George Town, Grand Cayman: The assertions
made by CCMI in its press release dated 12th September 2019, which
urges stakeholders to take stock of the potential impacts of Cayman’s
new cruise berthing and cargo facilities project are at odds with all
the available scientific evidence.

The Cayman Islands Government has produced a detailed technical paper in response to the CCMI news release. Drawing on the actual scientific evidence, the paper refutes completely the assertions made by CCMI. The technical paper can be accessed here.

[NOTE: iNews Cayman has also published it immediately below this PR]

The paper dismisses the claim made by CCMI that
“what is proposed will undoubtedly affect Cayman’s most famous
beach.” Instead the paper reiterates the analysis carried out by
Baird & Associates as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment
of the proposed cruise berthing facility. Baird’s findings are
clear:

“7MB appears to be supplied by sand coming round
the northwest corner of the Island, with the sand being sourced from
the nearshore/fringing reefs along this shoreline.”

And the Environmental Statement produced by Baird
went on to conclude that:

“There is no apparent sediment transport linkage
between GTH and 7MB; therefore, the proposed project is not expected
to have any impact on 7MB. Fluctuations in the beach width will
continue but the proposed project will not cause any changes in the
erosion or deposition patterns along 7MB.”

These results confirm a previous study by R
Seymour in 2000 for DoE and the Beach Erosion Committee and the
results were fully accepted by the Environmental Assessment Board in
their review of Baird’s report:

“The EAB is satisfied that the results of the
sediment transport modelling confirm/verify previously understood
mechanisms for sediment transport regimes between George Town Harbour
and Seven Mile Beach (SMB).”

CCMI go on to point to 80% mortality rates within
two years for relocated coral and it is understood that this reflects
the Institute’s experience working in the field.

The technical paper looks at all the available
international experience and quotes a global study which included 91
direct coral transportation projects. The research found that
“overall, direct transportation studies reported an average
survival of 64%, with 20% reporting >90% survival of transported
corals.”

The technical paper goes on to look in more detail
at the successful results of projects similar to the George Town
Harbour project elsewhere in the world.

Significantly, it also looks at experience in
Grand Cayman when shipping incidents dislodged and fractured large
sections of the limestone reef and damaged thousands of corals at
West Bay and Eden Rock, Grand Cayman. The proposed Verdant Isle
Coral Relocation Partner restored both of these sites in 2016 and
2017. Coral fragments broken and disturbed by vessel anchors and
ship hulls should arguably have lower survival than those removed
more carefully, yet monitoring studies have reported 89% survival of
tagged specimens in the West Bay site two years following the
restoration compared to 93% of unaffected coral colonies.

Coral colonies that survive for a year or more in
good condition following reattachment are likely to mimic natural
survival patterns of unaffected corals in future years. The same
coral species in the same vicinity relocated by the same teams may
provide the best evidence of likelihood of success for this project.

Premier Alden McLaughlin, commenting on the
release of the technical paper said, “As we move towards a
referendum on Cayman’s port project, it is vitally important that
the information put to the public reflects detailed scientific
evidence rather than unfounded claims. The fact is that Seven Mile
Beach will not be impacted by the project. At the same time, we will
be working towards no net loss of biodiversity in line with the
objectives of the National Biodiversity Action Plan.”

He went on, “I am unclear as to why CCMI, itself a respected scientific institution, has released misleading information in the way that it has. We have shared our technical report with CCMI and we have invited them to talk with us about their concerns.”

END

Report
- Scientific Evidence Refutes CCMI Claims Regarding Impact to Seven
Mile Beach

In a press release dated
12th September 2019 [1], the CCMI urged
stakeholders to take stock of the potential impacts of the new cruise
berthing and cargo facilities project. This note provides
stakeholders with clarification on several issues, some of which were
misrepresented in the CCMI press release.

The CCMI’s concerns

CCMI have two related
concerns which are summarized as follows:

1. Dredging in George
   Town Harbour will remove sand and coral which reduces what they
   termed the “sand budget” available to replenish Seven Mile
   Beach. They added that “What is proposed will undoubtedly affect
   Cayman’s most famous beach”.
   
2. There is “limited
   proven success of coral relocation as a mitigation strategy” which
   means that in the short term the project will “disrupt an entire
   ecosystem” and in the long term, the reduction in coral stocks
   impacts sand formation which means sand on Seven Mile Beach will not
   be replenished.
   

Impact on Seven Mile
Beach

CCMI’s conclusion that
Seven Mile Beach will be impacted is simply an assertion. There is
absolutely no evidence presented to support the claim. Instead, the
press release presents a single mathematical calculation. That
calculation seeks to estimate the amount of material that will be
removed through dredging. It then shows that volume to be the
equivalent to the volume of sand if you were to remove sand to a
depth of one foot over an area one hundred feet wide and one mile
long on Seven Mile Beach.

What is not established
by CCMI is the relevance of the calculation. There is no causal link
established between the removal of material in George Town Harbour
and the loss of an equivalent volume of sand on Seven Mile Beach.

In fact, all the evidence
presented in the Environmental Statement (ES)[2] produced
by Baird & Associates in 2015 indicates that there is no such
link. The findings in the ES are based not on a single basic
calculation but rather on a specifically developed, scientific model
of the tides, wind, wave climate and associated sediment
transportation processes that operate at the site, developed to
inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Baird and Associates
carried out. Details can be found in Chapter 10 of the ES (pages
92-117).

The ES concluded that
“7MB appears to be supplied by sand coming round the northwest
corner of the Island, with the sand being sourced from the
nearshore/fringing reefs along this shoreline.” To put that in
CCMI’s terms, the “sand budget” for Seven Mile Beach comes from
the northwest of Grand Cayman, not from George Town Harbour. It
therefore follows that any loss of material from the Harbour due to
dredging may impact “sand budgets” elsewhere but not on Seven
Mile Beach. This leads to one of the most important conclusions in
the whole of the ES which bears repetition in full:

“There
is no apparent sediment transport linkage between GTH and 7MB;
therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have any impact
on 7MB. Fluctuations in the beach width will continue but the
proposed project will not cause any changes in the erosion or
deposition patterns along 7MB.” (ES p115)

It should be emphasized
that the study concluded fluctuations in beach width anticipated in
the future will be the same as normal circumstances prior to the
project. There is no science on which to base any alternative view.
The assertion made by CCMI in its press release is at odds with the
scientific evidence and the conclusions in the ES.

Significantly, the
Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) endorsed the scientific
methodology followed by Baird and Associates. As a general overview
the EAB stated in its report [3] that it found the data
collection and results outlined in Baird’s ES and Technical
Appendices to be robust given the timeline for completion of the EIA.

In referencing Seven Mile
Beach specifically, the EAB report states that “we note the
conclusions in the ES that no large scale changes to the prevailing
sediment transport patterns will arise as a result of the project.
The EAB is satisfied that the results of the sediment transport
modelling confirm/verify previously understood mechanisms for
sediment transport regimes between George Town Harbour and Seven Mile
Beach (SMB).”

As this EAB report notes,
this understanding of the pattern of sediment movement was well
established prior to the EIA carried out by Baird & Associates.
Their findings are confirmed in a paper produced by R Seymour in 2000
for the CIG DoE and the Beach Erosion Committee, entitled ‘Seven
Mile Beach: A Natural History’ [4]. This paper
investigates the movement of sand around the island of Grand Cayman
and illustrates that “North Sound was almost certainly a
contributor to the sand supply that formed Seven Mile Beach. Before
development, shallow dunes, perhaps extending all the way to the
Sound in some locations, would have backed the beach. When struck by
severe Northwesters or a hurricane, the beach would have eroded
landward, but would not have disappeared. The dunes would have
provided a reserve of material to reconstitute a beach even as the
storm was receding. The almost-complete development of the back
beach, in some locations even of the beach itself, has eliminated
this self-healing capability. Severe storms can, and do, erode the
narrow beach until it disappears and the rebuilding process can take
a very long time because the sand to achieve this must be moved a
great distance”. Seven Mile Beach undergoes a natural process
of erosion and accretion with the predominant wave action coming from
the North West. This means that net drift of sand along 7MB is to the
south.

Seymour’s report also
concludes that “At the south end, there is no transport into the
system because it is the end of the line. As a result, the beach
begins to disappear, beginning from the south and working northward.
In the center of the system and northward from there, roughly the
same amount of sand moves into a region of beach as moves out, so
that losses are small and difficult to see. Uncharacteristically,
during the period encompassing the last three hurricane approaches,
there was only one sizeable northwester. These storms, which normally
are experienced in larger numbers during the winter season, move sand
to the south and restore the beaches that disappear during those
storms delivering waves out of the south.” The paper therefore
provides further evidence to support the finding that the proposed
cruise port will not therefore affect the sediment transport system
towards Seven Mile Beach.

It is also important to
note that the piers have been designed as open structures and, as
such would not interfere with sediment transport in any direction, as
would occur when solid structures are built within the coastal zone.

Effectiveness of Coral
Relocation

CCMI have a great deal of
experience in coral conservation and education and are contributing
to the growing understanding of the challenges the marine environment
faces, particularly those challenges associated with climate change.

The CCMI press release
states that “positive results from coral regeneration and
relocation practice also continue to be challenging”. They point
to relocated corals “typically suffering 80% mortality within two
years of relocation”. This is consistent with CCMI’s own
reported results. Their 2019 Healthy Reefs report [5]
states “despite enormous success growing, diversifying and building
resilient populations of at several nursery sites, coral mortality is
high (up to 80%) when re-planted to wild reef substrates.” [NB
the syntax error is carried from the original document.]

The views expressed by
CCMI on the challenges of coral relocation therefore deserve careful
consideration.

The Government has always
recognized the challenges inherent in the plans for coral relocation
in George Town Harbour. The 2015 EIA made this clear. The
non-technical summary of the ES [6] states “a coral
relocation program will not achieve ʺno net lossʺ, and success
is not guaranteed.” In relation to the question of no net loss,
the aim of the Coral Relocation Plan is to achieve no net loss of
biodiversity which follows the overall goal stated in the Cayman
Islands National Biodiversity Action Plan, 2009 [7].

In relation to the
success of coral relocation programmes, the approach adopted will
learn from international experience and draw upon international best
practice. In 2018 a global meta-study was produced by a team of
scientists led by Lisa Bostrom-Einarsson for the Tropical Water Hub,
part of the National Environmental Science Programme based in
Australia.

That report is called
“Coral restoration in a changing world – A global synthesis of
methods and techniques” [8]. It covers 329
case studies, 94 (21%) of which are direct transportation projects of
the kind most likely in George Town Harbour. Across all those
studies Bostrom-Einarsson et al found that “on average, survival in
restored corals is relatively high.”

As well as their report,
the researchers created an online interactive database that can be
interrogated and individual case studies can be followed up as
appropriate.

One of the problems in
the study is that there are few long term monitoring projects on
which to draw. The vast majority cover less than 30 months but there
are studies stretching much longer. Interestingly, Bostrom-Einarsson
et al state “we would expect a negative relationship between
monitoring length and average survival, however there was no such
evidence in the data”.

The research found
“overall, direct transportation studies reported an average
survival of 64%, with 20% reporting >90% survival of transported
corals.” It must be acknowledged that the success rates reported
by projects are variable. Using the interactive database, the figure
below shows the success rates for all of the direct transportation
studies considered as part of the Bostrom-Einarsson et al study.

Bostrom-Einarsson et al
go on to state that the results demonstrate that “coral colonies
relocated from dredging or construction areas may thrive in a
suitable location”. This conclusion is borne out in individual
studies such as:

• Mohammed Kotb’s
  2016 report on a project at Aqaba in the Red Sea [9]
  studied survival and growth rates of transplanted coral over a two
  year period and compared them to growth rates at a control site.
  “The overall survival rate for the transplanted colonies was
  estimated to exceed 87% and the linear growth rates of the 16
  species studied showed very similar values to colonies of the same
  species at the control site.” This leads Kotb to conclude, “the
  results of this work support the premise that endangered coral
  colonies can be translocated to other reef areas”.
  
• Hofstede et al [10]
  studied a project designed to protect marine life from the impact of
  dredging works to create a new port access channel in Coral Harbour,
  New Providence, Bahamas. This is “one of the larger
  conservational mitigation projects in the region” and their
  headline findings were that 14 months after transplantation, “the
  assessment showed…..a survival rate of 91%” and that “of the
  traced relocated coral colonies, 82% were in a healthy condition
  without observable affliction.” They conclude that “the Coral
  Harbour Coral Transportation Project has reduced the ecological
  impact of the Coral Harbour’s dredging project by preserving many
  viable corals and associated invertebrates through relocation.”
  Therefore, “the applied strategy for transportation of small and
  large coral colonies may be recommended for future application to
  preserve corals that are threatened by permanent destruction”.
  
• There are two large
  coral re-attachment cases in the recent past in West Bay and Eden
  Rock, Grand Cayman. Shipping incidents dislodged and fractured
  large sections of the limestone reef and damaged thousands of corals
  at both sites. The proposed Verdant Isle Coral Relocation Partner
  restored both of these sites in 2016 and 2017. Coral fragments
  broken and disturbed by vessel anchors and ship hulls should
  arguably have lower survival than those removed more carefully, yet
  monitoring studies have reported 89% survival of tagged specimens in
  the West Bay site two years following the restoration compared to
  93% of unaffected coral colonies (Precht et al. 2018) [11].
  Coral colonies that survive for a year or more in good condition
  following reattachment are likely to mimic natural survival patterns
  of unaffected corals in future years. The same coral species in the
  same vicinity relocated by the same teams may provide the best
  evidence of likelihood of success for this project.
  
  

This
is not to underestimate the challenges involved in carrying out a
coral relocation project at the scale envisaged in George Town
Harbour. However, the experiences both locally and elsewhere can
help us as we define the project, drawing on the experience of what
has worked, and what has failed, elsewhere. The Government intends
that the project here will not only reflect the learning from
elsewhere but that it should be a best practice example that advances
the ability of relocation to contribute to the meeting future
challenges to coral reefs.

One
of the key limits to learning noted by the Bostrom-Einarsson et al
global study was the need to improve monitoring of outcomes – both
what is monitored and how we monitor it. The Cayman Islands could
help fill that gap if we work with the scientific community to build
in a comprehensive and holistic monitoring programme at the outset.

It
is clear that the proposed coral relocation will never completely
mitigate the ecological impacts of the port improvements but the aim
of the coral relocation plan is to work towards no net loss of
biodiversity. If we are positive in drawing on international
experience and learning, it will be possible to replicate the best
results achieved in similar projects elsewhere. Bostrom-Einarsson et
al recommend “setting 70% survival in outplanted corals as a
benchmark target of success”. We should be willing to adopt such a
target for the George Town Harbour project. We hope that CCMI will
come and participate and help make the project a success.

References

[1]
CCMI Urges Close Look at Downstream and Long-Lasting Impacts to the
Island by Proposed George Town Dock Whilst There is Still Time (2019)
News release and Statement Justification

[2] Baird &
Associates (2015) Proposed Cruise Berthing Facility, Grand Cayman
Environmental and Engineering Consultancy Services Environmental
Statement  

[3] George Town –
Proposed Cruise Berthing Facility. EAB Review of Consultation Draft
Environmental Statement, Technical Appendices and Non- Technical
Summary

[4] Richard J. Seymour,
Ph.D., P.E. (2000) Seven Mile Beach: A Natural History: Prepared for
Cayman Islands Government Department of Environment and the Beach
Erosion Committee

[5] Central Caribbean
Marine Institute (2019) Healthy Reefs 2019

[6] Baird &
Associates (2015) Proposed Cruise Berthing Facility, Grand Cayman
Environmental and Engineering Consultancy Services Environmental
Statement   Non‐Technical Summary

[7] Department of
Environment (2009) Cayman Islands National Biodiversity Action Plan

[8]
Bostrom-Einarsson et al (2018) Coral restoration in a changing
world – A global synthesis of methods and techniques

[9]
Kotb M (2016) Coral Translocation and Farming as Mitigation and
Conservation Measures for Coastal Development in the Red Sea: Aqaba
Case Study

[10]
Hofstede R ter et al (2016) Monitoring and Evaluation of Coral
Transplantation to Mitigate the Impact of Derending Works.
Proceedings of the 13th International Coral Reef Symposium Honolulu

[11]
Precht, W. Challenger G., Warrender T., Rogers K., Hudson H.,
McCoy, C., Chin P. and T. Austin. 2018 Cooperative Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Leads to Successful Restoration of Injured Coral
Resources. 71st annual conference of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries
Institute, San Andres, Colombia | 5–9 November 2018