Comments2_ East Central Portland coral survey 2009[1]

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MANAGING THE MARINE, COASTAL AND WATERSHED RESOURCES OF THE EAST

CENTRAL PORTLAND

STATUS OF THE CORAL REEFS Global Environmental Facility

Integrating Watershed and Coastal Areas Management National Environment and Planning Agency

Caribbean Coastal Data Centre, Centre for Marine Sciences, UWI 2

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MANAGING THE MARINE, COASTAL AND WATERSHED RESOURCES OF

THE EAST CENTRAL PORTLAND

STATUS OF THE CORAL REEFS

Prepared by: Marcia Creary Environmental Data Manager Caribbean coastal Data Centre Centre for Marine Sciences University of the West Indies Mona Campus Kingston 7 Jamaica WI & Tracey Edwards, Team Leader, Projects Coordinator Portland Environment Protection Association & Environmental Coordinator/Community Animator IWCAM Project

March 2010


TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Plates ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1 The GEF‐IWCAM Project ............................................................................................................................ 10 1.2.2 Drivers River Watershed Management Unit .............................................................................................. 11 1.2.3 Environmental Monitoring Committee ...................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Site Selection and Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 13 1.3.1 Site selection .............................................................................................................................................. 13 1.3.2 Monitoring Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 13 1.3.3 Monitoring Team ....................................................................................................................................... 13 1.3.4 Data Processing and Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.3.5 Report Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 15

Section 2: Results of Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 16

2.1 Dragon Point ................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 16 2.1.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 16

2.2 Alligator West ................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 19 2.2.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Pellew Island ................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 22 2.3.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 22

2.4 Courtney’s Reef ............................................................................................................................................. 25 2.4.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 25 2.4.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 25

2.5 Drapers .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 2.5.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 29 2.5.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 29

2.6. Dragon Bay .................................................................................................................................................... 32 2.6.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 32 2.6.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 32

2.7 Fairy Hill ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 2.7.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 35 2.7.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 35

2.8 Boston Bay ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 2.8.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 38 2.8.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 38

2.9 Policeman's Harbour ..................................................................................................................................... 41 2.9.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 41 2.9.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 41

2.10 Black River ...................................................................................................................................................... 44


2.10.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................. 44 2.10.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 44

2.11 See Me No More ........................................................................................................................................... 47 2.11.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 47 2.11.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ........................................................................................................ 47

2.12 Banana House ................................................................................................................................................ 50 2.12.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 50 2.12.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ........................................................................................................ 50

2.13.1 Manchioneal Harbour ................................................................................................................................. 53 2.13.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 53 2.13.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ......................................................................................................... 53

2.14 Horse Savannah River .................................................................................................................................... 56 2.14.1 Site Description and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 56 2.14.2 Description of the Benthic Substrate ........................................................................................................ 56

2.15 Summary of Monitoring Results .................................................................................................................... 59 2.15.1 Corals ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 2.15.2 Macroalgae and Dead Coral with Algae .................................................................................................... 61 2.15.3 Gorgonians and Sponges ............................................................................................................................ 61 2.15.4 Other Benthic Substrate Categories ........................................................................................................... 62

Section3: Status of Coral Reefs in Jamaica and the Wider Caribbean ......................................................... 63

3.1 Coral Cover at various locations around Jamaica .......................................................................................... 63 3.1.1 Monkey Island (Pellew Island) ................................................................................................................... 63 3.1.2 Island wide Reef Check Survey .................................................................................................................. 64

3.2 Coral Cover in the Wider Caribbean .............................................................................................................. 66 3.2.1 the eastern Caribbean ............................................................................................................................... 66 3.2.1 Status of Coral Reefs in the Wider Caribbean. ........................................................................................... 67

Section 4: Conculsions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 69

4.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 69 4.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 69

References ................................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 72

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Drivers River Watershed located to the east of Portland

Figure 2: Map of the Divers River Watershed

Figure 3: Satellite photograph showing the locations of the monitoring sites along the east central coast of Portland.

Figure 4: Dragon Point ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 5: Alligator West ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA–


Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Figure 6: Pellew Island ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 7: Courtney’s Reef ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 8: Drapers ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Figure 9: Dragon Bay ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 10: Fairy Hill ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 11: Boston Bay ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Figure 12: Policeman's Harbour ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 13: Black River ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 14: Se Me No More ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Figure 15: Banana House ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 16: Manchioneal Harbour ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)


Figure 17: Horse Savannah River ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Figure 18: Comparison of coral cover for the 14 sites monitored along the east central coastline of Portland

Figure19: Number of coral species found at the 14 monitoring sites along the east central coastline of Portland.

Figure 20: Macroaglae combined with dead coral with algae for the 14 monitoring sites along the east central coastline of Portland.

Figure 21: Comparison of gorgonian cover at the 14 sites monitored along the east central coastline of Portland.

Figure 22: Comparison of sponge cover at the 14 sites monitored along the east central coastline of Portland.

Figure 23: Total observed change in mean percentage coral cover from 1977 to 200. (Source: Gardener et al, 2003)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Dragon Point – the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ...................................... 17

Table 2: Alligator West ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ..................................... 20

Table 3: Courtney’s Reef ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ................................... 27

Table 4: Drapers ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ................................................ 30

Table 5: Dragon Bay ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. .......................................... 33

Table 6: Fairy Hill ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. .............................................. 36

Table 7: Boston Bay ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. .......................................... 39

Table 8: Policeman’s Harbour ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ........................... 42

Table 9: Black River ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ........................................... 45

Table 10: See Me No More ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ............................... 48

Table 11: Banana House ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ................................... 51

Table 12: Manchioneal Harbour ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ....................... 54

Table 13: Horse Savannah River ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories. ....................... 57

Table 14: Coral species found along the east central coastline of Portland ................................................................ 60

Table 15: Summary of the mean percentage cover for the substrate categories found at Monkey Island (Pellew Island) for the period 2000 –2003 (Source: Chevannes Creary, 2001; Centre for Marine Sciences, 2006) and 2009.63

Table 16: Coral species identified at Monkey Island (Pellew Island) for the period 2000‐2003 (Source: Chevannes Creary, 2001; Centre for Marine Sciences, 2006) and 2009. ....................................................................................... 64


Table 17: Mean percentage cover for corals and algae for 36 sites around Jamaica. (Source: NEPA, 2009) .............. 65

Table 18: Combined summary of the mean percentage cover for the substrate categories at the coral reef sites in Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and Tobago monitored over the period 2007 to 2009. (Source: Creary 2008, Creary, 2009). ........................................................................................................................... 67

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Members of the monitoring team. Photo 1 ‐ (L‐R) Thomas Goreau, Tracey Edwards, Robert Hue and Elliott Skyers. Photo 2 – (L‐R) Thomas Goreau, Tracey Edwards, Nelsia English and Tyrone Brown.

Plate 2: Dragon Point ‐ Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 3: Dragon Point ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species

Plate 4: Alligator West ‐ Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 5: Alligator West ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 6: Pellew Island – Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 7: Pellew Island – Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 8: Courtney’s Reef ‐ Images showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate9: Courtney's Reef ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 10: Drapers: Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 11: Drapers – Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 12: Dragon Bay – Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 13: Dragon Bay ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species

Plate 14: Fairy Hill ‐ Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 15: Fairy Hill ‐ Images of substrate and some coral species.

Plate 16: Boston Bay ‐ Image showing the appearance of the reef.

Plate 17: Boston Bay ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 18: Policeman's Harbour ‐ Image of the appearance of the reef.

Plate 19: Policeman's Harbour – images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 20: Black River ‐ image showing the appearance of the reef.

Plate 21: Black River ‐ images of the substrate and some coral species.


Plate 22: See Me No More – image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 23: See Me No More – Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 24: Banana House – image of the appearance of the reef.

Plate 25: Banana House – images of the substrate and some coral species

Plate 26: Manchioneal Harbour: ‐ image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 27: Manchioneal Harbour – images of the substrate and some coral species.

Plate 28: Horse Savannah River – image showing the general appearance of the reef.

Plate 29: Horse Savannah River – images of the substrate and some coral species.


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BJCMNP Blue and John Crow Mountain National Park

CDC

CEHI Caribbean Environmental Health Institute

CMS Centre for Marine Sciences

CPACC Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change

CPCe Coral Point Count with Excel extensions

GEF‐IWCAM Global Environmental Facility ‐ Integrating Watershed and Coastal Areas Management

GCRA Global Coral Reef Alliance network

JSAC Jamaica Sub Aqua club

MACC Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change

NEPA National Environment and Planning Agency

NGO Non‐Governmental Organization

NSWMA National Solid Waste Management Authority

PAMP Port Antonio Marine Park and Forest Corridor

PEPA Portland Environmental Protections Association

PPCD Portland Parish Council Department

SIDS Small Island Developing States

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UWI University of the West Indies


SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The parish of Portland is located at the north‐eastern section of Jamaica. The majority of the upper and middle watershed areas of the parish are within the Blue and John Crow Mountain National Park (BJCMNP), Jamaica’s first terrestrial national park opened in 1993. A proposal exists, under the protected areas system plan, to establish the Port Antonio Marine Park and Forest Corridor (PAMP) which would include approximately 20km of coastline extending from Downer’s Bluff to North East Point. The Corridor would include all the inshore marine habitats from the coast to 200m in depth as well as the interior watershed area draining into the sea between these points, up to the northern boundary of the BJCMNP.

Portland’s inshore marine environment includes a variety of seafloor habitats including corals, algae, sand, and mud plains. Historically the coral reefs in and around the Port Antonio Marine Park site has included some of the healthiest remaining examples in Jamaica and as such is of critical national priority. However, these reefs are under threat from land‐based anthropogenic activities such as the effects of sewage, solid waste, wastewater and

sediment brought to the reef by rivers, runoff and prevailing currents.1

Under the auspices of the Environmental Management Committee of the Drivers River Watershed Management Project a survey was carried out to gather information on the current status of the reefs in eastern Portland to provide up to date data for management action. The coral reef survey was coordinated and implemented by Tracey Edwards, Coordinator for the GEF‐IWCAM Environmental Monitoring Committee. This report present the result of the this survey conducted at fourteen (14) coral reef sites along the east central coastline of Portland during the period July 15 to 24, 2009.

1.2 BACKGROUND

1.2.1 THE GEF‐IWCAM PROJECT

The Integrating Watershed and Coastal Areas Management (IWCAM) Project in Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS) commenced in 2005 and encompasses thirteen (13) participating SIDS. The main implementing agencies for this GEF project were the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) is the local implementing agency for the Demonstration Project in Jamaica.

Caribbean coastal and watershed systems are among the most productive in the world, yet they are the most threatened, due to rapid land use changes and coastal developments. The GEF‐IWCAM project aims to help mitigate some of the impact of these developments across the Caribbean. The Demonstration Project therefore proposes to develop and implement a model Watershed Area Management Mechanism for the eastern Portland area, incorporating the lessons and experiences gained elsewhere in the country, and capturing relevant examples from other SIDS. The final objective of this project would be to demonstrate an effective mechanism for such a management strategy and to identify where and how this model could be replicated in other areas of the country. The map of Jamaica in Figure 1 shows eastern Portland and the location of the Divers River watershed.

1 Demonstration Project Paper. Jamaica – An Integrated Approach to Managing the Marine, Coastal and Watershed Resources of East‐Central Portland.


Figure 1: Drivers River Watershed located to the east of Portland2

1.2.2 DRIVERS RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT UNIT

The Drivers River Watershed Project is among eight other demonstration projects across the Caribbean. The watershed (Figure 2) which is rated one of the least degraded in the country and was chosen to help develop Best Management Practices in environmental habits and activities. These were identified, planned and implemented through a participatory process involving agency and community partnerships. Four committees were formed to ensure the adaptation and implementation of these practices. These were;

• Governance & Enforcement

• Sanitation and Sustainable Livelihood,

• Environmental Monitoring

• Public Education and Awareness

Stakeholders were given the opportunity to choose the committee they wished to work with, based on special interest or natural talent. All of these committees reported back to the stakeholders at the monthly Stakeholders Meeting.

2 GEF‐IWCAM Drivers River Watershed Management Model (Draft). NEPA

Drivers River Watershed


Figure 2: Map of the Divers River Watershed3

1.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING COMMITTEE

The main objectives of the Environmental Monitoring Committee were:

1. To capture baseline data for the Watershed 2. To monitor fresh water and marine sites for pollution trends. 3. To assess the status of fresh water and coastal resources and identify keystone species. 4. To identify areas of rich biological significance for conservation and protection. 5. To identify human activities, if any, that negatively impact on the natural resources of the Drivers River

Management Unit and make recommendation/s for mitigation against these harmful practices

Activities included reef assessments, mangrove monitoring/resuscitation, water quality/quantity monitoring, boat tours, household surveys, bio‐monitoring and clean‐ups (beach & community).

3 Ibid


1.3 SITE SELECTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.3.1 SITE SELECTION

The site selection process included consultation with the members of the Environmental Monitoring Committee, representatives from the Portland Environmental Protections Associations (PEPA), NEPA and the local dive operators Lady G Divers. Monitoring sites were chosen to be representative of the entire Drivers River watershed and were based on proximity to previous assessment sites (Goreau, 1996). Fourteen (14) sites were selected, four shallow sites (Drapers, Dragon Bay, Pellew Island and Manchioneal Harbour) and ten (10) sites of intermediate depth (Dragon Point, Alligator West, Courtney’s Reef, Fairy Hill, Boston Bay, Policeman’s Harbour, Black River, See Me No More, Banana House and Horse Savannah). The location of the fourteen (14) monitoring sites is shown in Figure 3.

1.3.2 MONITORING METHODOLOGY

The initial monitoring methodology called for five 20m transects to be established at each site, parallel to the shoreline. However due to the bottom topography and reef structure, this procedure was later modified with respect to the individual sites. The methodology was maintained for most sites but where challenges existed, a single 100m transect was employed instead. Where five 20m transects were laid out, they were placed in parallel at a distance of 5m between each transect.

Images were captured along the transect at a height of 1m above the substrate. This distance was maintained with the use of a 1m PVC pipe which supported the diver. Still images was captured at every metre along the transect line. Two cameras with flash attachment were used for image capture these were a Canon Powershot and a Nikon D300 with a wide angle lens. Other equipment employed included a 100m measuring tape, nylon cord, a one metre PVC pipe and a recording slate. The monitoring dives were carried out during the period July 15‐24, 2009. All dives were carried out between 7am and 10am each day.

1.3.3 MONITORING TEAM

The monitoring team included Tracey Edwards, the Team Leader and Project Coordinator for the Portland Environment Protection Association (PEPA) and also the Environmental Coordinator/Community Animator for the IWCAM Project. Other members of the team included Dr. Thomas Goreau, President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance (GCRA) network and a worldwide consultant on coral reef ecology and restoration, Robert Hue of the Jamaica Sub‐Aqua Club (JSAC), Tyrone Brown and Elliot Sykers (Lady G Divers). Nelsia English, Research Officer for the GEF‐IWCAM Project also participated in the monitoring exercise (Plate 1).

Figure 3: Satellite photograph showing the locations of the monitoring sites along the east central coast of Portland.

Key to Monitoring Sites: DP ‐ Dragon Point PI‐ Pellew Island CR ‐ Courtney's Reef AL‐ Alligator West DR ‐ Drapers Reef DB ‐ Dragon Bay FH ‐ Fairy Hill BB ‐ Boston Bay PH ‐ Policeman's Harbour BR ‐ Black River SMNM ‐ See Me No More BH ‐ Banana House MH ‐ Manchioneal Harbour HS ‐ Horse Savannah


Plate 1: Members of the monitoring team. Photo 1 ‐ (L‐R) Thomas Goreau, Tracey Edwards, Robert Hue and Elliott Skyers. Photo 2 – (L‐R) Thomas Goreau, Tracey Edwards, Nelsia English and Tyrone Brown.

1.3.4 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

Images in electronic format were submitted to the Centre for Marine Sciences, University of the West Indies (CMS, UWI). A total of 1731 images were analyzed from the fourteen (14) monitoring sites. The random point count method was used to estimate the benthic substrate cover from the images. The Coral Point Count with Excel extensions (CPCe) an automated random point count method designed for the statistical analysis of marine benthic communities (Kohler & Gill, 2006) was used. The CPCe programme was used to randomly overlay 10 points on each image from which the benthic species or substrate category lying under each point was identified. Once identified the codes are entered directly into an associate Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.

1.3.5 REPORT PREPARATION

This report was prepared by the CMS on the request of the GEF‐IWCAM/NEPA Project and in collaboration with Tracey Edwards, Environmental Coordinator/Community Animator for the GEF‐WCAM Project and Team Leader and Project Coordinator for the Portland Environment Protection Association (PEPA). The report is divided into four sections. Section 1 provides an introduction and background to the project. Section 2 contains the result of the monitoring programme. Section 3 provides some coral reef data from other locations in Jamaica and the Caribbean and Section 4 contains the conclusions and recommendations.

Photo 1

Photo 2


SECTION 2: RESULTS OF MONITORING

2.1 DRAGON POINT

2.1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND METHODOLOGY

The monitoring site at Dragon Point was located approximately 100m from the shoreline east of Pellew Island and about 100m from the Blue Logoon Villas. The entry point from land was at the Turtle Cove Beach and the area had an average depth of 13m. Monitoring was conducted on July 15, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 156 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

From general observations the benthic topography was comprised of an undulating terrain, sloping gently to 13m. The benthic substrate was comprised mainly of rocks and rubble with small areas of patch reef. The sandy bottoms consisted of coarse white sand similar to that found on the small adjacent beach. Coral cover was low with the site dominated by a variety of fleshy algal species. Visibility was good and but few fishes were observed. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 2.

Plate 2: Dragon Point ‐ Image showing the general appearance of the reef.

2.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE BENTHIC SUBSTRATE

At Dragon Point a total of ten (10) coral species were identified and these made up 5.89% of the overall benthic substrate. The most commonly occurring coral species were Porites astreoides and Siderastrea siderea which made up 1.74% and 1.34% of the benthic cover respectively. Other species identified included Agaricia


agaricites(0.67%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.13%), Diploria strigosa (0.13%), Meandrina meandrites (0.07%), Montastraea annularis (0.60%), Porites divaricata (0.04%), Porites furcata (0.20%) and Porites porites (0.60%). This site was dominated by various species of macroalgae (83.1%) which included Halimeda (0.54%), Padina (0.07%) and turf algae (3.08%). Also found in the area were gorgonians (0.13%), encrusting sponges (0.74%) and anemones (0.07%). Dead coral and algae (0.87%) as well as recently dead coral (0.07%) were also observed. No diseased corals were observed at this site. Pavement, rubble and sand made up 9.03% of the substrate while 0.20% was unknown. These results are presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 4. Plate 3 shows images of the substrate including selected coral species.

Table 1: Dragon Point – the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.

Major Category Species/Categories Individual % cover Sub total

CORAL Agaricia agaricites 0.67

Diploria labyrinthiformis 0.13

Diploria strigosa 0.13

Meandrina meandrites 0.07

Montastraea annularis 0.60

Porites astreoides 1.74

Porites divaricata 0.40

Porites furcata 0.20

Porites porites 0.60

Siderastrea siderea 1.34 5.89

GORGONIANS Gorgonian 0.13 0.13

SPONGES Encrusting sponge 0.74 0.74

ZOANTHIDS Palythoa sp. 0.00 0.00

MACROALGAE Halimeda 0.54

Macroalgae 79.33

Padina 0.07

Turf algae 3.08 83.01

OTHER LIVE Anemones 0.07 0.07

DEAD CORAL WITH ALGAE Dead coral with algae 0.87

Recently dead coral 0.07 0.94

CORALLINE ALGAE Coralline algae 0.00 0.00

DISEASED CORALS Diseased coral 0.00 0.00

SAND, PAVEMENT, RUBBLE Rubble 3.41

Sand 5.62 9.03

UNKNOWN Unknown 0.20 0.20

Total Percentage Cover 100.00 100.00

# of Coral Species 10


Figure 4: Dragon Point - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 3: Dragon Point ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Porites astreoides

Diploria strigosa

Siderastrea siderea

Macroalgae


2.2 ALLIGATOR WEST


The Alligator West monitoring site was located approximately 100m from shore with the entry point from land located at Wilkes Bay, east of Frenchman’s Cove and the area had an average depth of 15m. The were no beches associated with this monitoring site. Monitoring was carried out on July 15, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 195 images were taken at 0.5m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

General observations of the reef revealed a gently sloping, topography with a sudden shallow drop off. The benthic substrate was comprised of small patch reefs with gorgonians, large bolder corals as well as rocks and rubble. The substrate was dominated by a variety of fleshy algal species. Plate 4 shows the general appearance of the reef at Alligator West.

Plate 4: Alligator West ‐ Image showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of ten (10) coral species were identified at the Alligator West site and these made up 4.83% of the total benthic cover. The most abundant coral species was Porites astreoides and Siderastrea siderea which accounted for 1.19% and 1.41% of the benthic cover respectively. Other species observed included Agaricia agaricites (0.43%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.16%), Meandrina meandrites (0.22%), Millipora complanata (0.05%), Montastraea annularis (0.16%), Porites divaricata (0.05%), Porites porites (0.60%) and Siderastrea siderea (0.54%). Gorgonian cover was greater than that of corals (6.57%) while encrusting and erect sponges made up 2.12% and 0.98% of the benthic substrate. The site at Alligator West was dominated by macroalgae (81.33%) comprised


primarily of turf algae (77.28%), other macroalgae (3.42%) and Padian (0.43%). Dead coral and algae as well as recently dead coral made of 0.98% of the benthic substrate while no diseased or bleached corals were observed. Pavement, rubble and sand made up 2.60% of the substrate while 0.16% was unknown. These results are provided in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 5. Images of the substrates and some of the coral species identified are shown in Plate 5.

Table 2: Alligator West ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.





Millipora complanata 0.05





Siderastrea radians 0.54


GORGONIANS Gorgonia 6.57 6.57

SPONGES Encrusting sponge 2.12

Erect sponge 0.98 3.09

ZOANTHIDS Palythoa sp. 0.00

Zoanthid 0.27 0.27

MACROALGAE Macroalgae 3.42

Padina 0.43


OTHER LIVE Other 0.16 0.16





SAND, PAVEMENT, RUBBLE Pavement 0.00

Rubble 0.16

Sand 2.44 2.60

UNKNOWNS Unknown 0.16 0.16




Figure 5: Alligator West ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Siderastrea siderea Macroalgae

Porites astreoides

Gorgonians and sponges


Plate 5: Alligator West ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.

2.3 PELLEW ISLAND


The monitoring site at Pellew Island (also called Monkey Island) is located in shallow water approximately 5m in depth and is about 50m offshore. The island is surrounded by a white sand beach and is also near to the San San Beach on the mainland. Access to the site is gained west of Pellew Island. Monitoring was conducted on July 20, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 102 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

General observations of the area indicated that the topography was rugged with sand patches and patch reefs covered with algae and dead coral. Several species of sea urchins (Lytechinus veriegatus, Tripneustes ventricosus and Echinometra viridis) were observed along with some fishes. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 6.

Plate 6: Pellew Island – Image showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of seven (7) coral species were identified at the Pellew Island site which made up 9.04% of the benthic cover. The most abundant coral species was Montastraea annularis (4.57%) and Montastraea faveolata (2.44%). Other species identified included Agaricia agaricites (0.20%), Millipora complanata (0.30%), Porites astreoides


(0.41%), Porites porites (1.02%) and Siderastrea siderea (0.10%). Gorgonians (1.42%) and encrusting sponges (0.81%) were also observed. The macroalgal cover was low (3.15%) but this was replaced with dead coral and algae (83.96%). Sand and rubble made up 0.41% of the substrate and 1.22% was unknown. These data are presented in Table 3 below and illustrated in Figure 6. Plate 7 contains images from the reef at Pellew Island including some coral species.

Table 3: Pellew Island ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.





Montastraea faveolata 2.44







MACROALGAE Dictyota 0.10

Halimeda 0.20

Macroalgae 2.74

Padina 0.10 3.15


DEAD CORAL WITH ALGAE Dead coral with algae 83.96 83.96




Sand 0.20 0.41





Figure 6: Pellew Island ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Montastraea annularis

Montastraea faveolata

Dead coral with algae

Porities porities


Plate 7: Pellew Island – Images of the substrate and some coral species.

2.4 COURTNEY’S REEF


The Courtney’s Reef monitoring site was located west of the San San Beach House with access to the site from land was gained to the west of the San San Beach restaurant. Monitoring was conducted on July 18, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 117 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

This site is similar in appearance o Dragon Point and Alligator West. The benthic topography was generally flat with white sand patches, small patch reefs containing small coral heads, gorgonians and macro‐algae.Freshwater upwelling was also evident at this site. The general appearance of this reef is shown in Plate 8.

Plate 8: Courtney’s Reef ‐ Images showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of fourteen (14) coral species were identified at Courtney’s Reef and these made up 10.01% of the benthic substrate cover. Siderastrea siderea (3.07%) was the most abundant coral species with others including Agaricia agaricites (1.35%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.45%), Diploria strigosa (0.18%), Eusmilia fastigiata (0.27%), Meandrina meandrites (0.27%), Millipora complanata (0.18%), Montastraea annularis (1.98%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.27%), Montastraea faveolata (0.09%), Porites astreoides (1.08%), Porites divaricata (0.09%), Porites furcata (0.09%) and Porites porites (0.63%). Gorgonians made up 4.60% and sponges (encrusting and erect) made up 4.87% on the benthic substrate. The zooanthid Palythoa sp (0.09%) was also identified on this reef. The macroalgae dominated the substrate (72.41%) with dead coral and algae making up 2.98%. Sand made up a small


proportion of the substrate (5.05%). These results are presented in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 7. Images of the substrates and some of the coral species identified are shown in Plate 9.


Table 4: Courtney’s Reef ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.





Eusmilia fastigiata 0.27




Montastraea cavernosa 0.27












Padina 0.27






SAND, PAVEMENT, RUBBLE Sand 5.05 5.05





Figure 7: Courtney’s Reef ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 9: Courtney's Reef ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.


Siderastrea siderea

Porites astreoides

Macroalgae


2.5 DRAPERS


The monitoring site at Drapers was shallow, approximately 2‐3m in depth with the entry point located at Drapers Beach. This site was selected as a result of its history, and reputation as one of the most pristine reef remaining in eastern Portland. Monitoring was conducted on July 22, 2009. A 100m transect was established at this site and 190 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Canon Powershot A540 camera. The images were subsequently submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The patch reefs were located in very shallow water and in close proximity to shoreline exhibiting the typical spur and groove formation. General observation indicated the presence of many Diademia antilarium and few reef fishes. There were no visible macro‐algae. Conditions were generally calm and visibility high. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 10.

Plate 10: Drapers: Image showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of eleven (11) coral species were identified at the Drapers reef site which made up 21.33% on the benthic substrate. The most abundant coral species was Montastraea annularis which represented 4.29% of the benthic cover. Other species identied at this site included Agaricia agaricites (2.84%), Diploria clivosa (0.39%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.17%), Diploria strigosa (1.28%), Madracis mirabilis (0.95%), Millipora complanata (1.11%), Porites astreoides (7.85%), Porites furcata (0.28%), Porites porites (1.78%) and Siderastrea siderea (0.39%). Gorgonian and encrusting sponges made up 0.67% and 0.61% of the benthic substrate. Macroalgae made up only 0.17% of the substrate, however dead coral and algae accounted for 68.01%. Rubble and sand made up 8.13% of

LJones-Smith

is this documented or pers. comm Why was a single 100m line used for this site?


the total benthic substrate. These results are presented in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 8. Images of the substrates and some of the coral species identified are shown in Plate 11.

Table 5: Drapers ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.



Diploria clivosa 0.39



Madracis mirabilis 0.95










MACROALGAE Macroalgae 0.17 0.17






Sand 7.91 8.13





Figure 8: Drapers - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).


Porites astreoides

Agaricia agaricites Dead coral with algae


Plate 11: Drapers – Images of the substrate and some coral species.

2.6. DRAGON BAY


The monitoring site at Dragon Bay was located 65m from shoreline in shallow water of depth ranging from 3‐4m. A small tributary, which runs parallel to the Dragon Bay Hotel, empties into this area. The entry point from land is adjacent to the Dragon Bay Hotel. Monitoring was conducted on July 22, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 111 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Canon Powershot A540 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The bottom topography at Dragon Bay was comprised of flat sandy bottom with small patch reefs dominated by encrusting calcareous algae with very low levels of macroalgae. Some sea urchins (Diadema and Tripneustes) were observed as well as a few fish species. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 12.

Plate 12: Dragon Bay – Image showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of nine (9) coral species were identified at Dragon Bay which made up 8.18% of the benthic substrate. Of note was the presence of Acropora palmata (0.75%), a reef building species which has declines in abundance Jamaica in the past decades (Gardener, 2003). Other coral species identified include Agaricia agaricites (0.38%), Diploria clivosa (0.85%), Diploria strigosa (1.60%), Millipora complanata (1.60%), Montastraea annularis (1.60%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.28%), Porites astreoides (1.03%) and Siderastrea radians (0.09%). Gorgonians and encrusting sponges were also observed on this reef making up 0.56% and 2.92% respectively of the benthic substrate cover. The zoanthid, Palythoa sp, (0.19%) was also observed. Macroalgae, comprised primarily of turf algae accounted for 37.73% while dead coral and algae made up 36.59% on the benthic substrate. Pavement and


sand accounted for 13.63% of the benthic substrate while 0.19% was unknown. These results are presented in Table 6 below and illustrated in Figure 9. Images of the substrates and some of the coral species identified are shown in Plate 13.

Table 6: Dragon Bay ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.


CORAL Acropora palmata 0.75

Agaricia agaricites 0.38







Siderastrea radians 0.09 8.18





Turbinaria 0.28






SAND, PAVEMENT, RUBBLE Pavement 3.01

Sand 10.72 13.73





Figure 9: Dragon Bay - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Acropora palmata

Diplora strigosa

Montastraea annularis Porites astreoides (also macroalgae and dead coral with algae)


Plate 13: Dragon Bay ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species

2.7 FAIRY HILL


The monitoring site at Fairy Hill was located approximately 90m from shore in water of averaged depths of 17m. The entry point to this site is located adjacent to the Fairy Hill Beach houses east of Boston Bay. Monitoring was conducted on July 16, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 108 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D 300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The benthic topography of this site was comprised of gentle slopes, white sand patches and large dead coral boulders covered with algae. Lobsters, reef fishes, sponges, other marine organisms were also observed. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 14.

Plate 14: Fairy Hill ‐ Image showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of nine (9) coral species were identified at the Fairy Hill reef site which made up 3.98% of the benthic substrate cover. Montastraea annularis (1.43%) was the most common coral species with other species such as Agaricia agaricites (0.20%), Madracis mirabilis (0.10%), Meandrina meandrites (0.10%), Montastraea faveolata (0.31%), Porites astreoides (0.41%), Porites porites (0.51%), Siderastrea radians (0.20%) and Siderastrea siderea (0.72%). Other organisms observed include gorgonians (2.04%), encrusting sponges (0.82%) and erect sponges (0.20%). This site was also dominated by macroaglae account for 86.41% of the total cover with Dictyota (0.51%), Halimida (0.72%), Padina (0.82%) and turf algae (17.47%) specifically identified. There were no diseased corals observed by dead coral an algae accounted for 0.51% of the substrate cover. Sand, pavement and rubble


accounted for 6.03% of the benthic substrate. These results are presented in Table 7 and illustrated in Figure 10. Images of the substrates and some of the coral species identified are shown in Plate 15.

Table 7: Fairy Hill ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.



Madracis mirabilis 0.10













Halimeda 0.72

Macroalgae 66.91

Padina 0.82











Figure 10: Fairy Hill ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 15: Fairy Hill ‐ Images of substrate and some coral species.

Macroalgae


Siderastrea siderea

Porites astreoides


2.8 BOSTON BAY


The monitoring site at Boston Bay was located approximately 100m from the shoreline in average depths of 18m. The point of entry from land was west of Boston Beach. Monitoring was conducted on July 18, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 121 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D 300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The benthic topography was comprised of gentle slopes, deep trenches, rubble and sand. Also observed were a wide variety of gorgonians (sea whips, sea plumes, sea rods and sea fans) and some fishes. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 16.

Plate 16: Boston Bay ‐ Image showing the appearance of the reef.


Twelve (12) species were identified at the Boston Bay site representing a total coral cover of 5.90%. The dominant coral species was Siderastrea siderea (2.82%) with other species such as Agaricia agaricites (0.44%), Diploria clivosa (0.09%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.09%), Eusmilia fastigiata (0.35%), Meandrina meandrites (0.18%), Montastraea annularis (0.79%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.09%), Montastraea faveolata (0.09%), Porites astreoides (0.62%), Porites porites (0.18%), Siderastrea radians (0.18%) also observed. The occurrence of gorgonians was high, accounting for 8.11% of the benthic cover while encrusting and erect sponges accounted for 2.82% and 0.62% respectively. The macroalge dominated this site, accounting for 75.86% of the benthic cover including Halimeda (0.18%) and Padina (0.09%). No dead coral and algae or diseased corals were observed and


sand accounted for 6.70% of the substrate. These results are presented in Table 8 below and illustrated in Figure 11. Images of the substrates and some of the coral species identified are shown in Plate 17.

Table 8: Boston Bay ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.





Eusmilia fastigiata 0.35













MACROALGAE Halimeda 0.18

Macroalgae 75.59

Padina 0.09 75.86










Figure 11: Boston Bay - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Plate 17: Boston Bay ‐ Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Sponges and Gorgonians

Siderastrea siderea

Diploria labyrinthiformis

Macroalgae


2.9 POLICEMAN'S HARBOUR


The Policeman’s Harbour monitoring site was located 80m from the shore in water of average depth of 15m. The entry point from land was at Long Road. Monitoring was conducted on July 14, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 117 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Canon Powershot A540 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format o the CMS for data analysis.

The general benthic topography of the Policeman’s Harbour monitoring site was undulating, with some massive corals interspersed with rocks and rubble. The benthic substrate was mostly algae covered but gorgonians (sea fans and sea whips) were also observed. The visibility at this site was low and there was evidence of high sedimentation, possible as the results of inflows from the Black River. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 18.

Plate 18: Policeman's Harbour ‐ Image of the appearance of the reef.


Eleven (11) coral species were identified at the Policeman’s Harbour reef. This accounted for 13.64% of the total benthic substrate cover. The most abundant species was Porites astreoides (3.69%), Siderastrea siderea (2.84%), Montastraea annularis (2.18%), and Agaricia agaricites (2.08%). Other species present include Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.57%), Diploria strigosa (1.23%), Millipora complanata (0.09%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.09%), Montastraea faveolata (0.09%), Porites porites (0.66%) and Siderastrea radians (0.09%). Gorgonians (4.17%), encrusting sponges (2.18%) and erect sponges (0.57%) were also observed. Macroalgae dominated this site accounting for 72.82% of the benthic cover. The macroalgae component included turf algae (68.56%), Dictyota (1.23%), Halimeda (0.28%), Padina (0.28%) and other macroalgae (2.46%). Dead coral and algae made up 2.08% while sand made up 4.36% on the benthic cover. Unknown accounted for 0.19% 0f the benthic cover. These data


are provided in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 12. Plate 19 provides some images of the reef included selected coral species.

Table 9: Policeman’s Harbour ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.


















Halimeda 0.28

Macroalgae 2.46

Padina 0.28











Figure 12: Policeman's Harbour - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Siderastrea siderea

Porites astreoides

Diploria strigosa

Gorgonian


Plate 19: Policeman's Harbour – images of the substrate and some coral species.

2.10 BLACK RIVER


The Black River monitoring site was located in Long Bay approximately 150m from shore in waters of average depths of 18m. Entry point to the monitoring site was at the Black River Bridge at Long Bay. Monitoring was conducted on July 20, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 102 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis

The general benthic topography of the Black River site was slightly undulating with sudden shallow drop offs. This site was also dominated by macroalgae with a few gorgonians observed. The currents were generally strong in this area and heavily impacted by sediment as a result of the outflow from the Black River. Macroalgae were common and lionfishes were also observed at this site. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 20.

Plate 20: Black River ‐ image showing the appearance of the reef.


A total of six (6) coral species were identified at the Black River Reef and these made up 6.28% of the benthic substrate. The species identified included Agaricia agaricites (1.06%), Montastraea annularis (0.43%), Porites astreoides (2.02%), Porites divaricata (0.21%), Porites porites (0.75%) and Siderastrea siderea (1.81%). The gorgonians and sponges (encrusting and erect) made up 1.17% each of the substrate while zoanthids accounted for 0.11%. Macroalgae also dominated by algae which made up 84.45% with dead coral and algae making up only 0.11% of the total. Sand made up 6.71% of the total substrate. These data are provided in Table 10 and illustrated in Figure 13. Plate 21 provides some images of the reef included selected coral species.


Table 10: Black River ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.











ZOANTHIDS Zoanthid 0.11 0.11


Halimeda 2.45

Macroalgae 81.47 84.45






Sand 6.60 6.71


Total percentage cover 100.00 100.00



Figure 13: Black River ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 21: Black River ‐ images of the substrate and some coral species.

Agaricia agaricites


Siderastrea siderea Porites astreoides


2.11 SEE ME NO MORE


The See Me No More monitoring site was located 280m from shore in water of average depth of 15m. The entry point from land was at the See Me No More River. Monitoring was conducted on July 20, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 103 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The benthic topography was gently sloping with numerous drop offs. The patch reefs contained large boulder corals, some rocks, rubble, sand patches. Much of the reef was cover with macroaglae and the lionfish was observed in this area. The reef was influenced by the Christmas and See Me No More Rivers which resulted in suspended sediment impacting the reef. Also the currents were very strong in this area. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 22.

Plate 22: See Me No More – image showing the general appearance of the reef.


Coral cover at the See Me No More reef site was low accounting for only 2.76% of the benthic substrate. The seven (7) species identified included Agaricia agaricites (0.92%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.10%), Montastraea annularis (0.31%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.10%), Porites astreoides (0.10%), Siderastrea radians (0.20%) and Siderastrea siderea (1.02%). Gorgonians and sponges (encrusting and erect) accounted or 5.10% and 1.73% of the substrate respectively. Macroalgae, comprising mainly of turf algae, made up 80.41% of the benthic substrate, while dead coral and algae accounted for 0.51%. Sand made up 1.94% of the substrate while 7.55% was unknown. These data are provided in Table 11 and illustrated in Figure 14. Plate 23 provides some images of the reef included selected coral species.


Table 11: See Me No More ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.













MACROALGAE Padina 0.20








Total percentage cover 100.00 100.00



Figure 14: Se Me No More ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown).

Plate 23: See Me No More – Images of the substrate and some coral species.

Siderastrea siderea Turf algae (macroalgae)

Montastraea cavernosa

Agaricia agaricites and gorgonians


2.12 BANANA HOUSE


The reef at the Banana House monitoring site was located approximately 100m from shore in waters of 13m. The point of entry for this site was at the Manchioneal fishing village. Monitoring was conducted on July 21, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 104 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The benthic topography at the Banana House monitoring site was similar to that at See Me No More with a relatively undulating topography characterized by mainly rubble and macroalgae. A few bolder corals and some gorgonians (sea fans and sea whips) were observed. Diadema and an encrusting black sponge were also observed at this location. The current was generally moderate to strong with this reef reflecting the influence of the Christmas and Weybridge Rivers. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 24.

Plate 24: Banana House – image of the appearance of the reef.


At the site at Banana House ten (10) coral species were observed which accounted for 6.42% of the benthic substrate cover. Siderastrea siderea (3.01%) was the most abundant species with Agaricia agaricites (0.30%), Diploria clivosa (0.90%), Diploria labyrinthiformis (0.40%), Diploria strigosa (1.00%), Millipora complanata (0.20%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.30%), Montastraea faveolata (0.10%), Porites porites (0.10%) and Siderastrea radians (0.10%) also occurred in this area. Gorgonians made up 4.41%) of the benthic substrate while the sponges (encrusting and erect) accounted for 6.42%. The zoanthids Palythoa sp (0.20%) was also detected. The site was dominated by macroalgae (67.40%) with dead coral with algae making up only 0.90% of the benthic cover. Sand, pave and rubble accounted of 14.04%. These data are provided in Table 12 and illustrated in Figure 15. Plate 25 provides some images of the reef included selected coral species.

LJones-Smith

boulder


Table 12: Banana House ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.








Montastrea faveolata 0.10








MACROALGAE Macroalgae 67.40 67.40

OTHER LIVE Other live 0.00 0.00






UNKNOWNS Unknown 0.20 0.20




Figure 15: Banana House - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 25: Banana House – images of the substrate and some coral species

Diploria labyrinthiformis and Diploria strigosa

Siderastrea siderea

Montastraea cavernosa

Gorgonians and macroalgae


2.13.1 MANCHIONEAL HARBOUR


The monitoring site at Manchioneal Harbour was located approximately 200m from shore in shallow water with average depths of 3m. The point of entry for this site was the Manchioneal fishing village. Monitoring was conducted on July 24, 2009. A 100m transect was established at this site and 103 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Canon Powershot A540 camera. The images were subsequently submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis

The benthic topography of the Manchioneal Harbour site was generally undulating and rocky with steep but shallow drop offs. The visibility was generally low as a result of high levels of sedimentation from the Driver River and the currents were very strong. The benthic substrate was comprised primarily of rocks and rubble with some patch reefs, gorgonians and macro‐algae. A few sea urchins (Diadema and Echinometra) and encrusting sponges were observed. The general appearance of the reefs is shown in Plate 26.

Plate 26: Manchioneal Harbour: ‐ image showing the general appearance of the reef.


The reefs at Manchioneal Harbour exhibited low coral cover (4.40%) with only four coral species identified. Diploria strigosa (2.76%) was the most abundant coral species with Diploria clivosa (1.43%), Montastraea annularis (0.10%) and Porites astreoides (0.10%) also present. Gorgonians (0.10%) and encrusting sponges (2.86%) were also observed. This site was dominated by macroalgae, accounting for 78.94% of the benthic substrate which was comprised primarily of turf algae (76.89%) with Dictyota (0.92%), Halimeda (0.20%0, and Padina (0.31%) also identified. Dead coral and algae was also observed making up 4.81% of the substrate and sand account for 8.79% of the total. Unknown accounted for 0.10% of the substrate. These data are provided in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 16. Plate 27 provides some images of the reef included selected coral species.


Table 13: Manchioneal Harbour ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.


CORAL Diploria clivosa 1.43



Porites astreoides 0.10 4.40





Halimeda 0.20

Macroalgae 0.61

Padina 0.31











Figure 16: Manchioneal Harbour - graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 27: Manchioneal Harbour – images of the substrate and some coral species.

Diploria strigosa

Diploria clivosa and encrusting sponge

Turf algae (macroalgae)


2.14 HORSE SAVANNAH RIVER


The Horse Savannah monitoring site is located approximately 100m from shore and is found in water of average depth of 13m. Access from land was in the vicinity of the Horse Savannah Bridge at Ennes Bay. Monitoring was conducted on July 21, 2009. Five 20m transects were established and 102 images were taken at 1m intervals using a Nikon D300 camera. Resultant images were submitted in electronic format to the CMS for data analysis.

The benthic topography was relatively flat terrain for several metres with an additional steep drop off for an additional 13m. The area was generally affected by high wave action and strong currents. The substrate contained mainly gorgonians with few boulder corals, and very little rubble. The Horse Savannah River empties into this area which has influenced the benthic community of this reef. The surrounding communities, including Hectors River, are engaged primarily in farming and the residents use the river for various domestic purposes. The general appearance of the reef is shown in Plate 28.

Plate 28: Horse Savannah River – image showing the general appearance of the reef.


A total of nine (9) coral species were identified at the Horse Savannah river monitoring site which accounted for 6.79% of the benthic substrate cover. Agaricia agaricites (1.54%), Porites astreoides (1.23%) Siderastrea siderea (1.85%) and were the most abundant coral species identified. Other species observed included Acropora palmata (0.93%), Meandrina meandrites (0.31%), Millipora complanata (0.10%), Montastraea annularis (0.51%), Montastraea cavernosa (0.21%) and Siderastrea radians (0.10%). Gorgonians (4.32%) and encrusting sponges (2.37%) were also observed at this site along with zoanthids (0.21%) and other live (anemones) organisms (0.21%). Macroalgae made up 81.28% of the benthic substrate and included predominantly turf algae (66.36%) with Dictyota (8.33%), Padina (1.03%) and other macroalgae (5.56%). Dead coral with algae accounted for only 2.57% of the benthic substrate and sand, pavement and rubble accounted for 2.26%. These results are presented in Table 14 and illustrated in Figure 17. Plate 29 provides some images of the reef included selected coral species.


Table 14: Horse Savannah River ‐ the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories.


CORAL Acropora palmata 0.93

Agaricia agaricites 1.54










ZOANTHIDS Zoanthid 0.21 0.21


Macroalgae 5.56

Padina 1.03











Figure 17: Horse Savannah River ‐ graph illustrating the mean percentage cover of the major benthic substrate categories. (Substrate categories: HCOR ‐ Hard coral; GORG ‐ Gorgonians; SPON – Sponge; ZOAN – Zoanthids; MACA– Macroalgae; OTHR – Other, live; DCAL ‐ Dead coral with algae; CALG – Coralline algae; DCOR– Diseased coral; SAND – Sand, rubble, rock and boulder; UNKN – Unknown.)

Plate 29: Horse Savannah River – images of the substrate and some coral species.

Acropora palmata

Siderastrea siderea

Gorgonians and Porites astreoides

Porites astreoides


2.15 SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS

2.15.1 CORALS

The level of coral cover ranged from 2.76% at See Me No More to 21.33% at Drapers (Figure 18) with a mean percentage coral cover of 7.82% along the entire east central coastline of Portland. The site at Drapers was distinctive because of the presence of a large number of sea urchins and the absence of extensive macroalgae cover. The See Me No More site was heavily impacted by river run‐off with high sediment content resulting in high algal and low coral cover. Generally those sites with greater external influents had less coral cover.

Figure 18: Comparison of coral cover for the 14 sites monitored along the east central coastline of Portland

A total of 18 coral species were recorded along the east central coast of Portland. The number of species occurring at these sites ranged from four (4) at Manchioneal Harbour to fourteen (14) at Courtney’s Reef (Figure 19). Table 15 below provides a more detailed comparison of the distribution of coral species. The most commonly occurring species were Agaricia agaricites, Montastraea annularis, Porites astreoides, Porites porites and Siderastrea siderea which were found at more than 10 of the 14 sites. While most of the other species occurred at four or more sites… there were four species that occurred at three or less sites. These were Acropora palmata, Eusmilia fastigiata, Madracis mirabilis and Porities furcata. Of significance is the presence of Acropora palmata which has now been designated


Figure19: Number of coral species found at the 14 monitoring sites along the east central coastline of Portland.

Table 15: Coral species found along the east central coastline of Portland

Coral Species

Drago

n Po

int

Alligator West

Pellew Island

Courtney’s Reef

Drape

rs

Drago

n Ba

y

Fairy Hill

Boston

Bay

Policem

an's

Harbo

ur

Black River

See Me No More

Bana

na Hou

se

Man

chione

al

Harbo

ur

Horse Savan

nah

River

Acropora palmata 0.75 0.93

Agaricia agaricites 0.67 0.43 0.20 1.35 2.84 0.38 0.20 0.44 2.08 1.06 0.92 0.30 1.54

Diploria clivosa 0.39 0.85 0.09 0.90 1.43

Diploria labyrinthiformis 0.13 0.16 0.45 0.17 0.09 0.57 0.10 0.40

Diploria strigosa 0.13 0.18 1.28 1.60 1.23 1.00 2.76

Eusmilia fastigiata 0.07 0.27 0.35

Madracis mirabilis 0.95 0.10

Meandrina meandrites 0.22 0.27 0.10 0.18 0.31

Millipora complanata 0.05 0.30 0.18 1.11 1.60 0.09 0.20 0.10

Montastraea annularis 0.60 0.16 4.57 1.98 4.29 1.60 1.43 0.79 2.18 0.43 0.31 0.10 0.51

Montastraea cavernosa 0.27 0.28 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.30 0.21

Montastraea faveolata 2.44 0.09 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.10

Porites astreoides 1.74 1.19 0.41 1.08 7.85 1.03 0.41 0.62 3.69 2.02 0.10 0.10 1.23

Porites divaricata 0.40 0.05 0.09 0.21

Porites furcata 0.20 0.09 0.28

Porites porites 0.60 0.60 1.02 0.63 1.78 0.51 0.18 0.66 0.75 0.10

Siderastrea radians 0.54 0.09 0.20 0.18 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.10

Siderastrea siderea 1.34 1.41 0.10 3.07 0.39 0.72 2.82 2.84 1.81 1.02 3.01 1.85

Percentage Cover 5.89 4.83 9.04 10.01 21.33 8.18 3.98 5.90 13.64 6.28 2.76 6.42 4.40 6.79

Total # of species 10 10 7 14 11 9 9 12 11 6 7 10 4 9


2.15.2 MACROALGAE AND DEAD CORAL WITH ALGAE

The occurrence of macroalgae was high and when combined with that dead coral and algae accounted for 68% to 87% of the benthic substrate. O significance was the sites (Pellew Island and Drapers) that had low levels of macroalgae and particularly with respect to drapers had higher coral cover and higher numbers of species. These sites are compared in Figure 20 below, which also shows that the sites with low macroalgae cover had high dead coral with algae values.

Figure 20: Macroaglae combined with dead coral with algae for the 14 monitoring sites along the east central coastline of Portland.

2.15.3 GORGONIANS AND SPONGES

Gorgonians were found at all the stations ranging from 0.10% at Manchioneal Harbor to 8.11% at Boston Bay, with approximately half the sites with gorgonians cover at 2% or, less with the remainder being between 4‐8%. (Figure 21). There were a variety of types that were present including sea fans, sea whips, sea rods and sea plumes. Initial evaluation suggests that the gorgonian cover was less at sites with higher coral cover, but this would have to be further analyzed to determine if there was in fact any correlation.

Figure 21: Comparison of gorgonian cover at the 14 sites monitored along the east central coastline of Portland.


Sponges were also found at all the monitoring sites ranging from 0.61% at Drapers to 6.42% at Banana House (Figure 22). The encrusting sponges were more common and were primarily responsible for the cover found at Courtney’s Reef and Banana House. As with the gorgonians, further analysis would be required to determine any correlation with the abundance of sponges and other benthic substrates.

Figure 22: Comparison of sponge cover at the 14 sites monitored along the east central coastline of Portland.

2.15.4 OTHER BENTHIC SUBSTRATE CATEGORIES

Very few other living organisms (excluding sand, pavement and rubble) were identified at the sites monitored. These included the zoanthids, Palythoa sp, which was identified at five (5) sites and anemones identified at two (2) sites.


SECTION3: STATUS OF CORAL REEFS IN JAMAICA AND THE WIDER CARIBBEAN

3.1 CORAL COVER AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AROUND JAMAICA

3.1.1 MONKEY ISLAND (PELLEW ISLAND)

Coral reef monitoring studies carried out and reported on for Monkey Island (Pellew Island), 10km east of Port Antonio (Chevannes Creary, 2001; Centre for Marine Sciences, 2006) showed coral cover comparable to those found during this study. The CPACC4 video monitoring protocol was used to conduct the monitoring over the four year period 2000‐2003. Video monitoring was carried out by NEPA while data analysis and report preparation was carried out by the CMS. Table 16, which contains the combined results from the two reports as well as the results of this study, shows that the mean coral cover at Monkey Island (Pellew Island) ranged from 6.23% to 11.80% over the four year period. This result is comparable to the 9.04% coral cover found in this study.

The macroalgae at the Monkey Island (Pellew Island) site ranged from 26.92% to 55.85% over the 2000‐2003 period compared to the low value of 3.15% observed during this study. This contrast with the much lower dead coral with algae values (5.28% to 33.95%) obtained over the four year period when compared to the 83.96% observed during this study. One possible reason for the difference observed could be the presence of the herbivore, Diadema which grazes on the macroalgae. Also, the coralline algae cover was higher, ranging from 5.14% to 23.66% over the period 2000‐2003, while none was observed during this study. The percentage of the substrate comprised of sand, rubble, rock and boulder was also higher during the 2000‐2003 period, ranging from 6.6% to 17.70% compared to 2.60% observed in this study.

Table 16: Summary of the mean percentage cover for the substrate categories found at Monkey Island (Pellew Island) for the period 2000 –2003 (Source: Chevannes Creary, 2001; Centre for Marine Sciences, 2006) and 2009.

Substrate Category

2000 2001 2002 2003 2009

HARD CORAL 7.1 11.24 6.23 11.80 9.04 GOEGONIANS 0.3 1.41 0.13 0.19 1.42 SPONGES 0.1 1.46 0.23 0.13 0.81 ZOANTHIDS ‐ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 MACROALGAE 52.3 26.92 55.02 55.85 3.15 OTHER, LIVE 0.0 0.71 1.36 1.38 0.00 DEAD CORAL WITH ALGAE 17.0 33.95 3.94 5.29 83.96CORALLINE ALGAE 14.3 13.47 23.66 5.14 0.00 DISEASED CORALS ‐ 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 RECENTLY DEAD CORALS 2.0 0.38 0.04 0.04 ‐ SAND, RUBBLE, ROCK, BOULDER 6.6 10.26 7.53 17.70 0.41 UNKNOWN 0.3 0.03 1.86 2.46 1.22

From the combined result of the monitoring exercises carried out by NEPA/CMS during the period 2000‐2003 a total of 15 identified coral species were recorded. Seven (7) of these species were observed on all sampling occasions. These were Agaricia agaricites, Diploria strigosa, Montastraea annularis, Montastraea faveolata,

4 Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change Project


Porites astreoides, Porites porites and Siderastrea siderea. Of these, all but Diploria strigosa were observed in the monitoring carried out by PEPA in 2009. Table 17 provides a summary of the percentage cover for each of the coral species identified during the period 2001 to 2003 and 2009.

Table 17: Coral species identified at Monkey Island (Pellew Island) for the period 2000‐2003 (Source: Chevannes Creary, 2001; Centre for Marine Sciences, 2006) and 2009.

Coral Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2009

Acropora cervicornis 0.01

Agaricia agaricites 0.57 1.36 0.52 1.50 0.20

Diploria labyrinthiformis 0.15 0.04

Diploria strigosa 0.37 0.01 0.06 0.07

Madracis mirabilis 0.10 0.18

Millipora complanata 0.04 0.30

Montastraea annularis 0.78 1.44 0.52 1.07 4.57


Montastrea faveolata 0.23 0.81 0.78 1.10 2.44

Porites astreoides 2.35 4.70 2.41 3.18 0.41


Porites porites 0.65 1.66 0.94 2.42 1.02

Siderastrea radians 0.03 0.11

Scolymia sp 0.01

Siderastrea siderea 0.27 0.32 0.04 0.07 0.10

Coral sp 0.85 0.38 0.80 2.31

Percentage Cover 7.06 11.24 6.23 11.80 9.04

Total # of Species 13 11 10 9 7

3.1.2 ISLAND WIDE REEF CHECK SURVEY

The National Environment and Planning Agency conducted reef assessments of thirty‐six (36) sites island wide during the 2008‐ 2009 period (NEPA, 2009). The Reef Check protocol was used to document the conditions of the reefs and included sites within designated protected areas as well as areas slated for development. This survey showed that the Jamaican reefs exhibited variable coverage as it related to the benthic substrate. The hard coral cover ranged from 1.88% at El Punto Negrilo in Westmoreland to 38.13% at Dairy Bull in St Ann (Table 18). The overall mean percentage cover of hard corals for the island was 13.7%. When compared on a parish basis (excluding St Elizabeth, Manchester, Clarendon and St Thomas), St Ann recorded the highest mean coral cover of 20.83% while the lowest was recorded in St Catherine. The parish of Portland had a mean percentage coral cover of 9.50% which was the second lowest of the parishes assessed.


Table 18: Mean percentage cover for corals and algae for 36 sites around Jamaica. (Source: NEPA, 2009)

Parish Site Hard Coralmean %

Mean % cover by Parish Algae mean %

Mean %Algae cover by Parish

Hanover Bloody Bay 15.63 38.13

Ireland Pen 11,25 13.44 55.94 47.03

St James Airport Reef West 16.88 38.75

Buccaneer Reef 36.88 6.88

Sergeant Major 11.24 16.63

Sunset Beach Mooring 10.00 18.75 33.13 15.00

Trelawny Harmony Cove 13.75 24.38

The Cavern 9.38 35.63

Oyster Bay 20.63 14.58 10.63 23.54

St Ann Cardiff Hall 12.50 18.13

Columbus Park 10.94 28.13

Dairy Bull 38.13 36.88

Nursery 16.25 48.75

Pear Tree Bottom 35.31 23.75

West Fore Reef 11.88 20.83 55.88 34.58

St Mary Channel Edge 19.38 12.50

Island Point 6.25 56.88

Long Hole 9.38 11.67 57.50 42.29

Portland Innis Bay West 9.38 60.63

Navy Island 15.00 41.88

Monkey Island 8.13 34.38

Trident Wall 8.13 40.00

Winnifred’s Beach 6.88 9.50 21.88 39.75

Kingston Drunken Man's Cay 9.06 35.31

Gun Cay 9.38 24.38

Lime Cay 13.13 16.88

Lime Cay East 9.06 40.63

Rackhams Cay 11.88 10.50 3.75 24.19

St Catherine Big Pelican East 11.25 38.75

Big Pelican West 6.25 30.63

Pigeon Island West 7.19 61.56

Wreck Reef 12.50 9.30 36.88 41.95

Westmoreland Cottage Reef 21.25 43.13

El Punto Negrilo 1.88 42.50

Little Bay 20.00 33.13

Peter Tosh Reef 8.13 12.81 50.63 42.34

The assessment identified over thirty (30) species of corals with an average of 16 recorded per site. Eighteen (18) species were recorded for this study with an average of 16 per monitoring site. The coral species identified included Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis, both restricted to the north coast. The most commonly occurring species were Agaricia spp, Montastraea spp, Porites spp, Siderastrea spp, Diploria strigosa, Meandrina meandrites, Colpophyllia natans and Millipora complanata. All but A. cervicornis and C. natans were observed during this study.


3.2 CORAL COVER IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN

3.2.1 THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN

As with other countries within the region the reefs in the Eastern Caribbean have been exposed to a variety of local ( eg pollution and sedimentation ) and regional (eg bleaching as a result of elevated sea surface temperatures) threats. Coral reef monitoring was conducted in seven (7) islands in the Eastern Caribbean (Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent and Tobago) as part of the MACC (Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change) project (Creary, 2008; Creary, 2009). Under the mandate to build capacity the MACC project undertook to strengthen the climate change and coral reef monitoring network in the region. The programme involved coral reef monitoring on two occasions for each country over the period 2007‐2009. The results of the monitoring showed that for all the islands the macroalgae combined with dead coral with algae accounted for the largest component of the reef benthic substrate. Hard coral cover ranged from 3.80% in Antigua (2008) to 29.18% in St Vincent (2007). Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and St Lucia all had mean percentage coral cover at or around 10%. The reefs in St Vincent and Tobago showed higher levels of coral cover with the maximums of 29.18% and 15.88% recorded in each country receptively. The summary of these results are provide in Table 19 below.

During the monitoring programme a total of thirty (30) coral species were identified. The most abundant and widely distributed species identified during this monitoring programme were Porites astreoides, Montastraea annularis and Siderastrea siderea which were observed in all seven countries. Also observed in all countries but in less abundance were Agaricia agaricites, Diploria labyrinthiformis, Diploria strigosa, Madracis mirabilis, Meandrina meandrites, and Montastraea cavernosa.


Table 19: Combined summary of the mean percentage cover for the substrate categories at the coral reef sites in Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and Tobago monitored over the period 2007 to 2009. (Source: Creary 2008, Creary, 2009).

MAJOR CATEGORY (% of transect)

Antigua Dominica Grenada St Kitts St Lucia St Vincent Tobago

2007 2008 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009

HARD CORAL 3.98 3.80 11.40 9.01 10.09 12.84 10.25 7.85 9.53 10.08 29.18 24.88 15.88 11.25

GORGONIANS 2.30 2.43 0.97 0.67 1.13 2.38 1.02 0.09 1.35 0.30 3.56 3.45 16.80 5.56

SPONGES 0.20 0.95 3.68 4.21 0.17 1.84 7.49 3.06 7.07 6.41 12.07 5.53 21.15 13.32

ZOANTHIDS 0.22 0.03 0.04 0.07 0,15 0.11 0.09 0.06 0 0.16 0 0.20 0.93 0.06

MACROALGAE 27.6 33.8 11.6 11.7 41.8 70.4 73.8 67.2 44.1 13.0 36.5 37.9 25.4 12.2

OTHER LIVE 0 0 0.71 0.01 0.14 0.21 0.13 0 0.97 0 0.99 1.62 0.01 0.42

DCAL 28.5 11.1 54.91 41.80 42.46 0.60 2.25 6.21 0.25 36.46 3.06 4.06 0.48 29.39

CORALLINE ALG. 0.23 0 0.09 0 0.01 0.84 0.05 0 0.90 0 0 0 2.13 2.53

DISEASED CORALS 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.23 0 0.05 0.04 0 0 0.08 0.13 1.09 0 1.22

SAND,RUBBLE etc 36.3 47.6 16.27 19.11 4.04 9.19 4.86 15.33 33.26 33.27 14.34 20.97 13.57 24.05

UNKNOWNS 0.43 0.16 0.25 13.16 0.02 1.58 0.06 0.21 2.56 0.24 0.15 0.28 3.61 0.01

3.2.1 STATUS OF CORAL REEFS IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN.

Gardener et al (2005) evaluated 263 sites from 65 separate studies in the Caribbean over the period 1977 to 2001. The results showed a massive regional wide decline of corals with the average hard coral cover on the reefs declining from 50% to 10% (Figure 23). The study suggested that the loss in coral cover in Jamaica was due to the interaction of a number of stressors including Hurricane Allen in 1980, the onset of white band disease of Acropora palmata and the mass mortality of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum. The recent decreases in the rate of loss in coral cover may be signaling the recovery of Caribbean reefs but observations indicates that a shift in community structure has taken place. The once dominant frame builders (Acropora and Montastrea) have been replaced by non‐reef building forms (Agaricia, Porites and sponges) which as opportunistic species ,might not be able to withstand the predicted impacts of climate change such a rising sea levels and increasing sea surface temperatures.


Figure 23: Total observed change in mean percentage coral cover from 1977 to 200. (Source: Gardener et al, 2003)


SECTION 4: CONCULSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 CONCLUSIONS

This report presents the data collected from the fourteen (14) sites along the east central coastline of Portland, extending from Dragon Point to Horse Savannah River. Below are presented the preliminary conclusions drawn from these data. Further analysis of the data and the images would be required to establish trends as it relates to geographic location, exposure of site, land based influences and any other factors that might influence benthic substrate composition.

1 The mean percentage coral cover at the fourteen (14) sites surveyed ranged from 4.83% to 21.33% with a mean percentage cover of 7.82%. This compares to the mean for Jamaica of 13.7% (NEPA, 2009), the Eastern Caribbean of 12.14% (calculated from Table 19) and the Wider Caribbean of 10% (Gardener et al, 2003).

2 The coral species observed at the sites is eastern Portland were similar to those identified in the rest of Jamaica, the Eastern Caribbean and those highlighted by Gardener et al (2003) for the Wider Caribbean. Although the traditional frame building corals such as Montastraea was observed the reefs tended to be dominated by non‐frame building encrusting and branching species such as Agaricia, Porites and Siderastrea.

3 The reefs at all except two sites (Pellew Island and Drapers) were dominated by macroalgae. Where macroalgae was not present the reef was predominantly covered with dead coral with algae. It appears that those sites at which sea urchins were observed in large numbers had the least amount of macroalgae.

4 The high sedimentation observed on some reefs appeared to be associated with sites that were in close

proximity to freshwater runoffs and/or upwelling. These sites were also associated with low coral and high macroalgae cover.

4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Surveys conducted by the Portland Environment Protection Association between March 2006 and January 2007 (PEPA, 2007) indicate that degradation on coral reefs in parts of Portland are direct and indirect consequences of human actions. It is therefore recommended that the relevant authorities which include the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), the Solid Waste Management Authority (NSWMA), the Portland Parish Council Department (PPDC) collaborate with the local NGO (PEPA), the Social Development Commission and the CDC’s within the respective areas to find a solution that will reduce the effects of individual and community base actions that contribute to coral reef degradation.

2. Zoning of sections of east Portland will aid in the conservation and restoration of reefs that have potential for growth and maintenance. Zoning should include interrelating habitats such as Turtle Crawl and Manchioneal Mangrove Forest. Coral reefs that are least degraded and have potential for conservation and restoration should be at the top of the list and slated priority sites for preservation actions. These sites include Drapers, Pellew Island and Dragon Bay.

3. The importance of enforcing environmental laws cannot be overly emphasized. But without support from the governing bodies, human actions that results in damage to the reefs will continue. The National Solid Waste Management Authority and the Fisheries Division of the Ministry of Agriculture should ensure that the proper sanctions are carried out with respect to misuse and overuse of resources. The NSWMA should in respect to


solid waste, enforce the laws to deter illegal dumping practices that would consequently impact on reef conditions.

4. The Drivers River Watershed is located east of Port Antonio; the fourteen sites assessed were confined within this area. This area receives the least interventions of the five watersheds located in the parish: it is therefore recommended that projects with an integrated approach to management of ecosystems be continued for longer than 18 months to ensure full participation, management and monitoring of the natural environment.

5. Since sedimentation has a significant effect on coral recruitment and preservation it is recommended That the Rural Agricultural Development Agency become more involved in agricultural practices and farm structures, ensuring that all registered farmers within the Drivers River Watershed follow a standard that will limit soil erosion and sedimentation in rivers and consequently the coral reefs.


REFERENCES

Centre for Marine Sciences. (M. Creary, L. Jones, I. Kenny) & National Environmental and Planning Agency (P. Wilson‐Kelly, J. Smith, S. Green) (2006) Coral Reef Monitoring for Climate Change Impact. Jamaica 2001‐2003. MACC Project. Strengthening of Climate and Coral Monitoring Network. CARICOM Sec. 32pp

Chevannes Creary, M. M. (2001). Component 5: Coral Reef Monitoring for Climate Change Impacts. Jamaica 2000. Centre for Marine Sciences, UWI Mona. Prepared for the CPACC Project

Creary, M. 2008. Coral Reef Monitoring for the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and Tobago. Status of the coral Reefs. MACC Project. Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, Belize. 94pp

Creary, M. 2009. Coral Reef Monitoring for the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States and Tobago. Year 2. Status of the coral Reefs. MACC Project. Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, Belize. 51pp

Gardner, T. A., Côté, I.M., Gill, J.A., Grant, A., Watkinson, A.R. 2003. Long‐Term Region‐Wide Declines in Caribbean Corals. SCIENCE Vol. 301. no. 5635, pp. 958 – 960. (Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on March 15, 2010)

Goreau, T.J., Thacker, K. 1994. Coral Reefs, Sewage, and Water Quality Standards. Caribbean Water and Wastewater Association Conference. Kingston, Jamaica, October 3‐7, 1994

Goreau, T.J., 2004. Port Antonio Marine Park and Conservation Corridor. Prepared for Portland Environmental Protection Association.

Goreau , T.J. 2009 Tourism and sustainable development. GLOBAL CORAL REEF ALLIANCE WHITE PAPER (Downloaded from http://www.globalcoral.org/Ecotourism%20Biorock%20complete.pdf on March 18, 2010).

IWCAM Project Document. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PAPER. JAMAICA ‐ AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO MANAGING THE MARINE, COASTAL AND WATERSHED RESOURCES OF EAST‐CENTRAL PORTLAND. NEPA

Kohler, K.E. and S.M. Gill, 2006. Coral Point Count with Excel extensions (CPCe): A Visual Basic program for the determination of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology. Computers and Geosciences, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 1259‐1269, DOI:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.009.

NEPA. 2009. CORAL REEF of JAMAICA ‐ Status and Trends. Jamaica’s National Report. Prepared by Ecosystems Management Branch, National Environment and Planning Agency, March 2009. 26pp

PEPA (2007) Results Analysis and Trend Report‐Pollution Reduction and Water Quality Improvement Programme.


APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Monitoring Schedule and Sites

Operational Area

Sta #

Monitoring sites (TRANSECT NAME)

Locations (Long/Lat)

Date(s) monitored

Number of Transects

Length of Transects

Number of Images Camera Used Dive Team

Drivers River Watershed 1 Dragon Point 15-Jul-09 5 20m 156 Nikon D300 T. Edwards T. Goreau, R. Hue, E. Skyers T. Brown

Portland, Jamaica 2 Alligator West 15-Jul-09 5 20m 195 Nikon D300

3 Pellew Island 22-Jul-09 5 20m 102 Canon Powershot A540

4 Courtney’s Reef 18-Jul-09 5 20m 117 Nikon D300

5 Drapers 22-Jul-09 1 100m 190 Canon Powershot A540

6 Dragon Bay 22-Jul-09 5 20m 111 Canon Powershot A540

7 Fairy Hill 16-Jul-09 5 20m 108 Nikon D300

8 Boston Bay 18-Jul-09 5 20m 121 Nikon D300

9 Policeman's Harbour 24-Jul-09 5 20m 117 Canon Powershot A540

10 Black River 20-Jul-09 5 20m 102 Nikon D300

11 See Me No More 20-Jul-09 5 20m 103 Nikon D300

12 Banana House 21-Jul-09 5 20m 104 Nikon D300

13 Manchioneal Harbour 24-Jul-09 1 100m 103 Canon Powershot A540

14 Horse Savannah River 21-Jul-09 5 20m 102 Nikon D300

Total 1731


Appendix 2: Combined summary of the mean percentage cover for the benthic substrate categories at the 14 study sites in East Central Portland.

MAJOR CATEGORY (% of transect) D

rago

n Po

int

Alli

gato

r Wes

t

Pelle

w Is

land

Cou

rtne

y’s

Ree

f

Dra

pers

Dra

gon

Bay

Fairy

Hill

Bos

ton

Bay

Polic

e-m

an's

H

arbo

ur

Bla

ck R

iver

See

Me

No

Mor

e

Ban

ana

Hou

se

Man

chio

neal

H

arbo

ur

Hor

se S

avan

nah

Riv

er

MEA

N

STD

. DEV

.

STD

. ER

RO

R

CORAL 5.89 4.83 9.04 10.01 21.33 8.18 3.98 5.90 13.64 6.28 2.76 6.42 4.40 6.79 7.82 4.78 1.28

GORGONIANS 0.13 6.57 1.42 4.60 0.67 0.56 2.04 8.11 4.17 1.17 5.10 4.41 0.10 4.32 3.10 2.56 0.69

SPONGES 0.74 3.09 0.81 4.87 0.61 2.92 1.02 3.44 2.75 1.17 1.73 6.42 2.86 2.37 2.49 1.68 0.45

ZOANTHIDS 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.03

MACROALGAE 83.01 81.33 3.15 72.41 0.17 37.63 86.41 75.86 72.82 84.45 80.41 67.40 78.94 81.28 64.66 29.27 7.82

OTHER LIVE 0.07 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.07 0.02

DEAD CORAL WITH ALGAE 0.94 0.98 83.96 2.98 69.10 36.59 0.51 0.00 2.08 0.11 0.51 0.90 4.81 2.57 14.72 27.98 7.48

CORALLINE ALGAE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

DISEASED CORALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAND, PAVEMENT, RUBBLE 9.03 2.60 0.41 5.05 8.13 13.73 6.03 6.70 4.36 6.71 1.94 14.04 8.79 2.26 6.41 4.13 1.10

UNKNOWNS 0.20 0.16 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 7.55 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.70 2.00 0.53

TAPE, WAND, SHADOW 1.64 1.92 1.50 2.72 1.64 1.57 2.00 2.07 1.31 3.20 1.71 2.25 2.20 1.82 1.97 0.51 0.14

Sum (excluding tape+shadow+wand) 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Documents

Comments2_ East Central Portland coral survey 2009[1]