USVI Public Records

Document text

St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan: 2016 Update 5-Year Action Plan September, 2016, V1 Citation STXEEMP (2016) St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan: 2016 Update. St Croix, US Virgin Islands. Jeanne Brown, Anne Marie Hoffman, and Sarah Aubery Acknowledgements The STXEEMP Management Plan Update was made possible with input and contribution by a number of individuals and organizations. Collectively known as the STXEEMP Core Planning Team, the following people contributed content and editing of this document: Jean-Pierre Oriol, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources Caroline Pott, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources Roy Pemberton Jr., USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (formerly) John Farchette III, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources Migdalia L. Roach, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources (formerly) Jose Sanchez, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources (formerly) Marcia Taylor, University of the Virgin Islands and Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service Nick Drayton, Virgin Islands Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Jenn Travis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (formerly Coral Fellow with STXEEEMP) Lia Hibbert, NOAA Fisheries (ERT Contractor) Marlon Hibbert, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration William (Toby) Tobias, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources (retired) Leslie Henderson, USVI Department and Planning and Natural Resources Hilary Lohmann, NOAA Coral Fellow with STXEEEMP Carol Cramer-Burke, St. Croix Environmental Association (retired) Facilitation and Authorship: Jeanne Brown, Northeast Climate Science Center (formerly with TNC) Anne Marie Hoffman, Horsely Witten Group (formerly with TNC) Sarah Aubery (former marine conservation intern with TNC) There was also valuable input from St. Croix residents, STXEEMP user groups, business owners, and researchers (collectively known as STXEEMP Stakeholders). Stakeholders and individuals from partner organizations provided input in a series of focus group consultation meetings in October and December, 2012. Please see Appendix A, Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops and Appendix B, Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes. Jeanne Brown, formerly with The Nature Conservancy, prepared this document with funding through a Cooperative Agreement with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Conservation Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Note that positions changed and/or people migrated to other locals throughout the planning process. This information is relevant at the time of the completion of the updated draft (September, 2016). Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 List of Acronyms and Common Shorthand Found in the Strategies Tables ........................................... 5 PART 1: OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction and Background of the 2002 and 2016 Management Plans....................................................... 7 Challenges and Limitations to Past Plan Implementation .............................................................................. 9 Intent of This Management Plan .................................................................................................................. 9 Intended Audience for the Updated Management Plan .............................................................................. 11 Primary Components of the Plan ................................................................................................................ 12 PART 2: GOAL & MISSION of MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 14 PART 3: CONSERVATION RESOURCE TARGETS .................................................................................. 15 STXEEMP’s Natural Resources Targets ........................................................................................................ 15 Great Pond Mangrove Communities ............................................................................................................... 20 Coral Reef Communities .................................................................................................................................. 23 Seagrass Communities ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Sea Turtles ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Beaches ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 PART 4: THREATS to the TARGETS .................................................................................................... 29 PART 5: STRATEGIES ......................................................................................................................... 33 Strategy Development................................................................................................................................ 33 Strategies for Resources Management and Protection ............................................................................... 36 Conservation Target Restoration .................................................................................................................... 37 Habitat and Species Protection ....................................................................................................................... 38 Watershed Management ................................................................................................................................ 38 Enforcement .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Strategies for Community Participation and Outreach ................................................................................ 39 Current Community Outreach and Participation ............................................................................................ 40 Informational Signage ..................................................................................................................................... 41 User Access ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Watershed Stewardship .................................................................................................................................. 42 Education and Outreach for Boaters ............................................................................................................... 42 Future Activities Needed: ................................................................................................................................ 42 Strategies for Sustainable Tourism and Finance .......................................................................................... 42 Sustainable Financing Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 44 Sustainable Tourism ........................................................................................................................................ 44 Strategies That Were Considered but Not Included in This Plan .................................................................... 44 PART 6: RESEARCH & MONITORING ................................................................................................. 47 Monitoring for Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................... 47 Biophysical Monitoring of the Targets and Threats ........................................................................................ 48 Governance and Socio-Economic Monitoring ................................................................................................. 63 Current and Ongoing Monitoring and Research .......................................................................................... 66 PART 7: PARK OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 68 Management and Administration ........................................................................................................... 68 Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................. 68 Staff Capacity and Professional Development .......................................................................................... 68 PART 8: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES & RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 70 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix A: Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops .................. A1 Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes ................................................................................... A5 Appendix C: Review of 2002 Management Plan Progress with Milestones, Ongoing Activities & Current Projects .................................................................................................................................................... A32 Appendix D: Territory Initiatives That Relate to STXEEMP ........................................................................ A35 Appendix E: Education and Outreach Strategies Developed to Address Resources and Threat Abatement A40 FIGURES FIGURE 1. MPAS BELONGING TO THE VIRGIN ISLANDS MARINE PROTECTED AREA NETWORK 8 FIGURE 2. DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE AND INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF THE MANGROVE ECOSYSTEM WITH ADJACENT MARINE COMMUNITIES. 21 FIGURE 3. DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE IMPORTANCE AND ROLES THAT SEAGRASS PLAYS IN THE MARINE ECOSYSTEM. 26 TABLES TABLE 1. STXEEMP TARGETS, VIABILITY AND GOALS 18 TABLE 2. TARGET AND THREAT RANKING MATRIX 31 TABLE 3. STXEEMP MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONAL AREAS, STRATEGIES AND COSTS 36 TABLE 4. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION STRATEGIES TIMELINE AND ESTIMATED COSTS 36 TABLE 5. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGIES TIMELINE AND ESTIMATED COSTS 41 TABLE 6. SUSTAINABLE FINANCING AND TOURISM STRATEGIES TIMELINE AND COSTS 44 TABLE 7. TERRITORY STRATEGIES THAT WOULD HAVE A STXEEMP FOCUS 45 TABLE 8. MONITORING PLAN FOR RESOURCES AND THREATS 50 TABLE 9. MONITORING PLAN FOR GOVERNANCE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS 64 TABLE 10. RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO ESTABLISH BASELINES 66 TABLE 11. PROGRAM AREA AND STXEEMP PRINCIPAL ROLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 72 TABLE 12 STXEEMP-RELEVANT REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS 75 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 1 Executive Summary Purpose of the Management Plan Update This management plan contains the roadmap for effectively conserving the coastal and marine natural and cultural resources of the east end of St. Croix. In September of 2012, ten years following the original St. Croix East End Marine Park (STXEEMP) Management Plan, a review and update was begun with Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) staff, implementation partners in the Territory, and facilitators from The Nature Conservancy (TNC). This “St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update: 5-Year Action Plan” serves to examine the progress and challenges to implementation of the original 2002 management plan, and identifies new threats and opportunities for management of the St. Croix East End Marine Park (or “Park”). Key managers and experts were engaged in a series of meetings to identify the specific natural resource management targets important to the STXEEMP (coral reef communities, seagrass communities, Great Pond mangrove communities, beaches, and sea turtles), the strategies to address threats to these targets, and fundraising opportunities. The process to update this plan began with an in-depth review of the original management plan (see Appendix C, Review of 2002 Management Plan Action Progress) followed by core planning team meetings and stakeholder meetings in 2013 and 2014. The Marine Park Coordinator position was filled in 2015 and the Management Plan Update was finalized in 2016. Since 2002, some major milestones include the installation of navigational and zoning marker buoys, development and implementation of outreach and education programs, the completion of a major watershed study, and the collection of extensive biological and benthic data within the park boundaries (Appendix C). Managers identified improved enforcement, increased community involvement and awareness of the Park, interagency collaboration, and sustainable finance as critical for the continued successful management and preservation of STXEEMP’s natural resources. It is important for regular review and modification of a marine park management plan to ensure that the territory’s natural resource managers, and the community of St. Croix, understand the management authority’s plans for implementation. In this regard, it is useful to reiterate the original goal of the Park and an updated mission for the management actions needed to reach that goal. GOAL of the STXEEMP The STXEEMP was established to protect territorially significant marine resources, promote sustainability of marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, sea grass beds, wildlife habitats and other resources, and to conserve and preserve significant natural areas for the use and benefit of future generations. St. Croix East End Marie Park Management Plan, 2002 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 2 As the first Territorially-designated marine protected area, the STXEEMP sets an example for other protected areas in the USVI. Recognizing the critical natural and cultural resources, and their importance for both the environmental and economic sustainability of St. Croix, an updated mission for management actions taken over the next five years was developed. MISSION of STXEEMP MANAGEMENT To promote marine stewardship and responsible use of significant coastal and marine resources through: resource protection, and restoration, policy engagement, improved inter-departmental and multi-agency collaboration, and education and community engagement to protect and preserve ecological and cultural values for residents and visitors. Developed in Core Planning Meetings Primary Components of the Plan STXEEMP management focuses on three principles: abating threats through management of the natural resource targets, encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors, and taking steps towards an independent financial future. The main elements of this updated plan to guide action for the next five years are: The conservation TARGETS can be thought of as the resources important or unique to the STXEEMP that need to be protected, whether they are natural, cultural, or socio-economic in nature (Part 3). The Core Planning Team designated five targets for conservation that will be the main focus for management for the next five years: 1. Coral Reef Communities (includes lobsters, reef fish, etc.) 2. Great Pond Mangrove Communities (includes blue crabs, nursery and juvenile fish and nesting sea birds) 3. Seagrass beds (and associated species such as conch) 4. Beaches 5. Sea turtles The THREATS to the targets, also considered impacts or risks, can be something that directly influences a conservation target or indirectly affects an ecological process important to sustaining the target. Understanding the threats that impact the resources forms the basis for formulating strategies and activities for the management of STXEEMP (Part 4). STRATEGIES described in strategy action tables (Part 5) designed to meet specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) objectives for each strategy, the key actions to implement to meet the objectives, suggested resources needed, a rough timeline for implementation, and other considerations for planning. Priority strategies and costs are summarized in Table 3, with strategies sorted by functional management area with a timeline and costs summarized in Table 4. Strategies are divided into three main functional St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 3 areas: • Resource Management and Protection (management principle #1- abating threats and management of the natural resource targets). • Community Outreach and Participation (management principle #2- encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors) • Sustainable Tourism and Finance (management principle #2- encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors and #3- and taking steps towards an independent financial future). MONITORING of MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS A fundamental aspect of adapting planning and taking action, regular monitoring of the resources that the management plan aims to protect has been planned out with notes on who, what, and when. Measure of the resources (targets) and the level and impact of the threats to those resources is described in Table 8. To help gauge overall how the STXEEMP is doing to meet its goals and mission, governance effectiveness and socio-economic measures, adapted from a guideline developed by the Ocean Conservancy in 2008, are listed in Table 9 (Part 6). CURRENT RESEARCH and STUDIES An inventory of pertinent recent studies or monitoring should help answer what is being done, how it can help answer conservation action plan effectiveness, and should be shared when getting community input (Table 12). The update also permitted a review of the various reports, guidance, studies and assessments that have been completed recently which have direct relevance to the status and operation of the Park. A list of these supporting documents, short description, and suggestions for when and how to reference these is provided in Table 12. Recommended near future planning and implementation: • Develop comprehensive communications, outreach and education audience matrix to guide outreach activities. Incorporate the community outreach and development strategies (devised in this update to address threats to resources) into the audience analysis, which systematically recognizes the need, primary audience for communications and outreach, methods and materials, and desired output. Relevant reference documents, such as an inventory done of the STXEEMP education and outreach materials and activities in 2010, the VIMPAN communications plan, awareness and communications strategy for the buoys, Marine Outreach and Education U.S. Virgin Islands’ Style Initiative (MOES-VI) and evaluation of the MOES-VI initiative are listed in the References in Table 12, STXEEMP-Relevant Reports and Documents. • Implementation of Sustainable Financing with an update on current spending and financial needs. Revisit sustainable financing options on a regular basis. This should be done systematically and with input from the core planning team to lay out any progress made, identify impediments, and hash out next steps to advance sustainable financing options. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 4 • Annual operations plan and standard operating procedures including maintenance of buoys, signs, visitors’ center, vehicles, and the running of the Park office. Annual work plans with staff time, budgets derived in part from strategy tables in the Management Plan, and timelines with expected periodic review to revise next year’s work plans. • Begin comprehensive review of the 2016 Management Plan with the aim of having an updated plan by 2020. Each subsequent revision should be more refined to reflect contemporary issues and realities. Actual drafting input should diminish over time, with less extensive revisions to content. Primary review and updates should begin with the strategies. o Many accomplishments and ongoing projects are opportunistic and not necessarily planned. These initiatives should be scrutinized in the same way as planned activities outlined in the management plan to gauge effectiveness in resource protection, raising awareness and community involvement, or threat abatement so that effort is not wasted in reaching the overall goals for the STXEEMP. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 5 List of Acronyms and Common Shorthand Found in the Strategies Tables BMPs Best Management Practices CFMC Caribbean Fisheries Management Council CRMP Coral Reef Conservation Program (NOAA) CZM Coastal Zone Management DA Department of Agriculture DEE Division of Environmental Enforcement DEP Division of Environmental Protection DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife DOI Department of the Interior DPNR Department of Planning and Natural Resources DPW Department of Public Works DSPR Department of Sports, Parks and Recreation EbA Ecosystem-based Adaptation EEMP (St. Croix) East End Marine Park, more commonly shortened to STXEEMP EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPSCoR Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research ESA Endangered Species Act FAD Fish Aggregating Device GIS Geographical Information System GPS Geographical Positioning System HW Horsely Witten Group (referred to for watershed management plan) IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources LBSP Land-based Sources of Pollution MoA Memorandum of Agreement MOES-VI Marine Outreach and Education U.S. Virgin Islands’ Style MPA Marine Protected Area NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA) NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NPSource Non-point sources of pollution NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OC (or TOC) Ocean Conservancy PSAs Public service announcements Regs Regulations (rules and regulations) SEA St. Croix Environmental Association SFP Sustainable Finance Plan SHPO State Historical Preservation Office SLR Sea Level Rise STAR Sea Turtle Assistance and Rescue STXFAC St. Croix Fishery Advisory Committee St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 6 TCRMP Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program TNC The Nature Conservancy TSS Total suspended sediments USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USCG US Coast Guard USFS US Forestry Service USGS US Geological Survey USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service UVI University of Virgin Islands VICRAG Virgin Islands Coral Reef Advisory Group VINE Virgin Islands Network of Environmental Educators VIMAS Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service VIMPAN Virgin Islands Maine Protected Area Network VIWMA Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority (shorthand “WM” in strategies) VIPD Virgin Islands Police Department VIRC&D Virgin Islands Resource Conservation and Development VITEMA Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency WIDECAST Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network WIMARCS West Indian Marine Animal Research and Conservation Service St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 7 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan: 2016 Update PART 1: OVERVIEW Introduction and Background of the 2002 and 2016 Management Plans The St. Croix East End Marine Park (STXEEMP or Park) was created in 20031. The original STXEEMP Management Plan established initial goals and management objectives for the Park (TNC 2002)2. The 2002 plan was used to guide implementation of management activities describing the needs and actions to help the park reach its goals. The list of priority strategies and action plans served to steer the development of proposals for funding and was a resource for operations and project implementation for over ten years. It still serves as a comprehensive reference document about the nature and purpose of the STXEEMP. The original intent, as described in the 2002 management plan (TNC 2002, page 9) was to outline activities for a five-year time horizon. Generally, to remain relevant, protected area management action plans should undergo a review and update of management priorities every five years. This is so we may examine whether the cost and effort in 1 The Park was established under V.I. Code Title 12, Section 903-906, formally established in Act #6572. For more detail, refer to the 2002 STXEEMP Management Plan (TNC 2002, page 8). 2 These strategic planning methods eventually evolved to the present day Conservation Action Planning (CAP). More about the CAP process see Appendix A. For more about the original 5-S Method, see TNC 2002, page 72 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 8 implementation is, however incrementally, moving us closer to meeting our goals, allow us to adapt to changing conditions, and allow us to be iterative in the planning process in order to be more flexible and effective overall. Ideally the management actions and an updated plan should have begun in 2007. Such a periodic review for the STXEEMP was hampered by lack of resources and facilitation support, and even the minimal amount of funding needed to conduct a review was lacking. These constraints in capacity and funding were overcome by the impetus and foresight of DPNR leadership, and funding support from NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program and The Nature Conservancy. This Management Plan Update of 2016 serves to examine the progress and challenges to implementation of the 2002 plan, and identifies new threats and opportunities for management of the Park. The process to update this plan began in 2012 with an in-depth review of the 2002 management plan, followed by STXEEMP core planning team meetings and stakeholder meetings in 2013 and 20143. The Marine Park Coordinator position was filled in 2015 and the Management Plan was finalized in 2016. The STXEEMP is part of the U.S. National System of marine protected areas (MPAs) and the Virgin Islands Marine Protected Area Network (VIMPAN), a joint network of MPAs formed to mutually conserve and restore marine resources for the benefit and stewardship of the USVI and future generations. In this capacity, managers have the benefit of focusing on shared goals, challenges and opportunities for all marine protected areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. An updated and relevant management plan that guides the actions taken to meet an individual MPA’s goals is a hallmark of an effective and functional MPA. The update and refinement of strategic actions for such a large and significant Territorial MPA as the STXEEMP, with a variety of conservation and recreational values, serves to collectively raise the effectiveness of the network of MPAs in the USVI and surrounding islands. Figure 1. MPAs Belonging to the Virgin Islands Marine Protected Area Network 3 For more information on the planning meetings, see Appendix A, and Appendix B. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 9 Challenges and Limitations to Past Plan Implementation During a kickoff meeting in 2012, the core planning team agreed that it was unnecessary to start from scratch in crafting the management plan, and to first conduct a review of the accomplishments of past initiatives and ongoing activities implemented by the Park staff and partners. During the review of both the 2002 STXEEMP Management Plan and the current status of management of the STXEEMP4, it quickly became apparent that there are accomplishments that should be celebrated; however there is a staff of three-four addressing all management needs which represents a capacity challenge, even with ample partner support. The USVI capacity assessment for coral reef management (SustainaMetrix 2012) elucidates several underlying limitations for consistent review and adaptive implementation. Without regular checking-in and refinement of original action steps, the original work plan quickly became obsolete due to the realities of working within capacity and budgetary limits5. More broadly speaking, “Capacity to manage coral reefs in the USVI is generally not hampered by a lack of scientific and technical information regarding the status, extent, and threats to reefs, nor regarding the technical measures needed to improve reef health. Rather, capacity is limited to adequately promote, fund and implement well understood measures such as improved land management practices, the upgrading of critical infrastructure such as sewage treatment and septic systems, enhanced enforcement of existing regulation, controlling unwise development, etc.” (SustainaMetrix, 2012). The main lesson learned from this review is that management action planning is going to start out ambitiously, and that prioritizing and regularly adjusting for current situations and realities is recommended. As the capacity report suggests, “A long-term and sustained commitment to building capacity must address frequent staff turnover, shifts in the social and environmental issues, ongoing learning and the need for adaptation.” (SustainaMetrix 2012). Additionally recognizing incremental accomplishments is critical. During the final stages of the review and update for the finalization of the draft in 2016, it became apparent that priority strategies devised beginning in 2012 were still relevant and progress has been incrementally made to meet several key objectives. Intent of This Management Plan This document is the result of a collaborative process between: natural resource managers, practitioners and staff; community members and non-governmental organizations; and Federal and 4 Please see Appendix C, Review of 2002 Management Action Plan Progress for notes on the review of accomplishments of the 2002 with a Summary of Milestones, Ongoing Activities and Current Projects. 5 Additional background and implementation can be found in the Capacity Assessment (SustainaMetrix 2012) and Fisheries Local Action Strategies Inventory: Overview and Section 4 (Ortiz 2014). St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 10 Territorial government staff. The aim of this process was to update the 2002 STXEEMP management plan, provide the long-term vision for the area and guide near-term (3-5 years) objectives and activities. The intent of this document is to update rather than create a new management plan; therefore, certain details are not repeated in this document. This update was produced using a Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process, designed and implemented by The Nature Conservancy (Appendix A). CAP facilitates a stakeholder-driven process to identify goals, natural and cultural priorities, threats and strategies (TNC 2007). This management plan is intended to describe the Park’s management strategies for five years. It provides a framework to guide priority actions, and contains suggestions for which individual/organization would lead the implementation of each strategy. Specific work plans including estimated costs and budgets, timelines, and action steps should be refined as proposals are developed and specific projects initiated. A nearly-complete set of strategic actions was formulated in 2013, and implementation was ongoing. Thus the period for this initial phase of management should be considered to be 2013- 2018. A more in-depth review and revision of this plan should be conducted sometime near the end of five years (starting in 2018-2019), to assess current priorities and threats and update management strategies. Some sections are partially complete due to either the interest of time, lack of information, unnecessary repetition from another document, or because a higher level of detail was not needed at the time. For this iteration of the management plan, several factors should be considered: 1. Not all of the priority strategies identified can possibly be the responsibility of the STXEEMP staff, or Coastal Zone Management (CZM) alone. Thus, where possible, partners have been identified and in some cases the lead is not necessarily someone in the STXEEMP office, CZM or even DPNR. However, the STXEEMP office/CZM staff should lead coordination of the implementation activities, monitoring and evaluation. 2. This is a living document and changes should be made to it as needed in order to implement a truly adaptive process for STXEEMP management. The management plan should be reviewed and updated prior to the end of 2019. Interim reviews and annual work planning should be conducted to adjust priorities, adjust timelines, costs, and other details as they become known, or if priorities shift. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 11 3. Strategies developed in this plan should serve as a good first-step guide for future work. In most cases, it is not until the specific work plan for a project or initiative is developed with a team (such as a watershed action group, for example), that the nitty-gritty work of formulating detailed actions can be completed. When developing a strategy further, such as in a proposal or for annual work-planning purposes, consider action steps that flow in a logical results- oriented, IF-THEN way (IF you do something, THEN something happens and the next step should follow based on incremental results) so that overall objectives are met and effectiveness can be gauged with good indicators and a plan for monitoring and evaluation. 4. The updated management plan does not contain any new rules or regulations that do not already exist in the VI Code. Rules and regulations for the proper use of park resources and proscribed activities allowed in certain zones are not being considered for modification at this time. Intended Audience for the Updated Management Plan The audience for this management plan is first and foremost the DPNR management authority, namely the Division of Coastal Zone Management. It is the responsibility of the Marine Park Coordinator, with staff of the marine park office, and the director of CZM to meet the overall goal of the STXEEMP, and this management plan update provides the blueprint for implementing activities that ultimately meet that goal. This plan should also be referred to by the organizations that are in a position to support the action steps in the strategies for the Park, which includes funders (federal or otherwise), partners who wish to support monitoring, partners than can provide technical assistance and/or who can answer research questions, and the public who have a stake in management actions and results. These can include (but not limited to): • DPNR divisions: CZM, Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Division of Environmental Enforcement (DEE), and Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), among others. • Other territorial government partners: VI Waste Management Authority (VIWMA), VI Police Department (VIPD), Lieutenant Governor’s Office (for GIS and cadastral support), Department of Public Works (DPW), Department of Agriculture, Department of Sports, Parks and Recreation (DSPR), etc. • St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA): partner in turtle monitoring and protection, community outreach, and watershed improvement and restoration. • The Nature Conservancy (TNC): partner in monitoring, restoration of corals and erosion control strategies, education and outreach, turtle monitoring and protection • Federal agencies present or active in USVI: US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), US Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE), etc. • Department of Interior (DOI) such as local partners in the National Park Service, and St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 12 Department of Commerce (namely NOAA and divisions within NOAA): for funding, ecological assessments, socio-economic studies, restoration, marine debris removal, etc. • University of the Virgin Islands (UVI), as well as other academic partners: research and monitoring, outreach. • Local business owners: Sustainable financing mechanisms, recreational use, outreach and valuable partnerships. • Stakeholders of STXEEMP: Members of the St. Croix community including people who live on the east end or who visit the shore and waters of the STXEEMP. Primary Components of the Plan STXEEMP management focuses on three principles: abating threats and management of the natural resource targets, encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors, and taking steps towards an independent financial future. The main elements of this updated plan to guide action for the next five years are: The conservation TARGETS can be thought of as the resources important or unique to the STXEEMP that needs to be protected whether they are natural, cultural, or socio-economic. The Core Planning Team designated five targets for conservation that will main focus for management for the next five years: Great Pond mangrove communities, coral reef communities, sea turtles, beaches and seagrass communities as priority management targets (Part 3). The THREATS to the targets, also considered impacts or risks, can be something that directly influences a conservation target or indirectly affects an ecological process important to sustaining the target. Knowing the threats that impact the resources forms the basis for formulating strategies and activities for the management of STXEEMP (Part 4). STRATEGIES described in strategy action tables (Part 5) designed to meet specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) objectives for each strategy, the key actions to implement to meet the objectives, suggested resources needed, a rough timeline for implementation, and other considerations for planning. Priority strategies and costs are summarized in Table 3 and strategies sorted by functional management area with a timeline and costs summarized in Table 4. Strategies are divided into three main functional areas: • Resource Management and Protection (management principle #1- abating threats and management of the natural resource targets). • Community Outreach and Participation (management principle #2- encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors) • Sustainable Tourism and Finance (management principle #2- encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors and #3- and taking steps towards an independent financial future). St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 13 MONITORING of MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS A fundamental aspect of adapting planning and taking action, regular monitoring of the resources that the management plan aims to protect has been planned out with notes on who, what, and when. Measure of the resources (targets) and the level and impact of the threats to those resources is described in Table 8. To help gauge overall how the STXEEMP is doing to meet its goals and mission, governance effectiveness and socio-economic measures, adapted from a guideline developed by the Ocean Conservancy in 2008, are listed in Table 9 (Part 6). CURRENT RESEARCH and STUDIES An inventory of pertinent recent studies or monitoring should help answer what is being done, how it can help answer conservation action plan effectiveness, and should be shared when getting community input (Table 12). The update also permitted a review of the various reports, guidance, studies and assessments that have been completed recently which have direct relevance to the status and operation of the Park. A list of these supporting documents, short description, and suggestions for when and how to reference these is provided in Table 12. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 14 PART 2: GOAL & MISSION of MANAGEMENT The goal for STXEEMP was written in the founding Act: The STXEEMP was established to protect territorially significant marine resources, promote sustainability of marine ecosystems, including coral reefs, sea grass beds, wildlife habitats and other resources, and to conserve and preserve significant natural areas for the use and benefit of future generations. - V.I. Code Title 12, Section 903-906, formally established in Act #6572 As the first territorially designated marine protected area, the STXEEMP sets an example for other protected areas in the USVI. Recognizing the critical natural and cultural resources and their importance for both the environmental and economic sustainability of St. Croix, an updated mission for management actions taken over the next five years was developed. MISSION of the STXEEMP MANAGEMENT To promote marine stewardship and responsible use of significant coastal and marine resources through: resource protection, and restoration, policy engagement, improved inter-departmental and multi-agency collaboration, and education and community engagement to protect and preserve ecological and cultural values for residents and visitors. -Developed in Core Planning Meetings, 2013 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 15 PART 3: CONSERVATION RESOURCE TARGETS STXEEMP’s Natural Resources Targets The STXEEMP identifies mangrove communities, coral reef communities, sea turtles, beaches and seagrass communities as priority resource management targets. The THREATS to the targets, also considered impacts or risks, can be something that directly influences a conservation target or indirectly affects an ecological process important to sustaining the target (Part 4). Knowledge of the threats that impact the resources forms the basis for formulating strategies and activities for the management of the STXEEMP (Part 5). In addition, a sense of what the current status of a target is, and the desired goal for that resource (stay the same, improve, etc.) provides the framework to formulate objectives and specific actions to meet those objectives, and the measures needed to gauge management effectiveness (Part 6). As previously stated, the mission of the STXEEMP is to promote the responsible use and management of significant coastal and marine resources. The resources within STXEEMP that stakeholders, resource managers and experts feel are to be the primary targets of our conservation efforts were identified in a series of workshops. These “Targets” provide a basis for all subsequent planning steps, including the determination of indicators and creation of monitoring plans to gauge the effectiveness of management of STXEEMP (Part 6). Conservation targets can be thought of as the resources that are important or unique to STXEEMP that needs to be protected for their natural, cultural, or socio- economic value. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 16 From a long list of all desired targets of protection, the top targets for protection, enhancement and restoration were determined to be: St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 17 Core planning team members described the reasons these are targets for the Park (importance). Then, mindful of what each target requires to be present and to thrive (key attributes), the core planning team estimated its current condition. The team also determined a realistic desired condition for where that target should be in five to ten years. It’s important to note that several natural resource targets were considered but ultimately rejected as target for management by the STXEEMP at this time: • Deep sea/pelagic fisheries. Since much of the Park encompasses the deeper waters of Lang Bank and the south shore shelf, it seems that this resource should also be a target for management by the STXEEMP. However, the core planning team decided that since fisheries are the responsibility of DFW within territorial waters as a whole, with management decisions guided by the St. Croix Fishery Advisory Committee (STXFAC), STXEEMP-specific activities will aim to complement, rather than stand alone in improving this resource. Furthermore, many of the strategies outlined in the Local Action Strategy for Fishing addresses the conditions, challenges and research questions regarding threats to this resource and effect of fishing on other conservation targets within STXEEMP (Ortiz, 2014). This target will still be under consideration when guiding studies conducted for federally-managed fisheries or those that seek to answer questions about territorial fishing and fish stocks, such as acoustic tagging done by UVI, NPS, NOAA and the University of Massachusetts. The STXEEMP will endeavor to steer those and future studies to answer Park-specific questions to improve this resource or determine ways to reduce threats to this resource. • Salt ponds and coastal embayments (other than Great Pond). The core planning team decided that these resources are already protected by CZM mandate and are given special consideration during permitting and so the focus for this period of management should be on the high-value and highly threatened Great Pond mangrove communities. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 18 Table 1. STXEEMP targets, viability and goals Target Importance Current Condition Desired Condition 5-10 yrs Goal Great Pond Mangrove Communities (includes sea birds and blue crabs) Mangroves and mangrove lagoons provide a wide range of ecosystem services such as recycling nutrients, providing shoreline protection from storms, and are considered essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed species and critical habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA) protected species, nesting sea birds, and in particular, juvenile fish that later inhabit coral reefs and pelagic areas. Great Pond: POOR, due to Sargassum flotsam blocking the channel, low rainfall events, and increased siltation from upland erosion, there has been a precipitous decline in the extent and functionality of the mangrove lagoon. GOOD Over the next 5 years, the STXEEMP will preserve and protect existing mangrove forests as well as restore and enhance historic mangrove lagoon at Great Pond within the Park’s boundaries to increase critical habitat by 10%. Coral Reef Communities (includes lobster, Acropora spp., and reef fish) Coral reef communities are an important reason tourists come to the VI, but they also provide food and continued livelihood for fisheries as well as storm protection for shorelines. Corals are considered EFH and ESA critical habitat. POOR- Low coral cover and poor condition due to loss of herbivores, increases in algal cover, land-based sources of pollution, and thermal stress causing bleaching. FAIR- Aim for greater coral cover, greater diversity in fish, higher abundance of lobsters and Acropora species of coral. Within 5- 10 years the coral reefs and ecosystem function will be improved through resource management. With our community outreach and engagement, our St. Croix community will be more aware and concerned about the health of coral reefs and the Park’s biodiversity to foster a sense of stewardship among Park users. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 19 Target Importance Current Condition Desired Condition 5-10 yrs Goal Seagrass Communities (includes conch) Sea grass communities are important for their ecological services including habitat and nursery areas for many marine species including conch, and for providing critical linkages between ecosystems. They also preserve environmental quality by stabilizing sediments and reducing wave energy. Seagrasses are considered EFH and ESA critical habitat. Some areas considered POOR (closer to mangroves) FAIR near the south shore. FAIR Over the next 5 years, the STXEEMP will work to maintain and increase the extent of healthy seagrass habitat within the Park as measured by density, abundance, and % of seagrass free of disease covering large areas of the Park. Sea Turtles Sea turtles are an important keystone species, contributing to local, national and international biodiversity and as an important component of the marine food web both as predator and prey. They possess a potential and present economic benefit, through visitor and research dollars, while providing for an enriching cultural and community experience. GOOD GOOD Over the next 5 years, the STXEEMP will work to improve nesting and foraging sea turtle habitat and improve public awareness of sea turtle nesting activity to ensure the recovery of endangered sea turtle populations in the USVI. Beaches Beaches provide ESA critical habitat for turtles, sea birds and other coastal species; support tourism, recreation education and outreach while inspiring visitors and locals alike with their iconic island essence. GOOD overall, but considered in FAIR condition because of trash loading. Potential stress is increased rate of beach erosion. VERY GOOD Over the next five years, the STXEEMP will work toward safeguarding natural beach processes and build awareness of the ecosystem function and economic value of beaches to reduce sand mining, dumping, fire damage and vehicular use on the Park’s beaches. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 20 The following describes the role of STXEEMP conservation targets in the ecosystem, their characteristics, status and extent, and pressures on these resources. For more comprehensive background, studies, and references, please see the original STXEEMP Management Plan from 2002. Great Pond Mangrove Communities Over the next 5 years, the STXEEMP will preserve and protect existing mangrove forests as well as restore and enhance historic mangrove lagoon at Great Pond within the Park’s boundaries to increase critical habitat by 10%. Mangroves and mangrove lagoons provide a wide range of ecosystem services such as recycling nutrients, providing shoreline protection from storms, and are critical habitat for ESA protected species, nesting sea birds, and juvenile fish. Mangroves are the only truly terrestrial forests to be found in the marine community, are incredibly unique, and one of the most productive ecosystems on the planet. Mangroves are salt-tolerant plants that grow along tropical and sub-tropical coasts. They require warm temperatures, calm near shore waters, and low-lying coastal land. Their unique structures serve several important roles in marine ecosystems. The dense root system, especially prevalent in the red mangroves, protects coral by filtering land-based sediment that would otherwise flow into the ocean and obstruct sunlight from reaching coral. The roots also provide nutrient-rich detritus and protection for larvae and juvenile fish, resulting in an ideal fish and shellfish breeding ground and nursery. Mangrove trees are also home to various species of birds. Furthermore, mangroves are valuable to humans, especially in times of severe weather. The roots are able to absorb high levels of wave energy; boaters often protect their boats by sheltering them within the mangroves. Mangroves also protect the land behind them from erosion and flooding. The loss of mangroves directly impacts water quality, shorelines, commercially important fish and shellfish as well as threatened and endangered bird species. The critical linkages that flow through mangrove systems intertwine the upland guts, salt ponds, and adjacent coral reefs. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 21 Figure 2. Diagram illustrating the importance and interconnectedness of the mangrove ecosystem with adjacent marine communities. Developed for the STEER Management Plan, 2011. The condition of the mangrove ecosystem at Great Pond is considered poor, primarily because of the diminished condition of the lagoon, and more recently a significant die-off of black mangroves. The shoaling of Great Pond with sediment deposits from upland development, in conjunction with decreased flushing due to channel blockage has resulted in a shift in the structure, hydrology and benefits provided to associated species. What was once a deep pond providing nursery refuge for reef fish and commercially important pelagic fish eventually became a shallower pond where more mangroves could take root and provide a canopy for nesting and roosting birds such as the white- crowned pigeon. More mudflats formed, supporting a different assemblage of shoreline and wading birds, and blue crab. The characteristics of a fish nursery habitat, with complex root structure providing shelter, unimpeded flow to the adjacent bays, and physical parameters to support juvenile fish diminished over time. This pond is susceptible to further development impacts causing changes in hydrology, sedimentation and increased exposure to land based sources of pollution. Overall, this target is threatened by off-road vehicles damaging sensitive mud flats and perimeter vegetation, eventual sea level rise, trash and marine debris. More recently, with a severe drought, pulse runoff events exacerbated by erosion from exposed berms of soil left from preemptive earth movement construction on the upland Golden property, in St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 22 conjunction with the eventual encroachment of mangroves and sargassum flotsam events blocking the channel on the east end of the pond, there has been a precipitous decline in the extent and functionality of the mangrove lagoon in terms of fish habitat, while at the same time, the trees that established in the last 15 or so years began to die off in October 2015 , leaving standing dead trees. Suspected hypoxic and highly saline conditions make the lagoon unsuitable habitat for juvenile and nursery fishes. There have been temperature and salinity extremes and low dissolved oxygen event causing die-offs of species such as white mullet (Toby Tobias, pers comm.). For comparison, the following is a description of Great Pond from the 2002 Management Plan: The most extensive mangroves within St. Croix are found in Great Pond. St. Croix once had extensive mangrove communities along its shores. After the destruction of more than 700 acres of wetland in Krause Lagoon, and the filling in of other mangrove communities, there are only three prominent mangrove tracts remaining (Island Resources Foundation 1993b). Great Pond is the only significant salt pond within the STXEEMP; but both Altoona Lagoon and Salt River should receive similar consideration in future planning efforts. In the last 20 or so years, following a gradual natural recovery from Hurricane Hugo, Great Pond occupied approximately 118 acres (48 hectares) in size, with a depth that averaged 12-20 inches (30-50 cm) and was separated from the sea to the south by a 0.6 mile (1 km) long baymouth bar, 82 to 330 feet (25 to 100 m) in width (Tobias 1998). An eroding headland to the east deposits sediments ranging from sand to cobble sized clasts on the bar (Bruce et al. 1989). Hurricane Hugo caused a shift in the vegetation on the higher elevations of the bar, from manchineel trees and upland scrub to thorn scrub, tan-tan, and sea grape (Knowles 1996). The exchange of seawater between Great Pond and Great Pond Bay is limited to a narrow channel (approx. 13 ft (4 m) wide and 5 ft (1.5 m) deep) at the southeastern corner of the pond (Tobias 1998). The saltpond was bordered on the north, east, and west by mud flats (Tobias 1998). Most of the mangrove species within the STXEEMP occur in Great Pond, the salt pond associated with Great Pond Bay. Within the STXEEMP, mangrove communities are overwhelmingly dominated by red and black mangroves, with white mangroves, and buttonwood trees. These tree-dominated systems are found in the intertidal zone at gently sloping coastal margins, relatively buffered from extreme wave action. Wave protection is provided at times by the barrier reef, but on St. Croix, this service is primarily furnished by semi-enclosed, coastal embayments. The distribution of tree species is somewhat segregated across the intertidal zone, with red mangroves overwhelmingly dominating the lower- and mid-intertidal zones and blacks, the higher reaches (on the north, east, and south). Red mangrove islets are found in the southeastern portion of the pond (Tobias 1998). Both the red and black mangrove zones are flooded daily by the tides. Buttonwoods and white mangroves are found at the extreme, upper intertidal area, which is normally flooded only once or twice a month. Ferns and grasses are fugitive species and found only in disturbed areas in the upper reaches of the wetland. Competition for light, as is the case for terrestrial systems, is thought to exclude grass species from tree-dominated areas. -From the 2002 STXEEMP Management Plan St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 23 Coral Reef Communities Within 5- 10 years the coral reefs and ecosystem function will be improved through resource management. With our community outreach and engagement, our St. Croix community will be more aware and concerned about the health of coral reefs and the Park’s biodiversity to foster a sense of stewardship among Park users. Coral reefs are among the most diverse ecosystems on the planet and one of the most valuable natural resources to St. Croix. This biodiversity supports important values such as fishing, tourism and coastal protection from waves and storms. An economic valuation of the reefs of the USVI estimated at $187 million per year (van Beukering, et al., 2011). The economic return of healthy coral reefs trickles into the community in the form of a sustained fishery ($3M), shoreline protection ($6M), amenities ($35M), recreation ($48M) and tourism ($96M). STXEEMP has both fringing reefs and barrier reefs with the longest contiguous reef structures located on the northeastern shores. The barrier reef is easily identified from shore, with a line of waves constantly crashing over the reef crest. The characteristic structures of these reefs have changed over time, due to both anthropogenic effects and their vulnerability to hurricane damage. From the shoreline seaward, the reef type progression is as follows: within the lagoon are well-protected patch reefs and coral heads. The barrier reef runs along the coastline less than 0.5 miles off shore, with a mosaic of patch reefs scattered seaward beyond the fore reef. These patch reefs are concentrated mostly on the northeast shore of St. Croix. The linear reef is present around the tip of the East End and continues around to Isaac Bay where the barrier-like reef structures become less frequent and less contiguous in the western direction on the south shore. A submerged shallow platform known as Lang Bank, extends east from Point Udall, beyond the Park boundaries approximately 11 miles. Lang Bank is characterized by hard bottom gorgonian communities intermingled with patch reefs, sandy bottoms, and seagrass beds. The primary strategy to protect this ecosystem is to restore flow, volume, and extent of the pond. The vision for a restored pond will entail finding a balance between conserving canopy habitat for nesting and roosting birds and restoring a functional nursery for juvenile fish. First and foremost, the channel will need to be widened and deepened, with a secondary channel constructed through the bay mouth bar to the west to increase flushing. See “Very High” priority strategy #1: Great Pond restoration in the supplemental strategies and action plan. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 24 The network of habitats found within the Park shelters and supports commercially, recreationally and ecologically important species, and coral reefs form an important component of this network. The shallow waters of STXEEMP support a variety of coral species and hard-bottom benthic communities typical of the USVI and Lesser Antilles. Animals completing movements from juvenile settling habitats, such as extensive mangrove areas, to adult habitats, such as offshore reefs, use a variety of coral reef habitats within the Park. On a daily basis, fish and invertebrate species that forage in seagrass and microalgae beds at night use the reef as shelter during the daytime. Thus, coral reefs support the richness of life within the Park and the surrounding marine habitats. Overfishing, land based sources of pollution and climate change are just some of the threats the coral reefs in the STXEEMP face. In 2005, and 2010, unprecedented warm water temperatures lead to coral bleaching and a subsequent disease outbreak that caused a 40% decrease in shallow water coral cover throughout the USVI. Corals within STXEEMP were also affected by these event(s) with losses on the order of 15% for mixed coral communities on hard bottom to over 65% following the 2005 bleaching event for coral reefs composed of dense star coral (Montastraea complex) (Smith, 2011). Superimposed on these regional stressors are the local stresses arising from land-based sources of pollution, such as sediments, to marine-based sources of pollution, such as toxins and hydrocarbons, to direct destruction of reef habitats, such as anchor damage. It is not known how fishing, a recognized disturbance to the ecology of coral reefs, affects corals in STXEEMP, as fishing is restricted and monitored at a spatial scale that would not yield this information. However, regional depletion of fisheries species may have impacts, even within marine protected area borders. Of particular concern is the reduction in number of large parrotfish and other herbivores that keep the growth of macroalgae in check, thus allowing for growth of new corals in an already-threatened ecosystem. The primary strategies to protect coral reefs and associated communities is to directly abate the threats, reduce overfishing within the Park, and restore areas with Acropora species of coral along the linear and patch reefs in the STXEEMP. The vision for an improved coral reef is going to take some time, as reefs are naturally slow to respond to benefits of MPAs. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 25 Seagrass Communities Over the next 5 years, the STXEEMP will work to maintain and increase the extent of healthy seagrass habitat within the Park as measured by density, abundance, and percent of seagrass free of disease covering large areas of the Park. Seagrass beds are located throughout STXEEMP (Figure 1). St. Croix has an extensive network of seagrass beds off much of the northeast and central coastline as well as off the southern coast. Seagrass beds within the Park are characterized by the habitat-forming turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), shoalgrass (Halodule spp.), and calcareous green algae (Halimeda spp. and Penicillus spp.). Seagrass beds are most prevalent in lagoon areas and play an integral role in the well-being of the STXEEMP marine ecosystems. Seagrass beds trap and stabilize sediment, resulting in better water clarity and light penetration, conditions necessary for coral reefs to flourish. Seagrass beds also preserve environmental quality by reducing wave energy. The extensive root system of seagrass beds limits erosion by holding the sand substrate together, preventing extensive shifting of sand during storms. Seagrass communities provide foraging and nursery habitat for many marine species including conch, sea turtles and reef fish, and function as a critical linkage to coral reefecosystems. Seagrass also provides important habitat and refuge from predators for juvenile reef fish. Furthermore, birds forage over seagrass beds and green sea turtles, several herbivorous fishes, echinoderms, and mollusks feed on seagrass. The major threat to seagrass beds is direct physical damage or disturbance caused by accidental boat groundings, improper mooring design, boat anchoring in seagrass habitat and, to a lesser degree, by prop scarring from boats in the shallow waters of the Park. Anchoring within seagrass beds in particular can cause extensive damage by creating ‘blowout’ holes that can migrate and expand after the initial disturbance, taking years to recover. Coastal development can also have a major impact on nearshore seagrass beds, especially the construction of docks and marinas that project into the shallow waters and shade any seagrass present. Activities, such as sedimentation from land use change, that alter water quality conditions are another major threat to seagrass habitats within the STXEEMP: changes in water clarity and nutrients can favor macroalgal and epiphytic growth that reduces seagrass cover. The non-native seagrass species, Halophila stipulacea, which has been spreading throughout the leeward islands of the Caribbean, was recently identified in the Christiansted Harbor. The uncertainty of the extent and impact of this invasive species will be a focus for management in the coming years. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 26 Figure 3. Diagram illustrating the importance and roles that seagrass plays in the marine ecosystem. From the STEER Management Plan, 2011 Sea Turtles Over the next 5 years, the STXEEMP will work to improve nesting and foraging sea turtle habitat and improve public awareness of sea turtle nesting activity to ensure the recovery of endangered sea turtle populations in the USVI. Sea turtles are an important component in the marine food web both as predator and prey and attract both visitors and research funding. Three species can be found nesting on 17 different beaches within the STXEEMP during summer and fall. The Nature Conservancy (three beaches) and St Croix Environmental Association (one beach) each cover high-density nesting beaches within STXEEMP. These groups coordinate the patrolling, reporting, data management and response to The primary strategies to protect seagrass beds are to provide alternatives to anchoring, rapid response to groundings, removal of marine debris, and reducing land-based sources of pollution. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 27 distressed sea turtles with the Sea Turtle Assistance and Rescue group on the island; namely with National Park Service (Buck Island) and USFWS (Sandy Point). While sea turtles were historically of great economic importance as a food source, their place as a staple in the diet of Caribbean islanders has declined with dramatic reductions in sea turtle populations, in part due to this harvest. Six of the seven species of sea turtles are listed as threatened species by the IUCN (vulnerable to critically endangered). International treaties as well as local, provincial, and national laws provide protection to sea turtles. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits killing, harming, and harassment of six species of turtles, including the species that inhabit the beaches and waters of St. Croix. Although sea turtles spend only a small portion of their life cycle on beaches, their time there is critical to the survival of future generations of sea turtles. Green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) use the beaches of the park for nesting grounds. Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) occasionally nest on a few of the park’s northerly beaches. Researchers monitoring turtle nesting at East End Bay, Isaac Bay, and Jack Bay have recently seen an increase in the number of green turtles coming to nest, while hawksbill numbers continue to decline. Because researchers are generally limited to data collected during nesting, very little is known about the other aspects of sea turtle movements. Their migration patterns and routes continue to be a mystery, and often scientists must rely on chance encounters to fill in these gaps in knowledge. Identifying where turtles reside when they are not nesting and mating continues to be the goal of many research efforts. It is known however, that turtles tend to mate near their nesting beaches, as well as demonstrate fidelity to the beaches from which they hatched. This is important when considering actions taken that aim to conserve turtle populations. Female turtles will nest several times during each nesting season, often returning to the same beach every time. Observations have revealed that nesting turtles remain within one mile of the beach that they are nesting on between nesting events (Z. Hillis-Starr pers. comm.). Because nesting is such a critical time in the turtle’s life history, great efforts should be made to protect turtles from disturbance and injury, both in and out of the water. Known anthropogenic stresses to nesting turtles include: turtle poaching, egg poaching, nest destruction by vehicles driving over nests, and predation by introduced species (i.e., mongoose and dogs). The primary strategies to protect sea turtles are to increase volunteer patrolling on key beaches during nesting season, to continue to educate the public about proper beach use and to continue to enforce laws and regulations that protect both nesting and foraging sea turtles. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 28 Beaches Over the next five years, the STXEEMP will work toward safeguarding natural beach processes and build awareness of the ecosystem function and economic value of beaches to reduce sand mining, dumping, fire damage and vehicular use on the Park’s beaches. Beaches provide critical habitat for turtles, sea birds and other coastal species. They also provide socio-economic benefits by supporting tourism, recreation, education and outreach. They are threatened primarily by the impacts of climate change, improper stormwater management, trash and development. The sandy coastline that dominates the east end varies, depending on wind and wave action. The most important beaches within the Park, in terms of habitat for nesting turtles are Chenay, East End, Jack, and Isaac Bay. These beaches serve as nesting habitat for green and hawksbill sea turtles year-round, with a peak nesting season between July and October. Although other beach profiles within the Park are amenable to sea turtle nesting, these beaches have remained the least disturbed by anthropogenic effects. Beaches serve as the gateway to the Park. These have social, cultural and aesthetic benefits and are valued by visitors and locals alike. Not only are beaches gathering places for friends and family (especially during holy week), but convey a sense of place within the natural world. Beaches serve as settings for the guided tours provided by the Park and partners, and a launching point for budding swimmers and snorkelers who gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the coastal and marine ecosystem that surrounds them. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 29 PART 4: THREATS to the TARGETS Threats, also considered impacts or risks, are activities or forces that directly impacts a conservation target or indirectly affects an ecological process important to sustaining the target. Knowledge of the threats that impact the resources forms the basis for formulating strategies and management activities for the STXEEMP Threats to conservation targets were identified by two means: first the stresses (similar to symptoms observed for a target, such as reduced nesting success of shore birds) were carefully considered. These stresses, the impairment or degradation of key ecological attributes of the target, were ranked based on the severity and scope of the stress. Then, the source of the symptom, or the threat (such as predation on sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by mongooses), was identified. These threats were ranked based on the contribution the threat had in causing stress to the target and the irreversibility of the threat. See box, below, for more information on stresses, threats and the criteria to rank these. During the first iteration, stakeholders, resource managers and experts identified a long list of impacts to STXEEMP, including ones that were pervasive, historical, and others later determined to be minor or secondary concerns (these are not included for management now, but noted below). By using criteria-based ranking of the stresses and threats, the direct threats to targets were prioritized to direct conservation actions where they are most needed. Limited energy, resources and time force managers to choose which activities that can be undertaken to truly address critical threats. For example, human disturbance was identified as a stressor to nesting sea turtles. This stress, and the source of the stress (the threat of human presence on nesting beaches), were later determined to not be a current critical threat to the sea turtles, whereas the predation of eggs and hatchlings by mongooses, dogs, and cats is considered a critical threat to this target. Furthermore, since other threats to sea turtles were ranked as critical, the management actions that would address these threats would at the same time reduce the incidence of human disturbance on nesting sea turtles (and their hatchlings). St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 30 Many iterations later, after considering the current critical threats to the STXEEMP targets, a list of 20 direct threats was determined. These can be grouped into five primary themes: Fishing Impacts Sea Turtle Poaching and Predation Land-based Sources of Pollution Lionfish Climate Change: Coral Bleaching Events, Sea Level Rise, Acidification, Etc. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 31 These threats often impact multiple targets and threaten the long-term viability of resources. The core planning team ranked threats based on factors of prevalence, irreversibility, and the severity of impact to identify the primary threats facing the management targets. The following threat matrix (Table 2), demonstrates ranking of stresses to targets, and shows how overall impacts to resources elevate targets to require the most attention for conservation, protection or restoration (e.g., the coral reef community), or abatement of critical threats (e.g., land- based pollution). Threats are ranked in the matrix based on existing 2012-2016 knowledge and science. The threats will be reevaluated and revised in the future according to new information and changing conditions. Table 2. Target and threat ranking matrix Targets --> Threats Coral Reef Community Seagrass Community Sea Turtles Great Pond Mangrove Communities Beaches Summary Threat Rating Overfishing Very High High High Illegal Fishing High High High Thermal stress bleaching Very High High Poaching adult turtles Very High High Lionfish Very High High Sedimentation/ Sargassum/ mangrove expansion (loss of lagoonal area) Very High High Land Based Sources of Pollution High Medium Medium High Sea Turtles: Invasive predators- hatchlings High Medium Sea Turtles: Invasive Predators eggs High Medium Oil Spill High Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Medium Sea Level Rise Medium High Medium Fishing gear impacting reefs and seagrass beds Low Low Low People touching corals Low Low Groundings Low Low Human Disturbance Low Low Trash Medium Low Low Sea Turtles-Poaching eggs Medium Low St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 32 Fires Low Low Low Vehicles Low Not Specified Medium Low Marine Debris Not Specified Not Specified Low Low Anchoring/Blow Outs Low Medium Low Erosion of exposed soils Low Low Summary Target Ratings: Very High High High High Medium Very High This list of threats should be reviewed periodically to reassess the level of threat and when identifying emerging threats. For example, the non-native seagrass species, Halophila stipulacea, which has been spreading throughout the leeward islands of the Caribbean, was recently identified in the Christiansted Harbor. The uncertainty of the extent and impact of this invasive species will be a focus for management in the coming years. Several threats were identified to be suspected threats to the resources based on anecdotal information, but the level of threat could not be specified and therefore these are not ranked. All threats identified during the 2012-2016 CAP process have been recorded so that during later review and assessment of management activities, these threats can be considered for future action if still applicable or not otherwise addressed in the strategies implemented in this period of management: • Climate change: ocean acidification • Pollution from ballast water • Boat strikes on turtles- a known occurrence, but unknown extent within STXEEMP or overall impacts to the turtles within STXEEMP. • An increase of impervious surfaces contributing to volume and velocity of runoff- otherwise covered in land-based sources of pollution and the strategies developed to address runoff. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 33 PART 5: STRATEGIES Strategy Development The CAP process helped to develop STRATEGIES to abate these threats or to restore a targeted resource. Based on target viability and threat severity, management and conservation strategies were developed by partners and stakeholders to reduce the threats. The objectives, strategies and action steps form the basis of implementation. Developing these items required significant time and input from partners and stakeholders, because they require the most detail and are the most important components of the plan for guiding actions, funding, and monitoring. Participants in the CAP process developed objectives, strategies and action steps to address the critical threats. This is one of the most critical sections of the management plan and will guide activities undertaken in the next 1-2 critical years of early implementation as well as longer-term (5 year) intentions for conservation. The objective is a specific statement that details the desired accomplishments or outcomes of a particular set of activities within a project, typically set for abatement of critical threats and for restoration of degraded key ecological attributes. Core questions asked were, “What do we need to accomplish?” and, “How will our objective affect the given threat?” The objectives then led us to strategies for STXEEMP. A conservation strategy is a broad course of action intended to achieve a specific objective (outcome) that abates a threat, and/or enhances the viability of a conservation target. A strategy will include the activities required to accomplish each St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 34 objective, and the specific action steps required to complete each strategic action. Core questions asked to determine what our strategies should be were, “What is the most effective way to achieve the results we stated in our objective?” What is the most effective way to abate this threat (threat = source + stresses it causes) or multiple threats?” and “Will the strategic actions accomplish the objective?” In some cases, strategies or action steps were considered well before an objective was formulated. In this case, the group determined if such strategies would still get us where we needed to be with a target, and could we develop a SMART objective (see box, above) to guide us. The strategies are presented as a supplemental materials document in tables in priority order from highest to lowest priority within their respective functional areas (resource management and protection / community outreach and participation / sustainable tourism and financing). The prioritization was developed in consultation with core planning team members based on impact, cost, and feasibility ranking. Strategies are prioritized as: • Very High priorities (red shading.) These need to happen- either to address a highly-ranked threat, because the Park relies on the strategy to be successful, or the target is most in peril. These should be given the most time and energy to accomplish, as they are either strategies that will have the greatest impact, and/or require significant resources (financing, planning, personnel, coordination) to complete. These were given very high priority ranking either because the impact would be greatest (even if feasibility was low), or it would be relatively easy to implement with a relatively high benefit. • High priorities (yellow shading). Strategies in this category are also considered important for the protection of resources or for abating threats, but were not ranked as high either because of an overall lower beneficial result, or because feasibility of implementation was low. These are sometimes given high ranking because there is a need for it to happen for other steps to occur or management was going to do this anyway. Often, funding and personnel are already in place for these strategies. • Medium (light green shading). There strategies might be regarded as important to the community, but do not address a high threat. These strategies should be relatively easy to implement, but should not take away from the efforts of the higher-ranked strategies. These can be done with community support, volunteerism, partnership, and with minimum funding or opportunistic resourcing. An OBJECTIVE is where you want to be. A STRATEGY is how you will get there. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 35 • Low (dark green shading). These strategies can happen later (check back in two years). If these strategies are pursued, they should occur at very little cost to the time of staff and partners. These strategies can be revisited periodically to determine if implementation is feasible or if the need to implement has been elevated (such as if certain mechanisms are in place to raise Park revenue via a fee collection and accounting system). STXEEMP management focuses on three principles: abating threats and management of the natural resource targets, encouraging the sustainable use of the park by locals and visitors, and taking steps towards an independent financial future. The STXEEMP identifies mangrove communities, coral reef communities, sea turtles, beaches and seagrass communities as priority management targets (see Targets, Part 3). Some key strategies include: • Increased coordination of permitting, regulation and enforcement of non-point and point-source pollution and coastal development to prevent habitat loss and sedimentation. • Improving coordination of the patrol and monitoring of nesting sea turtles and hatchlings. • Improved watershed and stormwater management (i.e. pave dirt roads, improve ghuts and drainage basins). • Community outreach and increased participation in management. • Creation of a moorings program within STXEEMP • Great Pond restoration activities. • Sustainable financing, in part through sustainable tourism activities. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 36 Table 3. STXEEMP management functional areas, strategies and costs Functional Areas Strategies Costs (Estimated over 5 years) Resource Management and Protection 12 strategies $1,517,000-$2,106,000 Community Outreach and Participation 5 strategies $36,000+ Sustainable Tourism and Finance 2 strategies $560,000+ TOTAL over 5 years to implement strategies (not including monitoring & research, staffing, operations, facilities and maintenance) = $2,112,000 (minimum) Strategies for Resources Management and Protection In total, there are twelve strategies that are categorized as resource management and protection- focused. A summary of the strategies for resources management and protection follows. More detail can be found in the strategies tables in the supplemental “STXEEMP Strategies 2016.pdf”. Table 4. Resource Management and Protection Strategies Timeline and Estimated Costs. Costs are reflective St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 37 of estimates over the five-year management cycle. Conservation Target Restoration Restoration of two of the targets, the Great Pond mangrove community and the fringing reefs, will supplement other resource management and protection strategies to reduce threats and improve the resource. A major restoration initiative will aim to restore the functionality of Great Pond, namely the shallow water nursery for juvenile fishes. This is currently listed as the first strategy and will be a multi-year, multi-agency and community effort requiring considerable coordination, proposal development, and resources to implement. The other is with partnership from The Nature Conservancy on St. Croix to outplant nursery-grown Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis at selected sites that have a high potential to be resilient, or to increase resiliency, of the shallow water linear and patch reefs in the nearshore area of the Park. These fast-growing, high relief species are threatened, but also have the most potential to restore structure to shallow reefs, provide suitable habitat for reef fishes, and reduce wave action from storm swells and waves. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 38 Habitat and Species Protection Park strategies to prepare a rapid response to groundings, provide alternatives to anchoring, remove derelict vessels and other marine debris will further protect coral reefs and seagrass beds within the Park. The Park will aim to maintain low-impact access while drawing access away from sensitive areas, and encouraging and incentivizing sustainable use of shoreline areas; there is overlap with community outreach and participation strategies, below. Education and outreach activities will work to prevent future groundings, anchoring, discarding of marine debris, and unsustainable use, which will complement these strategies. There are several entities on St. Croix that have been active in sea turtle conservation. The coordination of these groups within STAR to pool resources (trainings, data management, volunteer support base), to coordinate response, evaluate effectiveness, and to share best practices is a key tenet in the sea turtle strategies described in this plan. In conjunction with NPS, USFWS and others in STAR, SEA and TNC will lead efforts to make sure critical beaches are patrolled during nesting, and that there is a continued campaign to raise awareness and support for these efforts, to inform the public about the importance of proper beach and near shore activities. Watershed Management The watershed management plan for the park, developed in 2011by the Horsely Witten Group serves to guide the watershed activities to reduce stormwater runoff and restore sensitive habitat within the Park (Horsley Witten, 2011). As part of the CAP process, priority strategies emerged in this regard; to reduce the erosion of the Green Cay Ghut (on the Adams property upslope of Chenay Bay), and pave dirt roads that contribute significantly to sedimentation within the adjacent bays. This latter has been considered cost prohibitive, but will continue to be a priority activity the Park will promote while steering any paving projects to the more erosion-prone hills as the opportunities arise. The other priorities developed in the watershed management plan, such as installation and maintenance of stormwater runoff BMPs such as culverts, swales, and rain gardens, will be periodically reviewed to see if there is a role the Park can play to implement, but overall these will be initiatives not specified in the management plan. The CZM Watershed Coordinator will play an overall role to coordinate implementation of best management practices in construction, infrastructure and watershed restoration across departments and agencies. The Friends of STXEEMP will continue the education and outreach. Community involvement is a critical aspect of watershed protection. Enforcement A primary strategy and component of the management plan is to improve enforcement of the existing Park zones and coastal rules and regulations. With rules enforceable only since 2011 (following installation of zone marker buoys ), first action steps include communicating a better understanding of the benefits of the regulations, improving effectiveness of enforcement and St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 39 compliance, and how the zones are impacting users of the Park. A human use study conducted by TNC in 2015, Geographic Consulting’s user survey in 2011, and records kept by part staff will serve to determine the patterns of use and inappropriate behavior within the Park. DPNR is commissioning a study to determine efficiency of environmental enforcement Territory-wide, with recommendations for training and resources provided as a follow-up. Enforcement of STXEEMP rules and regulations is critical for a functional marine protected area. Successful law enforcement will encourage compliance and is necessary to achieve the goals of the STXEEMP. Prevention is often the most effective way to achieve compliance and can be accomplished through outreach and education as well as frequent patrolling both on land and by sea. Effective enforcement depends on interagency cooperation (e.g. STXEEMP/CZM staff, DEE officers and staff, in some cases, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, and the judicial system) rapid response times, administrative support, and good outreach and education programs about the rules and regulations of the park. Some of the specific enforcement strategies include: • Providing prominent signage, in conjunction with regular education and outreach to inform the users and the public of the rules and regulations specific to the Park and to coastal and marine areas in general. • Completing an evaluation of environmental enforcement capacity and addressing those gaps with training and resources to fill the gaps. • Improved coordination and inter-agency support (e.g. . dedication of a full time enforcement officer, strengthening interagency agreements and communications protocol- such as with VIPD and US Coast Guard, fines collected for infractions within the Park returning to Park budget). • Improving effectiveness of prosecutions. • Ensuring a Territorial recreational fishing license (should there be one) is complementary to Park’s rules and regulations. Strategies for Community Participation and Outreach This set of strategies aims to inspire the community to support and be involved with certain STXEEMP management activities through community engagement opportunities, educational activities, and a variety of communication strategies. During the step-wise development of action steps for the protection of resource management, abatement of threats, and sustainable financing, several community development and outreach priorities emerged. These included the installment of informational signage about the Park and sea turtles, boater outreach, and user access (see below). In addition to the strategies specifically defined for resource management and sustainable financing, there are many other facets of outreach which engage the public (residents and visitors) in Park activities and increase awareness and compliance overall. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 40 Current Community Outreach and Participation The STXEEMP has a variety of ongoing activities to engage the community of St. Croix. These programs include the summer EcoCamp program, travelling Ecovan, classroom visits, and bayside tours. The STXEEMP participates in a variety of island events hosted by other organizations such as the annual Agricultural Fair (USVI Department of Agriculture), Eco Fair (SEA), to educate the public about the Park in particular, and marine and coastal resources in general. A supporting and congruent initiative, Marine Outreach and Education USVI (MOES-VI) initiative, has developed a host of projects that support the STXEEMP, such as the Don’t Stop Talking Fish cultural event (held in 2014). Additionally, the Friends of STXEEMP support the Park as a non-governmental partner of DPNR that can assist with outreach and citizen science programs and sustainable financing for the STXEEMP. The Friends of STXEEMP is a not-for-profit 501 c(3) organization dedicated to supporting the programs and mission of the STXEEMP by promoting responsible recreation, enhancing community outreach and education, and improving compliance within the East End watersheds. The Friends seek to conserve and manage the valuable, and vulnerable, marine ecosystems of today for tomorrow by supporting the overall goal of the STXEEMP. Friends’ initiatives are focused on supporting existing projects and partners, with the expectation of expansion to include new projects and partners in the future. Examples of current projects include: • A signage campaign at STXEEMP bay entrances that encourage certain activities (e.g. snorkeling) and behaviors (e.g. trash removal) and discourage others (e.g. fishing in no-take zones, taking shells and corals); • Extension of the SEA turtle nest patrol program to include more STXEEMP beaches; and • collaborating with the island’s recreational dive community (CRABBS and CORE) to increase the park’s in-water capacity and recreational interest in park waters (e.g. derelict boat assessments, lionfish density assessments). Examples of expected future initiatives include: • Collaboration with The Nature Conservancy on coral nurseries and outplant sites within the St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 41 Park; and • Collaboration with the Boy Scouts to carry out Sandwatch beach profile assessments, to monitor erosion and accretion of beaches on the park boundary. This data will be especially significant on turtle nesting beaches, to determine the vulnerability of certain nesting areas and identify nests that may require excavation and relocation interventions for survival. These initiatives will be outlined in a separate strategy development plan for the Friends. There are six recommended Strategies for Community Outreach and Participation that range from signage to public access. Table 5. Community Outreach and Participation Strategies Timeline and Estimated Costs Informational Signage As a means to inform the public of the importance of the Park, make people aware of the rules and regulations, and encourage proper use and visitation, signs will be installed at key access and viewing locations throughout the park. In addition to an upcoming revamp, there is specific need to have a uniform message about sea turtles, watershed protection, and fishing rules and regulations. User Access This strategy addresses two issues: the maintenance of traditional access points for fishermen’s’ plots within the Park (Turner’s Hole, Grapetree Bay and Solitude Bay), and providing access to bays in a safe, low-impact way. This will entail addressing entry points so that traffic does not cross sensitive habitats (such as at mud-flats and buffer areas around Great Pond), providing adequate parking, and restricting vehicular access on the short tracks to bays that are prone to coastal erosion. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 42 Watershed Stewardship Engaging communities who live in the east end is the surest way to build support of, and ensure participation in neighborhood efforts to reduce stormwater runoff into the coastal areas of STXEEMP. In lieu of a limitless budget to implement watershed activities within the Park, a stepwise, incremental approach capitalizes on the energy and resources of direct stakeholders in the park. Furthermore, for the priority watershed protection strategies that will be undertaken in this management period, community involvement and outreach will be critical for the continued success of this project and support for similar projects in the future. Education and Outreach for Boaters Strategies in this topic directly supplement enforcement, signage, installation of buoys, and conflict resolution between recreational and commercial interests in the Park. This strategy will be further developed with an audience analysis for a communications, education and outreach program. The strategies that were developed in this management plan update that relate to education and outreach should be a useful start to mapping out action steps (Appendix E). Future Activities Needed: • Develop a STXEEMP specific communication, outreach and education (COE) audience and message matrix using existing tools and reports (e.g. VIMPAN Communications Plan, MOES-VI COE plan), to include a social media component; identify target audiences and appropriate COE tools, mechanisms and activities. • Provide UVI internships to expose young Crucian professionals to the variety of environmental conservation fields beyond marine biology; • Create opportunities to enlist volunteers in habitat protection and restoration activities such as replanting shoreline vegetation to prevent erosion and sedimentation of coastal waters; • Develop and implement citizen science and community awareness building and engagement opportunities complimentary to the mission of the STXEEMP visitor center, outdoor classroom and Eco-camp. Include coral bleaching monitoring and Sandwatch beach profile monitoring with local school and community groups; • Bridge interagency communication gaps, e.g. recommend DPNR inter-division staff meetings monthly or quarterly, newsletters, listservs, etc. • Host research seminars/webinars for the public/managers when new studies have been conducted within the park and relevant to the park. Strategies for Sustainable Tourism and Finance St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 43 Management of the STXEEMP has faced many challenges, including limitations of financial and human resources. One tool to assist in financial and management planning for protected areas is a Sustainable Finance Plan (SFP), written for the Park in 2010 (Sector, 2010). The SFP uses business planning methodology, adapted for protected areas, to address structural questions and lays the foundation for achieving financial sustainability. The plan identifies the operational and investment needs of the STXEEMP, the historical and current funding resources and the financial gap, and proposes a portfolio of financial mechanisms to fund the gap. The plan also highlights the challenges to implementation and provides a five-year action plan to use as a guide to implementation. Although the specific financial information is now over five years old, the basic recommendations made in this plan are still relevant. The cost of managing and conserving the natural resources and ecosystem services of the STXEEMP is significant but the current financial gap is manageable with the support of the residents of and visitors to St. Croix. A partial estimate of the ecosystem services and tourism provided by the coral reef and seagrass beds within STXEEMP can be valued at $41 million per year, making this an important area to conserve for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. In 2010, the average funding for the park amounted to $340,000 per year and came mainly from Federal funding sources. Much of this funding is for staff positions. The average figure includes two years in which funds totaled almost half that amount due to human resource limitations resulting in challenges in implementing project activities. This caused the STXEEMP to return funds to the Federal government. The recurrent critical financial need of the STXEEMP amount to $633,000, and increases to $734,000 at the optimal level. The resulting financial gap is $230,000 and $340,000 respectively. If investment needs are included, then the financial gap increases to $318,000 at the critical level and $447,000 at the optimal level. It must be noted that recurrent costs are on an annual basis whereas investment costs would be phased in over several years. The primary sources of funding are rotating federal grants to the Territory, universities, or non- governmental organization partners working in STXEEMP, or through projects conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or jointly by National Park Service for Buck Island National Monument. The strategy to fill the financial gap identified a variety of financial mechanisms including tours, mooring fees, concessions, special events and private donations as well as the potential in the future for a territory-wide environmental entrance fee for all tourists. Funds raised could pass through a Protected Area Trust, which could also generate funds in a more stable way through its endowment. The implementation of these types of financial mechanisms requires strong political will and community support. In the meantime, the Friends of the East End Marine Park serve a role for providing supplementary income and community support for the Park. There is some skepticism from stakeholders on the government’s ability to effectively manage protected areas and use funds efficiently. The STXEEMP has faced many challenges in hiring staff due to the complex and lengthy governmental hiring process. These challenges and the public’s perception hinder the ability of the park to raise funds. It is recommended that a semi-autonomous body be established to manage the territorial marine and terrestrial parks within a territorial system of protected areas. This entity would have its own expenditure line in the USVI budget and would St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 44 manage its funds independently of DPNR. It would have its own system of hiring staff. This would increase efficiency, enable a more comprehensive management system and allow for a more balanced distribution of funds raised for conservation throughout the territory. The cost is considerable but the value of the marine resources that will be better protected is immense as is the importance of the goods and services that will continue to be provided by nature. Sustainable Financing Strategies The Core Planning team developed several strategies that would address the sustainable funding shortfall and to implement some of the major recommendations that emerged from the Sustainable Finance Plan. Strategies to develop a fee structure, protected area trust to manage the conservation funds, and a concessionaire program will be revisited at another time when circumstance allows. Sustainable Tourism The luxurious beaches and coastlines of STXEEMP are favored sites for snorkeling and water sports, for both residents and visitors, particularly at Chenay Bay, Coakley Bay, Cramers Park, and Turner Hole. An active recreational water sports community partakes in windsurfing, kite boarding, kayaking, and sailing from public beach access points and swimming areas located at condo and hotel locations such as at the Divi Carina Bay Hotel. In addition, visitors engage in sightseeing excursions on both motor boats and sailing vessels. Bait fishing, hook and line as well as sport fishing are prohibited in most zones or otherwise require DPNR permits. The marine park office, located at Great Pond, has space groomed for a visitor’s welcome center. Following the installation of communications and education modules, the visitors’ center will have a rollout of 2017. Table 6. Sustainable Financing and Tourism Strategies Timeline and Costs Strategies That Were Considered but Not Included in This Plan St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 45 The above table does not include five strategies deemed to be more of a territorial initiative with implications for STXEEMP. The following are abbreviated strategies tables that do not include detailed suggested action steps, leads, timeline, outputs, etc. The STXEEMP has a stake in the advancement of these initiatives but does not have authority or capacity to implement without significant buy-in from other agencies. These territorial-focused strategies are summarized below (Table 7). For more detail, see STXEEMP Strategies on file with STXEEMP office. Several ideas surfaced in first rounds of strategy development to address threats, target enhancement goals, or to improve visitation and appreciation of the Park: • Create a visitor bus tour of the Park and install dive moorings: Both were considered not worth the effort for the current low level of interest. At some point when it seems there would be greater interest, a feasibility study should be conducted to determine best sites for each. • Blue Flag Beaches & Marinas: this is advancing independently of the STXEEMP management. Case in point: in September 2016, the Green Cay Marina was awarded Blue Flag status. Nonetheless, a continued partnership with Blue Flag committee would be valuable and beneficial for meeting outreach and education objectives. These will be revisited occasionally to determine if effort should be made to develop these further into strategies. Table 7. Territory Strategies that would have a STXEEMP Focus Territory or St. Croix strategies as they pertain to STXEEMP (might require checking in or coordination for STXEEMP) "Very High" Priority Strategies: SUSTAINABLE TOURISM and FINANCE: Structure for Sustainable Financing STRATEGY: Develop the structure for raising, receiving, tracking and spending revenue for the Park OBJECTIVE To develop the structure to receive fees, fines, raise funds from sustainable finance mechanisms by the end of the five-year management cycle. "High" Priority Strategies: 1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and PROTECTION: Recreational Fishing license within STXEEMP TARGETS: Coral reefs, seagrass beds MAJOR THREAT: Overfishing, illegal fishing, no management of recreational fishing, shoreline take STRATEGY: Create licensing program for shoreline, recreational fishers OBJECTIVE 1. Increase compliance of fisheries and park regulations, increase revenue St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 46 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and PROTECTION: Grounding Response and Debris Removal TARGETS: Seagrass beds and coral reefs MAJOR THREAT: Groundings, derelict vessels, marine trash and debris STRATEGY: Train in response, develop park vessel removal policy to increase efficiency OBJECTIVE Develop relationships with other agencies and a chain of command-phone tree for incidents 3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and PROTECTION: Sea Turtle Data Collection Coordination and Collaboration TARGETS: Sea turtles ISSUE: Lack of cohesiveness in data collection, little data sharing STRATEGY: Adopt standardized protocol and sea turtle database OBJECTIVE Encourage data dissemination and allow comparing of data across spatial and temporal scales "MEDIUM" Priority Strategies: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and PROTECTION: Liability insurance TARGETS: Seagrass beds and coral reefs MAJOR THREAT: Damage by boat groundings STRATEGY: Require all registered boaters to have liability insurance that will cover immediate removal of grounded boats, clean up of sinking boats etc. OBJECTIVE: Reduce damage caused by groundings by putting responsibility on owner for amount of time derelict vessels are in the marine environment St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 47 PART 6: RESEARCH & MONITORING Monitoring for Effectiveness The monitoring program included in the Plan is designed to provide the framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the management actions and to provide periodic assessment of the status of resource and overall influence of a threat so that strategies can be altered to be adaptive, if needed. The measure of success in the implementation of strategies and effectiveness of management decisions will be evaluated to ensure that it is achieving the objectives set forth throughout this plan. Throughout this management plan, there are goals, objectives, and measures of success identified. These are relative to the goals for the protection and management of the conservation targets overall (see Table X, STXEEMP targets, viability and goals), the objective of each strategy, measures of success for each strategy, as well as the mission for management as a whole (page. 19). To make management relevant, ensure resources aren’t wasted on efforts that do not have any net benefit, and to periodically adjust management actions to adjust to changing conditions, the goals and objectives should be periodically reviewed using the full range of biophysical, governance and socio- economic indicators and the best available information about the condition of the conservation targets. In 2008, the Ocean Conservancy developed a MPA monitoring plan for the STXEEMP to gauge the effectiveness of MPA establishment and management actions (Drayton, 2008). It includes biophysical, governance and socio-economic indicators and a blueprint for monitoring (who does it, frequency, resources, costs, and decisions to make based on findings). At the time, the authors and working group acknowledged that the management plan for the park was overdue for a revision. The monitoring plan was based largely on the original 2002 goals, but with a consideration of contemporary issues. The 2016 conservation targets, which are not very different from those listed in the 2002 plan, have specific indicators and attributes to measure according to the 2016 goals set for these targets (see Table X.) The 2008 biophysical indicators not otherwise captured in this update were incorporated where appropriate. The 2008 governance and socio-economic indicators are still relevant. These have been represented in the tables X and X. Further information on St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 48 resources, costs, and background can be found in the Ocean Conservancy plan, which is available on file at the STXEEMP office. To measure all suggested indicators in the monitoring plan would entail a large financial and time commitment. Some indicators are necessary to review annually, in the case that management actions can have an immediate effect on a resource, or to monitor for success of implementation activities in the case that short-term management action needs to be altered to respond to an emerging problem or circumstance. Other indicators are useful to measure on a longer- time scale; those that measure success of a strategy when it will take a few years before success can be detected (particularly for restoration activities). Some indicators are not feasible to measure frequently, in which case, it is useful to have a baseline to then steer research groups to repeat and review at the next management cycle (2021) or as measureable attributes as needed. Priorities should be given to indicators that can inform management action and are feasible to measure. The role of the STXEEMP is that of monitoring coordinator, to steer projects and funding toward filling the gaps in indicator information, to periodically review results of monitoring, and modify management actions if called for. STXEEMP can work individually with partners to devise protocols that are relevant to the Park and match the capacity to execute the protocols, and to collect attributes that are measured and synthesize the data in the regular review process. To facilitate this process, STXEEMP can conduct a monitoring summit every 1.5-2 years in which experts and monitoring partners (DFW, DEE, DEP, NPS, UVI, SEA, TNC, and NOAA’s NCCOS, NMFS, etc.) are assembled to submit and review up-to date information and evaluate effectiveness. The Marine Park Coordinator can develop a shared project workflow that includes reminders to the partners on what metrics they will need to bring to the table for review. It is during this process that indicators can be re-prioritized and partners are invited to report out on any major observations. Biophysical Monitoring of the Targets and Threats Monitoring of biophysical indicators entails taking regular observations of the targets and threats and comparing patterns that emerge with past observations. Well thought–out indicators of a conservation resource target’s overall health should also be indicative of overall improvement of the resources, and a plan for monitoring these indicators should be reflective of the response time expected for management successes to become apparent. Regular, ongoing monitoring of the effect of management actions, status of the resources over time, or abatement of threats that tell us whether strategies are working or need to be adapted to changing circumstances or conditions (see accompanying strategies and monitoring table). The conservation targets in this management plan are not protected in isolation within the STXEEMP, but rather, are affected by contributing factors outside the control of management of this MPA. However, there should be some net benefit for the targets within the STXEEMP. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 49 UVI faculty, Tyler Smith, collects data for the Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program. Regular monitoring also makes emerging threats apparent, particularly if there is a precipitous decline in health of a particular attribute of a conservation target. In this regard, monitoring of the threats, such as poor water quality due to land-based sources of pollution, coral bleaching, invasive species, or incidence of illegal extraction will reveal if there are new sources of these threats and if management actions are effective in reducing incidents. The targets and threats table below is divided into indicators of the status of resource, level of impact from threats, and measures of success for strategies (as listed in the strategies table) for each target. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 50 Table 8. Monitoring Plan for Resources and Threats PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source VERY HIGH From POOR (loss herbivores, coral cover, bleaching) to FAIR in 5-10 years Indicator: status of resource Coral Reef Health Coral cover (% live coral) Algae & invertebrate cover Coral diversity & species composition Disease and mortality Juvenile corals (recruitment) TCRMP, NOAA Biogeo field measurement protocol, TNC's resiliency assessments. AGRRA protocol for recruitment and algal biomass TCRMP: annual, 4 sites in STXEEMP NCRMP in 2012- included 140 sites in STXEEMP, Biogeo 2012 (60 sites) See past studies from SEFSC, CFMC, DFW, UVI, TNC, EPA's Bio monitoring, NPS • Expand to asses inside vs. outside MPA, increase number of TCRMP sites, add back reef and lagoonal sites (STXEEMP) stagger frequency • Recruitment studies- can include in regular coral monitoring (AGRRA protocol) or use settlement plates. 1X/yr (ideal) TCRMP permanent sites: (4) + more needed NCRMP longitudinal monitoring, randomized design Tyler Smith, UVI, Biogeo DFW's monitoring for reef fish, conch STXEEMP does additional back reef/ lagoonal sites Scuba, days/people, boats: $5000? (OC: $680K over 2 years) Herbivory Density (#/100m2) and abundance (biomass: g/100m2) of large-bodied parrotfish + Density of Diadema Algal biomass (cover and height) Included in field measurements for the above coral monitoring AGRRA protocol for recruitment and algal biomass Only macroalgal %cover is being recorded in NCRMP • Need biomass (height). See AGRRA protocols 1X/yr Same as above Same as above Indicator CORAL REEF COMMUNITIES: lobster, Acropor a, reef fish St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 51 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Lobsters Density (#/100m2) Lobster-targeted surveys Can extract data from NCRMP NPS (BUIS) lobster monitoring protocols Every 2 years STXEEMP, UVI Same as above Acropora spp. Density (#/100m2) Distribution (mapped) Size and health (disease, mortality) Acropora mapping + other monitoring for size dist. and health TNC did mapping & resilience assessments for outplanting UVI for East End Beach, UVI/NMFS compiled all known data Can extract data from TCRMP?, NCRMP •Assess Acropora on crest Every 5 years TNC, UVI, NOAA NCCOS In-water (surface) GPS for mapping (OC: $8K over 2 years for Acropora- specific monitoring) Presence of rare species (Nassau grouper, rainbow, blue, parrotfish) Density (#/100m2) Abundance (g/100m2) Roving diver surveys Can add it to the protocols for any other in- water work 1x/yr Tyler Smith, UVI, Biogeo DFW's monitoring for reef fish, conch Less resources if not on SCUBA, or by boat Indicator: status of resource Indicator St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 52 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 53 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Effectiveness of enforcement and education strategies # successful convictions, reduced incidence of infractions, reduced non- compliance # judges aware and participating in workshops and training -Increase in patrols- spatial and temporal coverage Regular analysis of police reports, DEE reports Data accessible? Need administrative procedures to obtain data. Administrative outreach and coordination Review annually STXEEMP reports out on # of convictions, outreach events Training, outreach, coordination Effectiveness of zones, rules & regs Baitfish biomass (NEED) Tracking fish movement Reduced destructive incidents Improved condition of coral (see above) Fisheries-dependent surveys (observed catches) Fisheries-independent: near shore sampling Fish tagging and acoustic arrays Reported in catch reports? NPS, UVI and NMFS doing fish tagging in BUIS Regular surveys- seasonal dependent DPNR- DFW? NOAA? Tags, arrays, baitfish survey tools Effective coral restoration strategy Coral outplanting monitoring: # outplanted areas (Objective for five outplanted reefs, up to 100m2 restored reef) Density, size distribution and extent of replanted reefs, survivorship assessments/site selection to be done in early 2017 2 years following outplanting? TNC: Kemit Amon Lewis TNC has funds, staff, equipment Effectiveness of mooring buoys # of boats anchored vs. use mooring # anchor-caused damage sites Shore side monitoring, incidence of enforcement, community observations, anchor scars Can compare to past reports: geographic consulting, TNC, STXEEMP bayside surveys Before/ after, survey high-use areas STXEEMP: bayside surveys, seagrass survey Training, outreach, coordination Indicator CORAL REEF COMMUNITIES: lobster, Acropor a, reef fish Indicator: Measures of success of strategies (from strategies tables) St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 54 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Watershed restoration 10% Reduction in TSS in certain bays. Green Cay Ghut: TSS reduced by 17% in Chenay Bay, .3 miles of ghut restored Carlos Robles methods, Kynoch Reale Horsley Witten did sediment load models in 2010. • Need during and after project measurements Before/during and after ghut restoration, road improvement, rain gardens, etc. STXEEMP: TSS surveys, or by contract (Ky Reale) boats to take water samples Effective groundings response Extent of grounding or storm-damaged coral # of new groundings removed in a 6 month time frame report of on-site restoration Groundings response protocols Grounding response protocols and Point of Contact phone list (TNC and DPNR); EEMP has exopy to re-affix loose corals As needed STXEEMP tracks, reports More people trained Lionfish derbies # of fish brought in, overall weight, largest, # of divers involved Need tournament spreadsheet Need tournament spreadsheet Annual, targeted reefs STXEEMP, DFW funds for prizes, publicity Lionfish hunting with permit # of permits issued, reported removal rates by up to 25 divers/ teams CORE online reporting first CORE recon dive done September 2016; future dives may help determine reefs to target for removals Review annually STXEEMP, DFW Training, outreach, coordination Lionfish removal permits CORAL REEF COMMUNITIES: lobster, Acropor a, reef fish Indicator: Measures of success of strategies (from strategies tables) Indicator St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 55 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Seagrass habitat size (overall coverage) Mapped # hectares Evidence of expansion or contraction Remote sensing + in- water groundtruthing Biogeo has habitat maps; North Shore was groundtruthed in 2015 by UVI MSc student; south shore needs truthing Baseline, then every 5 years NOAA NCCOS Updated LiDAR?, in- water monitoring HIGH Seagrass beds health seagrass: algae ratio (also is an indicator of water quality), presence of epiphytes Diversity, shoot density, species distribution, invasive species impacts, Fish diversity, size class distribution Field measurements, permanent quadrats (randomly chosen), photo- CPE, indicators of algae: seagrass ratio at certain locations. Include seagrass sites in TCRMP and NCRMP monitoring. NEW program to develop Need baseline studies done, then less frequent monitoring Every 2 years at selected permanent sites UVI, STXEEMP Staff time Conch Density (#/100m2) Size in no take zones vs. fished areas Done every 1-5 years (SEAmap)- long transects surveyed by scooters Synthesize information done to date; determine regular schedule for monitoring Every 5 years? DFW (Jonathan Brown) Water quality monitoring Temp, pH, TSS, contaminants See information below in the ALL monitoring: water quality Ongoing: Can be useful to match point sources with direct and actual impact on seagrasses Annual review of results Incidence of anchoring, groundings, blow-outs Map of anchor scars, grounding, blow outs Estimate of area of the above Make note of incidents and extent of damage. Note anchor scars and blowouts when doing seagrass surveys Training need: Determination of old vs. new destruction, how to determine if recovery is happening? When incident occurs and during regular seagrass monitoring (above) STXEEMP, TNC, other grounding responder s Protocols Disease % seagrass impacted by disease Monitor during seagrass surveys Include in above surveys Training need: Determine disease vs. water quality, and temperature? Every 2 years UVI Training, Protocols Indicator Indicator: Level of impact from threats SEAGRASS COMMUNITIES (includes conch) Threats: Water quality, sedimentation, climate change (sea level rise, temperature), anchor damage, overfishing, illegal fishing (conch) Indicator: status of resource From POOR (unknown, decline on the S. shore?) to FAIR in 5-10 years St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 56 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Effectiveness of enforcement and education strategies # of illegal activities Same as coral strategy indicator, above Same as coral strategy indicator, above Review annually STXEEMP reports out on # of convictions, outreach events Effectiveness of mooring buoys # of boats anchored vs. use mooring # anchor-caused damage sites Shore side monitoring, incidence of enforcement action taken, community observations, anchor scars Same as coral strategy indicator, above Before/ after, survey high-use areas STXEEMP: bayside surveys, seagrass survey HIGH From GOOD (but there are issues) to maintain at GOOD or improve over 12- 20 years Nesting sea turtle population Breeding population #s, # successful nests/ year, variability by year/cohort Nest monitoring June- Dec TNC covers East End Beach, Jack's and Isaac's SEA covers Southgate + expanding with Coakley? Chenay? During nesting season, need nightly patrols if possible Volunteer/citize n patrol of beaches daily TNC, SEA, volunteer network, DFW, NPS, STAR (OC: $77K over 2 years) In water sea turtle behavior and condition # and species of foraging sea turtle General movement patterns In-water monitoring of foraging, acoustic studies, satellite tracking 7 green turtles nesting at Jack and Isaac Bays satellite tagged in 2015; cultivate opportunities to collaborate with USGS Every 5 years, Annual review TNC, NPS, USGS Indicator: status of resource SEA TURTLES Indicator SEAGRASS COMMUNITIES (includes conch) Indicator: Measures of success of strategies (from strategies tables) St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 57 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Predation of eggs and hatchlings Nest monitoring: # nests dug up # predators removed from beaches Based on turtle monitoring protocols + nest excavations Trapping at beginning of nesting season Night monitoring by TNC and SEA + citizen beach patrol, DFW trapping At the end of each turtle nesting season (December) SEA, TNC, STAR, DFW Trapping, reporting Boat strikes # of reported boat strikes STAR reporting Assessment of incidence, extent, determine specific outreach to target users / seasonal Annual review STAR, NPS Poaching of adults # of poaching infractions Enforcement reporting Hard to measure patterns of incidence and potential reduction Annual review STAR, DFW, USFWS, NOAA, NPS Poaching of eggs # nests dug up # evidence poaching (probe holes, bucket indentations) # poaching infractions Nest monitoring June- Dec, Enforcement reporting Hard to measure patterns of incidence and potential reduction overall Have a better idea of poaching on key beaches (Southgate, East End beaches) Annual review SEA, TNC, STAR, DFW Human disturbance Fires, vehicles, other: see beach monitoring, below Indicator: Level of impact from threats Threats: Poaching of adults, poaching of eggs, invasive predators: hatchlings, eggs, boat strikes (?) marine debris, human disturbance (fire, vehicles, nesting interference, lights) Indicator SEA TURTLES St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 58 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Citizen patrol # volunteers trained # volunteers active in monitoring (objective: engaged community by increasing monitoring to 33% of STXEEMP beaches) # of beaches covered reduced incidence of eggs poaching (see above) SEA training and data management, STAR training, survey for evidence of poaching: probe holes, bucket indentation Simple database to receive citizen science data was created in 2016; SEA and Friends of EEMP hoping to harmonize dgital data collection in 2017 Review at the end of each turtle nesting season (December) TNC, SEA, STXEEMP (evidence of poaching) Part of monitoring or citizen patrol- need occasional data review Improved data collection, collaboration, comparable data # of turtle coordination meetings, reports STAR, SEA, NPS, and TNC reporting Friends have harmonized collection with SEA; EEMP urging partners to actively share data Check in 2 years Staff time Indicator: Measures of success of strategies (from strategies tables) Indicator SEA TURTLES St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 59 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source MEDIUM From GOOD/ FAIR (because of trash loading, erosion rates unknown?) to GOOD in 5-10 years Beach condition grain size width, natural / seasonal dynamics On-site sampling: Sandwatch LiDAR Sandy Point has a good understanding of their beach dynamics and could help inform EEMP Need training, coordination and volunteers for Sandwatch 1x, repeat every 5 years? Sandwatch: quarterly STXEEMP and citizen science contract out to UVI, NOAA Training, outreach, coordination Cleanliness # trash cans provided # trash bags collected in cleanups type of debris Trash clean up reporting forms Friends and EEMP carry out occasional cleanups; UVI coordinates Coast Weeks in September Occasional, plus annual Coast Week in September UVI Training, outreach, coordination Beach erosion rates Width, cutting Sandwatch Need training and coordination for Sandwatch quarterly Friends Beach fires # fires, Reported during turtle monitoring, trash cleanups some information exists from SEA and bayside patrols during bayside patrols EEMP Trash, debris trash type, quantity See above Water quality monitoring Non-point source of pollution, bacteria, hydrocarbons See below (ALL monitoring) Access points # access points created or maintained General condition of access points (rate on a scale) background research; Survey sites; create signs; clean up areas as necessary New project to develop: submitted to CRCP in 2016 Review annually STXEEMP with DFW Infrastructure grants Education efforts # signs Compliance vs. non- compliance Observations, user surveys Part of bayside monitoring Report out annually STXEEMP Indicator BEACHES Indicator: Level of impact from threats Measures of success of strategies Indicator: status of resource Threats: Sea level rise, trash, debris, oil spill, sand mining, fires, vehicles, erosion St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 60 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Area and volume of Great Pond Mapped # hectares Evidence of expansion or contraction Areal / satellite comparisons Compare with past, map changes Annual UVI GIS, areal and satellite resources HIGH Condition of mangrove trees Density, diameter, biomass, spatial representation of trees. # of propagules and recruitment Field measurements, tagging studies of seedlings, infrared mapping. permanent plots ; density, diameter, biomass, spatial extent. Prop root communities. Walking transects of propagules and recruitment Incorporate recommendations from UVI ecological assessment. Need: many of the attributes UVI study does not cover Beginning of strategies and a few years after restoration activities •need to check for plots' tags every year UVI completes some in current ecological assessme nt Blue crab population Density (#/100m2) distribution Traps DFW has done studies? Annual DFW Traps Bird population # and type nesting, roosting diversity Foraging patterns Bird surveys Caribbean Waterbird Census records at ebird.org; Jan-Feb each year Annual (seasonal considerations) SEA Nursery/ juvenile fishes # juvenile fishes diversity fishes Increase in nursery habitat for fisheries (see next) Traps, in-water snorkel surveys Part of UVI ecological assessment Can compare to older studies done by Tobias See studies by Ivan Mateo 1x UVI Traps MANGROVE (GREAT POND) includes blue crabs, nesting birds, nursery reef fish Indicator: status of resource GOOD (Great Pond improving since Hugo) to VERY GOOD in 5-10 years Indicator St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 61 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Water quality Non-point source of pollution: sediment, bacteria, hydrocarbons, etc. See below (ALL monitoring) Trash, debris # bags collected, volume of debris, incidence of large debris Regular trash pick up at Great Pond Done occasionally by community groups- needs more directed and coordinated reporting Annual STXEEMP Trucks for hauling, coordination with waste management Restoration Plan in place Yes/no 2018 STXEEMP see strategy Community involvement # community consultations # events where community participates Track with reporting More needed Ongoing STXEEMP Increase in nursery habitat for fisheries species See above juvenile fishes for measurements 2 years after restoration UVI/DPNR Restored hydrology See above area and volume of Great Pond 2 years after restoration UVI/DPNR Low-impact shore access points # and condition of access points Rate based on use, perception Need a way to quantify- get public perception At end of 5-year cycle STXEEMP MANGROVE (GREAT POND) includes blue crabs, nesting birds, nursery reef fish Indicator: Measures of success of strategies (from strategies tables) Threats: Land- based sources of pollution, trash, vehicles, climate change (sea level rise), overharvest blue crab, others Indicator: Level of impact from threats Indicator St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 62 PRIORITY GOAL (current condition to desired condition) Attribute to be measured Methods Status (already being done? Completed?) / Needs Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source ALL (TSS, Nutrients, pH, CaCO, hydrocarbons) DPNR's weekly beach monitoring. EPA contaminants study Horsley Witten Watershed Plan. DPNR's DEP, EPA contaminants study • Consider comprehensive one-time study in suspected problem areas (yacht moorings? Divi? Facing Great Pond?) like STEER's EPA contaminants study Besides DPNR's regular monitoring, 1x contaminants study DEP's Benjamin Kuelarts. Coordinate with Anita Nibbs Coordination, reporting # hectares impacted by oil/ hazardous material spill, storm damage, sargassum, other events Response time, # of groups coordinated As part of response, assess damage extent, short-term and long-term impacts, recovery Teams ready with response (DPNR, TNC, US Coast Guard) have protocol As needed Various departments Coordination, reporting # signs, tours, school events changes behavior inside STXEEMP- reduced incidence of infractions by 60% in five years Soc-mon surveys, other awareness questionnaires Can compare to past soc-mon survey by OC/NRCS Annual review STXEEMP, NOAA Needs further consideration in communicatio ns, education and outreach plan Indicator Education and Outreach Water quality Catastrophic Events Assessment St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 63 Governance and Socio-Economic Monitoring Governance indicators measure the progress of the planning and implementation activities administrative, staffing, enforcement. Stakeholder participation, compliance and enforcement, as well as the progress and quality of management actions and of the management plan itself is also routinely assessed. Many of the governance indicators provided by the Ocean Conservancy plan are yes/no indicators- such as if the management plan exists. Others are subjective and can be determined through partner consultations and community surveys on awareness and perception of the Park Socio-economic indicators reflect the state of the human component of coastal and marine ecosystems (e.g., level of economic activity), and are an essential element in the development of MPA plans. They help measure the extent to which STXEEMP is successful in managing the pressures of human activities in a way that results not only in an improved natural environment, but also in improved quality of life in coastal and marine areas, as well as in sustainable socio-economic benefits. From SustainaMetrix 2021: Recommendation 6.1: Strengthen Linkages Between Science and Management In general, good coral reef management in the USVI is not being limited by a lack of publishable scientific information about the status of reefs, causes of declines, responses to stressors, etc., and more priority should be given to investigating and filling capacity gaps related to good governance (e.g. improving compliance and enforcement, improving bureaucratic function, depoliticizing the selection of natural resource managers, encouraging peer-to-peer learning, improving outreach, education and communications measures to grow a stewardship ethic among decision makers and the general public, updating codes, regulations, job descriptions, handbooks, and other similar recommendations presented in this assessment) over the continued funding of peer-reviewed “pure science.” If the VI-EPSCOR program intends to engage in more management relevant science, it has the potential to contribute to the translation of science into effective stories that captivate attention and change behavior, particularly for decision makers. A good example of integration across agencies has been the Virgin Islands Marine Protected Area Network (VIMPAN), facilitated by TNC and has established a good platform for dialogue, decision- making, action and reflection on the development of a more integrated and coordinated network of marine protected areas. The network is exploring joint opportunities, coordinating funding cycles, using a strategic planning process with federal partners, and contributing a collective voice to management decisions. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 64 Table 9. Monitoring Plan for Governance and Socio-Economic Indicators St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 65 Indicator Attribute to be measured Methods Needs/ Status (already being done? Completed?) Frequency, Timing, Location Who monitors (who to contact)? Resources needed, annual cost/ funding source Level of stakeholder participation and satisfaction in management (including Level of stakeholder involvement in surveillance) Attendance of stakeholders at the appropriate meetings and workshops Level of participation within marine protected area advisory board Level of volunteerism Level of satisfaction when asked in a survey Number of surveillance phone calls Meeting minutes, reporting of volunteer hours, baseline survey Record keeping Annual review STXEEMP Staff time Enforcement coverage – includes DEE, EEMP interp. Rangers, police Patrol records (# hours, who patrolled where) Patrol areas and locations covered (% area patrolled and % time patrolled per area for spatial and temporal coverage) Patrol records, schedules, maps Annual review STXEEMP coordinates, reports out- DEE Staff time Park Visitation # people visiting shore, beaches Vessel usage in STXEEMP Visitors center recognized by board of tourism, draws visitors, increase park awareness Human use monitoring, bayside surveys Tap community volunteer and stakeholder groups- Volunteer Support Network or student project Weekend coverage- 1x monthly (ideally) STXEEMP Database Local marine resource use patterns Snorkeling/ diving, fishing, recreational fishing, campers and beach users, boating/ kayaking, kite surfing Human use monitoring, bayside surveys Tap community volunteer and stakeholder groups- Volunteer Support Network or student project Weekend coverage- 1x monthly (ideally) STXEEMP Database Local values and beliefs about marine resources Perceptions about resource conditions, uses and the value of those resources Changes in values/beliefs over time Perception of rules and regs and management activities Soc-mon survey Was last done in 2010 (Ishida) NOAA planning to conduct in 2017 ~Every five years Contract for soc-mon Economic revenue opportunities # new businesses established within or operate in STXEEMP Record keeping Every five years CZM SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS (from 2008 Ocean Conservancy monitoring plan) GOVERNANCE INDICATORS (from 2008 Ocean Conservancy monitoring plan) St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 66 Current and Ongoing Monitoring and Research There exists a deep information base for the marine and coastal areas of the east end of the island that is a result of several long-term territorial and federal monitoring programs, individual research studies, and student theses. So many different entities have done work in the STXEEMP that contribute in one way or another to our understanding of the physical conditions, ecological responses, uses, threats, and benefits of the marine resources, making it difficult to keep track of all available useful information. We made an attempt in this plan to list all relevant studies and monitoring efforts, which should be referred to when questions arise, to know when to update past studies, or to direct funding for projects that fill a gap in information. These are consolidated in a table in the References section of plan. The following table shows the one-time (not long term or regular) studies that answer questions of uncertainty regarding a status of a resource or effect of a threat, and which will guide whether action needs to be taken, where, or how. These differ from regular, ongoing monitoring of the effect of management actions, status of the resources over time, or abatement of threats that tell us whether strategies are working or need to be adapted to changing circumstances or conditions (Table X, above). Table 10. Research questions to establish baselines TARGET(s) THREAT(s) Category listed in general rank high to low (Catastrophic, wide- spread events such as oil spill, hurricane, sargassum, etc. applies to all) PRIORITY Uncertainty Suggested Research Question/ Comments Coral Reef Communities: lobster, Acropora, reef fish Overfishing, illegal fishing, bleaching and other effects of climate change, lionfish, land-based sources of pollution, grounding, anchoring, fishing gear VERY HIGH Unknown the extent of many of the threats. Lionfish removal thresholds? What is the resiliency? Examine biogeos blitz info, gaps, conduct more wide-spread randomized survey. ID important sites, establish regular long- term monitoring; map lionfish colonization. Coral recruitment patterns; effectiveness of MPA vis à vis fisheries resources. Mangrove: sea birds, blue crabs, juvenile fishes Land-based sources of pollution Trash, vehicles Climate change (sea level rise, temperature, changing precipitation patterns with greater frequency of drought) Overharvest blue crab, others? HIGH Historical extent of mangroves, type, distribution, freshwater/salt water hydrodynamics Mangrove monitoring Blue crab populations Current juvenile fish pop dynamics UVI Ecological assessment study should answer many questions with core samples, community observations, historical photographs and imagery (Toby has aerial photos) St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 67 Seagrass Communities: conch Water quality, sedimentation, climate change (sea level rise, temperature), anchor damage, overfishing, illegal fishing (conch) HIGH General information is lacking: Extent of physical damage from anchoring, fixed bottom fishing, grounding? Conch populations: #s, migration, population dynamics, vulnerability. Extent and impact of the non-native species, Halophila stipulacea. Historical extent, composition and density of seagrass? Problem high-use areas? Match seagrass aerial and ground- truthed data. One-time wide-spread study? What is the potential impact of the non- native seagrass species, Halophila stipulacea on the function of the STXEEMP ecosystem? Sea Turtles Poaching of adults, poaching of eggs, Invasive predators: hatchlings, eggs, Boat strikes (?) marine debris, human disturbance (fire, vehicles, nesting interference, lights) HIGH Extent of boat strikes in STXEEMP?Turtle nesting poaching baseline? Effect of marine debris. Population dynamics. Contaminants In-water juvenile tagging and cooperation with Buck Island’s program to address questions of connectivity. Beaches most in need of surveillance, hard to determine before/after effect. Threats known but not to what extent in STXEEMP, and what is preventable? Genetic work. Socio-economic drivers of poaching- origin, effect, prevention? Incidence/frequency/location of boat strikes and whether rules and regulations can prevent- hard to determine- use STAR reports? Anecdotes? Beaches Sea level rise Trash, debris, oil spill, fires, vehicles Erosion Medium Loss of beaches quantified Map beach fires; Sandwatch- citizen science to monitor beach accretion and erosion Deep water and Pelagic Fish (suggested for DFW to inform STXEEMP zones, rules/regs) Overfishing Ballast/pollution Baitfish inside and outside NTA? Deep-water/ pelagic fisheries effect of loss of prey? Threat of ghost nets and traps? Effect of ballast discharge? Other pollution effects? Consider expanding basic fish population monitoring Climate Change Climate Change impacts: acidification, sea level rise, storm intensity, and precipitation patterns? Acidification? SLR? Storm intensity? Precipitation patterns? Need downscaled projections paired with on-the-ground observations and a long- term monitoring to track changes to determine how the impacts of climate change affect STXEEMP targets. Socio- Economic Loss of income? Impact vs. benefits? How has a decade of park rules and regulations impacted those who used to use the park waters regularly for fishing? Sustainable Financing Community financing? Willingness to pay study like one done by McKenzie for STEER. Feasibility of boater fee/mooring use, recreational license fees? St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 68 PART 7: PARK OPERATIONS Management and Administration The STXEEMP is under the jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and is the responsibility of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources. The Division of Environmental Enforcement (DEE), the Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) also contribute to STXEEMP operations but do not have a responsibility for the day to day management of the park. This falls to the STXEEMP staff, which consists of the Marine Park Coordinator, the Education and Outreach Coordinator (TBD) and an Interpretive Ranger. The Marine Park Coordinator reports to the CZM Director. Maintenance Park staff will perform the maintenance inspections required to keep the marker buoys safe and operational, but outside contractors ay be required to perform repairs. With Sports, Parks and Recreation, EEMP will work to maintain public access points. Regular inspection and maintenance, in some cases, replacement of informational signs at access points, along roadways and on beaches will be necessary and should have an accompanying plan for schedule, tasks, and budget. The park’s headquarters building and associated grounds falls under the Department of Sports, Parks and Recreation, which assists DPNR with the maintenance of the site. In addition, Cramer’s Park, which is situated along the STXEEMP marine boundaries, is also under the DSPR, which maintains the bathrooms and other buildings and grounds. Staff Capacity and Professional Development The Park personnel, as well as those who are immediately contributing to the management of the STXEEMP from other departments and agencies, should receive targeted training that enhances their job capabilities and to equip them to provide for implementing new technologies as they become feasible and useful to staff and the Park. The cross-agency groups and networks that contribute to the management of MPAs in the Virgin Islands have strong potential to help promote and coordinate coral reef management actions within the territory. These include the Virgin Islands St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 69 Marine Protected Area Network (VIMPAN), the Virgin Islands Network of Environmental Educators (VINE) and the Virgin Islands Coral Reef Advisory Group (VICRAG). Capacity should continue to be built within them. Figure 4. 2010 Expenditures vs. 2016 Estimated Expenditures St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 70 PART 8: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES & RECOMMENDATIONS Functional Areas Programs Activities Resource Management and Protection Patrolling and Enforcement Monitoring of resources through patrolling and the prevention of illegal activities in the park, as well as the issuance of fines or tickets for violating a rule or regulation. Monitoring & Research Technical monitoring of the health of the marine ecosystem: the coral reef, the seagrass beds, the mangroves, and the animals and plants that live within these areas. Any research and data collection conducted by park wardens as well as outside research studies. Habitat Restoration & Wildlife Management Restoration of Great Pond. Re-vegetation, control and mitigation of invasive species, and restoration of threatened and endangered species. Mooring Buoys Studying the capacity and use of the different mooring locations and rotating them as necessary. Monitoring the buoys on a regular basis to identify those that may need to be replaced. Sustainable Finance, Tourism and Recreation Fee Collection (future activity) Collection and management of recreational fees including but not limited to mooring fees, entrance fees, and camping fees. Reporting, auditing and analyzing fee system. Concessions & Recreational Special Uses Negotiating contract services with nature guides and eco- tourism companies, and vendors. Uses such as special events at the Visitor’s Center; Visitor Safety and Protection Search and rescue, emergency medical services, boat safety and patrol. Management and Administration General Management and Administration Staff development activities to increase capacity and environmental leadership through staff education. General administrative activities including hiring staff, procurement, contracting, filing, maintenance of park lost and found items, information technology. Financial Business planning, budgeting, accounting, analysis of St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 71 Management expenditures and revenue generation, reporting requirements, grant writing and fundraising. Planning and Emergency Preparedness Structural and programmatic development, environmental impact analyses and approval of development plans within and around Park boundaries. Creation and implementation of an emergency preparedness strategy. Partnership Relations Coordinating inter-agency management and planning. Management of donor relationships. Advertising and Marketing Maintain a web presence. Creation of park brand, posters, brochures, radio and TV spots. Community Outreach and Development Formal Environmental Education Preparation of lesson plans on marine ecosystems, conservation, and environmental training for students of various grade levels. Public Outreach and Awareness Outreach activities to community members and park users to increase awareness. Stakeholder Engagement Workshops and meetings to maintain and increase support for the Park through communication and education of stakeholders. Facility Operations and Maintenance Buildings, Grounds & Utilities Cleaning, stocking supplies, and caring for buildings Roads & Trails Maintenance of signs, and trails Navigational Markers and Mooring Buoys Cleaning and basic maintenance of buoys Docking, Transportation & Fleet Gas, replacement of equipment and parts and general maintenance of a vehicle and a boat St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 72 Table 11. Program Area and STXEEMP Principal Role for Implementation St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 73 Recommended near future planning and implementation: • Develop comprehensive communications, outreach and education audience matrix to guide outreach activities. Incorporate the community outreach and development strategies (devised in this update to address threats to resources) into the audience analysis, which systematically recognizes the need, primary audience for communications and outreach, methods and materials, and desired output. Relevant reference documents, such as an inventory done of the STXEEMP education and outreach materials and activities in 2010, the VIMPAN communications plan, awareness and communications strategy for the buoys, MOES-VI projects and reports are listed in the Appendix X, STXEEMP-Relevant Reports and Documents. • Implementation of Sustainable Financing with an update on current spending and financial needs. Revisit sustainable financing options on a regular basis. This should be done systematically and with input from the core planning team to lay out any progress made, identify impediments, and hash out next steps to advance sustainable financing options. • Annual operations plan and standard operating procedures including maintenance of buoys, signs, visitors’ center, vehicles, and the running of the Park office. Annual work plans with staff time, budgets derived in part from strategy tables in the Management Plan, and timelines with expected periodic review to revise next year’s work plans • Begin comprehensive review of the 2016 Management Plan with the aim of having an updated plan by 2020. Each subsequent revision should be more refined to reflect contemporary issues and realities. Actual drafting input should diminish over time, with less extensive revisions to content. Primary review and updates should begin with the strategies. o Many accomplishments and ongoing projects are opportunistic and not necessarily planned. These initiatives should be scrutinized in the same way as planned activities outlined in the management plan to gauge effectiveness in resource protection, raising awareness and community involvement, or threat abatement so that effort is not wasted in reaching the overall goals for the STXEEMP. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 74 REFERENCES Geographic Consulting (2010) St. Croix East End Marine Park Use Assessment http://geographicconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/EEMP-FINAL-VIDPNR-EEMP.pdf Drayton, Nicolas. (2008). Identifying Indicators and Resources to Monitor and Improve Management Effectiveness of East End Marine Park, St. Croix, USVI. Ocean Conservancy for the U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Coastal Zone Management. St. Croix. Horsley Witten Group (2011a) Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the East End of St. Croix (Horsley Witten Group) St. Croix East End Watersheds Existing Conditions Report. http://www.horsleywitten.com/stx-east-end-watersheds/pubs/final/111114_FinalSTXEEMPWatershedPlan.pdf http://www.horsleywitten.com/stx-east-end-watersheds/pubs/final/01_Intro_110719.pdf The Nature Conservancy (2002). St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan. St. Croix, USVI. The Nature Conservancy (2007). Conservation Action Planning Handbook: Developing Strategies, Taking Action and Measuring Success at Any Scale. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/practices Sector, A. (2010). St. Croix East End Marine Park Sustainable Finance Plan. The Nature Conservancy. St. Croix, USVI. https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/other/grants/NA09NOS4190173/USVI/USVI_TNC_STXEEMP_Su stainable_Finance_Plan.pdf Sustainametrix (2012). An Analysis of Issues Affecting the Management of Coral Reefs and the Associated Capacity Building Needs in the United States Virgin Islands. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. van Beukering, P. et al. (2011) The Economic Value of the Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States Virgin Islands. Final report. IVM Institute of Environmental Studies. Report number R-11/06 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 75 Table 12 STXEEMP-Relevant Reports and Documents St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 76 Reference Title Who Results- what does it tell us? What to do with it/when Citation/ Where to Find It NCRMP: NOAA/NCCOS coral reef ecosystem monitoring (up to 2014 field season) NOAA NCCOS In 2012, 290 sites across STX, 140 sites included in STXEEMP (2010, 2011, 2012, and 2014) Use to compare long-term trends. Also useful for lobster, Diadema and Acropora NOAA. 2012. St. Croix, USVI Trip Report St. Croix Hard Bottom Fish and Benthic Community Characterization May 5-18, 2012 https://nccospublicstor.blob.core.windows.net/projects- attachments/180/STX_2012_trip_rep_FINAL.pdf TCRMP: UVI-DPNR Territorial Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring Program UVI Tyler Smith Summary of results for the four STXEEMP sites of the territorial coral reef monitoring program (Castle, Jacks Bay, Great Pond, and southern mesophotic site, "Lang EEMP"). Benthic cover (% coral, algae, inverts including Diadema), fish and basic physical parameters (pH, temp) and overall coral health. Track long-term trends, notable if precipitous decline due to certain threats (coral bleaching, storms, land-based sources of pollution, etc.) This summary was provided for the management planning process and summarizes data for STXEEMP sites up to 2011. Periodically request a review and summary to determine if changes are happening. "Smith, Tyler B. 2011 Summary of East End Marine Park Monitoring: Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program. Technical report provided to STXEEMP management authority. Center for Marine and Environmental Studies, University of the Virgin Islands. Full list of TCRMP reports: https://sites.google.com/site/usvitcrmp/tcrmp-reports NOAA Conch Monitoring Ron Hill NMFS -frequency? Sites? Tracking + regular surveys? Baseline, use for protocols, etc. SEFMC? DPNR Conch Monitoring (SEAmap) Jonathan Brown, DFW Every five years: long transects on scooters- not sure if same sites or random sites? Last completed (2015) Baseline, use for protocols, etc. DFW- Johnathan Brown (DFW) STXEEMP Lobster Monitoring STXEEMP, NOAA, NPS Paige Rothenberger and Jose did a survey in 2008. Duplicated in Oct 2015 by Leslie and Jose. NOAA/NCCOS: Abundance of lobsters were reported for the period 2005-2007. Lobster sightings were recorded during fish and benthic composition surveys (i.e., within the 100 m2 survey unit area). Lobsters were recorded if seen, but without active searches of holes or crevices. Baseline, use for protocols, etc. Brief report submitted to TNC (Leslie Henderson). NPS is working on a protocol for Buck and STJ for use in STXEEMP. NOAA/NCCOS field reports STXEEMP Acropora Monitoring STXEEMP, TNC, NOAA, UVI Have a recent history (since 2007) of presence and location of A palmata and A cervicornis within the Park. TNC does ongoing surveys for suitable sites for Acropora transplantation. Useful for baseline if synthesized - consider mapping locations/stands. NOAA/NCCOS: Density of Acropora species gets noted if found within fish and benthic composition surveys (i.e., within the 100 m2 survey unit area). St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 77 Reference Title Who Results- what does it tell us? What to do with it/when Citation/ Where to Find It Acropora Mapping TNC, UVI, NOAA/NMFS Mapping done previously by P. Meyor TNC did comprehensive mapping at different east end bays up to 2008. UVI synthesis study (Lee Carruba?). Spatial database on the distribution of A. palmata (+cervicornis if present), useful to monitor changes and health status of Acroporas at selected sites TNC report. NOAA/NMFS completed? Nesting Females and Hatchling data TNC and SEA June-Dec. Chenay Bay and Southgate (SEA), east end beaches (TNC) Long-term data set, measures of success Jen Valiulis (SEA), Kemit Amon Lewis (TNC) Stranded, Injured Sea Turtles STAR reporting forms, DPNR Incidence and cause of stranding and injury. Help pinpoint threats to turtles: source and location STAR reporting database Great Pond Studies UVI (Rick Nemeth, Kristin Wilson, Marcia Taylor) Compilation of past studies as part of UVI's ecological assessment? (2016) Refer to past studies to help paint a picture of the changes to Great Pond- useful in public presentations. Great Pond Restoration strategy in the strategies table of 2016 Management Plan has notation of several past, relevant studies. Lionfish Control Plan (Updated Version, 2014) Jamie Kilgo- TNC and NOAA Strategies for education and outreach, removal, research and monitoring, marketing, and communications. Refer to recommendations when formulating STXEEMP approach Jamie Kilgo. 2014. Lionfish Response Management Plan, US Virgin Islands. Update February 2014. http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/CoRIS/Lionfish_Ma nagment_Plan_Update_2014.pdf Watershed Management Plan (2011) Horsley Witten Sediment load models, mapped sources of runoff, recommended restoration , pollution prevention, recommendations for regulatory and programmatic improvements Refer to for watershed improvement strategies. Includes future total watershed loading for baselines and potential reduction of TSS as a result of watershed activities Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 2011b. St. Croix East End Watersheds Management Plan. Sandwich, MA. September, 2011 http://www.horsleywitten.com/STX-east-end- watersheds/pubs/final/111114_FinalSTXEEMPWatershedPlan. pdf, http://www.horsleywitten.com/STX-east-end- watersheds/pubs/final/01_Intro_110719.pdf nodc.noaa.gov/p ub/data.nodc/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/project/20471/Final- STXEEMP-WMP.pdf Watershed Conditions Report (2011) Horsley Witten Summary of known conditions, potential pollution sources, and candidate restoration opportunities in six watersheds draining to the STXEEMP. These watersheds include Southgate, Solitude Bay, Teague Bay, Turner Hole, Madam Carty, and Great Pond Bay. Refer to ranked potential restoration strategies Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 2011a. St. Croix East End Watersheds Existing Conditions Report. Sandwich, MA. July 2011. http://www.horsleywitten.com/stx-east-end- watersheds/pubs/final/01_Intro_110719.pdf Watershed / LBSP Threats/ Restoration: St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 78 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 79 St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 80 Reference Title Who Results- what does it tell us? What to do with it/when Citation/ Where to Find It Awareness and Communications Strategy for the Boundary Marker Buoys (2011) Commissioned by TNC- Melanie Feltmate, Jenn Travis and Paige Rothenberger Prior to, and following installation of Park zone boundary buoys, implement outreach activities that communicate the ecological benefits, purpose and regulations of the Saint Croix East End Marine Park and inform the public of upcoming enforcement of regulations for the Park zones. Outline of audiences, messages Handy reference for outreach regarding the buoys and zonation. Has suggested activities and timeline and audience. Overlap with other outreach and communications initiatives. ON FILE Word document on file with STXEEMP: Communication Plan for Marker Buoy Installation_April2010_draft VIMPAN Communications Plan (2012) Commissioned by TNC- Melanie Feltmate & Jenn Travis Key messages for specific audiences with mock-ups of advertisements and PSAs Useful for referring to when implementing communications and outreach plans- specific messaging that were vetted. ON FILE Word document on file with STXEEMP: draft plan and powerpoint Marine Outreach and Education U.S. Virgin Islands Style (MOES) Initiative NOAA- Jenn Travis, Bob Trumble Guidance on communications, education and outreach Review prior to developing new education/outreach programs or plans NOAA CRCP. 2014. Marine Outreach and Education U.S. Virgin Islands Style Initiative: Strategizing For Improved Outreach, Education and Communication Pertaining to USVI Marine and Fisheries Management and Conservation, U.S. Virgin Islands. Final Report. Prepared by AECOM, Jenn Travis, and Bob Trumble. Christiansted, St. Croix. September 2014 http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/proj ect/812/MOES-VI_Final_Report_No_Appendices.pdf Evaluation of MOES-USVI Style Blue Earth Consultants What works best for outreach about marine issues in USVI. Good recommendations for future efforts. Review prior to developing new education/outreach programs or plans "Evaluation of Marine Outreach and Education USVI Style: Improving Fishing Community Awareness and Compliance An Evaluation Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service SEPTEMBER 30, 2015" http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/pr oject/812/FINAL_NOAA_MOES_VI_Eval_Report_09_24_15.pdf St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan 2016 Update 81 Reference Title Who Results- what does it tell us? What to do with it/when Citation/ Where to Find It STXEEMP Sustainable Finance Plan (2010) Agathe Sector, TNC contract with NOAA CRCP grant Extensive financial analysis based on 2010 expenditures, financial need, and the resulting gap. Recommendations for best fund-raising strategies are presented Review the numbers to use when pitching initiatives. Current expenditures and future needs based on the updated management pan. Sector, A. (2010). St. Croix East End Marine Park Sustainable Finance Plan . The Nature Conservancy. St. Croix, USVI. https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/other/g rants/NA09NOS4190173/USVI/USVI_TNC_STXEEMP_Sustainab le_Finance_Plan.pdf USVI Capacity Assessment (2012) Sustainamatrix for NOAA CRCP Summarized capacity building needs for coral reef management and protection Useful to review recommendations for territory- wide capacity building. Will be relevant for: improving enforcement, implementation support, climate communications, and inter-agency collaboration. Sustainametrix (2012). An Analysis of Issues Affecting the Management of Coral Reefs and the Associated Capacity Building Needs in the United States Virgin Islands. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. http://www.coris.noaa.gov/activities/capacity_assessment/fin alusvicapacityassessment.pdf Fisheries Local Action Strategy (LAS) (2014) Lia Ortiz, NOAA CRCP Local Action Strategies as it relates to fisheries threat and activities in STXEEMP Since deep sea/pelagic fisheries was not deemed a critical target due to the territory-wide reach of the issues, this supplements management for fisheries. Refer to the document periodically to advance the goals for fisheries LAS. Ortiz, Lia A. (2014) Fisheries Local Action Strategy Projects in the US Virgin Islands: Progress and Direction . Final Report, October 10, 2014. NOAA/NMFS/CRCP STEER Willingness to Pay Study (2014) Sophia McKenzie for TNC Interview of 400 residents and visitors- perceptions, willingness to pay. This assessment determined the dollar amount visitors were willing to pay, as well as their preferred method of contribution. See what people were willing to pay to base any kind of PA trust, fee collection system, etc. McKenzie, Sophia (2012). Willingness to Pay Assessment of Visitors to the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER), St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. The Nature Conservancy. Governance and Management Appendix A: Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops A1 Appendix A: Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops The methodology to update the STXEEMP management plan followed The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP) as a mechanism to develop a strategic vision and management plan for the Park (TNC 2007). The CAP methodology has been utilized and tested by TNC and its partners for decades and has resulted in effective management plans for hundreds of protected areas around the world. CAP is based on the principles of adaptive management and is designed to facilitate and utilize input from stakeholders. The process of working through CAP for a protected area results in a comprehensive management plan based on a solid ecological foundation focused on specific and attainable strategies for biodiversity conservation and threat abatement. Ultimately, the CAP process results in development of strategies for the abatement of threats and addressing capacity issues, scheduling and financing planned for monitoring and management effectiveness measures, and creation of an overall plan of action for the local management authority to incorporate into yearly work plans. implemented through a series of planning meetings with the core planning team and stakeholder groups, the CAP process guides project teams to identify effective conservation strategies. Facilitated discussions result in the development of goals, identification of priority conservation resources and their condition, understanding of human activities impacting the resources, and selection of objectives and strategies for improving or maintaining the resources within STXEEMP. It provides an objective, consistent and transparent accounting of conservation actions and the intended and actual outcomes of conservation projects. It enables project staff to responsively adapt their actions to improve strategy effectiveness and achieve greater conservation impact. A brief summary of the steps for conservation action planning is provided below. The sustainable financial plan for STXEEMP (Sector, 2010) was developed using World Wildlife Foundation’s financial modeling template and TNC’s methods of Integrated Strategic and Financial Planning following Conservation Finance Alliance methods and the Convention of Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas. This included a finance gap assessment, which aided in the development of a realistic work plan, with associated costs. The resulting financial model provides comprehensive, long-term estimates of costs of each program, as well as potential sources of revenue. The total costs, revenue estimates and gap analyses derived from the model provide the components for developing sustainable funding vehicles and fundraising proposals. Steps in Conducting Conservation Action Plan (CAP) Appendix A: Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops A2 1. Identify site, management context What is the need for the plan? Is the site already protected? What are the circumstances surrounding the need for a management plan? 2. Determine stakeholders, experts, core drafting team This step asks you to identify your most valuable resource – the people who will be involved in designing and implementing your project. Addresses questions like: “Who will design our project?” “Who will be responsible for ensuring the plan goes forward?” “Who can give us advice?“ “Who will help us through this process?” 3. Define scope, vision, set conservation targets With this step you define the extent of your project and select the specific species and natural systems that your project will focus on as being representative of the overall biodiversity of the project area. This step helps your project team come to consensus on the overall goal and scale of the project and your ultimate measures of success. Addresses questions like: “Where is our project?” “What are we trying to conserve or restore?” 4. Assess viability of targets This step asks you to look at each of your focal targets carefully to determine how to measure its “health” over time. And then to identify how the target is doing today and what a “healthy state” might look like. This step is the key to knowing which of your targets are most in need of immediate attention, and for measuring success over time. Addresses questions like: “How do we define ‘health’ (viability) for each of our targets?” “What is the current status of each of our targets?" “What is our desired status for each of our targets?” 5. Identify critical threats to those targets This step helps you to identify the various factors that immediately affect your project’s focal targets and then rank them so that you can concentrate your conservation actions where they are most needed. Addresses questions like: “What threats are affecting our targets?”, “Which threats are more of a problem?” 6. Conduct situation analysis This step asks you to describe your current understanding of your project situation – both the biological issues and the human context in which your project occurs. This step is not meant to be an unbounded analysis, but instead probes more deeply into 1. Identify site, management context 2. Determine stakeholders, experts, core drafting team 3. Define scope, vision, set conservation targets 4. Assess viability of targets 5. Identify critical threats to those targets 6. Conduct situation analysis 7. Strategies- include Objectives, Strategic Actions 8. Establish measures: management effectiveness, threat abatement, resource protection 9. Develop work plans: monitoring, funding, staffing, training, yearly activities 10. Implement 11. Analyze, learn, adapt, share Appendix A: Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops A3 the conditions surrounding your critical threats and degraded targets to bring explicit attention/consideration to causal factors, key actors, and opportunities for successful action. Addresses questions like: “What factors positively & negatively affect our targets?”, “Who are the key stakeholders linked to each of these factors?” 7. Strategies- include Objectives, Strategic Actions This step asks you to specifically and measurably describe what success looks like and to develop practical and strategic actions you and your partners will undertake to achieve it. In particular, you want to try to find the actions that will enable you to get the most impact for the resources you have. Addresses questions like: “What do we need to accomplish?”, “What is the most effective way to achieve these results?” 8. Establish measures: management effectiveness, threat abatement, resource protection This step involves deciding how your project team will measure your results. This step is needed to help your team see whether its strategies are working as planned and thus whether adjustments will be needed. It is also needed to keep an eye on those targets and threats that you are not acting on at the moment, but may need to consider in the future. Addresses questions like: “What do we need to measure to see if we are making progress towards our objectives and whether our actions are making a difference?”, “Are there other targets or threats that we need to pay attention to?” 9. Develop work plans: monitoring, funding, staffing, training, yearly activities This step asks you to take your strategic actions and measures and develop specific plans for doing this work as your project goes forward. Addresses questions like: “What do we specifically need to do?" “Who will be responsible for each task?” “What resources do we need?” 10. Implement Action and monitoring plans won’t do any good sitting on the shelf – your challenge here is to trust the hard work you have done and implement your plans to the best of your ability. Implementation is the most important step in this entire process; however, given the diversity of project needs and situations, the only requirement is: Put your plans into action 11. Analyze, learn, adapt, share This step first asks you to systematically take the time to evaluate the actions you have implemented, to update and refine your knowledge of your targets, and to review the results available from your monitoring data. This reflection provides insight on how your actions are working, what may need to change, and what to emphasize next. This step then asks you to document what you have learned and to share it with other people so they can benefit from your successes and failures. Addresses questions like: “What are our monitoring data telling us about our project?” “What should we be doing differently?" “How will we capture what we have learned?” “How can we make sure other people benefit from what we have learned?” TNC, 2007. Conservation Action Planning Handbook: Developing Strategies, Taking Action and Measuring Success at Any Scale. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Appendix A: Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process, Timeline, Meetings and Workshops A4 For a full set of CAP and Efroymson Coaches Network news, tools, training opportunities, examples, and guidance documents, visit http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/practices The following table outlines the meetings that took place to draft the management plan for STXEEMP. Date Meeting Major Highlights July 18, 2012 Core Planning Meeting Establishing outcomes, general process, timeline and agree on role and responsibilities of participants Sept 11- 13, 2012 Core Planning Meeting Review progress made from 2002 plan. Targets, threats, situations, strategies (objectives, actions and action steps) Oct 22-25, 2012 Core Planning Meeting Targets, threats, situations, strategies (objectives, actions and action steps) Oct 23, 24, 25 2012 Stakeholder Meetings Sustainable tourism / finance, sea turtle protection, fisheries strategies, and land-based sources of pollution/implementation of the HW watershed plan focus groups strategies development (see notes, Appendix B) December 10, 2012 Stakeholder Meeting Research and monitoring plan focus group (see notes, Appendix B) December 20, 2012 Core Planning Meeting Review, prioritize, determine indicators to monitor June 17- 18, 2013 Core Planning Meeting Review, prioritize, determine indicators to monitor August 20, 2014 Core Planning Meeting Review, answer questions February, 2015 Stakeholder Meeting Update strategies tables May 27, 2016 Core Planning Meeting Get final updates, fill missing elements Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A5 Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes STXEEMP Management Plan Update Focus-group Strategies Development October-December, 2012 MEETING NOTES Overview The St. Croix East End Marine Park (STXEEMP) was established in 2002. The Park’s existing management plan includes conservation targets, threats, and strategies along with the management objectives for the Park. Ten years have passed since the Park’s management plan was published and it’s important to revisit this document to ensure that the territory’s natural resource managers, and the community of St. Croix, understand the Park’s plans for management. Since 2002, some major milestones include the installation of navigational and zoning marker buoys, development and implementation of outreach and education programs, the completion of a major watershed study, and the collection of extensive biological and benthic data within the park boundaries. In September 2012, key managers and experts were engaged in a series of meetings to identify specific management targets (coral reef communities, seagrass communities, mangrove communities, beaches, sea turtles, and deepwater fisheries), strategies to address threats to these targets, and implementation schedule and funding plans. From these meetings, managers identified improved enforcement, increased community involvement and interagency collaboration, and sustainable finance as critical to successful management and preservation of STXEEMP’s natural resources. A series of focus-group meetings were held to get input from stakeholders, funding partners, and the community on specific action steps to either abate a threat, improve a resource target, enhance use and sustainable harvest, and engage communities in the management of the natural coastal resources of the east end of St. Croix. Strategy Development Meetings Schedule: STRATEGY DATE, TIME LOCATION Page Sustainable Tourism/finance Tuesday October23, 6pm-8pm Company Street Hotel, Christiansted 3-7 Sea Turtle Protection Wednesday, October 24, 1pm-4pm TNC Estate Little Princess 8-10 Fisheries Strategies Wednesday, October 24, 6:30pm-9pm Company Street Hotel, Christiansted 11-15 Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A6 Land-based Sources of Pollution: Implementation of HW Watershed Plan Thursday, October 25, 6:30pm-9pm Company Street Hotel, Christiansted 16-19 Research and Monitoring Plan Monday, December 10, 9am- 12pm TNC Estate Little Princess 20-30 Lionfish Strategies Date TBD, following territory Forums, update of the Territorial Control Plan Focus-Group Meetings Goals: • Identify specific action steps, costs, funding, and resources for the next 5 years of STXEEMP Management • Draw on shared expertise/experience from managers, practitioners, and stakeholders Participants: Stakeholders who can help implement, share lessons learned, or those who would gain to understand the strategies to be implemented in the next 5 years. General Agenda: • Welcome, Introductions • Background, purpose and process • Presentation of preliminary STRATEGIES developed • Identification of issues and factors that support or hinder management • Development of solutions • Listing specific action steps • Wrap up, next steps Output: A draft 5-year work plan that will guide implementation of strategic actions for STXEEMP Management Note: All focus group meetings, except the Research and Monitoring meeting on December 10, were recorded by William Coles of DF Background and Discussion Topics: Sustainable Tourism and Finance The Park received most of its funding through grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Coral Reef Conservation Program through the USVI Division of Coastal Zone Management. To ensure long-term, predictable financing, managers recently discussed methods of generating revenue for the STXEEMP: Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A7 1. Develop a conservation trust – From which groups could pursue small grant opportunities? a. Territorial or Marine Park specific? 2. Sustainable tourism – What would non-extractive businesses pay for park use? a. Encourage the use of the park for a small fee i. Tour operators ii. Recreational activities (paddleboarding, diving, kitesurfing, kayaking, etc.) 3. Fundraising events a. STXEEMP birthday bash b. Lionfish derby c. Stand up paddleboard race 4. Modest admission charge a. Create and maintain facilities to offer the public i. Bathrooms, visitors center, outdoor classroom, bird watching hike b. Memberships with Friends of the STXEEMP – Who could coordinate this group? 5. Departure tax 6. Willingness-to-pay survey results (from recent coral reef valuation study) Meeting Notes: Sustainable Tourism and Finance Attendees: John Macy - Big Beard’s Adventure tours Bill Craft - Kite Surfing/Paddle Boarding, Kite St. Croix William Coles – DFW Marija Macuda – STXEEMP, NOAA Coral Fellow, Friends coordinator Michelle Pugh- Dive Experience Henry Tonnemacher – 7-Seas, Ltd. Jeanne Brown, Anne Marie Hoffman, Collin Daugherty, Sara Aubery, Stopher Slade - TNC Marija’s Presentation: MAJOR OUTCOMES: The STXEEMP should be recognized by the board of tourism as a destination to attract visitors and funding. The board of tourism requires the park have at least a visitor’s center to achieve this recognition. Several attractions were proposed for the park including an underwater snorkel garden in Cramer’s park where use is high, a bus tour to access the more remote east end beaches and the need to market St. Croix’s natural attractions. Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A8 As part of a Sustainable Tourism program, Marija has developed a plan with input from partners on various activities to engage communities, raise awareness, promote sustainable tourism activities and potentially source areas of revenue for the Park: • Events (i.e. Lionfish derby) • Friends of the STXEEMP- there is a website- St. Croix Foundation- monthly activities (i.e. 2nd Wednesday at Divi?) • Businesses offering monthly tours, Friends get discount • Adventure tourism: sailing, paddle board, SUP, kayak, etc. • Bayside Tours • Marine Operator Guidelines- educate visitors • Permits (at 1st no fees involved) • Underwater sculpture garden – Argument for local vs. famous underwater sculpturist o for - the famous sculpturist o Locals - Jan Mitchell? o price - to hire professional may be worth it in the end o contest to make these sculptures - could be country or international even, provide lots of free marketing, put it at Cramers • Visitor’s Center- trail at Great Pond- cruise ship day- kayak/snorkel • Vanity license program? • Mooring Buoys- day use moorings Looking for Funding options: fees- visitor fees/concession fees Sustainable Finance Plan General Comments: • Concerns about Deepwater fisheries being a conservation target, no deep water areas in the park. • Don’t take the same course as Buck Island - prohibit fishing in all deep water/migratory areas • Parrotfish - target species = big declines o marine park with 81% of the area open to commercial fishing East end is a hard to use place due to weather Are any hotels on board? No participation - How do we reach these stakeholders? • get a spot on hotel association meeting agenda to discuss • go to hotels and show them something special Where is board of tourism? How to get them involved? People expect results - show up ready with immediate output What is the draw to the STXEEMP? Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A9 o has nothing you can’t see better or closer somewhere else on the island o What is unique within the park?  Concessionaires say they go to the park because you can’t serve food at Buck Island - that’s the only reason? o great for kite surfing, paddleboarding and windsurfing - windward side of the island o Bill deals with the theft problem by informing his customers of the situation o snapper fishing for locals from the beach o Jack’s and Isaacs are special and unique, but theft problem deters o Great pond has great sailing that is under-utilized o Boy Scout Camp - have an eco-lodge? o Snorkeling at Green Cay Visitor’s Center o Have a base system (visitor’s center) people think that a park you go in a gate and leave through a gate. o tourism department wants a visitor’s center to make the park a destination Visitors center could be a hub and then guided tours to these bays Cramer’s Park - Cramer Park should be a focus area to increase awareness and distribute information because of its popularity as a local spot. - High Use, great for sculptures, great place for signage. - entry to community Access - want water access at Great Pond - great place to paddle board but no access - Lots of support for a boat ramp at Great Pond!! - What are access points like in each bay? primarily by land Be good to have dive moorings at scotch banks, on South shore, excellent diving in EEMP still. Lionfish - on St. Thomas dive sites are pretty well cleared of lionfish, moorings in the park could limit the impact of this invasive “Must be a local to understand what’s going on in the EEMP” Security is a big concern of why people can’t visit the park, thievery o Need to remember safety, some of these bays may have dangerous conditions and encouraging visitors is risky o Solutions: o Bus to take people? o Feasibility study for bus tours? Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A10 o tours are going to have to be dynamic depending on weather and what  they are looking for o Hire a security guard? Michelle, from day one been involved and is still waiting for something, anything to happen, but happy with the progress that SEA has been making Encourage use Include communication Monthly events - talks....but who would go? East Enders might prefer to go to them at yacht club rather than Divi What is the objective of sustainable tourism? o Want increase in tourists because that’s where the money is o #1 industry in the world is tourism and this is why we need to address it How much traffic do we have now? What is use like from land? From sea? Big Beard - o Was set back by the question of ‘what we want from the park’? Use? Conservation? o Have we asked the people of what they want? o he wants to go to each bay and get tours, but those have fizzled o supports visitors centers at Cramers and offices, buses to take tours, snorkel tours o Who are “we” ....what do the people of St. Croix want? In the beginning there was a lot of interest from the people (campers, fishers). Some people’s participation was terminated....? local input...go to DMV and spend time there and offer information, lots of people waiting around and WANT something to do, want something to listen to. Banks are also good. What are the things that would be important, necessary and appealing to people? Signs are overgrown Need cooperation with parks and rec Most activities are going to be land based, security, and have to deal with the government which is a huge headache. Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A11 Marketing for Nature Park targets: o -needs better marketing to market those tourists who come to look for nature o -not catering to cruise ship passengers o ‘st Croix best known secret for environmental stuff’ o Nature related activities, current and future o Some value in birding o EEMP is part of the Iron Man o some push for a bike trail - Bob White o trust and communication has been lost with the public o best way to communicate is to go to them o Advertisements are not going on local stations... Snow birds are a source of funding Next Steps o visitor center and outdoor classroom o bird walk o access point by sea o underwater sculpture o go to chamber of commerce, rotary, always looking for speakers....free breakfast Background and Discussion Topics: Sea Turtle Strategies The St. Croix East End Marine Park provides important nesting and foraging habitat to leatherback, green, and hawksbill sea turtles. Threatened by a number of anthropogenic impacts, global sea turtle population declines are common despite International, US Federal, and USVI local legislation. In recent years, positive population trends have been the result of pro-active human intervention including an expansion of scientific knowledge of local populations coupled with the identification and reduction of man-made threats. The purpose of this STXEEMP stakeholder meeting is to allow for an exchange of knowledge and concerns regarding sea turtles that inhabit and/or nest throughout the marine park. We encourage your suggestions on how STXEEMP can effectively reduce identified threats (poaching, feral animal predation, beach fire, boat strikes, etc.). At the end, we hope to identify key partners, available resources, and a schedule for activity implementation so as to improve upon the conservation of these ancient mariners. Meeting Notes: Sea Turtle Strategies Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A12 Attendees: William Coles – DFW John Farchette – STXEEMP Kemit Lewis – TNC Sara Aubery – TNC Jeanne Brown – TNC Clayton Pollock – NPS Ian Lundgren – NPS Carol Burke – SEA Sharon Grimes – SPNWR Stopher Slade-TNC Anne Marie Hoffman -TNC Richard Gideon-TNC Beaches with Sea Turtles: (17 bays in park JF patrols beaches twice a week and notes ‘anomalies’ Priorities: Those with high access and high nesting activity: Robins, Prunes (104 nest activity counted one time), Boiler, Chenay Bay, Coakley (camping pressure a threat, 3 diff spp nest this year), Rod Bay Sea Turtle activity – whether or not there is a nest negligible, high activity can make these bays a priority Poaching: Most activity at low-accessed beaches (Boiler Bay) Strategies: Invasive Predators: Is it STXEEMP responsibility? Are there quantitative studies? – need for measurement of efforts to reduce Southgate, Jacks, East End, Isaacs have invasive predator data (SEA, TNC) Those with permits required to report to DFW How many nests predated, excavated, hatchling success? Research Questions o Ghost nets, cargo nets, boat strikes? Impact is usually death….prevalence? How to prevent? Out of our hands. o Boat strike prevention: Speed limits would reduce impact. Vehicular traffic not regulated. VI code: inner reef has a speed limit – no wake…..enforce speed limit….not followed at all.  Outreach on boating laws, education at boat registration o Sea level Rise? Lots of anecdotal evidence-PRIORITY MAJOR OUTCOMES: The sea turtles within STXEEMP receive a lot of research attention. There is a great need to streamline these efforts among the different agencies by developing a common protocol and database. Volunteers were identified as a good resource to perform day patrols and collect basic information. Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A13 o Sea Grass Habitat? Foraging areas? Where are the turtles coming from? More in water work, aerial surveys o Genetic Work- PRIORITY: can put different values on different areas depending on who (genetically) these turtles are and where they are coming from o Contaminants: also sunk boats Threats: Marine Debris Poaching: Boiler Bay – reduce vehicle access = reduce poaching Sandy Point use boats to access Disguise nests – rake Education Outreach – Public: PSA on Do’s Don’ts Penalties – radio, TV, newspaper Judges, prosecutors Lee Carrubba enforcement guide and trainings Enforcement – problem no night patrol Measuring Success – less evidence of poaching, inc. in successful prosecutions. Hard to quantify Limiting access (vehicles) Who: Migdalia, Sharon and Carol, VINE, Immigration big driver, majority of offenders Incidental take of sea turtle adults: BMP for net usage, Remove SCUBA harvest? Need increasing numbers of enforcement officers Fines need to return to park not VI govt Fine Schedule – Petition for a tier system for fines. CZM -Ch 99 who: legal council Citizen Science Day Patrol – Good Engagement o Receives calls reporting poachers and nesting/hatchlings o Condos called about hatchlings in the pool o Helpful? o SEA has big volunteer training program – worked with USFW, TNC, VI DFW, Wymarks o Difference between for anti-poaching or data collection o Prune would be a good beach for this, also Coakley – 2 bays at first o Disguise nests to reduce poaching – feet, rake, palm frond o When: Recruit November, Train beginning of next season (June-July nest patrol, August hatching). 2013 will be slow year, may be a good training year, Friends group recruit and advertise for volunteers, Marija reach out to them o Who: Coordinated by STXEEMP, STAR conduct trainings, SEA own data, Marija reach out to friends, Richard install stakes o Costs: time (10 hrs a week to enter data), stakes (metal better, $1,000 for first 2 years (startup), find funding-ESA, DFW, TNC, Crowd Funding (Kickstarter, RocketHub), Widecast) Data Dissemination: Maybe we need a database remotely for all parties – managed by SEA Standardize protocol Min data: date, where (could GPS stake priority sites), species, maybe evidence of predation/poaching Current Monitoring Activity Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A14 SEA March-December TNC May-December Partner with SEA to train volunteers and collect data sheets Background and Discussion Topics: Fisheries Strategies 2002 MP: Incompatible fishing practices identified as a threat to the Marine Park. 2012: Managers identify overfishing and poaching as a persistent threat to the Marine Park. Possible strategies: - Outreach to fishers - Park-specific fishing license - Improve enforcement - Boat access ramps to limit destruction of mangroves in Great Pond Discussion Topics What can management authorities do to increase compliance? What can management authorities do to improve enforcement? If you have a commercial license; what did you learn from the training when you registered for your license? How can the Marine Park most effectively share/report out on management decisions with Marine Park users? Deeded Access Points Boat Speed Marine Debris Conch Fishing Meeting Notes: Fisheries Strategies Attendees: JP Oriol-CZM Michele Pugh- Dive Experience, FAC John Farchette – STXEEMP Lia Ortiz – NOAA CRCP USVI Fisheries Liaison Royce Lynch – Deputy Marshal, Supreme Court, rec fishermen William Coles – DFW Carol Cramer- Burke – SEA MAJOR OUTCOMES: Public access points were a big issue among this stakeholder group. Improving public access by creating a boat ramp and removing obstacles would be a good way to increase buy in. More information is needed about bait fish populations and juvenile nursery habitat within the STXEEMP. Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A15 Sara Aubery, Anne Marie Hoffman, Stopher Slade, Jeanne Brown – TNC Michelle Pugh–FAC, dive tour operator Toby Tobias-rec and commercial fisher, STXEEMP Advisory Committee, FAC Jonathan Brown – DFW Mike Fuller – rec fisherman, FAC Chad Sherraw- fishermen, FAC Edward Schuster – president, ST. Croix Commercial Fishers Ray Williams Jeanne Brown, Anne Marie Hoffman, Stopher Slade, Sara Aubery (TNC) Britni Tokotch(on phone) – NOAA NMFS Toby – Compliance issues, has ideas on changing rules and regs to increase compliance. Commercial fishermen were on original committee…maybe missing from our CORE group. Need to pay some more attention to important people that worked on the original, acknowledge their support. Some unhappiness with the ignoring of the previous members of the STXEEMP Advisory Committee. LBSP/Mangroves Mangroves in Great Pond to incr. fisheries we need to decrease shoaling and improve circulation First studies had only a few mangroves in far eastern end, now changed to forest! Tradeoff between wildlife habitat and fisheries resource Want to manage areas differently depending on goals or attributes DFW was managing to inc. fisheries Hugo changed the dynamic of this ecosystem greatly, altering where mangroves are Identifying baselines – important for restoring ecosystem function (70’s in this case) Commercial fishermen gave up this area for fishing – inland development affected mangrove nursery areas. Hasn’t recovered still after Hugo, reefs are not even 50% of fish levels before this storm (personal observation). Marlon has been identifying funding for Great Pond restoration to increase fisheries value. Bird walk – does it affect fisheries value? FAC has been trying to hold construction industry responsible and sedimentation caused by them Solution – bush berm used by older HEOs Provide incentives for using BMPs for erosion control Baseline/resource based research: There is a study that looked at fishery value in Great Pond for finfish – Mangrove Habitat as Nursery grounds for recreationally important fish species - Great Pond , St. Croix , US VI (Tobias 2001). Is there quantification of the change in biodiversity caused by this change in ecosystem? Crabs, shrimps, birds, mullet, Southgate changed entrance due to family feud and used trees to block entrance Restricted flow = fish kills caused by low DO and high temperatures Sources of Information: Carlo Aponte’s relatives (Jenni Aponte), Robert Schuster old dairy farm, Wanda Violet, may have info on baselines. Also a long term school study (high school) Coakley Bay – had a different original opening as well.- Carden Beach- historic salt marsh -Start with the easiest, economically makes the most sense Strategies: Historical Documents, current Use, Weigh objectives (birds? Fish? Recreation? Development? o Need a coastal pond, wetlands assessment- quantify specis decline, mussles, crab, shrimp, birds, oysters? Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A16 o Historical conditions and how to best utilize these resources o Who: CZM o How much:? o Who: USFWS already one of their priorities o Effluent – 10 wastewater treatment plants within the park alone Access Boat launch access – govt tried to contact owner and create an improved access (great pond) no boat access in EEMP. Used to be one at Yacht Club. Do we need more boat access? Yes Where? Near the recreational area (especially buz can’t drive boat to the rec area with fishing gear exposed) Cramers, turner’s hole, Feasibility? Need launch, but also need trailer parking and turn around space. Funding: FW looks for funding annually for infrastructure, need all specifics to get funded (sz, how many boats accommodated, location, etc.), also note this entity only fund for recreational use, so would have to be in rec area (sportfish division) Objective: in the next two years identify location and take steps to create one (i.e. funding proposal completed) Fishing Pier – also improve access The following may be an easy win to gain support from the community while at the same time enforcing park rules and regs and providing good example of management** Deeded Fishermen Plots: N Slob (Smuggler’s), Grapetree (Maggie), S Slob (Divi) (look at the words of this, get from FW to pursue legal action with these home owners who are occluding) Problem: Debris and boulders are blocking this access at grape tree (on southshore road) Who: Recorder of deeds, Public works can open, DPNR, is there an HOA? What was their role in placing the obstructions. That shoreline should still be open for rec fishing (R&R) Strategies – 3 public access points , some vehicle access. North slob, south slob, and grape tree (occluded and between two houses-problem because inaccessible. EEMP doesn’t manage land. Public works should maintain if we get an agreement) . Access for shoreline not included in original management plan? TT Meggy beach, East end bay vehicle access was also blocked off – due to erosion issues, bad road cut – poor planning Vehicles, big issue Golden’s development, crabbing activities? <- Research ? Also identified security problems with parking at EEMP. Zones R&R - Wildlife area: what is the evidence that this area needs a special designation? Originally needed because of the type of gear that used to be used. Now is it still necessary? No gill and trammel. Turtle safety Boat strikes? No desire for marking of the reef cut. Important for fishermen in inclement weather to travel in between reef and the shore Ghost nets? Marine Debris? Prevention impossible by park staff Turtle poaching: Accidental take of turtle? Not that they know of. Beach across from green key – placed boulders to block off vehicle access because of turtle nest – but no signs against people with dogs, or bonfires. Feeling that they are unfairly persecuted. Signs first and then enforcement. No Dogs – only for public land beaches, private beaches can have dogs. Does there need to be a dog beach? Chad – licensing: requires change in rules and regs Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A17 Charters doing inshore fishing in the no take area – Create a recreational guide’s license Shoreline recreational fishing – license these fishers to manage this type of fishing Lionfish removal in NTA: special permit to take care of that Strategy – inc. marker buoys and signage: Lots of people do not know that they are in the park. FW developed a plan with FAC to develop recreational license program, been before the commissioner for 2 years. Concern that new management plan is being updated without update of rules and regs Fishermen gave up the NTA but can’t get sprat here – but they aren’t shown any reasons One reason for desire of sprat fishing in NTA is the proximity of bait fishing to where they fish for other things because the bait fish won’t survive to the fishing areas. - Part of the concessions included alternative livelihoods with a 6 pack license - Fishermen have to donate their time to this process vs. others who get paid (govt, conservation partners) Trust lost -> certain things promised and omitted from original document and this causes contention What can we do to increase compliance and improve enforcement? Look at those things that were omitted What is our marine park supposed to do for us? Want information on the impacts of single line recreation fishing Use – if people can’t use it than why have it? Differences in kind of use Needs comprehensive management – not just prohibit fishing Action steps for these discussion points: Staffing for EEMP – Are there funds to address these short-comings? Money is there, initiatives are there – regarding the Coordinator Annually govt funds are being cut 3% Lots of people don’t know that you can’t harvest in the park Strategy: Increase communication and outreach Include the definition of ‘proper storage of gear’ for commercial fishers transiting through the STXEEMP Whelk – October 1 open – line fishing only Feels that whelk is already regulated through seasons Lots of misunderstanding about what NTA means, Possibly need a meeting on fisheries closure Communication of the results of the management decisions: how can we effectively communicate this data once we have it to fishers, Do they want to help collect this data? Develop “management experiments with them” Reports, monthly meetings Without enforcement might as well not have a park Look at original document – lots of compromises shoved to the side to regain trust Need to make sure to utilize the resources that we have especially from the originals Transcripts will look at to rectify problem of throwing out agreed on concessions What fisheries related purpose is NTA? Other areas? – this is a multi-use park Another fisheries meeting: Priority: look at originally agreed on document and discrepancies Objectives: Improve nursery area Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A18 Improve fishery habitat Using barbless hooks for closure times? And to increase sport fishing, circle hooks. What do we want to study? Bait fish populations inside and outside NTA zone What do we want to accomplish? Best ways to communicate with interested parties – emails etc. Bait fish – bally hoo fishing that doesn’t drag on bottom, Strategy FW when register commercial fishermen, also provided with rec fishing guide – needs to expand section for rules of STXEEMP, definition of ‘properly stowed fishing gear’ and this document needs to be distributed to park patrons GPS shapefile on navigational maps ? for Toby – when you say areas were changed – what was the justification of original boundaries Just because requests were made, doesn’t mean that the department accepted it Keep in mind what are the purposes of the park and the importance of it Eddie interest in watershed nearshore health Background and Discussion Topics: Watershed Implementation The uplands of the Marine Park include approximately 12 square miles from the watersheds of Southgate, Solitude Bay, Teague Bay, Turner Hole, Madam Carty, and Great Pond Bay. Horsley Whitten conducted a study in November, 2011 to assess the status of the STXEEMP watersheds and identify strategies for reducing land-based sources of pollution (LBSP). Because of this high degree of connectivity between marine and terrestrial environments, heavy rain from storms can carry LBSP to the ocean. LBSP threaten each of the Marine Park’s management targets (coral reefs, seagrass communities, etc.) and the 2011 watershed study produced a strategy document on ways to improve the East End watersheds. Managers and Marine Park users can now move forward in determining mechanisms and a schedule to implement the recommendations outlined in this report. Discussion Topics: o Current Projects o Funding Options o Examples: o STEER o Coral Bay o Public Works? TMDL’s Altona Lagoon Impaired 2010 TMDL 2025 STC-03: DO, turbidity, fecal from hwy, roads, new construction Teague Bay Impaired 2010 TMDL 2027 STC-10: Turbidity, pH, fecal from non const. hwy, road runoff Turner Hole Impaired 2010 TMDL 2029 STC-11B: DO from erosion VI297470: turbidity, erosion Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A19 sedimentation Southgate Impaired 2010 TMDL 2012 STC-05: DO, fecal, entero, turbidity from marina, boat maintenance, non-pt STC-04: DO, fecal, turbidity from vessel discharge, sewers, sedimentation Salt River Impaired 2010 TMDL 2016 STC-33A: entero, fecal, turbidity from LBSP, storm sewers STC-33C: turbidity, fecal from LBSP, sewers Meeting Notes: Watershed Plan Implementation Attendees: Marija Macuda – Friends Coordinator, STXEEMP John Farchette – STXEEMP Kynoch Reale-Munroe– UVI/grants Alex Holecek – CZM May Adams Cornwall- family and WMA Carol Cramer-Burke – SEA Julie San Martin –St Croix Yacht Club Joe San martin – St. Croix Yacht Club William Coles- DFW May Adams Cornwall- Ex Direc/VIWMA Anne Marie Hoffman, Stopher Slade, Sara Aubery , Jeanne Brown - TNC By phone: Rob Ferguson – NOAA CRCP watershed MAJOR OUTCOMES: Dealing with watershed issues is difficult because the source of many of the problems comes from outside the parks jurisdiction. Improving habitat quality and conditions for each of the management targets will require cooperation from government, regulatory agencies and those who live and work within the watersheds. One way to improve this collaboration may be to hire a watershed coordinator. The Horsley Witten group developed a watershed management plan and implementation of these recommendations should begin quickly to make best use of this effort. Focusing on paving dirt roads and gut restoration in Adam’s gut were identified in this management plan as having the most positive impact on the STXEEMP watersheds. Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A20 Lisa Vandiver – NOAA restoration Center Susie Holst – NOAA Restoration Anne Kitchell – Horsley Witten Anne Kitchell Presentation of the STXEEMP Watershed Management Plan: 3 main goals (pg 4 of 22 in her presentation) Protect marine resources Engage residents Demonstrate restoration Key recommendations (5) Watershed coordinator, enforcing existing regulations, support ongoing conservation, reduce sediment loads: gut stabilization, drainage improvements, manage untreated stormwater, education, formal tracking mechanism 110 actual projects identified and ranked Models of where the LBSP are coming from Watershed plan recommendations: many are regulatory and dealing with development Not a lot of opportunity for storm water retrofitting- mostly unpaved roads Structural Practices: each has table of ranked projects, priority actions, maps, imp. concepts Stormwater retrofit Gut stabilization Unpaved road and trail improvement Culvert repair/replacement Pollution prevention: dumpster and trash clean up related Covered dumpsters Pg. 47: IMPLEMENTATION o Increasing Collaboration: No one from Public works has been involved since Roberto Cintron- how to reach out to DPW for maintenance and training? o Regulatory update is necessary – makes lots of sense o Volunteer Day on Saturday (Oct 27) to build the rain garden – Contact Carol Burke o Make sure that solutions are present at multiple scales, ex. Rain gardens that need bulldozers vs. projects individual homeowners can do o Consider where potential development (Solitude, Robins, Great Pond), Southgate unpaved roads, ghuts Funding o What are the resources available right now for starting to implement these projects? None? o Coordination with local managers to get jurisdictional cooperative agreement within NOAA o Where does WMA get funding? o NOAA coastal fellow? Agency Grant Name Amount Scope Timing NOAA Internal funding $200k Ongoing NOAA Coral Program ? Restoration project (Marlon), building partnerships, Assessment activities and efficacy of management strategies, baseline studies NOAA Domestic Coral Reef Conservation Grant $50k + match For non-profits and academic institutions, watershed management plan activities or threat reduction November Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A21 319 Can be received by DPNR NFWF Coral Program $50k USDA Equip Give landowners with money to do restoration (already identified as a source for Adam’s Gut) USDA NRCS $75k Technical assistance EPA Region 2 Difficult to receive but still should be pursued NOAA Restoration Center 1-1 Match Funding for Community based restoration program EPA Care Grant $100+k Coral Bay Community Council received this to increase capacity (staff, engineering) Gulf of Mexico NOAA Partnership, works in La Parguerra (PR) AmeriCorps Volunteers Watershed Coordinator Funding for a coordinator? Maybe through Rob’s NOAA internal program – if it’s a top priority in the watershed management plan. Duties of watershed coordinator? Share between EEMP and STEER? Probably not. Depending on the size and complexity of watershed. VI 319 coordinator Emanuel Liburg Not necessarily be a DPNR person. Watershed coordinator wouldn’t have any legal authority so there’s no point Get ordinances, have MOU’s but nothing is happening. Senate needs to forfeit its right to make zonation Next NOAA fellow 10% of duties for watershed (for one year) Misc o Need cooperation with public works director, TNC and marine park o Green Kay marina is pursuing blue flag marina program o TNC could be implementer of demonstration projects on our land o How long is watershed management plan good for? No clue o Sometimes changes very fast o Building capacity of public works – big deal, information is their power so they don’t give it away o How to coordinate within agencies and mandate that people do their job o We have on board May Cornwall with WMA, and CZM, trying to get commissioner Smalls o Create a watershed committee that meets every quarter – was denied by commissioner o Need government house support Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A22 Meeting Notes: Research and Monitoring Agenda: 1) Review STXEEMP management plan update process and progress 2) Review current and recent research and monitoring 3) Review management plan strategies being developed for 2013-2018 4) Develop indicators to determine impact of management actions 5) Construct and prioritize research and monitoring for 2013-2018  Need, Feasibility, Impact, Cost ____________________________________________________________________________ Proposed Targets Major Threats Identified Mangrove Communities Overfishing/Illegal Fishing Coral Reef Communities Lionfish Sea Turtles Sea Turtle Poaching Beaches Land Based Sources of Pollution Seagrass Communities Lack of Enforcement Indicators for: • Status of target, resource trends (i.e. recovering fish stocks) • Abatement of threat (i.e. reduction in sediment loads) • Human use – activities/use trends, compliance, socioeconomic benefit/impact • Management Effectiveness Considerations/Limitations: • STXSTXEEMP Coordinator is not in place to evaluate monitoring and research • Interpretation of research and monitoring not being used to guide management • Various entities conducting research, however no central STXSTXEEMP database • STXSTXEEMP has little to no data on the impact of zones, rules and regulations Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A23 Research and Monitoring Goals: 1. Improve inter agency communication and data-sharing to more efficiently feed information into decision making and planning by the CZM and STXSTXEEMP Office. Partners: STXSTXEEMP and DPNR (various Divisions), TNC, UVI, NOAA (Biogeography, CRCP) Strategies: Develop R&M subcommittee 2. Assess impact of zones, rules, regulations and management actions on the status of resources/targets. Partners: STXSTXEEMP and DPNR (various Divisions), TNC, UVI, NOAA (Biogeography, CRCP) Strategies: Prioritize research and monitoring based on indicators MEETING NOTES: Research and Monitoring Attendees: Marlon Hibbert - NOAA Coral Liaison Marcia Taylor – UVI, FAC Carol Burke - SEA Toby Tobias - STXEEMP advisory committee, FAC Tyler Smith - UVI Jose Sanchez - DPNR/STXEEMP Jenn Travis - new NOAA fellow, STXEEMP Bernard Castillo - UVI Ian Lundgren - NPS Clayton Pollock - NPS Jaime Kilgo – NPS Chad Sherraw, FAC Sara, Collin, Stopher, Anne Marie - TNC By Telephone: Jeanne Brown - TNC Glenis Padilla- NOAA Affiliate, PR Ron Hill - NOAA Fisheries TX Bill Arnold – NOAA SE Regional FL Paige Rothenberger- DPNR Lee Carrubba - NOAA Fisheries PR Lia Hibbert - NOAA Fisheries liaison, USVI (ERT Contractor) Jennifer Schull- NOAA Science Planning, FL Simon Pittman, NOAA Affiliate UK JP Oriol, DPNR/CZM STEPS - Current research Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A24 - Review priority strategies - Prioritize future Research and Monitoring activities Current Research (source or speaker in parenthesis) Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program (TCRMP) (Tyler Smith) 4 sites within STXEEMP (+1 inside Buck Island) – 1xyr. For adding more longitudinal sites: need to pick ones with good coral cover. No additional funding at the moment to expand sites. Other: stratified random sampling, Acropora mapping program ,temp, h20 quality- ad hoc schedule 2-3 permanent Acropora - 3x yr. using Williams and Miller protocol ARRA watershed restoration project in STXEEMP – East End Bay (2010-2011) There was a lot of turbidity anyway at this site, and not a lot of sedimentation have info on site selection for a sediment monitoring program Methods being sent Conch monitoring - NOAA (Ron Hill)- completed for 2 yrs., 10m radial surveys (n=503, 20-30% in STXEEMP) 3700 juveniles, 1000 adults. reviewing management zones, habitat and depth. NOAA fisheries funding- MARFIN- can compare with DPNR methods DPNR (Toby Tobias)- Every 5 years. Conch habitat evaluation, methods analysis. 5 yr. cycle w sea map. 26 site 40-50% STXEEMP - + back reef embayment survey - conch, fish etc. Fisheries Independent Survey - NOAA - would like to expand to examine reef fish distribution NOAA NCRMP (Anne Marie reported) Fish blitz - NOAA 20 sites –starting from 2001 trying to standardize protocol. every 2 yrs. benthic surveys to develop baseline and make it compatible w other monitoring efforts (like TCRMP) (Randy Clark email) Some rough estimates for the amount of direct funds spent and in kind funds come to about 19K and that yielded 62 surveys inside the EEMP. That roughly equates to about 20% of the total survey sites around the island. Lobster monitoring - Paige conducted. Data has been QA QC, no analysis yet. (same for Acroporid but no more funding) funding available Need to make compatible with NPS - multi year rotation. surveying different habitat types and lobster numbers Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A25 NOAA Trap Study (Simon Pittman) Fisheries-independent Monitoring conducted by Todd Gedamke in 2010 using fish traps and drop cameras. Acropora GPS Mapping (Jeanne Brown) TNC and UVI mapped Acorpora in about 8 bays (6 in STXEEMP) 2005- 2008. Similar to Meyor methods Buck Island: GPS size distribution, incidence of disease and bleaching TNC has data and maps) Sea Turtles (Carol Burke, Ian Lundgren) SEA - day patrol and nest excavations since 2005 Chenay Bay. Submitted to DPNR as part of permit. STXEEMP - John Farchette day patrol of all 17 bays, counting crawls, notes predation, poaching TNC - Jack’s, Isaac’s, East End- Reports since 1997 STAR - data submitted to coordinator (Renatta and __) mostly just stranding Water quality monitoring (Tyler Smith) monthly sampling at 12 random points within 4 zones - Teague Bay also use CTD - UVI has it Part of DEP - section 106 water quality standards project Fecal data – more reliable, others may not (Bernard Castillo) - 2 yrs, 5 min intervals. Boiler Bay (next to Cramers). Some sediment data Watershed management plan HW no plans for water quality monitoring Watershed restoration covered by Tyler, sediment trap data- new methodologies terrestrial and benthic surveys (Carlos Ramos-submitted to NOAA) Land Sea characterization (Simon Pittman) NOAA synthesis for fish and benthic communities in and around STXEEMP in addition to land use synthesis - expected early 2013 Baseline characterization for STXEEMP zones EPA - landscape index, NOAA’s report is extended to include marine environment. (Leah Oliver) Grouper surveys (2006) (Simon Pittman and Tyler Smith) Hank Tonnemacher surveys of grouper developing spatial dataset along with land sea characterization Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A26 Land Crab survey (grad student Acoustic tracking of Lang Bank SPAG – NPS (Ian Lundgren) - implementation plan finalized in the next 6 mos Bird Monitoring none offshore Caribbean waterbird census - data should be available eBird Caribbean coakley, mt. fancy, greatpond, Monthly surveys greatpond - private Claudia Lombard - masters thesis least terns, published island wide TNC Acropora and nurseries (Kemit Amon Lewis) Hobo lt. and temperature data Teague Bay, Rod Bay, Knight Bay, Green Cay outplanting data compiled, not shared Coast weeks Marine debris- most numerous items found. data downloadable from Ocean Conservancy SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDIES Valuation of coral reefs 2010 – U Netherlands group. draft report submitted to NOAA. Available February 2013? SocMon Visitor Perception Survey (TOC/VIRC&D Kim Ishida) 2010 completed, n=157, resulted in a communications strategy for the Park Jeanne has copies of results from Kim Recreational fishery in St. Croix (Jennifer Schull) -Commercial Fishing survey that Theresa Geodeke and Peter Edwards Shore based survey FY13 Jim Berkson from SEFSC - creole intercept survey at boat ramps - Marlon has both those proposals Need to Document - improving effective management (Lee Carrubba from email) With FY10 NOAA CRCP funding, we compiled a database of grey and scientific reports of the locations of acroporid corals and the other 7 corals that are now proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. We are finalizing the metadata for this, but the database is available. It's not specific to the STXEEMP, but has Territory-wide information. The NOAA Carib Initiative is working on a webpage through the existing SECART page. The Steering Committee requested that the page include links to all Caribbean data sources so any data could be referenced through this page (or it sounds like the UVI effort Tyler mentioned may be a good chance for a partnership). Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A27 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council is working on a historic mapping project using hard copy maps and translating them into electronic maps. They are focusing on fishery habitat. If St. Croix folks haven't joined this effort then they should contact Graciela Garcia or touch base with CFMC at the upcoming council meeting in St. Thomas. Historical Data West Indies Lab - Toby has research publications for digitizing or reference, Peter Sales, Warner Cherubin/Paris - larval sink - for recruitment monitoring F&W Great Pond fishery nursery - Tobias 2001 Lobster tagging? NMF EPA’s data? - rapid bio assessment, stony coral, water quality data as well, need to communicate paper in MEPS Need to create a report of all info to date - good UVI student projects Goal for Ongoing Research and Monitoring Increase collaboration and data dissemination available to park staff and other managers • create a committee o partners - UVI, CZM, USFW, NOAA, NPS, DFW, TNC, Ocean Conservancy?, community members/users, STXEEMP biologist • Links to old reports and current data on STXEEMP website o UVI has a new data center GeoCAS - resource. need funding • database for information collected • create a database of relevant reports o NPS has requirements to submit reports to park service o DPNR also has the same requirements, should have this data • require report submission to STXEEMP for all research permits issued within? • how to make management effective? Enforcement zones o GIS layers of Zones? give to Tyler. are on STXEEMP website. buoys in place (William Coles email) Please remind everyone that when conducting research on natural resources within the Territorial Boundaries a permit is required from DFW. Monitoring Objectives Needs SOCIOECONOMIC- review “Resource Use/User Monitoring Protocols for the St. Croix Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A28 East End Marine Park” (2005) for protocols Park Perceptions User surveys (GeoCon use assessment (2010) and VIRC&D/OC (2010) Economic evaluation study - St. Croix residents thought that resources were more valuable (n=1,000+) Events to gain momentum of public with importance of park Jenn Travis, next NOAA Coral Fellow - develop relationships with community members, inc. sustainable use activities, coordinate watershed activities Boat registration - information packets (Peter Edwards from email) The USVI (including of course STX) is scheduled for NCRMP Social Science Monitoring sometime in 2014. i.e. coral reef related resident and possibly tourism operator surveys. Data that might help direct rule and regulation changes that need to be made ex. moorings in seagrass Fish spawning Aggregations (Tyler Smith) Red Hind/ Other Spawning aggs? need to be identified for future closures/change in zoning More water quality- In turbulent areas difficult to separate re-suspension from new addition Terrestrial monitoring? Especially for watershed restoration projects (Simon Pittman from email) greater focus on water quality monitoring and the direct causes and the need to identify water quality targets that are relevant to coral reef ecosystem health. To complement this information it would also be useful to have someone model hydrodynamics near shore (would probably need new seafloor bathymetry though) to map the pathways of runoff from the watersheds. Not sure who would do that kind of thing, but it could be useful to have models of that land-sea connection to narrow down the problem source areas and recipient areas. Resource Status - Need a good bathymetry layer for STXEEMP LIDAR - Tim Bautista, put us on the list (Simon’s talked to him) Need to create that management priority into plan Current NOAA habitat map maxes out at 20m Good info about the few sites we monitor, that’s it. Lots of data in between Buck Island and St. Croix Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A29 ONE TIME: Fisheries Identify nursery areas - peter sale, bob warner, rick nemeth Funding - NMFS, F&W FREQUENT Coral Reefs Note - no mesophotic reefs in STXEEMP. Steep shelf break Benthic Monitoring Longitudinal sampling - need to increase variety of sites covered (habitat type. especially need barrier reefs, inside and outside, also....) Sites that intersect habitat types and management zones. Need funding Who- Include metrics - herbivory (need size, parrotfish counts) - Margaret Miller submitted NOAA (didn’t get funded) Indicating rare species- ex. roving dive to get data on ex. Nassau Grouper Coral recruitment indicators? - but so variable....need to be a separate program. Baitfish Resources? USFW? important for fishers Seagrass Communities Are the functions that seagrass are providing working within and out of management zones? Aerial Surveys - happen every 4 yrs. NOAA last one 2011. can see changes over time - remove established moorings from individuals and develop alternative Monitor Anchor damage document locations. provide info to CZM to replace with acceptable mooring equipment could change rules and regs to make within park moorings compatible plans to re-establish day use moorings are there any storm moorings? ex. Teague Bay boats are there permanently. What’s out there now and what is use like? Ken builds a lot of moorings - may have info on GIS pts Groundings most boats grounding in STXEEMP is in seagrass beds Juvenile Species More Conch info? juveniles - baseline study from F&W Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A30 annual survey who - STXEEMP, SeaMap Sea Turtles Special Zone sea turtle activity within this special zone. is this zone necessary? differences in regs are just a speed limit visual surveys, acoustic tags, (Lee Carrubba from email) Also need to know about sea turtles in the water, not just nesting, and interactions with human activities such as boating as part of assessments of the effectiveness of zoning in the park, as well as part of assessments of the populations of these animals. Beaches Access issue - 3 public accesses, none identified. one occluded - Grape Tree. User Survey - having access points match use Sea Level Rise - aerial photography -Beach Profiles - low cost, low expertise, 3x yr. community engagement Sand Watch - Emery protocol Beach Hotel - erosion problems Grape Tree: beach nourishment projects - previous were failures groins, jacks, sand re allocation Mangroves (seabirds and blue crab) Great Pond Blue Crab population studies Juvenile fish populations landscape change in Great Pond restoring hydrologic and nursery function FO aerial photos (scheuster), F&W report not much evidence from photos Keep in mind current ecosystem services Dennis Hubbard - Marine Geologist consulted by USF&W (sportfish restoration program) 1st. EIA 2nd Army Corps permit 3rd Action Appendix B: Focus-group Strategies Meeting Notes A31 Mangrove Oyster no longer in the root community!!!!!! Deep Water Pelagics Census of commercial fishers who is fishing? Catch reports transition between reef fish to pelagic resources** Lionfish is there a threshold? results of removal efforts? REEF proposed to study this on the N shore of St. Croix. Sustainametrics capacity for coral reef management in the VI - get emails to Marlon so he could send to the group Climate Change OA, thermal stress (T data from remote sensing, UVI, TNC), take vulnerabilities of monitoring results and see what the impacts for climate change to the resources. there is a territorial model of coastal inundation. can be applied. Look at the relationship between zones, what is protected and what is vulnerable. Other (Lee Carrubba email) One other issue to be considered for research is the listing of additional coral species (5 as endangered and 2 as threatened) under the ESA, as well as the upgrading of acroporid corals to endangered, which is proposed by NMFS. If any of these listings move forward, research toward the recovery of these species will be important A32 Appendix C: Review of 2002 Management Plan Progress with Table of Milestones, Ongoing Activities and Current Projects Strategy/Activity Overall MPA Priority Level Year to Complete Funding Available to Complete Total 5-year Cost ($1,000) Date Completed Comments Ongoing / Needs completion / Needs Attention Navigational/Boundary Marking 7.1 (p.25) Navigational Marking 7.1.1 (p.26) 138 Inventory and GeoReference Areas High 1 No 10 2011 NFWF funding with TNC- Ken Schull Implement Navigational Marker Program High 1 No 42 2011 NFWF funding with TNC- Ken Schull Develop Navigational Marker Maintenance Program High 1-5 No 86 2011 Monitoring plan completed, needs regular $$ Needs Att Boundary Marking 7.1.2 (p.26) 210 Inventory and GeoReference Areas High 1 No 10 2011 NFWF funding with TNC- Ken Schull Implement Boundary Marker Program High 1 No 78 2011 NFWF funding with TNC- Ken Schull Develop Boundary Marker Maintenance Program High 1-5 No 122 2011 Monitoring plan completed, needs regular $$ Needs Att Zoning 7.8 (p.48) Resource Zone Marking Program 7.8.1 (p.49) 149 Inventory and GeoReference Areas High 1 No 10 2011 NFWF funding with TNC- Ken Schull Implement Zoning Boundary Marking Program High 1 No 46 2011 NFWF funding with TNC- Ken Schull Develop Zoning Marker Maintenance Program High 1-5 No 93 2011 Monitoring plan completed, needs regular $$ Needs Att Mooring Buoys 7.6 (p.41) Mooring Buoy Program 7.6.1 (p.42) 194 Inventory and GeoReference Areas Med 1 No 10 Include the history/background in any plans Need compl Implement Mooring Buoy Program Med 1 No 70 In progress- public consultation (2014) Need compl Develop Mooring Buoy Maintenance Program Med 1-5 No 114 Fashion after STT- Reef Ecology, dive ops cont Need compl Enforcement 7.2 (p.28) Enforcement Program 7.2.1 (p.29) 1,202 Hire and Train MPA Enforcement/Interpretive Officers High 1 Some 1,202 2004 Interpretive ranger training and guide book (2009) Interagency Agreements 7.2.2 (p.29) 20 Develop Interagency Agreements Medium 1 No 5 2006 Correspondence only. What is needed? Needs Att Develop Standard Operating Procedures Low 2 No 5 ? Yes, but not specific to park Need compl Develop Standard Training Program Low 2 No 10 2012 In progress Need compl Education and Outreach 7.3 (p.31) Community Involvement/Community Program 7.3.1 (p.32) 289 School Programs High 2-5 No 239 2004 Ongoing Special Events High 1-5 No 25 2004 Ongoing Public Forum High 1-5 No 25 2004 2012 public forums on rules and regs Ongoing Product Development 7.3.2 (p.32) 350 Printed Materials High 1-5 No 275 2004 Ongoing Audio-Visual Materials High 1 No 50 2004 Ongoing PSAs High 1-5 No 25 2011 recorded? Aired? Ongoing Recreation 7.4.2 (p.35) 5 Moved to this section (Reduction of) Coral Touching Med 2+ No 5 ? No specific policy Regulatory 7.4 (p.34) Submerged Land Use 7.4.1 (p.35) 10 Dredging Prohibition Low 2+ No 5 Non issue/non threat Dredging Regulation Low 2+ No 5 Non issue/non threat Boating 7.4.3 (p.35) 156 Boat Groundings/Salvaging/Towing Med 2+ No 5 X Standard response plan, Salvaging/Towing added to this category, authorization needed for towing/salvaging Pollution Discharges Low 2+ No 5 In progrMarinas yes- pump outs? No discharge enforce Needs Att Special-Use Permits High 2+ No 136 In progrFor what, exactly? Vessel Operations/PWC Management Med 2+ No 5 X Fishing 7.4.4 (p.36) 151 Review of Fishing Regulations High 2+ No 15 In progress Needs Att Licensing Program High 2+ No 136 In progress Needs Att Fisheries Liaison Office 7.5 (p.39) Promote Fishing Pressure Shift 7.5.1 Fisheries Liaison Office High 1-5 No 331 2011 not STXEEMP- DFW does mgt, NOAA fisheries Liaison A33 Strategy/Activity Overall MPA Priority Level Year to Complete Funding Available to Complete Total 5-year Cost ($1,000) Date Completed Comments Ongoing / Needs completion / Needs Attention FADs High 1-5 No 25 No Fly Fishing Guide Training Program High 1 No 25 No not applicable? Water Quality 7.7 (p.43) Domestic Wastewater 7.7.1 (p.44) 20 Water Quality Standards High 2+ No 10 TMDL's exist- PLANS? Coordinate w/ DEP Needs Att Resource Monitoring of Surface Discharges Low 2+ No 10 UVI? Stormwater 7.7.2 (p.44) 60 Stormwater Permitting High 1 No 10 In progr Need special regs for upland activities affecting park Stormwater Management (Guts, Roads, Etc.) High 1 No 25 2010 priorities funded + SEA has funding with NRCS Needs Comp Stormwater Retrofitting Low 1-5 No 25 x DPW + businesses and homeowners Needs Att Marinas & Live Aboards 7.7.3 (p.45) 15 Pollution Discharges Low 2+ No 5 ? low priority - in progress? Marina Pump out Low 2+ No 5 X Green Cay, Yacht Club, commercial waste mgt Marina Operations Low 2+ No 5 2012 Green Cay blue marina program Hazardous Materials 7.7.4 (p.45) 35 HAZMAT Response Med 2+ No 10 No VITEMA/ CRRT. Need protocol, equipment, tra Needs Att Spill Reporting Low 2+ No 5 No NRCS/USCG? Needs Att HAZMAT Handling Med 2+ No 20 No VITEMA response plan Needs Att Watershed & Coastal Wetlands Protection 7.7.5 (p.46) 30 Develop Comprehensive Plan High 1-5 No 30 2011 Horsley Witten Plan Research & Monitoring 7.9 (p.50) Biological Monitoring 7.9.1 (p.51) 233 Develop Biological Monitoring Protocol High 1 Some 5 2010 Collaboration w/ biogeo, TCRMP, lobster, conch-still needs revi Identify Biological Monitoring Sites High 1 Some 5 2012 Biogeo, TCRMP (permanent sites) Implement Biological Monitoring Program High 1 Some 213 2013 Biogeo, TCRMP, staff and support partners Review & Revise Management Practices Med 2+ Some 10 2013 Staff, core planning, coordinator Needs Att Resource Use Monitoring Protocol 7.9.2 (p.51) 233 Develop Resource Use Monitoring Protocol High 1 Some 10 2010 Original 2005 report of 167 pages, GeoCon 2010 Implement Resource Use Monitoring Program High 1 Some 213 2014 one survey completed, human use mapping 201 Ongoing Review & Revise Resource Use Mgmt Practices Med 2+ Some 10 No With review of RR Needs Att Fishing Activity Monitoring 7.9.3 (p.52) 233 Develop Fishing Activity Monitoring Protocol High 1 Some 10 2009 (? GeoCon partially Needs completion Implement Fishing Activity Monitoring Program High 1 Some 213 2013 Enforcement is absent, monitoring occurs of Hind, Yellowtail, Reef fish composite + NOAA recreational and kreel surveys Needs Att Review & Revise Fishing Activity Mgmt Practices Med 2+ Some 10 No DFW? Needs Att Marine Park Database 7.9.4 (p.53) Develop Monitoring Database High 1 Some No Biogeo? UVI? Needs Att Manage Monitoring Database High 1 Some No Who? Needs Att Opening of East End Marine Park Office 7.10 (p.55) Open East End Marine Park Office 934 Open East End Marine Park Office High 1 Some 934 2007 Park staffed 2004 A34 A35 Appendix D: Territory Initiatives That Relate to STXEEMP A36 A37 A38 A39 A40 Appendix E: Education and Outreach Strategies Developed to Address Resources and Threat Abatement A41 A42 A43