Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
July 28, 2021
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
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
Objective, Scope and Methodology 5
Seagrass meadow line transect sampling 6
Core Sampling and Data Collection 10
Seagrass Productivity Collection 13
Seagrass Meadow Invertebrate Transects 19
Booby Cay Photo and Invertebrate Transects 20
Other Survey Areas- Roving Surveys and Benthic Composition Identification 21
Oceanography and Hydrodynamics 29
Wave Climate and Storm Surge 29
Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storm Surge 33
Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 41
Stakeholder Workshops and Community Consultations 43
Observational Results within the Long and Bloody Bay project area. 51
Grouping of transect and core samples into zones for statistical analysis 53
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
General Results and Observations 113
Bloody Bay and Long Bay Macro-Invertebrate Comparison 147
Fish Comparison between Long and Bloody Bay 151
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 169
Light Extinction Coefficient (EC) 170
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 171
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
Probabilistic Analysis of Hurricanes and Storm Surge 201
Climate Change Projections 207
Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 217
Stakeholder Workshops and Community Consultations 231
Conclusion and Rating of Project Implementation Success 240
Seagrass Health Assessment 240
Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 242
Lessons Learnt, Limitations and Assumptions 246
Climate Change Projections 246
Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment 246
Seagrass Health Assessment 247
Benefit Transfer Valuation Analysis 248
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 |
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
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 3-86 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
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 3-14 Old drain observed in seagrass bed 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
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
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
Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a
Zooplankton to include eggs and larvae
Water quality monitoring
Herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers
Total and faecal Coliforms and Enterococcus
Dye tracing in surface waters in the morass and springs that disappear upland in the hydrological basin, to determine upwellings and surface flow locations into the bays
Seagrass
The full extent of seagrass flowering meadows needs to be determined as these areas need to remain undisturbed
Little detail is known about flowering conditions and seasonality of these species in Jamaica. Further studies should be done.
Studies need to be conducted within seagrass meadows at deeper depths
No wake zones
No use zones
Development of a seasonal sampling regime to determine spatial and temporal differences within Bloody Bay and Long Bay
Creation of a tropical region seagrass health index
Reef
Disease outbreak monitoring and possible treatment protocols of SCTLD designed by AGRRA and other organizations.
Limit or prohibit activities in areas with high disease in order to reduce the risk of spreading.
Train operators and users in the area of disease identification and create reporting protocols.
Fisheries management including lionfish removal, no use zones including some timed with various breeding seasons
General
Improved solid waste management
Management of terrestrial activities that impact water quality
Clear demarcation of zones (surface marker buoys) within the marine EPA
No wake zones
Reef restoration and coral nursery programmes established and implemented
Use of ENVI software to conduct satellite imagery processing in order to delineate the full extent of the seagrass meadows and other benthos.
Monitoring
Water quality
Monitoring of a wider area
Monitoring ideally should be conducted monthly, however, water quality monitoring programme should include the following:
Peak tourist seasons
Wet and dry seasons and
After major events such as hurricanes
Monitoring protocol for private businesses during major activities (such as construction and renovations) which may affect water quality
Plankton monitoring is a robust tool in water quality monitoring and can be the best indicator of changes.
Zooplankton appendages, eggs and larvae give a more complete picture of the diversity and nursery function of these expansive seagrass meadows
Updated fisheries management plan to include:
Lionfish removal
No take zones
Size limit to ensure no juvenile fish are harvested.
Limit or prohibit the sale of gastropods shells
Ensure fish feeding activities are not having a deleterious effect on fish assemblages and feeding habits.
Increased number of rangers and frequency of patrols
Increased public education
Increased signage
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.
Figure 1-1 Map showing project boundaries
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.
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:
Anchor Damage
Artificial Reefs and Pyramids
Boat Launching and Landing Sites
Boat Moorings
Dive Sites and snorkel sites
Drains and Gullies
Dry Dock, Vessel Refuelling and Watersports
Features of the mixed Benthos
Patch Reef/ Pavement
Seagrass Species
Seagrass Blowouts and Halos
Productivity Quadrats
Replanted Seagrass Locations
Seagrass Cores
Transect Lines
Solid Waste
Turtle and Dolphin Sightings
Water Quality Sampling Stations
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
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
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.
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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.
In order to create a Reef Health Index, the following factors were considered and recorded:
Percentage Hard Coral Cover
Percentage Macroalgal Cover
Herbivorous Fish and Invertebrate Densities and Diversity
Substrate Suitability- this includes the available areas for successful recruitment
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 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
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:
The hydrodynamic module to calculate the solution for the surface elevation and velocity field at each point in the domain as a function of time with a critical Courant–Friedrichs–Levy (CFL) number.
The spectral wave module to model the wave propagation and transformation from offshore up to the shoreline was calculated using the spectral wave component.
The hydrodynamic model simulates water level variation and flows in response to a variety of forcing functions in lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal regions. The hydrodynamic module can be used to solve both three-dimensional and two-dimensional problems.
The Spectral Waves model simulates the growth, decay, and transformation of wind-generated waves and swells in offshore and coastal areas (DHI 2004).
The discretization of the governing equation in geographical and spectral space is performed using the cell- cantered finite volume method. In the geographical domain, an unstructured mesh technique is used. The time integration is performed using a fractional step approach where a multi-sequence explicit method is applied for the propagation of wave action.
Finite Element Mesh Development The process of mesh developments entails the following steps:
The input of bathymetric data for the wider area and in detail for the project area
Specifying of vertices/nodes in the mesh
Element construction in the mesh
Interpolation for depth at vertices/nodes
Specifying open boundaries and land
The mesh constructed for the calibration and existing configuration extended 17 kilometres in a north-south direction and 21 kilometres in an east-west direction. The outer deep-water areas were gridded with large mesh which gradually decreases on approach to the project area, in keeping with the Courant Number criterion for numerical stability. The eastern and western boundaries were used as open boundaries on which tides were applied.
Figure 2-7 Mesh used for modelling of operational and swell scenarios
The following scenarios were executed to evaluate the vulnerability of the shoreline within the project area. The scenarios are described below:
Operational waves: It was necessary to establish a basis to describe the daily conditions to understand the present climate, as well as to predict potential future changes to come.
Swell waves: The scenario was necessary to describe the damage the infrequent, high-energy waves would have on the beach. Swell wave conditions are generally infrequent and occur a few days out of the year. The waves are fairly large (>1.6m wave heights) and have long periods which enables them to cause significant damage to beaches and other structures near the shoreline. It was therefore important to look at the swell wave climate to understand the impact on the existing and proposed shoreline and also to design shoreline protective structures, which can withstand these scenarios. The model was used to simulate swell wave conditions from offshore to nearshore for waves approaching the site from the South, South-East, South-West, West, and East directions.
Future climate (2050): The rate of climate change globally within the next century is expected to be significantly higher than it was in the past. Trends observed in historical and current climate data are analyzed used to project future climate. Scientists have predicted that there will be fewer storm events but with greater intensities. This scenario is needed to evaluate how resilient the shoreline is and what changes are needed to make it more resilient to future climate change.
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.
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:
Tropical Cyclone Generator
MIKE 21/3 FM Coupled Model
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)
Vmax: tangential wind component of the gradient-level maximum wind speed (m/s)
φ: Latitude (degrees)
The parametric model required five input parameters as follows:
Date/Time
Maximum wind speed,
The radius of maximum wind speed
Neutral pressure
Central pressure
A MIKE 21/3 Coupled FM model was generated to calculate the corresponding distribution of surface water elevation and waves in the area based on calibrations with historical data and anecdotal information for Hurricane Ivan (2004). The model is a dynamic modelling system for application within coastal, estuaries, and river environments. The suite was used to simulate the mutual interaction between waves and currents using a dynamic coupling between the Hydrodynamic Module and the Spectral Wave Module. The output from the cyclone generator was placed on the boundary of the model.
The Hydrodynamic Module was used to calculate the corresponding distribution of surface water elevation under the influence of the tropical cyclone. A combination of the meteorological and hydrodynamic data was used to create the storm surge model.
The spectral wave module tool was utilized to model the significant wave height (Hs), and maximum wave height during the cyclone. This method involved using the time and space-dependent pressure and wind force generated in the previous step are used as input parameters for both modules.
Simulation of tropical cyclone tracks
Three probabilistic hurricane scenarios were modelled, they were as followed:
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 |
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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,
The following method was used to execute the vulnerability assessment:
Determine seagrass vulnerability to climate related hazards
Review of literature on the impact of temperature, currents and SLR on related variables on seagrass
Assessing risk - The vulnerability and severity of the hazards were superimposed to estimate the potential impacts and losses of seagrass.
Risk was determined by estimating the loss of seagrass from areas of critical value for each hazard.
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.
Group discussions were planned to be executed over a 3-day period targeting various demographic groupings:
Craft vendors
Farmers
Fishers
Residents
Water sport operators
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:
4 to 6 group discussions
3 workshops
Sensitization
Training
Results presentation and validation
Mini survey
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.
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 |
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).
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
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.
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.
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 |
Shoot Component
Mean Blade Density (numbers/m2)
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-).
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 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 |
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
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.
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 |
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 |
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-).
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).
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 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 |
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).
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 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.
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:
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:
Anthropogenic and Natural Impacts to Seagrass
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:
Fishing vessels
Water sport vessels
Locals and tourists in swim areas and along the beach
Rivers and gullies
Unintentional littering (e.g. beach furniture, fishing gear)
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
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
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 3-14 Old drain observed in seagrass bed
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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 |
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
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 |
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
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 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
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
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)
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.
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
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
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
Figure 3-49 Bloody Bay vs Long Bay; Anemones, Jellyfish, Pen Shells and Segmented Worms
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.
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
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.
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 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
Figure 3-52 Conductivity values at various stations
Figure 3-53 Salinity values at the various stations
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
Figure 3-54 pH values at the various stations
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 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 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
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
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
Figure 3-61 Phosphate values at the various stations
Spatial Patterns in Long and Bloody Bay
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
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 |
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 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.
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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% |
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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.
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
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)
The MIKE 21 SW module tool was utilized to model the significant wave height (Hs) during the cyclone.
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 |
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.
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
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.
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.
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 |
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.
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).
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
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
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%)
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
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
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.
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)
ℎ𝑑𝑑: 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%.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
Sections of Bloody Bay
Long Bay
Lucea
Negril River
Savana La Mar
1.6 km (1 mile) in any direction from NFB for trap fishing
24.1 km (15 miles) from NFB in any direction for line fishing
Pedro Bank
Lowered banks of Kingston
Outside of Jamaican waters:
Bossa Nova
Mexico
Honduras
Colombia
Nicaragua
Roslyn Bank
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, |
The Bonita, Tuna, Snapper, Parrot and Grunt were the most popular species seen. Other less popular species include:
Wenchman
Yellow Fin
Lobster
Conch
Crab
Shark
Marlin
Doctor Fish
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
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 |
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:
Agriculture
Fisheries
Tourism
General and Community
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
Time to conduct the scope of work
Weather conditions during the assessment
Distance and logistics
Covid 19 Pandemic
Limited Budget
Reckless boating practices (e.g. speeding, no observation of dive flags and surface markers)
The overall projections by the IPCC AR5 report for differing RCP scenarios anticipates continuation of current anthropogenic activity. If, however, current policies change to limit carbon emissions, these projections may be lower. This would mean a less severe impact of climate change.
Seagrass Vulnerability Assessment
There has been limited studies conducted regarding the impact of climate change on seagrasses. However, it is a fair assumption, that seagrasses, like other sensitive ecosystems, are vulnerable to climate change. The lack of data made it difficult to conduct a more in-depth assessment.
A number of limiting factors have been encountered so far. While these have not severely impacted the overall delivery, the pace at which the activities were concluded were affected. Limitations included:
Work From Home Orders from GOJ workers as a contagion measure for CoViD-19, reduced communication and delayed decision-making.
Hesitation to participate in person
Limitations on gathering size
Limitations due to curfew hours
Lack of participation by some groups, notably the Watersports community
Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.
Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency
No quantitative baseline data for the back reef of Booby Cay and patch reefs in Long and Bloody Bay.
Major reef areas were outside of our study area.
Reef surveys should be conducted in previously surveyed areas along with areas heavily utilized as dive and snorkel sites as these are likely to benefit from the Project area and wider seagrass meadows.
Coral recruits were not included in the survey due to time limitations.
Standard image classification using ArcGIS 10.8.1 Image Analysis was not suitable for the Negril area due to the following conditions:
Water depth
Light conditions
Atmospheric absorption
Although some pre-processing is conducted by the imagery provider, more sophisticated processing is necessary. To do this, more specialized software would be needed. The name of the recommended software is ENVI. This software costs US$11,500.00, with an annual maintenance cost of US$1,725.00, which is outside the project budget.
More detailed ground truthing was found to be necessary: utilizing previous images and maps, areas which appeared to be sand or pavement in fact had seagrass; dark areas that appeared to be seagrass were instead patch reefs, macro-algae or other biota.
Project timeline constraints preventing the collection of additional replicates within zones
Knowledge gaps regarding seagrass health in relation to carbon content both nationally and regionally makes it difficult to determine the status of studied areas.
Equipment utilized is only able to penetrate through the first 1m of soil. Commercial equipment may be utilized to obtain larger core samples and provide more accurate data and historical information.
Non-testing of herbicides, pesticides, coliform, E coli and plankton
Logistics and distance of transportation to laboratory
Lack of availability of historical data
Lack of standardization of data collection and reporting
Benefit Transfer Valuation Analysis
The Benefit Transfer Valuation Analysis cannot be completed until all the findings and data have been compiled and reviewed. This includes comments from The Agency and the remaining stakeholder workshops.
Additional data sets would provide a more accurate and detailed description of the existing environment. These include:
Water Quality
Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a
Zooplankton to include eggs and larvae
Water quality monitoring
Herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers
Total and faecal Coliforms and Enterococcus
Dye tracing in surface waters in the morass and springs that disappear upland in the hydrological basin, to determine upwellings and surface flow locations into the bays
Seagrass
The full extent of seagrass flowering meadows needs to be determined as these areas need to remain undisturbed
Little detail is known about flowering conditions and seasonality of these species in Jamaica. Further studies should be done.
Studies need to be conducted within seagrass meadows at deeper depths
Detailed studies should be conducted in relocation bed areas.
No wake zones
No use zones
Prepared By: C.L. Environmental Co. Ltd.
Submitted to: National Environment and Planning Agency
Development of a seasonal sampling regime to determine spatial and temporal differences within Bloody Bay and Long Bay
Creation of a tropical region seagrass health index
Reef
Disease outbreak monitoring and possible treatment protocols of SCTLD designed by AGRRA and other organizations.
Limit or prohibit activities in areas with high disease in order to reduce the risk of spreading.
Train operators and users in the area of disease identification and create reporting protocols.
Fisheries management including lionfish removal, no use zones including some timed with various breeding seasons
General
Improved solid waste management
Management of terrestrial activities that impact water quality
Clear demarcation of zones (surface marker buoys) within the marine EPA
No wake zones
Reef restoration and coral nursery programmes established and implemented
Use of ENVI software to conduct satellite imagery processing in order to delineate the full extent of the seagrass meadows and other benthos.
Water quality
Monitoring of a wider area
Monitoring ideally should be conducted monthly, however, water quality monitoring programme should include the following:
Peak tourist seasons
Wet and dry seasons and
After major events such as hurricanes
Monitoring protocol for private businesses during major activities (such as construction and renovations) which may affect water quality
Plankton monitoring is a robust tool in water quality monitoring and can be the best indicator of changes.
Zooplankton appendages, eggs and larvae give a more complete picture of the diversity and nursery function of these expansive seagrass meadows
Updated fisheries management plan to include:
Lionfish removal
No take zones
Size limit to ensure no juvenile fish are harvested.
Limit or prohibit the sale of gastropods shells
Ensure fish feeding activities are not having a deleterious effect on fish assemblages and feeding habits.
Increased number of rangers and frequency of patrols
Increased public education
Increased signage
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 .
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 |
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
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 |
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 8-39 Analysis of Variance within water quality parameters in Long Bay per Transect
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
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