Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632192733.pdf (Antigua and Barbuda)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Jumby Bay Beach: Silt Removal and Replacement Antigua, West Indies Prepared by: ETC Ltd. (Environment Tourism Consulting Ltd.) St. John’s, Antigua, W. I.

Page of 1 83 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT JUMBY BAY BEACH: Silt Removal and Replacement Antigua, West Indies Submitted to: Michelle Thomas September 2021 Prepared by: ETC Ltd. (Environment Tourism Consulting Ltd.) P.O.
Box W375 All Saints Road St. John’s, Antigua T/F: +1 (268) 560 5703 M: +1 (268) 764 0304 E: lucia_mings@yahoo.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Environmental Impact Assessment was prepared by ETC Ltd. who wishes to further acknowledge and thank the team of consultants who par?cipated in this study: Everon Zachariah Coastal Engineer, CEAS Limited Ruleo Camacho Marine Biologist ETC Ltd. is grateful for the input of: Conely Browne, Blue Ocean Marine Limited Department of Environment, Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment Department of Analy?cal Services PROPRIETARY RESTRICTION NOTICE: This report is prepared by Environment Tourism Consul?ng (ETC) Ltd. on behalf of Jumby Bay Island Company Limited.
No part of this report may be reproduced without the wriQen permission of Jumby Bay Island Company Limited.

It contains informa?on proprietary to Environment Tourism Consul?ng (ETC) Ltd. and shall not be reproduced or transferred to other documents, or disclosed to others, or used for any purpose other than that for which it is furnished without prior wriQen permission.

All rights reserved.

Environment Tourism Consul?ng Ltd.


Page of 2 83 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1.

Project Proponent 1.2.

Purpose 1.3.
Project Descrip?on 1.4 Project Scope 1.5 Project Beneﬁts 1.6 Limi?ng Condi?ons 2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Coastal and Biological Field Assessments 3.1.1 Coastal Engineering Assessment 3.1.2 Coastal Analysis 3.1.3 Benthic Marine Assessment 3.1.4 Water Quality Assessment 3.2 Desk-Based Analysis 3.3 Stakeholder Consulta?on 3.4 Sand Bypassing 4.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4.1 No Ac?on 4.2 Alternate Sand Source 4.3 Disposal of Dredged Material 5.0 BASELINE SITE DESCRIPTION 5.1 North East Marine Management Area (NEMMA) 5.1.1 Demographics 5.1.2 Resource Uses 5.1.3 Land-Use and Zoning 5.1.4 Environmental Resources 5.1.5 Predicted Climate Change Page of 3 83 5.2 Jumby Bay Beach 5.2.1 Coastal Environment 5.2.2 Marine Environment 6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1 Dredging Ac?vi?es 6.1.1 Coastline Environment 6.1.2 Sand Bypassing 6.1.3 Marine Environment 6.1.4 Socio-Economic Environment 7.0 RISK ANALYSIS 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (EMMP) 8.1 EMMP Objec?ves 9.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION 10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEXES Annex 1: Disclosure of Consultants Engaged Annex 2: Declara?on of Completeness and Authen?city APPENDICES Appendix 1: Scope of Work Appendix 2: DOE Plan Applica?on Review REF #9/6 F6 -Silt Removal Appendix 3: DOE Review of Plan Applica?on #G13-2021-Sand Removal Appendix 4: Blue Ocean Marine Ltd Proposal for Silt and Sand Removal 35 36 40 54 54 54 54 55 55 56 57 57 59 60 Page of 4 83 List of Maps Map 1: Site Loca/on- Jumby Bay Beach Map 2: Site Area for Seagrass Surveys Map 3: Marine Water Sampling Sites Map 4: Map Showing NEMMA Boundary Map 5: Area of Interest Map 6: Land-Use Map of the NEMMA area extracted from SIRMZP Land-Use Map 7: Overview of Environmental Resources in NEMMA Area Map 8: Benthic Nau/cal Chart showing Area of Interest.
Map 9: Coral Reef Survey Site Map 10: Marine Spot Check Loca/ons 12 18 21 23 24 29 30 35 39 43 List of Figures Figure 1: Visual Representa/on of Seagrass Survey Methodology 17 Figure 2: Transect 1 Benthic Cover 40 Figure 3: Transect 2 Benthic Cover 41 Figure 4: Percentage Cover of Benthic Substrate 48 Figure 5: Percentage Cover (%) of Seagrass and Canopy Height (mm) 49 Figure 6: Macro-invertebrates per 100m2 51 Figure 7: Cer/ﬁcate of Analysis for 5 Water Quality Sampling Sites at Jumby Bay 52 List of Photos Photo 1: Equipment used to Conduct Seagrass Surveys 17 Photo 2: Example of Quadrant posi/oning showing Manatee Grass domina/ng the transect area 19 Photo 3: S/ngray City Dock within the NEMMA 27 Photo 4: Coral Present in T1 Transect 40 Photo 5: Live coral iden/ﬁed in Coral Transect 2 41 Photo 6: Coral Reef Area 42 Page of 5 83 Photo 7: Broad-Leaf Seagrass showing sedimenta/on on Leaves 47 Photo 8: Turtle Grass Found in Transect 47 Photo 9: Turtle Grass showing signiﬁcant presence of sedimenta/on 48 Photo 10: Upside-down Jellyﬁsh in Seagrass 50 Photo 11: Queen Conch 50 Photo 12: Cushion Sea Star 50 List of Tables Table 1: Wave Probability 16 Table 2: Summary of Climate Impacts and Mi/ga/on measures on Coastal Environment in the context of Jumby Bay Beach 32 Table 3: Summary of Climate Impacts and Mi/ga/on measures on Marine Environment in the context of Jumby Bay Beach 33 Table 4: Summary of Sediment Type found at Jumby Bay Beach 38 Table 5: Spot Check Observa/ons 43 Table 6: Abbrevia/ons and Species List Table 7: Summary of Assessment of Risks, Beneﬁts and Poten/al Impacts 45 52 Table 8: Proposed Environmental Monitoring Framework 54 ENCLOSURES Enclosure 1: Coastal Assessment of Proposed Beach Enhancement Works at Jumby Bay Enclosure 2: Jumby Bay Silt Removal: Benthic Marine Assessment Report Page of 6 83 ABBREVIATIONS EIA Environmental Impact Assessment JBIC Jumby Bay Island Company Ltd. DCA Development Control Authority DOE Department of Environment SLR Sea Level Rise SST Sea Surface Temperature SIRMZP Sustainable Island Resource Management Zoning Plan NPDP Na?onal Physical Development Plan UNFCC United Na?ons Framework Conven?on on Climate Change Ha Hectare Ft Feet M Metre MSL Mean Sea Level MM Millimetre sq.
e Square feet ToR Terms of Reference NEMMA North East Marine Management Area AOI Area of Interest PPA Physical Planning Act EPMA Environmental Protec?on and Management Act CBD Conven?on on Biological Diversity IUCN Interna?onal Union for the Conserva?on of Nature CEAS Ltd Civil Engineering and Associated Services Limited Page of 7 83 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Jumby Bay Island Company Ltd. submiJed two separate applicaLons - an applicaLon to the Development Control Authority (DCA) to carry out beach maintenance works on the resort’s main beach, Jumby Bay Beach.
Both applicaLons were reviewed by the Department of Environment (DOE) which indicated that there was a requirement for further environmental assessment to inform a ﬁnal recommendaLon on the project approval.

The works speciﬁcally include: 1.

2.

Removal of 1200 m3 of mucky slimy silt from an area in the nearshore of the beach, then replacing it with coarse sand of larger parLcle size, sourced from approximately 1000 ^ oﬀshore, to improve bathing quality and overall aestheLcs.
This is capLoned in DOE Plan ApplicaLon Review REF #9/6 F6-Silt Removal.

The project proponent also wishes to remove the accreted sand on the south side of the Guest Arrival JeJy on the southern 3rd of the beach and placement of that sand on the northern side as capLoned in applicaLon #G13 2021.

The project site is located in a mixed use area of the North East Marine Management Area (NEMMA) that is dominated by high end tourism development.
The project proponent also notes that historically acLviLes to improve the aestheLcs and funcLonality of the beach and the docking area have been conducted.

In 2013 there was an aJempt to improve the sand quality at the beach and the company has periodically moved accumulated sand from the jeJy area.

The project is made up of the following components: • • • The area proposed for removal of silt is 800^ long (north to south) by 40^ wide (west to east), ranging from 20 ^ to 40 ^ from the shore.
The excavaLon will take place at depths ranging from 0.5m-1.5m.

It is proposed that 16 inches (1.5-2^) or Volume 1200 m3 of silt material will be removed across the dredge site (CEAS Ltd, 2021).

The proposed area for sourcing the sand is 32,000 square feet (sq.

^) or approximately 0.73 acres or approximately 3000 m2 (CEAS Ltd, 2021).
The contractor has proposed that the excavated material be placed in a hopper and disposed of at an approved designated oﬀshore disposal site (with coordinates 17 03 00 Lat, 62 01 30 Long).

An area about 1000^ oﬀshore and south of the project site has been proposed as the source of material.

ETC will assess this site for suitability and propose alternaLves for suitable replacement sand (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).
Ltd, 2021).

Jumby Bay Island Company Ltd. submiJed 2 separate applicaLons to the Development Control Authority (DCA) to carry out beach maintenance works on the resort’s main beach, Jumby Bay Beach.

Both applicaLons were reviewed by the Department of Environment (DOE) which indicated that there Page of 8 83 was a requirement for further environmental assessment to inform a ﬁnal recommendaLon on the project approval.

The works speciﬁcally include: 1.

2.


Removal of 1200 m3 of mucky slimy silt from an area in the nearshore of the beach, then replacing it with coarse sand of larger parLcle size, sourced from approximately 1000 ^ oﬀshore, to improve bathing quality and overall aestheLcs.
This is capLoned in DOE Plan ApplicaLon Review REF #9/6 F6 -Silt Removal The removal of accreted sand on the south side of the Guest Arrival JeJy on the southern 3rd of the beach and placement of that sand on the northern side as capLoned in applicaLon #G13 2021.

The project site is located in a mixed use area of the North East Marine Management Area (NEMMA) that is dominated by high end tourism development.
The project proponent also notes that historically acLviLes to improve the aestheLcs and funcLonality of the beach and the docking area have been conducted.

In 2013 there was an aJempt to improve the sand quality at the beach and the company has periodically moved accumulated sand from the jeJy area.

ETC was contracted by Jumby Bay Island Company Ltd. to perform environmental impact assessment on both acLviLes in response to the request for informaLon from the DOE and the DCA.
No terms of reference was provided by the DCA or the DOE to guide this process, further there was no input from the Fisheries Division as such ETC conducted a rapid screening exercise to inform the scope of the assessment.

The major environmental issues were idenLﬁed related to Marine Ecology and Coastal impacts.

As per the PPA 2003 there is also a legal requirement for EIA to be performed for dredging acLviLes .

These conclusions were supported by the reviews of the DOE for both project acLviLes.
ETC therefore in carrying out the assessment ETC has included a Coastal Engineer and a Marine Ecologist in its team of EIA Specialists.

AddiLonally, the technical experLse of the Department of AnalyLcal Services was used in Microbiological analysis.

Annex 1 outlines details of the consultants engaged.
A mixed methodological approach comprising of, desk-based analysis, stakeholder consultaLon, biological and ﬁeld studies were used to develop an understanding of the present condiLons of the project site and to carry out the assessment.

The assessment process resulted in the development of suitable miLgaLng acLviLes to the idenLﬁed risks.

ETC has also included alternaLves to the project design as part of the miLgaLon strategy.

Details on the methodologies applied to the EIA process are provided below.
The main acLviLes to be carried out by this project is dredging.

PotenLal impacts of this dredging acLvity include increased sedimentaLon at the removal site, removal of benthic material and organisms and changes to the coastal dynamics and morphology.

The acLvity is also expected to have a posiLve impact on the aestheLcs of the beach and on the funcLon of the hotel.
The loss of naLve seagrass is the major negaLve impact that has been idenLﬁed, although this is unavoidable and Page of 9 83 irreversible a suite of miLgaLon measures that oﬀset these impacts have been outlined within SecLon 6.

The assessment also found that the proposed source material was not appropriate to achieve the desired result, therefore, JBIC has decided to source the sand of the appropriate grain size from Barbuda and that no sand will be sourced from oﬀshore by dredging.
Measures to miLgate against the impacts idenLﬁed include educaLng staﬀ on ecologically anchoring and mooring pracLces; implemenLng strategies to contain excessive sedimentaLon on the day of dredging; and implemenLng a monitoring regime for the ecosystem and coastal morphology periodically to note and respond to any adverse impacts.

The main beneﬁt of this project is that it will allow JBIC to maintain the high quality vacaLon experience and services its guests have come to expect.
Thereby, it should aide their ability to preserve the livelihoods of its numerous employees and sub-contractors, in addiLon to its overall contribuLon to the economy of AnLgua and Barbuda.

Page 10 of 83 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1.

Project Proponent ETC Ltd. was retained by Jumby Bay Island Company (JBIC) Ltd. to undertake this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Jumby Bay Island Resort is one of An?gua and Barbuda’s top ﬁve-star proper?es and part of the OETKER Collec?on which are iconic and one-of-a-kind, proper?es oﬀering unique and memorable experiences to aﬄuent and astute travelers.

It markets itself as an exclusive, private island where pris?ne, white-powdered sand beaches can be found.
1.2 Project Purpose Jumby Bay Island Company Ltd. submiQed two separate applica?ons to the Development Control Authority (DCA) to carry out beach maintenance works on the resort’s main beach, Jumby Bay Beach.

The works speciﬁcally include: ● Removal of 1200 m3 of mucky slimy silt from an area in the nearshore of the beach, then replacing it with coarse sand of larger par?cle size, sourced from approximately 1000 e oﬀshore, to improve bathing quality and overall aesthe?cs.
● The project proponent also wishes to remove the accreted sand on the south side of the Guest Arrival JeJy on the southern 3rd of the beach and place on the northern side as capLoned in applicaLon G13 2021.

1.3.

Project Descrip?on The project is made up of the following components: ● The area proposed for removal of silt is 800e long (North to South) by 40e wide (West to East), ranging from 20 e to 40 e from the shore.

The excava?on will take place at depths ranging from 0.5m-1.5m.
It is proposed that 16 inches (1.5-2e) or Volume 1200 m3 of silt material will be removed across the dredge site (CEAS Ltd, 2021).

● The proposed area for sourcing the sand is 32,000 square feet (sq.

e) or approximately 0.73 acres or approximately 3000 m2 (CEAS Ltd, 2021).

● The contractor has proposed that the excavated material be placed in a hopper and disposed of at an approved designated oﬀshore disposal site (with coordinates 17 03 00 Lat, 62 01 30 Long).
An area about 1000e oﬀshore and south of the project site has been proposed as the source of material.

ETC will assess this site for suitability and propose alterna?ves for suitable replacement sand (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).

1.4 Project Scope While it is customary for the DoE to append a Terms of Reference (ToR) outlining its preferred structure of the EIA report, it was not done in this instance.
Therefore, the EIA Consultant used standard EIA best prac?ces and knowledge of how the DoE structures its ToRs in the past to develop this document.

Therefore, a rapid scoping exercise was conducted u?lising the Plan Applica?on Review prepared by the DoE and site visits conducted by the EIA Team.

Page 11 of 83 1.5.

Project Beneﬁts In recent ?mes Jumby Bay Beach has become heavily silted with mud and clay like material.
The result of this has been guest dissa?sfac?on with the declining quality of the beach evidenced by the increased frequency of guest complaints and bad publicity for the resort via nega?ve social media reviews.

The direct beneﬁt of the project would be to restore the beach back to its former state of being a white- powdered sand beach, but the indirect beneﬁts should be considered also.
Increasing and sustained nega?ve feedback could have knock-on and far-reaching consequences for the long-term viability of the resort.

This would place the livelihoods of many locals at risk.

Hence, it can be argued that this project is of corporate and na?onal signiﬁcance.

1 1.6.

Limi?ng Condi?ons Inherent in any EIA are limita?ons on the content and scope of work included in the report.
Predic?ng future events is not an exact science but may be based on what has happened in the past, impacts that have occurred in similar situa?ons or from scien?ﬁc literature predic?ng future impacts such as those from climate change.

Any ?me topography is altered, or natural environments are removed, predic?ons may be well informed based on extensive modeling, but possibili?es for error will remain.
Assump?ons are made based on the willingness of the Developer to follow mi?ga?on plans, monitoring and recommenda?ons made by this report.

There are also assump?ons related to the eﬀec?veness of these mi?ga?on eﬀorts in reducing environmental impacts to acceptable levels.

The Project proponent is under immense pressure to improve the condi?ons at the site prior to the start of the next high season.
The project was therefore undertaken over a strict and limited ?me of 4 weeks consis?ng of site inves?ga?ons, technical assessments, and EIA development.

Therefore, observa?ons were limited in temporal scale.

The NEMMA is a marine protected area which is managed under the Fisheries Act of 2016.
At the ?me of issuing this report the Fisheries Division had not yet provided the required import to the proposed development plan, thus speciﬁc considera?ons, and an accurate depic?on of the current circumstances in the NEMMA is not completely captured.

Nevertheless, the EIA focuses on the area within the boundaries of the Jumby Bay Beach as shown in Map 1, as well as neighbouring areas of high environmental sensi?vity, such as coastal waters.
Other limita?ons include: ● Lack of long-term (10+years) water quality data ● Lack of sediment quality data (contaminants) & load stability (geotechnical) It is against this backdrop, the EIA aims to understand the possible implica?ons of the project, thus benthic marine, coastal and water quality assessments were commissioned to highlight the exis?ng condi?ons of the site area and recommenda?ons to address these areas of concern.

I. II.
I. II.

Risks fugi?ve sediment may pose to marine life Extrac?on of seagrass meadows As the project is located within the NEMMA it, therefore, requires guidance from the Fisheries Division.

Although eﬀorts were made to contact the agency, their review of the applica?on was not available at Personal Communica?on with the management of Jumby Bay Island Ltd., August 31, 2021 1 Page 12 of 83 the ?me of authoring.

However, considering ?me pressures, the developer has decided to proceed with the EIA.
Map 1: Site Loca?on- Jumby Bay Beach (CEAS Ltd, 2021) Page 13 of 83 2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK 2.1 Legisla?on The DoE highlighted the following legisla?on and policies as being of relevance to the project: ● Physical Planning Act 2003 ● Environmental Protec?on and Management Act 2015 (2019) ● Fisheries Act 2.1.1 Physical Planning Act, PPA (2003) This act makes provisions for orderly and progressive development of and to preserve and improve the ameni?es within.
The act also grants permission for the control of the use of the land as well as the regula?ons on building construc?on and other related maQers.

It is the main legal framework for development of land and planning.

2.1.2 Environmental Protec?on and Management Act, EPMA (2019) The Environmental Protec?on and Management Act (2019) is an act created to protect the natural environment.

The Act falls under the jurisdic?on of the Minister in charge of the Environment.
It states the func?ons and responsibili?es of the Minister, the directors and the powers of the department, the appointment of inspectors and the delega?on of powers.

Apart from detailing the special powers of the inspectors and directors it also considers the Na?onal Environmental Framework – implementa?on, review or policies and plans, framework for EIA’s and compliance.
Pollu?on Control regula?ons are incorporated in the act as well as pollu?on sources, pollu?on control permits, registers on sources of pollu?on, pollu?on charges, permits and liability for historical pollu?on.

Environmental Management and monitoring guidelines are provided as well as the management of watersheds and wetlands.
2.1.3 Fisheries Act (2006) This Act makes provisions for the management and conservaLon of marine ﬁsheries resources of AnLgua and Barbuda, for the registraLon of local ﬁshing vessels and the designaLon of Marine Reserves and Fishing Priority Areas and provides rules relaLve to aquaculture.

2.2.
2.2.

Interna?onal Conven?ons and Protocols As it is necessary to consider the role and responsibility of An?gua & Barbuda as a member of interna?onal trea?es, compliance with interna?onal standards is necessary to maintain the country’s status as an ac?ve party to these conven?ons.
The values of the following organisa?ons and interna?onal agreements were considered during the prepara?on of this EIA: ● United Na?ons Framework Conven?on on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ● Conven?on on Biological Diversity (CBD) ● Conven?on on the Preven?on of Marine Pollu?on (MARPOL) ● Interna?onal Union for the Conserva?on of Nature (IUCN) ● Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Conven?on on Climate Change ● Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Protocol to the Cartagena Conven?on Page 14 of 83 3.0 METHODOLOGY The project proponent, JBIC originally submiQed a Plan Applica?on #G13-2021 (Appendix 1) to the Development Control Authority (DCA) for “Beach Improvements Works” for the Jumby Bay Beach located on the western coastline of Long Island.
As mandated by the Physical Planning Act (PPA) No.

6 of 2003, the DCA referred the applica?on to the Department of Environment (DOE) for its recommenda?on on approval.

Under the same legisla?on, dredging as the main development ac?vity, involved in both components of the development, automa?cally triggers submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to inform the DOE’s recommenda?on to the DCA.
Based on the Plan Applica?on report DOE-Ref# D.o.E 9/6 F6 Silt Removal (Appendix 2), further informa?on regarding exis?ng environmental condi?ons, intended opera?onal procedures and poten?al eﬀects on surrounding areas through a coastal and benthic assessment were per?nent in the decision-making process.

To this end, this EIA was produced with the exper?se of EIA Specialists, Coastal Engineer, Marine Biologist, and the technical exper?se of the Analy?cal Services in Microbiological analysis.
Annex 1 outlines details of the consultants engaged.

U?lising a mixed methodological approach, desk-based analysis, stakeholder consulta?on, biological and ﬁeld studies were useful in addressing the requirements of the Terms of Reference which assisted in developing an understanding of the present condi?ons of the project site and which facilitated development of suitable mi?ga?ng ac?vi?es to the iden?ﬁed risks.

Details on the applied methodologies are provided below.
3.1 Coastal and Biological Field Assessments To iden?fy the current condi?ons and the poten?al impacts of the proposed project, a series of biological and ﬁeld assessments were conducted to include coastal assessment to determine the eﬀects on the coastal dynamics of the site and its surroundings, benthic marine assessment to determine marine environment condi?ons as well as water quality assessment to document and monitor marine water quality exis?ng and future condi?ons pre and post development.
These studies were carried out using a combina?on of on-site observa?ons and surveys supplemented by remote sensing, laboratory tes?ng, scuba-diving, snorkeling and data analysis.

The ﬁndings were then synthesized to iden?fy possible impacts on exis?ng condi?ons and appropriate mi?ga?on measures.

3.1.1.
3.1.1.

Coastal Engineering Assessment The coastal assessment was conducted by Civil Engineering and Associated Services Limited (CEAS Ltd.) using ﬁeld observa?ons and measurements coupled with informa?on from bathymetric charts and predicted nearshore wave climate.

The evalua?on of the coastal zone was to determine likely impacts of the coastal processes on the proposed sand replacement works and the likely impact on the coastal dynamics and zone with considera?ons from a coastal morphological perspec?ve.
Following the technical assessments, a report was prepared highligh?ng further useful informa?on, guidelines, and best prac?ces for achieving required objec?ves.

I.

Sand Replacement The proposed development therefore envisages the removal of approximately 16 inches of the exis?ng ﬁne sandy silt (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021-Enclosure 1) over approximately 800 feet (e) in length at the central sec?on of the beach from approximately 20 feet (e) from the shoreline at approximately 40 feet (e) Page 15 of 83 wide.
This amounted to a total material replacement volume of 1200 m3 over an area of 3000 m2.
The depth of the water where the sand replacement is to be carried generally varies between 0.5 m to1.5 m. This is not the enLre cordoned oﬀ swimming area, but the area termed the wade area where one is able to walk in the water.n The depth of the water where the sand replacement is to be carried generally varies between 0.5 m to1.5 m. This is not the en?re cordoned oﬀ swimming area, but the area termed the wade area where one is able to walk in the water.
The characteris?cs of the replacement sand has not been speciﬁed, however an approximate loca?on of the proposed mining site at 1000 feet (e) from the shoreline in a perpendicular direc?on was provided.

Samples 3,4,6 iden?ﬁed in (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021-Enclosure 1) were collected from the proposed mining area and laboratory sieve analysis conducted to determine par?cle size.
It was therefore concluded that there is no suitable sand to any signiﬁcant extent from which the required sand could be mined at the said loca?on.

II.

Extrac?on, Disposal and Replacement Based on consulta?on with the marine contractor, the inten?on is to use an excavator mounted on a barge to excavate between 1.5 to 2 e. of the exis?ng material located approximately between 20 e. from the shoreline to 60 e from the shoreline.
The excavated material will then be placed in a hopper and disposed of at the approved designated oﬀshore disposal site with coordinates 17 03 00 -La?tude and 62 01 30 -Longitude [St. John’s Deep Water Harbour Port Environmental Impact Assessment- 15th November 2017] (CEAS, Ltd, 2021).
This method of disposal is in keeping with the agreed disposal methodology and loca?on and prevents the ﬁnes excavated from contamina?ng or “sil?zing” the replenished sand, thereby fostering the development of the mushy/ slimy feel as currently exists (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).

Suitably sized sand would then be mined oﬀshore of the beach and be transported to the nearshore area where the sandy silt was removed (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).
The depth of sand to be mined would be kept to a minimum (1 e.) while using a larger area 4,500 m2 to produce the required volume.

By keeping the depth of the mined sand to a minimum, the expected eﬀects of dredging ac?vity will be minimised (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

Suitably sized sand was iden?ﬁed on the southern end of Long Island approximately 1.5 km away, adjacent to the channel between Long Island and Maiden Island.
Alterna?vely, it is recommended the replacement sand be imported by barge from Barbuda (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

Findings from observa?ons, scuba-diving and data analysis shows the laQer is preferred as the sand shape is more spherical and contains less silt.

The replacement process is expected to be conducted in a ?mely manner, thereby minimizing the likelihood of any natural movement of silt to ﬁll the temporary cavity produced during removal (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).
It was elaborated within the coastal assessment that the hopper will be used for the oﬀshore disposal and sand replacement if the sand is being mined locally.

However, if the sand is imported from Barbuda, another barge may be commissioned as the sand would be required immediately aeer the excava?on is completed (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

Samples of appropriate sand par?cle sizes were collected from beaches which provided the beach feel and water clarity that JBIC is trying to achieve.
The grain size analyses for these are presented in Appendices 1,2, 3 & 4 of CEAS.Ltd (2021) is very similar to the sand currently found onshore.

Page 16 of 83 III.

Sand Bypassing The quan?ty of sand to be relocated was not indicated.

However, es?ma?ons from onsite observa?ons suggest that an area of approximately 100 m2 could be removed immediately along the south side of the dock (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).
The depth of sand to be removed is dependent on the loca?on and is es?mated to vary from 0 up to a maximum of 1 m (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).

The total volume of sand to bypass the jeQy is es?mated to be in the region of 50 m3 which is a rela?vely small volume.

3.1.2 Coastal Analysis A Storm Surge Atlas was developed by The Caribbean Ins?tute for Meteorology & Hydrology for USAID/ OAS Caribbean Disaster Mi?ga?on Project October 1999) to assist in providing nearshore parameters for analysis and design.
This Atlas provides Storm Surge levels at various loca?ons around the Coastline for various storm intensi?es/ return periods.

Similar wind and wave probabilis?c charts were developed by PDGM (May 2001) for USAID.

Relevant data was then extracted regarding nearshore wave climate, which assisted in determining the ﬁndings of the coastal assessment.

Table 1: Wave Probability (CEAS.
Ltd, 2021) P r o b a b i l i t y o f Occurrence Wave Height Storm Surge Wind Speed 10 %/ year/ 10 year return period 1.5 m 4%/ year/ 25 year return period 1.7 m 2%/year 50 year return period 1 % / year / 100 year return period 1.8 2.0 0.5 m 0.9 1.2 1.6 30 m/s 38 m/s 44 m/s 49 m/s The data in Table 1 above indicates that the waves during the condi?ons speciﬁed can approach the shoreline and will cause erosion, resul?ng in the sand onshore and in the surf zone (extended surf zone) being transported oﬀshore (CEAS.
Ltd, 2021).

3.1.3 Benthic Marine Assessment I. Seagrass Surveys To conﬁrm the primary benthic habitat, desk-based analysis concluded the dominant habitat as seagrass.

To corroborate these ﬁndings, an assessment of seagrass was adopted based on a formal protocol via scuba-diving developed by the Marine Ecologist.

This same method has been used to assess seagrass in the Nelson Dockyard Na?onal Park.

Photo 1 shows the equipment used to conduct these surveys.
Page 17 of 83 Photo 1: Equipment used to Conduct Seagrass Surveys (Camacho, 2021) The following steps outlines the developed protocol in Camacho (2021): 1.

A 50 m transect was posi?oned along the seagrass bed parallel to the shore where possible and the following recorded within a 1m belt on either side of the transect: o # Of conch (adult and juvenile) o # Of urchins (diﬀeren?ate by species) o # Of sea cucumbers o # Of other fauna (upside down jellyﬁsh, starﬁsh, etc.)

2.
2.

Approximately every 5 m (star?ng at 0m) at alterna?ng sides along the transect tape using a 1- meter squared quadrant, the following were measured and recorded: o % Cover of Seagrass, live coral, sand, other (specify if possible).

* Living fauna were ignored, but organisms beneath were recorded.
* * If invasive species of seagrass were found, the % cover was measured and % cover of other species of seagrass for comparison* o Abundance and species richness of Seagrass within the quadrant o Average canopy height of Seagrass to the nearest mm 3.

The above processes were repeated to obtain at least 3 transects per survey site, at progressively shallow depths, for example 7 m, 5 m, and 3 m. 4.
Each transect was separated by 130-150e (39-46m) to capture the ecological characteris?cs of the area of interest speciﬁed in Map 2.

Page 18 of 83 Map 2: Site Area for Seagrass Surveys (Camacho, 2021) 5.

The data was transcribed from under-water sheets to Microsoe Excel and analysed Figure 1: Visual RepresentaLon of Seagrass Survey Methodology (Camacho, 2021) Transect 1 was conducted nearest to the shore, in an average depth of 3.5e (1m).
Transect 2 was conducted adjacent to the swim plavorm in the swim area at 6e (1.8m).

Transect 3 was executed beneath the swim line, and the depth average was 5.5e (1.7m).

Photo 2 shows how this was conducted.

Page 19 of 83 Photo 2: Example of Quadrant posiLoning showing Manatee Grass dominaLng the transect area (Camacho, 2021) II.

Coral Surveys Coral surveys were then used to assess and understand the ecological condi?on of the coral reef areas within proximity of the project site.
These surveys were conducted using the photo-transect methodology and in-situ assessment of coral reef sites to the west of the study sites.

The following protocol in Camacho (2021) was used: 1.

A 10m transect was posi?oned along the reef area and where possible, a lead line used to reduce movement that would cause damage to the coral reef environment 2.

Using a measuring tape and a tripod pole, the substrate was placed at a distance where a width of 50cm was visible in the camera frame.

3.
3.

Using an ‘Olympus TG-6’ camera, sequen?al photos were taken along the lee of the 10m line, ensuring that there is minimal overlap between pictures.

This was performed along both sides of the transect line and a photo-transect survey conducted covering 10m2.

4.

Photos were processed using the ‘Coral Point Count’ program with excel extensions (6) o Ten (10) points were randomly assigned to each picture.
The substrate type under each point was iden?ﬁed using a substrate code, then submiQed for processing 5.

Using Microsoe Suite, the ﬁnal analysis was conducted, and graphical representa?ons of the data produced.

Page 20 of 83 III.

Other Marine Checks To beQer understand the marine environment of the surrounding area, addi?onal “spot-checks” were conducted around the site via snorkelling and dominant benthic characteris?cs recorded using the data collec?on method.
Through observa?ons and GPS recordings, the following parameters were used to document the ﬁndings and are detailed in Sec?on 5.0.

Loca?on o o General and Faunal Observa?ons o Depth (e) 3.1.4 Water Quality Assessment The ETC team commissioned The Department of Analy?cal Services within the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Barbuda Aﬀairs to perform water quality sampling within the site area to establish a baseline of exis?ng marine quality condi?ons.
Snapshot Samples were taken in ﬁve (5) sites, three (3) ?mes over a three (3) week period in Map 3 to establish baseline measurements for possible impact zones for fugi?ve material to decipher a holis?c picture of the water quality within the bay.

The results from the sampling process were recorded and will be reviewed in the future to measure the eﬀects of the proposed dredging ac?vi?es upon the quality of the marine environment.

Follow up sampling will be conducted to deduce this.
During the surveys a sampling rod with a polycarbonate boQle aQached was immersed one foot below the water’s surface; in the direc?on of the ﬂowing water to prevent contamina?on.
The parameters tested included: ● Temperature (C) ● pH ● Turbidity (NTU) ● Salinity (%) ● Phosphate (ppm) Page 21 of 83 Map 3: Marine Water Sampling Sites (Google Maps, 2021) 3.2 Desk-Based Analysis To arrive at the content and conclusions within this EIA, documents such as historic technical studies and reports rela?ng to the site and surrounding areas were cri?cally appraised to determine exis?ng circumstances.
Addi?onally, assessment of maps, charts, unpublished technical materials were also u?lised to supplement an understanding of baseline condi?ons.

This collec?on of informa?on was thereby supplemented by professional exper?se and literature review.
3.3 Stakeholder Consulta?on Through incep?on mee?ngs with the client, public and private sector actors, and commercial stakeholders, relevant informa?on to inform EIA design, dredging methods, and issues regarding general implementa?on were received via liaising with relevant par?es.

3.4 Sand Bypassing There was no biological analysis for the sand bypassing as there is no biological content within the sand.
Page 22 of 83 4.0 Analysis of Alterna\ves 4.1 No Ac?on The beach is currently heavily silted with slimy mud and clay like material.

The result of this has been guest dissa?sfac?on with the declining quality of the beach evidenced by the increased frequency of guest complaints and bad publicity for the resort via nega?ve social media reviews.

The no ac?on alterna?ve will result in a further decline in the sa?sfac?on of guests and nega?ve impact on the tourism product.
4.2 Alternate Sand Source Originally the developer proposed that the source of alterna?ve material be an area approximately 1000e away from the dredge site.

ETC conducted analysis of the sediment quality and determined that the material available from benthic sources in the vicinity of the site were not appropriate for use as replacement as the grain size was too small.
For the desired aesthe?c improvements to be achieved, it is recommended that sand with a D50 par?cle size of 0.3 to 0.4 be used in the sand replacement.

Unfortunately, the only available source of sand of these quali?es is that sourced from Barbuda.

It is therefore recommended that sand from Barbuda be used.

Alterna?vely, the developer may seek to source sand with a D50 par?cle size of 0.3 to 0.4 from other regional sources.
However, in the event this op?on is selected there would be resul?ng delays in the project due to the requirement for addi?onal biological analysis of the source material.

4.3 Disposal of Dredged Material Originally the developer proposed to transfer the dredged material to trucks for transporta?on to an undisclosed on shore site.

However, during the assessment consulta?ons were conducted with the contractor and it was agreed that the following alterna?ve would be used for dredge disposal.
The excavated material is to be placed in a hopper and disposed of at a previously used the approved designated oﬀshore disposal site used for disposal of material from the ongoing deepwater harbour project (with coordinates 17 03 00 Lat, 62 01 30) Long (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).

2 The excavated material is to be placed in a hopper and disposed of at the approved designated oﬀshore disposal site (with coordinates 17 03 00 Lat, 62 01 30) Long.
This method of disposal is in keeping with the agreed disposal methodology and loca?on and prevents the material excavated from contamina?ng or “sil?zing” the replenished sand, thereby fostering the development of the mushy/ slimy feel as currently exists.
2 St. John’s Deep Water Harbour Port Environmental Impact Assessment- 15th November 2017 Page 23 of 83 5.0 Baseline Site Descrip\on An?gua and Barbuda currently have four declared Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the oldest, Diamond Reef and Palaster Reef were declared since 1973 as no-take reserves for the purpose of ﬁsheries conserva?on.
Cades Bay Marine Reserve (CBMR) and the North-East Marine Management Area (NEMMA) were declared in 1999 and 2005 respecLvely as larger, mulLple use MPAs that include both coastal systems such as wetlands, mudﬂats, and beaches as well as marine habitats including seagrass beds and coral reefs.

The NEMMA is currently legally protected by the Fisheries Act 2016 under the jurisdicLon of the Fisheries Division (ECL, 2007).
This NEMMA is known for its high economic value, hosLng many industrial and tourism related acLviLes contribuLng to the overall economy of AnLgua & Barbuda.

Map 4 showcases the extent of the NEMMA boundary.

The NEMMA consists of numerous oﬀshore islands, approximately 13 of which are privately owned and uninhabited except for Long Island which is home to luxury villas and the famous Jumby Bay Island Resort.
This sec?on discusses the “Project Site” at hierarchical spa?al scales to include the overarching historical circumstances of the NEMMA and the speciﬁc exis?ng condi?ons of the area of interest at Jumby Bay Beach shown in Map 5.
Map 4: Map Showing NEMMA Boundary (Camacho et al., 2020) Page 24 of 83 Map 5: Area of Interest (Blue Ocean Ltd, 2021) 5.1 North East Marine Management Area (NEMMA) The NEMMA comprises about 10,475 hectares of rich marine and coastal areas in the north-eastern coastline of AnLgua spanning over 30 square miles.

including 28 named oﬀshore islands.

The NEMMA also includes numerous archaeological and historical sites.
The NEMMA was oﬃcially declared a marine reserve in 2005 under the 1983 AnLgua and Barbuda Fisheries Act (Cap 173, secLon 22) although it was already recognised informally as a “reserve” for years before.

The management of the NEMMA is delegated to a not-for-proﬁt company, the NEMMA Management Partnership, composed of government agencies and statutory bodies, the private sector, community groups and NGOs such as the Environmental Awareness Group (EAG).
NEMMA was designated as a Marine Managed Area (MMA) in 2005 under the 1983 An?gua and Barbuda Fisheries Act, Cap 173.

It encompasses an area of 30 sq-miles (77.7km2) at the North-Eastern side of the mainland and is the largest MMA in An?gua & Barbuda.

A management plan was created for the NEMMA region in 2008 which detailed the objec?ves and the scope of the area.
NEMMA is recognized as a globally “globally signiﬁcant research and conserva?on site as a refuge for endemic, rare and globally important wildlife including the cri?cally endangered An?gua Racer Snake (Alsophis an>guae), the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and the vulnerable West Indian Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna arborea).

This management plan is however in need of review to beQer address the needs of the area.
Page 25 of 83 The extensive coastal area within the NEMMA has a long history of mul?ple uses; rela?vely calm waters and various oﬀshore islands have long aQracted recrea?onal boaters, for both day trips and overnight excursions.

Residents from bordering communi?es such as Seatons and Parham regularly ply the protected waters and shallow reefs in small-scale ﬁshing eﬀorts, joined in recent ?me by modernised sport ﬁshing and ﬂy ﬁshing enthusiasts.
A soothing seascape interrupted by rugged coralline islands and very liQle else has aQracted surging numbers of tourists each year, arriving on several day charter tour boats.

Anchorages in the vicinity of Non-Such Bay and Great Bird Island have also become aQrac?ve among the yach?ng community.

In addi?on to the local communi?es bordering the NEMMA, small residen?al areas also exist on some oﬀshore islands.
Long Island is home to the Jumby Bay hotel and residences, while Maiden Island and Pelican Island are privately owned and currently under development.

Guiana Island, the largest land mass within the NEMMA has been the site of several development proposals, oeen met with public controversy owing to the extensive local use of the area and the grand scale of the proposed developments.
The NEMMA is also recognized as a globally signiﬁcant research and conserva?on site as a refuge for endemic, rare and globally important wildlife including the cri?cally endangered An?guan racer snake (Alsophis an>guae), the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the vulnerable West Indian whistling duck (Dendrocygna arborea).

Consistent research, habitat restora?on, and awareness-raising have been the cornerstones of over a decade of interna?onally supported conserva?on eﬀorts on this site.
Encompassing over 30 square miles rich in coastal and marine resources, the North East coast has been brought into sharp focus for management agencies.

From an ecological perspec?ve, the oﬀshore islands oﬀer a living laboratory, serving as indicators to allow for the measurement of changes that have aﬀected local condi?ons and the rest of the Caribbean over ?me.
Economically speaking, and provided that sustainable use is prac?ced, the areas resources can provide a viable source of income for local ﬁshery and tourism sectors, as well as a playground for local recrea?onalists.

In August 2005, the NEMMA was declared a Marine Reserve under the 1983 An?gua and Barbuda Fisheries Act, Cap 173, in accordance with sec?on 22 (1).
This legisla?on was welcomed by many groups, in fact many users referred to the area as a “park” or “reserve” for years before the designa?on became oﬃcial.

5.1.1 Demographics Based on CIA World Factbook (September 2021), the following sta?s?cs are reﬂec?ve of the most up to date na?onal demographics of An?gua & Barbuda.

Popula/on: 99,175 (July 2021 est.)

Ethnic Groups: African descent 87.3%, mixed 4.7%, Hispanic 2.7%, White 1.6%, other 2.7%, unspeciﬁed 0.9% (2011 est.)
AGE STRUCTURE 0-14 years: 22.52% (male 11,243/female 10,871) Page 26 of 83 15-24 years: 16.15% (male 7,891/female 7,961) 25-54 years: 41.68% (male 18,757/female 22,167) 55-64 years: 10.74% (male 4,693/female 5,848) 65 years and over: 8.91% (male 3,736/female 5,012) (2020 est.)

MEDIAN AGE Total: 32.7 years Male: 30.7 years Female: 34.4 years (2020 est.)

POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1.17% (2021 est.)

BIRTH RATE 15.3 births/1,000 populaLon (2021 est.)

DEATH RATE 5.63 deaths/1,000 populaLon (2021 est.)


NET MIGRATION RATE 2.06 migrant(s)/1,000 populaLon (2021 est.)

PARISHES & POPULATION St. George: 7,839 St. Peter: 5,307 St. Philip: 3,490 LIVELIHOODS AND COMMUNITIES Data availability at the appropriate spa?al scale, i.e the NEMMA however, was not readily available due outdated popula?on census.
However, es?ma?ons can be drawn from the analysis of the 2001 Housing and Popula?on Census in ECL (2007) which indicated that in this year, the NEMMA area cons?tuted about 12 % of the popula?on of An?gua and Barbuda, consis?ng of 22 communi?es.
The following communi?es can be found surrounding the NEMMA: o Hodges Bay o Fitches Creek o Coolidge Airport o Parham o Vernons o Glanvilles o Seatons o Willikies o Long Bay o Long Lane o Browns Bay / Mont Pellier / Gaynors Mill Reef / Half Moon Bay o Royals o Cedar Grove o New Winthorpes o Piggots o Crabbs o Pares o Jumby Bay (Long Island) Equally, the main sources of employment and income genera?on within these communi?es are ﬁshing and tourism ac?vi?es (e.g., boat tours, diving and snorkelling, and yach?ng).
as well as agriculture and commercial businesses and industry.

Unemployment is at 8.4% in these communi?es and is slightly higher for women than men indica?ng other socio-cultural factors at play (Canari, 2017).

Business Page 27 of 83 ac?vi?es were found to be most prevalent in New Winthorpes, Parham and PiggoQs while Glanvilles, Seatons and Coolidge had the least business ac?vity (Jackson, 2008).

5.1.2 Resource Uses I.


Tourism Tourism is an important and growing ac?vity within the NEMMA and is one of the top 5 tourist aQrac?ons in the country.

Its pris?ne waters and scenery are major contributors of the tourism product and a prime example of the role of environmental resources in the performa?ve aesthe?c of places facilita?ng economic and recrea?onal ac?vi?es (Photo The assets of the NEMMA which contribute to this are its beaches, mangrove wetlands and oﬀshore islands (Camacho, 2021).
For instance, boat excursions have become quite popular and aQract many one-day cruise ship visitors where the focus is typically on the scenic waters of the North Sound, making stops at various islands or cays such as Great Bird Island, Prickly Pear, Green Island and Hell’s Gate (Jackson, 2007).

According to Canari (2017), approximately 18 boa?ng excursion companies were opera?ng within the NEMMA’s North Sound area, highligh?ng that it is a signiﬁcant business ac?vity.
Tour boat opera?ons are also regulated by law, requiring renewal of licenses and cruise permits annually.

Updated ﬁgures, however, were unavailable at the ?me of this report, but trends between 2007-2017 indicate that tour boats are key contributors to the thriving environmental tourism market in the NEMMA (Canari 2017; Jackson, 2007).

This coincides with ﬁndings in ECL (2007) with up to 300 people being accommodated per day during the peak season.
Tourist aQrac?ons, such as S?ng Ray City in Photo 2, has also been established within the NEMMA community (Canari, 2017).
Photo 3: SLngray City Dock within the NEMMA (VisitanLguabarbuda.com, 2021) Other tourism related ac?vi?es include the following: ● Recrea?on: Swimming, diving, and snorkelling Page 28 of 83 ● Water Sports Ac?vi?es and Rentals: Jet-Skis, sail crae, kayaks, sur{oards, kites, and snorkelling gear ● Marina and Je|es: Yacht anchorages typically occur around Nonsuch Bay, Green Island, and Great Bird Island.
There is also a marina and boat yard at Shell Beach and private je|es at Jumby Bay (Long Island), Maiden Island, and Harmony Hall and Barnacle Point ● Hotels such as Jumby Bay Hotel on Long Island is serviced by two ferries which operate frequently throughout the day between Beachcomber Dock and Parham Harbour.

Expand II.

Fishing Fishing is a tradi?onal ac?vity within the NEMMA, opera?ng on an informal basis with majority of ﬁsherfolk considered part-?me or seasonal (Jackson, 2008).
Within the NEMMA, Emerald Cove/Willikies and Mill Reef are primary landing sites as outlined in ECL (2007) and majority coincide with the major communi?es including: Beachcomber, Hodges Bay, Shell Beach, Fitches Creek, Parham, Seaton, Willikies, and Mill Reef where hotels are located.

Local ﬁshermen tend to derive most of their business for the “Fresh Catch” requirements of hotels along the coast.
Most ﬁshermen based within the NEMMA sell their catch in the villages as well as it is not large enough to warrant transport to the market in St. John’s (ECL, 2007).

Due to changes in the environment over the years however, the Fisheries Division has indicated the NEMMA has decreased in importance in terms of livelihood, but its importance as a key biodiversity habitat in the health of its reefs and wetlands which serve as ﬁsh nurseries and feeding grounds for birds (Canari, 2017).

III.
III.

Industrial Industrial ac?vi?es in the NEMMA include two electricity and power plants, a desalina?on plant, a brewery, a cement receiving facility and harbour all located on Crabbs Peninsula (Jackson, 2008).

There are also industrial estates at Coolidge and Tomlinson, within the watersheds draining into the NEMMA as well as the interna?onal airport at Coolidge.

IV.
IV.

Other Ac?vi?es The NEMMA also comprises several small enterprises such as vending which occurs on some beaches where tents are u?lised to display souvenirs and clothing.

Addi?onally, the agriculture sector comprises of about 80 to 100 farmers that grows vegetables and root crops (Jackson, 2008).

5.1.3 Land Use and Zoning The Sustainable Island Resource Management Zoning Plan for An?gua & Barbuda (SIRMZP, 2011) outlines the land-use speciﬁca?ons for development in An?gua & Barbuda.
In Map 6, the NEMMA boundary is indicated, where land-uses range from seQlement in the north, to forest, ins?tu?onal, transporta?on, environmental protec?on, tourism, and agriculture along the coastline southward The map indicates that Long Island, the project site is earmarked for Tourism ac?vi?es, thus the project is in line with this designa?on.
Page 29 of 83 Map 6: Land-Use Map of the NEMMA area extracted from SIRMZP Land-Use (Genivar, 2011) 5.1.4 Environmental Resources The primary marine assets found with the NEMMA region are coral reefs, mangrove wetlands and seagrass beds, all of which support a wide variety of marine life.

Map 7 depicts the distribu?on of these resources where total area of the NEMMA is 104.75 kilometre squared (km2) with 2749 ha of coral reef (36.02%), 101 ha of mangrove area (8.93%) and 2696 ha of seagrass area (18.29%).
The following sec?on provides a brief overview of these key environmental resources in the context of the NEMMA.

Page 30 of 83 Map 7: Overview of Environmental Resources in NEMMA Area (ConservaLon Gateway, 2007) I. Mangroves Mangrove woodlands in An?gua are essen?al for maintaining health beach and reef systems for their ﬁltra?on func?on, removing heavy sediments from surrounding watersheds and releasing nutrient rich water to the seagrass beds and coral (Camacho, \2021).
Mangrove wetlands within the NEMMA cover over 240 hectares and consists of 4 species: Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), Black Mangrove (Avicennia germinans), White Mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) and BuQonwood Mangrove (Conocarpus erectus).

In total, eighteen (18) individual mangrove wetland sites have been recorded in the NEMMA region (Jackson, 2008).

Equally, these mangroves are also important habitats (nurseries, feeding sites) for ﬁshes and birds, useful for eco-tourism and “crabbing” (ECL, 2007).
However, due to current clima?c condi?ons, increased hurricanes from predicted climate change and development, they have reportedly been severely aﬀected physically which reduces their func?onality (Baldwin, 2000).

II.

Coral Reefs Coral reefs are a vital habitat for many marine organisms as well as providing habitat for life stages of many pelagic ﬁsh (Camacho, 2021).

It is also an important ﬁsheries resource for some ﬁshermen.
An?gua possesses an extensive coral reef system that facilitates habitat provision for a variety of species, suppor?ng the country’s high biodiversity.

However, within the last few decades, the devasta?ng eﬀects of hurricanes have caused altered structures causing declining health in these reef systems (Cooper et al., 2001).
Signiﬁcant coral reef structures have been recorded in the NEMMA region, par?cularly in the outer regions of the area which has been iden?ﬁed as having some of the most extensive coral reef systems of the mainland An?gua (Kramer et al., 2016).

Page 31 of 83 Coral reefs in these areas were reported to have the highest live coral cover (13%) based on surveys conducted in 2017.
The primary reef types observed were patchy and fringing reefs dominated by branching corals including the Acroporid species, including the cri?cally endangered Acropora palmata (Camacho et al., 2020).

Coral structures have been subjected to a variety of pressures over the years, which include hurricanes, anchors, ﬁshing gear, sedimenta?on, eutrophica?on, pollu?on, and diseases (ECL, 2007).
Coral reefs in the area have been found to provide habitat for a variety of marine species, including the commercially important ﬁsh like Grouper (Serranidae) and Snapper (Lutjanidae), as well as Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus) (ECL, 2007).

III.

Seagrass Beds The North East Marine Management Area is known for its rich in marine biodiversity and recognized as a globally signiﬁcant area for endangered and endemic species.
Seagrass beds are reported common within the NEMMA, primarily within the shallow lagoons.

Dominant seagrass species observed included the Turtle Grass (Thalassia testudinum), while other species such as Manatee grass (Syringodium ﬁliforme) and Shoal grass (Halodule wrigh>i) have also been observed (ECL, 2007).

Algal overgrowth by brown algae Dictyota sp.

have been observed in some areas, par?cularly where there has been anchor scarring (Camacho, 2021).
These seagrass beds are also known to provide habitat for marine turtles, including the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata).

These beds occur on sandy boQoms, around fringing reefs and between coral patches.

The seagrass beds provide important feeding grounds, shelter, and breeding areas for several species of juvenile ﬁsh, turtles, spiny lobster, and other marine organisms.
The largest and healthiest seagrass beds were observed around Long Island, a known sea turtle nes?ng site (ECL, 2007).

As such the benthic assessments highlighted in this report were carried out speciﬁcally to address the eﬀects of proposed development in the deﬁned area of interest.

IV.

Beaches Beaches are distributed throughout the NEMMA region and are important for recrea?on along with providing nes?ng habitats for marine turtles.
Beach monitoring does occur within the NEMMA region to assess impacts of erosion.

Extensive turtle monitoring has occurred on the Long Island for over 30 years, with over 200 nes?ng females tagged since the start of the program (Jackson, 2008).

5.1.5 Predicted Climate Change I. Coastal Environment As a Small Island Developing State, An?gua & Barbuda’s vulnerability to the eﬀects of climate change is well known, the 2017 Category 5 Hurricane which caused signiﬁcant in Barbuda being a prime example.
This was detrimental to the economy, as more intense storms result in greater losses and damages par?cularly in the tourism, business, and housing sectors (GOAB, 2021).

Table 2 outlines the projected clima?c changes in An?gua & Barbuda as per the Drae State of the Environment Report, which draws on mul?ple scien?ﬁc evidence to determine climate predic?on (GOAB, 2021).
Speciﬁcally, for the Jumby Bay Beach site, although all impacts are per?nent, Hurricanes, SLR, Coastal erosion and storm surge are signiﬁcant threats to the livelihood within the NEMMA and Jumby Bay Island Resort.

Page 32 of 83 According to the Meteorological Services, during the period 1998-2018, 11 hurricanes have aﬀected the island.

Philmore (2003) highlighted the detriment that hurricanes cause to areas such as the NEMMA - changes in beach proﬁles, damage to reefs, seagrass and wetlands.
CEAS.Ltd (2021) addresses these extreme events and highlights that they can modify bathymetry and foreshore proﬁle and if suﬃcient sediments are not available, erosion could occur.

In such situa?ons considerable land onshore may have to be lost before this natural stable proﬁle is aQained (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

It may not always be desirable or acceptable that the coastline be allowed to develop its own stable proﬁle in which cases coastal engineering interven?on may be required.
Essen?ally, costal engineering interven?on, such as dredging in this case is an aQempt to not only provide or restore a stable beach/ shoreline or to manage the rate of erosion to acceptable limits, but to improve the water clarity and quality for recrea?onal use (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

It is also noted that a stable shoreline could be subjected to erosion or accre?on if the nearshore wave climate changes.
Thus, changes in nearshore wave climate could result from either a change in oﬀshore wave climate or a change in the physical boundary condi?ons within the bay.
Table 2: Summary of Climate Impacts and Mi?ga?on measures on Coastal Environment in the context of Jumby Bay Beach Impact Brief DescripCon Risk Signiﬁcance High/Medium/Low MiCgaCon Measures Extreme Rainfall Event Extreme Drought Extreme rainfall is only projected to occur during a tropical cyclone/ hurricane Reduc<on in rainfall is expected to result in more frequent “hot days” Extreme Atmospheric Temperatures Increased Surface Temperatures are likely Hurricanes Sea Level Rise (SLR) Hurricane intensity in Atlan<c is likely to increase, thus indica<ng stronger winds and increased rainfall which causes damage to ecosystems and coastal developments Climate change due to increased GHGs causes SLR Medium Medium Medium High Not applicable for this study Not applicable for this study Not applicable for this study Building resiliency at a na<onal (Building Codes, adapta<on policy) and community level High Coastal Defences Page 33 of 83 Other (Storm Surge/ Coastal Erosion) High Increased Hurricane ac<vity results in Storm Surge and thus coastal erosion is likely for vulnerable and unhealthy coastlines Dredging: Historically, Jumby Bay Beach presents as vulnerable to the eﬀects of climate change and coastal erosion.
The EIA in recogni<on proposes to rec<fy this.

II.

Marine Environment Climate Change, and its associated eﬀects, such as increased frequency and intensity of tropical storm systems, is an ever-present threat for An?gua and Barbuda.
While the NEMMA region is protected externally by coral reefs, and the coastlines are protected wetlands, the impacts of these storm systems are s?ll felt, with previous assessments showing damage to marine ecosystems (Camacho, 2021).This proposed development will need to take into considera?on the eﬀect of such storm systems, par?cularly in the considera?on to the movement of sediments, and possible impacts on the surrounding marine environment (Camacho, 2021).
The preferred op?on would be greater emphasis on the ecological importance of seagrass beds, the role that they play in the ﬁght against climate change, and the loss of ecosystem services which can result from its removal.

The seagrass beds in the bay are playing a crucial ecological role to the surrounding environment as a nursery and support for the coral reefs and is of tremendous ecological beneﬁt to Long Island and its associated proper?es (Camacho, 2021).
It is providing ecosystem services via reduc?on of turbidity/sedimenta?on, carbon sequestra?on and stabiliza?on of the habitat.

Dredging of the area may result in loss of na?ve biodiversity and increased sedimenta?on in the bay area, which could result not only in a deteriora?ng ecological condi?on, but also a less aQrac?ve beach for recrea?onal uses.

Table 3 further expounds on this.


Table 3: Summary of Climate Impacts and Mi?ga?on measures on Coastal Environment in the context of Jumby Bay Beach (Camacho, 2021) Impact Hurricanes DescripCon Intense hurricanes, like Hurricane Irma 2017, can result in increased sedimenta<on, movement of sediment, and damage to surrounding ecosystems Risk Hig h MiCgaCon Ensure healthy seagrass beds will aid to stabilize sediment, the leaves will help to capture sedimenta<on and reduce turbidity in the water column.
Healthy reefs have a greater chance of recovering following large scale physical degrada<on Page 34 of 83 Habitat Displacement Dredging will displace ecological habitats.

Hig h If dredging cannot be avoided, then the footprint should be reduced as much as possible.

Monitoring of the surrounding seagrass beds needs to be carried out to ascertain any damages.

Long term monitoring of coral reefs to see changes.
No anchoring should be allowed on the seagrass beds to reduce further physical degrada<on to the ecosystem.

Boats should be maintained on mooring systems only.

Coral reef restora<on can be carried out to aid the restora<ons of the surrounding coral reef areas.

5.2 Jumby Bay Beach The proposed development area, ‘Jumby Bay Beach’ is a sheltered bay on the Western end of Long Island.

Long Island is one of the many oﬀshore islands within the NEMMA and is home to the Jumby Bay Island Resort.
It is enclosed within a swim line and is used primarily for recrea?onal ac?vity by the guests of Jumby Bay Island Resort.

There is a swim plavorm midway in the bay, on the inner part of the swim line.

The bay is shallow, with marine nau?cal charts such as Map 8 indica?ng a depth range less than 10e (1.2 – 3.2m), and depths during the survey ranging from 3-6e (1-2m).

The following subsec?ons provide an overview on the state of iden?ﬁed marine and coastal environment characteris?cs.
Page 35 of 83 Map 8: Benthic NauLcal Chart showing Area of Interest (Camacho, 2021) 5.2.1 Coastal Environment I. Loca?on & Nature of Beach Jumby Bay Beach (also referred to as ‘Jumby Bay’) is the main beach on Long Island, measuring approximately 2000 e. from the south-western headland to the north-eastern headland and is located along the central western coastline (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021- Enclosure 2).


The beach has a crenulate shape and is sheltered on the west from the mainland, and on the east by the island itself (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).Surrounding areas including Maiden and Guiana Islands and Crabbs Peninsula also provide some level of protec?on.

Addi?onally, there is an oﬀshore reef located northwest, seaward of the beach.
This feature coupled with the ﬂat bathymetry of the bay characterises its coastal processes such that a signiﬁcant percentage of waves would break oﬀshore before they are able to propagate to the beach (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

The above boundary condi?ons contribute to the tranquillity of the area and its seabed sedimentology composi?on containing mainly silt, that fosters the healthy development of seagrass (CEAS.Ltd, 2021).

II.
II.

Beach Proﬁle The foreshore which extends landwards from the water line to the vegeta?on lines elevates up to about 1 m above mean sea level (MSL).

The width varies along the beach but is es?mated at approximately 40m.

From the shoreline, a narrow moderately sloping surf zone exists, and this area facilitates where most of the small waves break before running up onto the shore.
The width of the surf zone is dependent on the prevailing wave direc?on which is approximately 5 m under normal sea condi?ons based on exis?ng condi?ons on the day of site observa?ons.

Seaward of the surf zone, a mildly sloping nearshore area extends seawards which levels oﬀ as being rela?vely ﬂat aeer approximately 200 m from Page 36 of 83 the shoreline.

Thereaeer, the seabed is irregular with undula?ons in the bathymetry.

Some areas further than 200 m are essen?ally shallower than further inshore.
Based on the nature of the site as a tourist development for decades, it is understood that the beach has required previous manmade interven?ons geared towards its improvement, speciﬁcally this ac?vity.

Based on review of literature and on-site discussions with locals familiar with the oﬀshore islands and the NEMMA region, the beach is naturally occurring.
However, based on these historical sources of informa?on, it is assumed the beach’s proﬁle and coastal processes have been inﬂuenced by these previous interven?ons.

III.
III.

Beach History in recent history speciﬁcally targe?ng the enhancement of beach quality regarding The beach is known as a naturally occurring sandy beach exis?ng for decades and the northern and southern headlands provide its natural boundary and equally the indenta?on from the headlands indicates likely regression of the shoreline loca?on over ?me.
The coastal study therefore concluded that the beach has been naturally stable under normal circumstances, but the main driver of its reported erosion is due to extreme condi?ons from the severity of hurricanes over the years.

In MoﬀaQ and Nichol (2013), it is understood that beach improvement works were performed at least twice its characteris?c “feel” and water clarity.
According to past reports, the JBIC performed similar work in the early 1990s where a dredging contractor removed 1-2 feet of sediment within the deﬁned swim area to improve the appearance and feel of the sea boQom.

The methodology included using a suc?on dredger to pump the dredged material onshore aeer a sand dyke was constructed parallel to the beach to act as a reten?on pond.
Further, it was established that ﬁnes in the slurry wash was allowed to ﬂow back to the sea on the northern side, while the coarser sand collected was redistributed onto the beach and the nearshore area.

Beach nourishment has been a regular occurrence for the JBIC, and its last reported ac?vity was in 2013 when sand from oﬀshore was pumped hydraulically onto the shore where a similar dyke was constructed to retain the material.

The coarse par?cle sizes were again retained and distributed along the beach.
The ﬁnes were then lee to ﬂow back into the water through the overﬂow pipes and may have contributed to the excessive ﬁne present within the nearshore.

This methodology in 2013, was cri?qued as ﬂawed, as it allowed signiﬁcant number of ﬁnes to return within the bay.
From this, an assump?on can be made that the liQle considera?on was given to the sand par?cle size which resulted in using material that was simply available rather than one that would build the resilience of the beach by replacing with larger par?cle size.
Thus, in this process, the methodology outlined in Sec?on 3.0 seeks to rec?fy this as much as possible to fulﬁl the aesthe?cs required of the beach in terms of its water clarity and its suitability for recrea?onal use Sand is reported to accrete on the southern side of the Guest Arrival JeQy.

This sand accre?on is likely due to the par?al blockage due to the jeQy.
JBIC has indicated that in the past a backhoe was used to remove the accreted sand from the shoreline and nearshore and place it on the other side (referred to in Coastal Engineering as “bypass” (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).

The sand removal serves to maintain the water depth along the jeQy.

Currently the are on the south of the jeQy is signiﬁcantly shallower than the north side and is therefore only able to accommodate vessels with a very small draught.

Page 37 of 83 IV.
Page 37 of 83 IV.

Present Condi?ons Having inspected the Beach (foreshore and shore area), the beach comprises of creamish to white medium grain sand.

To validate this, laboratory analysis of samples taken from a representa?ve area indicate a D50 par?cle size of between 0.3 to 0.36 mm shown in Table 3 extracted from (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021- Appendix 1 & 4).

It was found the D50 is the median par?cle size.


A dive through the Bay on the 14th & 19th August indicated the surf zone comprised of medium grain sand with D50 par?cle size slightly coarser than the sand onshore.

This material extended from the swash zone, just beyond the wet sand line to approximately 20 feet into the water.
Prospec?vely, the material was likely generated from the sor?ng of the foreshore material where the coarser material was dispersed along the surf zone and the ﬁner par?cle sizes transported to the more tranquil nearshore (wading) area.

Past 20 e into the water, although the boQom bathymetry possessed a mild slope downwards, it had an irregular shape comprising small undula?ons along the seabed with small 1 e peaks and low depressions 0.5e above and below surrounding levels (CEAS.
Ltd, 2021- Enclosures 3D & E).

The surface sedimentology consists of a silty ﬁne sandy with moderately dense seagrass.

This is detailed below based on the ﬁndings from the Benthic Marine Assessment.

The boQom surface may be described as mushy/ slimy with a sense on compression of the surface as one walked along the nearshore area.

(CEAS.

Ltd, 2021- Appendix 1) shows the sieve analysis for 2 samples taken within the nearshore area.
Further seaward the bathymetry is rela?vely ﬂat with only a mild downwards slope seawards.

The seabed lithology consisted of a similar ﬁne sandy silt as encountered in the nearshore area but appeared in some areas to be ﬁner than the material encountered further shoreward.

There was however a marked reduc?on in the density of the seagrass (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021- Enclosure 3H).

The bay is generally calm and at the ?me of the site visits there were no appreciable waves.
This is expected based on the nature and loca?on of the beach.

The undisturbed water appears to be very clear but readily becomes murky whenever disturbed as occurs when one walks on the seabed or even slightly disturbs the seabed while diving.

(CEAS.

Ltd, 2021- Enclosure 3F).


There were no signs of any signiﬁcant erosion on the beach and the fact that the sediment found was extremely ﬁne suggest that there is not much sediment transport capacity within the bay, thus the sediment par?cle size would be signiﬁcantly larger.
This rela?onship between wave and current strength with beach par?cle size is clearly seen on the south and southwestern side of the island where the sediment par?cle sizes is much coarser on account of the greater wave and current climate on the southern side.

Table 4 summarises the sediments found based on the 8 samples in (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021- Enclosure 4).

Sand is reported to accrete on the southern side of the Guest Arrival JeJy.

This sand accreLon is likely due to the parLal blockage due to the jeJy.
JBIC has indicated that in the past a backhoe was used to remove the accreted sand from the shoreline and nearshore and place it on the other side (referred to in Coastal Engineering as “bypass” .

The sand removal serves to maintain the water depth along the jeJy.

Currently the area on the south of the jeJy is signiﬁcantly shallower than the north side and is therefore only able to accommodate vessels with a very small draught.
Page 38 of 83 Table 4: Summary of Sediment Type found at Jumby Bay Beach SAMPLE NO LOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION D50 (MM) A1 1B 2A 2B 3 4 5 6 Shoreline 100m from jeQy Creamish white medium sand 25m oﬀshore 100m N of JeQy Whi?sh grey silty ﬁne sand Shoreline 200m N of jeQy Creamish white medium sand no silt 25 m oﬀshore 200m from jeQy Greyish white silty sand 0.30 0.18 0.36 0.24 300m from shoreline Greyish white silty ﬁne sand <0.074 500 m from shoreline Greyish white silty ﬁne sand Runaway shore (control) Creamish white medium sand Near Reef Greyish white silty ﬁne sand 0.08 0.35 0.1 V. Coastal Analysis (i) Coastal Dynamics and Coastal Erosion Coastal Erosion is nature’s way of trying to redevelop a stable coastline capable of resis?ng the prevailing wave condi?ons which incident the coastline.
This is achieved by redistribu?ng the sediment (silt, sand, gravel, cobbles etc.)

in the near-shore and onshore areas to a stable proﬁle capable of resis?ng the prevailing wave condi?ons (water level, wave height/ direc?on).

To develop this stable proﬁle suﬃcient sediment must be available in the near-shore areas for redistribu?on.

If suﬃcient sediment is not available in the near-shore area, any available sand onshore is generally mobilized into the system.
This process will tend to con?nue un?l a stable proﬁle is reached.

This process is indeed what we refer to as erosion/ accre?on.

A stable beach proﬁle is therefore speciﬁc to a par?cular set of boundary condi?ons.

Consequently, whenever one of these boundary condi?ons changes, the beach proﬁle must adjust accordingly.

This accounts for the seasonal beach changes where sec?on of the beach become smaller at a par?cular ?me then rebuild at another.
If extreme events (such as hurricanes) modify the bathymetry and foreshore proﬁle, then if suﬃcient sediments are not available erosion could occur.

In such situa?ons considerable land onshore may have to be lost before this natural stable proﬁle is aQained.

It may not always be desirable or acceptable that the coastline be allowed to develop its own stable proﬁle in which cases coastal engineering interven?on may be required.
Essen?ally the costal engineering interven?on is an aQempt to provide or restore a stable beach/ shoreline or to manage the rate of erosion to acceptable limits.

A stable shoreline could be subjected to erosion or accre?on if the nearshore wave climate changes.

Changes in nearshore wave climate could result from either a change in oﬀshore wave climate or a change in the physical boundary condi?ons within the bay.
Page 39 of 83 (ii) Exis?ng Stability As previously indicated the beach is sheltered on the west from the mainland and on the east by the island itself and par?ally on the south by Maiden Island, Crabbs Peninsula and Guiana Island.

Consequently, under normal condi?ons the bay is generally very calm and there is very liQle sediment transport capacity.

This is borne out in our observa?ons and reports from various individuals.
The fact that the sediment type is very ﬁne is further evidence that there is very liQle sediment movement and that the Beach is stable (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).

The subject coastline appears to be a rela?vely stable coastline under normal condi?ons and although erosion is possible under extreme condi?ons, the level of erosion an?cipated to be small based on the extensive ﬂat and shallow boQom bathymetry of the bay and the rela?vely sheltered nature of the bay (CEAS.

Ltd, 2021).
Ltd, 2021).

Previous studies corroborate these ﬁndings.

5.2.2 Marine Environment I. Coral Reefs in Jumby Bay Beach Coral surveys were carried out at the point speciﬁed “Coral Survey” below in Map 9.

This would ascertain the baseline ecological condi?ons of this coral reef site.

Map 9: Coral Reef Survey Site (Camacho, 2021) T1 was carried out on the southern part of the point.
The t area here is algal dominated as seen in Photo 3, with Dead Coral with algae (49.24%) and Macroalgae (28.90%) accoun?ng for most of the benthic cover.

Based on observa?ons, live coral accounted for 0.38% represented in Figure 2.

Page 40 of 83 Photo 4: Coral Present in T1 Transect (Camacho, 2021) Figure 2: Transect 1 Benthic Cover (Camacho, 2021) Page 41 of 83 T2 was carried out to the northern part of the “Coral Survey” point.
The dominant substrate here was live coral, accoun?ng for 47.36% of the benthic cover (Photo 4).

Dead coral with algae accounted for 28.41% while macroalgae and seagrass each accounted for 8.15% (Figure 3).

Photo 5: Live coral idenLﬁed in Coral Transect 2 (Camacho, 2021) Figure 3: Transect 2 Benthic Cover (Camacho, 2021) Page 42 of 83 On average, the Live Coral accounted for 23.87% cover, Dead Coral with algae 38.83% and macroalgae accounted for 18.53% (Photo 5).
Photo 6: Coral Reef Area (Camacho, 2021) Although not explicitly surveyed, a variety of ﬁsh species were noted at the coral reef sites, and family names are given in Table 5.

Addi?onally, several spot-checks were carried out to beQer understand the distribu?on of benthic marine ecosystem displayed in Map 10 u?lising the under-water data collec?on method of Sec?on 3.0.
Page 43 of 83 Map 10: Marine Spot Check LocaLons (Camacho, 2021) These spot checks were useful in iden?fying three notable biodiversity characteris?cs and their inﬂuences on the marine environment.

This includes the presence of Broad-Leaf or Halophila s>pulacea seagrass, which is an invasive species, Halimeda or Halimeda sp.

which is a seagrass species that contributes to sand-making and cyanobacteria which could be an indicator of high nutrient levels in the marine environment.
Tables 6 & 6 below summarises the spot check ﬁndings and provides informa?on on the species observed.

Table 5: Spot Check Observa?ons (Camacho, 2021) LOCATION NUMBER LOCATION NOTES OBSERVATIONS FAUNAL OBSERVATIONS DEPTH (FT) 373 374 375 376 Seagrass: TG, MG, HA, BL Seagrass area: TG, MG, BL Seagrass/Sand: BL, TG Sea Star Floa<ng swim pla^orm within swim line adjacent to beach Seagrass area: TG, MG, BL, CYAN.

Floral coverage 80%.

Average canopy height 17cm.


Sedimenta<on on blades 6e Page 44 of 83 376-a 376-b 376-c 376-d 377 Inward 30c from 376 Seagrass area: TG, MG, HA, BL, CYAN.

Floral coverage 70%.

Canopy height is 17cm.

Sedimenta<on on blades Sea Star, Juvenile Nassau Grouper Inward 30c from 376-a Seagrass area: TG, MG, HA.

Floral coverage 90%.

Canopy height 19cm.

Sedimenta<on on blades Inward 30c from 376-b Seagrass area: MG, HA, TG, BL.

Floral Coverage 70%.

Canopy Height 16cm.


Sedimenta<on on blades Sea Star, Juvenile Parro^ish Inward 30c from 376-c. Transi<on from seagrass to sandy area.

Seagrass area: MG, HA, TG.

Floral coverage 80%.

Canopy height of 12cm.

Sedimenta<on on blades Seagrass area: TG, MG, HA, CYAN, BL.

Floral coverage 80%.

Floral canopy height 16cm.

Sedimenta<on on blades Sea Star, Juvenile Snapper, Juvenile Grunt SWIM Swim Lane Seagrass area: TG, HA, MG, CYAN.

Floral coverage 70%.

Canopy Height 17cm.


Sedimenta<on on blades Seagrass Area: MG, TG, BL, HA.

Floral Coverage 65%.

Canopy Height 17cm.

Sedimenta<on on blades Seagrass Area: TG, HA, MG, BL.

Floral Coverage 80%.

Canopy Height 19cm.

Sedimenta<on on blades Seagrass area: BL, MG, TG, HA.

Floral coverage 80%.

Canopy height 12cm.

Approaching and along seagrass bank.

Seagrass Area: TG, HA.

Canopy Height 19cm.

Isolated PAST in seagrass Juvenile Queen Conch Seagrass area: MG, BL, HA.
Floral coverage 95%.

Canopy Height 14cm.

Mixed substrate area.

Seagrass: TG, GORG, HA.

Scruﬀy Boiom: APRO, MILL, PDIV, PPOR, PPOR Skeleton, DIAD, Red Urchin, OANN, MAUR.

Juvenile snappers & grunts, squirrel ﬁsh, jacks Seagrass Area: CYAN, TG, TG, HA, BL.

Floral coverage 80%.

Canopy Height 10c Sand and BL.

Canopy Height 7cm 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 6e 5e 4e 4e 6e 6e 6e 6e.
6e <3e 4e 3-6e 13e 14e Page 45 of 83 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 Seagrass area which transi<ons to reef bank Seagrass dominated by TG.

Reef bank is PPOR and APAL skeleton.

Southern side of reef bank dead.


Northern side: APRO, MILL, PPOR, OANN, PCLI, DLAB, PSTR, PAST Parro^ish, Grunt, Snapper, Doctorﬁsh, 10e – 2 e Transect was conducted here Transect was conducted here 7e 7e Seagrass (TG), few coral (APRO, MILL) Juvenile Fish Coral thicket (more deﬁned point than 386) Juvenile ﬁsh (Snappers, grunts, squirrel ﬁsh, Doctorﬁsh, et al) Reduc<on in coral density.

Isolated colonies of APRO, OANN, PPOR.

Mixed reef (increased diversity of corals) with large ﬁsh biomass.
APRO, OANN, SSID, PAST, PPOR, DLAB, PSTR, PCLI, MILL, Large schools of grunts, parro^ish, doctorﬁsh APRO Thicket Greater dead zone, heavy macroalgae Sea Grass (TG), APRO, PDIV, PFUR APAL Seagrass (TG) and isolated HC (APRO, MILL, PFUR, High Coral diversity (APRO, PAST, SSID, PPOR, OANN Juvenile ﬁsh, DIAD BL, TG, CYAN, SAND TG, MG, HA, PDIV, PFUR Conch Table 6: Abbrevia?ons and Species List (Camacho, 2021) ABBREVIATION COMMON NAME SPECIES NAME NOTES TG MG Turtle Grass Manatee Grass Thalassia testudinum Syringodium ﬁliforme Page 46 of 83 BL HA Broad-Leaf Halophila s7pulacea Invasive seagrass Halimeda Halimeda sp.
Group of seagrass species which contribute towards sand making CYAN Cyanobacteria Can be an indicator of high nutrient levels in the marine environment Upside-down Jellyﬁsh Cassiopea xamachana PAST Mustard Hill Coral Porites Astreoides APRO Fused Staghorn Acropora prolifera PDIV Thin Finger Coral Porites divarcata MILL PPOR DIAD Fire Coral Millepora sp.
Finger Coral Porites porites Black Sea Urchin Diadema an7llarum OANN Lobed Star Coral Orbicella annularis DCLI Knobby Brain Coral Diploria clivosa PFUR Branched Finger Coral Porites furcata Groupers Snappers Grunts Parro^ish Jacks Serranidae Lutjanidae Haemulidae Scaridae Carangidae II.

Seagrass in Jumby Bay Beach Within sec?on 3.0 Methodology, the seagrass assessment area is highlighted and compartmentalised into three transects.
Based on the assessment, the benthic substrate was dominated by Turtle Grass (Thalassia testudinum), Manatee Grass (Syringodium ﬁliforme) and Halimeda sp..

The invasive Broad-leaf Seagrass (Halophilia s>pulacea) shown below in Photo 6 was also noted in the transects, with the dominant benthic substrate being a mud/silt material.

The following observa?ons were found in each Transect outlined in Map 11.
Page 47 of 83 Photo 7: Broad-Leaf Seagrass showing sedimentaLon on Leaves (Camacho, 2021) In Transect 1, the na?ve seagrass species (Turtle Grass) shown below in Photo 7, accounted for 85% of benthic cover, while the invasive broadleaf species accounts for 3.5% and the remaining 11.5% made up by mud/silt.
Photo 8: Turtle Grass Found in Transect 1 (Camacho, 2021) Transect 2 consisted of 58.5% of the benthic cover, with the invasive broadleaf species (Figure 4) accoun?ng for 11% and the remaining 30.5% mud/silt.

Page 48 of 83 Transect 3 comprised of 54.5% na?ve seagrass cover, 22% invasive seagrass cover and 23.5% silt/mud.
Figure 5 provides a synopsis on the overall percentage cover of the benthic substrate with na?ve seagrass species accoun?ng for 66% of the benthic coverage in the area of interest (AOI), followed by mud/silt (21.83%) and invasive seagrass (12.17%).

Figure 4: Percentage Cover of Benthic Substrate (Camacho, 2021) In all transects, seagrass blades, par?cularly the na?ve species, were heavily inundated by sediment shown in Photo 8.
Photo 9: Turtle Grass showing signiﬁcant presence of sedimenta?on (Camacho, 2021) Page 49 of 83 Floral Canopy height showed varia?on between transects, with transects having a higher propor?on of the invasive broadleaf species showing a reduc?on in canopy height in Figure 4.

Transect 1 and Transect 2 were similar, measuring 164mm and 160mm respec?vely.

This dropped to 141.5mm in Transect 3, where the coverage of the invasive broadleaf species increased to 22%.
Average canopy height throughout the area of interest is 155.17mm.

Floral species richness varied, with Transect 1 measuring 4.5 species/m2, while Transect 2 and Transect 3 both measured 3.5 species/m2.

Overall average species richness in 3.7 species/m2.
Figure 5: Percentage Cover (%) of Seagrass and Canopy Height (mm) (Camacho, 2021) Macro-invertebrates were also observed and varied across transects, with the Upside-down jellyﬁsh (Cassiopea frondosa and Cassiopea xamachana) in Photo 9 being the most dominant but only seen in Transect 2 (26/100m2) and Transect 3 (5/100m2).
Page 50 of 83 Photo 10: Upside-down Jellyﬁsh in Seagrass (Camacho, 2021) A single Queen Conch (Aliger gigas) in Photo 10 was seen in Transect 2, while 6 Cushion Sea Star (Oreaster re>culatus) in Photo 11 observed in Transect 6.

Figure 5 displays the distribu?on where macro- invertebrates were observed in Transect 1.

Photo 11: Queen Conch (Camacho, 2021) Photo 12: Cushion Sea Star (Camacho, 2021) Page 51 of 83 Figure 6: Macro-invertebrates per 100m2 (Camacho, 2021) III.
Water Quality Except for observed phosphates, the water quality levels for turbidity, temperature, salinity, pH were found to be within na?onally accepted levels.

Figure 6 outlines these results.

While these results do not show high turbidity, the ecology in the area point to a trend of high sedimenta?on.

It should be noted that the water quality sampling was limited to only one sample day.
Page 52 of 83 Figure 7: Cer?ﬁcate of Analysis for 5 Water Quality Sampling Sites at Jumby Bay Beach (DOAS, 2021) Page 53 of 83 6.0 Poten\al Impacts and Mi\ga\on Measures 6.1 Dredging Ac?vi?es 6.1.1 Coastline Environment Dredging ac?vi?es can have physical, biological, and socioeconomic impacts in the area of concern.
Given that the inten?on is for the equivalent volume of material to be replaced with more stable material most of the nega?ve physical impact at the beach site will be limited temporally to the period in which the dreading ac?vity is being conducted.

● The coastal analysis conducted did not support the sourcing of sand from the site iden?ﬁed by the developer.

Material from the proposed site will not achieve the aesthe?c results due to small grain size.
Therefore, alterna?ve sources, such as Barbuda are recommended for sourcing sand.

● Dispersion of any outwash plume resul?ng from overﬂow can also occur at the site and along the transporta?on route to the disposal site.

The sides of the hopper will need to be adequately secured and the level of material monitored to avoid spillage.

● Transport and seQlement of the material suspended by the dredging ac?vity is likely.
Water quality will be nega?vely impacted through increases in the amount of ﬁne material in suspension, poten?ally producing eﬀects leeward of the borrow area into the bay.

The baseline water quality analysis conducted on 5 points in the study area did not reveal high turbidity levels.

However, the ecological assessment conducted in the area pointed to a trend of high sedimenta?on.

This is evidenced by the sediment present on seagrass at the site.
This impact is likely to be short term and limited to the ?me of the dredging ac?vity.

It is an?cipated that the issue will resolve when the project is complete.

No speciﬁc mi?ga?on is required.

● Since the replacement of material is expected to be immediate, boQom bathymetry of the seabed will not be modiﬁed and therefore will have no signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the nearshore wave or ?dal condi?ons.
● The eﬀects of the disposal of dredging waste at the approved disposal site are not expected to have any new impacts.

● No dredging is expected during the opera?onal phase; therefore, no impacts are an?cipated.

However, the measures outlined regarding ecological monitoring are required to ensure that there is no recolonisa?on by invasive species of sea grass (Halophila s?pulacea).
6.1.2 Sand Bypassing • The presence of the guest arrival jeQy may be altering the natural movement of sand along the beach thus encouraging the accre?on of sand close to the said jeQy.

Hence, the periodic redistribu?on of the sand back towards the North may be required to maintain the water depth.

• Periodically in the future when the sand gets either close to or reaches 1 m in depth another redistribu?on of the accumulated sand would be triggered.
6.1.3 Marine Environment The principle biological impacts of dredging include disturbance, removal, and altera?on of the substrate Page 54 of 83 upon which establishment of features such as Coral Reef and Seagrass beds depend.

This ac?on aﬀects the suitability of the seabed as a food resource for ﬁsh, turtles, and other marine organisms or as habitat.

This ac?vity will result in signiﬁcant disrup?on to the seagrass ecosystem in the area.
Seagrass surveys indicated that the Area of Interest is a seagrass bed ecosystem dominated by na?ve seagrass species including: Turtle Grass (Thalassia testudinum), Manatee Grass (Syringodium ﬁliforme) and Halimeda sp..

It was also noted that there exists the presence of the Invasive Broad-leaf seagrass (Halophilia s>pulacea) (Camacho, 2021).

The following are an?cipated biological impacts and the mi?ga?ons: • Seagrass will be lost in the dredging ac?vity.
However, while the area over which the seagrass was encountered was extensive it is signiﬁcantly greater that the area that it is to be removed by dredging.

It is es?mated that less 5% of the area iden?ﬁed for dredging is covered by seagrass.

Therefore, while any removal of seagrass is ecologically signiﬁcant, the overall na?onal and regional impact of the removal of this small area of na?ve seagrass is expected to be minimal.

However, the following measures should be considered.
o The area of seagrass removed should be minimized.

The dredging footprint of 800e by 40e should be reduced as much as possible and not exceed that area.

This requires on site monitoring during the dredging exercise.

as well as the placement of limit markers to prevent accidental drieing from the desired dredge area.

o Fauna observed within the area earmarked for the improvement work should be removed by a team of Divers and be relocated outside of the aﬀected zone prior to dredging.
o A long-term seagrass and coral reef monitoring program should be developed and implemented by Jumby Bay Resort.

Coral reef restora?on programs should be considered.

o No anchoring should be allowed on the seagrass beds to reduce further physical degrada?on to the ecosystem.
o Boats should be maintained on mooring systems only (CEAS Ltd., 2021) 6.1.4 Socio-Economic Environment There is expected to be an overall posi?ve impact on the viability of the hotel because of the improved aesthe?c condi?ons of the beach.
The following are an?cipated socio-economic impacts and the mi?ga?on: ● As the hotel will be closed, dredging ac?vi?es are not expected to interfere with its recrea?onal ac?vi?es and the opera?ons ● The dredging ac?vi?es may impact shipping and naviga?on approach routes to and from the poten?al extrac?on area All relevant authori?es, such as An?gua and Barbuda Department of Marine Services, The An?gua and Barbuda Port Authority and the Coast Guard should be no?ﬁed of the planned dredging ac?vity and alerted when the start date is determined.
Page 55 of 83 7.0 Risk Analysis Sec?on 6.0 iden?ﬁed the impacts of the development likely to pose risks to water quality, ﬁsheries resources, livelihoods, benthic ecology, and coastal morphology.

Table 7 aims to measure the extent of these impacts and the magnitude of risk absorbed by these key environmental and socio-economic components.
Using qualita?ve ra?ngs from low to high, the impacts on the project site were assessed based on combining parameters such as: ● Nature and Spa?al Extent of Poten?al Impact ● Dura?on and Direc?on of Impact ● Permanence Table 7: Summary of Assessment of Risks, Beneﬁts and PotenLal Impacts IMPACTS MAGNITUDE NATURE OF POTENTIAL IMPACT SPATIAL EXTENT DURATION DIRECTION OF IMPACT PERMANENCE DREDGING PHASE Water Quality Medium- High Fisheries Resources Low Livelihoods Low Benthic Ecology High Coastal Morphology Low Increased sediment suspension in water column No signiﬁcant impact on ﬁsheries Some disturbance of boat traﬃc at during dredging Destruc<on of benthic seagrass in dredged area Larger sand par<cle size will increase beach stability Crabbs Channel Crabbs Channel Crabbs Channel Dredge Site Short term Nega<ve Reversible Short term Nega<ve Reversible Short term Nega<ve Reversible Long term Nega<ve Permanent Beach Long term Posi<ve Permanent Page 56 of 83 8.0 Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP) The Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan outlines the responsibili?es of those responsible for its implementa?on.
It is a framework for environmental monitoring on the project site.

8.1 EMMP Objec?ves o o Ensure that preventaLve measures are in place before and during dredge and ﬁll works Ensure any environmental issues are addressed if they arise and the chain of command is adhered to ensure materials are recycled or properly disposed Monitoring of the marine environment will be conducted visually combined with water quality tesLng.
The monitoring framework reﬂected below in Table 8, outlines suitable monitoring acLvity that will be implemented based on the idenLﬁed impacts to the Marine Environment, Water Quality, and Benthic Ecology in SecLon 6.0.

Monitoring components are designed to quickly idenLfy potenLal environmental issues to provide prompt recommendaLons for remedial acLons that reduce further negaLve impacts.

Table 8.
Table 8.

Proposed Environmental Monitoring Framework Impacts Objec/ve Priority EIA Recommenda/ons Monitoring Ac/vity Monitoring Frequency Indicators of Change Poten/al Impacts Marine Environ.

Minimize impact on marine ecosystems - seagrass beds and coral reefs Remaining ecosystems should be preserved Limit dredging area as much as possible.
Seagrass and coral reef surveys Biennial Loss of naLve plants and species habitats Loss of natural vegetaLo n cover High turbidity Advanceme nt of invasive seagrass and reducLon of the naLve species.

Change in species abundance, diversity, quality Maintain water quality levels Water Quality SedimentaLon from dredging acLvity should be limited in scale and Lme.
immediately a^er dredging Diminished water quality Increased turbidity and bacterial nutrient load Take turbidity and nutrient measurements From a human safety perspecLve, bacterial checks (Enterococci) should also be executed Page 57 of 83 Benthic Ecology Ensure eﬀecLveness of threatened species monitoring measures Bi-monthly Environmen t Team MeeLngs Changes in distribuLon and populaLon of threatened species Decrease in distribuL on or populaLo n size of threaten ed species Collaborate with Project Management Team in monitoring the Threatened Species Monitoring Programme.
ETC’s wildlife experts review implementaLon of the Threatened Species Monitoring Programme.
(avifauna and marine turtles) Coastal Morphology Maintain required water depth around the guest services jeJy Redistribute sand northwards up the beach Monitor depth of sand along the jeJy Annually Changes in sand depth Decrease in water depth Page 58 of 83 9.0 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION This study examines the possible impacts the planned dredging works in the nearshore area of Jumby Bay Beach as well as spreading the accumulated sand near the guest dock will have upon the coastal and marine environments.
There are a number of components within this project that could potenLally aﬀect its eﬀecLveness: IV.

The removal of naLve seagrass could result in the loss of feeding grounds and habitat for ﬁsh, turtles, and other marine organisms.

MiLgaLon measures will involve: IV.I.

Reducing the dredging footprint of 800^ by 40^ as much as possible and not exceed that area.

This requires on site monitoring during the dredging exercise.
as well as the placement of limit markers to prevent accidental dri^ing from the desired dredge area.

IV.II.

Fauna observed within the area earmarked for the improvement work should be removed by a team of Divers and be relocated outside of the aﬀected zone prior to dredging.

IV.III.

A long-term seagrass and coral reef monitoring program should be developed and implemented by Jumby Bay Resort.

Coral reef restoraLon programs should be considered.

IV.IV.
IV.IV.

No anchoring should be allowed on the seagrass beds to reduce further physical degradaLon to the ecosystem.

IV.V.

Boats should be maintained on mooring systems only.

II.

The site 1000 ^ oﬀshore, which was idenLﬁed for sourcing the sand to replace the silty material did not contain the required parLcle size that would.

Hence, its ability to remain within the swim area could not be guaranteed.
Other sites within the vicinity were also examined and were found to not contain suitable material either.

Hence, it was decided that the sand for replacing the silt will be sourced from Barbuda.

III.

The redistribuLon of the accreted sand from alongside the guest arrivals jeJy is advisable in order to maintain the necessary water depth and to accommodate the docking of vessels.

Page 59 of 83 10.0 Bibliography Baldwin, J.

(2000).
(2000).

Tourism Development, Wetland Degrada?on and Beach Erosion in An?gua, West Indies.

Unpublished Brodersen KE, Lichtenberg M, Paz L, Kühl M. (2015) Epiphyte-cover on seagrass (Zostera marina L .)

leaves impedes plant performance and radial O 2 loss from the below-ground ?ssue.

1-11. hJps:// doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00058 Camacho R. (2019).

NDNP Biological Assessment Report - Seagrass.

Unpublished Camacho R, Steele S, Challenger S, Archibald M. (2020).
Status of coral reefs in An?gua & Barbuda: using data to inform management.

PeerJ.(6):1-20.

hJps://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9236 Camacho R, Hay B.

(2020).

Mangrove Wetland Surveys of the Nelson Dockyard Na?onal Park.

Available at: hJps://www.naLonalparksanLgua.com/eco-wetlands/ Camacho, R. (2021).

Jumby Bay Silt Removal: Benthic Marine Assessment Report.

Unpublished Canari, (2017).

Snapshot of the North-East Marine Management Area.


Available at: hJps://canari.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/08/proﬁle-north-east-marine-management-area-anu.pdf CEAS Limited (Ltd) (2021).

Jumby Bay Island Resort Coastal Assessment of Proposed Beach Enhancement by Blue Ocean.

Unpublished Cooper, Brian; Bowen, Vincent (2001).

Integra?ng Management of Wetlands and Coastal Areas in Small Island Developing States of the Caribbean.

Na?onal Report for An?gua and Barbuda.


Ministry of Tourism and Environment, Environment Division.

de Boer WF.

(2007) Seagrass–sediment interac?ons, posi?ve feedbacks and cri?cal thresholds for occurrence: a review.

Hydrobiologia.;591:5-24.

hJps://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0780-9 Department of Analy?cal Services, DOAS.

(2021).

ECL.

(2007).

North East Marine Management Area (NEMMA), An?gua Site Report.

Available at: Encircle, (2021).

S?ngray City at Mercer’s Creek Bay, Seatons Village Antgua.
Available at: hJps:// www.encirclephotos.com/image/sLngray-city-at-mercer-creek-bay-in-seatons-village-anLgua/ Environmental Awareness Group, EAG.

(1997).

The Oﬀshore Islands of An?gua.

Unpublished Espeut, P. (2006).

Opportuni?es for Sustainable Livelihoods on One Protected Area in each of the Six Independent OECS Territories, for the OECS Protected Areas and Sustainable Livelihoods (OPAAL) Project.

Unpublished Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva?on Commission, FWC (2021) Importance of Sea Grass.
Available at: hJps://myfwc.com/research/habitat/seagrasses/informaLon/importance/ Fourqurean JW, Muth MF, Boyer JN, Keys F. (2010) Epiphyte loads on seagrasses and microphytobenthos abundance are not reliable indicators of nutrient availability in oligotrophic coastal ecosystems.

Mar Pollut Bull.

;60(7):971-983.

Available at: hJps://doi.org/:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.003 Page 60 of 83 Fourqurean JW, Duarte CM, Kennedy H, et al.

(2012) Seagrass ecosystems as a globally signiﬁcant carbon stock.
Nat Geosci.;5:505-509.

hJps://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1477 Gilbert HJ.

Receiver func?ons in the western United States, with implica?ons for upper mantle structure and dynamics.

J Geophys Res.

2003;108(B5).

hJps://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB001194 Grossman AR, Schaefer MR, Chiang GG, Collier JL.

The Responses of Cyanobacteria to Environmental Condi?ons: Light and Nutrients.

In: Bryant DA, ed.

The Molecular Biology of Cyanobacteria.

Springer, Dordrecht; 1994:641-675.


Available at: hJps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0227-8_21 Heck Jr KL, Nadeau DA, Thomas R.(1997).

The Nursery Role of Seagrass Beds.

Gulf Mex Sci.

1997;15(1):1. hJps://doi.org10.18785/goms.1501.08 Heck Jr KL, Hays G, Orth RJ.

(2003).

Cri?cal evalua?on of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass meadows.

Mar Ecol Prog Ser.253:123-136.

Available at: hJps://www.disl.edu/assets/uploads/ publicaLons/2003_heck_etal_meps_v253.pdf.

I.

(2008).
I.

(2008).

North East Marine Management Area (NEMMA).

Available at: hJps:// Jackson p a r k s c a r i b b e a n .

n e t / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 3 / 1 1 / N o r t h - E a s t % 2 0 M a r i n e % 2 0 M a n a g e m e n t % 2 0 A r e a % 2 0 ( A n L g u a ) %20Management%20Plan%202007-2010.pdf Jackson JBC, Donovan MK, Cramer KL, Lam W. (2014).

Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012.

Unpublished Kohler KE, Gill SM.

Coral Point Count with Excel extensions (CPCe) (2006).
: A Visual Basic program for the determina?on of coral and substrate coverage using random point count methodology.

Comput Geosci.

;32(9):1259-1269.

Kramer P, Roth L, Constan?ne S, et al.

(2016).

An?gua & Barbuda’s Coral Reef Report.

Unpublished Ministry of Health, Wellness, and the Environment, MHWE (2020).
Health & Climate Change Country Proﬁle 2020: Small Island Developing States Ini?a?ve Available at: hQps://cdn.who.int/media/docs/ d efa u l t- s o u rc e /c l i m ate - c h a n ge / w h o - u nfc c c - c c h - co u nt r y- p ro ﬁ l e - a n?

g u a - b a r b u d a .

p d f ?

Sfvrsn=b73692e7_2&download=true Nagelkerken I, van der Velde G, Gorissen MW, Meijer GJ, Van’t Hof T, den Hartog C.(2000).
Importance of Mangroves, Seagrass Beds and the Shallow Coral Reef as a Nursery for Important Coral Reef Fishes, Using a Visual Census Technique.

Estuar Coast Shelf Sci.51(1):31-44. hJps://doi.org/10.1006/ ecss.2000.0617 Palmer SE (UWI/MONA).

AGRRA REEF ASSESSMENT & TEAM SUPPORT , NEMMA , ANTIGUA.

Unpublished Philmore, J.

(2003).

Analysis of Beach Changes in Antigua and Barbuda 1996-2001.

Volume 1 – Assessment Report.

Unpublished Visitan?guabarbuda, (2021).


S?ngray City Opera?ons located in the NEMMA.

Available at: hJps:// visitanLguabarbuda.com/desLnaLons/sLngray-city/ Page 61 of 83 Winters G, Beer S, WilleQe DA, et al.

(2020).

The tropical seagrass halophila s?pulacea: Reviewing what we know from its na?ve and invasive habitats, alongside iden?fying knowledge gaps.

Front Mar Sci;7(May):1-28. hJps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00300 WilleQe DA, Ambrose RF(2012).
Eﬀects of the invasive seagrass Halophila s?pulacea on the na?ve seagrass, Syringodium ﬁliforme, and associated ﬁsh and epibiota communi?es in the Eastern Caribbean.

Aquat Bot.103:74-82. hJps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2012.06.007 Page 62 of 83 APPENDICES Appendix 1: EIA Outline ExecuCve Summary This sec?on allows for a clear understanding of the project proposal and summarize the signiﬁcant results of the EIA study, e.g.
posi?ve and nega?ve environmental, social and economic impacts, op?ons considered, reasons for selec?on of the proposed op?ons for design and density, and the measures to be implemented to prevent or mi?gate nega?ve impacts or capitalize on posi?ve impacts.

1.0 IntroducCon This chapter should will cover the following: ● Proﬁle of the project proponent, name and contact address, implemen?ng organiza?on, organiza?onal chart, project consultants etc., should be men?oned clearly.
● Purpose of the project, brief descrip?on of the project- name, nature, size, loca?on of the project, its importance to the country.

● Descrip?on of na?onal and local regula?ons and standards applicable to area development projects should be discussed.

2.0 Project DescripCon This chapter covers the broader details of the basic ac?vi?es, loca?on, zoning plan and speciﬁc site plan for the hotel as well as implementa?on schedule of the project.
2.2 Project Beneﬁts This sec?on details the improvements in physical infrastructure and social infrastructure if any.

Also, it details any employment poten?al and other beneﬁts that are accrued if the project is taken up.

2.3 Analysis of alternaCves (Technology & Sites) The EIA may ﬁnd that there is a need to develop alterna?ves to the original intent of the developer.
A clear descrip?on of each alterna?ve, summary of the impact – adverse and posi?ve – within the site as well as the cumula?ve impact when considering other inputs into the environment.

Selec&on of alterna&ves are detailed out.

3.0 Methodology The EIA outlines the process used to collect informa?on and data.

4.0 Environmental Baseline Collect environmental data to establish a reference point as to the quality of environmental features prior to the execu?on of the project.
Speciﬁc areas to be reported on: 4.4 Biological Environment An inventory, inclusive of lists and maps of ecosystems and species within the general zone of the project site, is to be prepared along with a descrip?on of the vegeta?on.

If there are any rare and endangered species in the study area they are to be clearly men?oned.
Details for fauna and ﬂora to be included are: ● General type and dominant species ● Densi?es and distribu?ons ● Habitat value Page 63 of 83 ● Historically /commercially important species ● Rare and Endangered species (loca?on, distribu?on, condi?ons etc.)

● Specimen of scien?ﬁc or aesthe?c interest ● Presence of invasive ﬂora and fauna documented.
4.5 Socio Economic & Health Environment Baseline data should include the demography, nearest seQlements, and, exis?ng infrastructure facili?es in the proposed area.

Present employment and livelihood of these popula?ons and awareness of the popula?on about the proposed ac?vity should also be included.
5.0 AnCcipated Environmental Impacts and MiCgaCon Measures: 5.1 PredicCon of Impacts: This describes the likely impact of the project on each of the environmental parameters, methods adopted for assessing the impact such as model studies, empirical methods, reference to exis?ng similar situa?ons, details of mi?ga?on, methods proposed to reduce adverse eﬀects of the project, best environmental prac?ces, conserva?on of natural resources; environmental management plan; as well as post project environmental monitoring programme including budge?ng for the expenditure proposed in the project Given the nature of the proposed development and the sensi?ve environment in which it is to be located, the investment is exposed to projected impacts of climate change.
To ensure that the development is climate-resilient, poten?al impacts are to be assessed and mi?ga?on measures proposed in the planning and assessment stage (See table 3 below as a guide).
Table 3: Summary of risks associated to climate change impacts and mi?ga?on measures i r e B DescripCon f Risk Signiﬁcance H i g h / M e d i u m / Low M i C g a C o n Measures Impact Extreme rainfall event Extreme drought E x t r e m e a t m o s p h e r i c temperatures Hurricanes Sea Level Rise Other Discuss emergency plans for any environmental risks such as earthquakes, hurricanes, surges, ﬂooding, etc.
7.0 Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP) A drae environmental monitoring and management plan is included which will detail the monitoring requirements for during- and post dredge and ﬁll works.

This will include recommenda?ons to ensure the documented Page 64 of 83 implementa?on of mi?ga?on measures and long-term minimiza?on of nega?ve impacts and maximiza?on of posi?ve impacts.

8.0 Summary & Conclusion This sec?on summarizes the signiﬁcant ﬁndings of the EIA report.
The summary must describe each signiﬁcant environmental issue and its resolu?on in suﬃcient detail so that its importance and scope, as well as the appropriateness of the approach taken to resolve it are well understood.

ANNEX 1 Disclosure of consultants engaged This chapter shall include the names of the consultants engaged with their brief resume and nature of consultancy rendered.
ANNEX 2 DeclaraCon of Completeness and authenCcity This sec?on is to be in the form of a leQer from the EIA consultant containing an indica?on of the completeness of the work and the authen?city of the informa?on reported.
ANNEX 3 Enclosures Conceptual plan / Ques?onnaire / Photos/ Maps/ Full Technical studies Page 65 of 83 ANNEX 1 Disclosure of consultants engaged Page 66 of 83 Page 67 of 83 RESUMÉ: LUCIA MINGS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 5/2007 – present Environment Tourism Consul\ng Ltd.: Founder & Managing Director ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE RELATED • • • • • • • • • Led team of professionals to carry out a Scoping and Baseline Assessment of Valley Church Beach for a proposed hotel development.
Led team of professionals to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment for a proposed Courtyard by Marriot Hotel at the VC Bird InternaLonal Airport, AnLgua Led team of professionals to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment for Falmouth Harbour Restaurant and JeJy.

Led team of professionals to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement for Barbuda Belle Hotel Development, Cedar Tree Point Barbuda.

Environmental compliance monitoring for a proposed Autograph/MarrioJ Resort in Yeptons, AnLgua.
Carried out an environmental audit of the Gilberts Agricultural and Rural Development Center (GARD) Environmental compliance monitoring for a proposed Callaloo Cay Resort development on Morris Bay, AnLgua and engaging the adjacent community of Old Road along with relevant government agencies to address exisLng storm water runoﬀ, erosion and beach access issues.
Assisted Ivor Jackson and Associates with implemenLng Environmental Impact Assessments by assessing project impacts on wildlife and habitats; assessing socio-economic and cultural impacts and advising on best pracLces for solid waste, wastewater, energy supply, land use and stakeholder involvement.
Stakeholder outreach in St. KiJs and Nevis to ﬁnd soluLons to biodiversity loss and diminished ecosystem funcLons within its terrestrial naLonal parks under a UNDP-managed project to carry out an ecological survey of its protected areas.

• Monitored EIA compliance of major hotel and other developments on AnLgua on behalf of the • Environment Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment.
Assisted the GEF SGP with carrying out Vulnerability Risk Assessments in several communiLes in AnLgua & Barbuda and wrote corresponding Disaster Risk ReducLon grant proposals to Australian AID and UNDP.

OTHER • NaLonal Project Coordinator of FAO’s CC4Fish climate adaptaLon in the ﬁsheries sector project • • in AnLgua and Barbuda.
Led consultancy team to prepare an “Updated Ecosystem Assessment and Land Use Zoning Plan for the Body Ponds Watershed” under the UNDP full size project - Sustainable Island Resource Management Mechanism (SIRMM) where GIS maps, biodiversity and natural resources inventory, social impact assessment, cost-beneﬁt analysis, land use management plan and an environmental impact assessment were developed.
From 2013 – 2014 facilitated negoLaLons between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Government for establishing a NaLonal Protected Areas Trust Fund under the World Bank implemented project - Sustainable Financing and Management of the Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystem Project in AnLgua and Barbuda.
Page 68 of 83 • • • • • • Developed CommuniLes AdapLng to Climate Change Training Programme and worked with four AnLguan communiLes to develop projects aimed at building their resilience to the eﬀects of climate change.

Project Manager for the Environmental Awareness Group’s “ProtecLon of Watershed FuncLons and Sustainable Use of Plant Biodiversity in AnLgua and Barbuda” project.

Led consultancy to zone and GIS map the newly formed Codrington Lagoon NaLonal Park in Barbuda.
As a senior consultant for the Island Resources FoundaLon (IRF) conducted socio-economic research and prepared environmental, socio-economic and livelihoods assessments for Grenada and St. KiQs for the OECS' Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods Project.

Developed crea?ve mechanisms to enhance livelihoods through crea?on of new forest reserves.
As a senior consultant for IRF facilitated surrounding communiLes' inputs in developing natural resource maps for the “Assessing and Mapping the Southwest Region of AnLgua” under the SIRMM’s Ridge to Reef DemonstraLon Project.
Assisted AnLgua and Barbuda GEF SGP with carrying out Vulnerability Risk Assessments in several communiLes; wrote corresponding Disaster Risk ReducLon grant proposals to Australian AID and UNDP and facilitated GEF OP6 NaLonal ConsultaLon where prioriLes, targets, indicators and project ideas were developed.
As NaLonal Researcher for the InternaLonal Union for the ConservaLon of Nature (IUCN) conducted an assessment of AnLgua and Barbuda's NaLonal Biodiversity Strategy and AcLon Plan development and review processes and prepared a monograph for presentaLon at the ConvenLon on Biological Diversity's COP12.

Advised the Development Control Authority on the establishment of regulaLons for its Physical Planning Act 2003.
Conferred with relevant stakeholders to understand their challenges, discuss possible soluLons and made recommendaLons to the Authority on how these could be remedied within the RegulaLons.

Country-based Researcher in support of UNHABITAT and OECS project to develop a “Country Level Land Policy Issues Paper”.
InformaLon and documents relevant to developing land policy were collected and collated from public and civil society sectors for further use in developing the Land Issues Policy Paper for AnLgua and Barbuda.

As primary trainer for Global Water Partnership trained water management technicians across AnLgua on Water Use Eﬃciency in the tourism and water sectors.

Prepared CommunicaLons Strategy for the SIRMM.


• • • • • 1/2005 – 6/2007 An\gua LOC, ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007: Na>onal Hos>ng Programme Coordinator (Communica>ons) • Developed key prioriLes, strategies and budgets on the event’s execuLon in collaboraLon with the CEO and ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007 (CWC 2007) in areas such as airport renova?ons and visitor experience, licensing, merchandising and volunteer management.
• Worked closely with the Government’s Tourism, AviaLon and InformaLon departments to coordinate the country’s visitor experience, accommoda?ons, marke?ng and public informa?on prepara?ons for CWC 2007 by either chairing or par?cipa?ng on execu?ve commiQees.
• Worked with various stakeholder groups such as vendors, cra^s people and merchants to explain the beneﬁts of the event to them and provided guidance for their involvement Spearheaded and parLcipated in the LOC and Ministry of Tourism’s tour of the United States, Canada and Britain to promote the Country’s hos?ng of ICC CWC 2007.

• • Managed 5 technical and 1 administraLve staﬀ.


1/2004- 12/2004 Environmental Awareness Group: Execu>ve Director • Managed this NGO day to day, including accounLng, public relaLons, contracLng Page 69 of 83 consultants, liaising with governing execu?ve council.

Represented the organiza?on at na?onal and regional consulta?ons to establish and strengthen partnerships.

Facilitated strategic planning and ﬁnancial reviews for the organizaLon.
• • Designed AnLgua and Barbuda’s CREP project for over EC$360,000 (€100,000), for the development and implementaLon of a management plan for the Codrington lagoon, Barbuda; trained community members in stakeholder idenLﬁcaLon and analysis; and coordinated the island’s Stakeholder Management Board.
Implemented a EC$123,500 (€34,000) ecotourism project, funded by the European Union, which facilitated ecotourism training, sustainable livelihoods and protected areas management workshops for tour operators and community groups.

In close collaboraLon with the writer produced a Wildlife Guide for the organizaLon.

Acquired a grant for EC$94,000 (US$35,000) from the Caribbean Natural Resources to improve civil society organizaLons’ parLcipaLon in governance and naLonal decision-making.
Coordinated the organizaLon’s implementaLon of other environmental educaLon, management and conserva?on projects funded by the GEF, Organiza?on of American States, Fauna and Flora Interna?onal, Interna?onal Fund for Animal Welfare among others.

Editor of the organizaLon’s newsleJer, the EAG’er.

• • • • • 10/2002-12/2003 Environmental Awareness Group: Assistant and Ac>ng Execu>ve Directors • ResponsibiliLes as above.
2016 • 2015 • Ins\tute of Environmental Management and Assessment ISO 14001:2015 Lead Environmental Auditor Course Cousera.org: University of Geneva EDUCATION Statement of Accomplishment in Pathways to Climate Change Adapta?on: The Case of Small Island Developing States 2003 – 2015 Cer\ﬁcates in the following areas: • • TradiLonal Knowledge and Customary Sustainable Use under the ConvenLon on Biological Diversity Proposal wriLng for OECS and GEF grants; Caribbean bird conservaLon (developing na?onal policies, public awareness and monitoring); Communica?ons and Crisis Management; Protected Areas planning and Management; Par?cipatory Planning and Collabora?ve Management; Environmental Management; Data Collec?on Protocols and Par?cipatory Research Techniques.
2008 • University of Bath, Bath, England ConLnuing Professional Development CerLﬁcate in Environmental Impact Assessment.

1999-2000 Canterbury Christ Church University, England • MSc in Tourism and Environmental Management.

Course work included GIS, tourism marke?ng, human resource management, tourism management in developing countries and issues in tourism and environmental management.

1996-1999 University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados • • • BA (Hons) in History.
Course work included Caribbean poliLcal economy, business law, economic history of West Africa since 1880, women and gender in the history of the English speaking Caribbean, society and economy in the Bri?sh Caribbean 1830-1870 and West Indian literature 1.
Amateur bird watcher; Past board member of the EAG; ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 70 of 83 Ruleo Camacho Marine Ecologist (MSC: Marine Biology, MSC: Marine Policy) Skill Sets: UAS opera?on: - Extensive experience in the opera?on of Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones) in biodiversity and ecosystem assessments.
The use of drones allows for an aerial overview of ecosystems, which allows for a unique perspec?ve of the pressures facing these ecosystems while reducing the impact footprint of the inves?ga?on and assessment.

Marine Surveys: - - - - - - Trained in the assessment of marine ecosystems to assess health, biodiversity and to determine pressures facing them.

Trained in Atlan?c Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) survey methodologies.
The following ecosystems can be assessed: Coral Reefs, Rocky Reefs, Seagrass Beds, and Mud Flats.

Assessments can be carried out via snorkel/ scuba methods, or from the surface.

Assessment of Mangrove Wetlands to determine status of the wetland ecosystem, including: Iden?ﬁca?on of Mangrove types and distribu?on, general health of the mangrove wetlands, iden?ﬁca?on of point sources of pollu?on and other pressures facing the mangroves, impacts of development on the wetland ecosystem.
Pollu?on Sources: Experience in assessing marine ecosystems to determine the point sources of pollu?on and/or poten?al point sources of pollu?on and trained in the collec?on of water samples to determine water quality.

Experience in assessing beaches for turtle nest and turtle nes?ng poten?al, impact of development on nes?ng beaches, and mi?ga?on measures.

Knowledge of ecosystem habitats in An?gua & Barbuda, and the pressures they face from anthropogenic and natural systems.
Interview of marine resource users and stakeholders, and analysis and write-up of data.

Terrestrial Surveys - - - Experience in assessing species richness of terrestrial fauna, inclusive of endangered rep?les and bird counts.

Experience in calcula?ng density of forest cover.

Experience in following methodologies to establish terrestrial ecosystem habitat assessment.

I have assisted and conducted Wri?ng - Skilled in draeing, edi?ng and reviewing peer-reviewed literature.
I’m experienced in conduc?ng background research on various ecological issues and impacts, while determining mi?ga?on sugges?on for various development and environmental pressures.Experience in review of development applica?ons, using an understanding of the environmental condi?ons and regula?ons in An?gua & Barbuda to determine poten?al outcomes and best-prac?ces.

Scien?ﬁc reports and data and sta?s?cal analysis.

- - Media reports to help to explain science in everyday terms.
Experience in wri?ng science ar?cles for newspapers, teaching science, and explaining scien?ﬁc outputs to the public.

Page 71 of 83 ANNEX 2 Declara/on of Completeness and authen/city Declara/on of Completeness and Authen/city I, Lucia Mings, Managing Director of Environment Tourism ConsulLng limited (ETC ltd.), hereby declare that the report enLtled “ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT JUMBY BAY BEACH: Silt Removal and Replacement" submiJed to the Development Control Authority, is true and complete.
Ms.lucia Mings Managing Director ETC ltd.

Page 72 of 83 Appendix 2 Page 73 of 83 Page 74 of 83 Page 75 of 83 Page 76 of 83 Page 77 of 83 Page 78 of 83 Appendix 3 Page 79 of 83 Page 80 of 83 Page 81 of 83 Appendix 4: Blue Ocean Marine Ltd Proposal for the Removal of Silt to be Replaced with suitable sand, May 7, 2021 Page 82 of 83 Page 83 of 83