0.1620

16

29.40

55.84

37.15

8.19

6.38

0.00

35.77

896.00

0.5662

17

29.23

55.88

37.17

8.18

6.16

0.00

35.78

519.50

0.2448

18

28.57

55.78

37.17

8.16

6.34

0.13

35.76

196.22

0.1199

19

28.39

55.93

37.22

8.18

6.34

0.00

35.80

233.62

0.0678

20

28.90

55.84

37.15

8.19

6.42

0.00

35.75

620.17

0.2520


21

29.45

55.87

37.21

8.17

6.09

0.00

35.77

1324.00

0.1568

22

29.34

55.82

37.20

8.16

6.12

0.00

35.77

1240.25

0.1585

23

29.24

55.94

37.21

8.14

5.96

0.04

35.80

1076.40

0.1950

24

28.48

55.91

37.22

8.19

6.27

0.00

35.78

436.00

0.2161

25

28.82

55.90

37.19

8.15

6.13

0.00

35.78

893.00

0.1303

26

28.47

55.90

37.20

8.18

6.08

0.00

35.79

596.60

0.1118

27

28.63

55.83

37.16

8.17

6.20

0.00

35.74

639.30

0.1839

28

29.04

55.96

37.22

8.17

6.41

0.00

35.82

1061.20

0.1475

29

28.91

55.91

37.20

8.16

6.07

0.00

35.77

835.50

0.5368

30

28.63

55.88

37.17

8.19

6.48

0.00

35.77

773.33

0.1993


Table 8-11 Average in-situ Water Quality Data - 10/06/21


Stn

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

PAR (uE/cm/s)

EC

1

29.25

55.91

37.20

8.24

6.31

1.12

35.79

663.38

0.0741

2

29.54

55.88

37.18

8.22

6.06

0.23

35.61

1061.00

0.3346

3

29.48

55.65

37.00

8.24

6.38

0.43

35.61

1369.33

0.2320

4

29.46

55.32

36.78

8.26

6.52

0.65

35.42

1284.50

0.2799

5

29.62

55.74

37.07

8.24

6.34

0.30

35.66

1034.60

0.2188

6

29.67

55.79

37.12

8.21

5.98

0.32

35.73

1125.33

0.1006

7

29.59

55.73

37.06

8.24

6.35

0.20

35.67

1166.00

0.4002

8

29.48

55.67

37.05

8.24

6.56

0.50

35.63

1347.00

0.1928

9

29.71

55.83

37.14

8.21

6.07

0.00

35.74

1183.80

0.1113

10

29.68

55.82

37.14

8.22

6.24

0.00

35.74

716.00

0.1100


11

29.56

55.77

37.09

8.20

6.14

0.30

35.69

1190.80

0.2818

12

29.29

55.93

37.18

8.20

6.57

0.00

35.77

535.25

0.1837

13

29.27

55.83

37.14

8.23

6.05

1.11

35.73

592.08

0.0846

14

29.47

55.76

37.08

8.20

5.86

0.00

35.69

349.40

0.1733

15

29.14

55.72

37.06

8.10

4.87

13.45

35.67

274.50

0.1620

16

29.41

55.79

37.10

8.17

5.88

1.80

35.69

202.60

0.5662

17

29.38

55.69

37.03

8.24

6.22

0.00

35.63

240.00

0.2448

18

29.31

55.87

37.17

8.23

6.25

1.27

35.76

771.56

0.1199

19

29.19

55.83

37.20

8.25

6.37

0.30

35.79

720.85

0.0678

20

29.22

55.81

37.16

8.25

6.17

0.00

35.74

332.00

0.2520

21

29.48

55.76

37.08

8.24

6.05

0.00

35.68

275.80

0.1568

22

29.45

55.79

37.12

8.25

6.24

0.00

35.72

576.75

0.1585

23

29.50

55.77

37.15

8.26

6.00

1.90

35.74

676.25

0.1950

24

29.25

55.76

37.08

8.24

6.15

1.20

35.68

663.56

0.2161

25

29.32

55.88

37.17

8.28

6.35

0.26

35.77

524.00

0.1303

26

29.21

55.86

37.16

8.24

6.30

0.00

35.75

560.80

0.1118

27

29.25

55.85

37.17

8.25

6.23

0.00

35.69

484.44

0.1839

28

29.40

55.89

37.18

8.25

5.92

0.00

35.75

896.00

0.1475

29

28.13

37.92

26.77

8.05

4.47

8.70

25.55

137.33

0.5368

30

29.23

55.87

37.12

8.20

6.01

0.00

35.62

364.44

0.1993


Table 8-12 Average in-situ Water Quality Data - 02/07/21


Stn

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

PAR (uE/cm/s)

EC


1

29.10

55.72

37.06

8.22

6.35

0.00

35.66

220.08

0.0741

2

29.10

55.70

37.04

8.22

5.02

0.00

35.63

394.75

0.3346

3

29.34

55.71

37.01

8.17

4.03

0.00

35.61

658.67

0.2320

4

29.37

55.58

36.91

8.13

3.75

1.65

35.54

752.00

0.2799

5

29.60

55.68

37.01

8.24

5.65

0.44

35.64

417.20

0.2188

6

29.30

55.71

37.04

8.28

6.07

0.01

35.63

564.57

0.1006

7

29.50

55.57

36.61

8.28

7.62

0.03

35.59

520.33

0.4002

8

29.44

55.51

36.87

8.27

5.88

0.13

35.68

557.33

0.1928

9

29.37

55.66

37.02

8.26

5.81

0.00

35.63

600.00

0.1113

10

29.20

55.72

37.05

8.28

6.13

0.23

35.67

585.89

0.1100

11

29.40

55.65

37.00

8.25

5.64

0.76

35.61

451.80

0.2818

12

29.47

55.68

37.02

8.29

6.28

0.13

35.64

1447.00

0.1837

13

29.12

55.78

37.11

8.28

5.98

0.06

35.74

649.75

0.0846

14

29.35

55.70

37.05

8.26

5.78

0.00

35.65

1128.20

0.1733

15

29.71

55.60

36.95

8.27

5.71

0.00

35.56

1342.67

0.1620

16

29.47

55.63

37.01

8.27

6.07

0.16

35.62

1231.00

0.5662

17

29.42

55.71

37.03

8.28

6.33

0.00

35.66

1315.60

0.2448

18

29.22

55.75

37.07

8.28

6.26

0.00

35.68

832.44

0.1199

19

29.47

60.84

37.09

8.28

6.29

0.00

35.69

538.77

0.0678

20

29.66

55.67

37.01

8.26

6.10

0.00

35.61

930.60

0.2520

21

29.92

55.69

37.03

8.27

6.29

0.00

35.72

931.67

0.1568

22

30.01

55.65

37.03

8.28

6.67

0.00

35.65

1136.50

0.1585

23

30.08

55.67

37.01

8.27

6.38

0.00

35.64

1531.67

0.1950


24

29.53

55.69

37.03

8.27

5.91

0.01

35.66

587.56

0.2161

25

29.86

55.68

37.04

8.24

5.87

0.00

35.65

788.63

0.1303

26

29.65

55.70

37.04

8.27

6.34

0.00

35.65

238.70

0.1118

27

29.66

55.71

37.05

8.26

6.06

0.00

35.67

287.75

0.1839

28

30.03

55.74

37.05

8.27

6.36

0.00

35.65

1037.80

0.1475

29

30.02

54.66

36.58

8.27

6.34

0.00

35.56

205.33

0.5368

30

29.65

55.56

36.98

8.26

6.10

0.49

35.61

272.11

0.1993

Bloody Bay - Statistical Graphs and Outputs


Appendix 8-5 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Bloody Bay Parameters



Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.


Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

45


40


35


30


25


20


15


10


5


0

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-6 Average Blade Length (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Avg. Blade Length/site (cm)

Avg. Blade Width/site (cm)

Appendix 8-7 Mean Blade Widths (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

28


26


24


22


20


18


16


14


12


10


8


6


4


2


0

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-8 Mean Number of Blades (n) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

22


20


18


16


14


12


10


8


6


4


2


0


-2

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

No. blades (n)

Appendix 8-9 Mean Above Ground Wet Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

4.0


3.5


3.0


2.5


2.0


1.5


1.0


0.5


0.0


-0.5

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-10 Mean Epiphyte Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

1.8


1.6


1.4


1.2


1.0


0.8


0.6


0.4


0.2


0.0


-0.2


-0.4

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Epiphyte wt./ site (g)

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

Appendix 8-11 Mean Above Ground Dry Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

220


200


180


160


140


120


100


80


60


40


20


0


-20

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-12 Mean Below Ground Wet Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

Appendix 8-13 Mean Below Ground Dry Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-14 Mean Soil Wet Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

1100


1000


900


800


700


600


500


400


300


200

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Avg. Soil Wet wt. (g)

Soil Dry wt. (g)

Appendix 8-15 Mean Soil Dry Weight (g) per zone


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

1100


1000


900


800


700


600


500


400


300


200

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-16 Mean Soil Ash Free Dry Weight (g) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Soil Ash Free wt. (g)

Depth (cm)

Appendix 8-17 Mean Depth (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-18 Mean Core Depth (cm) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

180


160


140


120


100


80


60


40


20


0


-20

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Amount Soil Carbon

Core Depth (cm)

Appendix 8-19 Mean Soil Carbon in Core (Mg/ha) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

1.6


1.4


1.2


1.0


0.8


0.6


0.4


0.2


0.0


-0.2


-0.4

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Appendix 8-20 Mean Carbon in Shoot Biomass (MgC/ha) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

0.26


0.24


0.22


0.20


0.18


0.16


0.14


0.12


0.10


0.08

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Carbon in shoot bioma

Carbon in root/rhizo

Appendix 8-21 Mean Carbon in Root/Rhizome Layer (MgC) per zone in Bloody Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet 41v*14c)

0.40

0.38

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.30

0.28

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

1

2

3

4

Zone

5

6

7

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

Total Veg Carbon/ site (M

Appendix 8-22 Mean Total Vegetative Carbon (MgC) per zone in Bloody Bay



Appendix 8-23 Correlation table across parameters measured across zones in Bloody Bay as generated by STATISTICA



Variable

Correlations (FINAL Bloody Bay Seagrass Datasheet) Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000 N=14 (Casewise deletion of missing data)

Zone

Avg. Blade Length/site (cm)

Avg. Blade Width/site (cm)

No. blades (n)

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

Epiphyte wt./ site (g)

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

Avg. Soil Wet wt. (g)

Soil Dry wt. (g)

Soil Ash Free wt. (g)

Depth (cm)

Core Depth (cm)

Amount Soil

Carbon in Core/ site (MgC/ha)

Carbon in shoot biomass/ site

(Mg/ha)

Carbon in root/rhizome layer

/ site (MgC/ha)

Total Veg Carbon/ site (MgC/ha)

Zone

1.00

-0.29

-0.36

0.44

-0.49

-0.20

-0.06

-0.45

-0.17

0.57

0.65

0.69

0.74

0.32

-0.22

0.30

0.67

0.76

Avg. Blade Length/site (cm)

-0.29

1.00

0.67

-0.75

0.76

0.61

0.45

0.17

0.38

0.07

-0.02

-0.05

-0.08

0.34

0.39

-0.01

0.19

0.17

Avg. Blade Width/site (cm)

-0.36

0.67

1.00

-0.73

0.53

0.36

0.43

0.45

0.50

-0.06

-0.15

-0.17

-0.25

0.14

0.16

0.25

-0.09

0.06

No. blades (n)

0.44

-0.75

-0.73

1.00

-0.56

-0.45

-0.26

-0.13

-0.14

0.34

0.41

0.43

0.42

0.00

-0.10

0.14

0.32

0.21

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

-0.49

0.76

0.53

-0.56

1.00

0.79

0.65

0.53

0.63

-0.07

-0.20

-0.22

-0.34

-0.03

0.30

-0.08

0.01

-0.06

Epiphyte wt./ site (g)

-0.20

0.61

0.36

-0.45

0.79

1.00

0.51

0.44

0.58

-0.21

-0.28

-0.28

-0.25

-0.10

-0.08

-0.10

0.13

0.04

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

-0.06

0.45

0.43

-0.26

0.65

0.51

1.00

0.33

0.50

0.32

0.24

0.23

-0.15

0.06

0.29

0.46

0.14

0.41

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

-0.45

0.17

0.45

-0.13

0.53

0.44

0.33

1.00

0.88

-0.22

-0.31

-0.32

-0.43

-0.23

0.09

0.05

-0.22

-0.20

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

-0.17

0.38

0.50

-0.14

0.63

0.58

0.50

0.88

1.00

0.15

0.04

0.03

-0.21

0.12

0.22

0.25

0.21

0.21

Avg. Soil Wet wt. (g)

0.57

0.07

-0.06

0.34

-0.07

-0.21

0.32

-0.22

0.15

1.00

0.98

0.98

0.57

0.79

0.51

0.53

0.78

0.84

Soil Dry wt. (g)

0.65

-0.02

-0.15

0.41

-0.20

-0.28

0.24

-0.31

0.04

0.98

1.00

1.00

0.62

0.74

0.45

0.46

0.76

0.83

Soil Ash Free wt. (g)

0.69

-0.05

-0.17

0.43

-0.22

-0.28

0.23

-0.32

0.03

0.98

1.00

1.00

0.63

0.72

0.39

0.47

0.77

0.84

Depth (cm)

0.74

-0.08

-0.25

0.42

-0.34

-0.25

-0.15

-0.43

-0.21

0.57

0.62

0.63

1.00

0.47

0.11

0.15

0.70

0.61

Core Depth (cm)

0.32

0.34

0.14

0.00

-0.03

-0.10

0.06

-0.23

0.12

0.79

0.74

0.72

0.47

1.00

0.54

0.45

0.71

0.65

Amount Soil Carbon in Core/ site (MgC/ha)

-0.22

0.39

0.16

-0.10

0.30

-0.08

0.29

0.09

0.22

0.51

0.45

0.39

0.11

0.54

1.00

0.05

0.19

0.18

Carbon in shoot biomass/ site (Mg/ha)

0.30

-0.01

0.25

0.14

-0.08

-0.10

0.46

0.05

0.25

0.53

0.46

0.47

0.15

0.45

0.05

1.00

0.42

0.67

Carbon in root/rhizome layer / site (MgC/ha)

0.67

0.19

-0.09

0.32

0.01

0.13

0.14

-0.22

0.21

0.78

0.76

0.77

0.70

0.71

0.19

0.42

1.00

0.85

Total Veg Carbon/ site (MgC/ha)

0.76

0.17

0.06

0.21

-0.06

0.04

0.41

-0.20

0.21

0.84

0.83

0.84

0.61

0.65

0.18

0.67

0.85

1.00


Long Bay - Statistical Graphs and Outputs


Box Plot (STATISTICA - COMPLETED Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c) 24


22


20


18


16


14


12


10


8


6


4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Appendix 8-24 Mean Blade Density (n) per zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (STATISTICA - COMPLETED Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c) 34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Avg. Blade Length (cm) / sit

No. blades

Appendix 8-25 Mean Blade Length (cm)/ zone in Long Bay



Box Plot (STATISTICA - COMPLETED Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c) 1.2


1.1


1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Appendix 8-26 Mean Blade Width (cm)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

16


14


12


10


8


6


4


2


0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Avg. Blade Width (cm)/ site

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

Appendix 8-27 Mean Above Ground Wet Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

3.5


3.0


2.5


2.0


1.5


1.0


0.5


0.0


-0.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Appendix 8-28 Mean Epiphyte Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

1.2


1.1


1.0


0.9


0.8


0.7


0.6


0.5


0.4


0.3


0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Epiphyte wt. (g)

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

Appendix 8-29 Mean Above Ground Dry Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

260


240


220


200


180


160


140


120


100


80


60


40


20


0


-20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Appendix 8-30 Mean Below Ground Wet Weight (g) / zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

90


80


70


60


50


40


30


20


10


0


-10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

Appendix 8-31 Mean Below Ground Dry Weight (g) / zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

0.10


0.09


0.08


0.07


0.06


0.05


0.04


0.03


0.02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Appendix 8-32 Mean Carbon in Shoot Biomass (MgC) per zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

0.26


0.24


0.22


0.20


0.18


0.16


0.14


0.12


0.10


0.08


0.06

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Carbon in shoot biom

Carbon in root/rhizo

Appendix 8-33 Mean Carbon in root/rhizome layer (MgC) per zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

1900


1800


1700


1600


1500


1400


1300


1200


1100


1000


900


800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Soil Wet wt. (g)

Appendix 8-34 Mean Soil Wet Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

1300


1200


1100


1000


900


800


700


600


500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Soil Dry wt. (g)

Appendix 8-35 Mean Soil Dry Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

1200


1100


1000


900


800


700


600


500


400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Appendix 8-36 Mean Soil Ash Free Dry Weight (g)/ zone in Long Bay


Box Plot (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet 40v*16c)

260


240


220


200


180


160


140


120


100


80


60


40


20


0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Mean Mean±SE Mean±SD Outliers Extremes

ZONE

Amount Soil Carbon

Soil Ash Free wt. (g)

Appendix 8-37 Mean Soil Carbon in Core (MgC)/ zone in Long Bay


Appendix 8-38 Results of Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test performed on the parameter ‘carbon in root/rhizome layer per zone’ in Long Bay



Appendix 8-39 Analysis of Variance within water quality parameters in Long Bay per Transect



Appendix 8-40 Correlation table across parameters measured across zones in Long Bay as generated by STATISTICA



Variable

Correlations (FINAL Long Bay Seagrass Datasheet) Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000

N=16 (Casewise deletion of missing data)

ZONE

SITE

Avg. Blade Length (cm) / site

Avg. Blade Width (cm)/ site

No. blades

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

Epiphyte wt. (g)

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

Soil Wet wt. (g)

Soil Dry wt. (g)

Soil Ash Free wt. (g)

Total Veg Carbon/ site (MgC/ha)

Carbon in shoot

biomass/ site (MgC/ha)

Carbon in root/rhizome layer

/ site (MgC/ha)

Amount Soil

Carbon in Core/ site (MgC/ha)

Depth (cm)

Core Depth (cm)

ZONE

1.00

0.99

0.17

-0.19

0.14

0.24

0.33

0.20

-0.65

-0.575

-0.59

-0.27

-0.35

-0.50

0.05

-0.61

0.41

0.59

-0.61

SITE

0.99

1.00

0.26

-0.17

0.16

0.32

0.36

0.24

-0.66

-0.59

-0.59

-0.28

-0.35

-0.53

0.01

-0.63

0.36

0.53

-0.60

Avg. Blade Length (cm) / site

0.17

0.26

1.00

0.40

-0.05

0.81

0.32

0.60

-0.25

-0.34

-0.33

-0.43

-0.45

-0.63

-0.27

-0.63

0.05

-0.10

-0.28

Avg. Blade Width (cm)/ site

-0.19

-0.17

0.40

1.00

-0.52

0.18

0.04

0.35

0.20

0.15

0.14

0.08

0.02

0.18

0.28

0.09

0.35

-0.17

-0.17

No. blades

0.14

0.16

-0.05

-0.52

1.00

0.28

0.06

0.40

0.25

0.26

-0.05

0.04

0.11

0.08

-0.01

0.10

-0.35

0.18

-0.09

Above Ground Wet wt. (g)

0.24

0.32

0.81

0.18

0.28

1.00

0.59

0.66

-0.06

-0.11

-0.31

-0.30

-0.29

-0.54

-0.49

-0.43

-0.07

0.16

-0.38

Epiphyte wt. (g)

0.33

0.36

0.32

0.04

0.06

0.59

1.00

0.21

-0.05

-0.04

-0.32

-0.20

-0.22

-0.41

-0.43

-0.30

0.03

0.59

-0.41

Above Ground Dry wt. (g)

0.20

0.24

0.60

0.35

0.40

0.66

0.21

1.00

0.19

0.09

-0.11

-0.13

-0.14

-0.07

0.28

-0.20

0.07

0.17

-0.34

Below Ground Wet wt. (g)

-0.65

-0.66

-0.25

0.20

0.25

-0.06

-0.05

0.19

1.00

0.98

0.41

0.28

0.36

0.76

0.19

0.81

-0.39

-0.22

0.21

Below Ground Dry wt. (g)

-0.57

-0.59

-0.34

0.15

0.26

-0.11

-0.04

0.09

0.98

1.00

0.42

0.35

0.42

0.78

0.14

0.85

-0.34

-0.19

0.17

Soil Wet wt. (g)

-0.59

-0.59

-0.33

0.14

-0.05

-0.31

-0.32

-0.11

0.41

0.42

1.00

0.82

0.83

0.49

0.26

0.46

0.12

-0.41

0.67

Soil Dry wt. (g)

-0.27

-0.28

-0.43

0.08

0.04

-0.30

-0.20

-0.13

0.28

0.35

0.82

1.00

0.99

0.42

0.21

0.40

0.28

-0.16

0.52

Soil Ash Free wt. (g)

-0.35

-0.35

-0.45

0.02

0.11

-0.29

-0.22

-0.14

0.36

0.42

0.83

0.99

1.00

0.46

0.18

0.46

0.11

-0.19

0.52

Total Veg Carbon/ site (MgC/ha)

-0.50

-0.53

-0.63

0.18

0.08

-0.54

-0.41

-0.07

0.76

0.78

0.49

0.42

0.46

1.00

0.55

0.94

-0.13

-0.24

0.26

Carbon in shoot biomass/ site (MgC/h

0.05

0.01

-0.27

0.28

-0.01

-0.49

-0.43

0.28

0.19

0.14

0.26

0.21

0.18

0.55

1.00

0.22

0.24

0.01

0.01

Carbon in root/rhizome layer / site (Mg

-0.61

-0.63

-0.63

0.09

0.10

-0.43

-0.30

-0.20

0.81

0.85

0.46

0.40

0.46

0.94

0.22

1.00

-0.26

-0.29

0.30

Amount Soil Carbon in Core/ site (Mg

0.41

0.36

0.05

0.35

-0.35

-0.07

0.03

0.07

-0.39

-0.34

0.12

0.28

0.11

-0.13

0.24

-0.26

1.00

0.12

0.10

Depth (cm)

0.59

0.53

-0.10

-0.17

0.18

0.16

0.59

0.17

-0.22

-0.19

-0.41

-0.16

-0.19

-0.24

0.01

-0.29

0.12

1.00

-0.51

Core Depth (cm)

-0.61

-0.60

-0.28

-0.17

-0.09

-0.38

-0.41

-0.34

0.21

0.17

0.67

0.52

0.52

0.26

0.01

0.30

0.10

-0.51

1.00


Appendix 8-41 Laboratory Water Quality Data
















Appendix 8-42 ANOVA Tables for Significant differences in WQ Parameters at p = < 0.50 Table 8-13 Significant Differences in Temperature within Long and Bloody Bay



Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Table 8-14 Significant Differences in Conductivity within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-15 Significant Differences in Salinity within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-16 Significant Differences in pH within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-17 Significant Differences in D.O. within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-18 Significant Differences in Turbidity within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-19 Significant Differences in TDS within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-20 Significant Differences in Nitrates within Long and Bloody Bay



Table 8-21 Significant Differences in Phosphates within Long and Bloody Bay



Appendix 8-43 ANOVA Tables for Significant differences in WQ Parameters from 2001 to 2021 at p = < 0.50 Table 8-22 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2001 (2001-2021)


Variables

Within-Group Correlations (NEPA Seagrass Project Long and Bloody Bay Stats) Group: year:1

Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

TSS (mg/l)

NIT (mg/l)

PHOS (mg/l)

TEMP. °C

1.000000


########

0.361638

0.609663


-0.627187


0.109556

0.312414

COND (mS/cm)











SAL (ppt)

########


1.000000

-0.539985

-0.015790


0.930292


-0.154960

0.394545

pH

0.361638


########

1.000000

0.217561


-0.753013


-0.564399

-0.343122

D.O. (mg/l)

0.609663


########

0.217561

1.000000


0.000218


-0.463205

0.828245

Turb (NTU)











TDS (g/l)

########


0.930292

-0.753013

0.000218


1.000000


-0.026435

0.487936

TSS (mg/l)











NIT (mg/l)

0.109556


########

-0.564399

-0.463205


-0.026435


1.000000

-0.172506

PHOS (mg/l)

0.312414


0.394545

-0.343122

0.828245


0.487936


-0.172506

1.000000


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency


Table 8-23 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2014 (2001-2021)



Variables

Within-Group Correlations (NEPA Seagrass Project Long and Bloody Bay Stats) Group: year:14

Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

TSS (mg/l)

NIT (mg/l)

PHOS (mg/l)

TEMP. °C

1.000000

0.952202

0.952020

-0.209935

0.937105

0.033596

0.950889

-0.898351

0.145228

-0.534361

COND (mS/cm)

0.952202

1.000000

0.999998

-0.061661

0.857636

0.085518

0.999629

-0.887987

0.293842

-0.555510

SAL (ppt)

0.952020

0.999998

1.000000

-0.061460

0.857228

0.084960

0.999620

-0.887772

0.294370

-0.555985

pH

-0.209935

-0.061661

-0.061460

1.000000

-0.118708

0.157563

-0.045587

0.117261

0.183131

-0.048597

D.O. (mg/l)

0.937105

0.857636

0.857228

-0.118708

1.000000

0.041156

0.858959

-0.870366

-0.034286

-0.431971

Turb (NTU)

0.033596

0.085518

0.084960

0.157563

0.041156

1.000000

0.098153

-0.192687

-0.014643

0.443219

TDS (g/l)

0.950889

0.999629

0.999620

-0.045587

0.858959

0.098153

1.000000

-0.888652

0.296634

-0.549767

TSS (mg/l)

-0.898351

-0.887987

-0.887772

0.117261

-0.870366

-0.192687

-0.888652

1.000000

-0.015414

0.329922

NIT (mg/l)

0.145228

0.293842

0.294370

0.183131

-0.034286

-0.014643

0.296634

-0.015414

1.000000

-0.353078

PHOS (mg/l)

-0.534361

-0.555510

-0.555985

-0.048597

-0.431971

0.443219

-0.549767

0.329922

-0.353078

1.000000


Table 8-24 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2015 (2001-2021)



Variables

Within-Group Correlations (NEPA Seagrass Project Long and Bloody Bay Stats) Group: year:15

Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

TSS (mg/l)

NIT (mg/l)

PHOS (mg/l)

TEMP. °C

1.000000

-0.145793

0.626432

0.437940

0.412659

-0.421923

0.643522

0.151207

-0.069346

-0.451768

COND (mS/cm)

-0.145793

1.000000

-0.437572

-0.847555

-0.851932

-0.522224

-0.352732

-0.779469

0.215547

0.908618

SAL (ppt)

0.626432

-0.437572

1.000000

0.373149

0.439261

-0.535451

0.994959

0.642689

0.444146

-0.412231

pH

0.437940

-0.847555

0.373149

1.000000

0.990625

0.478441

0.318374

0.407276

-0.213637

-0.898517

D.O. (mg/l)

0.412659

-0.851932

0.439261

0.990625

1.000000

0.420289

0.388605

0.420992

-0.082602

-0.858826

Turb (NTU)

-0.421923

-0.522224

-0.535451

0.478441

0.420289

1.000000

-0.607348

0.083827

-0.612187

-0.471990

TDS (g/l)

0.643522

-0.352732

0.994959

0.318374

0.388605

-0.607348

1.000000

0.567738

0.500347

-0.335305

TSS (mg/l)

0.151207

-0.779469

0.642689

0.407276

0.420992

0.083827

0.567738

1.000000

-0.110536

-0.674211

NIT (mg/l)

-0.069346

0.215547

0.444146

-0.213637

-0.082602

-0.612187

0.500347

-0.110536

1.000000

0.462359

PHOS (mg/l)

-0.451768

0.908618

-0.412231

-0.898517

-0.858826

-0.471990

-0.335305

-0.674211

0.462359

1.000000


Table 8-25 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2019 (2001-2021)



Variables

Within-Group Correlations (NEPA Seagrass Project Long and Bloody Bay Stats) Group: year:19

Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

TSS (mg/l)

NIT (mg/l)

PHOS (mg/l)

TEMP. °C

1.000000


0.989743


0.434084

0.941219


-0.866025



COND (mS/cm)











SAL (ppt)

0.989743


1.000000


0.300936

0.979822


-0.785714



pH











D.O. (mg/l)

0.434084


0.300936


1.000000

0.104256


-0.826364



Turb (NTU)

0.941219


0.979822


0.104256

1.000000


-0.646221



TDS (g/l)











TSS (mg/l)

-0.866025


-0.785714


-0.826364

-0.646221


1.000000



NIT (mg/l)











PHOS (mg/l)












Table 8-26 Significant Differences in within Long and Bloody Bay 2021 (2001-2021)



Variables

Within-Group Correlations (NEPA Seagrass Project Long and Bloody Bay Stats) Group: year:21

Marked correlations are significant at p < .05000

TEMP. °C

COND (mS/cm)

SAL (ppt)

pH

D.O. (mg/l)

Turb (NTU)

TDS (g/l)

TSS (mg/l)

NIT (mg/l)

PHOS (mg/l)

TEMP. °C

1.000000

-0.578135

-0.588233

-0.740767

-0.635615

0.562303

-0.570241

0.820366

-0.431439

-0.141004

COND (mS/cm)

-0.578135

1.000000

0.997132

0.948355

0.921395

-0.963107

0.997259

-0.794060

0.787166

-0.056095

SAL (ppt)

-0.588233

0.997132

1.000000

0.956153

0.921201

-0.972021

0.999532

-0.808101

0.769339

-0.050778

pH

-0.740767

0.948355

0.956153

1.000000

0.941952

-0.922256

0.948313

-0.935574

0.700648

-0.024771

D.O. (mg/l)

-0.635615

0.921395

0.921201

0.941952

1.000000

-0.885331

0.916712

-0.826131

0.678145

-0.127761

Turb (NTU)

0.562303

-0.963107

-0.972021

-0.922256

-0.885331

1.000000

-0.974209

0.746247

-0.713685

0.052432

TDS (g/l)

-0.570241

0.997259

0.999532

0.948313

0.916712

-0.974209

1.000000

-0.791654

0.768640

-0.055132

TSS (mg/l)

0.820366

-0.794060

-0.808101

-0.935574

-0.826131

0.746247

-0.791654

1.000000

-0.560262

-0.035027

NIT (mg/l)

-0.431439

0.787166

0.769339

0.700648

0.678145

-0.713685

0.768640

-0.560262

1.000000

0.017310

PHOS (mg/l)

-0.141004

-0.056095

-0.050778

-0.024771

-0.127761

0.052432

-0.055132

-0.035027

0.017310

1.000000


Appendix 8-44 Sample of Workshop Sensitization Invitation Letter sent to Stakeholders via email


Mrs Michele Creed Nelson Executive Director

Jamaica National Heritage Trust 79 Duke Street

Kingston


Via E-Mail: michelecreednelson@jnht.com; claudeneforbes@jnht.com; takiyabrowne@jnht.com 876 924 9531


Dear Mrs Creed Nelson


Further to the introductory letter from the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) you are cordially invited to a digital stakeholder sensitisation workshop scheduled for Thursday, June 03, 2021, beginning at 9.30 a.m.


The purpose of the workshop is to raise overall awareness of stakeholders within and close to the boundaries of the Negril Environmental Protection Area about the seagrass assessment exercise in the Long Bay and Bloody Bay areas; conduct rapid assessment of needs and capacity to manage the ecosystem; identify critical consideration for social inclusion and co-management to improve the overall management and maintain socio- economic wellbeing of the Area as well as garner information on drivers and threats to the ecosystem and any other information vital to informing the assessment exercise.

Please see the attached Agenda regarding the same, which also includes instructions to join and participate. Clarifications and additional information to enable your participation may be sought by e-mail at

seagrass@westcbss.com or, by telephone 876 359 7783.


We thank you kindly for your participation and look forward to the robust contributions from that of yourself or your designate and ask that you kindly notify us of this decision by Monday, May 31, 2021.


Yours truly

Nicole West-Hayles

Social Scientist/Stakeholder Engagement Specialist For and on behalf of the NEPA, CL Environmental


Appendix 8-45 Agenda for Sensitization Workshop






Appendix 8-46 Stakeholder Sensitization Workshop Register


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency








Appendix 8-47 Group Discussion Promotional Flyers


Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd. Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency



Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.

Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency