USVI Public Records

Document text

St. Croix East End Watersheds Management Plan U.S. Virgin Islands FINAL November 2011 Prepared for: St. Croix East End Marine Park USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program USDA-NRCS, St. Croix Field Office Prepared by: Horsley Witten Group, Inc 90 Route 6A, Sandwich, MA, 02563 www.horsleywitten.com STX East End Watersheds Management Plan ii Acknowledgements In addition to the Horsley Witten Group, the project planning team consisted of Jen Kozlowski, Rob Ferguson, and Marlon Hibbert with the NOAA Coral Conservation Program; Paige Rothenberger (DPNR); Julie Wright (USDA); Jeanne Brown (TNC); and Carol Cramer-Burke (SEA). Paige Rothenberger was the original inspiration for this project and served as the primary contact. East End Marine Park staff assisted in coordinating public meetings and conducting site investigations. Julie Wright provided significant technical guidance, historical perspective, peer review services, and coordination with local property owners. Jeanne Brown and Carol Cramer-Burke provided a non-agency perspective to the planning team and have taken a lead on early implementation funding proposals. Other agency staff that has provided technical assistance on this project include: Robert Cintron (DPW) and Diane Capehart, Anita Nibbs, Alexis Doward, Courtney Dickenson, Ben Keularts, Syed Syedali, and Emanual Liburd (DPNR). Pedro Nieves (DPNR CZM) provided much of the GIS data used for mapping and analysis. Additional technical assistance related to pollutant loadings associated with unpaved roads and and wastewater package plants was provided by Carlos Ramos-Scharron and Mirko Restivic, respectively. We also want to thank all of the individuals who attended public meetings held during the course of the project, and especially those who met with us in the field including: Robert Schuster, May Cornwall and the Adams Family; Mike Hanne, Rubin Roebuck, Josh Tate, David Kagan, Don Sallach, Michael Henry, Lin Thomas, Mirok Restivic, Rhonda Dossman, Carlos Skov, and Richard Gideon, among others. We wish to thank Julie San Martin and the St. Croix Yacht Club as well as Zandy Hillis-Starr and the National Park Service for hosting public meetings. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. ii List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The East End Watersheds ...............................................................................................1 1.2 Pollutant Loading from the East End Watersheds ..........................................................4 1.2.1 Existing Pollutant Load Estimates ..........................................................................5 1.2.2 Future Load Additions and Potential Load Reductions ..........................................7 1.2.3 Implications for Watershed Management .............................................................9 1.3 Purpose of the Plan ....................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Caveats .......................................................................................................................... 11 2.0 Goals and Management Recommendations ................................................................. 13 3.0 Structural Management Practices ................................................................................ 17 3.1 Stormwater Retrofits .................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Gut Stabilization and Buffer Enhancement .................................................................. 22 3.3 Unpaved Road Stabilization .......................................................................................... 25 3.4 Culvert Repair and Replacement .................................................................................. 27 4.0 Non-Structural Management Activities ........................................................................ 35 4.1 Pollution Prevention ..................................................................................................... 35 4.2 Regulations, Programs, and Policies ............................................................................. 37 4.3 Education and Outreach ............................................................................................... 40 4.3.1 Targeting the Residential Community ................................................................. 40 4.3.2 Targeting the Business Community ..................................................................... 42 4.3.3 Targeting the Agricultural Community ................................................................ 43 4.3.4 Targeting the Regulatory Community.................................................................. 43 4.3.5 Targeting the Tourists .......................................................................................... 44 5.0 Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................ 45 5.1 Preliminary Implementation Schedule ......................................................................... 45 5.2 Individual Watershed Implementation Priorities ......................................................... 46 5.3 Evaluating Implementation Progress ............................................................................ 46 Appendices Appendix A: Methods for Estimating Pollutant Loads and Ranking Projects Appendix B: Watershed Management Maps Appendix C: Priority Restoration Project Summaries STX East End Watersheds Management Plan iv List of Acronyms APC Area of Particular Concern BMP Best Management Practice CZM Coastal Zone Management DPNR Department of Planning and Natural Resources DEP Division of Environmental Protection DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife DP Division of Planning DPW Department of Public Works EPA Environmental Protection Agency GP Great Pond Bay watershed LBSP Land-Based Sources of Pollution MC Madam Carty watershed NPS National Park Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SB Solitude Bay watershed SEA St. Croix Environmental Association SG Southgate watershed STXEEMP St. Croix East End Marine Park TB Teague Bay watershed TEMA Territorial Emergency Management Agency TH Turner Hole watershed TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNC The Nature Conservancy TPDES Territorial Pollution Discharge Elimination System USDA-NRCS US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Services STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 1 1.0 Introduction The environmental resources within St. Croix’s East End Marine Park (STXEEMP)—a 60 square mile marine area surrounding the East End of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands (USVI)—are arguably some of the greatest natural assets of the US Virgin Islands. A diversity of users including residents, fishermen, tourist-dependent businesses, recreationists, and scientists rely on the protection of these resources from over-use, water quality degradation, and habitat loss. These impacts can jeopardize continued use and may ultimately reduce ecosystem resiliency to storm damage and climate change. It is within this context, that the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program has sponsored efforts to evaluate land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) and identify management alternatives to help minimize impacts stemming from the six watersheds surrounding the STXEEMP. 1.1 The East End Watersheds Collectively, the East End watersheds are approximately 12 square miles and include Southgate, Solitude Bay, Teague Bay, Turner Hole, Madam Carty, and Great Pond Bay watersheds (Figure 1). Land use in the East End is predominantly undeveloped (Table 1), and includes the Southgate Reserve and a large conservation/park area at the eastern most end of the island. Agricultural and pasture lands and single-family neighborhoods are scattered throughout the East End, but some higher density resorts and condominiums are found along the north shore and the southern coast of Turner Hole. Commercial businesses are basically limited to a few restaurants, a marina and yacht club, a gas station, water company, and storage facility. Average annual rainfall ranges from approximately 38-42 inches across the six watersheds, and is typically drier on the southern side of the interior slopes running east to west across the East End. Soils in areas suitable for development are mostly poorly draining and not ideal for septic systems, which is the predominant form of waste water management other than small package plants at resorts and condos. There are eight receiving water assessment units in St. Croix’s East End that are included in the 2010 USVI 303(d) list for water quality impairments—turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and bacteria were the primary parameters of concern listed (Figure 2). USVI DPNR and US EPA are in the early stages of developing TMDLs for three of these areas: Tamarind Reef/Southgate Lagoon, Green Cay/ Chenay Bay, and Green Cay/offshore. Reported sources of pollutant loads include the marina and vessel discharges, wastewater discharges, and watershed erosion and sedimentation. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 2 Figure 1. St. Croix East End Watersheds and Marine Park Boundaries STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 3 Figure 2. Location of 2010 DPNR Listed Impaired Waters around the East End STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 4 Table 1. Land Use Statistics for the East End Watersheds Metric Great Pond Bay Madam Carty Solitude Bay Southgate Teague Bay Turner Hole Total East End Total Area (acres) 1,996 1,037 1,635 1,392 1,017 696 7,772 % Impervious Cover 3 1 9 9 8 10 7 Paved/Unpaved Road (Miles) 11.8/4.5 2.6/1.5 14.6/12.4 16.4/4.2 10.4/6.6 7.0/3.6 62.8/32.8 Gut (miles) 5.5 1.9 4.9 3.8 0.8 0.3 13.1 % Land Use Breakdown* Undeveloped 55 >99 50 50 44 66 59 Parks/Open Space 1 34 10 5 Agriculture 29 18 24 6 16 Public Facilities <1 1 <1 Residential 9 <1 31 23 14 20 17 Hotel/Resort 2 1 4 <1 Marina/Waterfront 1 <1 Open Water 5 2% <1 *Data based on 2003 UVI/DPNR mapping data 1.2 Pollutant Loading from the East End Watersheds Across the USVI, unpaved roads, exposed soils, and unstable guts are highly susceptible to erosion and are significant contributors to sediment deposition in ponds and nearshore waters. Uncontrolled runoff from impervious surfaces, turf areas, and agricultural lands, as well as illegal dumping and wastewater discharges (i.e., from septic systems, treatment plants, sewer leaks, and boats) are known sources of nutrients, bacteria, oils, and other toxics and can cause beach closures and trigger health advisories. There is concern that these pollutants can lead to biological impairments within the STXEEMP resulting from smothering of coral reefs, increased turbidity, excessive algal growth, reduced dissolved oxygen, and disease. The Watershed Treatment Model (WTM) was used to quantify the impact of LBSP under existing conditions and to determine how future land development and restoration activities may affect pollutant loads in the East End. The model relies primarily on assumed stormwater pollutant concentrations and loading rates assigned to land use categories, as well as on estimated contributions from secondary sources (e.g., gut erosion, septic systems, package wastewater plant discharges, and livestock). Default pollutant concentrations and loading rates were adjusted to better reflect territorial land use categories and to account for high erosion potential areas and unpaved roads. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 5 Relative loads for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), and fecal coliform (FC) were evaluated under existing and future conditions as follows:  Existing Conditions: Total loads from each watershed were used to compare which watersheds are likely to contribute the most pollutants to the STXEEMP. Load allocations from various LBSP within each watershed were generated to identify which pollution sources are the most significant; and  Future Conditions: Increase loads were estimated given proposed development projects to illustrate the impact future development may have on pollutant loading. Load reductions potentially achievable through the implementation of restoration options were estimated to quantify the benefits of implementing retrofit, road improvement, and gut restoration projects. Results of the analysis are summarized below. Refer to Appendix A for more detail on the WTM and on the specific assumptions used. 1.2.1 Existing Pollutant Load Estimates Figure 2 presents the resulting relative load contributions for TSS, TN, TP, and FC from each of the six watersheds as a percentage of the total contribution to the STXEEMP. According to model results, Solitude Bay and Southgate watersheds contribute the largest percentage of TSS to the STXEEMP. This should be expected given: 1) that they have the most acres of impervious cover in the East End, and next to Great Pond, the largest drainage areas; 2) that Solitude Bay has the most number of unpaved road miles (and highest TSS load per acre); and 3) that significant gut erosion problems have been observed in Southgate. These two watersheds are also likely to generate the most bacteria given that they have the highest percentage of residential development. Madam Carty, the most undeveloped/non-agricultural watershed of the group, expectantly has the lowest estimated contribution to STXEEMP pollutant loading. Great Pond, has the largest total drainage area of all the watersheds, which drives the pollutant contributions estimated, which are perhaps larger than expected given the flat terrain and limited urbanization. As modeled, the sources of TSS and TN from all six watersheds include: natural background loads from undeveloped lands (aka “Forest”); rural areas such as agriculture, parks, and open space); urban land use (including unpaved roads); and secondary sources (i.e., gut erosion, wastewater discharges, marinas, and livestock). Undeveloped areas account for almost 60% of the total watershed land use, the remaining is almost evenly divided between open space/agriculture and urbanized land. Figure 3 illustrates the estimated load allocation from each of the sources for TSS and TN for the East End. A similar breakdown of the load allocations for TSS and TN within each of the individual watersheds is presented in Section 5.0. The model results indicate that just under a quarter of the TSS and TN loads to STXEEMP are generated by runoff from undeveloped STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 6 areas, whereas urban runoff contributes 40% and 30% of the TSS and TN loads, respectively. It is worth noting that unpaved roads account for 38% of the TSS load within the urban land contribution; this equates to approximately 15% of the overall TSS load to STXEEMP. Septic systems and discharges from six wastewater package plants contribute to just under a third of the TN load. Figure 2. Existing Pollutant Load Contributions to the STXEEMP (Relative Watershed Comparison) Figure 3. Load Allocations of TSS and TN from Various Sources across the East End STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 7 1.2.2 Future Load Additions and Potential Load Reductions While there is much potential for increased residential development on the East End, estimated changes in future loads were limited to the addition of two proposed resort/casino developments in Great Pond Bay and Madam Carty watersheds. To model the addition of the Wyndham in Great Pond Bay required a conversion of 25 existing agricultural acres to hotel/resort conditions, and an assumption that stormwater management practices would be limited. For Robin Bay, 50 currently undeveloped acres were converted to hotel/resort land use, and it was assumed that a stormwater management would be maximized. Both developments were assumed to install a small package wastewater plants similar to Divi’s existing wastewater treatment system. Model results indicate a significant increase in pollutant loads relative to existing conditions in the two watersheds (Table 3), particularly in the Madam Carty watershed. Increase loads shown here do not necessarily equate to water quality impairments, since absolute values are not provided. Table 3. Percent Increase in Future Total Watershed Load over Existing Conditions Watershed TN TP TSS FC Great Pond Bay 88% 83% 4% 3% Madam Carty 263% 391% 4% 20% The implementation of future restoration practices can have a mitigating effect on pollutant loads. Each watershed was evaluated under one or more restoration scenario based on actual opportunities that were identified in the field including:  Construction of all stormwater retrofits in the watershed;  Implementation of all recommended unpaved road improvement projects;  Wide-scale stabilization of all unpaved roads; and  Completion of recommended gut stabilization practices. Road stabilization projects were modeled by changing unpaved road TSS event mean concentrations to paved concentrations, which are lower. Stormwater retrofits were modeled using default pollutant removal efficiencies at a 75% capture rate. Table 4 summarizes the relative TSS load reduction over existing conditions within each watershed based on the implementation scenarios. The model has the capacity to quantify non-structural practices as well (e.g., enhanced erosion control enforcement, fertilizer reductions, street sweeping, and education programs), but these non-structural practices were not incorporated into this analysis. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 8 Table 4. Potential Percent Reduction in Total TSS Load Over Existing Loads Watersh ed Scenario Assumptions % TSS Reduction in Watershed* Great Pond Stabilization of all unpaved roads  Unpaved roads account for 24% of existing TSS load from urban areas  There are 10.4 acres of existing unpaved road surface  Only 1 identified road project so not modeled 5% from total load Gut restoration Two small projects identified, but most gut miles assumed stable; not modeled. Stormwater Retrofits None identified Madam Carty Stabilization of all unpaved roads Unpaved roads account for 56% of existing urban watershed TSS load 80% total load No specific restoration projects identified Solitude Bay Stabilization of all unpaved roads  Unpaved roads account for 50% of the total TSS load from urban land in watershed  There are 40 acres of total unpaved roads 27% total load Only identified road projects  Total 10 acres  Split stabilization evenly between high/low erosion potential areas 7% total load Stormwater retrofits  Implementation of 7 bioretention/rain gardens; 1 constructed wetland; and 4 proposed swales  98 drainage acres with 19 acres of impervious cover  5% total load  10% from urban contribution Southgate Identified gut restoration  Existing gut erosion accounts for 25% of watershed storm load  Two significant gut stabilization projects totaling 0.3 miles reduce gut erosion to less than 10% of total storm load 17% total load Stormwater Retrofits  Implementation of 6 bioretention/rain gardens, and 2 swale systems, and 2 oil/grit separators  12 drainage acres with 4.5 acres of impervious cover  1% from total load  3% from urban contribution Road stabilization Not modeled since there were no identified road projects and only 18% of existing urban load is associated with unpaved roads Teague Bay Stabilization of all unpaved roads  Unpaved roads account for 48% of existing TSS load from urban areas  There are 14.7 acres of existing road surface  Two identified projects of < 1 acre 20% total load Stormwater Retrofits  Implementation of 1 bioretention/ rain gardens, 1 pond, and 2 wetlands  12 drainage acres with 4.5 impervious acres  3% total load  7% from urban contribution Gut restoration One site identified. Not modeled. Turner Hole Stabilization of all unpaved roads  Unpaved roads account for 25% of existing TSS load from urban areas  There are 6.2 acres of existing road surface  No specific repair projects were identified (except for a small part of Ridge Rd. at Divi) 11% total load Stormwater Retrofits  Retrofit of 3 existing detention basins  6 bioretention/rain gardens, and 1 permeable pavement  89 drainage acres with 34 impervious acres  10% total load  21% from urban contribution Gut restoration None identified * TSS Reductions from existing conditions are independent of other restoration activities and are not cumulative. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 9 1.2.3 Implications for Watershed Management Implications of these results on the overall watershed management strategy may include (in no particular order):  Prioritizing restoration efforts in Solitude Bay and Southgate watersheds since they contribute the largest percentage of TSS and TN loads;  Recognizing that significant increases in watershed loads may result from new development; therefore, prioritizing regulatory and programmatic actions to minimize the impact of new development is critical;  Stabilizing unpaved roads provides the highest TSS load reduction potential of the options modeled. Unpaved roads are a significant component of the urban TSS load and stabilization of these areas should be a priority for watershed management;  Preventing gut erosion can also result in significant load reductions; however the overall contribution of gut erosion to the TSS load is not well understood. A gut morphology study across the USVI may be necessary to more accurately estimate the load reduction benefit of stabilization projects;  Retrofitting is limited given the few number of sites identified and the undeveloped nature of the East End. Cistern use in the East End helps reduce a portion of the stormwater load, though modeling does not account for this particularly well. Turner Hole had the highest load reduction potential associated with retrofits than the other watersheds, likely due to the presence of existing detention basins in need of retrofit and maintenance;  Modeling indicates that wastewater and septic discharges may represent less than 1/3 of TN surface loads to the STXEEMP, which is almost equivalent to the estimated load from urban runoff (groundwater loads have not been accounted for here). While not as critical for TSS, reducing wastewater nutrient loads may be important for reducing overall nutrient loading, particularly since high nitrogen loading to groundwater has been reported;  Recognizing that given the large percentage of undeveloped areas, absolute loads from the East End may not be significantly higher than natural conditions, particularly when compared to other parts of the USVI; and  Understanding that the strength of the model is only as good as the input data. As better information becomes available (e.g., more accurate land use maps, locally- derived pollutant concentrations or loading rates, reliable water quality data), the model should be revised. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 10 1.3 Purpose of the Plan The USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR), the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW), and dozens of local stakeholders have spent the last year assessing watershed conditions, discussing restoration opportunities, and developing a recommended approach to reduce the impact of LBSP on the STXEEMP. This report is written primarily for the East End Marine Park and other DPNR staff; however there are a wide range of stakeholders including federal and territorial agencies, non-government organizations, and individual businesses and residents with an interest in the East End who will be critical partners in advancing implementation. The purpose of this watershed plan is to:  Outline overarching goals and management recommendations to reduce LBSP in the six watersheds draining to the STXEEMP (Section 2.0);  Describe recommended structural restoration projects, such as stormwater retrofits, gut and pond restoration, road stabilization, and drainage improvements (Section 3.0);  Discuss key non-structural activities such as pollution prevention, programmatic and regulatory improvements, and education activities (Section 4.0);  Establish a preliminary implementation schedule, identify watershed specific strategies, and a proposed approach for measuring progress (Section 5.0). Appended to this report are watershed management maps (Appendix B) and concept design summaries (developed to the approximately 10% level) for priority restoration projects (Appendix C). It should be noted that designs were advanced (ranging from 25-60% design) for five of these projects in order to initiate early implementation and/or provide design examples for stormwater and gut restoration challenges in other parts of the USVI. These design plans can be downloaded from the project website at www.horsleywitten.com/stx-east- end-watersheds/index.html. In addition, this report is supplemented by an Existing Watersheds Conditions Report (dated April 2011) that summarizes baseline information on East End watershed conditions (i.e., land use, precipitation, soils, impaired waters, regulations, etc). The Existing Conditions Report also includes a detailed summary of field findings and brief descriptions of existing and proposed conditions at each site investigated, and a preliminary ranking of candidate projects. Subsequent efforts to estimate pollutant loads and conduct a more formal project ranking process have since refined initial project ranking. As mentioned previously, Appendix A contains a final technical memorandum describing the methods used to estimate pollutant loads and prioritize projects. It is not the intent of this watershed plan to repeat information previously provided except where necessary to support implementation recommendations. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 11 1.4 Caveats The following limitations on the information presented in this report should be considered:  Existing pollutant loads and potential reductions estimated using the WTM rely on a number of key assumptions using limited data and were not calibrated against water quality monitoring data. The model was used to estimate relative watershed loads and without additional data input, should not be used to generate reliable, absolute values. The model output presented here should not be used in lieu of a more thorough analysis to establish TMDLs. Model results are presented as load percentages to surface waters, which are collectively referred to as the STXEEMP but also include the ponds. Groundwater loads are not accounted for.  While extensive field investigations and stakeholder meetings were conducted, the list of watershed restoration opportunities presented here should not be considered exhaustive.  An inventory of guts, septic systems, waste water discharges, or territorial environmental regulations was not conducted as part of this effort.  An evaluation of wetland and upland habitat restoration needs was not conducted as part of this effort; however, existing ecological inventories and conservation efforts by SEA, TNC, and NPS are assumed to fill this gap.  Project ranking is intended to inform the implementation process; actual implementation frequently occurs as other opportunities arise and the ranking should not be viewed as an absolute sequence for implementation.  Concept designs offer one option for restoration based on limited field assessment and available GIS, but may not be the most feasible or most cost-effective solution possible. Load reduction estimates generously assume the capacity to manage the 90th percentile of storm events at each site, which may not always be practical at every location.  Where planning level construction costs are provided, these costs are based on a 30% increase over typical unit costs from stateside and from unit costs provided by USVI Department of Public Works.  A watershed plan is meant to be a living document; revisions are anticipated as implementation advances, windows of opportunity are opened, local priorities change, or as more information on watershed conditions becomes available. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 12 This page intentionally left blank. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 13 2.0 Goals & Management The intent of this management plan is to provide implementation guidance to help environmental resource managers achieve the following goals: 1. Protect the marine resources of St. Croix’s East End Marine Park from the negative impacts of land-based sources of pollution and maintain the rural character of the East End; 2. Engage local residents and businesses in watershed stewardship activities; and 3. Demonstrate restoration actions that can be applied throughout the USVI. These goals will be met through implementation of the nine management recommendations described below: 1. Hire a watershed coordinator and establish an implementation committee to oversee short and long-term implementation of watershed recommendations. This person ideally would be housed under the East End Marine Park, although CZM’s APC coordinator position could also be assigned this role. Alternatively, successful models exist around the country and in the USVI of local watershed/community groups being effective at providing these services; therefore SEA might be a realistic option as well. The watershed coordinator should work directly with an implementation committee composed of key partners with access to funding opportunities and implementation capacity (i.e., CZM, DEP, DPW, USDA, NOAA, TNC, SEA, and one or two rotating HOA representatives). 2. Enforce existing environmental regulations affecting land development procedures, including zoning requirements, drainage criteria, and erosion and sediment control. This may require improving agency notification procedures for complaints and response times to more quickly address issues. DPNR Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) should adopt stormwater quality standards for new development and redevelopment activities that require appropriate runoff reduction and/or pollutant removal and channel protection criteria for small storm events. CZM and EEMP should propose a unified wetland/gut management strategy to other agencies to clearly define no-touch buffer zones, procedures for land subdivision, permitting procedures for gut alterations, etc. These issues are particularly important for Madam Carty, Great Pond, and Southgate where new large-scale development projects have been proposed. 3. Support ongoing conservation and habitat restoration activities of NPS, TNC, and SEA. The East End is such a remarkable resource for residents and visitors. The watersheds’ inextricable tie to the quality of the marine resources within the STXEEMP, as well Recommendations STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 14 as other unique island habitats, is unquestionable. Avoiding impacts to these areas is of the utmost importance. Much of the East End is under conservation easement or protected as open space (e.g., TNC-owned property in Turner Hole, public park land in Teague Bay, Southgate Reserve in Southgate). These areas serve to protect remaining wetland habitats and can provide opportunities to re-establish native upland communities. Restoration activities to improve habitat conditions within these properties, as well as for sites draining to these resources, should be management priorities. Examples of existing habitat restoration efforts include native vegetation plantings in the East End Bay and restoring water levels in Southgate Pond via embankment repair. Conservation of additional buffer areas surrounding Great Pond, while seemingly improbable at this time, should actively be pursued. 4. Reduce existing sediment loads and improve public safety through road and gut stabilization projects and drainage improvements. These activities are particularly important in the Solitude and Southgate watersheds as demonstrated by pollutant load modeling, but the recommendation applies throughout the East End. These activities could be led by DPW and NRCS in concert with appropriate homeowners associations. Load reduction targets should be established for the Southgate watershed as part of the upcoming TMDL process. Given the context of flood prevention and drainage improvement across St. Croix, it seemed appropriate by HW not to establish a target road stabilization goal for non- impaired waters of the East End at this time. 5. Manage untreated stormwater runoff by retrofitting existing development that currently lack adequate stormwater management. Impervious surfaces on commercial properties, roads, and residential areas collect pollutants and generate stormwater runoff. Where feasible, runoff from parking lots should be captured and treated before it is discharged to guts and wetlands. Where small storm drainage from rooftops is not collected in cisterns for reuse, rooftop disconnection should be considered. Retrofitting will be important in Southgate, Teague Bay, and Turner Hole. Early implementation projects should provide designs for pilot projects that can be applied in other parts of the USVI. 6. Manage pollutant loads from rural lands primarily through floodplain and gut restoration; vegetation establishment; livestock management; and pond restoration. Much of the area in the East End is active and inactive agricultural area. These areas can provide opportunities to obtain potential easements in locations where stormwater detention could be improved. These activities should be led by the USDA/NRCS. 7. Implement a targeted education and public involvement plan for homeowner associations, restaurants, resorts, and marinas/yacht clubs. To better engage local residents and businesses in watershed stewardship activities, educational messages should be delivered to the appropriate audience in a non-threatening manner. Key messages include how to improve individual wastewater management, inexpensive pollution prevention activities, and effective road maintenance practices. There are a number of agency and non-government STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 15 sponsored educational initiatives on St. Croix that watershed messaging could be linked into; SEA would make an excellent stewardship advocate. 8. Integrate watershed restoration efforts with existing agency programs such as DPW’s capital improvement project planning; DPNR and EPA’s TMDL process; DPNR’s comprehensive planning updates, NOAA’s coral reef protection strategies, USDA farm improvement goals, and others to secure long-term funding for watershed management project installation and maintenance. 9. Establish a formal mechanism for tracking progress and results, particularly for priority projects and programmatic activities. The University of the Virgin Islands engages in a number of monitoring activities in the East End and could provide a good forum for hosting annual watershed progress meetings. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 16 This page intentionally left blank. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 17 3.0 Structural Practices To address management recommendations #4, #5, and #6, a number of opportunities to reduce sources of pollution were field-identified including stormwater retrofits, stabilization of actively eroding guts, unpaved road improvements, and culvert repair and replacement. These types of projects and recommended approaches to implementation are described below in more detail. The prioritization of candidate projects is also presented here; more information on the project ranking process can be found in Appendix A. Watershed maps showing the locations of priority projects are located in Appendix B. Concept sketches for high priority sites can be found in Appendix C. 3.1 Stormwater Retrofits Urban runoff accounts for over 40% and 30% of the total East End TSS and TN load, respectively, and there are over 500 impervious acres currently mapped in the East End. Retrofitting involves going back into existing developed areas and installing new, or improving existing, stormwater management facilities in order to improve water quality treatment and/or reduce runoff volumes to better match pre-development site conditions. With the exception of three existing detention basins associated with Divi Resort/Casino and the Villa Madeline, urban stormwater runoff is largely unmanaged in the East End (Figure 3). Despite recent efforts to strengthen the USVI TPDES permit system, there are no standardized treatment criteria to require adequate management of stormwater from new development. Most parking lots do not have formal drainage systems; therefore, the road network becomes the defacto drainage system that conveys large volumes of contaminated runoff to guts and wetlands. Since the East End does not have a public water supply, the majority of the rooftops drain to cistern collection systems, which reduces the total volume of surface stormwater runoff, at least for small storms, which lessens the typical rainfall/runoff relationship associated with total impervious cover. Modeling predicts that implementation of the retrofits identified here can potentially reduce the total urban TSS load in Solitude Bay by 10%, 3% in Southgate, 7% in Teague bay, and 21% in Turner Hole. However, not all projects as conceptualized will be feasible given budgetary and other site constraints. Ranking helps to identify those projects that, perhaps, make the most sense in terms of cost/benefit; although actual implementation will be more closely linked to real opportunities and not necessarily the scoring matrix. At this early stage in management of stormwater in the USVI, there are a number of competing priorities that make absolute project prioritization difficult. Therefore, this list of projects should be kept in mind as grant funding becomes available, capital improvements are planned, and redevelopment or property improvements are made. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 18 Figure 3. Existing Detention Basins in Turner Hole at Divi Table 5 lists 35 individual retrofit opportunities identified during the watershed assessment. The retrofits identified here include structural control practices preliminarily identified as bioretention, rain gardens, wet ponds, constructed wetlands, swales (dry and bioswales), regenerative conveyance, permeable pavement, and oil/grit separators. In some cases, multiple retrofit projects were identified on single properties. These projects were ranked using 11 criteria related to water quality benefits, other public benefits, relative cost, management feasibility, and site constraints. Detailed ranking methodology and scoring results can be found in Appendix A. Arguably, the restoration of farm ponds and other man-made detention structures (i.e., golf water features) may also fall into the stormwater retrofitting bin. Though not thoroughly investigated under this watershed planning effort, there are over 35 mapped small ponds in the East End, and their potential to reduce sediment loads from both undeveloped and developed areas is currently unknown. Figure 4 illustrates an example of where rain garden and bioswale retrofits could be installed at the Chenay Bay Resort in the Southgate watershed. The locations and conceptual sketches for these projects can be found in Appendix B and C, respectively. In addition, a narrative discussion of site conditions and copies of individual field forms can be found in the Existing Condition Report. More detailed designs are available for retrofit concepts at the Divi Casino, Reef Golf, Fire Station, and East End Bay Trail on the watershed website at http://www.horsleywitten.com/stx-east-end-watersheds/designs.html. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 19 Table 5. Priority Stormwater Retrofit Projects Site ID* Location Description Total Score Priority TH-R-2A Divi Casino retrofit existing dry detention basin 40 High TB-R-3B Reef Golf Course constructed wetland/forebay 39 TB-R-3A Reef Golf Course wet pond 38 SG-R-20A Chenay Bay rain garden at restaurant 37 SB-R-1B Fire Station dry swale, cistern, and covered dumpster area 37 TH-R-1 East End Bay Trail bioretention at parking lot 36 SB-R-3 Seven Flags stepped regenerative conveyance system 35 TB-R-2B STX Yacht Club rain garden 35 SB-R-1A Fire Station rain garden in front 35 TH-R-3A Divi Hotel/Resort retrofit existing dry detention basin 35 TH-R-3B Divi Hotel/Resort rain garden in parking lot 32 Medium TH-R-3D Divi Hotel/Resort rain garden in parking lot 32 TB-R-2A STX Yacht Club constructed wetland forebay & formalized swale 32 SG-R-5 Tamarind Reef shallow bioretention near tennis courts 32 TH-R-5 Villa Madeline maintenance & expansion of existing detention 31 SG-R-2A Southgate Condos rain garden at Entrance 31 SG-R-4 Green Cay Marina swales in roadside median 31 TH-R-4 Hotel Renovation bioretention in parking lot 30 TH-R-2C Divi Casino landscape island rain garden in Divi parking lot 30 TH-R-2B Divi Casino landscape island rain garden in Divi parking lot 30 SG-R-20B Chenay Bay linear bioretention in parking lot 30 SG-R-3B Green Cay Marina bioretention 30 TB-R-4 Skov Farm Pond restoration & upland drainage stabilization -- Low SB-R-6 Coakley Bay Condos roadside swale in front of Coakley Bay Condos 28 TH-R-3C Divi Hotel/Resort permeable pavement in parking lot 28 SG-R-1 Cheeseburgers Bioswale or rain garden 27 SB-R-7 Carden Beach shallow constructed wetland 26 SB-R-7A Carden Beach cul-de-sac bioretention, forebay maintenance, and outlet stabilization 25 SB-R-4 Ziggy's Swale or perimeter filter 25 SG-R-2B Southgate Condos bioretention in rear to collect parking/drive aisle 25 SB-R-5A Coakley Bay Condos Bioretention in existing pervious area 23 SB-R-5B Coakley Bay Condos Bioretention to capture parking lot/drive aisle 23 SB-R-2A Blue Water Terrace Bioretention for parking lot drainage 23 SB-R-2B Blue Water Terrace bioretention for parking lot drainage 23 SB-R-8 Candle Reef II cul-de-sac island bioretention 22 SG-R-3A Green Cay Marina oil/grit separator 20 SG-R-3C Green Cay Marina oil/grit separator 20 * Site ID’s correspond to mapping labels in Appendix B and are coded as follows: SG= Southgate, SB=Solitude Bay, TH=Turner Hole, and TB=Teague Bay; Yellow highlighting indicates projects with more detailed design plans. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 20 Figure 4. Example Locations for Retrofits to Capture Rooftop and Parking Drainage Retrofitting in the East End can be difficult given the following challenges:  High groundwater tables and soils with poor infiltration capacity, which is often the preferred approach to managing surface runoff;  Lack of publicly-owned parcels, easements, and road rights-of-way where retrofits can be placed;  Lack of a regulatory mandate or incentives for owners to improve the quality of stormwater discharges from private properties;  Limited understanding of gut capacity to handle stormwater discharges (e.g., infiltration capacity, channel stability, etc);  Few existing examples of effective stormwater facilities or successful retrofit projects;  Lack of adequately-sized public drainage infrastructure to tie private facilities into;  High material and labor costs for construction; and  Lack of incentive to manage private small events given the magnitude and frequency of larger storms. We recommend that some of the following short-term actions be completed in implementation years 1 through 5: Retrofit Action 1: Identify three or four early action projects that can be installed quickly, are highly visible, can serve as demonstration projects, and generate support for future efforts. These typically include small projects, such as rain gardens that can involve volunteers and utilize donated materials. The East End Bay trail head, fire station, Chenay Bay Resort, and St. Croix Yacht Club may provide such an opportunity. Revisit concepts at Cheeseburgers and Bluewater Terrace to see if simple raingardens could substitute for bioretention and bioswale options. Rain garden Bioretention or bioswale STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 21 Retrofit Action 2: Approach Divi and Villa Madeline about maintenance issues and possibility of improving treatment capacity of existing facilities. Conversion of dry detention basins to water quality practices tends to be relatively inexpensive per acre treated and can provide an example for how facilities should be constructed in the future. Simple modification of the existing outlet structures, extension of the flow path, and planting of vegetation can significantly improve treatment efficiency of existing detention basins. It would be helpful to verify if these practices could be expanded to better manage the drainage coming to them. Retrofit Action 3: For big projects, secure funding in the short-term to advance the first phase of stormwater retrofitting which includes site surveys, 30-60% engineering design, and permitting. This will help in determining not only how much a project will cost, but if permitting issues prevent the project from moving forward (such as the constructed wetland at Reef Golf). Retrofit Action 4: Coordinate a meeting/site tour, or dedicate the next Non-Point Source Conference hosted by DPNR to convene project managers and contractors around the USVI with retrofitting experience. Unlike state-side, there are few examples of how these practices should be designed, installed, and maintained here on the island. UVI, NRCS, and Coral Bay Community Council have a number of raingarden, road stabilization, and gut restoration projects under their belt, which can help with design, cost estimates, and picking the right contractor. This meeting should also be used to establish cost estimates for retrofit projects and to draft stormwater management criteria that can be incorporated into a new, enforceable, stormwater design manual for the USVI. Retrofit Action 5: Establish a stormwater practice database in GIS to track existing BMPs and retrofit projects. This database should include type of facility, date of construction, drainage area captured and treated, design and construction costs, and any maintenance records. This mapping and tracking information should become an integral component of the TPDES program. Retrofit Action 6: Secure funding for construction. When funding opportunities arise, capital improvements are planned, and redevelopment or property improvements are made, turn to your retrofit list to see what projects are ready to move forward. Retrofit Action 7: Conduct a survey of small manmade ponds in the East End to determine condition, drainage area, and estimated rate of sediment deposition. These ponds detain runoff, retain sediment, and provide drinking water for livestock; however, the influence of these small impoundments on the overall water or sediment budget has not been documented recently. Existing farm ponds that require maintenance including vegetation management, sediment removal and structural repair (e.g., liners, spillway systems, etc.) should be prioritized for USDA grant monies, which could be viable when coupled with gut restoration, buffer reforestation, and other best management practices. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 22 Important tips for successful retrofitting in the East End include the following:  Consider the type of vegetation to be used in rain gardens, bioretention, and other vegetated practices. Plan for watering, if necessary, to establish growth since there is no public water supply. A multi-phased approach to retrofit construction can allow for planting of vegetation during wetter seasons.  When pricing, include a contingency line item in construction budgets ranging anywhere from 10-30%.  Do not forget about erosion and sediment control, particularly temporary stabilization practices during retrofit construction, if necessary.  Do not pursue retrofit activities without a good understanding of the short and long-term maintenance requirements and who is going to be responsible for them.  Refine pollutant load reduction estimates for each project as actual drainage areas are defined, flows are modeled, and designs become finalized and if performance monitoring is conducted. 3.2 Gut Stabilization and Buffer Enhancement There are over 13 miles of mapped guts in the East End. Recent studies in the Chesapeake Bay have shown that in-stream erosion can contribute twice as much sediment as upland sources (2/3 of the total watershed TSS load) where watershed runoff volumes are high (Medina and Curtis, 2011). While the dry guts on the East End differ significantly from urban streams in the Chesapeake Bay study, no data has been published to evaluate TSS loading from gut erosion in the USVI or to suggest that gut erosion is insignificant. In fact, the comprehensive study of gut ecology and morphology is in its infancy in the USVI, and many questions still exist regarding the role guts play in stormwater conveyance, the impact of small vs. large storm events on gut stability, and their infiltration capacity. While some of these questions are being investigated in priority guts across the USVI, none of the guts in the East End are part of these studies. This watershed planning effort did not include an investigation of gut or riparian buffer condition; although road crossings and widely-known gut erosion locations were evaluated by the project team. Modeling assumptions included best professional judgment on the contribution of guts to overall TSS loads and the reduction potential from gut stabilization projects were all based on limited field observations that were made. Table 6 lists six gut restoration projects that were identified during the watershed assessment. These projects were ranked similarly to the retrofit projects, but overall length of stabilization area was compared (see Appendix A for the ranking details). STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 23 Table 6. Priority Gut Restoration Projects Site ID* Location Description Total Score Priority SG-G-2 East Gut Adams Farm headcut Stabilize headcut and overland flow path; plant buffer vegetation; provide stabilize crossing pad 45 High TB-G-1 Gut at Reef Golf Course Divert small storms to pond; stabilize eroding banks; check dams to slow erosive velocities; replace culvert 40 High GP-G-1 Sally's Fancy-West Gut Install curb and paved flume to direct flows into riprap stabilization at head cut; investigate buffer enhancement 31 Medium GP-G-2 Sally's Fancy-East Gut Address pond breach; remove sediment stockpile in gut 30 Medium SG-G-1 West Gut behind Cheeseburgers Isolated bank stabilization 21 Low SG-G-3/ SG-RC-22 West Gut on Schuster’s property Existing NCSU restoration proposal for lower gut section; address headcut at top by stabilizing road drainage and outlet location 23 Low *Site ID corresponds to locations on watershed maps and to candidate project field form ID’s Load reductions based on gut restoration were only modeled for Southgate due to the severity of gut erosion problems observed in that particular watershed, and because few projects were identified in the other watersheds. The model estimated that a 17% TSS reduction could be achieved from gut restoration projects in Southgate, assuming that initial TSS loads contribute a quarter of the total watershed TSS load initially. More effort to better understand erosion rates and sediment transport will be required to better quantify actual reductions. Figure 6 shows the perimeter of a massive headcut (recorded with GPS unit in July 2011) on the Adams Farm property overlain on top of 2007 aerial imagery. It appears that the headcut has migrated approximately 40 ft since the aerial image was taken. Assuming the average depth of the headcut is 10.6 ft, the volume change over the four-year period is approximately 485 cubic yards (13,086 cubic feet). We recommend some of the following short-term actions to be completed in implementation years 1 through 5: Gut Restoration Action 1: Advance engineering design plans for addressing priority gut stabilization projects, including Adams’ Farm and Reef Golf Course. These designs should be compared with other gut restoration concepts proposed throughout the USVI to generate a menu of restoration options. Gut Restoration Action 2: Meet with DPNR, Fish and Wildlife, NRCS, UVI, TEMA, Army Corps of Engineers, and others to discuss the permitting requirements for (and other STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 24 implications of gut restoration activities that may involve the in-stream placement of structures (e.g., check dams and detention features) or floodplain reconnection. Gut Restoration Action 3: Work closely with USDA, NOAA, DOT, and other federal partners to secure restoration funds to implement big gut restoration projects. Work with DPW to stabilize headcuts and eroding banks adjacent to roadways as part of public road and culvert maintenance projects. Gut Restoration Action 4: Use a combination of GIS and field investigation to characterize in-stream and riparian gut conditions. Guts should be classified according to drainage area, bank stability, number of road crossings, number of outfalls (or stormwater discharge points into gut) number of impoundments, and natural buffer width. This data should be used to help inform managers of the effectiveness of gut/buffer protection regulations, improve mapping accuracy, and establish baseline monitoring stations for long-term data collection on flow and water quality, channel dimensions, and biological communities. Figure 6. Forty-foot Headcut Migration of Adams’ Family Gut over Four Years 2007 aerial image (DPNR) showing headcut location; dotted line indicates new perimeter of actively migrating headcut recorded with GPS in July 2011 STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 25 3.3 Unpaved Road Stabilization Unpaved roads have the potential to be one of the most significant sources of sediment loading in the East End (Figure 7). Modeling indicates that 38% of the urban TSS loading to the East End is from unpaved roads. This estimate is likely conservative given the sediment production rates measured by Ramos-Scharron and other researchers in the USVI and in Puerto Rico. There are a number of privately-owned roads and residential streets that should be high priorities for repair, paving, or other drainage improvements. The DPW does not extend maintenance authority to most of the private roads; therefore, watershed managers and homeowner associations will likely have to play a large role in securing funding for any road improvement project. Table 7 lists six unpaved road stabilization projects identified during field investigations. These projects were ranked based on the severity of the problem, including the length of area to be stabilized and the relation to impaired waters, vehicular demand, crossover with DPW priorities, and strong homeowner association awareness. Figure 7. Priority Unpaved Road Projects in Seven Flags and Hope and Carton Hill Areas Similarly, there are a number of small, eroding, pedestrian trails that are candidates for stabilization, particularly ones where access is not limited to pedestrian traffic. The recent East End Bay Trail stabilization project is an example of the conversion, relocation, and stabilization of a trail system using boulders to prevent vehicular access, check dams to reduce erosive velocities, stabilized outlet structures to convey runoff safely down slopes, using small sediment forebays, waterbars, and vegetative stabilization using grasses. Some trailheads will require the diversion of stormwater runoff away from the trail, stone or timber steps, and waterbars and other cross-drain features. The Nature Conservancy is responsible for managing an extensive STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 26 trail system at the East End, and has employed a number of innovative practices to prevent trail erosion. Table 8 includes a summary of trail restoration sites identified during field investigations, though we suspect there a number of additional locations were trail stabilization is needed. Table 7. Priority Road Stabilization Projects Site ID* Location Description Total Score Priority SB-RC-9 Seven Flags Rd. Pave 1000 ft/ (0.5 acres) section of road with severe ditch erosion that is threatening existing buildings and clogging public culvert; redirect flows into gut and pipe overflow to new culvert to be installed under East End Rd. 17 High TB-RC-3 Ridge Rd. at Rt. 82 Install waterbars to stabilize 250 ft (.1 acres) of unpaved road section 17 SB-RC-8 Hope and Carton Neighborhood 3.6 miles (8.7 acres). Develop master drainage plan for neighborhood road network to prevent deposition into gut at Pony Club Trail Rd. 16 TB-RC-4 Goat Hill Rd. Stabilize 1200 ft (0.6 acres) section with waterbars 16 GP-RC-33 Unnamed Road off South Shore Stabilize 300 ft (0.,1 acres) section with waterbars 13 Medium SB-RC-1 Sierra Verde/Bajamar Rd Stabilize 350 ft (0.2 acres) section with waterbars 8 Low *Site ID corresponds to locations on watershed maps and to candidate project field form ID’s Table 8. Trail Stabilization Projects Site ID* Location Description TB-R-1 Off of East End Bay Rd. at Cotton Garden Pt. Install guardrail to prevent vehicular access GP-R-3 East End Marine Park Office Stabilize privately-owned trail to beach from open field area near East End Marine Park Office; may involve formalizing parking area and incorporating into proposed campground development project. SB-R-6 Trail below Coakley Bay Condos Stabilize public access to beach that takes runoff from condos and roads TH-R-1 East End Bay Trailhead Retrofit to manage runoff from new parking lot and roadway *Site ID corresponds to locations on watershed maps and to candidate project field form ID’s We recommend some of the following actions be completed as practical in implementation years 1 through 5: Unpaved Roads Action 1: Coordinate with The Nature Conservancy to install waterbars and other practices where necessary on Goat Hill Rd. This site offers a unique opportunity to test STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 27 variations on water bar design, installation methods, and maintenance activities that could serve as a model for other private roads in the East End, and is a good candidate for early implementation. Unpaved Roads Action 2: Coordinate a one-day workshop on St. John with the Coral Bay Community Council, DPW staff, and contractors to tour existing road stabilization projects on Callabash Boom, Maho Bay, and other locations where waterbars, roadside checks, concrete dips, and outlet stabilization practices have been installed. Conduct a design charette for a priority location on the East End, where practice details, unit cost estimates, and installation and maintenance tips can be shared. Unpaved Roads Action 3: Secure funding to begin survey work for high priority projects on Seven Flags Rd. and Hope and Carton neighborhood in order to fully develop restoration concepts. Unpaved Roads Action 4: Complete master drainage plan for Hope and Carton neighborhood to indentify drainage improvements and potential stormwater retrofits, as well as a routine maintenance plan for the homeowners association and DPW. Unpaved Roads Action 5: Coordinate with UVI to collect additional data and conduct additional analysis in GIS to assign slope, surface condition, and other input variables required to develop road erosion models for the East End. This data would compliment concurrent studies of hillside and trailhead erosion being conducted in Teague Bay and Turner Hole and could be used to better model TSS load estimates. Unpaved Roads Action 6: Partner with TNC and property owner to stabilize the trail at the East End Marine Park as a demonstration project. Conduct a survey of beach access trails to determine the severity of erosion and if vehicular access is an issue, potential for improved parking and vehicular restriction. Work with local community groups, schools, and Homeowners/Condo Associations to “adopt-a-trail” and begin the process of designing trail restoration plans. 3.4 Culvert Repair and Replacement Evidence of erosion, sediment transport, and wetland habitat loss from new culvert installations and unstable outfall discharges was observed in a number of the East End watersheds (e.g., Southgate, Turner Hole). Many existing culverts were completely blocked, crushed, undersized, or in need of maintenance/repair (Figure 8). Clogged culverts can cause flooding and/or the re-direction of stormwater flows to areas that are more susceptible to erosion. Data on the location, size, type, and condition of 97 visible culverts was collected and entered into GIS. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 28 Table 9 lists the culverts in need of routine maintenance or more significant repair. Priorities are based on field team’s best professional judgment given significance of blockage, size of pipe, and relation to other potential restoration projects. New or replacement culverts should be sized for the appropriate storm return frequency, watershed build out, gut grade control issues, downstream water quality, and potential fish/invertebrate migration. Rainfall statistics should be updated and applied. Incorporation of water quality structures and stabilization techniques into culvert design and construction may help reduce sediment loading and long-term maintenance needs. Recommendations for culvert installation, sizing, and maintenance will be important, particularly for areas in the East End where DPW is planning improvements (i.e., Rt. 624 in Great Pond and the East gut in Southgate). Figure 9 illustrates two examples of recently installed culverts and road drainage outfalls that could benefit from stilling basins and erosion and sediment control practices. Figure 8. Blocked Culvert (Seven Flags) and Undermining of Culvert Headwall (Southgate East Gut) We recommend some of the following actions to be completed in implementation years 1 through 5: Culvert Action 1: Meet with DPW and HOA representatives to discuss culvert potential collaboration on routine maintenance of neighborhood drainage infrastructure. Review the list of priority culvert maintenance projects identified here, confirm responsible parties, and discuss the practical methods and schedules for implementation. Culvert Action 2: DPW and DPNR to update Territorial infrastructure mapping/GIS data with culvert shapefiles developed under this project. Culvert Action 3: Secure funding to develop design plans for priority culvert projects that are in line with DPW priorities, sizing standards, and maintenance capacity, such as the replacement of Southgate’s East Gut and the culvert adjacent to Milgies’s Grocery in Great Pond. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 29 Culvert Action 4: Where feasible, incorporate stilling basins into culvert/outfall designs to provide for energy dissipation and sediment deposition (Figure 10), though this will be limited unless accumulated sediment is regularly cleaned out. New public outfalls and culvert installations should include the installation of temporary erosion and sediment control practices and serve as models for private developments. Develop guidance for culvert sizing for all new installations. Figure 9. Example of Culvert/Drainage Outfalls in Need of Stabilization Hydroseeding of exposed soils Install stilling basin or plunge pool Erosion control blankets or turf reinforcement matting Stabilize new culvert/outfall Stabilize exposed slopes with erosion control blanket Install rock check dams in channel to reduce erosion velocities and create sediment collection “forebay” STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 30 Figure 10. Stilling Basin/Plunge Pool Detail STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 31 Table 9. Priority Culvert Maintenance and Repair Projects Priority Map ID Field Form ID Location Diameter (inches) Type Description of Maintenance Needs High SB-4 SB-RC-16 Rte 82-Coakley Bay 18 RCP scour hole at downstream end, needs stabilization and/or larger culvert SB-6 SB-RC-12 off Rte 82 48 CMP manhole covers missing all along length. Outlet submerged. SB-14 SB-RC-9 Rte 82 24 RCP/CMP mostly blocked by sediment. CMP is damaged on upstream end. Needs to be replaced with larger culverts. SB-15 SB-RC-9 Cotton Valley Trail ? CMP could not locate downstream end - presumed to be completely clogged SB-19 SB-RC-13 near Fire Station 24 CMP/DIP could not locate upstream end due to vegetation at edge of pond. Downstream end is clogged with vegetation. SB-20 SB-RC-3 Pony Club Trail 30 CMP Sediment from dirt roads pushed into upstream area of culvert. Very large scour hole at downstream end (15' deep, 20' wide) - culvert is undersized. Culvert bending from weight of road. Dumping in the area. SB-24 SB-RC-6 Rte 82 30 CMP corroded CMP pipe retrofitted with RCP end sections. Culvert not in line with flow direction, some upstream erosion and sediment deposition observed. Downstream area has undercut and now ponds water. SB-26 SB-RC-19 Rte 82 24/8/8 CMP/PVC/ PVC septic smell coming from downstream end. 2 PVC pipes from unknown source GP-7 GP-RC-2 Route 624 at Milgie's Grocery replace culvert and realign gut SG-9 SG-RC-21 East End Rd 50X36/18 CMP/RCP East Gut, next priority for DPW replacement in the EE. 18 " RCP and two CMP arches; significant blockage; sinkholes behind headwall; deteriorating headwall; 20x40 ft scour hole downstream; drains Adams property TB-20 TB-RC-2 East End Rd/Rte 82 24 CMP completely crushed at outlet; inlet and headwall completely buried; needs replacement Medium SB-7 SB-RC-11 Rte 82 30/30 CMP becomes blocked with sediment/debris from Solitude Rd, needs regular maintenance SB-9 SB-RC-11 Solitude/Ziggy’s/Top Side 30 CMP frequently becomes blocked with sediment/debris from Solitude Rd, needs regular maintenance SB-17 SB-RC-18 Seven Flags 12 CMP appears to be completely blocked SB-18 SB-RC-14 Rte 82 near Fire Station 30 RCP downstream end is mostly submerged, scour hole present, gabion baskets need some repair SB-22 SB-RC-4 unknown 24 DIP corrosion at downstream end, and scouring down to wet pond STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 32 Priority Map ID Field Form ID Location Diameter (inches) Type Description of Maintenance Needs SB-25 SB-RC-7 Rte 82/Blue Water Terrace 15 RCP downstream end flowing through private property. Pipe deterioration evident, and pipe appears to be completely blocked. Concrete swale constructed on top of pipe for direct road runoff - this is also deteriorating. Discharges directly into ocean. GP-2 GP-RC-1 Route 624 15/24/15 RCP/RCP/ DIP downstream scouring; inlets partially blocked w/minor sedimentation, large concrete headwall GP-4 GP-RC-5 Marienhoj/Maria Lane? ? west culvert completely buried; size/type unknown; only portion of small headwall/inlet structure above ground GP-5 GP-RC-4 Maria Lane East 24 CMP inlet partially blocked; significant erosion/scour on bank at outlet; outlet suspended; concrete dumped above outlet on road shoulder (most likely disposal activity and not effort to control/direct stormwater) SG-1 SG-RC-6 Crescent Beach Rd 24 RCP erosion up and downstream of culvert, riprap failing SG-6 SG-RC-2 East End Rd 36 CMP in front of Seven Seas, good swale pretreatment, pipe is failing and blocked (at outlet) SG-7 SG-RC-1 East End Rd 18 RCP ditch in front of Cheeseburgers, < 1-2" capacity remaining, needs simple backhoe/drainage maintenance SG-18 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 15 DIP with drain inlet, needs basic maintenance SG-19 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 12 DIP needs basic maintenance SG-20 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 27 DIP erosion at inlet and at outlet; gullies forming SG-21 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 24 RCP/CMP needs basic maintenance SG-22 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 18 DIP SG-23 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 24 DIP SG-24 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 24 DIP SG-25 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 24 DIP SG-26 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 18 DIP needs basic maintenance SG-27 SG-RC-7 Seven Hills 30 DIP debris maintenance TB-19 TB-RC-1 East End Rd/Rte 82 Duggan's Entrance 22 DIP 3ft concrete headwall (damaged); damaged/partially blocked; culvert needs replacement TH-1 South Shore Rd 24 RCP 2/3 buried Low SB-1 SB-RC-15 Rte 82 18 RCP scouring on downstream end, needs riprap SB-2 SB-RC-15 Rte 82 18 RCP some chipping of pipe, blockage SB-3 SB-RC-15 Rte 82 15 RCP farmland upstream, downstream end undetermined (private property). Upstream blockage of sediment and vegetation. SB-5 SB-RC-17 Rte 82 24 RCP scour hole at downstream end, needs stabilization and/or larger culvert SB-10 SB-RC-10 Solitude 30 CMP some erosion issues here STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 33 Priority Map ID Field Form ID Location Diameter (inches) Type Description of Maintenance Needs SB-11 SB-RC-10 Solitude 30 CMP some erosion issues here SB-21 SB-RC-2 unknown 24/24 CMP/CMP Dry pond at upstream end. Slight scouring at downstream end. Could use some riprap to help stabilize SB-23 SB-RC-5 unknown 24/24 DIP/DIP Pipes bent and corroded. Grate/fencing on upstream end is in disrepair, scouring on downstream end. Appears undersized - flows over road in this location. GP-1 GP-RC-34 S Shore Rd 12 RCP sediment on upstream side recently scooped out with backhoe, potential to retrofit with a concrete drainbox with a sump. Need to clean out pipe and stabilize outfall GP-3 GP-RC-3 Route 624 36 CMP 6.5-foot concrete headwall; scour hole downstream - stabilize w/riprap; moderate sedimentation upstream; culvert in good condition SG-3 SG-RC-35 Spicewood Rd 12 RCP broken and clogged culvert SG-4 SG-RC-36 Southgate Crossing -- CMP roadside ditch; clogged on downstream end; homeowner may be encouraging clogging, parcel good demo for residential raingarden and pavers SG-5 SG-RC-20 East End Rd at Church 15 RCP near Baptist Church; significant blockage; cracking SG-10 SG-RC-5 South Shore Rd 24 RCP/CMP downstream pipe mostly plugged up with sediment and debris SG-11 SG-RC-4 South Shore Rd driveway culvert (couldn’t see completely), partial blockage with vegetation SG-12 SG-RC-30 South Shore Rd 24 RCP/CMP partial blockage, low priority. Needs basic vegetative maintenance/debris removal. CMP is deteriorating. 50% submerged with scour pools. Has a 6.5x5 ft concrete channel at headwall; downstream and upstream look good. TB-4 East End Rd 42 CMP corroded with rust; stable outfall TB-9 East End Rd 24 CMP drop box; rusted invert TB-16 East End Rd/Rte 82 18 CMP damaged culverts; need maintenance/replacement TB-18 TB-RC-1 Duggan's parking lot 12 PVC good condition; minor sedimentation in pipes TB-21 Reef Golf Drive 20 DIP corroded TB-25 Pelicano Rd DIP corroded, short length of pipe STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 34 This page intentionally left blank. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 35 4.0 Non-structural To address management recommendations #2, #3, #7, and #8, a number of non-structural management opportunities were identified to prevent pollution, enhance regulatory controls and program implementation, and develop a targeted education and outreach strategy. 4.1 Pollution Prevention A few locations where trash and other pollutants have a high potential to be conveyed into guts, wetlands, or coastal areas were identified during field investigations. Illicit dumping, improper waste management, exposed storage of materials, pet waste, and landscape maintenance all can contribute unnecessary oils, organics, bacteria, and toxics to stormwater. Solid waste management is a challenge in the USVI; however, any non-structural or structural projects that could reduce pollution should be considered high priorities (e.g., signage, blocking vehicular access to areas of frequent dumping, household hazardous waste pickup days, covering and/or relocating dumpsters, and providing secondary containment for outdoor storage). Most pollution prevention opportunities identified during field investigations related to preventing illegal dumping and improving waste management and outdoor material storage at trash collection centers, restaurants, and other local businesses (Figure 11). Restrictions on vehicular access may help limit illegal dumping (or shift it to other areas, preferably to designated trash collection centers). Posting of signage prohibiting dumping should link to resource protection goals of the STXEEMP and provide the locations of places where trash can be taken legally. At a minimum, dumpsters should be covered to prevent rain from coming into contact with waste materials and should be located away from guts and wetlands. Outdoor material storage should also be protected from the weather, and include secondary containment in case of spills. Grease traps at restaurants should be located away from drainage paths. In addition, on-site material storage at small construction projects may also be challenging given space limitations. While not necessarily required to meet the same Erosion and Sediment Control standards of large developments, contractors have a responsibility to prevent materials from leaving the site. Figure 12 shows effective covered stockpile and daily sweeping to retain stockpile materials on site, and less effective material management off-site. Specific pollution prevention measures for improving the quality of wastewater discharges were not evaluated under this watershed planning efforts, although new septic systems and small wastewater treatment systems associated with new development should use the best technology available. Management Actions STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 36 Figure 11. Examples of Outdoor Material Storage and Dumpster Management (note the use of plastic swimming pool as cost-effective secondary containment). Figure 12. Effective and non-effective material management on small construction sites Table 10 lists seven specific locations identified during field investigations for pollution prevention. These sites are all considered high priorities since pollution prevention activities are important and very cost-effective control strategies. See Appendix C for additional detail for some of these sites. We recommend all of the following short-term actions be completed in implementation years 1 through 5: Pollution Prevention Action 1: Coordinate with community groups to conduct quarterly trash pickup days at key locations. This can be linked with existing “Beach Sweep” initiatives and events like Reef Jam. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 37 Pollution Prevention Action 2: Develop design plans for the relocation of the Cotton Valley Dumpster site that include construction of an enclosed structure with concrete floor, side walls and roof (see Appendix C Design Concept for Fire Station). Pollution Prevention Action 3: Consider establishing a voluntary STXEEMP-Friendly Business program that provides local businesses with assistance developing a site specific pollution prevention plan to outline proper waste management and material storage procedures and practices. In exchange, participatory businesses can become eligible for small matching grants to implement pollution prevention activities (e.g. purchasing lids for dumpsters, covered storage sheds, secondary containment, etc) and have special advertising with the STXEEMP and island tourism programs. Table 10. List of Pollution Prevention Locations Site ID* Location Description SB-R-1 Fire Station Provide a covered dumpster enclosure with short concrete walls, chain link and designated area with secondary containment for “swap shop.” Consider adding a household oil/gas collection area to be maintained by the fire department. GP-R-1 Great Pond Parking Trash cleanup, postage of signage, and limiting vehicular access at parking area adjacent to pond. SG-R-20 Chenay Bay Clean-up trash and debris from parking lot and landscape maintenance that is in wetland and buffer area. Cover outdoor material storage area. Work with Chenay Bay to develop alternative maintenance procedures for debris removal. SG-R-3 Green Cay Marina Poor dumpster management at the Marina results in trash in wetland area. Relocate and/or construct a covered enclosure. Join the US Clean Marina Program to take credit for existing vessel pump out, spill response, and other good practices. SG-H-1 Chenay Bay Beach Cleanup Conduct quarterly trash cleanup with SEA volunteers and Chenay Bay. -- Solitude Beach Organize quarterly trash cleanup at Solitude Beach with local residents (location undetermined, this site was added from a stakeholder meeting). SB-H-1 Blue Water Terrace Reduce wash water disposal and dumpster juice draining to gut through alternative procedures and dumpster management. 4.2 Regulations, Programs, and Policies Given the concurrent updates to the zoning regulations, wellhead protection program, and water quality standards, a thorough evaluation of environmental regulations and policies related to watershed management was not completed as part of this effort. That being said, there are a number of specific actions that would go a long way in supporting the watershed STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 38 management strategy in the East End, specifically, and improve water resource protection across the USVI, in general. These actions were developed based on discussions with agency and public stakeholders. We recommend as many of the following short-term actions as possible be completed in implementation years 1 through 5: Territorial Program Action 1: Do not wait for advanced plan review during the permit approval process to establish agency expectations of stormwater and wastewater management practices. These projects, if caught early enough in the planning stage could incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques, enhance water management and hydrologic balance, and serve as demonstration projects. Revise submittal requirements and permitting checklists to include basic information on the proposed approach to managing LBSP on site. This is particularly important for the proposed Wyndham and Robin Bay development. Territorial Program Action 2: Update development regulations and stormwater standards to protect water resources (e.g., require installation of drainage infrastructure in addition to paving of roads for subdivision projects). Even for minor permits and small site construction, proper ESC should be enforced. Requiring more advanced treatment systems for new developments may be recommended, as well as capacity upgrades for systems that manage infrequent, but large storm events. Consideration should be given for single lot construction standards regarding advanced systems, setbacks from guts, and minimized limits of clearing. Territorial Program Action 3: Establish stormwater design criteria for water quality, runoff reduction, gut protection, and recharge and adopt a legally binding and locally-appropriate stormwater design manual for the USVI. It is important that stricter design standards are applied to new development projects that have the potential to increase existing pollutant loading to sensitive waters of the STXEEMP. Territorial Program Action 4: Improve existing enforcement and complaint response procedures for erosion and sediment control violations resulting from construction activities in the East End. Provide office space in Christiansted for one to two enforcement officers located in Frederiksted to allow for an increased presence on the East End and to shorten response times for on-site inspections. Enforcement, reportedly, used to maintain an office near DPW in Anna’s Hope. Establish and promote a dedicated complaint hotline for citizens to report sedimentation and other pollution issues to appropriate DPNR officials and for agency staff to follow-up with citizen reporters. Territorial Program Action 5: Update land use, zoning, paved/unpaved roads, and drainage infrastructure maps (i.e., culverts, pipes, stormwater management facilities) across the USVI. Revised data sets will be critical for the Water Quality Program in developing TMDLs for the Southgate watershed over the next year, as well as for DPW infrastructure maintenance and planning, as well as the TPDES program BMP maintenance and retrofit tracking programs. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 39 Territorial Program Action 6: Revise restoration implementation priorities for the Southgate and other watersheds as TMDLs are developed and approved, or as changing water quality standards result in de-listing of receiving waters (e.g., Isaac Bay). Territorial Program Action 7: UVI should coordinate a professionally facilitated interagency work session to develop a proposed unified gut and wetland protection strategy for departmental and legislative consideration. Currently, regulatory mechanisms are not in place to protect these natural systems from the impacts of development. As the East End continues to develop, additional degradation of guts and wetlands is unavoidable (e.g., buffer encroachment, increased stormwater discharge, sediment deposition, and continued erosion). Policies should clearly establish requirements and restrictions on the permitting of gut alterations, piping of guts, design of new discharge outfalls, wetland buffer protection and enforcement, invasive species/vegetative management, and land subdivision procedures. The take home message for a gut management policy should be that channelization, filling, and piping of guts should be avoided wherever possible. Territorial Program Action 8: Investigate the Territory’s official participation in NOAA’s Federal Clean Marina Program. Several states including Florida, have established these programs to better advance pollution prevention activities specific to marinas ranging from vessel pumpouts, fueling practices, and managing discharges from boat maintenance operations. Subsequently, there are many existing checklists, educational programs and other program materials that can be adapted for the USVI at low cost. Territorial Program Action 9: Consider administering a local contractor and equipment operator erosion and sediment control certification or required licensing program. Territorial Program Action 10: The USVI Territorial Emergency Management Agency is currently updating hazard mitigation plans and should weigh-in on major development and drainage infrastructure priorities. A significant portion of the Southgate and Great Pond watersheds, and some of the proposed new developments, are within the 100-yr floodplain. Therefore, future development proposed around existing guts and wetlands will likely need to meet existing (or more stringent) setback requirements. The setback distance (or buffer zone) should be determined through consideration of slope, aspect, vegetative cover, and other relevant factors. Despite the 1993 Great Pond APC Management Report discouraging development in the pond floodplain, a resort/casino development is proposed, and land reclamation activities are reportedly underway. Development here will not only have a significant risk of flooding, but will potentially have an adverse effect on hydrology in upstream residential areas and on the pond itself. Territorial Program Action 11: Establish septic system inspection and maintenance requirements for areas where system failure is high. Soils, high groundwater elevations, and percentage of undeveloped lots could be factors used to identify which neighborhoods may be STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 40 higher priorities for promoting free septic inspections, subsidizing maintenance, or requiring new septic designs. Territorial Program Action 12: Improve transparency of water quality information by posting on DPNR’s website approved reports or annual summaries of small package system effluent monitoring reports, beach closure summaries, and enforcement actions. Territorial Program Action 13: Complete a mapping analysis and field investigation to determine potential land use threats within a 1,000-foot radius of permitted wells. 4.3 Education and Outreach One of the most significant watershed management activities is simply raising awareness of watershed issues and providing opportunities for local stakeholders to reduce LBSP impacts on the STXEEMP. To this end, a targeted education and outreach plan is proposed below to increase awareness of key watershed behaviors that may negatively affect the surface waters and resources of the St. Croix East End Marine Park (EEMP). The purpose of an education plan is to further implementation of priority projects, and foster broad community awareness of watershed issues within the East End. An education plan is required by EPA in order to be eligible for watershed plan implementation grant funding. The following actions have been developed to effectively engage watershed residents, businesses, farmers/agriculture, regulators, and tourists in voluntary watershed stewardship activities. Efforts have been made to identify key messages, delivery mechanisms, and integration opportunities with public sector education and outreach programs already existing in the USVI (e.g., St. Croix EEMP, USVI Drinking Water Program, and the DPNR Education Office). Implementation of most of these education and outreach activities is proposed for implementation years 1-5. 4.3.1 Targeting the Residential Community Five of the six East End watersheds have residential and/or condominium developments, for a total of 22 neighborhoods and condominium complexes across the East End. In Southgate, Great Pond Bay, Solitude, Teague Bay, and Turner Hole, residential/condominium developments comprise the primary land use. Table 11 lists potential stewardship activities identified during field investigations of East End neighborhoods. Residential Education Action 1: St. Croix EEMP Education/Outreach Coordinator to host an invitation-only meeting with presidents of each East End Home Owner Association (HOAs) and Condominium Association to review watershed plan recommendations and identify key education needs and outreach opportunities. These educational meetings could lead to development of guidance for the proper procedures for road, driveway, and culvert maintenance, or generate potential support for retrofit demonstration projects. Publish a STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 41 meeting summary in the Avis to promote awareness among other residents regarding common practices they can adopt within their neighborhoods that are being implemented in other areas in the East End. Residential Education Action 2: STXEEMP or SEA could host a watershed education website where links to basic homeowner education guidance material can be posted (e.g., homeowner guides to septic system inspection and maintenance on the Coral Bay Community Council and RC&D websites). Many existing materials including publications, presentations, and basic homeowner environmental education were also previously developed by UVI-CES and could be relocated to a watershed education website. Residential Education Action 3: Publish bimonthly newsletter articles featuring landscape practices and vegetation management strategies congruent with the priorities and goals of the watershed plan. STXEEMP in conjunction with DPNR should run radio ads on the importance of septic system inspections, proper pet waste disposal, and proper disposal of hazardous household materials to the protection of coastal waters. Create an informational pamphlet highlighting the importance of proper disposal of such materials in relation to LBSP for distribution at key events, such as Reef Jam. Post advertisement/digital copy of pamphlet on the USVI Waste Management Authority Website. Residential Education Action 4: Investigate the potential benefits of installing pet waste disposal stations at Condo Associations or Cramer Park. Residential Education Action 5: Promote neighborhood pride and participation in community culvert maintenance, rain garden demonstrations, and trash pickup days by hosting an annual watershed restoration contest and neighborhood stewardship award. Residential Education Action 6: VI Waste Management Authority to host a demonstration on the Do-It-Yourself Used Oil Collection Program or host a battery and/or tire recycling day for East End residents. Advertise date in the St. Croix Avis and St. Croix This Week. November 15th is America Recycles Day during VI Recycles Month. Residential Education Action 7: Develop a guide for homeowners that would illustrate watershed best management practices on small lots (e.g., construction, septics, pet waste, vegetation management, driveway management, and rain gardens). STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 42 Table 11. Targeted Residential Education Messaging Based on Field Observations Neighborhood Potential Stewardship Activities Road, culvert, or driveway maintenance Gut mgmt. Veg. mgmt. Stormwater retrofit (on- lot or larger) Pollution prevention New residential construction mgmt. Septic survey All for the Better/ Tipperary (SG) X X X X X X Catherina’s Hope (TB) X Cotton Valley (SB) X X X X Grapetree Bay (TH) X Hilltop Circle (TB) No action identified Hope & Carton Hill (SB) X X X Mt. Washington (SG/GP) X X Marienhoj (GP) X Parara (SG) X Pleasant Valley (SB) X X X X Punnett Bay (Shoy’s) (SG) X X X Green Cay/Prune Bay (SB) X X X Reef Condos (TB) No action identified Sally’s Fancy (GP) X X X Seven Flags (SB) X X Seven Hills (SG) X Sierra Verde (SB) X X Solitude North (SB) X Southgate Farm/Anna’s Hope (SG) X X Union (GP) X Villa Madeline (TH) X Yellow Cliff North (SB) X SG= Southgate; SB = Solitude Bay; TB= Teague Bay; TH=Turner Hole; MC=Madam Carty; GP=Great Pond 4.3.2 Targeting the Business Community Marinas, hotels, restaurants, golf courses, and a gas station comprise the other main land-use types within the East End. Independent engineering firms, construction contractors, and equipment operators, landscapers, and septic system specialists working in the East End also can play an important role in watershed management. A number of watershed recommendations have been previously discussed, including improved stormwater and wastewater management and pollution prevention. Specific education actions include: STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 43 Business Education Action 1: STXEEMP staff to host an invitation-only meeting with area businesses (e.g., Reef Golf, Divi Casino & Resort, St. Croix Yacht Club, Ziggy’s) to review the watershed recommendations, existing conditions, and potential implementation options. Business Education Action 2: Establish the STXEEMP-Friendly Business Program to assist local businesses in assessing and implanting cost-effective pollution prevention practices on site. Businesses could be provided a certification award with decal/sticker to display, may become eligible for matching grant funds for implementation, and could potentially benefit from additional advertising. Business Education Action 3: Partner with VI Waste Management Authority on a grant to purchase dumpster lids for distribution to East End business. Business Education Action 4: Conduct a public stormwater retrofit demonstration at a local business. The retrofit project should be advertised in the St. Croix Avis in advance of project implementation. A follow-up article to be run in the Avis, as well as the STXEEMP newsletter and/or the DPNR and NRCS website. Business Education Action 5: Partner with industry representatives, SEA/CBCC, UVI, and DPNR to target two professional groups each year with free technical training workshops on preferred approaches and new technologies for the following topics: septic design and maintenance, stormwater management, construction site erosion and sediment control, road grading and drainage design, and buffer management. 4.3.3 Targeting the Agricultural Community Farming and agriculture is another common and locally-important land use within the East End. Several watershed goals and priorities have been identified for this target audience and include: Farm Pond Maintenance/Improvements; Gut Management Practices/Buffer Protection; and Waste Management. Specific education actions include: Agricultural Education Action 1: NRCS to establish STXEEMP farmer cooperative that meets quarterly on rotating sites to evaluate and propose restoration alternatives for gut maintenance, buffer protection, pond maintenance, and wastewater management on agricultural lands. This provides an opportunity to share lessons learned, establish partnerships for grant funding opportunities, and develop an inventory of pond maintenance and others restoration projects. 4.3.4 Targeting the Regulatory Community To implement many of the territorial program and regulatory recommendations in Section 4.2, it will be critical to educate commissioners, legislators, and other politicians on the potential consequences of watershed activities on environmental resources and basic drainage patterns. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 44 In addition, to promote common dialogue and enforcement efficiencies, continue providing inter-agency technical training for staff on watershed and stormwater management priorities. Specific education actions include: Regulator Education Action 1: Hire an un-biased facilitator to conduct ½ - 1 full day training for commissioners and/or politicians to demonstrate the connection between land use management decisions, capital expenditures, water quality standards, and enforcement activities on the quality of water resources. Optional afternoon sessions should include field trip to stormwater management facility, gut, construction site, or pollution source to demonstrate specific gaps in existing programs and the direct impacts on water resources. Regulator Education Action 2: Develop a hydrology handbook for non-engineers to identify key elements to look for when evaluating development applications from a stormwater perspective. This could be especially helpful to plan reviewers, commissioners, politicians, and other non-technical parties with an interest in rapidly identifying opportunities for improving stormwater management at the site-scale. As an example, the Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners provides a resource for non-technical, elected officials in Massachusetts to better understand the hydrologic impacts of development and redevelopment projects on wetlands (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/hydrol.pdf). Regulator Education Action 3: Conduct bi-annual construction site inspection training for enforcement staff and contractors. This could focus on the installation and maintenance of temporary erosion and sediment control practices, as well as permanent stormwater facilities. 4.3.5 Targeting the Tourists As the East End becomes more of a tourist attraction, a number of opportunities will arise to broaden the watershed message to a user group that can have a significant, yet unknowing, impact on the STXEEMP. Visitor Education Action 1: STXEEMP and DPW to install watershed signage announcing entrance into the STXEEMP watersheds on East End Rd. to promote awareness of the importance of the area and the connection between land and marine park to visitors. Watershed information should also be included in signage at parks and trailhead restoration projects to illustrate the watershed stewardship efforts underway in the USVI. Visitor Education Action 2: STXEEMP to create an informational pamphlet providing an overview of the East End watershed, and STXEEMP-friendly businesses to have available at various tourist kiosks. Visitor Education Action 3: STXEEMP, in conjunction with business outreach, to provide stickers/placards for posting at resorts/hotels, condos, and home rentals to remind visitors of wastewater disposal constraints to help reduce septic failure and treatment plant problems. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 45 5.0 Implementation This section presents a preliminary implementation schedule for allocating efforts over the next five years, summarizes key strategies to apply in each individual watershed, and makes suggestions on methods to evaluate progress and success of implementation activities over time. The complete implementation of watershed plan recommendations can take decades. Over time, significant changes will likely occur in conditions on the ground, local priorities, funding opportunities, and the participation of stakeholder and key implementation partners. The failure to track changes and update watershed plans on approximately a five year cycle can render plans obsolete. 5.1 Preliminary Implementation Schedule In order to advance implementation, at least in the short-term, it is advantageous to establish a preliminary schedule, that includes an estimated budget, and assigned roles for meeting each of the management recommendations outlined in Section 2.0 through the actions listed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0. The schedule presented in Table 12 is preliminary in nature, and is intended to provide a platform to launch internal planning discussions among implementation and funding partners. Not all actions and management recommendations identified in this report are included in this early implementation schedule; however each management recommendation is represented with some level of effort. For $2,000,000, implementation of a number of key structural and non-structural projects can be accomplished within the first five years. It should be noted that implementation is already underway on a number of priority recommendations (e.g., SEA secured funding from USDA to develop master drainage plan for Hope and Carton neighborhood and develop engineering designs for Adams’ gut). Identifying the correct implementation partners is critical to advancing watershed activities. For many of the projects listed in this plan, consider the following when identifying responsible parties:  Stormwater retrofits—property owner must be engaged and willing to either maintain project or turnover maintenance easement to territorial agency; technical and engineering support will likely need to come from DPNR or DPW or third-party engineer. Permitting agents will also need to be involved.  Road stabilization and culvert repair—homeowners associations will be primarily responsible for drainage improvements on private road networks. DPW will be the key project partner for projects affecting public roads.  Gut stabilization—property owners, NRCS, DFW, and permitting authorities will be likely implementation partners. Buffer enhancement, exclusionary fencing for livestock, and Strategy STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 46 potential easement establishment along guts during restoration projects should be considered, particularly where grant funding has been used to fund project.  Education and outreach—implementation is likely to be the responsibility of STXEEMP, particularly for coordination with other agency education programs, schools, and community groups.  Territorial programs and regulations—implementation leads will be agency-specific, but should be assigned and tracked by the watershed coordinator. 5.2 Individual Watershed Implementation Priorities This watershed plan presents recommendations to minimize the impacts on the STXEEMP from all six watersheds, collectively. Modeling provides insight into the pollutant load allocation within each watershed, which may help prioritize restoration efforts at the watershed scale, where necessary (Figure 13). A review of individual watershed characteristics, conditions, and management opportunities was presented in the STXEEMP Watersheds Existing Conditions Report. Based on this information, a summary of overarching watershed management strategies for each individual watershed is provided in Table 13. 5.3 Evaluating Implementation Progress Evaluating implementation progress and measuring performance of structural and non- structural practices to achieve the overarching watershed goals is critical to determining the success of a watershed planning effort and to secure additional funding. Before implementation gets too far underway, the watershed coordinator and implementation committee should establish a formal tracking and monitoring program that may include:  Annual progress report and ½ day meeting—this forces the watershed team to track implementation actions completed that year, review budgets for the following year, and update plan priorities as necessary. Annual reporting also allows the watershed coordinator to brief agency staff, elected officials, funders, and the public on watershed management progress. This effort can help improve communication with implementation partners, keep watershed activities on the front burner as capital budgets and other agency priorities are being established, and keeps watershed stewardship in the public conscience.  Monitoring plan—develop a scientifically-sound monitoring plan for establishing baseline conditions before restoration activities are in place, and measure individual project performance over time. This plan should integrate with existing water quality efforts of UVI and the DPNR.  Tracking database—establish a repository of watershed data including GIS files to track installation, monitoring, and maintenance of restoration projects; cost information for individual projects; and watershed stakeholder contacts and listservers, etc.  Performance Metrics—develop a list of performance metrics to be used to evaluate progress towards meeting each of the three watershed goals. Examples are provided in Table 14. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 47 Table 12. Preliminary Implementation Schedule over Next Five Years* Action** Lead Implementation Year and Planning Level Cost Estimate (thousands of $) 1 2 3 4 5 MR 1: Hire or assign a full-time watershed coordinator and convene quarterly implementation committee meetings DPNR $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 MR 2: Shared office space for additional DPNR enforcement staff to be housed in Christiansted; Operation and Administration of Hotline DPNR (DEP) $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 MR 2: Develop Stormwater Design Manual and training DPNR (DEP) $25 $125 $25 MR 4: Conduct master planning for Hope and Carton Road Network; and install early action stabilization project at Goat Hill Road SEA, TNC $80 MR4: Implement two additional road stabilization projects SEA, DPW $12 $100 $100 MR4: Complete engineering designs for two gut restoration projects; implement in Years 2 and 4. SEA, USDA $25 $200 $150 MR5: Install 1-2 early implementation retrofits DPNR (DEP) $30 $60 MR5: Complete designs and complete retrofit of two existing stormwater facilities; link with stormwater manual training DPNR (DEP) $25 $100 $100 MR5/2: Host workshop/meetings related to retrofitting and gut/wetland strategies STXEEMP, UVI $25 $25 MR6: Complete Pond Survey, complete design and install one pond restoration project USDA $25 $25 $50 M7: Complete two Education/Outreach Actions per year SEA, STXEEMP $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 M9: Initiate performance monitoring at restoration projects and establish sentinel baseline stations UVI $10 $15 $10 $15 MR4/2/8/9: Update existing GIS data and establish formal infrastructure tracking and maintenance database CZM, DPW $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 Annual Total $275 $547 $305 $525 $280 Total $1,932 * Does not encompass all the recommended actions listed in this Management Plan, only a subset. **For ease of reference to detailed description, MR equals Management Recommendation as listed in Section 2. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 48 Figure 13. Estimates on Pollutant Load Source Allocations for each STXEEMP Watershed STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 49 STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 50 STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 51 Table 13. Key Management Strategies for each Individual Watershed Watershed Management Priorities Great Pond 1. Prevent impacts from proposed development in the Great Pond floodplain area; consider opportunities for land acquisition, buffer expansion, and/or stringent development regulations; 2. Engage residents and contractors involved in small lot construction practices to apply erosion and sediment control practices; 3. Use high visibility of Great Pond to promote illegal dumping reform as a measure towards preserving natural resources of the STXEEMP; and 4. Replace culvert along Rt. 624 to improve chronic flood conditions, reduce DPW maintenance burden, and demonstration proper stream alignment and culvert sizing practices. Madam Carty 1. Prevent impacts from proposed Robin Bay Development and active construction of Pt. Elizabeth development by requiring stringent development regulations; 2. Conduct gut research on natural channels not currently impacted by development; Establish monitoring stations in key parts of the watershed to establish reference conditions for undeveloped watershed in the USVI, and to provide baseline information for comparison against data collected during urbanization efforts; and 3. Plan for increased inspection capacity and enforcement measures to accompany proposed development projects. Solitude Bay 1. Stabilize unpaved roads; 2. Engage local residents in restoration activities throughout the watershed and in their immediate neighborhoods; 3. Work with local businesses to reduce pollution through voluntary pollution prevention activities and through the installation of stormwater retrofits; and 4. Perform maintenance on high priority culverts. Southgate 1. Stop headcut migration of Adams’ Farm (East Gut) and stabilize nickpoints adjacent to roads and other infrastructure; 2. Engage local residents in restoration activities throughout the watershed and in their immediate neighborhoods; 3. Document the wetland restoration benefits of the recently completed embankment elevation project at Southgate Pond; and 4. Work with local businesses to reduce pollution through voluntary pollution prevention activities and through the installation of stormwater retrofits Teague Bay 1. Demonstrate road stabilization practices with TNC on Goat Hill Road; 2. Work with Reef Golf Course to stabilize gut while providing a golfing amenity; and 3. Install demonstration retrofits at St. Croix Yacht Club and a farm pond restoration project; Turner Hole 1. Retrofit and perform maintenance on existing stormwater facilities; 2. Improve response time to citizen complaints regarding sources of pollution; 3. Engage residents and contractors involved in small lot construction practices to apply erosion and sediment control practices; and 4. Stabilize unpaved roads. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan 52 Table 14. Example Metrics for Evaluating Progress towards Meeting Watershed Goals Watershed Goal Metrics 1. Protect the marine resources of St. Croix’s East End Marine Park from the negative impacts of LBSP and maintain the rural character of the East End  Number of restoration actions listed in Sections 3 and 4 of this plan that were completed;  Measured improvements in water quality;  Length of unpaved road stabilized;  Reduced maintenance time required for roads and culverts;  Additional acres of conservation land;  Number of ESC violations and average response time;  Number of citizen complaints;  Number of existing septic systems inspected and/or replaced;  Number of beach closures;  Area of impervious cover treated by retrofit projects; 2. Engage local residents and businesses in watershed stewardship activities  Dollars spent on education and outreach;  Number of volunteers participating in outreach activities;  Number of dumpsters missing tops/covers;  Number of downloads from education website;  Number of businesses enrolled in STXEEMP-Friendly Business Program; and  Number of certified Clean Marina programs. 3. Demonstrate restoration actions that can be applied throughout the USVI.  Installation of demonstration restoration projects;  Number of attendees participating in site visits/workshops to discuss retrofit and other restoration projects;  Inclusion of design products in Territorial-wide reference documents or design manuals. STX East End Watersheds Management Plan Appendices STX East End Watersheds Management Plan