Hotel 7MB work should be part of wider project
(CNS): The Department of Environment has sufficient information on a beach renourishment project proposed by the Grand Cayman Marriott Resort on Seven Mile Beach, so the owners do not need to conduct an environmental impact assessment. However, the DoE experts believe the project should be part of a much wider initiative to address the problems that extend along much of the southern end of Grand Cayman’s famous beach.
The hotel has applied for a coastal works permit to stabilise a seawall and place up to 8,000 cubic yards of sand in front of it as a result of the significant erosion and permanent loss of its beach.
In its scoping opinion, presented to the new National Conservation Council members on Wednesday, experts from the department explained the project and outlined the information they had received from the hotel and from their own work, which meant that an EIA was not required. Nevertheless, the DoE has raised a number of concerns about the project and noted that the erosion in the area extends well beyond the hotel’s beachfront.
As the government considers a potentially costly replenishment project for the entire affected area, the DoE has said it would be sensible to undertake the work all at once, coordinated where possible with a managed retreat.
However, the opportunity for such a retreat was missed recently when planning permission was given to Handel Whittaker to redevelop Royal Palms. The site, which is owned by one of the Dart group’s web of companies, has sustained some of the worst erosion along Seven Mile Beach. The old buildings crumbled into the ocean due to erosion and have now been properly demolished.
This provided the opportunity for the new project to be built much further back from the water, but going against the DoE’s advice and in the face of well-documented erosion in the area, Whittaker’s Central Planning Authority colleagues granted a waiver on the new bar’s coastal setback.
According to the minutes from the hearing in May, Whittaker, the CPA deputy chair, recused himself from the deliberations that led to the approval of work on that site and at Coral Beach, another Dart-owned site a short distance away that has also suffered serious erosion.
Discussions about replenishing the beach have been ongoing for some time. The main concern is that if it is not mandated that future development and redevelopment is not done further away fromn the shoreline when the opportunity arises, the new sand will not stay in place long before it’s washed away.
As there is not enough local sand to take from elsewhere to renourish the Marriott’s beach, which is now long gone, the sand for this project will come from the Bahamaas since work has been done by the DoE’s experts to ensure that the quality and grade of the sand fits well with that of Seven Mile Beach.
Although the project is in a marine park, where a coastal works licence would not normally be granted, Cabinet is almost certain to approve the project. However, it is not without its risks.
In addition to placing up to 8,000 cubic yards of sand at the site, the work includes the installation of two low-profile, shore-perpendicular groynes to help retain sand, the rearrangement of the 231 existing reef balls on site to enhance wave attenuation, the placement of a rock embankment to help protect the base of the existing Grand Cayman Marriott Resort seawall, and the removal of existing submerged debris on site.
Given all of the information supplied by the DoE, the National Conservation Council voted to confirm that the project will not require an EIA. However, during the course of the project the experts from the DoE will monitor the work and ensure that any potential adverse impacts to the marine environment are minimised.
See the details of the meeting and the full project on the agenda here
and listen to the NCC meeting on YouTube below:
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Local News
In regard to the current proposal by for remediation of the Marriott beach, there are no beach replenishment projects in the Miami Beach area (or elsewhere for that matter) that have achieved long-term success without the need for continued cycles of sand placement and other interventions.
Despite decades of investment in shoreline nourishment across locations such as South Beach, Sunny Isles, and Bal Harbour, all have required periodic renourishment to maintain beach width and protect upland infrastructure.
The high-energy, open-ocean environment naturally erodes beaches over time, and without a reliable natural source of sediment—such as river input or significant headland protection, any added sand is gradually carried away by waves, currents, and storms.
Miami Beach, in particular, is a heavily urbanized location with limited space for natural beach ridge development or inland sediment movement. The built environment, including seawalls and infrastructure close to the shore, constrains the beach’s ability to recover naturally after erosive events. (Sound familiar?) As a result, the replenished beaches are essentially artificial systems–beaches on life support–that must be maintained by human intervention.
Projects like the original South Beach nourishment (1976–1982) initially widened the beach significantly and provided storm protection, but multiple renourishments were required in the decades since, particularly after major storms. Similarly, Sunny Isles saw substantial erosion return within a decade of its 2003 nourishment, leading to additional sand placement.
Bal Harbour and North Miami Beach–considered some of the better-managed sections–depend on continued federal and local funding to maintain beach widths through cyclical replenishment.
The idea of a “one-and-done” beach nourishment does not hold up in Miami’s coastal context. It will not hold up here either. Sand will always move, and the natural processes of erosion, driven by powerful forces, is unrelenting. Without periodic renourishment, these beaches would inevitably narrow again, exposing infrastructure and reducing their recreational and economic value.
While efforts continue to explore more sustainable or hybrid solutions—such as submerged reefs or sand bypass systems—there is currently no example in the Miami Beach area (or elsewhere) where replenishment has succeeded long-term without repeated human support.
Adding reef balls and groins to an open-ocean beach may help extend the life of a nourishment project, but they do not eliminate the need for future sand replenishment. These structures can temporarily slow erosion and improve sand retention in specific areas, but the fundamental forces driving sediment loss—wave energy, longshore drift, storms, and sea-level rise—are still at work. In effect, these are mitigation tools, not permanent solutions.
Groins are shore-perpendicular structures designed to trap sand by interrupting the flow of sediment along the beach. When properly spaced and engineered, they can help retain sand on the updrift side and stabilize the beach locally. However, they nearly always cause increased erosion on the downdrift side unless sand bypassing is incorporated into the design. They do not add new sand to the system; they simply redistribute what is already moving through the system. In the absence of nourishment or bypassing, downdrift property owners may see their beaches disappear even faster!
Reef balls, or other forms of artificial reefs, are typically placed offshore and are intended to reduce wave energy before it reaches the shoreline. By calming the water and altering wave dynamics, they can encourage sand deposition near the shore and help create localized sediment traps. Additionally, they offer ecological benefits by providing habitat for marine life. However, their performance is highly site-specific. Variables such as placement depth, local wave climate, sediment grain size, and seabed slope all influence whether they have a meaningful impact. Without meticulous engineering tailored to the local conditions, reef balls may offer only minimal help, or even unintentionally worsen erosion in adjacent areas.
When reef balls, groins and other structures are combined, they can produce moderate, short-to-medium-term benefits. In some designs, reef modules dampen wave energy while groins trap the redistributed sand. This can lead to better sand retention between groins, especially where the wave climate is not too severe. In Seven Mile Beach’s open coast environment–characterised by events such a Nor’westers and tropical storms–erosion is accelerated. A combined strategy does not create a self-sustaining system. Even in such reinforced areas, storms can strip beaches, and routine sand placement is required to maintain beach width.
When seawalls form part of the equation–as is the case here–the situation becomes worse. Seawalls reflect wave energy, preventing the natural absorption of wave force by a sloped beach and causing rebound erosion. Over time, nature and inevitable weather events erode the sand directly in front of the wall, steepens the beach profile, and reduces the structure’s effectiveness unless sand is continuously added.
International experience supports the aforementioned conclusions:
–On Australia’s Gold Coast, where artificial reefs, groins, and nourishment are all in use, erosion is still active with sand bypassing and replenishment used to mitigate the erosion.
–In Florida, artificial reefs were installed in several locations to reduce erosion, but none have led to an independence from periodic renourishment.
In all the cases with which I am familiar, structures have slowed the rate of sand loss, but they have not created a permanent, self-replenishing beach. As long as wave energy and sediment transport remain active forces–and they are always active forces on open coastlines such as Seven Mile Beach–erosion will continue and beach nourishment will remain a recurring necessity. The seawall exacerbates the problem.
The takeaway:
The hard historical evidence points to the fact that no known combination of groins, reef balls, or seawalls has proven capable of sustaining a nourished beach indefinitely in an open-ocean setting. At best, they reduce the rate at which sand is lost and may allow longer intervals between expensive replenishment cycles. At worst, they shift the erosion problem to neighboring properties or create new areas of instability. This is an unacceptable outcome for a coastline of such national importance!
We should demand transparency and accountability from the decision makers:
-The public deserves to see the sediment modeling and downdrift impact analysis–if such studies exist at all.
Salient questions that demand clear answers are:
-Why would the DoE and government endorse piecemeal interventions with a proven track record of failure elsewhere?
-Is the DoE/CIG requiring sediment budget modeling?
-Has a full sediment transport model been done? If not, why not? Has it neem made public?
-What will downdrift property owners experience?
-Is there an environmental impact assessment covering downdrift erosion risk?
-Why would DoE/CIG support stop-gap measures known to cause collateral damage?
-Groins trap sand on the updrift side. They can stabilize the beach locally, but they always, without exception, interrupt longshore sediment transport and cause increased erosion on the downdrift side unless they provide active sand bypassing. The DoE knows this. It is Coastal Engineering 101. Yet there is no evidence that this was modeled, assessed, or even meaningfully considered. Why not?
-Our Department of Environment and government appear to be evaluating beach nourishment projects with insufficient consideration of long-term maintenance demands and without publicly disclosed impact modeling for downdrift erosion. -Is the DoE willing to explain its basis for waiving an impact study?
-What is the plan to protect downdrift landowners, public beach access points, and tourism infrastructure if erosion accelerates due to misapplication of remediations structures and groins?
We do not need vague assurances.
We need data.
We need transparency.
And most of all, we need accountability.
Seven Mile Beach is one of our most valuable national assets. We cannot afford to manage it by guesswork, incomplete plans, or selective reading of global experience.
At best, the plan will slow down the inevitable. At worst, the plan shifts the damage to someone else’s shoreline–usually someone with no say in the decision.
If this project is approved by Cabinet and moves forward without clear (and public) disclosure of modeling, scheduled renourishment commitments, and protections for downdrift impacts, and unintended consequences occur as a result, it will not be an engineering failure. It will be a regulatory failure falling squarely on the heads of DoE and the current new government.
Until the Department of Environment and Cabinet can demonstrate a complete understanding of system-wide impacts–with clear terms in regard to long-term sand replenishment and downdrift protection, and a plan for remediating adverse effects should they arise–this project should not be allowed to proceed.
Cayman is bankrupt. Wasting money on sand is inexcusable. It should be spent on people – specifically, education and healthcare.
The February 2025 OAG report warns that, between 2018 and 2023 there has been a:
– 51% increase in CIG expenditure
– 54% increase in civil service pay costs
– 74% increase in healthcare spending
And that as at December 2023:
– CIG borrowing was $453 million
– CIG post-retirement liability was $2.7 billion (healthcare $2.4 billion, pensions $327 million).
See: https://caymannewsservice.com/2025/06/anglin-confirms-april-deficit-and-growing-spending/#comment-686017
When a wall is built that juts out at right angles from the shoreline, sand accumulates around the wall, but the supply of sand is cut off in other areas, reducing the amount of sand. This method of construction would cause damage to areas other than where the wall was built, and is not an acceptable method.
The best method is to place reef balls or pseudo-rock type wave dissipating blocks parallel to the shoreline at some distance from the shoreline and stack them at or slightly below the water surface to reduce wave erosion.
Sand deposition would only occur behind where reef balls or other types of blocks are placed and would likely be rather reduced elsewhere. Ideally, therefore, the entire Seven Mile Beach should be constructed at one time. However, preferential treatment could be given to the extent that construction of the beach in front of hotels and other facilities that voluntarily contribute funds to the construction project would be given priority.
In regard to an open ocean beach, the shoreline depends on continuous longshore drift to maintain its form; interventions such as groins do not remain isolated in effect. The decision by a landowner to install groins can set off a cascade of consequences, particularly for neighboring properties, and yet these impacts are apparently being inadequately addressed by not only the Cayman Islands Government, but by the very regulatory body tasked with environmental stewardship.
Groins work by interrupting the natural flow of sediment along the shore. As sand is captured on the updrift side of the structure, the downdrift side is left starved, leading to accelerated erosion. This erosion is not a hypothetical future risk–it is a predictable and well-documented consequence seen in coastal engineering case studies around the world. Entire stretches of beach can narrow and even vanish over time simply because one parcel owner sought to protect their own frontage without regard to sediment dynamics on the broader scale. The downdrift property owners, should they accept the unilateral decision to install groins, may be left to suffer the environmental and economic consequences. They may be forced to install their own protective structures, thus perpetuating a domino effect of hardened shoreline and ecological degradation down the line.
Moreover, the proposed project may impact the ecosystem in other ways. There is an identified turtle nesting area just northward of the Marriott. Turtles may find the newly replenished expanse of protected beach a more desirable place to lay their eggs when they would ordinarily choose another location. But the nests will be disturbed or destroyed by the hordes using the nice new beach.
Most concerning is the apparent failure of the Cayman Islands government to consider the wider impacts when reviewing this beach replenishment and erosion mitigation application. In the case of this application involving groin construction, the process seems to be proceeding without a rigorous assessment of the cumulative effects on adjoining beaches and the broader environmental impacts. It seems the DOE is complicit by not requiring an environmental study. This oversight is not only negligent–it is indefensible. Any intervention that modifies longshore sediment transport must be evaluated not just for its effect on the applicant’s land, but for its wider consequences. That this basic principle appears to have been overlooked thus far, raises serious questions about the competence and integrity of the decision-making process.
It is high time that the Cayman Islands Government and its regulatory authorities move beyond piecemeal permitting and solutions, and begin to address coastal management as the interconnected system it truly is. Until then, the erosion of our beaches and public trust, will continue unabated.
Marriott had no beach in 2002. In 2009 it had enough beach for 4 rows of beach chairs ( I worked there those years) How did the beach come back but the sea wall was there all the time?
Hopefully the experts here can explain that.
Other sea walls and new development is the problem this time.
“enough room for 4 rows of beach chairs?” – so in other words, much less than the setbacks required for an active beach?
…and the cocoplum and Seagrapes had been pulled up by then?
And why is the sand coming from the Bahamas? Much cheaper, easier and closer to get it from Cuba.
Government had better not be paying a single cent of our money towards this largely self-inflicted harm on our country.
@10:05am and when the beach is gone and Cayman Tourism crashes, will that impact you, directly or indirectly? Will you blame government for doing nothing? Doing nothing is not the best plan in this case.
If you’re only going back to 2002 that’s your problem. You were already a decade late. The ebb and flow of the beach, including the buildup in 2009, has been on a downward trend since the building was built, as evidenced by what you saw when you got here in 2002. You also need to take into account the sand replacement that happened there in 2005, which you should remember as it is the main explanation for why it went from no sand in 2002 to much sand in 2009. The subsequent erosion (in large part due to shortsighted development decisions) is why there is no sand left there now. (Until the next clement weather or dump truck pushes some back in, temporarily.)
In late 1990s the beach at that end was so wide there were multiple public wooden cabanas for shade with silver thatch roofs. The Marriott/Sheraton did not have a stone break wall. Successive greedy Planning Departments have in affect, killed the beach that was there for hundreds of years.
This is how many of us remember the beach at the beginning of its decline:
https://files.catbox.moe/cpzpm3.jpg
Many of us recall the beach was actually even way broader than what is shown in the photo when the hotel was first built.
Please do ‘splain, Lucy, what happened for it to get to this:
https://files.catbox.moe/i8erwy.jpg
Whittaker’s Central Planning Authority colleagues granted a waiver on the new bar’s coastal setback
What?? This reeks of corruption. why did they approve this knowing the issues on SMB? especially as this plot is large enough to allow the full setback so is completely unnecessary.
Shame also on the deputy chair for submitting plans that do not meet the full setback. If the deputy chair shows no respect for the setback, why should anyone else?
Setbacks behind existing structures. Educate yourself and don’t believe every piece of DOE propaganda you read.
Honestly, what do people like you think would be the purpose of DoE having “propaganda”? What do they stand to gain? Especially compared to the developers with their “propaganda” who stand to actually benefit from cutting corners and misdirecting the public?
The influence of Dart
Easier if they blew up their Marriot pool deck off our beach 😡 Take take take.
This 8000 cu yard replenishment will not work. How did the reef balls work out, Marriott?
It has worked at a lot of places, including Miami Beach. But if an anonymous key boat warrior says it won’t work, then you must be right.
There are no beach replenishment projects in the Miami Beach area (or elsewhere for that matter) that have achieved long-term success without the need for repeated cycles of sand placement and continued human intervention. In other words, they are beaches on life support.
The Marriot reef ball project was undertaken in summer 2005, so we have a 20 year analog to see how that faired.
Also, what impacts, or the mitigation thereof occurred at the site. It would almost be worthy to do a viewing of them and see how they look now.
They were not placed there for that purpose.
. https://www.caymancompass.com/2007/03/01/reef-ball-project-under-way/
Yes they were. The article is misleading. Marriott was hardly going to publicize that their beach was disappearing. Ivan did not negatively impact reefs on the West Side of Grand Cayman. Much of the damage from the sea on Seven Mile Beach came from water overflowing North Sound and hitting properties from the east.
The reef balls are horrible, and they did not work.
Agree 💯 %, but they have to prove they’re doing something. Anything but demolish sea walls that lead to the beach demise over the past 50 years, and relocate construction back at least 100 feet back from where it is now. What does beach sand cost per cubic yard these days around $300/cuyd? That’s one big fireworks show of sand🤣
Nice view while you sit in the pool deck chairs.
Still waiting for these landowners to start coughing up the cash that some of them were stating they would provide previously, they ignored the advice and warnings when building their projects the predicted results have occurred and now, they expect that the Government will step in to make them whole and restore the appeal of their properties without significant contributions on their part?
Even if the funds are not provided immediately in the long term, they should have to pay the principal with interest that the Government pays along with whatever the costs are for maintaining the beaches. They should also have to stop their attempts to block, limit or otherwise inhibit beach accesses for locals which many of them have been guilty of over the years.
If they want to not be on the hook for those costs simple – voluntarily start the process of setbacks and managed retreats. Greed and shortsightedness caused the loss of our beaches which they never owned nor held claim to in the first place – there should be financial consequences for that. They have millions to renovate every few years or to line their own pockets, they have the money to repay Cayman and Caymanians which provide the appeal for them to make profits in the first place.
Do we have “experts” at the DOE for this sort of thing?
i am 1000% convinced this is all because of the rocky sea wall installed by margaritaville to create that artificial lagoon.
Combined with the removal of rocks when the Kimpton was being built. We’ve changed the whole seascape of 7mile…
Citations required.
The influence of Dart
And I am 10,000% convinced that there are many, many reasons for the decline in the sand. Pointing the finger at ONE element is simply short-sighted and ill-informed.
Unfortunately the Marriott seawall needs to be removed and all the other properties as well need to remove any seawalls or other obstructions to the proper floww of the water action. None of this should be paid for by us taxpayers but by all these property owners. We should not be picking up the tab for them just because the people who built were allowed to disregard proper practice.
Planning approval was granted for all but Marnie Turner’s wall.
By planning boards appointed by elected officials, chosen by eligible voters.
Each and every one of them 100% Caymanian.
And all working for the betterment of the developer’s special interest.
Having been given consent by the voting populace.
Careful you don’t pull something while stretching that far.
Which part of it isn’t true?
That the collective voting populace approves of the setback variances granted to ultra-wealthy foreign developers. But you knew that already.
Not true for Marriott, they actually went out further than they were allowed but by then it was too late.
We all know how the planning board/CPA works, so you, past & present members and your developer buddies can just stuff that excuse up your backside.
Go get planning/CPA to help you pay for it then.