tmp606F TMP

Status of Anguillas Marine Resources
2010
Based on data collected as part of the Anguilla Marine Monitoring Programme

2007 2009
Produced by the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources for the Government of Anguilla. The conclusions and
recommendations of this report are solely the opinions of the author and other contributors and do not constitute a
statement of policy, decision, or position on behalf of the Government of Anguilla. Citation: Wynne S. (2010). Status of
Anguillas Marine Resources 2010. 2009 AMMP Report. Copies can be obtained by contacting fisheriesmr@gov.ai. Cover
photograph by S.Wynne, taken at Black Garden Reef, Anguilla, September 2009.
Status of Anguillas Marine Resources 2010
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Benthic Surveys
Part 3: Fish Surveys
14
Part 4: Temporal Changes 1990 2009
22
Part 5: Coral Recruitment Study
28
Part 6: Water Quality Monitoring
30
Part 7: Marine Turtle Surveys
32
Part 8: Other Key Species
36
Part 9: Conclusions and Recommendations
38
Appendix 1: Marine related work conducted in Anguilla prior to 2006
43
References
45
Executive Summary
The Anguillian Marine Monitoring Programme (AMMP) began in 2007 with a pilot study that
served to test methodologies and train staff in survey protocol. Following this, monitoring began
at fifteen sites during 2008 & 2009. The main focus of this monitoring was to assess benthic
habitats and their associated fish populations, although other aspects of the marine ecosystem
were also assessed, including (but not limited to) coral recruitment and water quality. This report
uses these data to draw conclusions on the current status of Anguillas marine resources.
Overall, shallow water benthic habitats (areas less than 15m in depth) are in a poor state of
health with low hard coral cover, abundant macroalgae and high levels of sediment covered bare
rock with turf algae. Although coral cover has reduced markedly over the last twenty years,
macroalgae and bare rock have remained high suggesting that changes from the historical coral
reef norm, i.e. high hard coral cover and low macroalgae cover, began prior to the 1990s. It is
thought that coral cover has been reduced mainly through the proliferation of coral diseases and
sporadic bleaching events over the last thirty years. Corals have not recovered significantly from
these events because juvenile recruitment is low. This is especially the case on the south coast
where eroding reefs have very low hard coral cover and virtually no juvenile recruitment. The
variation in coral recruitment around Anguilla is currently unexplained, but it is likely that
suspended sediment, organic nutrient input, and other pollution sources play a big role. Northern
coastal regions are generally in a better state of health than southern coastal regions, but areas
of even moderate health are sparse and generally patchy. Some northern coastal regions appear
to be suffering the same fate as the southern coast, but due to reduced wave action erosional
processes are slower so reefs are in a better physical state. High macroalgae levels are thought
to be predominantly due to increased organic nutrient input, reduced (but recovering) numbers of
Diadema antillarum, and overfishing of herbivorous species of fish, for example parrotfish. If this
situation does not reverse over coming decades it is probable that Anguillas shallow reef areas
will erode away, reducing their potential to support healthy fish populations. This will in turn
negatively affect many local livelihoods. As the reef erodes the dynamics of the beaches that lay
beyond them will change, which may ultimately lead to their loss or overall general detriment.
Thus, the resource that makes Anguilla attractive to tourists is under threat, and as such,
especially in light of recent economic pressures, measures need to be taken urgently in an
attempt to mitigate against this.
Fish populations in shallow reef areas (<15m) appear to be markedly reduced from those present
historically. Large fish are rare with populations usually dominated by small species or juveniles.
The mean size of commercially or ecologically important fish species in these areas is 10 to
15cm, with overall abundances low. Certain species are of particular concern because shallow
reef areas presently house very low numbers, for example species of grouper, snappers and
jacks. Fishers still catch high numbers of these species in areas other than those studied as part
of AMMP, but the ability of these areas to sustain such catches is brought into question by the
results presented here. There is further concern relating to sustainability because immature
individuals of certain commercially attractive species, for example the Coney (Cephalopholis
fulvus known locally as the Butterfish) and Hind (Epinephelus sp.), are often seen being sold at
local outlets.
In terms of other fisheries (for example lobsters and conch) all appear to be under continued
threat and a number of recommendations have been made at the end of this report (section 9) to
address this issue. A summary of these recommendations is presented on the following page.
The input of particulates, organic nutrients and other pollutants into the marine
environment needs to be avoided at all cost. Although some nutrient load comes from
regional sources, local point sources need to be addressed urgently. Salt ponds should
not be connected to the ocean as they collect and store organic nutrients. Dunes should
not be removed as they trap particulates, restrict sand movement, and act as a sand
bank to replenish beaches after storm events. Coastal flora should be protected as it
absorbs nutrients carried in rain water runoff and reduces beach erosion. Regulation of
septic tank construction is needed that should restrict their proximity to the coastline, and
encourage their proper maintenance. The policy guiding development setbacks in
Anguilla should be made law or legislated and strictly enforced to achieve this. Beach
lighting needs regulating to reduce its impact on nesting turtles, who will also benefit
greatly from the protection of natural beach structure. All other potential sources of
pollution, including the Corito Bay landfill site, should be fully assessed. A national water
treatment facility, including provisions to cater for waste from marine vessels, should be
considered. Stricter controls, including greater surveillance and spot checks on holding
tanks, need to be introduced to address the dumping of waste water at sea.
Fisheries legislation needs to be urgently updated to help sustain established fisheries

on into the future. This should include (but not be limited to): Changes in regulations
relating to spearfishing, including the introduction of catch limits; minimum sizes for
certain fish species are needed which will allow juveniles to reach maturity; areas closed
to certain fishing types should be considered to allow the greatest possible chance for
recovery and the repopulation of surrounding regions; the turtle moratorium should
under no circumstance be prematurely lifted and consideration should be given to
extending it beyond 2020 (pending full assessment closer to this date); full assessments
should be made of the lobster and conch fisheries as current legislation appears
insufficient. Conch maturity assessment needs updating to encompass lip thickness
rather than shell length and consideration needs to be given to closed areas or closed
seasons for the lobster fishery; the crayfish fishery needs similar measures introduced to
the lobster fishery combined with a minimum landing size to bring management up to
date with current research; the fish trap tagging system already legislated for needs to
be enforced and fisheries officers should have the power to issue fines and confiscate
equipment.
Note
It is understood that not all of these recommendations are viable at the present time, but it is
emphasised that changes need to be made as soon as feasibly possible. This is especially the
case for updating fisheries legislation. DFMR also needs continued capacity to conduct
surveillance and, when the economy allows, increases in its budget that will facilitate a greater
presence on the water to carry this out. Such increases should include provisions for a new
vessel that would be dedicated to surveillance and enforcement, crewed by specially trained staff
members, and equipped with an enclosed dry wheelhouse to allow these officers to professionally
carry out their duties. The existing vessel(s) would then be able to focus on research and other
Departmental duties.
Part 1: Introduction
Anguilla (1812.80N and 6303.00W), is a low lying coralline island surrounded by a mixture of
patch, barrier and fringing reefs interspersed with seagrass beds, sand channels and algal flats.
The islands economy is largely driven by tourism and offshore financial services, with fishing only
accounting for approximately 2% of its GDP. The majority of fishing that takes place in Anguilla
targets reef fish with traditional Antillean arrowhead traps, although some fishers do use hook and
line techniques to target particular species (mainly snappers and groupers). Seine nets are used
on occasion to land schools of jacks, and spearfishing is currently permitted anywhere in
Anguillian waters but only by local residents. There is also a small conch fishery, with most
fishers nowadays having to use SCUBA equipment because of the paucity of suitable shallow
habitat where conch populations persist. Spiny lobsters, primarily Panulirus argus but also the
species known locally as a Crayfish (Panulirus guttatus), are caught using traps, but a small yet
increasingly popular hand-capture fishery also exists where fishers snorkel at night to capture
foraging individuals (primarily P.guttatus). The most recent detailed synopsis of Anguillas fishing
industry was produced by Biodiversity Conservation Inc. (Lum Kong, 2007).
Despite contributing only c.2% to the islands GDP, it is believed that fishing, combined with other
anthropogenic factors, is having a profound effect on the local marine environment. This effect is
not however restricted to Anguilla, but is Caribbean wide, with a reported 70% decline in coral
cover over the last thirty years (Gardner et al., 2003). It is believed that this decline has happened
for two reasons: Regional factors, for example unusually high sea surface temperatures causing
severe bleaching events; and local factors, for example overfishing. There are potential
synergistic interactions between detrimental factors (known as stressors) that may lead to more
elevated levels of habitat degradation than one might expect if the stressors were acting
independently. Thus, a seemingly minimal action may have a more profound effect on ecosystem
health than might be predicted. Even though some of these stressors cant be directly managed
locally (i.e. Sea surface temperature), it is probable that stressors that can be effectively
management on a local level (i.e. Fishing) may mitigate against the regional ones, especially if
synergism is occurring. To accomplish effective management it is first essential to assess the
current situation and compare it to historical data, before deciding upon a long-term strategy. It is
also prudent to conduct thorough literature reviews to learn lessons and gain insights from other
sources.
Unfortunately, historical data in Anguilla is limited. Prior to the 1990s only a small amount of work
was conducted that related to the marine environment. The vast majority of these studies were
assessments of Anguillas fishing industry with recommendations for its future prosperity. In 1991,
the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources (DFMR) was established, and the following
year five marine parks were created. During this decade only a handful of studies were
conducted. In terms of this status report the most notable of these was conducted by the Bellairs
Research Institute, Barbados (Oxenford and Hunte, 1990). This study attempted to establish
long-term monitoring sites around the island that could be regularly assessed by the newly
formed DFMR. Although this sadly didnt happen, the project did yield a snapshot dataset that
was able to be used to make a twenty year temporal comparison in part 4 of this report. Another
important project conducted during this decade was the long-line fishing project, where
considerable funds were put into assessing the viability of a long-line fishery in Anguilla. Although
this project concluded that such a fishery was viable and encouraged fishers to move away from
trap-fishing no known long-line fishery exists today. Exact reasons for this are not know but likely
include the substantial investment needed to switch from a relatively artisanal trap-fishing
livelihood to a more commercial pelagic long-line industry, and the absence of a proper fish
processing facility on Island.
Following the 1990 study by Oxenford and Hunte, there is very little evidence for the collection of
any marine ecological data. A study was completed in 2004 by the Marine Conservation Society
that looked into the status of turtle populations, but the majority of the work was based on
qualitative information and so no firm figures are available for comparison. Also, a coastal survey
was conducted in 2004 that collected data to be fed into a GIS database (designed to supersede
the Natural Resource Institute atlas produced in 1994), but no data are available as again the
surveys were more qualitative than quantative. Finally, the Reef Check initiative was introduced
here in 2001 & 2004, but few surveys were ever completed and no reports produced. It appears
to have been treated more as a training exercise for DFMR staff.
The situation changed in 2007 when DFMR began the Anguillian Marine Monitoring Programme
(AMMP). This programme is now in its fourth year, and currently fifteen permanent monitoring
sites have been established around the island which are monitored annually. Full benthic surveys
are conducted, together with fish censuses. Over the last three years other aspects have been
covered through the programme including (but not limited to): Water quality monitoring; coral
recruitment studies; and a specific study revisiting the sites surveyed by the Bellairs Institute in
1990. DFMR have also collected baseline data for Anguillas five Marine Parks (Wynne, 2007a);
conducted translocation studies with the Long-Spined Sea Urchin (Diadema antillarum, Wynne
2008c); made an assessment of the Crayfish (Panulirus guttatus) fishery (Wynne 2009c); and
continue to monitor the status of turtle populations at selected in-water sites and nesting beaches
around the island (Wynne 2009b). A chronological history of the marine related research
conducted in Anguilla prior to 2006 can be found in Appendix 1.
This report is not only an end of year report for the 2009 AMMP season but also seeks to
combine all the in-water work conducted by DFMR over the last three years. The different facets
of this work have been split into seven subsequent sections, with a final section containing
conclusions and recommendations for the management of Anguillas marine resources for the
coming decade. It is essential that if any of these recommendations are to be followed, they must
be backed up by a continued monitoring effort that assesses the success of such management
measures and adapts to any changes that it brings about. Such adaptive management is vital
when managing the marine environment or any other natural habitat. It is hoped that this work,
representing the largest amount of ecological survey effort ever conducted in Anguilla, plays a
vital role in protecting the marine environment for many generations to come.
Fishing boat with trap for repair Island Harbour
Part 2: Benthic Surveys

Methodology and Rationale
Following on from the pilot study conducted in 2007 (Wynne, 2008a) that tested survey protocol
and acted as a training platform for staff, twelve permanent monitoring sites (PMS) were
established in 2008. The results from this initial years work (Wynne, 2008b) have been combined
in this section with those obtained during the 2009 monitoring season. This serves to provide a
robust baseline of these twelve sites, especially important because hurricane Omar hit Anguilla in
October 2008. As this was the first hurricane to make landfall in almost ten years, combining what
should be pristine 2008 results with post-hurricane 2009 results should provide a good mean
snapshot for these sites. It should be noted however that two new reef sites (Sile Bay & Little
Harbour) were added in 2009 along with one new seagrass site (Crocus Bay), thus data from
these sites only represents the situation post-hurricane. It is not expected however that this will
effect long-term analysis of data as these sites did not take a major hit when Omar made landfall.
The only site that suffered direct impact was Anguillita, a fact that will be discussed later in this
section.
Full methodologies can be found in the AMMP protocol document (Wynne 2007b). To
summarise, transects are laid parallel and perpendicular to the reef slope using a permanent
marker as reference. At seagrass sites the coastline is used as directional reference. Along each
transect quadrats are placed at 5m intervals and percentage cover of biota is recorded. At
seagrass sites blade lengths are measured and mean blade number per plant also calculated.
Reef sites further undergo line intercept transects that record underlying substrate and take
detailed measurements of corals, including incidences of disease (following Kramer et al., 2005).
Invertebrate counts are also carried out, and coral bleaching surveys are conducted later in the
year as necessary.
Note: There is some cross-over between the quadrat and line intercept surveys (e.g. both record
hard coral cover), and because of the nature of such sampling methodologies different mean
values will be obtained. It is suggested that if results are to be quoted beyond this report then
such results should be combined thus increasing the robustness of the final value.
The transect line Scrub Island reef site
Results
Table 2.1 Mean % cover of main habitat characteristics at the ten reef sites for the 2008 and
2009 monitoring seasons combined using quadrat sampling method. It should be noted that
sampling at Little Harbour and Sile Bay didnt begin until 2009 and so data for these sites are
mean values for one year only. Macroalgae combines fleshy algae (i.e. Dictyota sp.) and other
algae (i.e. Caulerpa sp.), but does not include calcareous algae (i.e. Halimeda sp.). Fleshy
algae, for all ten sites, was the dominant type. Remaining cover not included in this table
consisted of fire coral (Millepora sp.), White Encrusting Zoanthids (Palythoa caribaeorum), LongSpined Sea Urchins (Diadema antillarum) and other invertebrates. It should also be noted that
there may be some cross over with line intercept surveys (table 2.3) see methodology &
rationale.
Site Name
Sand
Turf/
Sediment
Coralline
Algae
Calcareous
Algae
Macroalgae
Cyanobacteria
Hard
Coral
Soft
Coral
Sponges
Anguillita
4.0
81.7
0.7
3.5
3.9
3.8
2.4
Sandy Island
21.7
53.5
0.5
1.1
5.5
0.7
11.8
1.4
3.3
Long Reef
9.0
64.1
2.5
5.3
3.1
1.7
7.0
2.1
1.1
Limestone Bay
56.8
0.8
0.3
27.3
0.4
5.3
3.5
4.2
Shoal Bay East
0.3
63.1
2.1
3.4
19.1
1.1
6.1
2.4
0.3
Island Harbour
2.9
59.6
1.5
4.1
27.3
1.6
0.7
1.6
0.7
Scrub Island
4.5
62.8
2.9
0.2
18.2
0.7
1.4
1.3
0.7
Forest Bay
2.1
79.4
4.7
2.4
8.2
1.0
1.6
0.5
Little Harbour
82.2
0.8
0.2
10.9
0.2
2.3
1.0
2.0
Sile Bay
14.5
60.5
5.8
1.6
13.2
0.8
0.6
Means
5.9
66.4
2.2
1.9
13.4
1.2
4.1
1.8
1.5
*sites with over 2% sponge coverage might house highest Hawksbill Turtle populations and as such should be prioritised
when seeking new in-water turtle monitoring sites (see section 7). At present only Limestone Bay is regularly assessed.
Table 2.2 Mean habitat characteristics at the five seagrass sites for 2008 & 2009 combined.
Length (mm) is the mean length of seagrass blades and Blade Count is mean number of blades
per plant. Calc % refers to the percentage cover of calcareous algae (Halimeda sp.) and Other
refers to all other types of algae. Cyanobacteria has been grouped with the alga because of its
overall appearance, however it should be appreciated that this is in fact a member of a
completely different kingdom. Hard and soft corals at these sites are in negligible quantities and
so have not been include in the table.
Turtle Grass
Site Name
Sand
%
Manatee Grass
Algae
%
Cover
Length
(mm)
Blade
Count
%
Cover
Length
(mm)
Blade
Count
Calc %
Cyano
%
Other
%
Sponge
%
Merrywing Bay
0.4
37.2
126
2.9
15.5
116
1.3
9.8
7.1
3.8
0.2
Road Bay
20.6
53.0
142
3.1
0.6
122
2.6
6.7
12.0
6.8
0.1
Little Bay
34.9
36.9
132
3.2
n/a
n/a
15.2
5.5
7.3
0.1
Forest Bay
28.3
45.9
134
2.6
21.5
126
1.4
2.1
0.4
1.8
Crocus Bay
16.1
57.5
146
3.5
n/a
n/a
15.5
0.2
10.2
0.3
Means
20.1
46.1
136
3.1
7.5
121
2.2
9.9
5.0
6.0
0.1
* Turtle Grass refers to Thalassia testudinum & Manatee Grass to Syringodium filiforme.
Table 2.3 Mean habitat characteristics at the ten reef sites for the 2008 and 2009 monitoring
seasons combined using line intercept sampling method. It should be noted that sampling at Little
Harbour and Sile Bay didnt begin until 2009 and so data for these sites are mean values for one
year only. It should also be noted that there may be some cross over with quadrat surveys (table
2.1) see methodology & rationale.
Variable
Anguillita
Sandy
Island
Long
Reef
Limestone
Shoal
Bay E
Island
Harb.
Scrub
Island
Forest
Bay
Little
Harb
Sile
Bay
Sand % Cover
1.2
19.5
9.3
0.2
0.1
3.3
4.1
0.2
0.0
11.9
Rubble % Cover
0.2
28.8
5.5
6.2
1.6
0.4
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hard Substrate
% Cover
94.0
34.6
70.0
88.8
83.9
95.0
84.1
95.5
96.1
87.0
Hard Coral %
Cover
4.6
17.2
15.2
4.8
14.4
1.2
6.2
4.4
3.9
1.1
% Coral Tissue
Healthy
97.3
81.1
92.1
98.6
87.7
97.0
96.2
100
94.9
100
% of Colonies
100% Healthy
92.8
45.5
77.6
94.8
75.0
76.4
90.7
100
79.3
100
% Coral Tissue
Diseased
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
% of Colonies
with Disease
1.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
% Coral Tissue
Recently Dead
0.3
2.6
1.0
0.0
1.7
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.0
2.2
16.2
6.9
1.4
10.2
2.1
3.6
0.0
4.2
0.0
7.2
54.5
22.4
5.2
25.0
23.6
9.3
0.0
20.7
0.0
% Coral Tissue
Long Dead
% of Colonies
with Some
Mortality
-1
Table 2.4 Mean numbers of key Invertebrates recorded (ha ) observed at both reef sites (light
grey) and seagrass sites (dark grey) for both 2008 & 2009 monitoring seasons Little Harbour and
Sile Bay were visited late in the year and so were not included in this analysis in an attempt to
avoid biasing results. P. caribaeorum refers to colonies (irrespective of size) not individuals.
Site Name
Anguillita
Sandy Island
Long Reef
Limestone Bay
Shoal Bay East
Island Harbour
Scrub Island
Forest Bay
Merrywing Bay
Road Bay
Little Bay
Forest Bay
Crocus Bay
Diadema
antillarum
0
730
480
2380
350
1150
0
80
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Palythoa
caribaeorum
200
500
1400
1450
2350
130
6480
450
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Panulirus
argus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
Panulirus
guttatus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Strombus
gigas
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
350
30
0
100
Oreaster
reticulates
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
230
250
180
0
200
10
Bleaching surveys were not undertaken in either 2008 or 2009 because little or no bleaching
was observed during rapid assessments (Sept to Oct each year). This is largely due to water
temperatures not exceeding those that reportedly cause bleaching for any considerable lengths of
time (Brown et al., 1996). During 2008 temperatures did begin to exceed 30C but after hurricane
Omar had passed they dropped back down to 27-29C (Wynne 2009a). During 2009
temperatures generally did not exceed 30C at all. Only a scattering of bleached colonies were
observed around Anguilla (<1%) during each year.
Discussion
The results presented in this section do not paint an encouraging picture as to the state of
Anguillas shallow water (<15m) benthic reef environment (table 2.1 & 2.3). On the whole coral
cover is low, with reef areas generally being dominated by macroalgae or rock covered in turf
algae and sediment. Mean results from combining line-intercept and quadrat methodologies show
that only three sites have a hard coral percentage cover higher than 10%, with all the remaining
sites around or under 5% cover. This is of concern because without hard coral growth the reef
structure will slowly degrade and become less and less able to support healthy fish populations or
protect the coastline from storm surges. Of particular concern is the fact that all the sites on the
south coast have exceptionally low coral cover (between 1 and 3%) and these areas historically
had extensive reef systems, as evidenced by the skeletal remains still present. The reason for
their demise is unclear but as they have relatively low levels of macroalgae (between 8 and 13%)
it suggests that it is not the coral-algae phase shift that has been reported throughout the region
(Hughes, 1994). In fact, looking specifically at these sites (Forest Bay, Sile Bay and Little
Harbour), we not only see low coral and relatively low macroalgae percentage covers, but also
low covers of other benthic organisms. Although nothing conclusive can be stated at this stage it
seems likely that the Acropora dominated reefs around Anguilla suffered high mortality from
White Band Disease back in the late seventies/early eighties (Bythell & Buchan, 1996) and have
only made a very limited recovery to date. The reef areas on the north side of Anguilla maintain a
higher percentage cover of hard coral to those on the south, not due to a recovery of the
Acropora reefs, but due to other coral species growing there. These other species do not occur
as frequently on the south coast. Even though this might be in part due to it being exposed to
greater wave action, this cant explain the extent of coral paucity as there are many sheltered
areas that still do not exhibit higher coral covers. On the whole, the sites in the best condition are
those located away from mainland Anguilla.
Montastraea dominated reefs have also suffered huge declines over recent decades and today
are very limited in extent. From looking at surviving colonies it seems clear that this mortality is
due to Yellow Blotch Disease which is still affecting many of those present in areas such as Shoal
Bay East, Island Harbour and Sandy Island. It is believed that coral diseases have been on the
increase over the last three decades due to nutrification (Bruno et al., 2003) and other forms of
pollution.
As the dominating reef types historically in Anguilla were Acropora and Montastraea species,
their demise over recent decades means big changes for the benthic community. Although the
long-term effects of this remains to be seen it is likely that if recovery continues to fail the
remaining reef structure will slowly erode and as a by-product fish species composition will
drastically change (see following section) and the coastline will undergo significant alterations as
erosional processes are gradually modified.
At this stage it is not possible to draw conclusions about the status of the five seagrass sites.
Their results have been presented for reference only (table 2.3). This is largely due to the fact
that the sites were placed in the middle of relatively dense beds and so change will only be
noticed when significant differences in seagrass distribution occurs (in a similar way to temporal
studies being needed to confirm how coral cover is changing). What is known is that relatively
high amounts of sediment are present covering the seagrass blades, as is cyanobacteria (12%
11
coverage in Road Bay possibly due to nutrification). This is not a positive sign for the future.
Backing this up is somewhat anecdotal reports that seagrass beds have been shrinking over
recent decades and are now not as expansive as they used to be. This can be qualified to a
certain extent by referring to the NRI resource atlas produced for Anguilla in 1994 that documents
more extensive seagrass beds than are seen today. This may be due to the reportedly severe
impact hurricane Luis had in 1995. Damage to seagrasses can often observed, as illustrated by
the picture below taken close to Scilly Cay (near Island Harbour not an AMMP seagrass PMS)
that was presumably caused by a twin engine vessel being throttled vigorously in shallow water.
Table 2.4 presents the results of the benthic invertebrate surveys. Only the larger, more
significant species have been detailed as the smaller invertebrates are unrealistic to quantify
given the time and resources available. The results for Diadema antillarum, Strombus gigas and
Panulirus sp. will be referred to in part 8. The other results are presented for reference purpose
only.
Note: Influence of Hurricane Omar Generally data from 2008 did not vary greatly from that
collected in 2009. The site at Anguillita is an exception however as it took a direct hit and was
devastated, being stripped of virtually all soft corals (7% cover down to 1% cover) and other
benthic organisms. Turf algae/sediment cover increase by 20% to 92% cover. Long-term
monitoring of this site will reveal recovery times for soft coral dominated reefs but the sites
exposed nature likely explains its overall mean characteristics. Such differences illustrate why
direct inter-site comparisons must be made with care as the intrinsic nature of each location may
vary greatly.
Line-intercept transect surveys at Little Harbour (left) and seagrass quadrats at Road Bay (right)
Picture illustrating damage caused by boat engines to shallow seagrass bed
12
Examples of coral diseases recorded in Anguilla Clockwise from top left. Black Band
disease on Massive Starlet (Siderastrea siderea); Cyanobacteria infection on Lobed Star
(Montastraea annularis); Boulder Brain Coral (Colpophyllia natans) being smothered by
cyanobacteria, algae and sediment (possibly an infection); Yellow Blotch disease on M.annularis;
White Band disease on Staghorn Coral (Acropora cervicornis); and unidentified infection on
S.siderea (possibly cyanobacteria note only a small area of live tissue is still present).
13
Part 3: Fish Surveys

Following on from the pilot study conducted in 2007 (Wynne, 2008a) that tested survey protocol
and acted as a training platform for staff, twelve permanent monitoring sites (PMS) were
established in 2008. The results from this initial years work (Wynne, 2008b) have been combined
in this section with those obtained during the 2009 monitoring season. This serves to provide a
robust baseline of these twelve sites, especially important because hurricane Omar hit Anguilla in
October 2008. As this was the first hurricane to make landfall in almost ten years combining what
should be pristine 2008 results with post-hurricane 2009 results should provide a good mean
snapshot for these sites. It should be noted however that two new reef sites (Sile Bay & Little
Harbour) were added in 2009 along with one new seagrass site (Crocus Bay), thus data from
these sites only represents the situation post-hurricane. It is not expected however that this will
effect long-term analysis of data as these sites did not take a major hit when Omar made landfall.
The only site that suffered direct impact was Anguillita, a fact that will be discussed later in this
section.
Full methodologies can be found in the AMMP protocol document (Wynne 2007b). To
summarise, transects are laid parallel and perpendicular to the reef slope using a permanent
marker as reference. At seagrass sites the coastline is used as directional reference. Along each
transect fish counts were conducted where species of commercial or ecological importance (CEI)
occurring within a 5m belt are placed into their respective size class category. This allows relative
biomass to be calculated based on fish length. Surveys using the roving diver technique (RDT)
are also conducted where a circular path is followed to encompass the whole site, and total
counts of all fish species present are recorded. As these counts only record those fish within a 5m
belt and a constant swim speed maintained throughout the complete timed survey (30 minutes),
densities of each species can be calculated. Although there is some overlap between these two
survey types each has its value where transect surveys capture valuable size class information
for important species but RDTs capture a complete picture of fish species composition at the site.
RDT surveys are also valuable to capture information that relates to lesser common species that
transect surveys might miss.
Note: Effort is made to conduct surveys at the same time each season to avoid temporal biasing
(April to June weather depending). Due to logistical constraints the two additional sites for 2009
(Sile Bay and Little Harbour) were not visited until much later in the year and so to avoid biasing
results size class transect surveys were not conducted here. Biasing would, for example, be due
to growth of juvenile fish that are abundant at some sites earlier in the year.
It should also be noted that when discussing the CEI families the term silveries has been used to
generically classify jacks, mackerel, tunas, barracuda, and similar families. This classification
avoids the creation of too many family units that may clutter result tables and figures. The
grouping others is used in two different ways. First and foremost if refers to large individuals
from families not usually targeted by fishers but whom may be considered significant by them due
to their size (e.g. boxfishes). Secondly it is used in certain analysis to categorise the grouping
together of families who only comprise negligible numbers, and thus, in the same way as the
category silveries it avoids the cluttering of data. For example, in figure 3.2 the category other
refers to all CEI families other than those listed in the legend (i.e. Goatfishes, angelfishes,
butterflyfishes, squirrelfishes, large wrasses and other large individuals of interest such as
boxfishes).
14
Results
Table 3.1 The seven most common fish species at the ten reef sites for 2008 and 2009 RDT
surveys combined. Numbers equate to the mean number of individuals seen during each 30 min
survey. Site mean total is mean total number of fish counted during each 30 min survey. The
species with a mean abundance higher than 25 were (in order, all sites combined): BHW (93),
BTa (65), OcSu (63), StrP (59), BrCh (31), BlCh (30), StoP (27) and RBP (25)*.
Site
Species
#1
Species
#2
Species
#3
Species
#4
Species
#5
Species
#6
Species
#7
Anguillita
Sandy Island
Long Reef
Limestone Bay
Shoal Bay East
Island Harbour
Scrub Island
Forest Bay
Little Harbour
Sile Bay
BHW 172
BHW 111
StrP 123
OcSu 94
BHW 80
BHW 122
BHW 133
StrP 97
BHW 79
BTa 161
BiD 51
StrP 88
BHW 88
BHW 88
StrP 60
OcSu 67
BTa 128
OcSu 80
StrP 63
OcSu157
BlCh 46
BiD 73
BTa 81
BTa 43
BrCh 42
BTa 55
BlCh 69
BTa 79
OcSu 58
StrP 75
OcSu 35
BrCh 70
BlCh 67
BiD 36
OcSu 36
StrP 54
BrCh 54
StoP 28
BrCh 43
YeG 75
BBS 33
BlCh 67
StoP 44
BlCh 32
RBP 26
RBP 30
SerM 42
Steg 17
RBP 43
BHW 59
RBP 30
BTa 42
BrCh 43
RBP 30
StoP 24
StoP 28
StoP 41
RBP 10
FrG 39
StoP 33
FrG 21
JuvG 40
OcSu 41
PrP 29
JuvG 23
Steg 27
BiD 33
BHW 9
SliD 38
QuP 32
Site
Mean
Total
652
814
800
573
508
535
897
390
604
823
*BHW (Bluehead Wrasse Thalassoma bifasciatum), BiD (Bicolour Damselfish Stegastes partitus), BlCh (Blue Chromis Chromis cyanea),
OcSu (Ocean Surgeonfish Acanthurus bahianus), BBS (Black Bar Soliderfish Myripristis jacobus), RBP (Redband Parrotfish Sparisoma
aurofrenatum), FrG (French Grunt Haemulon flavolineatum), StrP (Striped Parrotfish Scarus iserti), BrCh (Brown Chromis Chromis
multilineata), BTa (Blue Tang Acanthurus coeruleus), JuvG (juvenile grunts Haemulon sp.), StoP (Stoplight Parrotfish Sparisoma viride),
PrP (Princess Parrotfish Scarus taeniopterus), Steg (Stegastes sp. see paragraph below), SerM (Sergeant Major Abudefduf saxatilis),
SliD (Slippery Dick Halichoeres bivittatus), YeG (Yellow Goatfish Mulloidichthys martinicus), QuP (Queen Parrotfish Scarus vetula). Steg
(Dusky Damselfish (S.adustus), Longfin Damselfish (S.diencaeus), Cocoa Damselfish (S.variabilis) and the Beaugregory (S.leucostictus)
see note following.
Note: During analysis four species of damselfishes from the genus Stegastes have been grouped
together because differentiating them can sometimes be problematic. These four species are the
Dusky Damselfish (S.adustus), Longfin Damselfish (S.diencaeus), Cocoa Damselfish
(S.variabilis) and the Beaugregory (S.leucostictus). Based on continued observation of these four
species, especially from the often easy to identify juvenile phases, it is thought that S.leucostictus
is the most common species present in Anguillian waters followed by S.diencaeus, S.adustus,
and finally S.variabilis. Two other species from this genus, namely S.partitus (Bicolor Damselfish)
and S.planifrons (Threespot Damselfish) are more reliable to correctly identify and so have been
treated separately. Of these two species (and in fact of all Stegastes) S.partitus is the most
abundant, although on certain reefs S.planifrons can also be in relatively high numbers,
dominating the damselfish community.
Conducting underwater fish transects
15
Table 3.2 Mean results from 2008 & 2009 fish belt transects that illustrates size class structure
(cm) by percentage (mean numbers per quadrat) for all ecologically and commercially important
fish species combined at eight of the reef sites. Little Harbour and Sile Bay were visited late in the
year and so were not included in this analysis in an attempt to avoid biasing results through
juvenile growth.
Site
<5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50>
Anguillita
5.2
44.4
10.2
33.2
26.2
21.7
45.3
29.3
35.1
18.5
19.0
29.4
18.8
8.3
18.1
4.6
5.7
3.7
3.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.3
0.5
3.4
1.1
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.6
1.1
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
33.6
24.7
4.1
15.6
32.3
37.3
9.8
26.2
25.4
22.8
29.5
51.5
4.6
7.5
37.6
5.4
3.1
3.4
11.4
1.0
0.7
1.6
4.1
0.2
0.0
1.5
2.7
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sandy Island
Long Reef
Limestone Bay
Shoal Bay East
Island Harbour
Scrub Island
Forest Bay
* notes: Anguillita, Long Reef, Limestone Bay were very different between years these differences will be interesting to
explore over subsequent years as the dataset increases temporally
70.0%
Percentage
60.0%
Anguillita
Sandy Island
Long Reef
Limestone Bay
Shoal Bay
Island Harbour
Scrub Island
Forest Bay
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
<5
c
5- m
10
10 cm
-1
15 5cm
-2
0
20 cm
-2
5
25 cm
-3
30 0cm
-3
5
35 cm
-4
40 0cm
-4
5
45 cm
-5
0c
>5 m
0c
m
0.0%
Size Class
Figure 3.1 Mean results from 2008 & 2009 fish belt transects that illustrates relative biomass of
CEI species within each size class across eight reef sites. Little Harbour and Sile Bay were
visited late in the year and so were not included in this analysis in an attempt to avoid biasing
results through juvenile growth.
16
Table 3.3 Mean results from 2008 & 2009 fish belt transects split into families across eight reef
sites, with the first column for each site (N) representing the mean number of individuals recorded
per transect and the second (%) representing their percentage. Little Harbour and Sile Bay were
visited late in the year and so were not included in this analysis in an attempt to avoid biasing
results through juvenile growth.
Fish Family
N
17.5
8.9
4.2
1.5
2
5.4
0
1.1
0
3.6
0.7
0.5
1.6
%
37
19
9
3
4
11
0
2
0
7
1
1
3
Sandy
Island
N
%
19.7 14
66.6 47
31.4 22
1.5
1
1.2 0.8
1.2 0.8
0
0
5.7
4
0.4 0.3
0.5 0.4
13.3
9
0.2
1
0.1 0.1
Long
Reef
N
%
89.8 55
58.2 36
0.4 0.2
0.4 0.2
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.2
1.9
1
3.5
2
0.6 0.4
0
0
0.5 0.3
0.4 0.2
5.2
3
Limestone
Bay
N
%
63.5
72
21.9
25
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0
0
0.4
0.5
0
0
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
Shoal
Bay East
N
%
52.8 56
38.9 41
0
0
0.4 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9
1
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.5
0.1 0.1
30%
Island
Harbour
N
%
50.4 56
32.5 36
0.9
1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.3 0.3
0
0
0.8 0.9
0.2 0.2
0
0
0
0
1.2
1
4.2
5
Scrub
Island
N
%
67.9 48
29.2 21
14.9 11
0.4 0.2
3.1
2
6.1
4
11.7
8
6.3
4
0.4 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.4 0.2
0.7 0.5
0.6 0.4
Forest
Bay
N
%
135 67
63.6 32
0.1 0.1
0
0
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5 0.2
0
0
0
0
0.7
3
Surgeonfishes
Parrotfishes
Grunts
Snappers
Groupers
Silveries
Triggerfishes
Others
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
<5
cm
10
-1
5c
m
20
-2
5c
m
30
-3
5c
m
40
-4
5c
m
>5
0c
m
Percentage of Total Biomass
Surgeonfishes
Parrotfishes
Grunts
Snappers
Groupers
Silveries
Triggerfishes
Goatfishes
Angelfishes
Butterflyfishes
Squirrelfishes
Large Wrasses
Other
Anguillita
Size Class
Figure 3.2 Mean results from 2008 & 2009 fish belt transects that illustrates the percentage of
relative biomass that each size class of each CEI fish family accounts for combined across all
sites. Little Harbour and Sile Bay were visited late in the year and so were not included in this
analysis in an attempt to avoid biasing results through juvenile growth.
17
Table 3.4 Mean results from 2008 & 2009 fish belt transects that details the size class
distribution of biomass by percentage within each CEI family/group surveyed for all sites
combined. Little Harbour and Sile Bay were visited late in the year and so were not included in
this analysis in an attempt to avoid biasing results through juvenile growth.
Fish Family
<5cm
510cm
1015cm
1520cm
2025cm
2530cm
3035cm
3540cm
4045cm
4550cm
>50cm
Surgeonfishes
Parrotfishes
Grunts
Snappers
Groupers
Silveries
Triggerfishes
Goatfishes
Angelfishes
Butterflyfishes
Squirrelfishes
Large Wrasses
Other
3.5%
6.2%
15.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.3%
42.7%
4.0%
3.9%
20.7%
27.3%
0.9%
1.4%
2.8%
6.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
92.2%
7.2%
11.3%
21.6%
53.1%
16.8%
17.4%
22.0%
16.7%
3.9%
6.0%
40.7%
4.7%
4.5%
26.5%
3.3%
6.9%
21.6%
15.8%
38.9%
71.2%
52.7%
13.3%
28.8%
53.2%
17.7%
0.0%
19.1%
14.0%
4.4%
1.1%
13.8%
22.0%
0.0%
10.8%
27.0%
39.8%
2.5%
17.0%
0.0%
4.6%
28.0%
13.7%
0.0%
7.8%
2.3%
5.0%
5.7%
9.3%
11.8%
2.5%
27.8%
0.0%
0.0%
22.0%
13.7%
0.0%
7.5%
1.7%
0.0%
3.3%
23.3%
11.7%
0.0%
32.8%
0.0%
0.0%
17.3%
12.6%
0.0%
4.2%
1.2%
0.0%
7.7%
2.4%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
3%
2%
6%
1%
Figure 3.3
1%
Surgeonfishes
5%
Parrotfishes
Grunts
50%
Snappers
Groupers
Silveries
Triggerfishes
32%
Others
13%
13%
1%
Surgeonfishes
9%
9%
Parrotfishes
Grunts
Snappers
Groupers
11%
20%
Silveries
Triggerfishes
Others
24%
Mean results from 2008 &

2009 fish belt transects that
illustrates the percentage of
total relative biomass that each
CEI family/group accounts for
across all sites. Little Harbour
and Sile Bay were visited late
in the year and so were not
included in this analysis in an
attempt to avoid biasing results
through juvenile growth.
Percentage weight of total

catch landed by fishers split
into each CEI family/group.
Data collected were not done
so as part of AMMP, rather as
part of DFMRs fish catch data
collection. Data do not include
those fishers who primarily
targeted lobsters or conch. In
total 120 fishing trips were
assessed in 2009. These data
will be the subject of
subsequent reports.
18
Table 3.5 Mean results from 2008 & 2009 fish belt transects that illustrates the number of fish
recorded within each size class (cm) for all fish species combined at the five seagrass sites. As
monitoring only began in Crocus Bay during 2009 the results from this site are for that year only.
Site
<5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-50
(combined)
50>
Total
Merrywing Bay
7.7
72.2
1.9
13.9
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
10.0
86.5
47.8
1.7
19.3
17.3
1.2
7.3
0.9
0.3
1.0
10.4
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
76.4
3.2
53.2
Road Bay
Little Bay
Forest Bay
Crocus Bay
Discussion
From the results presented in this section, even with the paucity of historical ecological surveys, it
seems likely that Anguillas reef fish populations have suffered some severe declines over recent
decades. This has occurred at different levels across the study sites, and has affected both fish
abundances and size class structure. It has also affected the various fish families differently
depending on their life histories and the demand for them there is as food.
In terms of the abundance of all species across PMS (table 3.1) the most dominant fish are small
wrasses, surgeonfishes and juvenile parrotfishes. This is to be expected as trophically smaller
species and juveniles should be more abundant than larger species/individuals. However, it is the
almost complete lack of larger individuals from these species at some sites that is of concern. On
the whole, overall fish abundances are highest on the offshore sites (Scrub Island, Long Reef and
Sandy Island), although high abundances were also recorded at Sile Bay. This site has however
only been surveyed once and so subsequent visits will reveal if this result was anomalous or not.
The reasons for offshore sites having higher abundances than nearshore sites are likely complex
and require a detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this status report (i.e. habitat health
and interactions with fishing pressure). In part it would appear that some of this variation is due to
high numbers of these smaller individuals (including schools of small silveries and
surgeonfishes), but often it cannot be explained by such. Anguillita, for example, has the highest
numbers of Bluehead Wrasse (Thalassoma bifasciatum) across all sites although it only ranks
midway in terms of overall fish numbers because other species are far less common in
comparison. In this case it is probable that this is due to the nature of the site, being of relatively
low complexity yet surrounded by small drop-offs that attract species such as Black Bar
Soldierfish (Myripristis jacobus) and French Grunts (Haemulon flavolineatum). It is therefore
important to compare similar sites when making comparisons between them. For example, the
nearshore sites of Limestone Bay, Shoal Bay East and Island Harbour may be compared with the
offshore sites of Sandy Island, Long Reef and Scrub Island. Even though these sites are not
identical they are similar enough to make comparisons (i.e. of relatively high topological
complexity). Thus one would expect that historically these offshore sites would have had a similar
fish species composition (at very least density) to the nearshore sites although today densities
vary greatly. Aside from habitat health it is also probable that the differences are also related to
fishing of CEI species, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
A brief analysis of the size class/relative biomass of CEI species demonstrates a clearer pattern.
This type of analysis is useful as it removes the numerous smaller species (e.g. most wrasses
and damselfishes) and leaves in those mainly targeted or inadvertently caught by fishers. It is
rare for Anguillian fishers to discard any fish caught as at very least they will be used to bait their
fish traps, and as the CEI species are generally those that can grow larger than minimum trap
mesh size, size class and biomass analysis can, at least in part, be used to look for an effect of
19
fishing. Fishing is known to occur at all the study sites, but on the whole occurs more frequently at
those closer to the mainland, especially spearfishing. Habitat variations will also play a part (i.e.
an areas ability to maintain a sizable population of larger fish), but as stated in the previous
paragraph a detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this status report would be required to
assess this.
The results from the CEI transect surveys (see table 3.2 and figure 3.1) at the reef sites illustrates
the present concern that many fish species in Anguilla are overfished. At most sites the vast
majority of CEI species are less than 15cm in length. At some sites, for example Shoal Bay East
and Limestone Bay, at least 90% are smaller than this (to reiterate, this is of special concern
because as stated before, this analysis does not include smaller species). Of all PMS, Scrub
Island, Long Reef, Sandy Island and Anguillita generally have the highest proportions of CEI
species in size classes larger than 15cm, although quantities are still relatively low compared to
what is thought to have occurred historically.
Further to this, table 3.3 (and figure 3.2) illustrates how at all of the sites surgeonfishes and
parrotfishes account for the majority of CEI species, although consulting table 3.4 shows that the
majority of these two families are less than 15cm in length. Parrotfishes are better represented in
the larger size classes than surgeonfishes, a result that one might expect as surgeonfishes do not
grow to the same size as many parrotfish species. However this is probably a good example of
shifting baselines as some surgeonfishes are documented to grow to almost 40cm in length
we are just not accustomed to seeing these sizes today. Equally, if parrotfishes size classes were
broken down into species it would show that the majority present are the smaller growing species
(e.g. Striped Parrotfish Scarus iserti or Redband Parrotfish Sparisoma aurofrenatum), and the
larger growing species that are favoured by fishers are generally not as prevalent (e.g. Queen
Parrotfish Scarus vetula and Stoplight Parrotfish Sparisoma viride), at least not sizeable
individuals. It is apparent that sizeable species can be targeted to almost local extinction as Blue
Parrotfish (Scarus coeruleus), known locally as the Hammernose, used to be caught in large
numbers by spearfishers in years gone by but now are only caught in extremely rare cases, and
similarly the Rainbow Parrotfish (Scarus guacamaia), known to be relatively common historically,
has only been sighted twice during DFMRs last four years in-water work (but not during AMMP
surveys). Again, this is suggested to be due to spearfishing.
In terms of the other CEI families table 3.4 illustrates how size classes generally peak in the 1520cm category (e.g. groupers, snapper and grunts) or the 20-25cm category (e.g. triggerfishes
and large wrasses). Although at first glance this may seem more encouraging, considering the
sizes that the species can obtain, these values are actually very low, and because overall
abundances are minimal (table 3.3) their contribution to overall fish biomass on Anguillas shallow
water (<15m) reef systems is markedly smaller than historically thought (figure 3.2). Sizable
individuals can often be observed around ship wrecks or on deeper reefs, but their relative
inaccessibility to fishers probably offers an explanation. This is also probably the reason for the
offshore PMS having slightly healthier fish assemblages. Having said this, fishers do land large
reef dwelling species, but again this is likely a case of shifting baselines. It is easy to say fish
populations are still healthy because large individuals are often still landed, but what constitutes a
large individual and what frequency of landing is considered often has probably changed
significantly over time. It also needs to be recognised that there are probably still fishing grounds
out at sea that house healthier populations, but these areas shouldnt be used to mask the
dwindling populations closer to mainland Anguilla. In fact, these dwindling areas should be
classed as an early warning system for the more distant ones. If there is any doubt to this
statement, local fish outlets can be used as yard sticks. Visiting these locations reveal the vast
majority of reef fish sold are immature or undersized individuals, and that even without historical
data to compare current findings to, it is high time the precautionary principle be applied to
Anguillas fishing industry.
Figure 3.3 offers a comparison between relative biomass of CEI species recorded at the reef sites
and the relative weight of CEI species landed by fishers in 2009. It should be noted that fishers
20
will often target specific species and use any bycatch as bait, thus these are not included in the
figures. Parrotfish are often used in this way rather than being landed. Furthermore, the areas
visited by fishers include many areas not studied as part of AMMP and so the comparison made
is not one that compares fish landed with natural populations in those specific areas fished. Many
of the AMMP sites are close to the coast and so visited often by spearfishers who target species
of parrotfish (for example) that may not be landed by boat owning fishers. This may explain the
paucity of large parrotfish at many of the AMMP sites that will not be reflected in the data
recorded as part of DFMRs fish catch data collection. What this comparison is useful for however
is to show how AMMP reef sites appear to have been depleted of many CEI families, especially
those favoured today by fishers who now go further afield to catch them. If this continues
unchecked it is likely that these further afield areas will soon become depleted of these species in
a similar fashion. Deeper dwelling species such as Red Snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) may
escape this fate at least in the short term because their habitat of choice is often harder to reach
and areas of such habitat may go unnoticed by those targeting them.
Seagrass sites (table 3.5) are important for many juvenile reef fish families (e.g. snappers, grunts
and surgeonfish). It is interesting to note that some of the sites house relatively high numbers of
these small juvenile fish while others do not. As a general pattern it seems clear that the seagrass
PMS on the north coast of Anguilla have higher abundances than those on the south coast.
Although the reasons for this remain unclear it does draw a parallel with the reef PMS in terms of
both fish populations and the benthic community. As stated earlier it is felt that the differences
seen between the north and south coasts cannot simply be explained by variations in wave
exposure and other physical characteristics.
As a final note, habitat quality needs significant consideration. The previous section suggests that
the benthic reef environment is in poor condition. This is probably due to many factors including
(but not limited to) fishing, eutrophication, pollution and climate change. These factors may
interact with each other in a synergistic fashion (where, for example, the total effect of two or
more factors is greater than the sum of such factors when acting on their own) or induce positive
feedback loops (or a combination of the two). Such effects can have significant roles when
managing fisheries. To illustrate, fishing that removes herbivores and eutrophication that
promotes algae growth, might, when combined, lead to a greater decrease in coral cover (and
ultimately more severe habitat degradation) than the sum of the damage contributed by either
when acting independently. Such interactions need considering when introducing management
measures, as, if based solely on fishing pressure, strategies may not be sufficient to stop habitat
degradation. Thus, as the unaccounted for synergism causes habitat degradation, less fish can
be supported by the reef and so the catch limits set begin to remove a greater and greater
proportion of the population. This synergism combined with a positive feedback loop can lead to
unforeseen population crashes on a reef system. The ability of different habitat types to support
fish populations can be seen in the images below. Shoal Bay East would have had a much
greater topological complexity that Limestone Bay historically, and as such would have been able
to support a greater abundance of fish. Today, however, abundances are very similar.
Reef at Shoal Bay East monitoring site (left) and Limestone Bay monitoring site (right) illustrating how two
historically different habitat types begin to resemble each other when one suffers increased habitat degradation
than the other (In this case Shoal Bay East)
21
Part 4: Temporal Changes 1990 2009

Although not part of the current complement of AMMP sites, the locations set up during the
Bellairs Institute study (Oxenford and Hunte, 1990) in 1990 represent the first concerted effort to
begin long-term monitoring in Anguillian waters. Unfortunately once the initial study had been
conducted monitoring at the sites did not continue. However, this work does represent the only
dataset available to conduct temporal analysis on, and as such is a valuable resource.
Thus, as the current AMMP work does not span a large enough time range for temporal analysis,
by estimating the locations of the sites studied during the Bellairs Institutes work such an
analysis, albeit limited, is possible. The limitations of such an analysis include the fact that the
1990 study was conducted before GPS became widely available, and as such the precise
location of the sites are almost impossible to establish. At two of the sites, Little Bay & Corito Bay,
old sediment traps were found that served also as corner markers to the sites, therefore these
two sites are known to be in the correct location - the other permanent markers used did not
stand the test of time. All other site locations had to be estimated from hand drawn maps with
many visual references that no longer existed. Although locations could also be estimated by
comparing current habitat type with descriptions made in 1990, some sites had changed so much
over the last twenty years that this could not be done with any accuracy. Ultimately eight reef
sites and two of seagrass sites were identified that could be estimated reliably enough to justify
this study taking place.
Surveys conducted in 2009 followed the original methodology as closely as possible, although
2
some differences should be noted. The fish belt transects covered an area of 100m and counted
all fish present: In the recent survey work five transects, each with a width of 2m were used to
cover this area, whereas in 1990 ten transects each with a width of 1m were assessed. This
change was decided upon as it would speed up the surveying process without compromising or
biasing results. A second methodological change took place when conducting benthic reef
surveys. In 1990 line-intercept transects were used to count all sessile organisms including hard
corals, soft corals, sponges and algae. Although this method is still accepted as useful when
collecting underlying substrate information (including hard corals Kramer et al., 2005), it is
known to suffer a number of general limitations and is also questionable when surveying biota
with a limited surface area (for example, macroalgae and many of the soft corals). Furthermore,
some questions came up regarding precise methodological details (for example, how percentage
cover was arrived at in some of the original surveys a total of more than 100% was recorded,
whereas in others the final value was much lower than 100%). For these reasons it was decided
use a more generic, simplified methodology, in the hope that fewer biases would occur than if
attempting to follow the old survey protocols. Twenty quadrats measuring 50cm x 50cm, thrown
randomly within the study area, were used as an alternative. Percentage cover results could be
compared directly despite this change, although numbers of individuals counted did have to be
standardized. This was done based on the assumption that the line-intercept transects would
2
cover approximately 10% of the 100m study site. Mean results from the twenty quadrats could
then be multiplied by forty to arrive at a comparable figure. During these benthic surveys
descriptor groups, as set out by Oxenford & Hunte (1990) were assessed in an identical fashion
(table 4.2).
Seagrass surveys were not conducted separately in 2009, instead results from the 2009 AMMP
surveys were used. This was possible because two of the AMMP seagrass sites are in almost
identical locations to those surveyed in the Bellairs study. The Bellairs study uses a mixture of
25m line-intercept transects (to assess seagrasses) and 25cm x 25cm quadrats (to assess
macroalgae). Sand percentage cover was not measured at the seagrass sites during 1990, so
comparisons of this variable were not possible. In terms of these benthic surveys, because only
seagrass blade length and percentage cover of seagrasses and macroalgae were assessed, the
22
AMMP quadrat methodology (50cm x 50cm) could be compared directly without standardization.
The fish surveys however did need to be standardized to account for the fact that larger areas are
surveyed during AMMP work. Reducing the AMMP results by a factor of 2.5 accounted for this.
Unfortunately the sites at Scrub Island and Dog Island were not able to be surveyed in 2009
because of logistical constraints. This means that all the sites available for comparisons were
coastal mainland sites, and hence may be under a biased amount of anthropogenic pressure.
Therefore, comparisons being made from the results of this temporal study to offshore regions
can only be done tentatively. It is also unfortunate that the 1990 study did not survey areas such
as Shoal Bay Island harbour, Sandy Island or Prickly Pear Seal Island Reef. These are
important shallow reef areas that are now Marine Parks, and so a temporal comparison would be
very useful. It is thought that these areas were not surveyed because at the time the original
study was conducted many different areas were being considered for Marine Park designation,
and it seems some priority was being given to the south coast.
The original surveys were conducted at the same time of year as those undertaken as part of
st
th
AMMP (21 May 1990), although they were concluded slightly later than AMMP sets out to (16
August 1990). AMMP usually runs from May to June/July each year weather depending. It is
unlikely these temporal differences will influence comparisons as the 1990 study did not assess
fish sizes, purely numbers of individuals, and as such biases will be largely avoided.
Note: The Simpsons diversity index was calculated during the 1990 portion of the study, but it
appears a different method was used to that accepted today because final value ranges differ.
Once calculated a final value between 0 and 1 is obtained, where 0 is a perfectly homogenous
population and 1 is a perfectly heterogenous population. Oxenfiord and Hunte (1990) quote end
results that range from less than 1 to over 10, thus meaningful comparisons cant be made. In
general, the Shannon's diversity index seems to be one of the most widely used, and it is this that
is usually quoted in DFMR reports.
One of the original sediment trap markers from the 1990 study (Little Bay)
23
Results
Table 4.1 Fish survey results from both 1990 & 2009 at eight of the sites studied during the
Bellairs Institute study (Oxenford and Hunte, 1990). Results presented are total number of
2
2
species seen in each 100m study site and total number of individuals recorded in each 100m
study site (or the equivalent). Site names have been given that were used in the 1990 study (in
brackets) as well as their modern name (bolded heading).
Site
Little Bay Rocks
(Site 2H)
Crocus Bay Reef
(Site 2P)
Crocus Bay Seagrass
(Site 2S)
Forest Bay Reef
(Site 5H)
Forest Bay Seagrass
(Site 5S)
Corito Bay Reef
(Site 4H)
Black Garden Inner Reef
(Site 1Hi)
Black Garden Outer Reef
(Site 1Ho)
Sandy Hill Inner Reef
(Site 6H)
Sandy Hill Outer Reef
(Site 6P)
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
Species
Individuals
1990
25
155
17
103
18
257
25
428
3
5
25
100
20
247
31
472
26
122
27
335
2009
40
213
33
230
14
21
24
205
4
1
29
161
24
188
32
362
30
126
25
92
Note: The total number of fish species seen across all sites in 1990 totalled 68, whereas in 2009 the total was 71 and as
such can be considered virtually unchanged. Having said this, close examination of findings does show a change in
species composition. For example, in 1990 no Striped Parrotfish (Scarus iserti, formally Scarus croicensis) were recorded
whereas today it is one of the most common fish sighted on reefs. Also, the Midnight Parrotfish (Scarus croicensis) was
recorded at selected sites in 1990, whereas today it is thought to be locally extinct.
Table 4.2 Main community descriptors for the two seagrass sites as lain out by Oxenford and
Hunte (1990), with results from the 1990 and 2009 studies. Results presented are mean
percentage cover for each community descriptor and mean blade length in centimetres
(seagrasses only).
Site
Crocus Bay Seagrass
(Site 2S)
Forest Bay Seagrass

(Site 5S)
Algae
1990
2009
1990
2009
Blade Length
% Cover
Blade Length
% Cover
Blade Length
% Cover
Blade Length
% Cover
n/a
11.60
n/a
25.65
n/a
22.20
n/a
6.45
Turtle
Grass
17.40
82.28
14.61
57.45
13.10
38.90*
13.95
53.80
Manatee
Grass
n/a
0
n/a
0
16.60
38.90*
12.62
23.60
* results quoted in Oxenford and Hunte (1990) are unclear as they state 100% cover for both species of seagrass
combined, also quoting algae cover as 22.2%. Hence 100% minus 22.2% has been assumed as total seagrass
cover, split equally for each species (38.9%).
24
Table 4.3 Main community descriptors for the eight reef sites as lain out by Oxenford and Hunte
(1990), with results from the 1990 and 2009 studies. Results represented are standardised total
2
number of individuals recorded at each 100m study site and mean percentage cover of each site
descriptor group (hard coral, sponge etc). Site names have been given that were used in the
1990 study (in brackets) as well as their modern name (bolded heading).
Site
Little Bay Rocks
(Site 2H)
Crocus Bay Reef

(Site 2P)
Forest Bay Reef

(Site 5H)
Corito Bay Reef

(Site 4H)
Black Garden Inner

Reef (Site 1Hi)
Black Garden Outer

Reef (Site 1Ho)
Sandy Hill Inner Reef

(Site 6H)
Sandy Hill Outer Reef

(Site 6P)
1990
2009
1990
2009
1990
2009
1990
2009
1990
2009
1990
2009
1990
2009
1990
2009
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Individuals
% Cover
Hard
Coral
140
10.59
36
2.25
80
5.57
60
6.00
126
12.67
2
0.15
66
7.32
46
3.90
101
10.10
24
1.15
154
14.01
70
6.20
76
6.43
10
1.65
101
6.15
30
2.10
Soft
Coral
80
n/a
20
n/a
165
n/a
28
n/a
157
n/a
12
n/a
229
n/a
102
n/a
46
n/a
14
n/a
156
n/a
38
n/a
80
n/a
6
n/a
274
n/a
34
n/a
Sponge
Algae
Sand
Rock
72
2.64
28
1.75
102
4.91
50
4.60
49
1.64
10
0.85
1
0.5
10
1.05
44
2.77
4
0.20
63
2.23
40
2.95
1
0.03
2
0.20
49
1.59
22
1.45
n/a
12.01
n/a
7.50
n/a
14.52
n/a
15.40
n/a
10.25
n/a
17.80
n/a
28.38
n/a
16.95
n/a
7.46
n/a
17.25
n/a
26.34
n/a
17.50
n/a
19.40
n/a
21.95
n/a
27.27
n/a
30.50
n/a
0
n/a
0.50
n/a
0
n/a
0.35
n/a
0.38
n/a
0
n/a
0.78
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
3.88
n/a
0
n/a
13.62
n/a
0
n/a
0
n/a
1.45
n/a
68.67
n/a
78.85
n/a
74.57
n/a
65.60
n/a
66.18
n/a
76.75
n/a
57.52
n/a
72.45
n/a
78.83
n/a
78.90
n/a
44.92
n/a
65.95
n/a
57.02
n/a
71.70
n/a
59.09
n/a
60.70
25
Discussion
From the results presented in table 4.1, on the whole more species were recorded in 2009 at the
sites than in 1990. Reasons for this remain unclear as it seems unlikely this would be due to any
methodological issues.
In terms of numbers of fish present, many of the sites have suffered a relatively large decline over
the last twenty years, with some of those on the south side of Anguilla being the most severe:
Forest Bay has undergone a 52% and Sandy Hill Bay (outer reef) a 72% decline. Other sites on
the south side have only undergone slight decreases or relatively small increases. On the north
coast some sites have again undergone decline, with both Black Garden sites exhibiting c.25%
reductions and the Crocus Bay seagrass site showing losses of over 90%. Both Crocus and Little
Bay reef sites on the other hand have shown positive increases over the last twenty years.
Of the two seagrass sites surveyed the benthic changes (see table 4.2) can be summarised as
Crocus Bay being in worse condition than twenty years ago with more algae cover and less turtle
grass and Forest Bay being in better condition with reduced algae cover and increased seagrass
cover. The change at Crocus Bay might explain the result for this site described in the previous
paragraph, but changes at Forest Bay are drawn into question due to a methodological anomaly
noticed in the 1990 study (see note under table 4.2).
Changes in the benthic cover of the reef sites over the last twenty years based on the results
here are more consistent (table 4.3). Classed as community descriptor groups in the 1990 study,
the vast majority have decreased markedly, aside from bare rock, which in most cases has
increased. Of particular interest is hard coral cover which at most sites has at least halved. In
some cases these drops have been dramatic, with Forest Bay suffering an almost 99% decline (it
should be noted that this site is however in a different location to the AMMP Forest Bay site).
Other sites with large decreases include Sandy Hill Bay (inner reef) with a 74% loss; Sandy Hill
(outer reef) with a 65% loss; and Black Garden (inner reef) with an 88% loss.
On the whole the 1990 study seems to paint a similar picture to recent work. That is, the south
coast appeared to be in a worse state at the time than the north coast. Although on the whole
many of the sites were in a better state than they are today, none were pristine, and so whatever
has caused the decline in habitat health today seems to have already been of influence in 1990.
From reviews of the literature on this it is largely concluded that the decline in coral cover started
initially with White Band disease killing off the massive Elkhorn stands and Staghorn forests, and
moved on to Yellow Blotch disease killing other species, especially Montastraea sp. that also
formed extensive reef systems here in Anguilla. Today, although scatterings of Elkhorn and
Montastraea sp. still exist they are much less abundant than historically and many colonies show
signs of their respective diseases (for examples see page 12). The exact cause of these diseases
are still being studied, but many can be attributed to cyanobacterial infections (e.g. Red Band
disease) or other factors that are likely due to a reduction in water quality and/or increases in
organic nutrients.
It is unfortunate that the 1990 study did not assess fish size or survey any of the offshore areas
studied during AMMP as these data would likely provide important insights into the changes over
the last twenty years. This is because fishing efficiency and frequency is thought to have
increased over the last twenty years and the offshore sites are generally those currently
concluded to be the most healthy. However, the 1990 study does offer a rare glimpse into
Anguillas recent past that is invaluable considering the paucity of other such research materials.
Note: No conclusions on Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) or Long-Spined Sea Urchin (Diadema
antillarum) populations could be drawn as numbers were too limited in both studies. More
extensive targeted studies would be needed but the lack of historical resources restricts the
comparative potential of such a project.
26
Comparison photographs: The below images illustrate habitat degradation that has occurred
over the last twenty years at two of the sites that were part of the Bellairs study. Top left is Forest
Bay reef in 1990, bottom left shows how it is today. Top right is Black Garden inner reef in 1990,
bottom right shows how it is today. Aside from the obvious physical degradation, macroalgae
seems to dominate the sites far more today than it did twenty years ago. Furthermore, the images
seem to illustrate a difference in water clarity between the two study periods. Although this is a
subjective measure and may be due to differing photographic techniques it is interesting and
maybe important to note the water at these sites appears far more turbid in 2009 than it did in
1990. This suggests increases in phytoplankton that might be explained by increasing nutrients.
Such nutrification would in turn promote the algae dominance (potentially accentuated by removal
of herbivorous fish through fishing). This phenomenon has been documented in other parts of the
Caribbean over recent years.
27
Part 5: Coral Recruitment Study

Terracotta tiles measuring 10cm x 10cm x 1cm were placed at ten reef sites around Anguilla
th
th
between 13 and 27 August 2008. These dates coincided with the first reported coral spawnings
in the Caribbean region, primarily Acropora sp. and Montastraea sp. (Coral-list reports vol 62
issue 25 & 27; vol 63 issue 3). Other species reportedly spawned during subsequent weeks. As
corals have a significant free-swimming larval phase, the tiles were left in place for a period of
approximately six months, with collection beginning early in 2009. Weather conditions meant that
some of the sites were visited slightly later in the year than others.
Thirty tiles were placed at each site at a depth of 5m, and thirty at a depth of 10m. Sites with no
10m areas only had the 5m sets placed. Care was taken to ensure orientation on the reef was
random. This random methodology was followed because settlement choices of corals recruits
are well documented (McWilliams, 2005) and the present study was conducted solely to look at
recruitment rates and not to assess such settlement choices. The tiles were attached via a cable
tie through a hole drilled into their centre. The size of the tiles and their attachment method was
chosen based on work conducted in Anguilla by McWilliams (2005). After collection the tiles were
soaked over-night in diluted bleach and left to dry for later examination.
Of the sites chosen, all suitable AMMP reef sites were used apart from Scrub Island. This was
due to adverse weather conditions. Instead tiles were placed at Savannah Bay, a location that
was under consideration as an AMMP site, but later replaced by Sile Bay. Tiles were also not
placed at The Anguillita site due to lack of potential attachment points (it is a low relief reef area),
and so were instead placed at Blowing Rock, a nearby location.
Images illustrating tiles immediately after placement at Long Reef (left) and six months after
placement at Little Harbour (right)
28
Results
Table 5.1 Results from the 2008/2009 coral recruitment study. It should be noted that all
recruits were found on the underside of the tiles, as expected based on the results of McWilliams
(2005). The topside of all tiles had a thick covering of coralline algae, turf algae and embedded
sediment.
Site Name
Mean Recruits
Per Tile
2.26
7.86
4.32
2.34
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
Dominating Biota
Sandy Island
Worms, Coralline Algae & Encrusting Sponges
Limestone Bay
Shoal Bay East
Island Harbour
Worms & Coralline Algae
Long Reef
Forest Bay
Sile Bay
Little Harbour
Savannah Bay
Blowing Rock*
*most tiles from this site had been dislodged (presumably) by Hurricane Omar and so very few were found
Discussion
From these results it is clear that recruitment of corals on the south coast of Anguilla is extremely
limited, with three out of four sites having no recruits whatsoever. Limestone Bay had the highest
recruitment rate, followed by Shoal Bay East. The other three sites on the northern side of the
island, although not as high, still had consistent recruitment rates.
Reasons for the low recruitment rate along the south coast are not currently clear and as such it
is recommended that further studies be prioritised to assess this. One possibility is marine snow
that has been documented to inhibit the survival rate of coral recruits (Fabricius et al., 2003).
Indeed, the south coast does often have poor visibility due to (among other things) the presence
of this material. Marine snow is composed of dead/dying plankton, faecal matter and other
inorganic dust stuck together by transparent exopolymer particles (TEP) that are exuded as a
natural waste product of bacteria. Fabricius et al., (2003) reports that even low levels of sediment,
when combined with TEP, kills newly settled coral recruits, whereas the same amount of
sediment without TEP does not reduce their short-term survival. Sedimentation of any kind can
also smother adult coral species, and as such the marine snow, as observed in many locations
along the south coast, could be a major factor reducing both recruitment and overall hard coral
cover (see part 2). It should be noted that marine snow has been observed all around Anguilla,
and is likely a seasonal phenomenon.
Another factor to consider relating to the south coast is the close proximity of the islands landfill
site, and unconfirmed reports of leeching that occurs into the surrounding ocean. Again, further
studies are needed to investigate this.
29
Part 6: Water Quality Monitoring

A pilot study was conducted in 2008 where eighty sites were sampled two to three times over a
three month period beginning in September. From the results of this pilot (Wynne, 2009a) forty
two priority sites were selected for continued study, proposed to begin in 2009. Unfortunately,
only a limited amount of samples were able to be collected due to reduced laboratory capacity,
but it is hoped that sampling will continue once capacity has been increased again. The
Government Water Lab has recently been completed and so it is proposed that they will work
alongside DFMR to fulfil this aspect of AMMP. Mean results for the forty two priority sites are
presented in table 6.1. Sediment samples were also taken at selected sites, the results from
which can be found in Wynne (2009a), along with all sampling methodologies used. Sediment
samples were not taken during 2009 because of the limitations mentioned above.
Results (see table 6.1 over page)

Discussion
From the results presented in table 6.1 a number of parameters appear to be reasonably stable
across all the sites, whereas others seem to be less so. For example pH, conductivity and total
dissolved solids seem relatively stable and no sites vary greatly around the mean value.
Conversely, some parameters, for example nitrate, phosphate and chemical oxygen demand do
vary considerably. In fact, nitrate and phosphate levels should barely be detectable in naturally
oligotrophic coral reef ecosystems (Goreau & Thacker, 1994), and as such the mean value
across all sites for both variables should be zero. A positive mean value indicates that Anguillas
waters are eutrophic, which is not favourable if corals are to prosper. For example, increasing
nutrient levels allow algae to flourish and out-compete recruiting corals (Szmant, 2002). This, in
combination with other detrimental factors, for example over-fishing of herbivorous fish (see parts
3 & 4), can lead to an algae dominated ecosystem that will ultimately lead to the demise of
topologically complex reef systems through erosion processes
Another variable that fluctuates across the sites is turbidity. Light penetration influences
photosynthesis in both zooxanthellae and seagrasses (AIMS, 2008), and as such a high turbidity
is not beneficial to either seagrasses or corals. Interestingly however, sites on the south coast did
not have particularly high turbidity values, which is not consistent with observations made in these
areas. Often, locations such as Forest Bay, Little Harbour, Sile Bay have poor visibility due to
what looks like marine snow (see part 5). Reasons for this are uncertain, but the situation will be
clarified if sampling continues over subsequent years.
From this work, in terms of organic nutrients, sites of special concern include (but are not limited
to) Road Bay, Little Bay, Little Harbour, Corito Bay, Scrub Island and Prickly Pear. Of these, the
first four are of little surprise because they all have known stresses. For example, Road Bay and
Corito Bay are probably the most industrialised in Anguilla; Little Harbour has been almost
enclosed by a berm (reportedly by past hurricanes) that restricts water circulation and its salt
pond is permanently connected to the sea; and Little Bay is relatively sheltered with high volumes
of tourist boats. Scrub Island on the other hand is somewhat of a mystery as the site is well
flushed via currents and there is little activity there apart from fishing. It is possible the currents
themselves bring in nutrients from further afield, or that it is an anomalous result. Prickly Pear too
is reasonably well flushed, but does have high volumes of large tourist catamarans and two
beach barbeque bars which may explain results. For site specific conclusions however this
monitoring needs to continue for at least one complete annual cycle which unfortunately is not
presently possible on such a scale due to current logistical and financial limitations.
30
Table 6.1 Results from the 2008/2009 water monitoring study for the forty two sites prioritised
during the initial pilot study. The bottom row of the table details mean values across all the sites a good indication of which sites need special attention are those that are above this mean value.
(DO = Dissolved Oxygen, TDS = Total Dissolved Solids, COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand)
Site Name
Temp
C
DO
(mg/L)
pH
Conductivity (s)
TDS
(ppt)
Ammonia
(as N
mg/L)
Nitrate
(as N
mg/L)
Phosphorous
(mg/L)
COD
(mg/L)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Road Bay Fishing Pier
28.0
7.32
8.14
51.7
52.9
0.13
0.98
0.06
927
1.365
Road Bay Wooden Pier
27.1
8.64
8.20
52.7
54.2
0.01
1.58
0.08
1078
0.893
Road Bay Main Jetty
27.4
8.32
8.18
52.1
53.6
0.05
0.28
0.00
1114
0.748
Road Bay Mid-moorings
29.3
7.59
8.23
50.1
53.3
0.06
0.55
0.00
772
0.560
Crocus Bay Mega Yachts
28.7
7.45
8.23
50.0
54.0
0.02
0.15
0.00
1231
0.340
Little Bay
27.4
7.92
8.17
51.8
53.4
0.02
0.28
0.11
1175
0.720
Limestone Bay
27.8
8.72
8.12
50.3
54.2
0.00
0.03
0.00
667
0.750
Shoal Bay East Fountain
27.8
8.25
8.18
51.9
53.0
0.00
0.10
0.00
804
0.905
Shoal Bay East Ernies
28.1
7.74
8.08
51.0
54.7
0.08
0.01
0.00
829
2.481
Shoal Bay East Gwens
28.6
7.97
7.79
50.8
52.3
0.00
0.11
0.05
625
1.065
Shoal Bay Island Harbour
28.3
8.53
8.20
51.9
53.9
0.00
0.07
0.00
766
0.795
Island Harbour Jetty
28.3
6.78
8.06
50.2
53.9
0.60
0.08
0.03
794
0.900
Scrub Little Scrub
28.3
7.53
8.34
50.6
53.7
0.01
0.40
0.32
746
1.100
Junks Hole
28.6
8.77
8.15
50.0
53.8
0.30
0.08
0.00
606
0.605
Sile Bay
28.7
9.20
8.20
52.0
52.9
0.01
0.15
0.00
462
0.445
Sandy Hill Bay
28.5
8.59
8.13
49.8
53.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
459
0.585
Conch Bay
28.8
7.17
8.28
50.8
53.5
0.00
0.10
0.00
380
0.160
Forest Bay - Seagrass
28.6
9.42
8.13
51.5
53.1
0.01
0.20
0.00
681
0.870
Forest Bay - Channel
28.9
6.63
8.23
51.8
53.0
0.01
0.20
0.00
259
0.310
Corito Bay
28.2
9.16
8.22
51.3
55.2
0.02
0.45
0.01
574
0.706
St Martin Channel (Shallow)
28.0
7.78
8.41
51.9
50.4
0.12
0.05
0.00
685
0.885
St Martin Channel (Deep)
28.0
8.42
8.41
52.4
50.8
0.00
0.15
0.00
1179
0.780
Little Harbour - Beach
28.1
8.61
8.19
50.5
52.2
0.00
0.18
0.00
1096
0.670
Little Harbour - Berm
28.8
7.76
8.26
50.6
53.4
0.00
0.15
0.21
400
1.430
Blowing Point Ferry Terminal
27.7
7.80
8.06
51.5
52.7
0.06
0.08
0.00
471
0.705
Blowing Point Sandy Point
27.2
7.42
8.07
51.4
52.4
0.02
0.17
0.00
801
0.528
Rendezvous Bay Great House
28.1
7.42
8.11
51.3
52.9
0.04
0.13
0.00
647
1.230
Rendezvous Bay - Merrywing
27.8
6.93
8.18
51.6
53.0
0.15
0.18
0.00
836
1.855
Cove Bay Fishing Pier
27.7
8.69
8.23
51.6
52.7
0.10
0.08
0.00
550
0.678
Cove Bay - Westend
27.8
6.59
8.21
51.2
53.0
0.00
0.05
0.00
650
1.010
Cap Jaluca - Pimms
27.5
7.74
8.20
51.2
52.9
0.01
0.03
0.00
815
0.290
Cap Jaluca Villa 19
28.0
7.10
8.21
50.9
52.5
0.00
0.03
0.00
614
1.045
Shoal Bay West - Altamar
28.0
7.05
8.23
51.0
52.6
0.00
0.15
0.04
651
0.555
Anguillita
28.5
7.95
8.36
50.7
54.0
0.00
0.05
0.00
863
0.670
Barnes Bay Viceroy
28.2
6.94
8.20
51.6
53.5
0.08
0.18
0.00
854
0.830
Meads Bay - Viceroy
28.2
6.92
8.18
51.1
52.9
0.08
0.08
0.00
779
0.490
Meads Bay Mid Bay
28.2
7.74
8.34
50.5
52.7
0.11
0.05
0.00
438
0.960
Long Bay
27.8
6.89
8.16
50.8
53.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
703
0.515
Sandy Island
28.8
7.23
8.23
49.3
54.1
0.01
0.10
0.00
819
0.670
Prickly Pear
29.0
8.24
8.34
50.2
53.1
0.06
0.15
0.93
918
0.770
Dog Island
28.9
7.74
8.33
50.7
53.9
0.01
0.10
0.00
1121
1.100
Long Reef
28.7
8.16
8.33
49.8
53.7
0.03
0.05
0.00
931
0.310
Mean Overall
28.2
7.83
8.20
51.0
53.2
0.05
0.19
0.04
756
0.816
31
Part 7: Marine Turtle Surveys

A moratorium was introduced in 1995 that, for a five year period, made it an offence to harvest
turtles, their eggs, or be found in possession of any turtle product. In 2000 the moratorium was
extended for a further five years. During this period a project was conducted across many UK
Caribbean Overseas Territories assessing the status of turtle populations (Godley et al., 2004).
Anguilla was among the countries that hosted this project, with the results playing a role in the
decision to extend the existing moratorium a further 15 years, and also encouraging the long-term
monitoring of turtle populations by DFMR. This work began in 2002 with DFMR receiving sporadic
help from the Anguilla National Trust (ANT) and the Department of Environment, ultimately
becoming a weekly scheduled monitoring effort in 2007 that has continued ever since. A progress
report was produced in 2009 that detailed the results of the work conducted in 2007 & 2008
(Wynne, 2009b). 2009 also saw the first steps taken towards building an organisation focused on
the conservation of Anguillas turtle populations (Save Our Sea Turtles: Anguilla - SOSAXA), the
running of which was initially overseen by the ANT. An ultimate goal is for SOSAXA and DFMR to
share coordinated turtle monitoring efforts. During 2009 DFMR undertook the initial training of
SOSAXA volunteers.
Weekly in-water Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbriocota) monitoring was undertaken at eight
permanent monitoring sites (PMS). These sites had been chosen based on previous years work
where a number of potential survey sites were assessed. Further potential sites were also visited
in 2009 with the aim of adding any found to be suitable (those with highest Hawksbill
abundances). As DFMR can only feasibly visit a limited number of sites on a weekly basis, it is
important that those included in the project are the most suitable areas known, and as such, at
least in the short term, the list of PMS not be static until all areas around Anguilla have been
rapidly assessed. Furthermore, even after this ultimate PMS list in completed, it is crucial that
those sites rejected are rapidly assessed sporadically (once every couple of years) to establish if
any changes may have occurred to turtle populations in the area. At the time of writing almost
thirty sites had been assessed (Wynne, 2009b). To surmise; An ultimate goal is to have eight to
ten PMS that house the largest Hawksbill populations (thus changes to abundances are more
readily visible) with all other suitable sites visited on a rotational basis. Sites that have been
surveyed over the past three years where no Hawksbills were observed include: Lockrum & Little
Harbour, Forest Bay (Inner east reef), Savannah Bay, Sea Feathers, Forest Point, Black Garden
to Fountain Beach, Seal Island, Mimi Bay, Blowing Point, Sandy Point, and Sandy Island (Sandy
Shallow dive site). It would be prudent to revisit these sites in the future to look for change.
Nesting beach monitoring occurred at eight index beaches on a regular basis (weekly during peak
nesting season), with sporadic visits to other beaches. As with Hawksbill sampling these latter
beaches were visited with the long-term goal of modifying the PMS that are included in this
project. The original list of index beaches was established a number of years ago, but since then
various changes have happened around Anguilla reducing or increasing beach suitability for
nesting. For example, sand mining at Windward Point Bay, one of the eight original index
beaches, has left virtually no sand remaining. Conversely, the large tourist orientated beaches on
the south western coast are not currently considered index beaches although turtle nesting has
been documented there.
Note: Due to logistical constraints Green Turtle sampling using a seine net did not take place in
2009. For full survey methodologies of this and other sampling techniques please refer to Wynne
(2009b).
32
Note on beach profiles Although DFMR is only responsible for areas below high water mark it
has continued beach profiling work on a regular basis for many years as it makes logical sense
that such work should be conducted by this Department. Also, it can be argued that high water
mark, in terms of storm surges, covers the whole beach. Technically however the Department of
Lands & Surveys are responsible for beach jurisdiction. Due to this crossover, and because the
beach profiling work predates AMMP by a number of years, results from this work will be the
subject of a subsequent report.
Nesting beach survey work being conducted as part of a training exercise for SOSAXA volunteers
Results
Table 7.1 Results from Hawksbill in-water sampling during 2009 for all eight PMS. Encounter
rate equates to the number of individuals a snorkelling survey pair can expect to see per hour.
Site Name
Isaacs Cliffs
Katouche North Cliffs
Pelican Flat Cap Point
Limestone Black Garden
Shoal Bay East Inner
Island Harbour Shoal Bay East Inner
Sile Bay
Forest Bay Inner (west)
Hawksbill Encounter Rate hr

4.22
3.12
1.77
1.71
0.55
0.50
1.64
1.09
-1
33
9.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
C
lif
tC
fs
ap
e
-B
Po
la
in
ck
t
G
Sh
ar
oa
de
l
Is
n
B
la
ay
nd
Fo
- S I nn
re
er
ho
st
al
Ba
In
y
n
In
ne er
rW
Is
es
la
t
Si
nd
- S le B
ay
ho
S h al M
oa
i
l B ddle
Is
ay
la
O
nd
ut
R
er
Is
i
d
la
g
e
nd
Pr
In
ic
R
ne
kly
id
r
g
Pe
e
O
ar
ut
O
er
ut
er
R
ee
f
Li
m
es
to
n
-F
la
Pe
lic
an
to
u
ch
Is
a
ac
or
th
Cl
if
fs
0.0
Ka
Figure 7.1 Mean results of Hawksbill sampling 2007 to 2009 (all sites). Error bars indicate the
standard deviation at each site. Note that the latter three sites have only been replicated once
and hence have no error bars present. Replicate numbers were, on the whole, greater for the first
eight sites as these are the current PMS used.
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Ap
r- 0
Ju 7
nAu 0 7
g0
O 7
ct
-0
De 7
c0
Fe 7
b0
Ap 8
r- 0
Ju 8
nAu 0 8
g0
O 8
ct
-0
De 8
c0
Fe 8
b0
Ap 9
r- 0
Ju 9
nAu 0 9
g09
Encounter Rate hr-1
Encounter Rate hr-1
8.0
Figure 7.2 Encounter rate of Hawksbill Turtles at Katouche North Cliffs (PMS) over three year
study period illustrating a peak in August 2008.
34
Table 7.3 Results from nesting surveys for those beaches regularly monitored. Note that those
visited include the eight index beaches (with the exception of Windward Point Bay) together with
three other exploratory sites (Mimi Bay, Katouche Bay & Shoal Bay West). The Predominant
Species column details the species recorded most frequently at each site, however, on a number
of occasions species remained unidentified. Although not predominant, Green Turtle activity was
also noted at selected beaches.
Beach Name
No of Visits
2009
Black Garden
39
Number of
False Crawls
Recorded
8
Captains Bay
43
Junks/Savannah
Number of
Nests Recorded
Predominant
Species
Hawksbill
Leatherback
28
Hawksbill
Katouche Bay
16
n/a
Shoal Bay East
26
Hawksbill
Long Bay
27
n/a
Meads Bay
31
Leatherback
Mimi Bay
23
Hawksbill
Shoal Bay West
32
Hawksbill
Discussion
From the results presented above, and backed through qualitative observations, it is clear that
turtle populations are highest on the northern coast of Anguilla, especially the strip of coastline
between Isaacs Cliffs and Little Bay. Turtles can however be observed island wide, albeit usually
in low densities (compared to abundances reported in anecdotal historical records).
Currently it is too early to make a temporal analysis of the data presented, and as such assess
the effectiveness of the moratorium. For example, although an interesting abundance peak was
noticed at Katouche North Cliffs (figure 7.2) in July 2008 it is not possible to conclude whether
this due to an increase and subsequent decrease in numbers around this date, or if it is due to
natural variation of Hawksbill abundances (moon phases, weather conditions etc). It is very
important that this project be continued on into the future to examine such trends and establish
reasons for them because, for example, poachers have been witnessed illegally harvesting turtles
at Katouche and as such any effect this is having on turtle numbers needs to be established. This
can only be accomplished by replicating surveys as many times as possible throughout the year
and encompassing variables such as moon phase and weather conditions into the analysis.
As turtles take a number of decades to reach maturity (depending on species) any impact that the
moratorium will have on nesting populations will not be visible for a number of decades to come.
Considering the number of nesting beach surveys that took place in 2009, combined with the fact
that most beaches have regular visitors who notify DFMR of potential activity, the number of
nests recorded is very low. This, together with the relatively limited foraging populations, suggest
that Anguillas turtle populations will need protecting beyond the current moratorium.
Furthermore, in order for the moratorium to be successful a greater surveillance effort is needed
to dissuade potential poachers from continuing to flout the law.
35
Part 8: Other Key Species

Long-Spined Sea Urchin
Although not part of the AMMP project, rapid assessments of Long-Spined Sea Urchin (Diadema
antillarium) were conducted in 2007 around the Shoal Bay Island Harbour Marine Park as part
of a study that looked into the potential to translocate this species from a threatened habitat into a
safe area (Wynne 2008c). Receiving sites were chosen by looking for Marine Park areas where
populations had not yet recovered since the 1980 mass mortality event. Diadema are considered
a keystone species, and one that plays a major role regulating the algae/coral balance on reef
systems (Tuya et al., 2004). Since the 1980 mass mortality event that spread across the
Caribbean, Diadema populations have yet to recover to densities present prior to this event;
however, it should be pointed out that as no studies were conducted in Anguilla prior to the
1990s, actual densities before the mass mortality event can only be estimated based on studies
conducted elsewhere. Since the mortality event algae levels have escalated in many areas and
coral cover has dropped dramatically, although it should be noted that this is also likely due to
many other factors including, but not limited to, eutrophication (part 6), and overfishing of
herbivorous fish (part 3), that have potentially increased over the same time period.
Aside from this translocation work, visual estimates of Diadema populations were also made at
various sites around the island including Little Bay, Pelican Point, Meads Bay, Maundays Bay,
Sandy Hill Bay and Sile Bay. Furthermore, through AMMPs regular benthic monitoring (part 2)
densities are assessed, and as such temporal comparisons will be possible in the future. In all, it
seems apparent that populations are finally recovering, although this recovery is patchy and
happening in an unexpected way. Low relief areas (for example Maundays Bay - see inset
picture) with rocks interspersed with large sandy regions are, on the whole, among those areas
with highest densities. In some parts densities are so high that the urchins are aggregating on the
sand itself unusual behaviour for this species, whom, despite their fierce array of sharp spines,
do suffer from significant predation by a wide range of creatures (see Bruno, 2010). In contrast,
many areas that seem perfect for Diadema due to high topological complexity (for example areas
such as Forest Bay and Shoal Bay East), seem to be recovering more slowly. Night snorkels in
these locations were also undertaken to confirm urchins werent simply hiding within reef
recesses during the day. Reasons for this anomaly are unclear, but it is possible that predatorprey interactions may be a contributing factor combined with larval supply from prevailing currents
(Miller et al., 2003). Another possibility is that these areas with high topological complexity are
less suited for urchin settlement. For example, Forest Bay reef is largely dead, and due to erosion
the old Elkhorn (Acropora palmata)
stands are relatively smooth, thus
offering a restricted number of settlement
sites for recruiting Diadema larvae.
Conversely, sites such as Maundays Bay
(see inset picture), although low in
complexity, do have highly pitted
surfaces which could act as settlement
sites. Furthermore, such areas appear to
harbour a high diversity of life (although
surveys have yet to be conducted to
quantify this), and are usually in bays that
are relatively sheltered yet well flushed.
This all suggests these sites may be in
better overall health than those areas
yet to recover.
36
Spiny Lobsters
The survey work conducted through AMMP does not provide a great deal of data that relate to
the two lobster fisheries on Anguilla. Past assessments (see appendix 1) have taken place for the
Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus), the main lobster fishery, but no work was conducted
on the smaller Spotted Spiny Lobster (Panulirus guttatus) fishery prior to 2004. This latter species
is known locally as the crayfish.
From qualitative information collected over recent years it would appear that P.argus populations
are in decline. Fishers are reporting that they have to go out greater distances to land catches
that are smaller than they were during past decades, and that lobster fishers fish more
infrequently (W. Harrigan pers.comm.). The same fishers are also beginning to suggest closing
the lobster season at certain times of the year to help improve catches. From this information one
can only assume that lobster populations around Anguilla are in significant decline.
A brief assessment of the P.guttatus fishery was conducted in 2004 that also looked at ecological
aspects of this species and the impact fishing has on it (Wynne 2004; Wynne & Ct 2007). This
project was expanded upon during 2007 & 2008 (Wynne 2009c) to get a better understanding of
the fishery, make an assessment of its health, and deduce which management measures could
be introduced to promote its sustainability. The results of this work indicated that although some
reef areas no longer house populations of P.guttatus as dense as they likely once were,
populations were still at a high enough level to not detect a significant fishing effect. Based on the
presumption that this is a relatively young fishery, and one that appears to be growing as it is
driven by an expanding tourist industry, it is likely that such an effect will soon be possible to
detect. In fact, during the 2007/2008 portion of the study, some areas of reef were no longer
favoured as much by fishers as others due to reductions in catch. This study also uncovered that
there is a peak in the reproductive activity of P.guttatus in Anguilla between January and April
each year, and that males reach first physical maturity at c.51mm carapace length, and 50% of
females begin to exhibit reproductive activity at c.46mm carapace length.
Queen Conch
No known specific assessments have taken place on Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) populations
in Anguilla, although through AMMP benthic surveys of the five seagrass sites some recent
estimations have been produced (see part 2). From these estimations, combined with the
presence of conch middens in places such as Sandy Ground and the knowledge that shallow
seagrass areas are not particularly extensive around Anguilla, it can be deduced that suitable
accessible conch grounds have been overfished and now only house limited populations.
Furthermore, conch legislation is inadequate based on current scientific thinking, where it is now
largely agreed that a conch should have a well developed lip to be considered mature (Berg,
1976). Fisheries legislation in some other Caribbean states stipulates that a conch should have a
developed lip with a thickness of at least 5mm for it to be considered sufficiently mature to
promote sustainability within the fishery. However, studies in Puerto Rico have shown that a high
proportion of conch with a lip thickness of 5 mm were still immature, consequently the minimum
lip thickness was increased to 9.5 mm to ensure harvesting is mainly of mature animals (Theile,
2001). Currently, Anguillas legislation states that a conch only has to be 18cm in length, from
base end of the aperture to terminal end of the apex. Conch of these dimensions are very much
smaller than those with a well developed lip, and as such immature individuals can be legally
landed. In fact, studies have shown that at 18cm up to 94% of a population may still be legally
fished before they mature and so have had the chance to reproduce (Blakesley, 1977).
Most conch catches today are caught by using SCUBA gear. Although conch can live below safe
diving limits (and as such have a population haven) the management of those within safe diving
limits needs urgent attention if it is to remain a viable fishery on the island.
37
Part 9: Conclusions and Recommendations

Benthic Habitat
Anguillas shallow water (<15m) benthic habitats are generally in a poor state of health with an
overall low hard coral cover and areas dominated with high levels of macroalgae. The southern
coastline is comprised mainly of slowly eroding hard coral skeletal fragments or intact structures,
and in worse condition than the northern coastline, although levels of macroalgae are generally
lower. The majority of southern areas show very little recent coral growth whereas in northern
areas new corals do appear to be growing, albeit to a somewhat limited extent. This was
confirmed by a coral recruitment study that demonstrated that the southern coastal region has
extremely limited levels of coral recruitment compared to northern areas. Reasons for this remain
unclear although it is probably, at least in part, due to the southern coastline being more exposed
to potential sources of contamination. These include (but are not limited to): Corito Bay landfill
and petroleum facility; Blowing Point port facility; and coastal salt ponds that are known to be
polluted, one of which has been connected to the sea via underground pipes. Others salt ponds
are sporadically breached during storm surges. The south coast is more exposed than the north
coast and as such the reef system that existed there would have historically been different from
those in other areas around Anguilla, with species that favour these conditions, for example
Elkhorn (Acropora palmata), proliferating. Elkhorn populations were regionally decimated by
disease and have yet to recover. Away from the south coast species diversity is generally greater,
a fact that increases reef resilience. Further to (but also connected with) contamination, exposure,
and disease, sedimentation (marine snow) and eutrophication are also likely affecting coral
recruitment and therefore overall recovery. Eutrophication/pollution is also known to increase
macroalgae blooms and encourage certain coral diseases, especially those derived from
Cyanobacteria infections. Although these phenomenon are occurring throughout the Caribbean
and may be influenced by regional stressors that cant be managed for on a local level, it is still
important to minimise local point sources. Not only will this mitigate against regional sources, but
it is only by all nations taking responsibility for their own point source stressors that these regional
factors will be addressed. Listed below are a series of recommendations that may be followed to
address the current benthic situation or to increase understanding as to what is happening there.
A study should be conducted to assess the Corito Bay landfill site and ascertain if any
leeching is occurring into the marine environment. If so, a feasibility study needs to be
conducted to look into reducing this leeching either by construction of non-permeable
barriers between the landfill and the ocean or by relocating the landfill site to a more
suitable area. A similar assessment should be conducted for the Corito Bay petroleum
facility, especially in light of the proposed port facility at this site. This new facility, if
constructed, should aim to minimise any contamination into the ocean.
Consideration should be given to cleaning up the coastal salt ponds and very careful
thought and planning be employed if any further direct connections are to be made to
the sea. Salt ponds act as nutrient traps for their surrounding water catchment area and
so a connection to the sea allows direct nutrient introduction into the marine system.
The use of septic tanks should be prohibited for new developments that are close to the
coast. Existing sewage treatment plants should be properly maintained. Waste water
treatment plants should be located well away from low lying areas close to the coast.
After hurricane Omar the waste water treatment plant at Cap Jaluca was reportedly
inundated and as a result much of its contents flushed into the bay. The result was foul
smelling bay water that lasted more than a week while clean up efforts were underway.
Some of this suspected contamination may have also originated from Gull Pond that
breached during the storm. A feasibility study is recommended that looks into an island
wide governmentally run waste water infrastructure.
38
Coastal development needs to be under stricter control. EIAs should be mandatory and
legislated for. Sea backs should be required by law and the removal of beach flora
prohibited (except toxic species). Dune removal and sand mining legislation needs to be
updated urgently, and existing legislation enforced. Dunes are an essential resource that
not only act as a coastal defence during storm surges but also replenish sand into beach
systems after severe erosional events.
The Blowing Point port, especially the aging ferry fleet, should undergo assessment to
address any sources of contamination entering the marine environment. It is necessary
to revisit the legislation as to how it relates to oil (etc) emissions from vessels. There
have been a number of complaints in recent years regarding slicks that have been seen
emanating from some of them.
Stricter control over dumping of grey water by visiting yachts (etc) needs to be
undertaken which will involve improving surveillance capabilities and introducing holding
tank spot checks. For example, a vessel with an empty holding tank that has been in
Anguillian waters for a week would be seen as suspicious. To allow measures like this to
be employed a water treatment plant needs to be established at the check-in port.
Visiting vessels should be obliged to empty their holding tanks here when they arrive (if
sufficiently full), thus discouraging dumping in the first place while allowing realistic spot
checks of larger, longer visiting vessels. Full documentation of waste water plant usage
should also be insisted upon.
Tighter control of fishing practices need implementing (many of these will be detailed in
the following sub-section). Protection of certain herbivorous fish species, for example
parrotfishes, needs encouraging. Trap fishing needs greater control as these gear types
can cause a lot of damage to the reef if not used responsibly. Consideration needs to be
given to closing certain areas to this type of fishing. In fact, it is suggested that
Government initiatives attempt to move Anguillas fishing industry away from trap/spear
fishing all together and encourage the fishing of pelagic species. It might also be prudent
to investigate aquaculture options to move reliance away from reef dwelling fish species.
Such options need very careful consideration however as side effects from aquaculture
can be detrimental to benthic habitat health and overall water quality.
Fish Populations
Fish populations in Anguillas shallow reef habitats (<15m) are much reduced from those present
historically. Anecdotal reports, archaeological evidence, and fish catch data all suggest this, thus
although the current span of AMMP means temporal quantifications cannot be made, the
precautionary approach to fisheries management should be applied to strive towards a
sustainable fisheries future. The size class structure of reef fish present is different from that
expected in a natural population with far fewer large individuals present. Fish available for
purchase from various outlets around the island are often undersized. Species targeted by fishers
are, in many cases, almost absent from some reef areas and those present are usually
undersized, immature individuals. It is likely that environmental factors are playing a role in these
declines, but fishing is probably the dominating influence removing the larger individuals. These
environmental factors, in complex interactions between themselves and fishing, are the most
likely reason for the habitat degradation discussed in the previous subsection. Habitat
degradation then induces a positive feedback loop that further decreases the ability for the reef
environment to sustain healthy fish populations and increases the susceptibility of the habitat to
further degradation. It is essential that steps are taken to address this problem immediately
before the situation gets worse. Below are listed a series of recommendations that should be
followed to do this.
Spearfishing, that selectively and efficiently targets reef fish in shallow areas, needs
urgent control. It is suggestive that it be prohibited across all shallow reef areas, at least
in the short term, to allow these environments a period of recovery. During this period
assessments should be conducted to investigate recovery and, based on the results,
39
management measures can be modified. In the long-term spearfishing should be

prohibited in Anguillas marine parks and controlled in other areas by, for example,
establishing daily catch limits and placing restrictions on certain species.
Minimum sizes need to be introduced for a number of species, although catching of
immature individuals of any species should be discouraged. It is understood that
undersized catch is often used as bait before returning to dock, but the sale of such
individuals should be prohibited. This will involve much research into size of maturity for
different species, so to begin with it is suggested only for those currently known to be
under pressure, for example, species of grouper, snapper and jacks.
Fisheries management zones urgently need to be established to control the islands
fisheries better. Areas closed to all types of fishing should be implemented, as should
those that permit only certain gear types or the landing of certain species. It is suggested
that to begin with Anguillas Marine Parks be used for this purpose. This could also be
expanded to include other reef areas less than 10 metres deep.
In order to manage the various fisheries better it is important that traps be correctly
tagged with the owners licence number. The legislation already exists for this, but
compliance and enforcement has yet to be established. This should happen as soon as
possible so that when no fishing zones (etc) are established violators can be easily
identified. Fisheries officers should have the power to remove/confiscate any gear
violating regulations and issue fines to the owners.
Turtles
Turtle populations in Anguilla appear steady for the time being, although data will need to be
collected for many years to come to confirm this. Abundances of foraging juvenile Green and
Hawksbill Turtles are moderately healthy at certain select sites, although nowhere in our waters
are they close to levels thought present historically. On the whole the situation is encouraging but
only their continued protection will facilitate increasing their numbers. The nesting population is
less encouraging with fewer than twenty recorded nests in 2009. Considering the profusion of
suitable beaches that Anguilla offers this number is of even greater concern, but it is recognised
that actual nest numbers may be considerably higher when including the sparsely monitored
offshore cays. It is probable that nesting numbers are low because of over-harvesting in the
proceeding decades. It takes many years for maturity to be reached so it is hoped that in decades
to come, if the current protection continues, numbers will gradually begin to increase. In light of
this three main recommendations can be made.
The current moratorium (which expires in 2020) should under no circumstances be

abolished prematurely. It is highly likely that for populations to increase significantly,
especially the all important nesting populations, further moratoriums will be needed for a
considerable time into the future.
Developmental set back zones should be implemented to restrict light and other
disturbances to nesting turtle populations. A beach lighting policy should be implemented.
Regular monitoring of the offshore cays should begin as it is likely that their remoteness
(especially Dog Island) and minimal human activity/development has left nesting
populations indicative of actual nesting populations. With the creation of an Anguilla
based turtle conservation organisation it is proposed that many of the mainland beaches
be handed over to them for monitoring so that DFMR can concentrate on the areas that
can only be reached by boat.
40
Diadema
Diadema antillarum populations, although still somewhat patchy, appear to be recovering from
the 1980s mortality event. Some areas have very high densities present, and as a consequence
these areas generally have very sparse macroalgae growth. Even though macroalgae is
encouraged by nutrification which is occurring in Caribbean waters, D.antillarum appear to be
able to keep it under control. In areas where their populations have yet to recover macroalgae
usually dominates. An exception to this is Forest Bay which has very few D.antillarum and very
little macroalgae. This is not likely due to populations of grazing surgeonfish that are profuse in
the area as they are also in high abundances at Sile Bay where macroalgae dominates. In light of
this patchy recovery and the profound effect they have on their habitat the following
recommendation can be made.
Any coastal development that is undertaken in an area with healthy D.antillarum

populations that may be detrimentally affected by the development should seek to
relocate the urchins to an area that has yet to recover. Translocation methodology and
recommendations as to how a receiving site should be selected can be found in Wynne
(2008c)
Lobster
Work conducted on the Crayfish (Panulirus guttatus Wynne 2004 & Wynne & Ct 2007)
suggests that populations are being affected by fishing but that presently this effect has yet to
cause significant decline in numbers, at least at the majority of sites. This will not continue if the
present levels of fishing persist (or indeed increase as they are likely to as tourism demand
increases as projected). Indeed, already fishers are reporting reduced catches in certain areas
(R.Webster, pers. comm.), and once popular fishing sites are now visited less frequently
(S.Wynne pers.obs.). The precautionary principle means measures need to be undertaken to
sustain this fishery on into the future. No minimum landing size for this species exists as it does
for the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus). Although no specific studies have yet been
conducted for P.argus it is known that fishers catches are reduced and they now have to travel
further distances and set their traps deeper to catch substantial numbers. In order to protect the
interest of fishers within these two fisheries the following recommendations can be made.
A full assessment of the P.argus fishery should be undertaken to ascertain population

health, changes in catch, and changes in fishing grounds. This information can then be
used to make more informed management decisions.
Closed seasons during peak lobster breeding periods should be introduced for both
P.argus (based on regionally accepted studies) and P.guttatus (as recommended in
Wynne (2009c).
Closed areas would be beneficial to help populations in selected areas recover fully from
exploitation and act as seeding grounds for the Caribbean as a whole. As other nations
follow suit there will always be plentiful supplies of larvae to restock fishing areas. The
closed areas could be incorporated into the same zones as suggested for reef fish.
A minimum landing size should be introduced for P.guttatus as recommended by Wynne
(2009c). This will help protect immature individuals which will become more favourable to
target as larger individuals become less abundant.
41
Conch
No exclusive study has been conducted for the conch fishery and so details have not been
quantified (as with P.argus mentioned previously). However, a number of observations have been
made over recent years which suggest management measures currently in place are insufficient
to sustain it into the future. For example, suitable conch habitat is not in abundance around
Anguilla and yet relatively large numbers are still landed on a weekly basis. All conch fishing
today can only be carried out using SCUBA gear, and fishers are reportedly venturing into deeper
and deeper waters to make a living. Conch can live below safe diving limits so they will always
have a safe haven, although this does raise questions into the safety of those diving for conch
as a living. Vast middens are visible in areas such as Sandy Ground, and on close inspection the
vast majority of conchs are immature, even though most are within legal size limits. This suggests
a flaw in the current legislation. In order to strive towards a prosperous future for this fishery the
following recommendations can be made.
A full assessment of the fishery should be undertaken, including stock assessment, the
documentation of recognised conch grounds, and historical catch analysis.
The minimum landing size of conch should be changed and based instead on the
thickness of their aperture lip. This lip should be at least 5mm in thickness, but thicker
sizes are often recommended in order to guarantee maturity has been reached for at
least two years.
A maximum depth for safe conch diving should be publicised in order to avoid potential
future accidents. This is especially important as the nearest hyperbaric chamber is in
Saba which, although close, is realistically a number of hours away. Even if it could be
reached in time it is likely fishers would not be able to pay for treatment or not be
sufficiently insured.
Note on Lionfish Invasion

During the latter part of 2009 DFMR, in collaboration with the Anguillian National Trust and
Department of Environment, lead a public awareness initiative to inform people of the pending
arrival of the invasive Lionfish (Pterois volitans). DFMR also laid out a targeted eradication
response plan (Wynne, 2009d) that would be initiated once their arrival had been confirmed. This
confirmation did not come until a local dive operator sighted the species close to Anguillita Cay on
th
the 16 August 2010, and submitted a report to DFMR who later went in search of it. During the
days that followed the specimen was captured by one of DFMRs Fisheries Officers via speargun, photographed, and brought ashore for positive identification. DFMR are currently requesting
that people collect GPS coordinates of any sighted specimens and submit them to the
Department as soon as possible. As an interesting note, after confirmation of their arrival
occurred, DFMR received an email from a tourist who claimed to have photographed a Lionfish in
Anguillian waters a number of years ago. After receiving a copy of the photograph the
Department confirmed the species pictured was in fact a Lionfish. Although at the time of writing
the authenticity of the photograph or location where it was taken had yet to be validated, it might
signify that the spread of the species is far more rapid than currently thought. Another possibility
is that their spread started earlier than originally reported, with specimens settling in deeper areas
where they remain for a number of years before moving into shallower waters. Even though the
chronology of sightings across the Caribbean is so perfect it seems to suggest this could not be
the case, it is certainly worth investigating because if correct it would have important implications
for: Existing studies on the effect of their invasion; current understanding of the mechanisms
behind their spread; and, more importantly, management decisions to mitigate against this
species, including increased vigilance of nations who believe they are far enough away from this
invasion to not currently consider it a threat.
42
Appendix 1
Marine related work conducted in Anguilla prior to 2006
(This list is not exhaustive: Compiled by author based on investigations through DFMR records)
Survey of Anguillas Lobster Fishery (Peacock, 1972 & 1975). Cited in later report by T.P.
Jones.
Report and Recommendations for Anguillas Fishing Industry (Comacho, 1974). Cited in
later report by T.P. Jones.
A preliminary management strategy for the utilization of the critical marine resources of
Anguilla (Unpublished report by ECNAMP, as part of the Anguilla Resources Development
Project) & Plan of action for the development of marine parks (Anguilla, Caribbean
Conservation Association). Jackson, I. 1981 (sometimes cited as 1987).
Management Planning for Anguillas Fishing Industry (Olsen & Ogden, 1982). Cited in later
report by T.P. Jones.
The Fishing Industry of Anguilla A report prepared by T.P. Jones in 1985 that examines all
aspects of Anguillas fishing industry.
Marine Habitats Survey Bellairs Research Institute 1990. A Survey of Marine Habitats Around
Anguilla with Baseline Community Descriptions for Coral Reefs and Seagrass Beds.
NRI Anguilla Natural Resource Assessment Fieldwork carried out by UK bodies in 1994 that
produced the NRI Natural Resource Atlas.
Long-line Project Conducted during the late 1990s to assess viability of creating a long-line
fishing industry on the island. Although considered a success in terms of confirming such an
industry was possible, no future developments occurred.
Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the Anguilla Offshore Fisheries Development
Project T.A. Rajack-Talley (MacAllister Elliot & Partners). 1999. Mainly based on interviews
with fishers, this is one of a number of fisheries related reports (not necessarily based on any
survey work) produced around this time (+/- a few years).
Reef-Check 2001 & 2004 Used as a staff training exercise with workshop teaching survey
techniques and species identification. No follow-up surveys took place.
The Status of Stocks of Groupers and Hinds in the Northern Caribbean John Munro &
th
Lauren Blok (undated) paper presented at the 56 Annual Meeting of the Gulf of Caribbean
Fisheries Institute. This work has a small section on Anguilla but it is unclear if any survey work
was conducted.
REEF Surveys 16 surveys were conducted prior to 2006, all likely collected by a single
initiative (reports suggest these were lead by Susan Thompson?). Date of surveys is unclear but
it is known they took place earlier than 2004.
MCS (TCOT) Survey work to create An Assessment of the Status and Exploitation of Marine
Turtles in Anguilla. Pdf version of this report can be downloaded from the link
http://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tcot/finalreport/section4.pdf Work carried out by the Marine
Conservation Society, headed by Peter Richardson. This three year project was completed in
2004.
43
Anguilla Coastal Survey 2004 - ACRAMAM (Anguilla Coastal Resource Assessment Monitoring
and Management). Actual survey work conducted was poorly documented. Anguilla Coastal
Resource Information System (AXACRIS) was produced as a result of some of this work.
Overseas Students Research Projects Five known studies carried out by students from
University of East Anglia between 2003 & 2005. Projects on: Turtle nesting; Coral recruitment;
Sex change in reef fish; Crayfish fishery; and socioeconomic work on fishing effort. Other
students have since visited the Island through DFMR. For details please contact
fisheriesmr@gov.ai
DFMR & ANT Socioeconomic survey of Shoal Bay & Island Harbour Carried out by James
Gumbs (DFMR) & Farah Mukhida (ANT) during 2005/2006. Looked into socioeconomic
considerations relating to Shoal Bay and Island Harbour Marine Park.
Survey of the Fish & Coral Fauna on Sombrero Island (undated) Produced by Christoph
Grueneberg (Overseas Student) in collaboration with the Anguilla National Trust. A brief
unquantified report was written as a result of this work.
DFMR Beach Monitoring Carried out on a regular basis since c.1992. Data has been entered
into database. Reports on this data are pending.
Additional Information
Following production of this document, reports were made in early July 2010 of exceptionally
green water present in certain areas around Anguilla. DFMR subsequently dived at the Anguillita
and Oosterdiep dive sites (where the reports had originated) and confirmed the waters were
incredibly turbid with visibility at times lower than one or two meters. The inserted (unedited)
th
photo was taken on the 7 July 2010 at Anguillita and illustrates the water colour and turbidity:
The colour is a good representation of that observed and the divers arm is only approximately
one metre away. Visibility in Anguillian waters can often exceed 25m. Reasons for these
conditions remain unclear but it is almost certainly due to phytoplankton and thus nutrient rich
water. This observation is highly relevant to sections 2, 4, 5 and 6 of this document. Indeed, the
source of this water might well be the main contributing factor
to eutrophication in Anguillian waters, and even the Caribbean
as a whole. More regional research is needed, but subjective
reports also occurred during the same period in 2009 on
various online networking sites (for example coral-list) where
abnormal nutrient rich waters were surrounding the Virgin
Islands. The Orinocos outflow plume was stated as the
source, with anecdotal observations describing sudden
changes to species composition and behaviour in local
waters. If such a situation is indeed confirmed it suggests that
the Orinoco may be one of the main sources of the
Caribbeans recent increases in nutrient rich water. If so, this
might signify the need for huge international efforts to manage
the outflow of nutrients from this great river system in order to
reverse, or at least mitigate against, the dramatic negative
trends documented throughout Caribbean coral reefs over
recent decades.
44
References
AIMS 2008 Published online at:
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/projectnet/seagrass/apnet-seagrasses01.html
Berg, C. J. (1976) Growth of the Queen Conch
Strombus gigas, with a Discussion of the Practicality of
Its Mariculture. Marine Biology 34, pp. 191-199
Blakesley, H. L. (1977). A contribution to the fisheries
and biology of the queen conch, Strombus gigas L., in
Belize. Abstract of paper presented at American
Fisheries Society, 107th Annual Meeting, Vancouver,
B.C., September 15-17, 1977.
Brown B.E., Dunne R.P. & Chansang H. (1996). Coral
bleaching relative to elevated seawater temperature in
the Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean) over the last 50
years. Coral Reefs 15. p.151-152.
Kramer P., Lang J., Marks K., Garza-Prez R. and

Ginsburg R. (2005). AGRRA Methodology v. 4.0.
University of Miami (available online at
http://www.agrra.org/method/methodology.html)
Lum Kong A. (2007). Report on the Anguilla
fisheries/marine/coastal sector. Report prepared for:
Biodiversity Conservation Inc, Cannonball Complex,
The Valley, Anguilla.
McWilliams J.P. (2005) Implications of climate change
for biodiversity in the UK Overseas
Territories, with emphasis on coral reefs. Unpublished
PhD Thesis. University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk,
England.
Bruno J.F., Petes L.E., Harvell C.D. & Hettinger A.

(2003). Nutrient enrichment can increase the severity of
coral diseases. Ecology Letters 6. p.1056-1061.
Miller R.J., Adams A.J., Ogden N.B., Ogden J.C., &

Ebersole J.P. 2003. Diadema antillarum 17 years after
mass mortality: Is recovery beginning on St Croix?.
Coral Reefs 22. pp 181-187.
Bruno J. F. (2010) What would eat a spiny urchin?

Published online at
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4188
Bythell J. (1995). The Anguillian Marine Resources

Atlas. Natural Resources Institute, University of
Greenwich, Kent, UK.
Bythell J.C. & Buchan K.C. (1996) Impact of hurricane

Luis on the coastal and marine resources of Anguilla.
Marine Ecological Survey produced for the British
Development Division of the Overseas Development
Administration by the University of Newcastle, United
Kingdom.
Oxenford, H.A., and Hunte, W. (1990). A survey of

marine habitats around Anguilla, with baseline
community descriptors for coral reefs and seagrass
beds. Report for the Department of Agriculture and
Fisheries, Government of Anguilla, by the Bellairs
Institute, McGill University, St.James, Barbados.
English S., Wilkinson C. and Barker V. (1997). Survey

Manual for Tropical Marine Resources
(2nd Edition). Australian Institute of Marine Science,
P.M.B. No. 3, Townsville Mail Centre, Qld,
4810, Australia.
Szmant A.M. (2002). Nutrient Enrichment on Coral

Reefs: Is it a Major Cause of Coral Reef Decline?
Estuaries 25. p.743-766.
Fabricius et al., 2003 Effects of terrestrial runoff on the

ecology of corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis
Gardner T.A., Ct I.M., Gill J.A., Grant A., Watkinson
A.R. (2003). Long-Term Region-Wide Declines in
Caribbean Corals. Science 301. pp.958-960.
Godley BJ, Broderick AC, Campbell LM, Ranger S,
Richardson PB (2004) An Assessment of the Status
and Exploitation of Marine Turtles in the UK Overseas
Territories in the Wider Caribbean. Final Project Report
for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
253pp. Published online at:
http://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tcot/finalreport
Goreau T.J. & Thacker K (1994). Coral Reefs, Sewage,
and Water Quality Standards. Report from the
Caribbean Water and Wastewater Association
Conference. Published online at:
http://globalcoral.org/CORAL%20REEFS.%20SEWAG
E,%20AND%20WATER%20QUALITY%20STANDARD
S.htm
Hughes T.P. (1994). Catastrophes, phase shifts, and
large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef.
Science 265. p.1547-1551.
Theile S. (2001). Queen conch fisheries and their

management in the Caribbean. TECHNICAL REPORT
TO THE CITES SECRETARIAT IN COMPLETION OF
CONTRACT A-2000/01
Tuya F., Boyra A., Sanchez-Jerez P., Barbera C., &
Haroun R. (2004). Can one species determine the
structure of the benthic community on a temperate
rocky reef? The case of the long-spined sea-urchin
Diadema antillarum in the eastern Atlantic.
Hydrobiologia 519. pp.211-214.
Wynne S.P. (2004) Habitat Use and Effect of Fishing on
the Spotted Spiny Lobster (Panulirus guttatus) in
Anguilla, British West Indies. Unpublished MSc Thesis.
University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, England.
Wynne S.P. (2007a). Ecological Baseline Survey of
Anguillas Five Marine Parks. Produced by the
Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources for the
Anguillian National Trust as part of an Overseas
Territories Environmental Programme funded project.
Copies can be obtained by contacting
fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2007b). Anguilla Marine Monitoring
Programme Survey Protocol. Produced by the
45
Government of Anguilla. Copies can be obtained by

contacting fisheriesmr@gov.ai.
Wynne S.P. (2008a). Anguilla Marine Monitoring
Programme Pilot Study. Produced by the Department of
Fisheries and Marine Resources for the Government of
Anguilla. Copies can be obtained by contacting
fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2008b). Anguilla Marine Monitoring
Programme 2008 Annual Report. Produced by the
contacting fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2008c). Diadema antillarum Translocation
Study in Anguilla British West Indies. Produced by the
Government of
Anguilla. Copies can be obtained by contacting
fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2009a). 2008 Water Sampling Pilot Study.
Produced by the Department of Fisheries and Marine
Resources for the Government of Anguilla. Copies can
be obtained by contacting fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2009b). Progress report on sea turtle

research conducted by The Department of Fisheries
and Marine Resources during 2007 and 2008 in
Anguilla. Produced by the Department of Fisheries and
Marine Resources for the Government of Anguilla.
fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2009c). Size at maturity, breeding
seasons and fishery selectivity of Panulirus guttatus in
Anguilla, British West Indies. Produced by the
contacting fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. (2009d). Lionfish Response Plan Anguilla
BWI. . Produced by the Department of Fisheries and
Marine Resources for the Government of Anguilla.
fisheriesmr@gov.ai
Wynne S.P. & Ct I. (2007). Effects of habitat quality
and fishing on Caribbean spotted spiny lobster
populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 44. p.488494
46

tmp606F TMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

tmp606F TMP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

tmp606F TMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Status of Anguillas Marine Resources

Based on data collected as part of the Anguilla Marine Monitoring Programme

Status of Anguillas Marine Resources 2010

Part 2: Benthic Surveys

Part 3: Fish Surveys

Part 4: Temporal Changes 1990 2009

Part 5: Coral Recruitment Study

Part 6: Water Quality Monitoring

Part 7: Marine Turtle Surveys

Part 8: Other Key Species

Part 9: Conclusions and Recommendations

Appendix 1: Marine related work conducted in Anguilla prior to 2006

Fisheries legislation needs to be urgently updated to help sustain established fisheries

processing facility on Island.

Fishing boat with trap for repair Island Harbour

Part 2: Benthic Surveys

The transect line Scrub Island reef site

Shoal Bay East

Picture illustrating damage caused by boat engines to shallow seagrass bed

Part 3: Fish Surveys

Conducting underwater fish transects

Percentage of Total Biomass

Mean results from 2008 &

Percentage weight of total

Part 4: Temporal Changes 1990 2009

Forest Bay Seagrass

Crocus Bay Reef

Forest Bay Reef

Corito Bay Reef

Black Garden Inner

Black Garden Outer

Sandy Hill Inner Reef

Sandy Hill Outer Reef

Part 5: Coral Recruitment Study

Part 6: Water Quality Monitoring

Results (see table 6.1 over page)

Road Bay Fishing Pier

Road Bay Wooden Pier

Road Bay Main Jetty

Road Bay Mid-moorings

Crocus Bay Mega Yachts

Shoal Bay East Fountain

Shoal Bay East Ernies

Shoal Bay East Gwens

Shoal Bay Island Harbour

Island Harbour Jetty

Scrub Little Scrub

Sandy Hill Bay

Forest Bay - Seagrass

Forest Bay - Channel

St Martin Channel (Shallow)

St Martin Channel (Deep)

Little Harbour - Beach

Little Harbour - Berm

Blowing Point Ferry Terminal

Blowing Point Sandy Point

Rendezvous Bay Great House

Rendezvous Bay - Merrywing

Cove Bay Fishing Pier