USVI Public Records

Document text

United States Virgin Islands Wildlife Action Plan Volume 1: Management Framework (Goodson 2017) (Platenberg 2016) (Goodson 2016) (Platenberg 2016) Produced by: Renata J. Platenberg and Jennifer M. Valiulis University of the Virgin Islands St. Croix Environmental Association For: Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Planning and Natural Resources St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands September 2018 Contributors to 2018 VI-WAP Compilation, Revision, and Editing Renata Platenberg, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas Jen Valiulis, St Croix Environmental Association, St. Croix Head Research Assistant: Haley Goodson Research Interns Logistic Support Marieke Duffing Romero Brent Murry Allie Durdall Kitty Edwards Haley Goodson Kasey Jacobs The Nature Conservancy Mapping Support 2005 Contributors Viktor Brandtneris Floyd E. Hayes Melissa Kimble Doug B. McNair Katharine Egan Judy J. Pierce Renata J. Platenberg Contributors— Renata Platenberg, Jennifer Valiulis, Peter Freeman, Haley Goodson, Mareike Duffing Romero, Sara Thomas, Richard Nemeth, Tyler Smith, Brian Daley, Katharine Egan, Kristen Ewen, Alexandra Gutting, Amelie Jensen, Lora Johansen, Tucker Stone, Jan-Alexis Barry, Carolyn Courtien, Vernita Smith, Elizabeth Smith, Akacia Halliday Research Contributors— UVI Master in Marine and Environmental Science students Carolyn Courtien, Katharine Egan, Kristen Ewen, Alexandra Gutting, Akacia Halliday, Amelie Jensen, Lora Johansen, Deborah Elizabeth Smith, Vernita Smith, Tucker Stone, Elizabeth Brown, John Cassell, Michele Donihe, Mara Duke, Allie Durdall, Damon (Bo) Green, Sarah Heidmann, Paul Hillbrand, Colin Howe, Danielle Lasseigne, Lauren Olinger, Tanya Ramseyer, Mareike Duffing Romero, Sara Thomas This document should be cited as: Platenberg, R. J. and J. M. Valiulis (Eds). 2018. United States Virgin Islands Wildlife Action Plan, Vol. 1: Management Framework. Final report to the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife. University of the Virgin Islands and St. Croix Environmental Association, US Virgin Islands. Acronyms used in text ACoE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APC Area of Particular Concern APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) BUIS Buck Island Reef National Monument (St. Croix) BVI British Virgin Islands CAP Conservation Action Planning CBCC Coral Bay Community Council CDC Center for Disease Control CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CLCC Caribbean Landscape Conservation Council CORE Caribbean Oceanic Restoration and Education Foundation CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy CZM U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Coastal Zone Management DEE Division of Environmental Enforcement DEP U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Environmental Protection DFW U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife DNER Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico (Departamento de Recursos Naturales de Puerto Rico) DOA U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture DOI Department of the Interior DPNR U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources DPS Distinct Population Segment EAST Environmental Association of St. Thomas and St. John EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPSCOR Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research ES Endangered Species ESA Endangered Species Act FIA Forest Inventory Analysis IAC Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles IRF Island Resources Foundation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature MBA Magen’s Bay Authority MCD Marine Conservation District MCDA Multi-criteria Decision Analysis MMES Master of Marine and Environmental Science MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MPA Marine Protected Area NCRMP National Coral Reef Monitoring Program NESP National Ecosystem Services Partnership NGO Non-governmental Organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPS U.S. National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWR National Wildlife Refuge PR Puerto Rico SEA St. Croix Environmental Association SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need SPAW Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife SPNWR Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge STAR Sea Turtle Assistance and Rescue STEER St. Thomas East End Reserves STJ St. John STT St. Thomas STX St. Croix SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan SWG State Wildlife Grant TCRMP Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program TNC The Nature Conservancy TVIL Trust for Virgin Islands Lands UNEP United Nations Environment Programme USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey USVI U.S. Virgin Islands UVI University of the Virgin Islands VI Virgin Islands VICRNM Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument VICS Virgin Islands Conservation Society VIERS Virgin Islands Ecological Research Station VIMSIA Virgin Islands Montessori School and International Academy VINP Virgin Islands National Park WAP Wildlife Action Plan WCR Wider Caribbean Region WR Wildlife Restoration WRRI Water Resources Research Institute i Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter One: The U.S. Virgin Islands Context .............................................................................................................. 4 Geographic and Demographic Setting ........................................................................................................................ 5 Natural Resources Management Framework ......................................................................................................... 7 Chapter Two: Introduction to the USVI Wildlife Action Plan .............................................................................. 11 Why A WAP? ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Eight Required Elements ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Meeting the 2005 Goals .................................................................................................................................................. 16 What’s New in the 2018 VI-WAP? ............................................................................................................................. 17 Chapter Three: Status of USVI Species .......................................................................................................................... 19 Revision of Species Lists ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Chapter Four: Threats Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Habitat Loss ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Diseases ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Pollution ............................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Climate Change .................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Inaction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 How to Respond to These Threats............................................................................................................................. 42 Chapter Five: The VI-WAP Conservation Strategy................................................................................................... 43 Conservation Goals for VI Resources........................................................................................................................ 43 Chapter Six: Ecosystem Services .................................................................................................................................... 64 Institutional Framework ............................................................................................................................................... 64 Populations within a single species .......................................................................................................................... 66 Economic Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 68 Final and Intermediate Ecosystem Services .......................................................................................................... 69 Valuation .............................................................................................................................................................................. 70 Species and Habitat Services........................................................................................................................................ 71 Chapter Seven: Ecosystem Management—Cays ....................................................................................................... 74 ii Management Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 74 Ecological Value ................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Threats .................................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Research, Management, and Monitoring on the Cays ........................................................................................ 77 Conservation Actions Implemented Since 2005 .................................................................................................. 78 Priorities for Conservation Actions ........................................................................................................................... 80 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................................ 83 Chapter Two: Introduction to the USVI Wildlife Action Plan ......................................................................... 83 Chapter Three: Status of USVI Species ..................................................................................................................... 83 Chapter Four: Threats Overview ................................................................................................................................ 83 Chapter Five: The VI-WAP Conservation Strategy .............................................................................................. 87 Chapter Six: Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................................................ 87 Chapter Seven: Ecosystem Management-Cays ..................................................................................................... 92 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................................ 95 Appendix 1.1. Progress toward the 2005 CWCS Priority Action Goals ...................................................... 96 Appendix 1.2. Participants in the VI-WAP Development and Review ..................................................... 103 Appendix 1.3. Stakeholder and Public Participation in the VI-WAP Development and Revision 106 Appendix 1.4. Threat Rankings ................................................................................................................................ 109 iii List of Tables Table 2.1. State Wildlife Action Plan Eight Required Elements and Location in the VI-WAP…………13 Table 2.2. VI-DFW SWG Grants since 2005……………………………………………………….……17 Table 3.1. Status of USVI Species of Greatest Conservation Need by taxon………………………...….19 Table 3.2. Definition of species status used in VI-WAP …………………………………………….......21 Table 3.3. USVI Species of Greatest Conservation Need………………………………………………..22 Table 5.1. VI-Wildlife Action Plan goals for habitat and species management in the USVI…………....44 Table 5.2. VI-WAP conservation strategies aligned with goals………………………………………….47 Table 5.3. SGCN Priority Actions, listed by taxa………………………………………………………..54 Table 6.1. Example ecosystem services, service providers, and functional units………………………..68 Table 6.2. Examples of coral reef final and intermediate ecosystem services…………………………...69 Table 6.3. Economic valuation methods applied to ecosystem services……………………………...….73 Table 7.1. Cays of the USVI…………………………………………………………………………...…81 Table 7.2. Cay ownership………………………………………………………………………….……..82 1 U.S. Virgin Islands Wildlife Action Plan Executive Summary The United States Virgin Islands (USVI) comprises three major islands: St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix and more than 50 smaller offshore cays with a total land area of about 353 km2. The USVI is an organized, unincorporated territory of the U.S. with policy relations under the jurisdiction of the Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior. Tourism, trade, and other services are the primary economic activities, accounting for nearly 60% of the Virgin Island's GDP and about half of total civilian employment. Caribbean islands, including the USVI, are a recognized global biodiversity hotspot, containing high levels of endemism that has resulted from long periods of geographic isolation with limited dispersal opportunities for terrestrial plants and animals. Most islands have species assemblages that are found nowhere else, not even on a neighboring island. These islands, however, have had a long history of disturbance, leading to the second part of the definition: a biodiversity hotspot is an area that contains a high proportion of the world’s unique species that are in decline due to human activities. Current threats to terrestrial and marine wildlife and habitats of the USVI include ongoing habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, diseases, pollution, and climate impacts. The demands for space by a rapidly growing human population of over 100,000 in the USVI have resulted in ongoing loss and degradation of natural ecosystems, which also affect marine environments. Expanding residential communities and commercial centers, including tourism infrastructure, have replaced or encroached on native forests, while marinas and other coastal development have affected coastal wetlands, while marine activities threaten fragile mangrove swamps, coral reefs, and seagrass beds. Human development has increased pollution and the introduced non-native plant and animal pests. Moreover, the natural ecosystems are subject to the effects of short- and long-term wet and dry climatic cycles, and to periodic disturbances from hurricanes, including the devastating hurricanes Hugo in 1989, Marilyn in 1995, and Irma and Maria in 2017. Cumulative impacts and synergism between these influences leads to ecosystem change, a term that represents anthropomorphic alteration of ecosystems that cannot be reversed. The USVI, as with many places, experiences an additional threat of “inaction”, which includes challenges from lack of funding, limited opportunities for training, difficulties in coordination, collaboration, and communication, and economic and social priorities that may conflict with the goals of species and habitat conservation. In 2005, under the newly formed State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program, the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) produced a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (CWCS) that described the terrestrial habitats and species of the territory. This plan offered a checklist of priority actions towards species management and was a valuable tool for resource managers and those interested in the Territory’s wildlife. This strategy was updated from 2016-2017 to become the VI Wildlife Action Plan (VI-WAP). In addition to updating the current knowledge on terrestrial species and habitats, the 2018 VI-WAP also assesses marine habitats and species. The comprehensive state wildlife action plans (SWAP) are required for each state to receive funding under the SWG program. SWAPs contain information about species and their status and the extent and condition of their habitats and provide a strategy that prioritizes threats and the management and research needs towards addressing those threats. The SWAPS are not just a plan for the fish and wildlife agencies of each state; rather, they identify a suite of conservation strategies and offer a management framework through coordination across entities. In the USVI, the original CWCS was used not only as a planning document 2 but fulfilled a need for a key guide for natural resources managers and others seeking information on the status of and threats to wildlife in the USVI. Using stakeholder input from surveys, interviews, and meetings, eight priority goals toward addressing the main issues surrounding species and habitat conservation in the territory were identified with the following themes: 1) habitat and species protection, 2) habitat and species management, 3) capacity, 4) research, 5) education and outreach, 6) adaptive management, 7) adaptation and mitigation, and 8) economics and incentives. Fundamental objectives and actions were developed within these goals toward improving both the status of the wildlife resources and the management capacity for these resources, and priority actions were highlighted toward achieving conservation success directly focused on wildlife and habitats. Each SWAP is required to have eight elements for approval by USFWS. The following are brief descriptions of the VI-WAP approach to addressing these elements. 1. Species: The current status of terrestrial and marine species has been updated through a process comparing species status listed in the IUCN Red List (iucn.redlist.org) and the Puerto Rico SWAP, along with extensive literature reviews. All species of terrestrial herpetofauna, avifauna, and mammals, as well as key marine fish and invertebrates, were evaluated; 138 species were identified as being of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) within the USVI: 66 terrestrial species of frogs, reptiles, bats, and birds (and three freshwater species of fish and crabs), and 72 species of marine fish, invertebrates, and mammals. The SGCN status has been categorized according to High Risk, Low Risk, and Data Deficient-At Risk to aid in management prioritization. Information on the distribution and abundance of wildlife species of the USVI are covered in depth in Vol. 2 of this document, while the SGCN list and explanation of process for development is found in Vol. 1, chapter 3. A comprehensive list of terrestrial and marine species along with habitat associations can be found in Appendix 2.1. 2. Habitats: The extent and condition of USVI habitats is described in the VI-WAP for terrestrial forests and woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, and coastal area; wetlands, including guts (natural freshwater systems) and freshwater and saline ponds; and marine habitats including mangroves, seagrass beds, and coral reefs. The primary threat to these habitats is decline and degradation from upland development activities, and conservation actions have been identified to address these threats, to include protection, restoration, acquisition, and educational and recreational potential. Post-hurricane condition and needs are also described. Habitat condition, threats, and action priorities are described in Vol. 2 along with sources of information. 3. Threats: The VI-WAP provides a thorough assessment of the driving factors of ecosystem change, and how they affect species and habitats. Six primary threats were identified that apply to major taxa groups: habitat loss, invasive species, disease, pollution, climate impacts, and a ubiquitous influence resulting from inaction, which includes shortfalls in management capacity, enforcement, and lack of awareness. These categories were identified through a process involving a risk assessment of a suite of threats, including climate change influences, to each wildlife taxon (see Appendix 1.4 for example of risk assessment), and prioritization through stakeholder input. 4. Conservation Actions: Conservation goals, objectives, and actions necessary to conserve USVI species and habitats were identified using threat risk assessments and prioritized using a combination of planning processes. Included in this assessment was an evaluation of the effectiveness of the conservation actions identified in the 2005 CWCS. Stakeholder values and input were aligned with objectives to develop an overarching conservation strategy towards not only reducing threats but also proactively protecting and managing species and their habitats. Priority actions to address specific threats to species and habitats are aligned with goals and indicators, with partners identified for implementation. Although the primary focus of the conservation goals is the SGCN, most conservation action will also benefit species that are not in need of specific protection. There are large 3 gaps in our knowledge of the status and ecology of many species in the USVI so in some cases, conservation actions include filling in those knowledge gaps. 5. Monitoring Species and Effectiveness: Monitoring programs are in place for seabirds, waterbirds, sea turtles, bats, amphibians, some fish species, and corals within the USVI. These programs contribute to long-term datasets that can indicate changes in population trends as a result of management action/inaction. The VI-WAP also contains goals for adaptive management to include identification of useful indicators and the application of decision-making tools to evaluate effectiveness of effort. This revision also evaluated the progress of the 2005 CWCS goals. This document proposes monitoring strategies to better inform future WAPs and to refine Conservation Actions. 6. Review and Revision: A full review and update of the VI-WAP, including species status and effectiveness of conservation actions, will be conducted by DFW by 2025 to ensure priority actions and decision making are being conducted using the most recent available science. 7. Partnerships: The VI-WAP was developed through a collaborative approach with federal, regional, and local entities to establish joint ownership of the goals. The resource managers from territorial entities were engaged, either through interviews and surveys, or through participation at stakeholder meetings. Subject matter ranged from specific species status, conservation and research work that is occurring, threats to species and habitats, and needs to address those threats. No single entity can accomplish the conservation objectives within the USVI due to extremely limited staffing and resources, emphasizing how necessary it is for all entities to contribute to the WAP and to the fulfillment of the conservation goals. Priority actions identify potential partnership opportunities across a range of entities. 8. Public Participation: Broad public participation has been an essential element of developing and implementing the VI-WAP. Public meetings were held to solicit input from the community, and participants were asked to rank threats and identify solutions, which were aligned with VI-WAP goals to develop a broad strategy for addressing wildlife and habitat needs across the territory. Additional input was requested across social media, and the VI-WAP was available for comment during a 30-day review period. Many of the objectives and actions contained within the VI-WAP require community participation in implementation, and a range of community activities, ongoing and proposed, to engage, educate, and enthuse the community towards stewardship of our VI wildlife resources have been proposed. For more information, contact: Division of Fish and Wildlife 6291 Estate Nazareth St. Thomas, VI 00802 The 2018 VI-WAP was produced by Renata Platenberg (UVI) and Jennifer Valiulis (SEA), with the assistance of UVI students and USVI stakeholders, with funding from USFWS SWG program 4 Chapter One The U.S. Virgin Islands Context Prior to 2000, there were few funding opportunities across state fish and wildlife agencies for research and management for species of conservation need that were not harvested or listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Most of the federal funding that was available to state agencies was for ensuring the sustainability of game species and commercial or recreational fish (paired fin species). The U.S. Congress recognized the shortfall while at the same time lamenting the number of species being added to the ESA list, and in 2000 it created a new program, the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program. SWG has the goal of keeping common species common while focusing effort and funds on those species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). SWG provides an annual discretionary apportionment to each state and territory, and funds under this program can be used to address a variety of conservation needs, including research, surveys, species and habitat restoration, and monitoring. In order to receive these funds, the state/territory must produce a State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), approved by Congress, that identifies the species of greatest conservation need and prioritizes conservation actions. The completion of the first round of plans in 2005 for every state and territory was a major milestone in wildlife conservation across the U.S. Collectively and for the first time, the plans identified a national blueprint for proactive and coordinated conservation of wildlife resources. The collaborative effort between states to develop objectives for shared resources spawned other initiatives, including the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the Regional Climate Centers. In 2005 the USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife produced a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (CWCS) for terrestrial resources and a Marine Resources and Fisheries Strategic and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (“Marine Plan”). This 2018 revision (VI-WAP) aims to consolidate both sections while still providing a comprehensive treatment of all the USVI’s wildlife and habitats. This VI-WAP contains two parts: 1) a management section that identifies 5 the mandated components of the SWAPs, status of the SGCN, threats to resources, and introduces strategic and action priorities towards addressing threats and resources needs within the territory with associated appendices; and 2) a comprehensive catalog of the current state of knowledge of habitat and species resources with associated appendices. Appendices provide supplemental information, including a comprehensive list of USVI species, extent of USVI habitats, and individuals who participated in the revision process. This chapter describes the geographic and management structure of the USVI as relevant toward implementing WAP goals. Geographic and Demographic Setting Situated near the eastern terminus of the Greater Antillean chain of islands in the northern Caribbean Sea, the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) comprise three major islands and more than 50 smaller offshore cays with a total land area of about 353 km2 (Fig. 1.1). St. Thomas (74 km2) and St. John (50 km2) are the two major islands to the north, located on the Puerto Rican Bank to the east of Puerto Rico and its offshore islands (Culebra and Vieques), and west of the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The third island, St. Croix (217 km2), is located about 64 km to the south of St. Thomas and is more isolated than the other Virgin Islands. The offshore cays collectively comprise about 3% of the territory’s area (12 km2; habitat descriptions are provided elsewhere). The USVI is an organized, unincorporated territory of the U.S. with policy relations under the jurisdiction of the Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior. Tourism, trade, and other services are the primary economic activities, accounting for nearly 60% of the Virgin Island's GDP and about half of total civilian employment. The islands host nearly 3 million tourists per year, mostly from visiting cruise ships (data from CIA World Factbook 2017). St. Thomas is highly developed, with a human population of over 51,000 (2010 census data). The island has a thriving tourism industry, with marinas, hotels, and shopping areas, and is the headquarters of the VI Government and VI Legislature. While the main industry is tourism- focused, St. Thomas also hosts many U.S. businesses that take advantage of Economic Development Commission benefits while providing economic support to the local community. St. Croix is almost twice the size of St. Thomas, with less infrastructural development. Agriculture has dominated the landscape of this island, both historically and currently. A refinery on St. Croix, Hovensa, was one of the world’s largest and processed 350,000 barrels of crude oil a day until it was shut down in February 2012; its operations are much more limited now, functioning only as an oil storage facility. Two major rum distilleries (Cruzan Rum and Captain Morgan) contribute significantly to the economy, although to a much lesser degree than the Hovensa refinery once did. Ecotourism is an increasing industry on an island that has extensive beaches, trails, and snorkeling opportunities. St. John is the smallest population of less than 5000. Around 60% of the land area on St. John is contained within the Virgin Islands National Park, and the island is nearly completely surrounded by marine protected areas. Tourism also drives the economy of St. John, although it attracts more 6 long-stay visitors who rent villas or camp at NPS or private campsites. The areas outside of the NPS boundary are under severe pressure of development, and the island has seen significant changes in development in the past decade. There is continued interest in adding a big marina mid- island. Figure 1.1. Map of the United States Virgin Islands. 7 The demands for space by a rapidly growing human population of over 100,000 in the USVI have resulted in extensive loss and degradation of natural ecosystems, especially on densely populated St. Thomas. Expanding residential communities and commercial centers have replaced or fragmented much of the native forest. Hotels, condominiums, and marinas have been constructed on coastal wetlands, and marine recreational activities have damaged fragile mangrove swamps, coral reefs, and seagrass beds. Human development has led to increased pollution and the introduction of exotic plant and animal pests. Moreover, the natural ecosystems are subject to the effects of short- and long-term wet and dry climatic cycles, and to periodic disturbances from hurricanes, including the devastating hurricanes Hugo in 1989, Marilyn in 1995, and Irma and Maria in 2017. Natural Resources Management Framework Department of Planning and Natural Resources Within the USVI, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR) is the government agency mandated to protect, maintain, and manage the natural and cultural resources of the Virgin Islands, through the coordination of economic development, in collaboration with local, federal and non-government organizations, ensuring sustainability to enable present and future Virgin Island generations live in harmony with their environment and cultural heritage. Several divisions within the DPNR are involved in environmental resource management, including the Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Division of Coastal Zone Management (CZM), Division of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Division of Environmental Enforcement (DEE). Division of Fish and Wildlife The Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is the agency responsible for the assessment of marine and wildlife resources within the USVI. Initially named the Bureau of Fish and Wildlife, the DFW was first organized in 1969 to qualify for federal funding under Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. In 1980 it was reorganized and renamed the DFW. The mission of the DFW is to manage and improve the fish and wildlife resources of the USVI. The primary responsibilities of the DFW include: conducting research and monitoring studies of marine and wildlife resources; developing and implementing management strategies when studies reveal the need; developing public awareness through environmental education; providing technical guidance to appropriate agencies, groups, and individuals; and coordinating intra- and inter-agency programs relating to marine and wildlife resources. The operations of DFW are shared between two offices, one in St. Thomas and one in St. Croix. The staff is divided within three bureaus: Bureau of Fisheries, Bureau of Wildlife, and Bureau of Environmental Education, each with a Bureau Chief to manage activities within that unit. The Bureau of Wildlife oversees management of primarily terrestrial species and habitats, The Bureau of Fisheries focuses on commercial and recreational fisheries management as well as marine species and habitats. The Bureau of Environmental Education responsibilities include both fisheries and wildlife issues. DFW does not have any regulatory or enforcement authority, although the division conducts scientific review of CZM and other agency permit applications and prepares 8 permits for select activities, such as wildlife research and mangrove cutting, which are approved at the departmental level. Funding for the DFW is derived exclusively from federal grants, which come from two sources: 1) Financial Assistance Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of the Interior; and 2) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. The DFW’s annual budget typically exceeds $3 million with around $700,000 targeted for wildlife. Wildlife activities are funded primarily from Wildlife Restoration (WR) and State Wildlife grants (SWG) under the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, and Endangered Species grants (ES) under the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund program. DFW’s activities are limited by the constraints of the funding mechanisms. The Wildlife Restoration program supports projects that enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. WR funded activities also include wildlife-related recreation, hunter education, and generally exclude plants, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as prohibiting funding for law enforcement, licensing, and regulatory functions. SWG funding is directed toward management of species of greatest concern and their habitats that are identified through the SWAP planning process. Conservation action for sea turtles and other listed species is funded through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund program. Division of Coastal Zone Management The USVI Coastal Zone Management Program was established to manage, enhance, protect, and preserve coastal resources, while reducing conflict between competing land and water uses. It represents a comprehensive approach to minimizing the impacts of activities on coastal resources. The program is strongly committed to the overall management of the coastlines to ensure environmental and economical sustainability for future generations. CZM is charged with permitting within the Coastal Zone, including evaluation of Environment Assessment Reports for major permit applications for development projects within the coastal zone. CZM is also responsible for the oversight and day-to-day management of a number of other programs. Major programs managed and administered by CZM include but are not limited to: Public Access, Federal Consistency, St. Thomas East End Reserves and St. Croix East End Marine Park, and Public Education and Outreach. The primary goal of the CZM Public Education & Outreach program is to enhance public awareness of the value of protecting the coastal resources for the long-term, sustainable benefits that protection and maintenance can provide to our territory. Initiatives included in this program are the Beach Plastics Recycling Program, Rock City Clean Streets cleanup initiative, VI Clean Coasts environmental certification, and Environmental Education with schools and summer camps. Division of Environmental Protection The Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) is a regulatory body within DPNR. In collaboration with other DPNR divisions, the DEP is entrusted with the responsibility for environmental protections and enforcement of USVI environmental laws and regulations and certain national environmental laws, as delegated by the United States Environmental Protection 9 Agency. This agency is responsible for activities related to water quality management, air pollution control, groundwater, use of pesticides, and solid waste management. Division of Building Permits Division of Building Permits’ primary responsibility is to enforce and regulate the local and national building codes and regulations, and they also are responsible for the management of nonpoint source pollution and the Earth Change program. The Nonpoint Source Pollution program strives to enhance coastal waters quality by funding various projects, ranging from information and education programs, to demonstrating and monitoring projects, and highly technical applications of nonpoint source control technology. The Earth Change Program implements non- point source pollution controls, including sediment control, erosion mitigation measures, and protection of coastal and ground resources. Division of Environmental Enforcement The Division of Environmental Enforcement serves as the compliance arm of DPNR. Its primary function is to enforce all environmental, boating safety and permitting laws of the USVI and to protect, conserve and preserve the natural resources of the Territory. Secondary functions are to support the philosophy of “zero tolerance” toward illegal drugs by assisting federal and local enforcement agencies in initiatives aimed at eradicating illegal drugs and enforcement of Homeland Security duties through land and marine patrols focused at preventing terrorist attacks. DEE is also responsible for the local enforcement of federal fisheries laws. Other Resource Management Partners Federal Entities The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has an Ecological Services office in Puerto Rico with oversight for projects in the USVI under the Endangered Species and the Coastal programs as well as two USFWS National Wildlife Refuges (Sandy Point and Buck Island). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has a presence in the USVI with oversight over invasive species. The USDA is also represented by personnel with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). There are two U.S. National Park Service (NPS) management units in the USVI: Virgin Islands National Park (including the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument) on St. John, and Buck Island Reef National Monument (including Christiansted National Historic Site and Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve) on St. Croix. University of the Virgin Islands The University of the Virgin Islands is a learner-centered institution dedicated to the success of its students and committed to enhancing the lives of the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the wider Caribbean through excellent teaching, innovative research, and responsive community service. It has campuses on both St. Thomas and St. Croix, with an extension facility on St. John. Within UVI, the Center for Marine and Environmental Studies aims to advance knowledge and learning in marine, coastal and watershed systems through research, education, student training and outreach programs and to disseminate such knowledge to the academic body, scientific community, government agencies and the general public. 10 Non-Governmental Organizations The St. Croix Environmental Association was founded in 1986 as a non-profit committed to protecting the natural resources of St. Croix. Much of the focus is on education and outreach to school age students but also to adults through hikes, field trips, snorkel clinics and other activities. SEA also manages the Southgate Coastal Reserve, including conducting regular bird and turtle surveys, and the Barren Spot Bat Tower. In addition to SEA, there are several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), both non-profit and private, that serve valuable roles toward meeting WAP goals through research, resource and protected area management, and outreach and education. Some of these are the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Coral Bay Community Council (CBCC), Magens Bay Authority (MBA), Virgin Islands Conservation Society (VICS), and Geographic Consulting, LLC. The 2018 VI-WAP update was a collaborative effort between DFW, UVI, and SEA, with stakeholder input from each of the entities listed. Banner photo: Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas by R. Platenberg 11 Chapter Two Introduction to the USVI Wildlife Action Plan Why A WAP? Prior to the USVI State Wildlife Grant (SWG) program, there were few funding opportunities for research and management for terrestrial species of conservation need that were not listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or for non-harvested marine species. Most of the federal funding that was available to the VI-DFW was for ensuring the sustainability of birds and mammals under the Pittman-Robertson (P-R) Wildlife Restoration program, and commercial or recreational fish under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration program. The U.S. Congress recognized the shortfall and in 2000 it created the SWG program with the goal of reducing the number of species being added to the ESA list. SWG has the goal of keeping common species common while focusing effort and funds on those species of greatest conservation need. SWG funds can be used to address a variety of conservation needs for local species, including research, surveys, habitat restoration, and monitoring. As an insular U.S. Territory the USVI is highly dependent on federal funds, and the DFW is 100% funded through NOAA and USFWS Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs. Non-federal match requirements are difficult to meet because many resources within the territory are federally- sourced, and unlike state Fish & Wildlife Agencies, the VI-DFW is exempt from the match requirements for eligibility for allocated funding except for competitive grants. The SWG program augments state revenue and competitive funding discrepancies. In order to receive SWG funds, each state/territory must produce a conservation action plan that identifies the species of greatest conservation need and prioritizes conservation action. The first round of plans, released in 2005, were developed collaboratively between federal, state, and local 12 agencies, and identified a commitment for coordination between partners to achieve the goals identified. In 2005 the USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife produced two separate plans in-house to meet the SWG requirements: a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (CWCS) for terrestrial resources and a Marine Resources and Fisheries Strategic and Comprehensive Conservation Plan (“Marine Plan”). This revision (VI-WAP) aims to consolidate the conservation priorities from both documents while still providing a comprehensive treatment of all the USVI’s species and habitats. The information is organized into two volumes, a management section useful for management personnel and others looking for information on species status and conservation goals, and a catalog of local resources that is a valuable resource for anyone interested in learning more about VI habitats and species and ongoing research. To increase access by the community, each species and habitat section can be extracted to create individual webpages on a VI-WAP website. This chapter describes the mandated components of the VI-WAP, the process for revision, community and stakeholder participation, and review, and implementation successes of the 2005 CWCS. Eight Required Elements In order to ensure that the goals of the SWG program are being met and that plans are consistent across states, each plan is mandated to address eight Required Elements (Table 2.1). The elements focus on establishing priorities for conservation action for both species and habitats, and require those priorities to be based on scientific findings. In recognition that no one entity is responsible for meeting all conservation goals, coordination between federal and local agencies and other conservation entities is required both for the development and implementation of conservation objectives. Community participation is also encouraged. Each Required Element is represented within this document, as described herein. 13 Table 2.1. State Wildlife Action Plan Eight Required Element and Location in the VI-WAP. Required Element Description Where it can be found in VI-WAP 1 Species - Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and declining populations as the state fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are indicative of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. Vol. 1, Ch. 3 (status); Vol. 2, Ch. 2: each taxon has a dedicated section 2 Habitats - Descriptions of extent and condition of habitats and community types essential to conservation of species identified in (1). Vol. 2, Ch. 1: each habitat type has a section; extent of habitat listed in App. 2.2 3 Threats - Descriptions of problems which may adversely affect species identified in (1) or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats. Vol. 1, Ch. 4; App. 1.4; Vol. 2: habitat- and taxon-specific threats are described 4 Conservation Actions - Descriptions of conservation actions proposed to conserve the identified species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions. Vol. 1, Ch. 5; Vol. 2: habitat- and taxon- specific actions are described 5 Monitoring Species and Effectiveness - Proposed plans for monitoring species identified in (1) and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the conservation actions proposed in (4), and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new information or changing conditions. Vol. 1, Ch. 5; Vol. 2: habitat- and taxon- specific monitoring are described 6 Review and Revision - Descriptions of procedures to review the plan at intervals not to exceed ten years. Vol. 1, Ch. 2 7 Partnerships with Land Management Agencies and Tribes - Plans for coordinating the development, implementation, review, and revision of the plan with federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the state or administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats Vol. 1, Ch. 5 (Tabs 5.2 & 5.3): identifies partners for implementation; Vol. 1, Ch. 7: details partnership management activities 8 Public Participation - Broad public participation is an essential element of developing and implementing these plans, the projects that are carried out while these plans are developed, and the species in greatest need of conservation Vol. 1, Ch.5: opportunities for public involvement in implementation are identified; App. 1.3 participation in planning described Species Status (Required Element 1) The VI-WAP identifies 138 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, comprising 66 terrestrial species and 72 marine species. Rankings are defined as High Risk for species that require management intervention to persist, Low Risk for species that require monitoring and management to improve conservation status, and Data Deficient-At Risk for species that are known or suspected 14 to be in decline but for which insufficient information is available to determine status. The process used to evaluate the status of USVI species is described in Chapter 3. Thorough descriptions of species’ biological requirements, threats, and conservation actions needed are contained in Volume 2, along with sources of information. This document represents the most comprehensive collection of information on USVI terrestrial species, and a synthesis of understanding of marine species. Habitat Condition (Required Element 2) The VI-WAP identifies and describes the terrestrial, wetland, and marine wildlife habitats, including forests, shrublands and grasslands, shorelines, guts (natural stormwater drainages), freshwater and saline ponds and salt flats, mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, and floating sargassum mats. The primary threat to these habitats is decline and degradation from upland development activities, and conservation actions have been identified to address these threats, to include protection, restoration, acquisition, and educational and recreational potential. Post- hurricane condition and needs are also described. Habitat condition, threats, and action priorities are described in Vol. 2 along with sources of information. Threats (Required Element 3) The major threats identified for USVI wildlife species and habitats are summarized as habitat loss, invasive species, disease, pollution, climate impacts, and a ubiquitous influence resulting from inaction, which includes shortfalls in management capacity, enforcement, and lack of awareness. These categories were identified through a process involving a risk assessment of a suite of threats, including climate change influences, to each wildlife taxon (see Appendix 1.4 for example of risk assessment), and prioritization through stakeholder input. A thorough synthesis of threats to USVI species and habitats is provided in Chapter 4, along with a description of the risk assessment process. Action priorities towards understanding and addressing impacts are identified in Chapter 5. Influences on wildlife species and habitats are discussed in Vol. 2. Conservation Actions (Required Element 4) Conservation goals, objectives, and actions necessary to conserve VI species and habitats were identified using threat risk assessments and prioritized using a combination of planning processes (TNC 2007, USFWS 2008, NFWPCAP 2012). Included in this assessment was an evaluation of the effectiveness of the conservation actions identified in the 2005 CWCS. Stakeholder values and input were aligned with objectives to develop an overarching conservation strategy to address the major threats across both the territory and within entities (Chapter 5). Priority actions to address specific threats to species and habitats are aligned with goals and indicators, with partners identified for implementation. The strategy and priority actions and how they were developed are contained within Chapter 5. Monitoring Species and Effectiveness of Conservation Actions (Required Element 5) Monitoring programs are in place for seabirds, waterbirds, sea turtles, bats, amphibians, some fish species, and corals within the USVI. These programs contribute to long-term datasets that can indicate changes in population trends as a result of management action/inaction. Monitoring species response to management action allows adjustments to activities to optimize effort. Monitoring needs for wildlife resources are outlined for each taxon and habitat in Vol. 2. 15 The 2005 CWCS offered lists of priority actions for each resource. For this revision, each action was evaluated to determine if implementation had been completed, was ongoing, or had not yet been pursued (Appendix 1.1), and activities conducted towards meeting these goals have been summarized, using published studies, agency reports, and interviews with key personnel, as available (see Volume 2). These priorities were updated based on effectiveness measures for the 2018 VI-WAP (Chapter 5). Revision of the 2005 CWCS and 2018 WAP (Required Element 6) Required Element 6 requires plans to be revised at least every 10 years to ensure priority actions are based on the most up-to-date scientific information available. In 2015 states submitted their revisions to the 2005 conservation strategies, now known as the State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP), that additionally outlined conservation successes of this program. In 2016 DFW established an MOU with UVI to prepare the VI-WAP. The development of the 2018 VI-WAP has been a collaborative effort between DFW, UVI, and SEA that aimed to capture all the wildlife and habitat conservation goals within the Territory, not just those limited to DFW. The 2005 CWCS presented a comprehensive species list and identified protective and management status for the species that required specific action. Thorough habitat descriptions and species accounts and a comprehensive listing of relevant literature were key components of the document. It has been an invaluable resource for anyone seeking information on local conditions and status of VI species and habitats, and it has been used in several planning exercises and status reviews (e.g., STEER, IUCN Red List status review for Caribbean reptiles). These sections have been revised and updated to include significant findings from research conducted since 2005 for the 2018 VI-WAP. The next cycle for SWAP revision is 2025 and to bring the VI-WAP back in schedule with the other states, a revision will be completed and approved no later than 2025. The process for this revision will include a full search for published and unpublished (i.e., agency reports) research and management findings, coordination with other agencies that may have implemented VI-WAP priority actions, and stakeholder input. Revisions will update current levels of understanding, including results of research and management undertaken in the interim with particular emphasis on data deficient resources, and will assess the success of conservation actions. A full assessment of species and habitat status must be completed to support a revision of the list of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. DFW will engage in SWAP revision activities and utilize revision guidelines as available. It is recommended that DFW develop a “working document” that is updated annually across all bureaus with accomplishments toward meeting WAP goals. This not only mitigates the review process, but also establishes a framework for tracking outcomes for adaptive management. Partnerships with Management Agencies (Required Element 7) Natural resource managers and habitat/species experts were targeted for input on their area of expertise or on the plan in general. Input was solicited through email, one-on-one interviews, group meetings and any other method that elicited a response from individuals with the NPS, USFWS, UVI, TNC, and other entities (see Appendix 1.2 for list of participants, and Appendix 1.3 for VI- WAP development and review process). Groups that are creating related plans, such as the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative (CLCC), were included to allow the sharing of 16 planning strategies and input received from community and stakeholders. This approach was taken to identify ongoing management activities to enable coordination of priority needs. Action priorities developed through this process identify potential partners across agencies and other entities. Public Participation in Review and Implementation of VI-WAP (Required Element 8) The VI-WAP is a plan for the Territory, not just DFW, and as such, it needed to be developed not only by the resource managers but also with input from the VI community. The joint collaboration between UVI, DFW, and SEA aimed to join research, management, and community interactions into the planning effort. Prior to submission of the draft document to the SWAP review team, it was available to stakeholders for review, although this limited review was insufficient in scope and intent, and a second 30-day review period (May – June 2018) was deemed necessary. An invitation to review was sent to each participant in any aspect of the VI-WAP development, and was also shared widely across social media and environmentally-focused listservs. We received comments from 22 individuals; themes and our responses are outlined in Appendix 1.3. Based on public and stakeholder input, there is a strong environmentally-conscious community within the USVI that is interested in participating in meeting SWAP goals. This community can be engaged through public outreach activities, citizen science projects, and by other means (see table 5.2 for community engagement objectives). A community grant program should be implemented to allow individuals and entities, including private and NGOs, to apply for funding to accomplish priority actions listed in tables 5.2 and 5.3 (Chapter 5). One of the weaknesses of the 2005 CWCS was that it was not widely disseminated. Those that knew about it found it useful as a source of information to guide management activities, but very few entities were aware of its existence and value. It was also difficult to locate for those that were aware of it and wanted to use it. The plan resided on the DFW website as a downloadable pdf document, but eventually became unavailable during website revision. A VI-WAP website or other form of communication should be developed so the community can follow accomplishments and updates. Meeting the 2005 Goals The State Wildlife Grant program allowed DFW to initiate several programs that were previously unsupported through other USFWS funding mechanisms. Since 2005, SWG funds have been used to conduct research and management activities for reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, which are important taxa in the USVI that had not been previously studied (Table 2.2). SWG funds were also used for habitat management to support species of concern, such as removal of invasives. SWG funds support salary for DFW wildlife biologists as well as contractual services. DFW continues to conduct research and management work on seabirds using Wildlife Restoration (WR) funds. In addition to research, resource management, and outreach activities, DFW has also expanded relationships with other entities to optimize the agency’s ability to accomplish goals. 17 Collaborations were established with several entities, including TNC, SEA, APHIS, and private consultants. The development of the STEER management plan was a joint effort between TNC, DFW, CZM, UVI, community groups, and stakeholders. Coordination of sea turtle stranding response through the Sea Turtle Assistance and Rescue (STAR) Network opened up discussion and collaboration opportunities between St. Thomas and St. Croix personnel. Staff turnover across entities, however, can reduce the persistence of many of these initiatives. Many goals identified in the 2005 CWCS have also been met through funding sources other than SWG, and many of these efforts were conducted through collaborations between DFW and other entities. See Appendix 1.1 for the complete list of CWCS goals for species and habitat conservation and how they were addressed within the territory. Table 2.2. VI-DFW SWG Grants since 2005. SWG Grant Program SWAP Conservation Goal T1 Reintroduction of Boas Surveys Species & Habitat Protection/ Management T2 Preparation of CWCS Planning T3 Coordination of SWG Activities Coordination T4 Ameiva Conservation and Management Species & Habitat Management T5 Herp Conservation Research, Species & Habitat Management T6 Exotic Species Control on Offshore Refuges Species & Habitat Management T7 Implementation of SWG: Herpetofauna and Land Crabs Research, Species & Habitat Management T8 Wildlife Damage Control on Protestant Cay Species & Habitat Management T9 Species & Habitats of Concern Research, Species & Habitat Management, Education & Outreach What’s New in the 2018 VI-WAP? The following changes have been made from the 2005 CWCS: ● A Strategy table was developed with stakeholder input to address priority threats and conservation needs across the territory (Chapter 5: Table 5.2). ● Key Priority Actions for species conservation are summarized and include indicators for effectiveness measures and potential partners for collaboration (Chapter 5: Table 5.3). ● The Species of Concern list has been revised based on new information. Marine species have been included (Chapter 3: Table 3.3; Appendix 2.1). ● The goals from the 2005 CWCS have been evaluated for accomplishment (Chapter 2: Meeting the 2005 Goals; Appendix 1.1). ● The Threat chapter is new and takes a more holistic view of conservation and management challenges facing USVI species and habitats. (Chapter 4: Threats to USVI Ecosystems; Appendix 1.2). 18 ● A new section on ecosystem services provides a framework towards ecosystem management (Chapter 6: Ecosystem Services), which is illustrated in a description of a multi-agency management effort towards conservation of species and habitats on and around cays (Chapter 7: Ecosystem Management). ● Habitat sections have been expanded to include marine habitats and habitats that were data deficient in 2005, e.g., terrestrial wetlands (Volume 2: USVI Habitats). ● Species sections have been expanded to include taxa that were data deficient in 2005, e.g., bats and freshwater fauna. Some sections have been reorganized into other sections (i.e., “Exotic Species” information is now contained in relevant resource sections (Volume 2: USVI Species) and in Chapter 4 (Threats). Banner photo: Marine WAP stakeholder meeting by Kitty Edwards 19 Chapter Three Status of USVI Species One hundred thirty eight USVI native species were identified as SGCN under the three categories (Table 3.1). The majority of GCN species are birds (30%) and marine fish (36%). Of the total, 17% are considered to be data deficient sufficient to determine status but are known to be in decline. This chapter describes how the Species of Greatest Concern list and status rankings were evaluated from the 2005 CWCS and updated for the 2018 VI-WAP. Table 3.1. Status of USVI Species of Greatest Conservation Need by taxon. Taxa High Risk Low Risk Data Deficient – At Risk Total Terrestrial Invertebrates 0 2 2 4 Freshwater Fish 1 0 0 1 Amphibians 1 1 0 2 Reptiles (incl. Sea Turtles) 9 2 1 12 Mammals (Bats) 1 4 0 5 Birds 18 15 9 42 Marine Fish 32 8 9 49 Marine Invertebrates (incl. Corals) 10 5 1 16 Marine Mammals 0 5 2 7 Total 72 42 24 138 20 Revision of Species Lists A wide range of information was assessed to determine species status. A single, comprehensive list that combines marine, aquatic, and terrestrial species from the 2005 CWCS and Marine Plan was developed for the 2018 VI-WAP. Due to a general lack of information and an incomplete inventory, most terrestrial and many marine invertebrates are not included. This comprehensive species list was evaluated against current IUCN Red List (iucn.redlist.org) status and the SGC list from the Puerto Rico SWAP (PR-DNER 2015). Extensive literature reviews on research and management published or conducted since 2005 on species found in the USVI were conducted to update new information that might be relevant to species status. Resource experts were consulted regarding species distributions and population trends within the USVI, and level of knowledge for each species was assessed. Only the status of the species within the USVI was considered in the ranking process, which in some instances conflicted with global or national status when species that are abundant elsewhere are undergoing distribution or population constrictions locally. Plant species were not ranked. Using the information gathered, a population status was assigned to each species for which there is adequate information. Species status categories defined by the IUCN (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable, at risk, least concern) (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2016) and used in the PR-WAP SGCN list were too refined to meaningfully rank USVI species based on the available information, therefore these were simplified into three categories of GCN (Table 3.2): 1) High Risk (HR): those species in immediate or ongoing need of management action due to severely restricted populations or distributions, 2) Low Risk (LR): those species in immediate or ongoing need of management action due to declining populations or distributions, and 3) Data Deficient--At Risk (DDR): those species for which insufficient information is available toward assessing population abundances or distributions, but whose populations are believed to be experiencing significant ongoing threat such to put these populations at risk of decline or extinction. We have also assigned status for non-SGCN species based on management need: Least Concern (LC): those species that are widespread and abundant; Data Deficient--Not At Risk (DD): those species for which insufficient information is available and management effort should be focused on collecting biological data; Introduced (I): non-native species that are not in urgent need of management action; and Introduced-Management Need (IM): non-native species in need of management action because their impacts are causing declines in populations or habitat quality. The comprehensive list with recommended species status updates was sent to experts and circulated at several public and stakeholder meetings for review and comment. We compiled all comments and revised species statuses based on consensus. Where there was no consensus nor published status, a category of “data deficient” was given. This category was divided into two tiers: species that are abundant but for which little data have been collected were considered to be not at risk of decline due to manageable threats (DD), and those species for which insufficient information is available but are known to be at risk due to threats or observed population declines (DDR). 21 Table 3.2. Definition of species status used in VI-WAP Category Category Definition Status Category--SGCN High Risk (HR) Species faces a risk of extinction in the wild in the near or foreseeable future without management intervention Low Risk (LR) A species that is showing population declines that put it at risk of becoming “high risk” without management effort Data Deficient--At Risk (DDR) A species for which there is not enough information for an assessment of population status or distribution but is expected to be declining due to known threats Status Category--non-SGCN Least Concern (LC) A species that is stable or increasing in population abundance and not declining due to manageable threats Data Deficient--Not At Risk (DD) A species for which there is not enough information for an assessment of population status or distribution but is not declining due to manageable threats Introduced (I) A species that is not-native to the USVI and has no discernable impact to native species Introduced-- Management Need (IM) A species that is not-native to the USVI and is causing threat to native species The 2005 CWCS identified 42 species of concern across amphibians, reptiles, bats, and birds; of those 30 were identified as being of Greatest Concern, with 12 being of Concern. Across the same taxa, the 2018 revision identifies 61 SGCNs: 29 as being High Risk (equivalent to Greatest Concern), 22 as Low Risk (equivalent to Concern), and 10 as Data Deficient-At Risk. While the number of SGCN have increased for this group of taxa since 2005, the status definitions better reflect the information and level of effort needed for species conservation. The terrestrial plant list from the 2005 CWCS was also updated against a priority list of rare plants produced by Lindsay et al. (2015) and T. Thomas (pers. comm. 2016), and marine plants were added. The 2005 and 2018 statuses are listed in the comprehensive species list (Vol. 2, Appendix 2.1). A goal of the 2005 CWCS was to update the territorial statutory list of Threatened and Endangered Species protected under the VI Code (Title 12, Chapter 2). This updated list required promulgation by the Endangered Species Protection Commission, which was never convened. Therefore, in the 2018 VI-WAP revision, there was no attempt made to revise the proposed statutory list. 22 Table 3.3. USVI Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Legal protection afforded by USFWS Endangered Species Act: FE = Federally Endangered. FT = Federally Threatened. See Appendix 2.1 for comprehensive list of USVI species along with status and habitat associations. FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 2005 STATUS 2017 STATUS TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES CRABS Gecarcinidae Cardisoma guanhumi Blue Land Crab -- LR Gecarcinidae Gecarcinus ruricola Terrestrial Crab -- DDR Pseudothelphusidae Epilobocera sinuatifrons Freshwater Crab -- DDR Ocypodidae Leptuca leptodactyla Thin-fingered Fiddler Crab -- LR TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES FRESHWATER FISH Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American Eel -- HR AMPHIBIANS Eleutherodactylidae Eleutherodactylus lentus Yellow Mottled Coqui LDD, C LR Eleutherodactylidae Eleutherodactylus schwartzi Virgin Islands Coqui LE, GC, EX? HR (EX?) LIZARDS Teiidae Ameiva (Pholidoscelis) polops St. Croix Ground Lizard FE/LE, GC FE, HR Amphisbaenidae Amphisbaena fenestrata Virgin Islands Amphisbaena LDD, GC HR Scincidae Spondylurus semitaeniatus Lesser Virgin Islands Skink -- HR Scincidae Spondylurus sloanii Virgin Islands Bronze Skink LT, GC HR Sphaerodactylidae Sphaerodactylus beattyi Beatty's Dwarf Gecko LC DDR SNAKES Boidae Chilabothrus granti Virgin Islands Tree Boa FE/LE, GC FE, HR Dipsadidae Borikenophis portoricensis Puerto Rican Racer LT, C LR Dipsadidae Magliophis exiguus Ground Snake LDD, LC LR Typhlopidae Antillotyphlops richardii Blindsnake (Richard's Worm Snake) LDD, C HR TURTLES Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Loggerhead FT, GC FT, HR Cheloniidae Chelonia mydas Green turtle FT/LT, GC FT, HR Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback FE/LE, GC FE, HR Cheloniidae Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill FE/LE, GC FE, HR 23 BATS Phyllostomidae Artibeus jamaicensis Jamaican Fruit-eating Bat LC LR Phyllostomidae Brachyphylla cavernarum Antillean Fruit-eating Bat LDD, GC LR Phyllostomidae Stenoderma rufum Red Fig-eating Bat LDD, GC HR Molossidae Molossus molossus Pallas's Mastiff Bat LC LR Noctilionidae Noctilio leporinus Greater Bulldog Bat LDD, GC LR BIRDS Anatidae Nomonyx dominicus Masked Duck DDR Anatidae Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck SC LR Anatidae Dendrocygna arborea West Indian Whistling Duck LE/GC DDR Anatidae Anas bahamensis White-cheeked Pintail SC LR Ardeidae Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night Heron SC LR Ardeidae Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron LC LR Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret LC LR Ardeidae Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern GC/Ex DDR, EX? Ardeidae Egretta thula Snowy Egret SC LR Ardeidae Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron SC LR Caprimulgidae Chordeiles gundlachii Antillean Nighthawk GC HR Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus Killdeer LC DDR Charadriidae Charadrius melodus Piping Plover HR Charadriidae Charadrius nivosus Snowy Plover GC DDR Charadriidae Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s Plover SC HR Columbidae Geotrygon mystacea Bridled Quail-Dove GC HR Columbidae Patagioenas squamosa Scaly-naped Pigeon LC LR Columbidae Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon GC HR Falconidae Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon SC LR Fregatidae Fregata magnificens Magnificent Frigatebird GC HR Haematopodidae Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher GC HR Hirundinidae Progne dominicensis Caribbean Martin SC HR Laridae Sternula antillarum Least Tern SC HR Laridae Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern SC FT, HR Laridae Thalasseus maxima Royal Tern LR Laridae Thalasseus sandvicensis Sandwich Tern LR Parulidae Setophaga adelaide Adelaide's Warbler DDR Pelecanidae Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican SC LR Phaethontidae Phaethon aethereus Red-billed Tropicbird SC HR Phaethontidae Phaethon lepturus White-tailed Tropicbird GC HR 24 Podicipedidae Tachybaptus dominicus Least Grebe GC HR Procellariidae Puffinus lherminieri Audubon’s Shearwater GC HR Rallidae Rallus crepitans Clapper Rail GC HR Scolopacidae Calidris canutus Red Knot GC FT, DDR Scolopacidae Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper LR Scolopacidae Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel GC LR Scolopacidae Tringa semipalmata Willet GC LR Sulidae Sula leucogaster Brown Booby HR Sulidae Sula dactylatra Masked Booby GC HR Sulidae Sula sula Red-footed Booby GC HR Trochilidae Orthorhyncus cristatus Antillean Crested Hummingbird LC DDR Trochilidae Anthracothorax dominicus Antillean Mango GC DDR MARINE ORGANISMS MARINE FISH Albulidae Albula vulpes Bonefish -- DDR Balistidae Balistes capriscus Gray Triggerfish -- DDR Balistidae Balistes vetula Queen Triggerfish -- HR Carangidae Seriola dumerili Greater Amberjack -- DDR Haemulidae Anisotremus virginicus Porkfish -- LR Haemulidae Haemulon bonariense Black Grunt -- DDR Labridae Lachnolaimus maximus Hogfish -- DDR Lutjanidae Lutjanus analis Mutton Snapper -- HR Lutjanidae Lutjanus cyanopterus Cubera Snapper -- DDR Lutjanidae Lutjanus synagris Lane Snapper -- LR Lutjanidae Lutjanus vivanus Silk Snapper -- HR Lutjanidae Rhomboplites aurorubens Vermillion Snapper -- HR Mullidae Pseudupeneus maculatus Spotted Goatfish -- LR Scaridae Scarus coelestinus Midnight Parrotfish -- HR Scaridae Scarus coeruleus Blue Parrotfish -- HR Scaridae Scarus guacamaia Rainbow Parrotfish -- HR Scaridae Scarus taeniopterus Princess Parrotfish -- LR Scaridae Scarus vetula Queen Parrotfish -- LR Scaridae Sparisoma chrysopterum Redtail Parrotfish -- LR Scaridae Sparisoma viride Stoplight Parrotfish -- LR Serranidae Cephalopholis cruentata Graysby -- HR Serranidae Cephalopholis fulva Coney -- HR 25 Serranidae Dermatolepis inermis Marbled Grouper -- HR Serranidae Epinephelus adscensionis Rock Hind -- HR Serranidae Epinephelus guttatus Red Hind -- LR Serranidae Epinephelus itajara Goliath Grouper -- HR Serranidae Epinephelus morio Red Grouper -- HR Serranidae Epinephelus striatus Nassau Grouper -- FT, HR Serranidae Mycteroperca bonaci Black Grouper -- HR Syngnathidae Hippocampus reidi Longsnout Seahorse -- DDR Istiophoridae Istiompax indica Black Marlin -- DDR Istiophoridae Istiophorus platypterus Sailfish -- HR Istiophoridae Kajikia albida White Marlin -- HR Istiophoridae Kajikia audax Striped Marlin -- HR Istiophoridae Makaira nigricans Blue Marlin -- HR Istiophoridae Tetrapturus angustirostris Shortbill Spearfish -- DDR Scombridae Thunnus thynnus Atlantic Bluefin Tuna -- HR Scombridae Thunnus alalunga Albacore Tuna -- HR Scombridae Thunnus albacares Yellowfin Tuna -- HR Scombridae Thunnus obesus Bigeye Tuna -- HR Aetobatidae Aetobatus narinari Spotted Eagle Ray HR Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus limbatus Blacktip Shark -- HR Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus longimanus Oceanic Whitetip Shark FT, HR Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus perezii Caribbean Reef Shark -- HR Carcharhinidae Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger Shark -- HR Carcharhinidae Negaprion brevirostris Lemon Shark -- HR Mobulidae Manta birostris Giant Manta Ray -- FT, HR Rhincodontidae Rhincodon typus Whale Shark -- HR Sphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini Scalloped Hammerhead Shark -- FT, HR CORALS Acroporidae Acropora cervicornis Staghorn Coral -- FE, HR Acroporidae Acropora palmata Elkhorn Coral -- FE, HR Antipathidae Antipathes spp. Black Coral -- DDR Faviidae Orbicella annularis Lobed Star Coral -- FT, HR Faviidae Orbicella faveolata Mountainous Star Coral -- FT, HR Faviidae Orbicella franksii Boulder Star Coral -- FT, HR Meandrinidae Dendrogyra cylindricus Pillar Coral -- FT, HR Mussidae Mycetophyllia ferox Rough Cactus Coral -- FT, HR 26 OTHER MARINE INVERTEBRATES Tegulidae Cittarium pica West Indian Top Knot/Whelk -- LR Stichopodidae Astichopus multifidus Furry Sea Cucumber -- LR Strombidae Strombus gigas Queen Conch -- HR Palinuridae Panulirus argus Spiny Lobster -- HR Palinuridae Panulirus laevicauda Green Lobster -- HR Diadematidae Diadema antillarum Long-spined Sea Urchin -- LR Grapsidae Goniopsis ruentata Mangrove Root Crab -- LR Holothuriidae Actinopyga agassizi West Indian Sea Cucumber -- LR MARINE MAMMALS Balaenopteridae Balaenoptera borealis Sei Whale -- FE, LR Balaenopteridae Balaenoptera physalus Fin Whale -- FE, LR Balaenopteridae Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale -- LR Delphinidae Stenella frontalis Atlantic Spotted Dolphin -- DDR Delphinidae Tursiops truncatus Bottlenosed Dolphin -- DDR Physeteridae Physeter macrocephalus Sperm Whale -- FE, LR Trichechidae Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee -- FT, LR 2005 Status: LE = Locally Endangered. LT = Locally Threatened. LSC = Local Special Concern. LDD = Locally Data Deficient. LCP = Locally Peripheral. LCT = Locally Controlled. LNP = Locally Not Protected (Exotics). Management Concern = Species requiring management actions within USVI. GC = Species of Greatest Concern; those species requiring significant research, monitoring, and/or restorative effort for populations and/or habitats to recover populations sufficient to ensure long-term sustainability. C = Species of Concern; species requiring research, monitoring, and/or restorative efforts for populations and/or habitats to maintain population levels to ensure long-term sustainability. Banner photo: Eretmochelys imbricata by R. Platenberg 27 Chapter Four Threats Overview: What is impacting local resources? Caribbean islands are a recognized global biodiversity hotspot, containing high levels of endemism that has resulted from long periods of geographic isolation with limited dispersal opportunities for terrestrial plants and animals. Most islands have species assemblages that are found nowhere else, not even on a neighboring island. These islands, however, have had a long history of disturbance, leading to the second part of the definition: a biodiversity hotspot is an area that contains a high proportion of the world’s unique species that are in decline due to human activities (Myers et al. 2000). Early colonizers arriving in small boats from South and Central America brought with them plants and animals from the mainland or from other islands, thereby introducing new species. European arrival altered the landscape by clearing forests for plantations and introducing domestic animals, pests and diseases, and hitch-hikers, such as rats. Later island inhabitants introduced other animals (e.g., mongoose) to control pests introduced earlier (e.g., rats). Cane toads were introduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s to control an introduced insect pest in plantations of introduced crops. The USVI historically experienced near complete deforestation from agriculture, introduction of invasives of multiple taxa, and persecution of some native wildlife, such as bats and snakes, due to misguided fears. Current threats to wildlife and habitats of the USVI include ongoing habitat loss and fragmentation from development, and impacts from invasive species, diseases, pollution, and climate change. Cumulative impacts and synergism between these influences leads to ecosystem change, a term that represents anthropomorphic alteration of ecosystems that cannot be reversed. The USVI, as with many places, experiences an additional threat of “inaction”, which 28 corresponds to challenges faced by small administrations divided between islands and jurisdictions. Inaction includes lack of funding, limited opportunities for training, difficulties in coordination, collaboration, and communication, and economic and social priorities that may conflict with the goals of species and habitat conservation. Each of these threats is discussed in the following section, along with impacts to local ecosystems. Management recommendation are included in the resources sections as well as the Priority Actions and Strategy tables (Tables 5.2 and 5.3) in the next chapter. Habitat Loss Nearly all natural habitats in the Virgin Islands have been reduced, degraded or fragmented. The prevailing belief is that if land is cleared or wetlands filled, the wildlife will move elsewhere. On small islands such as those in the VI, the opportunities to relocate to other appropriate sites after habitat disturbance are limited, and the pathways to do so may be blocked by roads or other barriers. For each new land use change proposal, the opportunities for birds, lizards, bats, and other native species to move to another location decrease because previous land use has already reduced available alternative locations to a minimum. The IUCN Red List identifies that habitat loss is the reason for decline for 85% of the species listed as imperiled. In the VI, habitat loss has already caused the extinction or extirpation of several birds (Puerto Rican Screech Owl Megascops nudipes, Puerto Rican Lizard Cuckoo Coccyzus vieilloti, and the White-necked Crow Corvus leucognaphalus) and is contributing to the decline of the Virgin Islands Tree Boa (Chilabothrus granti), a snake that is critically endangered, largely due to loss of its St. Thomas East End habitat to development (Platenberg and Harvey 2010). Habitat loss in the VI dates back to the era of sugarcane plantations in the Virgin Islands (approx. 1733-1917). Historical records indicate that the Pre-Columbian Virgin Islands were 90% forested. By 1917, when the U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark, only 10% of the forested areas remained on St. Croix (Chakroff 2010). Although large-scale sugarcane plantations no longer exist on the islands, only some of the forest is recovering. With a high density of human population on the islands and expansive resorts and commercial centers, development has prevented the recovery of much of this previously forested land. Encroaching residential communities have replaced or fragmented remaining or recovering forests. Forests in the process of succession are often viewed as sub-optimal and therefore less valuable habitat, although if given the opportunity, the forests will eventually recover. As of 2007, only 3% of the VI’s forests were considered fully mature forest (Brandeis and Oswalt 2007). The majority of the remaining forest is secondary, transitional forest. The loss of forest cover has affected wildlife from nearly every taxonomic group, including marine organisms. Changes in composition, complexity and extent of forest will have devastating effects on the wildlife that rely on healthy forests, such as bats, frogs, birds and reptiles. Changes in forest structure that allows for more light penetration alters the microhabitats and microclimates of the forest floor, thereby rendering smaller reptiles such as Sphaerodactylus and habitat specialists such as amphisbaenids and blind snakes vulnerable to desiccation. Without the large trees that bats prefer for roost sites, many populations have taken to opportunistically roosting in artificial refugia such as abandoned buildings and historical ruins. The loss of forest has also resulted in increased erosion especially along the steep slopes that are found throughout St. Thomas, St. John, and 29 northwest St. Croix. Increased erosion results in deposition of sediment on to coral reefs and seagrass beds. The Virgin Islands Tree Boa is on the verge of extinction in its natural range due to severe habitat loss. Unlike some of the other major losses from a single large development, like Krause Lagoon on St. Croix, this has been a slow erosion of habitat, parcel by parcel, adding up to the loss of the majority of the boa’s habitat and the fragmentation of what is remaining. This severe fragmentation means that boas are isolated in small habitat islands and when they attempt to disperse they are forced to cross roads or through human development, with resulting mortality. Had there been a comprehensive plan in place for habitat protection and development, the boa might be able to persist within a forest preserve or connected patches of habitat. Wetlands have also faced dramatic reductions, which unlike the loss of forest, has happened primarily over the last century. Hotels, condominiums, and marinas have been constructed on coastal wetlands, and marine recreational activities have damaged fragile mangrove swamps, coral reefs, and seagrass beds. A significant loss of habitat through activities such as wetland destruction and alteration for development has greatly reduced wetland bird populations in the Virgin Islands (Raffaele 1989). The large flocks of waterbirds described as common by naturalists in the early 1900s (Seaman 1973) are now rarely seen and a number of species have been extirpated from the islands altogether. The Krause Lagoon on St. Croix was once the largest mangrove wetland in the Virgin Islands (over 240 ha); in the 1960s it was filled in for the construction of a large oil refinery. Other large wetlands that have been lost include Lindbergh Bay lagoon (once known as Mosquito Lagoon) on St. Thomas (IRF 1977) and the Southgate Pond on St. Croix has been reduced to a fraction of its former size by the construction of the Green Cay Marina (Coast and Harbor Institute 2004). Habitat loss is typically attributed to development of land or other land use change for human use, but it can also be the result of other threats. For example, sea level rise will result in the loss of sandy beaches. Habitat compromised by disturbances such as hurricanes can offer opportunities for invasion of non-native species. Rapidly spreading invasive shrubland species can decrease native forest cover. Marine habitats are also being lost through degradation of healthy marine conditions. Invasive Species The spread of invasive species is a global concern from both an ecological and economic standpoint, and the introduction of non-native species has been widely accepted as one of the leading drivers of recent extinctions (Gurevitch and Padilla 2004). It is estimated that as many as two thirds of extinctions globally may involve interactions between native and invasive species (Kairo et al. 2003). Threats to island ecosystems are magnified by factors such as high levels of endemism, relatively small areas, isolation, and exposure to storms that increase the vulnerability of native species to disturbances (Platenberg and Boulon 2006). Of the many species that are introduced, most are unsuccessful at becoming established in a new area, and do not become invasive (Kairo et al. 2003). A species is considered invasive once it gains a foothold within a system and succeeds to a point where other species, habitats, or ecosystems are negatively affected, or when there is risk of harm to human health. It is estimated that in the United 30 States, $120 billion dollars annually is attributed to expenses associated with invasive species, both in control costs and in the economic damage that they cause (Pimentel et al. 2005). Invasive species cause damage through the endangerment of native species, degradation of environments (both aquatic and terrestrial) and even alteration of biogeochemical cycles (Mooney and Hobbs 2000). Additionally, invasive species can contribute to social and economic hardship by creating limitations on economic growth, sustainable development and conservation efforts. After initial introduction, other anthropogenic threats such as habitat destruction, species removal and increased pollution can magnify the effects of the invasive species (Theoharides and Dukes 2007). The USVI has a long history of human-mediated species introductions, dating back to the arrival of the first human colonizers who brought plants and animals up the Antillean island chain from South America. These introductions have increased with the intensification of travel and trade. The pathways of introduction vary depending on the species; many species are intentionally imported for agriculture, domestic use, or for horticulture, posing the risk of potential release or escape (Lovell et al. 2006, Daley et al. 2012, Platenberg 2016). Many important agriculture species fall into this category, such as Papaya (Carica papaya) and Genip (Meliccoccus bijugatus), as well as deer, donkeys, goats, and pigs. Houseplants and ornamentals can be culprits, such as the Snake Plant (Sanseveria spp.). Significant threats to wildlife populations are posed by escaped housepets that become feral, such as cats, dogs, and more recently Boa constrictors on St. Croix. Some species are accidentally introduced as hitchhikers through the importation of materials, e.g., rats (Rattus spp.), the Pacific Lionfish (Pterois spp.), Cuban Treefrogs (Osteopilus septentrionalis), and Puerto Rican Coquis (Eleutherodactylus coqui). Others are introduced intentionally as biocontrol for species that were unintentionally introduced, thereby compounding the problem. Two key examples in the USVI of these are the Small Indian Mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) that was deliberately introduced to control rats, and Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) that were released as a biocontrol for white grub (beetle larvae) agricultural pests. Virtually all of the habitats in the U.S. Virgin Islands are affected either directly, or indirectly by invasive species. Non-native plants can alter habitat and prevent recruitment of native forest species. Problematic species include Mother-in-law Tongue (Sanseveria trifasciata), Tan-tan (Leucaena leucocephala), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), and Sweetlime (Triphasia trifolia). Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) is a problem in wetlands and waterways where it chokes up the water surface and consumes nutrient resources. Feral cats, rats, mongoose, and to a lesser extent stray dogs, have a tremendous negative impact on native species through direct predation. Nesting success of seabirds and sea turtles can be severely reduced by rats in seabird colonies and mongoose on turtle nesting beaches. Cats are well known for their strong prey response and will capture and kill anything they encounter, including birds and the endangered VI Tree Boa. The impacts of these species are compounded by an r- selected ecological strategy that includes generalist habitat and diet requirements and high fecundity, which also makes control and eradication difficult and resource expensive. Feral cats (also dogs, goats, deer, donkeys, and other charismatic species) have the added challenge of emotional attachment by the community that is often not supportive of control efforts. Many 31 colonies of feral cats are maintained through cat cafe feeding stations and trap-neuter-return programs. The Puerto Rican coqui (Eleutherodactylus coqui) is a fairly recent invader that has a different and less obvious impact, primarily on native frogs and their prey. These frogs occupy the same ecological niche as the native frogs, but are better competitors for niche resources, such as invertebrate prey and sheltering and breeding sites, and are slowly displacing native frog species. The impact of Boa constrictors, believed to be recently established on St. Croix, is unknown, as are its current abundance and distribution. Other problematic terrestrial vertebrates include White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), goats (Capra hircus), hogs (Sus scrofa), and donkeys (Equus asinus) that destroy native vegetation through eating, trampling, or excavating, thus changing habitat structure. Feral chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) can change forest structure by removing seeds and seedlings. Cane Toads (Rhinella marina) and the Common Ground lizard (Ameiva exsul; native to STT/STJ, but introduced to STX) consume native species of frogs, lizards and invertebrates (Treglia et al. 2013). Less understood are the invertebrate pests, many of which arrive with landscaping or horticulture material. Fire ants (Solenopsis spp) are a significant threat to ground nesting birds and small terrestrial reptiles, as these can quickly overwhelm and consume pipping eggs, chicks, and lizards. The Agave Weevil produced near complete mortality of one of the endemic Century Plants (Agave missionum), and Tiger Mosquitos (Aedes aegypti) are responsible for transmitting viral diseases to humans, such as dengue fever, chikungunya, and zika. The marine environment is similarly affected by invasive species. The invasive seagrass, Halophila stipulacea, has rapidly altered seagrass bed structure thus limiting shelter and forage for seagrass inhabitants, including Nassau Grouper and Green Sea Turtles. The Indo-Pacific Lionfish (Pterois spp) poses a great threat to fish stocks in the USVI due to its ability to consume large portions of food relative to its body weight and reproduce rapidly and in great numbers. Diseases Disease is a threat that has generally stayed under the radar of many resource managers in the VI. Knowledge of the extent that diseases affect local flora and fauna is limited. Yet, disease has the potential to rapidly affect whole populations, particularly species already under stress from other impacts. Birds in the VI face periodic outbreaks of Avian Botulism that can be severe for susceptible species. Avian Botulism is caused by ingestion of a toxin produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, which is widespread in soil. Specific conditions are required for the bacteria to thrive including warm temperatures, a protein source and anaerobic conditions (USGS 2016). Avian Botulism primarily affects waterbirds and has been especially frequently seen in waterfowl, laughing gulls and pelicans in the VI (J. Valiulis and R. Platenberg, pers. obs., 2017). Outbreaks generally are the result of changes in hydrology, such as rapid decreases or increases in water level that result in fish or invertebrate die offs causing anaerobic conditions. Laughing gulls are more susceptible due to their habit of scavenging for food scraps at the landfill, where maggots are the 32 likely carriers of the bacteria. When encountered early and with the right facilities, botulism can be treated and cured. Fibropapillomatosis is a disease found in sea turtles that causes numerous internal and external tumors. Although benign, the tumors can interfere with swimming, eyesight, feeding and buoyancy. Fibropapillomatosis has only been seen rarely in the VI turtles and generally on turtles that have been found as the result of strandings or injury. Healthy nesting turtles or even turtles observed in the water rarely exhibit signs of the disease. However, STAR (Sea Turtle Assistance and Rescue) does keep records of all turtles that are reported with the disease so if incidences increase, resource managers will be able to react to the outbreak. While the cause of fibropapillomatosis is unknown, it is associated with impaired water quality, and may be exacerbated by a combination of factors, including pollution, stress, parasites or changing water temperature. Chytrid fungus has emerged as one the primary contributors to amphibian decline globally. It has caused devastating population declines in some amphibian populations and has even resulted in species extinctions. Although the USVI is outside of the expected range for this fungus, due to thermal conditions that are not conducive for fungal survival, frogs were sampled for it in 2011. Results found chytrid in three out of 63 samples, associated with Eleutherodactylus coqui and/or E. antillensis (R. Platenberg, unpublished data). Further study and sampling is necessary to determine the extent of the presence of chytrid throughout all islands of the USVI and to better understand the conditions in which it thrives. In the marine environment, various coral species are threatened by mortality-inducing bacteria- induced diseases, which have caused a massive decline of major reef-building corals in the Caribbean (Muller et al. 2008). In fact, the Caribbean waters have been declared a ‘disease hot- spot’, due to the high virulence of coral reef diseases (Weil and Gil-Agudelo 2006). Coral diseases are primarily caused by bacteria; for example, white plague is caused by the bacterium Aurantimonas, white-pox is caused by the bacterium Serratia marcescens, and white-band disease is caused by the bacterium Vibrio (Weil and Gil-Agudelo 2006). Atypically high water temperatures increase the abundance and virulence of coral pathogens and increase the corals susceptibility (Muller et al. 2008), although disease outbreaks are highly correlated with sediment- transporting precipitation (M. Brandt, pers. comm., 2017). The USVI has experienced significant loss of corals; in 2005, an especially warm year, 60% of coral cover was lost on USVI reefs due to bleaching and subsequent disease (Miller et al. 2009). With the increasing temperatures associated with climate change, coral disease will likely become more widespread. There are other pathogens that are or may be present in the USVI, but about which little is known, such as Oncicola venezuelensis, a parasite that infects cats, lizards, termites and birds (Nickol et al. 2006), and malaria in Anolis lizards. Lizards that have been infected with malaria may have reduced body condition, altered behavior, and changes in reproductive success (Schall and Pearson 2000). Plants diseases may affect habitats; insects such as soft scale (Philephedra tuberculosa) feed on local trees and can cause serious damage to infested trees (Williamson 2008). The isolation of the Virgin Islands has thus far protected it from some diseases that are commonly found elsewhere, such as rabies. Rabies is found as close by as Puerto Rico (CDC), where it persists 33 in uncontrolled mongoose populations. Rabies is a viral disease that is spread through saliva from animal bites. Bats are maligned as being carriers of rabies, but in fact bats are susceptible to the disease and become infected and die from it (unlike carriers that are unaffected), and studies have shown that where present, less than 1% of the bat population is infected by rabies. However, rabid bats are able to transmit rabies to humans, who are more likely to encounter a sick bat than a healthy one. Tests on bats and other animals in the USVI have not been positive for rabies (CDC, pers. comm. 2016). The likelihood of a bat in the VI being infected with rabies is slim, because VI bats are resident, and are not migrating to areas where rabies is prevalent. Bats infected with rabies are sick, and unlikely to migrate to the VI. In Puerto Rico, work is currently being conducted to test an oral vaccination for mongoose to reduce the number of mongoose carrying rabies. The tropical climate has also prevented White Nose Syndrome, a disease that is devastating bat populations in the United States. This disease works by interrupting hibernation by bats in the cold months of the year, so is unlikely to become a problem in the VI. In addition to diseases that affect wildlife and their habitat, wildlife itself can serve as a disease vector for zoonotic diseases, potentially affecting management of the species. Perhaps the most obvious example is that of the various mosquito borne illnesses such as dengue, chikungunya and zika. The mosquito that carries these diseases, Aedes aegypti, is an introduced species. Mosquito- borne illness has been on the rise and this threat is likely to increase with climate change (Staples and Fischer 2014, Pastula et al. 2016). Measures to reduce human infection by these mosquito- borne diseases often involve fogging or large scale application of pesticides. These pesticides can be harmful to other wildlife and invertebrates that are harmless and are important parts of the food chain. Cats and mongoose are carriers of toxoplasmosis, another reason to keep feral populations under control. The heartwater and Ehrlichea diseases transmitted by the tropical bont tick has the potential to threaten our commercial livestock. Tick borne diseases such as cattle fever and heartwater pose risks to domestic cattle that reside mainly on St. Croix (Corn et al. 2009, Beati et al. 2012). Transmission of the bont tick has been linked to Cattle Egrets. Pollution There are many sources of pollution in the VI, originating from both land and marine activities. Pollutants include trash that is not disposed of properly, sediment from upland erosion, contaminants from road surface runoff and boats (sewage, bottom paint, oil), sunscreen, thermal pollution (WAPA discharge of RO effluents), pesticides, larger oil spills/leakage from tankers, oil leakage from marine gas stations, and so on. The effects of pesticides on vital pollinators such as bees has been well documented (Desneaux 2007, Henry et al. 2012). Without good information on the identification, population and distribution of the invertebrates in the VI, it is difficult to assess the effects of pesticides on the invertebrate community as a whole. Wildlife such as birds, bats, frogs, and lizards that consume insects are also likely to be affected by pesticides. Bioaccumulation (the accumulation of a substance, such as pesticide in an organism) and biomagnification (the tendency of a pollutant to concentrate as it moves from one trophic level to the next) have major impacts on organisms higher in the food chain, including humans. 34 Much of the land-based pollution in the VI can be lumped into one of two categories: Point Source pollution, where the pollution comes from a known source, and Non-Point Source, where pollution originates from an unspecified source and accumulates through movement of stormwater. While great efforts have been put into reducing point sources (an exception being perhaps the dumpster sites in the USVI), land based sources of pollution are difficult to identify and control. Nonpoint source pollution results from rain water flowing over and through the ground, picking up pollutants (soil, oil, grease, bacteria, pathogens, heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides and other contaminants), carrying them away and depositing them into guts, wetlands, salt ponds, beaches, coastal waters and groundwater. Runoff is a problem for any wildlife that relies on water including frogs, birds (especially waterbirds), bats, and gut fauna (fish, shrimp). Although all habitats are affected by pollution, marine habitats are disproportionately affected simply because they are downstream. Every Virgin Islander is familiar with the sediment plumes in the ocean during torrential rains and the warnings to not swim in the ocean after rains due to contamination from pollutants washing into the water. Coral infection rates increase in correlation with rainfall events that carry stormwater with high sediment loads. The capacity for disposal of trash is already overwhelming the infrastructure. The landfills on both St. Croix and St. Thomas are at capacity and have been scheduled for closure for years. Despite beach clean ups, shorelines are persistently littered with garbage from littering or illegal dumping, or transported via wind or water. Trash is often tossed to the side of the road, leaving it to wash down the guts and into the ocean. Larger garbage such as tires and appliances are frequently dumped in the bush. To a large degree, this is the result of carelessness, but it can be challenging to properly dispose of larger items. Transfer stations do exist, but they have limited hours and will periodically stop accepting certain types of waste without warning so people are left without an easy option for disposal. Single use plastic, such as shopping bags, straws, and water bottles, along with Styrofoam containers are a staple of the food and beverage industry in the Virgin Islands. Although convenient, especially for beachside bars, they produce an extraordinary amount of trash, only a percentage of which makes it into trash cans to be disposed of at the overfilled landfill. The subject of trash in the ocean, collectively called “Marine Debris” has started to receive a lot of attention as a significant cause of mortality in marine organisms. In addition to trash washed down from the land, fishing nets, lines, traps and other gear is often abandoned once it ceases to be useful. Sea turtles and marine mammals can become entangled and drown in nets if they are not able to reach the surface for air. Seabirds, whales, turtles, and just about every other marine organism eats plastic causing blockages in their digestive system and sometimes poisoning from chemicals contained in the trash. Improperly discarded monofilament fishing line can be a death trap for both water and land birds which become entangled in it. Microplastics, very small pieces of plastic resulting from the breakdown of larger pieces of plastic trash, are now found ubiquitously in the ocean and in marine organisms as they make their way into and through the food chain, even in the USVI (Lasseigne 2018). The busy boating and shipping industry in the VI, especially around St. Thomas, results in added pressure from pollutants. Daily visits by cruise ships carrying thousands of people leave behind oil, trash, and emissions and churn up bottom sediment. A study in the northern VI found that chemicals that indicate contamination by an antifouling agent were ubiquitous in molluscs, including the popularly consumed whelk (Strand et al. 2009). 35 The VI lacks adequate pump out facilities for boaters and some are forced to release waste into the ocean. Regulations require vessels to go three miles from shore to do this, but there are boats that don’t fully comply. There are a significant number of live aboard boats that no longer run and function as floating apartments attached to mooring balls or anchors. Some of these permanently placed boats release waste directly into the ocean. Pollutants can render organisms, such as coral, more susceptible to disease. Studies on coral found that even a moderate increase in nutrients (such as from fertilizer) causes a significant increase in severity of coral disease (Bruno et al. 2003). A study in the northern VI found that nearshore corals were more susceptible to impairment, either through disease or mortality, than coral farther from shore. Sedimentation is believed to be one of the primary drivers of the nearshore coral degradation (Smith et al. 2012). In recent years, oxybenzone, a key component in most popular sunscreens has been found to be one of the contributing factors to coral decline. Areas that are popular with beach goers and snorkelers show impairment from corals smothered in sunscreen slime (C. Rogers, pers. comm.). There are currently no regulations in the USVI to limit the sale of sunscreens with this damaging contaminant. Generally, air pollution in the Virgin Islands is less of a problem than in many other parts of the world. The Hovensa oil refinery was likely the largest single source of air pollution in the VI until it shut down in 2012. Plans are in place to reopen the facility, which will likely result in the overall degradation of air quality. African dust carries pesticides and microorganisms, some of which are pathogens, to the Virgin Islands. Although it is difficult to mitigate air pollution from African dust, it underscores the need to maintain healthy local ecosystems that can better resist threats from beyond the borders of the Virgin Islands. Climate Change All of the current conservation measures in place could be for nought if climate change continues on its current path. Globally, climate change is negatively affecting both marine and terrestrial environments and their associated species and microhabitats (Walther et al. 2002). These effects are potentially more apparent in tropical and island ecosystems, including the USVI, due to low lying and remote locations, small size, proximity to the ocean, and concentration of infrastructure and populations along coasts (McCarthy 2001). Endemic species and diverse environments of island ecosystems such as coral reefs, mangrove forests, and seagrass beds are vulnerable to climate change (Whittaker et al. 1999, McCarthy 2001). Climate change threats such as sea level rise, ocean acidification, rising temperatures, increased precipitation, and increased storm frequency/severity impact the local populations and diverse ecosystems of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Both air and water temperatures are expected to increase with climate change. Increased temperatures will affect the timing of seasonal activities of both animals and plants. Many species rely on temperature cues for mating, spawning, and migration. Changes in the timing of reproduction of birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and plants are likely to be seen in the USVI. Changes in the arrival time of migrating birds, for example, may result in a lack of food for refueling if the food source is not able to survive or even alter its own timing. Fruit eating bats may be more resilient to these shifts, but are still affected if drought fails to produce fruiting across 36 one or more seasons. The sex of sea turtles is determined by the temperature during a key time period in incubation. Increased temperatures will affect sex ratios of sea turtles. Changes in temperature also cause changes in species range shifts, meaning as temperature increases in a particular location, species will move to cooler areas to adapt. It has already been documented that terrestrial species are moving to higher elevations to escape areas with warming conditions (Chen et al. 2011). Species that live on islands and that cannot disperse to other locations within their temperature tolerance, will likely die out. Microhabitats may become less favorable, particularly as deforestation and an increase in “new forests” alters forest structure and microclimate. Climate change will impact local weather phenomena such as altered winds and precipitation patterns (EPA 2015). A recent study found that the hatch success of leatherback turtles at SPNWR in St. Croix has decreased as a result of decreased precipitation resulting from climate change (Santidriàn et al. 2015). Predictions for the effects of climate change on hurricane frequency and intensity differ. A complex mix of factors (sea water temperature, ocean currents, moisture in the air) cause the formation and sustainment of a hurricane and the path that it takes; many of these factors will be altered in some way by climate change. Nonetheless, changes in patterns of these storms will affect the island flora and fauna. It is well documented that hurricanes and severe storms occurring in tropical locations can change the community compositions of species. On Puerto Rico, studies have shown that there are shifts in animal and plant composition in the El Yunque Rainforest after extreme hurricanes (Jennings et al. 2014). Changes in composition, complexity and extent of forest will have devastating effects on the wildlife that rely on healthy forests such as bats, frogs, birds and reptiles. Smaller reptiles such as Sphaerodactylus species and habitat specialists such as amphisbaenids and blind snakes will face desiccation. Although some species will be able to adapt and move, others such as the critically endangered Virgin Islands Tree Boa, are blocked by roads and development. The hurricanes in 2017 had severe impacts on fruit and seed eating species, although these were not fully documented. Coral reefs and rainforests have been shown to recover after storm events at an intermediate level of disturbance (Lugo et al. 2000). With changes in precipitation, storm intensity, and wind speed tied with the frequency of these events, habitats and species could have insufficient time to recover and cause further degradation to both marine and terrestrial environments. Rising water temperatures will affect marine organisms. Commercially important fish species will move to areas with cooler water temperatures thus depleting a vital food source in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Outbreaks of coral bleaching have become frequent in the VI and have been tied to increases in water temperature. Although coral can recover from short term bleaching, long term, regular bleaching will result in the death of coral and thus, the many species that rely on healthy coral reefs. There is some evidence that coral may be going through a rapid evolutionary event, resulting in the increased resistance to bleaching (T. Smith, pers. comm., 2017) Sea level rise is the result of warming oceans and melting ice caps (UNEP 2008). As global temperatures increase, glaciers and ice caps melt and oceans naturally absorb heat which causes 37 water to expand, contributing to the rise in sea level. The NOAA modeled future sea level rise projections for all three islands of the USVI at 6ft above the mean higher high water (MHHW) mark (Figures 4.1 – 4.3). Low lying areas, such as shorelines and coastal wetlands are expected to be inundated. The huge diversity of wildlife, especially birds, that rely on salt ponds will likely be displaced as the ponds become too deep and ultimately become part of the nearshore ocean waters. In some cases, coastal habitats such as mangroves may be able to adjust their ranges inward, but only if there is available land to inhabit. They will not be able to move into or across developed land so it is important to consider creating habitat corridors in land use planning. Forest habitat will be diminished as coastlines move inward. The many wildlife species that already face a squeeze on available habitat due to forest loss will face further loss of habitat. Species that rely on beaches for survival will also face displacement, for example, sea turtles that will see a reduction in available nesting beach habitats. Marine organisms, such as coral and seagrasses that have specific light and depth requirements will find themselves in deeper waters and if they cannot move to shallower waters, and will not survive. Loss of these two habitats will affect nearly every nearshore marine species. Ocean acidification caused by climate change will severely affect marine habitats and their associated species (Hoegh et al. 2007, UNEP 2008). Studies have shown that calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and molluscs will be most affected by ocean acidification as acidic conditions degrade calcium carbonate structures (Mora et al. 2013). Ocean acidification could result in the entire loss of coral reefs and their associated species. Ocean acidification and warming ocean temperatures will both have negative impacts on seagrass meadows disrupting changes in photosynthesis, seed germination, and growth to name a few (Short and Neckles 1999). 38 Figure 4.1. Projected sea level rise for St. Croix. Map produced by M. Kimble, UVI GeoCAS, 2016. 39 Figure 4.2. Projected sea level rise for St. Thomas. Map produced by M. Kimble, UVI GeoCAS, 2016. 40 Figure 4.3. Projected sea level rise for St. John. Map produced by M. Kimble, UVI GeoCAS, 2016. Inaction While the previously discussed threats all have a specific cause and measurable impact, there are additional stressors on the USVI natural environment that are more difficult to identify and quantify. Yet these stressors were frequently identified in stakeholder discussion as being related in some way to a lack of awareness or ability to take action. We have grouped these stressors into a threat category that we have called “Inaction”. Inaction can relate to lack of policy, poor enforcement of an existing policy (Johnstone et al. 2008), or to a variety of forms on the social level including lack of awareness or knowledge about the issue, lack of information sharing, lack of regulations, lack of enforcement of regulations, or lack of funding to mitigate the issue. In the USVI, inaction stems from all these causes. Much of the environmental degradation in the VI can be attributed to a lack of awareness both of the value of environmental resources and to the consequences of actions. Actions are not always connected to consequences. For example, the person tossing a bag of trash into the bush may not 41 be cognizant that that trash will eventually wash into the sea and to be consumed by a fish that that person later eats. There are many examples of threats caused by lack of awareness such as beach bonfires that can cook turtle eggs, driving on beaches can destroy least tern and sea turtle nests, the use of guts for tire disposal, etc. These are all damaging practices that are very often carried out without awareness of the consequences. It is likely that with increased awareness, to some degree, these negative practices can be minimized. There is a lack of knowledge about existing regulations among residents (Stakeholder Input, 2017), and residents don’t know where to find information about policy or the responsibility of regulatory agencies. Enforcement officers also may not fully understand the regulations, nor do they have the expertise to identify all environmental violations, particularly in cases where species identification is critical. Judges and prosecutors appear to have a poor understanding of the value of some local resources and how they are regulated (Page et al. 2012). While there are laws requiring the installation of sediment fences during construction projects to reduce sediment runoff, there are no laws requiring the maintenance of the fences (Horsley Witten Group 2013). These fences are not particularly effective for sediment control on steep slopes with poor soils, and the fences degrade quickly. A shortage of enforcement officers means that these sediment control mechanisms go uninspected as they fail and allow sediment to wash off sites during construction. A more pervasive problem, however, is the unregulated land clearing activities that do not require sediment control, such as vegetation removal not associated with construction. There is currently no program for detecting and preventing improper disposal of regulated hazardous wastes, nor are there laws limiting the amount of impervious cover (land that does not allow water to soak in) created by development (Horsley Witten Group 2013). It is unclear whether this lack of regulation stems from a lack of awareness about the issue, a lack of concern, or a lack of funding. The lack of communication and coordination between resource management entities hampers the ability to successfully achieve conservation goals. Many local environmental issues have scientific data to support them, but the data is not always shared between agencies or converted into regulations or actions (Page et al. 2012). Many of the local entities have a high personnel turnover rate, making communication more difficult, and reducing, even eliminating, institutional memory, continuity of agreements, and collaborative relationships. There is little communication between islands and travel expense and logistics between islands is challenging. Additionally, many of the representatives from federal agencies are based in Puerto Rico making it difficult for them to be aware of the on-the-ground issues facing the VI. Finally, the responsibility for managing or regulating different environmental issues is not always clear to the community, and sometimes even the entities involved in management and regulation. Many researchers have collected data over the years that have not been published and shared with the VI community and beyond. Lack of time and access to resources such as statistical analysis tools or scientific information have prevented these data form being analyzed or published. Lack of funding is pervasive in all aspects of resource management in the VI. Positions go unfilled or are eliminated due to lack of funds, and many people end up doing the work of several people and often work outside their area of expertise. This greatly limits the effectiveness of resource management and also contributes to high turnover rates in personnel. 42 How to Respond to These Threats Human activities have a significant influence on this land-sea relationship. Poor land use practices have resulted in the removal of forest cover, leaving land and marine communities exposed to the damaging effects of unfiltered stormwater. Other nonpoint source pollutants, including household chemical products and trash, are washed along with sediment down these conduits into the coastal wetlands or directly into the sea. Lack of awareness or concern leads to violations of regulations and increased degradation of the physical environment. The inability to respond to these degradations, through lack of personnel, training, funding, or other causes results in impairments that are not easily corrected. While each of these identified threats can potentially be managed or mitigated, combined they synergistically result in a steady erosion of habitat quality and a decline in species abundance and degradation of community and ecosystem integrity. Rather than focusing on single threats or causes of species declines, resource managers would be better served by thinking about ecosystems as a whole and what critical components are needed to allow ecosystem function. Healthy, or functioning, forests provide habitat for a range of terrestrial species, and deliver important ecosystem services such as soil retention, nutrient cycling, and climate regulation. In order to maintain function, forests require pollinators, seed dispersers, soil, and clean water. By thinking holistically, small actions, such as ensuring the forests are buffered from encroachment and water contaminants are minimized, can provide support for ecosystem integrity, which will then support wildlife species. When faced with irreversibly changing ecosystems, resource managers are increasingly being called upon to develop adaptation mechanisms to allow species the opportunity to survive under changing conditions. Commonly applied adaptation mechanisms include establishing migration corridors, which in the USVI can be achieved by protecting forested corridors and riparian gut systems that connect habitat patches. Buffering wetlands and mangroves with woodland habitat allows for upland migration, while planting seagrape trees behind beach dunes can protect from upland erosion, and allows for dune migration. Protecting species from controllable stressors allow organisms to better cope with uncontrollable stressors, for example controlling sediment will allow corals to expend critical energy towards surviving sea temperatures, thus reducing synergistic effects. All of these threats are bad enough on their own, but combined, they lead us down a trail of ecosystem change, to the point of no return. The next chapter details specific actions towards addressing these threats This section was researched and drafted by Carolyn Courtien, Kristen Ewan, Katharine Egan, Lora Johansen, Akacia Halliday, Elizabeth Smith, Vernita Smith, Amelie Jensen, and Alex Gutting, University of the Virgin Islands Master in Marine and Environmental Science Natural Resource Management 2016 Cohort, with additional material and editorial oversight by JV and RJP. Banner photo: Habitat fragmentation on St. Thomas by R. Platenberg 43 Chapter Five The VI-WAP Conservation Strategy Conservation Goals for VI Resources The VI-WAP Conservation Management Strategy consists of three key parts: overarching goals for successful fish and wildlife conservation and management in the territory (Table 5.1), the strategies for achieving those goals at the ecosystem and social infrastructure level (Table 5.2), and the specific wildlife-related action items that DFW and partners can implement to achieve these large scale goals (Table 5.3). A combination of planning processes were used to develop the conservation goals. We used the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process devised by The Nature Conservancy (TNC 2007) to identify targets (conservation status of resources) and key ecological attributes of the resources and targets, and to identify and rank threats to those attributes. We also used a Structured Decision Making approach, as developed by USFWS (USFWS 2008), to evaluate stakeholder values and develop objective hierarchies. We drew upon resources contained within in the national guidance for climate change adaptation for fish, wildlife, and plants (NFWPCAP 2012). For more specifics on the planning process, see Appendix 1.3. The revised VI-WAP takes a territorial and ecosystem management approach to conservation management of species and habitats. Through interviews with stakeholders and public meetings, eight overarching goals were identified that address the main concerns that were cited by stakeholders across resources. These goals fall into the following action categories: habitat and species protection, habitat and species management, capacity, research, education and outreach, adaptive management, adaptation and mitigation, and economics/incentives (Table 5.1). Although these goals are by necessity very broad, they are organizing goals that give context to specific 44 individual projects and also identify areas that may be receiving less focus and resources yet are key to overall conservation of VI natural resources. Table 5.1. VI-Wildlife Action Plan goals for habitat and species management in the USVI. Goals Objective Problem Statement Goal 1: Protect habitat to support healthy fish and wildlife populations and ecosystem function Habitat and species protection: to maximize the extent of protected and managed areas to support a wide range of species and ecosystem services Although there is substantial area within the USVI terrestrial and marine environments that is under statutory protection, not all areas receive equivalent management, and not all vulnerable species and habitats are adequately protected. Few protected areas are connected to allow migration, and adding new areas can be challenging due to ownership and land values. There is a need for a creative and coordinated approach to increasing the amount and value of protected lands. Goal 2: Manage species and habitats to protect ecosystem function and resiliency Habitat and species management: to minimize reduction in population abundances and distributions of species of concern or ecosystem function by optimizing the ability of species & habitats to adjust to directional ecosystem changes The protection of VI species and habitats varies across CZM Tiers and according to the type of activity proposed, rather than on species/habitats threats and conservation needs. There is a need for a more coordinated approach towards managing species and habitats to avoid degradation of ecosystem function and services. Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms for effective management of species and habitats Capacity: to optimize access to resources (training, funding, expertise, information) across jurisdictions through coordinated collaborations and effective policy frameworks Coordination and communication across agencies and organizations within the USVI is limited, which can restrict opportunities to effectively accomplish shared goals. The availability of funds for new personnel, research, and access to technology is limited. There is a need to identify opportunities for collaboration, accessing funds, increasing personnel, and streamlining policies such that they can be effectively applied. Goal 4: Increase knowledge and information on species and habitats and their responses to impacts Research: to maximize understanding of ecological processes of species and habitats There are many deficiencies in the scientific understanding of species and habitats, and particularly their response to realized or predicted ecosystem change. There is a need to increase the ability of researchers, resource managers, and the community to collect and share data and to interpret the results 45 Goals Objective Problem Statement Goal 5: Increase awareness and motivate action to safeguard fish & wildlife populations and ecosystem function Education and outreach: to maximize community awareness of species and habitats and their ecosystem services, the impact of human actions on these resources, and the policies for ensuring protection of these resources The level of general understanding and appreciation of terrestrial and marine species and habitats within the USVI is poor, leading to erosion of habitat quality and species persecution due to carelessness. There is a need to raise environmental awareness and appreciation within the community to foster stewardship of resources Goal 6: Support adaptive management through integrated monitoring and use of decision support tools Adaptive Management: to optimize ecosystem management to allow adjustments based on ecosystem response Resource management personnel do not always know what to do with data collected or how to use it to better structure management activities. There is a need for a coordinated approach towards decision making based on analysis of outcomes of previous action Goal 7: Reduce stressors to help fish, wildlife and ecosystems adapt to changing environmental conditions Adaptation and Mitigation: to optimize the ability of species and habitats to adjust to directional ecosystem changes Environmental conditions are changing in ways that cannot be reversed, such as habitat loss to development, establishment of invasive competitors/predators, and climate change. Vulnerable species and habitats are not able to persist under these conditions without targeted management and threat reduction. While it might not be possible to reverse these impacts, there is a need to reduce other stressors to provide support for ecosystem adaptation Goal 8: Support sustainable cultural, subsistence, recreational, and commercial use of species and habitats Economics/Incentives: to maximize stewardship and sustainable use of resources through the use of economic incentives The political emphasis within the USVI community is geared toward economic growth, with goals that are often in conflict with the protection and appropriate use of natural resources. There is a need to increase the perceived value of ecosystem services within the community by providing realized economic benefit 2018 VI-WAP Strategies Once these goals were identified and agreed upon, stakeholder and expert input accompanied by extensive review of reports and research into management approaches was used to identify a comprehensive range of strategies (Table 5.2) to address the goals. We opted to focus the strategies around ecosystem change, rather than at species level because many resources in the USVI are experiencing directional and irreversible changes, e.g., habitat loss due to residential and infrastructural development, establishment of invasives, and climate change. We also did not want to limit the scope of the strategies to what one entity could accomplish. It is expected that the strategies presented in the WAP will be used by multiple agencies and can be a starting point for conversations about collaboration and coordination of effort within the USVI and beyond to regional entities. 46 After the broad scale strategies were developed, we aligned them to the SGCN and habitats by developing Priority Actions (Table 5.3) that identify specific needs for resources along with measurable indicators and potential partners for implementation. By working towards these measurable indicators, successes and shortfalls can be specifically identified for planning and for the 2025 WAP update. The SGCN and habitats are described in detail within Volume Two. Implementation of the VI-WAP Strategy and Action Priorities Although the VI-WAP is managed by the DFW, the conservation goals cannot be achieved by this agency alone. Indeed, many of these actions are outside the scope of DFW’s mission. Table 5.3 specifies partners that would enable success for specific strategies, including filling in gaps in capacity. These goals and priority actions address the need to fill capacity gaps through shared resources, including funding, expertise, and data and describe partnership opportunities. The priority actions table identifies specific actions and measurable indicators that can be incorporated into SWG funded projects for DFW. Progress towards these actions in particular is expected to be evaluated in the 2025 update of the WAP. However these specific actions should always be conducted with the broader goals and strategies in mind as the ultimate avenue to success in conservation. In implementation, it would be beneficial for entities such as UVI to enter into standing contractual agreements with DFW for collaboration, e.g., by establishing a paid student internship program towards accomplishing research needs within the division. DFW may also establish a community grant program with SWG funding to increase local participation in activities towards accomplishing WI-WAP goals. Such a program would meet the Required Element 8 for public participation in SWAP implementation. A VI-WAP implementation website can provide results of ongoing studies such that information can be accessible by the community and can be used for decision-making by other entities. Banner photo: Coastal Field Day at The Southgate Coastal Reserve by J. Valiulis 47 Table 5.2. VI-WAP conservation strategies aligned with goals Goal Description Possible Action Themes 1 Protect habitat to support healthy fish and wildlife populations and ecosystem function 1.1 Identify and secure areas for inclusion in an ecologically-connected protected-areas network of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine habitats to support a broad range of species and increase resilience to ecosystem change 1.1.1 Identify and prioritize areas for protecting Conduct inventory, mapping, and decision making; prioritize survey effort for data deficient and vulnerable species 1.1.2 Secure areas for inclusion into protected areas network Establish acquisitions of priority areas, using mechanisms such as purchasing and easements, Territorial Park System 1.1.3 Establish protection measures on private lands Promote landowner agreements using mechanisms such as landowner agreements: HCPs, easements, Forest Stewardship, and other incentive programs (USFWS, USFS) 1.2 Conserve, restore, and establish new ecological connections among conservation areas to facilitate species migrations, range shifts, and other transitions. 1.2.1 Identify migration corridors Conduct mapping and modeling (essential habitat, habitat change, retreat models, vulnerability assessments) 1.2.2 Secure and/or recover habitat Conduct habitat restoration, easements, use of green infrastructure, constrain development constraint to allow migration and buffers, adjust shoreline boundaries to accommodate sea level rise 2 Manage species and habitats to protect ecosystem function and resiliency 2.1 Update current or develop new species, habitat, and land and water management plans, programs and practices to support adaptation and responses to threats 2.1.1 Identify gaps in knowledge and management needs as priorities for management action Conduct inventory, species and habitat studies, data sharing, ecosystem change predictions & scenario planning 2.1.2 Align existing management plans (Invasive spp, Climate Change, ESA Recovery Plans, Regional plans) to reduce conflicting objectives and build partnerships Promote management decision making with other agencies and stakeholders, co-management agreements 2.1.3 Develop best management practices guidelines Establish data collection and monitoring protocols, ecosystem management approach, use of vulnerability assessments and scenario planning to design management action, zoning and mooring plans 2.2 Develop and apply species/habitat-specific management approaches to address critical threats 2.2.1 Focus management effort towards species and habitats of concern and ecosystem service providers Conduct actions to maintain habitat integrity of coastal marine habitats and wetlands, and ecosystem support for herbivorous marine fish, migratory birds, sea turtles, bats, frogs 2.2.2 Promote appropriate use and implementation of management actions Develop methods and protocols for consistent application of management action and permitting, effectiveness measures and accountability, monitoring and adaptive capacity. 2.2.3 Establish effectiveness measures Conduct assessment of effectiveness of actions, monitoring and follow-through, accountability for project budgets and timelines. 2.3 Actively manage species and habitats to maintain biodiversity, ecosystem function, connectivity, and resiliency 2.3.1 Minimize reduction in population abundances of species of concern and ecosystem service providers Conduct habitat restoration, threat reduction, translocation, captive breeding, disease management 48 2.3.2 Restore native communities Activate removal and replacement of invasive plants and animals, use of locally sourced spp in landscaping, guidelines on native plant propagation 2.3.3 Build resiliency by maintaining redundancy of diverse habitats Promote protection of connected habitat patches through policy and guidelines 2.4 Conserve genetic diversity by protecting diverse populations and genetic material across full range 2.4.1 Conduct genetic inventory of species to reveal management units, population structure, and metapopulation dynamics Survey and collect genetic samples from species of concern, terrestrial spp on cays & across islands, spp with marine dispersal, species with limited dispersal ability 2.4.2 Appropriately manage genetically isolated populations and management units Establish connectivity between populations through corridors or translocation; maintain isolation as appropriate for population structure 3 Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms for effective management of species and habitats 3.1 Increase the awareness and capacity of natural resource managers towards species, habitats, and stressors 3.1.1 Optimize training and further education opportunities to resource managers and regulatory personnel Create online training and certification programs, online guidelines, training for law enforcement and other regulatory agency personnel, development of planning and management guidelines, support for regional management conferences, support for further education of existing personnel; topics: invasive species response, soil conservation, native plant nurseries, restoration practices 3.1.2 Maximize access to technology and research Improve access to technology and ability to use technology, access and training in GIS, access to published research, research and data clearinghouse 3.1.3 Increase redundancy in personnel knowledge and skills Hire qualified personnel, require training to increase competence of existing personnel, increase staffing of regulatory agencies, create new jobs in ecosystem management (including invasive spp response), establish "train the trainer" programs to increase local redundancy (more people have access ) 3.2 Facilitate a coordinated response to fish, wildlife, and habitat conservation at landscape, regional, national, and international scales across state, federal, and tribal natural resource agencies and private conservation organizations. 3.2.1 Optimize participation and coordination of effort with regional entities Engage in interagency partnerships using agreement mechanisms (DPNR, USDA, UVI, CLCC, USFWS, NPS, NGOs), enhance capability for data sharing and communication framework (online, F2F, conferences), provide financial and logistic support for non-profits, establish MOUs for shared resources (including personnel, expertise, funding and data). 3.2.2 Maximize environmental enforcement capability Improve efficiency of permitting processes, hotline for reporting violations, improved response from enforcement personnel, training in identification of protected resources and interpretation of regulations, active participation in conservation action 3.2.3 Foster interactions with landowners, NGOs, local experts, and federal agencies to identify opportunities for conservation action that might not be available to small landowners Improve guidelines for land clearance and sediment control, provide access to information on available information and funding resources, build landowner cooperatives to access resources available only for large areas (e.g., Forest Stewardship) 3.3 Review existing regulatory and policy frameworks for conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitats to identify opportunities to improve their usefulness to address impacts were appropriate. 3.3.1 Create USVI Land and Water Use Plan Identify areas with conservation value, establish single-tier system, update zoning maps to reflect locations of conservation resources, establish mooring plan, update flood plain/sea level rise zones 3.3.2 Update and revise natural resource policy in VI Code & VI Rules and Regulations Revise VI Endangered and Indigenous Species Act, incorporate ecosystem service protections, build adaptability into policy to allow rapid updating, promulgate list of locally protected species, 49 simplify and clarify language of VIC, provide online access to and interpretation of rules & regulations. Increase awareness of rules & regs in community. 3.3.3 Develop and implement new policies to counter impacts from ecosystem change Develop climate change adaptation policy, invasive species biosecurity policy, limit sunscreen and other reef toxins, reduce marine debris through limits on single-use plastics, protection for essential habitat (habitat delineations used like wetland delineations), habit 3.4 Optimize use of existing fish, wildlife, and plant conservation funding sources to design, deliver, and evaluate ecosystem adaptation programs. 3.4.1 Maximize shared and leveraged funding opportunities between agencies. Establish streamlined MOU framework with reduced overhead requirements for partnerships and resource-sharing between agencies, UVI, and NGOs, training for grant-writing and grant management; revenue-raising permits/licenses for hunting & fishing with money tied in with conservation. 3.4.2 Increase awareness of funding opportunities available to support ecosystem management Establish web-based clearinghouse for funding resources; establish public SWG fund 4 Increase knowledge and information on species and habitats and their responses to impacts 4.1 Identify knowledge gaps and define research priorities via a collaborative process among federal, state, tribal, private conservation organizations, and academic resource managers, and research scientists. 4.1.1 Increase coordination and communication between resource managers and scientists to ensure research is connected to management needs Seek opportunities to establish MOUs for research (UVI, NGOs, consultants, fed agencies) to support management (CZM, DFW); increase participation in research seminars/meetings 4.1.2 Bring managers and scientists together at local and regional levels to prioritize research needs and share relevant findings Develop research-management conferences; joint DPNR-UVI meetings, newsletters & list-serve, online resource library for dissemination of research publications 4.1.3 Prioritize research on based on imminent conservation needs Seek opportunities to conduct research on near-term risk environments (cays, beaches); quantify ecosystem service valuations 4.2 Conduct research into ecological aspects of species and habitats, including likely impacts and the adaptive capacity of species, communities and ecosystems, and their associated ecosystem services, working through existing partnerships or new collaborations as needed (e.g., USGCRP, NCA, CSCs, RISAs, and others). 4.2.1 Support basic research on life histories and food web dynamics to better understand and predict responses to threats and adaptive capacity Conduct research on data deficient spp., inventories, ecological parameters, impacts of fragmentation, spp distributions and changes with climate change, habitat resiliency. Indicator species. Population genetics. Migrations. Engage community and schools in research participation 4.2.2 Support research on adaptation management implications Develop monitoring protocols, lessons learned & examples, experimental studies on system response 4.2.3 Accelerate research on ecosystem services valuations Conduct research on quantifying ecosystem services; engage in stakeholder ecosystem valuation exercises 4.3 Advance understanding of threat impacts and species and ecosystem responses through modeling. 4.3.1 Define suite of ecological parameters needed to build predictive models of response to ecosystem change Conduct species & habitat studies, incorporate research findings from other regions where threat has been impacting for longer 4.3.2 Develop modeling of responses of vulnerable species to impacts, including projected future distributions and viability assessment Establish GIS and modelling capacity; predictions and scenario planning for habitat loss, invasives (arrival pathways, impacts), sea level rise, precipitation changes (drought monitoring program) 4.3.3 Conduct modeling of distribution and impact scenarios of increasing threat risks of climate change, disease, pollution, and invasive species Create invasion/climate change/disease scenarios based on responses of these threats in similar systems 50 4.3.4 Provide access to current climate data and threat models and ensure alignment with data management and decision making tools Establish web-based clearinghouse for data and data synthesis 5 Increase awareness and motivate action to safeguard fish & wildlife populations and ecosystem function 5.1 Increase public awareness and understanding of local impacts to natural resources and ecosystem services at regionally and culturally-appropriate scales. 5.1.1 Develop focused outreach efforts and materials aimed at local authorities, regulatory and enforcement officials, policy decision makers, and politicians on ecosystem services, climate impacts, the impacts of local stressors, and the value of supporting adaptation measures Educate senators; update Waves of Change and encourage use; informational products for upper level management 5.1.2 Develop outreach efforts to other key audiences, such as community and cultural leaders, tourism, and private landowners Use social media, PSAs; engage Tourism, Education, Waste Management, churches, businesses; address "fear of wildlife" and cultural values, creative venues for advertising key methods 5.1.3 Partner with key stakeholder groups (environmental organizations, dive shops and tour operators) to help develop and distribute messages tailored to interest groups and broader public. Evaluate effectiveness and provide guidance on messaging; reduce mixed/conflicting messaging, 5.1.4 Incorporate the importance of climate change and other drivers of ecosystem change impacts to ecosystem services in education curricula Promote early education; engage Dept of Ed and teachers, update environmental curricula 5.2 Engage the public through targeted education and outreach efforts and stewardship opportunities 5.2.1 Develop new and enhance existing programs to motivate action and engage citizens in monitoring impacts of ecosystem change Establish Citizen Science programs: Christmas Bird Count, Backyard Bird Count, Great VI Frog Count, snorkel clinics, beach cleanups 5.2.2 Make research and monitoring information widely available and easily understood Create web-based Citizen Science reporting site; PSAs and mini-documentaries on social media 5.2.3 Develop K-12 classroom educational materials and activities and provide training to teachers in their use Identify gaps in teaching capacity for delivery of environmental education, pollution/climate change/spp & habitats science fairs, UVI STEM outreach 5.2.4 Develop core messaging strategies and assessment of effectiveness for use within the culturally diverse USVI community Identify creative outreach methods; align messaging 5.3 Coordinate communication efforts across jurisdictions 5.3.1 Increase communication pathways between federal and local agencies, NGOs, and community Optimize coordination of messaging, centralized non-profit to help prioritize & focus environmental message 5.3.2 Engage non-environmental management personnel from government agencies Promote events and activities that include admin and support staff, newsletters, weekly update emails, social media 5.3.3 Provide access to tools to enhance communication and collaboration Establish online sharepoint for research articles, data, maps; web-based communication, guidelines for the use of social media 6 Support adaptive management through integrated monitoring and use of decision support tools 51 6.1 Support, coordinate, and where necessary develop integrated inventory, monitoring, observation, and information systems at multiple scales to detect and describe ecosystem change impacts on species, habitats, and ecosystems 6.1.1 Synthesize existing observations, monitoring, assessment, and decision support data to conduct a status review and gaps in knowledge analysis of existing monitoring networks Evaluate what's been done and lessons learned; CLCC or GEOcas as clearinghouse for monitoring data 6.1.2 Identify, develop, and disseminate "lessons learned" based on monitoring results "Learning by Doing", share results, build adaptability into plans; develop decision trees for resource management 6.1.3 Identify informative and measureable indicators of ecosystem change for a range of resources and develop monitoring protocols Identify indicators for temperature, drought, OA, sea level rise, invasives, disease (eg chytrid) 6.1.4 Support and develop coordinated long-term monitoring programs using indicators to monitor the response of species and habitat to ecosystem change and effectiveness of conservation actions Develop and share monitoring protocols, agree on informative indicators, co-management agreements; adaptation & effectiveness monitoring: mitigated lands, restoration. 6.1.5 Support a collaborative approach to acquire, process, archive, and disseminate data Establish data sharing agreements 6.2 Identify, develop, and employ decision support tools for managing under uncertainty (e.g., vulnerability and risk assessments, scenario planning, strategic habitat conservation approaches, forecasting, and adaptive management evaluation systems) via dialogue with scientists, managers (of natural resources and other sectors), economists, and stakeholders. 6.2.1 Develop predictive models of ecosystem change downscaled to VI to conduct vulnerability risk assessments of species, habitats, and ecosystems Work with CLCC, Southeastern Region Climate Center, USVI Climate Task Force; develop predictive models and scenario mapping for OA, SST, SLR, distributions of invasives and diseases 6.2.2 Engage scientists, managers, planners, permitting agencies, economists, and stakeholders in ecosystem change adaptation planning Promote interagency/inter-regional cooperation & collaboration. Partner with NGOS (education). CLCC. Partnerships to help with capacity deficiencies. Co-management, shared positions. 6.2.3 Ensure availability and guidance on the use of decision support tools Establish online clearing house for data 6.2.4 Use observation and monitoring systems in an adaptive management framework to evaluate the effectiveness of specific management actions and adapt management approaches accordingly Build adaptation into plans. Put plans online, allow for rapid revision 7 Reduce stressors to help fish, wildlife and ecosystems adapt to changing environmental conditions 7.1 Slow and reverse habitat loss and fragmentation. 7.1.1 Work with land use planners, permitting agencies and others to identify shared goals and potential conflicts in reducing/reversing habitat fragmentation and loss through planning, permitting, and zoning processes Implement Land and Water use plan. Mooring plans. Simplify and make transparent permitting process. Identify essential habitat for vulnerable species. Train personnel in use of GIS 7.1.2 Provide landowners with incentives for conservation and restoration of key wildlife habitat Increase awareness of resources on private lands, information on federal stewardship projects available, establish coalitions of landowners to increase benefit from stewardship programs. 52 7.1.3 Establish a dedicated mitigation banking program to compensate for unavoidable impacts to promote strategic habitat restoration and protection Promote no net loss of habitats, money goes towards restoration or acquisition projects 7.1.4 Minimize impacts of necessary infrastructure by siting on existing disturbed or degraded areas Establish no new habitat loss for alternative energy projects. 7.2 Slow, mitigate, and reverse where feasible ecosystem degradation from anthropogenic sources through land/ocean- use planning, water resource planning, pollution abatement, and the implementation of best management practices. 7.2.1 Reduce existing non-point source pollution, sediment, and solid waste input into marine environment through regulatory frameworks and best management practices Establish better BMPs & enforcement on sediment control; reduce land based sources of pollution, sediment runoff, nonpoint source pollution. Clean up guts (avoid input) 7.2.2 Develop watershed management plans to identify local sources and solutions for marine pollution input and wetland degradation Promote or regulate reduction or restriction on impervious surfaces, establish a watershed planning approach rather than parcel by parcel decision-making 7.2.3 Increase riparian buffers Restore woodland habitat along guts, restore shoreline mangroves, water greenbelts 7.3 Use, evaluate, and as necessary, improve existing programs to prevent, control, and eradicate invasive species and manage pathogens. 7.3.1 Using predictive models and data from other vulnerable regions, develop and disseminate lists of species, pests, and diseases that are likely to become invasive in the VI Develop and circulate lists of spp to look out for and to restrict permitted entry 7.3.2 Establish a biosecurity protocol by employing a multiple barrier approach for detecting and containing incoming and established invasive species Develop lists and ID guides & training in spp recognition for enforcement, border, and customs officials, signage; training on how to respond 7.3.3 Establish a detection & rapid response program to contain, control, or eradicate invasive species Obtain funding for equipment, training for response, increase "boots on the ground"; share invasive response equipment, training, and personnel across agencies 7.3.4 Establish a widely accessible reporting mechanism for collecting invasive species data Establish online data storage and access, dedicated data and response coordinator 7.3.5 Develop and apply integrated pest management protocols for development in vulnerable areas, such as cays. Adapt biosecurity protocols for use in VI, strict regulations and permitting for cay development 7.4 Reduce destructive capture practices (e.g., fisheries bycatch, destructive fishing gear), over-harvesting and illegal trade to help increase fish, wildlife, and plant adaptation. 7.4.1 Reduce bycatch of non-target species Reduce discarded monofilament line, ghost traps; increase education on appropriate response to capture of non-targeted species; better trap design 7.4.2 Reduce negative impacts of capture practices and gear on wildlife and habitats Reduce discarded monofilament line, ghost traps, ghost nets 7.4.3 Using stakeholder input and relevant data, determine sustainable harvest levels and threshold levels under ecosystem change scenarios Target Fishing Associations and tournaments to work within community to understand harvest needs, levels, sustainable practices 8 Support sustainable cultural, subsistence, recreational, and commercial use of species and habitats 8.1 Increase environmental economic opportunities 8.1.1 Create new career paths in ecosystem stewardship Provide retraining (species ID & ecology, messaging, entrepreneurship), provide tax incentives for new environmental stewardship businesses 53 8.1.2 Promote sustainable use of species and habitats while reducing threats from unsustainable practices Provide education on sustainable practices with permits and licenses, monitoring and enforcement of unsustainable activities 8.2 Develop incentive programs for sustainability 8.2.1 Expand financial incentive programs to promote ecosystem protection Provide landowners and stakeholder with incentive for conservation and restoration of key habitats and habitat features: tax relief through easements, grant-based stewardship programs. Blue Carbon markets, ecosystem service valuations 8.2.2 Develop indirect incentives through recognizing use of best management practices Establish Green Certifications, "Green Ratings" 54 Table 5.3. SGCN Priority Actions, listed by taxa. This table identifies actions that benefit SGCN along with indicators and potential partners for implementation. Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners Multiple Species Conserve large forested tracts with connectivity Goal 1: Habitat & species protection Extent and connectivity of native forest communities is ≥ current Terrestrial Species; Stenoderma rufum, Brachyphylla cavernarum DFW, CZM, CCZP, NPS, NGOs Replant native forest and riparian trees to restore, enhance, and maintain ecosystem function, buffer the habitat from encroachment, maintain connectivity between forested areas, and mitigate negative effects of climate change. Goal 2. Manage species and habitats Wetland and riparian buffer are ≥ regulated minimum setback Freshwater fauna, amphibians, birds, bats, all terrestrial species; Pollinators; Stenoderma rufum DFW, VIDOA, USDA-NRCS, USFS, NPS, NGOs Improve habitat through reforestation in areas that are protected but habitat has been degraded, such as the Southgate Coastal Reserve and Jack and Isaac Bay on St. Croix. Identify areas for potential habitat improvement on St. Thomas. Goal 2. Manage species and habitats Number of restoration projects for protected areas ≥ current Bats, landbirds, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles DFW, VIDOA, USDA-NRCS, area managers Address data gap needs for data deficient species to develop conservation actions Goal 4: Increase knowledge Reduction in number of data deficient species All data deficient species: freshwater fauna, terrestrial invertebrates, reptiles, birds, marine species DFW, NPS, UVI, NGOs Conduct research on species response to ecosystem change Goal 4: Increase knowledge Increase in research addressing ecosystem change factors Amphibians, bats, land/water/sea birds, reptiles, sea turtles, marine species DFW, UVI, NPS, NGOs Revise land use planning and permitting to protect habitat surrounding proposed development, with an emphasis on forest communities rather than single large trees. Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms Implementation of ecosystem approach to permitting All terrestrial species; erosion control DPNR Develop best management practices to reduce trash, sediment, and other point and nonpoint source contaminants into wetlands and streams. Goal 3: Enhance capacity and Implementation of effective sediment control Freshwater fauna, bats, amphibians, DPNR, WMA 55 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners regulatory mechanisms waterbirds, marine species Provide training to entities in acoustic methods for biodiversity monitoring. Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms # of workshops held and increase in use of bioacoustics Bats, birds, amphibians, insects DFW, UVI Establish agreements for coordination, communication and data sharing between entities committed to common goals (e.g., annual meetings, online listservs, data sharing platforms, etc) Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms; Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools MOUs across entities for data sharing; increase in joint funding proposals All species DFW, UVI, NPS, NGOs Conduct outreach to law enforcement officers and decision makers about laws and the value of wildlife and protected species to the economy of the VI. Goal 5: Increase awareness Number of training sessions ≥ current All species, especially species of special concern DPNR, DFW, DEE, VIPD, CBP, LEGVI Develop education programs within the community towards the value of wildlife and their ecosystem services with a goal of dispelling fears Goal 5: Increase awareness Curriculum in use, # of teachers trained, development of material Bats, terrestrial reptiles, amphibians, snakes; Chilabothrus granti DFW, UVI, VIDOEd, EcoSchools, NGOs Engage schools and local community in citizen science efforts Goal 5: Increase awareness # of Citizen Science projects & participation ≥ current Amphibians, birds, coastal resources DFW, UVI, VIDOEd, EcoSchools, NGOs Improve vigilance and response towards potential invasive species introductions Goal 7: Reduce stressors # non-native species detected, reporting & response time All species; Chilabothrus granti, sea turtles DFW, DEE, CBP, VIDOA, USDA- APHIS Map habitats to enable monitoring of changes in vegetation structure to trigger habitat management action. Goal 1: Habitat & species protection; Goal 6: Adaptive management with Extent of mapped habitat ≥ current; increase in use of mapping products in decision-making All species DFW, UVI, NGOs, CZM, NPS, USFWS, VIDOA (Forestry) 56 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners monitoring and support tools Develop protocols to address range of management actions needed in response to monitoring outcomes Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools All projects include monitoring and decision models All resources DFW, UVI, NGOs Freshwater Fauna Initiate studies on basic ecology and life histories, including reproductive cycles and migration requirements. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Decrease in data deficient species All freshwater species DFW, UVI, NGOs Identify monitoring methods for wetlands and wetland fauna. Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools Increase in species with monitoring parameters All freshwater species DFW, UVI, NGOs Reduce contaminants in guts by removing dumpster sites from roads or install measures to prevent trash and contaminants from entering watercourses from dumpsters. Goal 7: Reduce Stressors Anthropogenic debris on wetlands < current All freshwater species WMA Restore water flow into and through guts to ensure connectivity with marine environment. Goal 2. Manage species and habitats Water flow in guts > current All freshwater species DPW, DFW, NGOs Amphibians Conduct research on amphibian response to environmental change. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Increase in projects related to impacts All amphibians DFW, UVI, NGOs Monitor phenology of seasonal calling activity. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Establishment and use of database on phenology All amphibians with possible exception of E. lentus DFW, UVI, NGOs Develop and implement protocols for determining status and distribution of E. lentus. Goal 4: Increase knowledge; Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools Research focused on E. lentus Eleutherodactylus lentus DFW, UVI, NGOs Explore reintroduction potential of P. lemur within its former range. Goal 2. Manage species and habitats Surveys for P. lemur habitat Peltophryne lemur DFW, UVI, NGOs, USFWS Conduct annual monitoring of activity and distribution. Goal 6: Adaptive management with Establishment and use of monitoring All amphibians DFW, UVI, NGOs 57 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners monitoring and support tools protocol and decision tools Assess exposure to pesticide residue and other contaminants. Goal 7: Reduce stressors Research on exposure All amphibians DFW, UVI, DPNR Terrestrial Reptiles Protect and manage forest cover and soils to provide support for subterranean Antillotyphlops and Amphisbaena that are likely to experience disproportionate impacts from long-term climate changes that include longer periods of drought. Goal 1: Habitat & species protection Sightings of subterranean spp > current Antillotyphlops richardii, Amphisbaena fenestrata DFW, UVI, NGOs Restore habitat to establish connectivity between forested areas on St. Thomas’ east end to improve migration potential for tree boas. Goal 1: Habitat & species protection Extent and connectivity of native forest communities is ≥ current Chilabothrus granti DFW Increase distributional surveys that include population genetic analysis with priority given to locating and evaluating populations of Chilabothrus and Spondylurus. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Distributional range maps; # genetic samples collected Chilabothrus granti and Spondylurus spp. DFW, UVI, NGOs, USFWS Control feral cat populations. Goal 7: Reduce stressors Feral cat populations << current All reptiles USDA-APHIS Control or eradicate invasive Pholidoscelis exsul populations on St. Croix Goal 7: Reduce stressors P. exsul populations << current All native lizard species on STX; Pholidoscelis polops DFW, USDA- APHIS Increase public education targeted at dispelling fears and promoting the value of ecosystem services. Goal 5: Increase awareness # educational outreach products and events; curriculum in use All reptiles DFW, UVI, NGOs, VIDOEd, EcoSchools Land and Waterbirds Identify opportunities for acquisition and protection of Important Bird Areas (e.g., Perseverance Bay) Goal 1: Habitat & species protection # areas identified; purchase agreements All land and waterbirds DFW, USFWS, NGOs Establish and maintain regular standardized monitoring of bird breeding sites, wetlands, and forested areas across all three islands and including cays. The online bird survey data reporting site, ebird Caribbean (http://ebird.org/content/caribbean/) should be used to record and share bird observations. Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools Use of ebird> current All land and waterbirds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS 58 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners Expand bird banding beyond SPNWR to include multiple sites and habitats on St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John to reveal movements between islands. Goal 4: Increase knowledge; Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools # bird surveys across all islands > current All landbirds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Prioritize suitable wetland habitats for preservation and restoration as refueling areas for migratory shorebirds. Goal 1: Habitat & species protection # of wetlands with protection > current All waterbirds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Evaluate the effects of the introduction and establishment of the red-tailed boa to St. Croix. Stomach content analysis of boas and periodic bird surveys in areas of high snake density should be initiated. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Establishment of invasive program for data collection and response Primarily Landbirds, potentially waterbirds and seabirds DFW, USFWS Participate in Caribbean wide efforts, such as the Caribbean Waterbird Census, to help regional conservation efforts. Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools Use of ebird for wetland birds > current All bird species DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Colonies of ground nesting waterbirds should be identified and managed to limit negative impacts from invasive predators, human disturbance and any other threats. Goal 2. Manage species and habitats Identifiable stressors < current Charadrius wilsonia, Sturnula antillarum, Haematopus palliatus, and other ground nesting birds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Improve ecotourism and bird watching enterprises that focus on habitat conservation. Coordinate with BirdsCaribbean to extend the Caribbean Bird Trail to the USVI and train bird guides Goal 5: Increase awareness; Goal 8: Support sustainable uses Bird tours and tourism info > current All bird species UVI, NGOs, NPS, VIDOT Seabirds Enhance community awareness of sensitive breeding areas on cays and in wetlands, along with increased enforcement, to limit visitation to these important areas during the breeding season. Goal 5: Increase awareness Human disturbance to breeding colonies < current All nesting seabirds DFW, DEE 59 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners Conduct research to estimate age-specific survival and connectivity between sites. Population structure and habitat use of colonies should continue to be monitored. (Metapopulation dynamics) Goal 4: Increase knowledge # colonies monitored > current All nesting seabirds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Develop actions to reduce the use of single-use plastics in the community and better solid waste management is needed to protect sea birds from ingesting or become entangled in plastic debris. Goal 7: Reduce stressors Reduction in these items in annual CoastWeeks cleanups Birds, marine species, sea turtles WMA, DFW Support local fish stocks by working with local fishers. Goal 8: Support sustainable uses # fishers involved in management > current All seabirds DFW, UVI Control or eradicate invasive species such as goats and rats from cays with sensitive nesting colonies. Goal 7: Reduce stressors Rats and goats on cays << current All nesting seabirds DFW, USDA- APHIS Work with the fishing community to reduce broken and cut monofilament lines to reduce impacts to birds accidentally hooked that then become entangled. Goal 5: Increase awareness Education/outreach > current; bird entanglements < current All seabirds DFW, UVI Explore the feasibility and the likelihood of success of reintroducing seabird species that no longer nest in the VI, such as the Red Footed Booby. Goal 2. Manage species and habitats Development of monitoring & decision models Sula sula, possibly Fregata magnificens DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Establish satellite tracking of migratory species to reveal foraging areas and migration pathways. This information can be used to develop spatial analyses of breeding populations to enhance a metapopulation approach to management that is also cross- jurisdictional. Goal 4: Increase knowledge # birds tracked > current; monitoring & decision trees > current All seabirds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Identify key locations for targeting outreach efforts to reduce hunting, bycatch, and egg poaching threats. Goal 7: Reduce stressors Focused outreach > current All seabirds DFW, NGOs Habitat mapping and monitoring changes in vegetation structure can be used to trigger habitat management action. Goal 1: Habitat & species protection Extent of mapped habitat ≥ current; use of mapping products in decision-making All seabirds DFW, UVI, USFWS, NGOs, NPS Bats Protect maternity roost sites from visitation and disturbance Goal 1: Habitat & species protection # roosts located > current; human disturbance < current Brachyphylla cavernarum, DFW, UVI, NGOs 60 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners Artibeus jamaicensis Conduct surveys to determine basic information such as locations of roost sites and key habitat features. Goal 4: Increase knowledge: Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools # known roosts/habitat features > current All bats; Stenoderma rufum DFW, UVI, NGOs Assess impacts of power-generating wind turbines on mortality to bats and birds. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Data on mortality > current All bats; Stenoderma rufum DFW, UVI, NGOs, VIDOEn Establish acoustic and video monitoring of roost sites and resource-rich areas Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools # areas monitoring with bioacoustics > current All bats; Stenoderma rufum DFW, UVI, NGOs Develop training program for pest control services to reduce inhumane destruction of bat roosts associated with human habitations, as well as reduction in pesticide use overall. Goal 5: Increase awareness # pest control personnel trained > current Molossus molossus DFW, UVI, DPNR Conduct studies on exposure to pesticides and other contaminants. Goal 4: Increase knowledge Data on exposure All bats; Noctilio leporinus DFW, UVI, DPNR Conduct genetic studies to evaluate population structure and metapopulation dynamics Goal 4: Increase knowledge # research projects on metapopulations > current All bats; Stenoderma rufum, all other spp DFW, UVI, NGOs Conduct nonlethal sampling for the presence of lyssavirus and other pathogens Goal 7: Reduce stressors Establishment of monitoring program Molossus molossus, Artibeus jamaicensis CDC, VIDOH, VIDOA, DFW, UVI, NGOs Sea Turtles Control/eradicate mammalian predators from sea turtle nesting areas Goal 7: Reduce stressors # nest sites protected > current All sea turtle species, especially Chelonia mydas and Eretmochelys imbricata USDA-APHIS, DFW, USFWS, NPS, NGOs Expand the number of beaches that are monitored for turtle nesting activity, especially on St. Thomas and St. John. Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools # beaches surveyed annually > current All sea turtle species, especially Chelonia mydas DFW, UVI, NGOs, NPS, USFWS 61 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners and Eretmochelys imbricata Develop actions to reduce the use of single-use plastics in the community and better solid waste management is needed to protect sea turtles from ingesting or become entangled in plastic debris. Goal 7: Reduce stressors Reduction in these items in annual CoastWeeks cleanups All sea turtle species VIWMA, CZM, DFW Conduct outreach to the general public and businesses that interact with turtles (e.g., dive shops, beachfront businesses, boat tours) as to how to properly interact with turtles without harming them Goal 5: Increase awareness Increase in information/outreach; harassment reports < current All sea turtle species DFW, UVI, NGOs, NPS, USFWS, CZM Increase awareness of disorientation of sea turtles due to improper lighting. Develop funding sources to assist private landowners in updating lighting with “turtle friendly” lighting. Goal 5: Increase awareness Increase in information/outreach; disorientation reports < current All sea turtle species DFW, UVI, NGOs, NPS, USFWS, CZM Marine Fish and Invertebrates Develop best management practices to reduce trash, sediment, and other point and nonpoint source contaminants into the marine environment Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms; Goal 7: Reduce stressors Implementation of effective sediment control All marine fish and invertebrates DPNR, WMA, UVI Establish coastal vegetation buffers to stabilize shorelines and filter land-based sources of contamination Goal 1: Habitat & species protection; Goal 7: Reduce stressors Shoreline buffers are ≥ regulated minimum setback All marine fish and invertebrates, but especially those in nearshore habitats DFW, UVI, NGOs, NPS, NOAA, CZM Conduct surveys to identify local distribution and habitat associations of marine invertebrates Goal 4: Increase knowledge; Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools # Data Deficient spp < current Marine Invertebrates UVI, DFW, NOAA Expand research on fish breeding aggregations to protect important breeding areas Goal 1: Habitat & species protection # essential breeding habitat protected > current Aggregate breeders UVI, DFW, NOAA Conduct studies of larval distribution through oceanographic modelling to identify priority areas for connectivity Goal 4: Increase knowledge Research conducted on larval distributions All marine fish and invertebrates UVI, DFW, NOAA 62 Priority Action Goal Indicators Benefits to Partners Conduct standardized fishery-independent monitoring surveys to assess stock conditions and the efficacy of management measures. Goal 6: Adaptive management with monitoring and support tools Establishment of fisheries-independent monitoring program; decision tools Priority fisheries species DFW, NOAA, UVI Identify additional areas for inclusion into Marine Protected Areas Goal 1: Habitat & species protection List of potential MPAs developed All marine fish and invertebrates UVI, DFW, CZM, NOAA, NPS, NGOs Re-establish and support native herbivores within coral reef systems to reduce algal cover Goal 2. Manage species and habitats # herbivores > current Coral reefs and associated species UVI, DFW, CZM, NOAA, NPS, NGOs Re-establish and support native predators (incl. sharks) to improve ecosystem function across trophic levels Goal 2. Manage species and habitats # predators > current; spp richness > current Sharks and other predatory species UVI, DFW, CZM, NOAA, NPS, NGOs Install and maintain moorings in high traffic locations to protect reef and seagrass habitats Goal 1: Habitat & species protection; Goal 2. Manage species and habitats # moorings > current Coral reefs and seagrass beds and associated species DPNR, NOAA, NPS Establish and enforce a ban on harmful sunscreen products; increase awareness within the local and tourism community of the damage caused by these products Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms; Goal 5: Increase awareness Availability of these products locally << current Coral and associated reef species DPNR, NGOs Marine Mammals Promote ecotourism and whale-watching enterprises Goal 5: Increase awareness # tours offered > current Primarily whale species NGOs, VIDOT Establish “hotline” for sightings and strandings Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms Establishment and use of hotline All marine mammal species DFW, USFWS, NPS Increase education of boaters and tour operators of marine mammal encounter guidelines Goal 3: Enhance capacity and regulatory mechanisms Increase in information/outreach; harassment reports < current All marine mammal species DFW, NPS, VIDOT, NGOs, Boating community 63 Partner acronyms listed in table Territorial Government Federal Government DPNR Department of Planning and Natural Resources CBP Customs and Border Control CCZP Coastal and Comprehensive Zone Planning CDC Center for Disease Control CZM Coastal Zone Management NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration DEE Division of Environmental Enforcement NPS National Park Service DFW Division of Fish and Wildlife USDA US Dept. Agriculture DPW Department of Public Works APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service LEGVI VI Legislature NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service VIDOA VI Dept. of Agriculture USFS US Forest Service VIDOEd VI Dept. of Education USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service VIDOEn VI Dept. of Energy VIDOH VI Dept. of Health VIDOT VI Dept. of Tourism Other Local Entities VIPD VI Police Department UVI University of the Virgin Islands WMA Waste Management Authority NGOs Non-governmental Organizations (e.g., St. Croix Environmental Association, Coral Bay Community Council) EcoSchools Boating Community Area Managers 64 Chapter Six Ecosystem Services Peter Freeman Northside Resource Economics The USVI ecosystems provide a range of benefits to the territorial population, and the provision of such ecosystem services stem from the myriad functions performed by the species and habitats reviewed in the VI-WAP. Ecosystem services have been defined many ways different for analytical purposes (Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997, de Groot et al. 2002, Wallace 2007, 2008), most generally as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Alcamo 2003). Presented in this chapter are institutional, ecological, and economic frameworks for implementing an ecosystem service approach in the USVI. Included is a discussion of how ecosystem services can be used to coordinate and add value to single-species wildlife management and planning in the territory and the benefits of doing so, a guide to federal programs and statutes that can help the align an ecosystem service approach in the territory with ongoing initiatives, and a discussion from both an ecological and economic perspective of ecosystem services provided by the species and habitats reviewed in the VI-WAP, as well as opportunities to move forward with ecosystem service research in the territory. Institutional Framework An ecosystem services approach can be applied to add value to single-species management in the territory by systematically characterizing interactions between ecological resources, and between resources and human activities, resulting from local environmental changes and management actions. Incorporating ecosystem services into wildlife planning and management can help balance outcomes, both ecological and socioeconomic, within department objectives, mandates, and regulatory constraints. It does not replace existing objectives or priorities, but rather provides 65 additional information about how to best meet them. Ecosystem service evaluations can add value to a range of decision contexts, including area-based planning, regulatory decision analysis, environmental damage assessment, environmental management, and development of conservation instruments (see Preston and Raudsepp-Hearne (2017) for a detailed guide for each context, and NESP (2014) for U.S. case studies). Specifically, it can help reveal tradeoffs, prioritize actions, estimate costs and benefits, identify unintended ecological and social consequences, demonstrate win-win solutions, identify potential partners and funding sources, leverage actions and develop strategies to address large-scale threats and issues. Characterization of ecosystem service provision can also identify co-benefits relevant to other efforts, which can in turn help shift program funding and engage external beneficiaries (e.g., businesses, territorial and federal agencies, regional governments and organizations) in cost-sharing programs or partnerships to improve ecosystem services provision. Such outcomes would ultimately optimize and jointly enhance the state and the delivery of ecosystem services, and therefore the value of the local ecosystem (Slocombe 1998) to residents and visitors alike. Ecosystem services is a component of and can be used as an aid in implementing other systematic planning frameworks, such as ecosystem-based management (McLeod et al. 2005, Curtin and Prellezo 2010, Granek et al. 2010), marine spatial planning (White House CEQ 2010), terrestrial spatial planning (Polasky et al. 2008), systematic land planning (Margules and Pressey 2000), multi-species management (Pikitch et al. 2004), integrated natural resource management (Frost et al. 2006, Bryan and Crossman 2008), and coordinated management (White et al. 2012). An ecosystem service approach can therefore help the territory align with similar management approaches at federal agencies. While implementation of ecosystem services planning is not mandated at the federal level, it is authorized and encouraged through various rules and guidance documents, including the 2012 USFS Land Management Planning Rule (US Forest Service 2012), the 2011 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report Sustaining Environmental Capital (Executive Office of the President 2011), and the 2013 White House Council on Environmental Quality’s Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources (White House CEQ 2013). It is also commonly incorporated into assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (see Bear (2014) for guidance). Systematic planning with an ecosystem service component is central to federal programs like USDA’s “all-lands” approach to resource management (Tidwell 2010), the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative at the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service (CLCC 2017), the U.S. Army Corps’ watershed informed budgeting, NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment and Habitat Blueprint programs (www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov), USDA’s Office of Environmental Markets (https://www.oem.usda.gov/), wetland and stream mitigation rules applied by the U.S. Army Corps and EPA, and White House guidance on coastal green infrastructure (Executive Office of the President of the United States 2015). See National Ecosystem Services Partnership (2014) for a comprehensive review of guidance documents, as well as a framework for application of the ecosystem service approach to federal natural resource planning and management. Ecological Framework From an ecological perspective, ecosystem services are defined as “the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life” (Chee 2004, p. 1). This definition is analogous to ecological functions. As such, an ecosystem 66 service approach draws from functional ecology to describe and quantify the dynamics underlying service provision, and the value of an ecosystem service can be thought of as its functional value to the system (see the “Ecological Value” sections of the species and habitats chapters in the VI- WAP for detailed analysis). Estimating functional value within the VI-WAP would involve both understanding the functions that wildlife species have in the local ecosystems that contributes to service provision, as well as understanding the many service values generated by the habitat needed to sustain target species, including species of concern. The multi-species focus of an ecosystem service approach could improve the ability of management actions to sustain additional target species populations, shared habitats, and the services flowing from both. Such actions could produce co-benefits in the form of additional services, which might in turn provide additional support for regulations and recovery plans. Overall, an ecosystem service approach holds the potential to identify management alternatives that provide the greatest benefit to multiple species while also optimizing the delivery of ecosystem services. A prominent approach to describing the services provided by species and their habitats is called the service provider concept, developed in Luck et al. (2009). The service provider approach is an explicit framework for “delineating and quantifying the contribution of organisms and ecological systems to service provision…whether these are populations, functional groups, or ecological communities” (p. 223), and can be applied across ecological organizational levels (Noss 1990), including communities, habitat types, or landscapes. See Table 6.1 for a list of example ecosystem services, and the service providers and functional units that provide them. Operationally, the service provider approach characterizes ecosystem services (or ecological functions) by the component populations, species, functional groups or guilds, or habitat types that collectively produce them. These are usually measured as a quantity (abundance, distribution, quality, or variability), and the rate at which they provide services is indicated by their functional efficiency (Kremen 2005). Finally, it also characterizes species interactions, such as competition, commensalism, mutualism, and predatory interactions (e.g., carnivory and parasitism), as well as functional relationships on service provision (called effect traits), and response to environmental changes (called response traits) (Larsen et al. 2005, Bennett et al. 2009). Service Providing Units Populations within a single species Many ecosystem services are provided at the unit of a single species, sometimes called “key service providers, analogous to the concept of keystone species” (Luck et al. 2009, p. 228). Species populations contribute most to ecosystem services like biological control or seed dispersal, rather than environmental regulating services (though Holmlund et al. (1999) describe various regulating services provided by fish populations). Service provision is often achieved at a threshold population level set by demand, and could be managed with an approach comparable to the concept minimum viable populations (Lacava and Hughes 1973, Shaffer 1981). Services providers, however, could correspond to any metric of population diversity (i.e., density, size, distribution, or genetic variance) (Luck et al. 2003). The important thing is that management considers the population metric(s) that corresponds with the service. For example, in the USVI, numerous bat, bird, insect, and lizard species provide pollination and seed dispersal functions. This service would be disrupted when the population size falls below a certain level (Potts et al. 2010), but also as population density changes (Kearns et al. 1998, Kremen et al. 2007), and as the distance between pollinator and plant change (Ricketts et al. 2008). 67 Multi-species functional groups Many ecosystem services are provided at the unit of functional groups comprised of multiple species with shared functional traits (see Table 6.1). Functional traits are species traits that interact with the surrounding environment, like body size, dispersal distance (effect trait), and response to disturbance (response trait) (Elmqvist et al. 2003). The analytical focus at this unit is understanding how service provision is connected to species characteristics manifested at the functional-group level (group composition, or guild). Like populations, multi-species functional groups usually contribute most to ecosystem services like biological control or seed dispersal, rather than environmental regulating services. Additionally, provision of these services have been found to rely more on populations of individual species than the diversity of populations with shared ecological function (e.g., transport of pollen and seeds) (Jordano et al. 2007). Communities Many ecosystem services are provided at the unit of communities of organisms (see Table 6.1). The analytic focus at this unit should be the role that species and functional diversity play in modulating ecosystem processes such as primary production, nitrogen retention, decomposition, and stability (Tilman 1996, Loreau and de Mazancourt 2013), as well as ecosystem productivity (Paquette and Messier 2011) and resilience (Oliver et al. 2015). These processes and functions have complex links to ecosystem service provision (Balvanera et al. 2001, 2006), and are usually assessed at aggregate levels (Worm et al. 2006) because of simultaneous and joint production of multiple services. Habitat Habitat types usually provide supporting services, or regulating ecosystem services like flood mitigation, water regulation, and carbon storage (see Table 6.1). The analytical focus at this unit should be the habitat characteristic (e.g., area, geographic distribution, connectivity, condition) required by target service providers. These characteristics can be expressed along a gradient or other continuum of variation in order to inform different management strategies. For example, Yee et al. (2014) estimated ecosystem service across a biological condition gradient, comprised reef attributes that reflect different classes of ecological integrity along a stressor gradient, in St. Croix, USVI. A habitat-based management approach is not only relatively widely used in conservation planning, but also has the potential to provide numerous co-benefits by supporting various service providers (Chan et al. 2006). 68 Table 6.1. Example ecosystem services, service providers, and functional units at which service provision should be analyzed. Adapted from (Kremen 2005). Where possible, service providers are listed according to the species family used in the VI-WAP. Service Service Providers (Family) Functional Unit Seed dispersal Birds, bats, lizards, land mammals Populations, species, functional groups Pollination Terrestrial invertebrates (insects), birds, bats, lizards Populations, species, functional groups Carbon storage Trees, mangroves, seagrass, corals Populations, species Pest control Terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate and vertebrate parasitoids and predators Populations, species, functional groups Disease control Vertebrate host species Populations, species, functional groups Invasion resistance Herbaceous community Populations, species Water purification Vegetation, soil micro-organisms, aquatic micro-organisms, aquatic invertebrates Populations, species, functional groups, communities, habitats Water flow regulation Trees, vegetation Communities, habitats Flood mitigation Mangroves, corals, vegetation Communities, habitats Drought mitigation Vegetation Communities, habitats Climate stability Vegetation Communities, habitats Soil generation and fertility Soil invertebrates, nitrogen fixing plants, plant and animal production of waste products Populations, species, functional groups Primary productivity Terrestrial and aquatic herbaceous community Communities Bioturbation Benthic marine and freshwater invertebrates, freshwater and marine fish Populations, species, functional groups Detoxification and decomposition of wastes Soil invertebrates, soil micro-organisms, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic micro- organisms Populations, species, functional groups, communities, habitats Leaf litter decomposition Freshwater invertebrates Populations, species, functional groups Ecosystem goods Diverse species Populations, species, communities, ecosystems Aesthetic, cultural All biodiversity Populations, species, communities, ecosystems Economic Framework An economic framework for an ecosystem service approach describes the process of defining and identifying ecosystem services for use in economic valuation and decision-making. This process moves beyond measures in the ecological framework, which are not explicitly linked to human benefits, in order to integrate the ecosystem services outcomes that are valued by people. Within this framework, ecosystem services must first be defined by beneficiaries’ demand for those services. Their underlying production is then modeled using the approach described in the ecological framework. 69 Final and Intermediate Ecosystem Services An economic framework for an ecosystem service approach uses a systems-based approach that separates services into those that are directly utilized to provide a benefit, and those that indirectly contribute to benefits delivery. The former are called final ecosystem services; the latter are called intermediate ecosystem services (Chee 2004, Heal et al. 2005, Brown et al. 2007, Wallace 2007, Boyd and Krupnick 2009, EPA Science Advisory Board 2009,). Final ecosystem services can be defined as: “the end-products of nature…directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well- being” (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007), and must include four properties described in Johnston and Russell (2011). Intermediate ecosystem services can be defined as ecosystem organization, operation, functions, and outflows that contribute to the provision of final ecosystem services but are not directly utilized to produce a benefit (Fisher et al. 2008, 2009), and therefore are not directly valued (Limburg et al. 2002, Barkmann et al. 2008, Kontogianni et al. 2010). See Table 6.2 for examples of connections between example final and intermediate ecosystem services provisioned from coral reefs. Beneficiaries and the ecologically-derived benefits they value thus set the parameters for the set of final ecosystem services, and the associated intermediate ecosystem services, that are evaluated. As stated by Landers and Nahlik (2013), “[in] order for
ecologists to measure final ecosystem services, they have to know what to
measure; and what to measure depends on the
beneficiary and what they directly utilize, consume, or
enjoy from the environment” (p. 16). This quality is called benefit relevance, and is thoroughly described by Olander et al. (2015). Table 6.2. Examples of coral reef final and intermediate ecosystem services. Adapted from Principe et al. (2012). Ecosystem Services Final Intermediate Recreational fishing opportunity Habitat; primary and secondary production of benthic and aquatic prey species Recreational diving, snorkeling and underwater photography opportunity Coral reef formation; primary and secondary production; habitat; biological integrity; reef structure; water filtration Harvesting opportunity for seafood products (fish, shellfish, and algae) Habitat; primary and secondary production of benthic and aquatic prey species; biological integrity Protection from shoreline erosion; protection from coastal inundation during extreme events Wave energy attenuation 70 Valuation Ecosystem service valuation is the practice of quantifying human benefits derived from the environment, provided directly by final ecosystem services. The value metrics quantified can be expressed in dollars or non-monetary units like preference weights. When human and social welfare are a policy goal, values of any metric are necessary for comparing costs and benefits, as well as making explicit tradeoffs. Ecosystem service valuation has been applied in the USVI and greater Caribbean for a range of management purposes (Waite et al. 2014), and can provide a guide for the types and scale of value estimates that could be characterized for species and habitats included in the VI-WAP: ● Estimating the “Total Economic Value” of a resource. For example, the value of six ecosystem services (recreation, coastal protection, fisheries, tourism, research and education, and amenity value to real estate) provided by coral reefs in the USVI was calculated to be $202 million annually (van Beukering et al. 2011). Burke et al. (2008) estimated the annual value of coral reefs to tourism and recreation as $101-130 million in Tobago, and $160-194 million in St. Lucia, respectively; the annual value of coral reefs to fisheries as $0.8-1.3 million in Tobago, and $0.5-0.8 million in St. Lucia, respectively; and the annual value of coral reefs to shoreline protection as $18-33 million in Tobago, and $28-50 million in St. Lucia, respectively. Cooper et al. (2008) estimated the combined annual value to Belize of coral reefs and mangroves for reef-associated tourism as $150-196 million to tourism, $14-16 million to fisheries, and $231-347 to shoreline protection. ● Financing protected area management. For example, visitors to the St. Thomas East End Reserve were found to be willing to pay (WTP) between $15,000-150,000 to fund the conservation area (McKenzie 2013). Estimates of WTP value of recreational game fishing opportunity in the British Virgin Islands is $4.6 million per season (Gillet et al. 2007). ● Economic impact analysis of protected areas. For example, visitors to the Virgin Islands National Park were found to spend an annual total of $92 million (Israel 2004), and the park overall was estimated to have a 11:1 benefit/cost ratio to the territorial economy (IRF 1981). Analysis of reef condition and ecosystem service provision under different water quality standards was conducted for St. Croix (Yee et al. 2012). Natural resource economics provides a range of methods to quantify the value of changes in ecosystem goods and services (see Table 6.3). Techniques of valuing nonmarket ecosystem services (i.e., services that are not traded in formal markets, like amphibian population size) are categorized generally as either stated preference or revealed preference. The choice between these two nonmarket valuation techniques depends on targeted types of value (Bockstael et al. 2000, Freeman 2003, EPA 2009). Market non-monetary estimates of ecosystem service values can also be achieved using a suite of analytical methods that develop a ranking or rating of alternatives based on their contributions to stakeholder preferences for ecosystem services. These multi-metric approaches are collectively referred to as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Kiker et al. 71 2005, Hajkowicz 2007) and commonly advocated for ecosystem service valuation (Gatto and De Leo 2000, Chee 2004, Norton and Noonan 2007, Spash 2008ab, Chan et al. 2012). MCDA methods are oriented to the multi-dimensional character of many natural resource management problems (Chee 2004). See (Freeman et al. 2013) for an MCDA approach using a tradeoff exercise using ecological indicators of final ecosystem service provision. This approach is based on the service provider concept used in the ecological framework section above and tailored to be applied locally. Species and Habitat Services Studies on final ecosystem services in the USVI and wider Caribbean region have largely focused on coastal habitats, in particular coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses (Waite et al. 2014). An opportunity exists, therefore, for researchers in the territory to evaluate the contribution of species to other commonly studied final ecosystem services. The EPA’s Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (Landers and Nahlik 2013) identifies a number of final ecosystem services provided by wildlife that would serve as good starting points for evaluating species identified in the VI-WAP: ● Pollinators that provide opportunity to grow crops ● Depredators and pest predators that provide opportunity to grow crops ● Organisms that are viewed recreationally (e.g., fish, birds, sharks) ● Organisms or products associated with organisms used in medicine In particular, many bat, bird, amphibian and reptile, and invertebrate species in the territory are providers of pollination and pest control final services. The dynamics underlying this service, including the effects of land use change on supporting habitat, has been well studied (Kremen et al. 2002, Larsen et al. 2005, Kremen et al. 2007, Ricketts et al. 2008) and provide numerous conceptual and quantitative measures that could be applied to the territorial ecosystem. For example, values could be attributed to individual species using agricultural production values, or prioritize habitat within a certain distance to agricultural beneficiaries. Given that aggregate values have been estimated for habitats in the region, an opportunity also exists for researchers in the territory to apply these values to the service providers reviewed in the VI-WAP that they support, including coral and mangrove associated species, their populations, functional groups and guilds, and community dynamics. Ecological production functions have been quantified for coral reef ecosystem services in the USVI (Yee et al. 2012, Yee et al. 2014), but additional functions could be characterized for species habitat associations. Also, an opportunity exists to leverage the values already estimated for USVI habitats as co-benefits of management actions that further enhance or protect coral and mangrove habitat and the species that depend on them. Lastly, additional coral reef and other ecosystem service values could be estimated using service providers in the VI-WAP. A review of coral reef ecosystem values in the United States ( Brander and van Beukering 2013) shows that values for diving, snorkeling, other tourism and recreation, and recreational fishing have not been estimated for the USVI. Finally, an opportunity exists for researchers in the territory to better characterize the local population of beneficiaries, the environmental benefits they value, and the nature of their value 72 functions. This type of work would prioritize and provide more locally specific descriptions of the ecosystem services that are valued most in the territory, as well as contribute most to the health and wellbeing of its residents and visitors. See Freeman et al. (2013) for a community-based approach based on the service provider concept used in the ecological framework section of this chapter. Banner photo by Sipke Stapert, www.birdscaribbean.org 73 Table 6.3. Economic valuation methods applied to ecosystem services. Adapted from (NESP 2016) and (Waite et al. 2014). Valuation Method Description Final Ecosystem Services Valued Market Valuation Market Analysis Derives value from households’ or firms’ inverse demand function based on observations of use. Fisheries Mangrove timber Other marketed raw goods Tourism Production Function Derives value based on the contribution of an ecosystem to the production of marketed goods. Crop production (from pollination, natural pest control, etc.) Fish production (from habitat, water conditions, etc.) Revealed Preference Hedonic Price Derives an implicit value for an ecosystem service from market prices of complementary goods. Shoreline protection Recreation Noise and light pollution Recreation Demand Models (e.g., travel cost) Derives an implicit value of an on-site activity based on observed travel behavior. Recreation value (from water quality, fish and wildlife communities and population levels, etc.) Defensive and Damage Costs Avoided Damage Costs Avoided Value is inferred from the direct and indirect expenses incurred as a result of damage to the built environment or people. Flood protection from reefs and mangroves (cost of rebuilding homes and buildings, etc.) Health and safety (treatment costs, etc.) Averting/ Defensive Behavior Value is inferred from costs and expenditures incurred in mitigating or avoiding damages. Replacement/ Restoration Costs Value is inferred from potential expenditures from replacing or restoring an ecosystem service. Shoreline protection from reefs and mangroves Water filtration by wetlands and forests Fire management Stated Preference Contingent Valuation Value is derived by creating a hypothetical market by asking respondents to state their willingness- to-pay/accept for an outcome (open ended), or whether they would choose actions or policies with given outcomes and costs (discrete choice). Nonuse values (species, ecosystem protection, etc.) Recreation Aesthetics Choice Modeling Value is derived by creating a hypothetical market by asking survey respondents to choose among multi- attribute bundles of services with associated costs. Benefit Transfer Benefit transfer Value is estimated based on transferring estimates or value functions from other locations. Any ecosystem service Meta Analysis Synthesize results from multiple existing valuation studies, using statistical regression to estimate a value function. 74 Chapter Seven Ecosystem Management—Cays More than 50 small islands, collectively referred to as “cays,” dot the USVI (Figures 7.1 and 7.2; Table 7.1) and comprise about 3% of the territory’s total area; all but four of these islets surround St. Thomas and St. John. The archipelago of cays fall under a range of management jurisdictions, including the VI government (DFW), NPS, USFWS, private owners, as well as entities within the BVI. Yet they offer critical habitat for a range of species that are not typically found on the larger islands, and represent a significant portion of endemic biodiversity richness. Additionally, the variation in habitats provides an ecosystem mosaic that allows for metapopulation dynamics, particularly for birds that nest on different islands across seasons. Each cay is completely different from the next; differences in species assemblages are due to island biogeographical influences such as size, distance from nearest land, topography, ocean currents, and prevailing winds. The varied vegetation communities include subtropical dry forest, shrublands, and grasslands, as well as sparsely vegetated geological formations (e.g., cliffs, rock outcrops, and beaches). Some cays support salt ponds and associated mangrove systems. Each cay is illustrated and described by Dammann and Nellis (1992). Management Framework A significant challenge to providing a comprehensive management framework for cays is the variety of jurisdictional entities. These areas are managed on a cay-by-cay basis, with little consideration of a network of cays. As a single management unit, the network of cays offers habitat complexity that can support metapopulation dynamics for seabirds, migratory landbirds, and marine species. A good example is the Roseate Tern that nests on different islands each year depending on some unknown favorable condition; the different nesting cays fall under the 75 jurisdiction of DFW, NPS, and the BVI. The value of these insular systems, both terrestrial and marine components, has been recognized, and the CLCC has assembled a Cays Conservation Action Team (Cays-CAT) to develop a framework for the management of cays across Puerto Rico and the USVI, regardless of management jurisdiction. In 2016 the USFWS allocated funds from the Coastal Program to support a project with the Applied Coastal Research Laboratory of Georgia Southern University to refine previous modeling results using the biological field data (both terrestrial and marine) being collected with USFWS collaborators, as well as NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program-funded data such as the benthic habitat maps, National Coral Reef Monitoring Program data, and bathymetry. These data will be used in models for assessing species and habitat vulnerability and to determine the impacts to coastal and marine habitats and resources, including ESA-listed species and their habitats, and fishery habitat around these cays. Using model results, collaborations between regional partners will work toward potential management strategies to protect vulnerable areas. This will feed into Cays-CAT initiative to develop a multi-stakeholder landscape conservation design for the network of cays within the U.S. Caribbean. Ecological Value In comparison with the larger islands in the USVI archipelago, the terrestrial species richness of the cays is low. Amphibians and many landbirds are absent from most of these islands because of reduced habitat complexity and the absence of forested habitat. However, because of their relative inaccessibility and lack of predators, the cays provide sanctuary for a variety of wildlife species, particularly reptiles, that are unable to co-exist with human activities. Several species are only found in remnant populations on uninhabited cays, including the Virgin Islands skinks (Spondylurus spp.), Puerto Rican Racer (Borikenophis portoricensis), and the federally endangered St. Croix Ground Lizard (Pholidoscelis polops). Others, such as the VI Blind Snake (Antillotyphlops richardii) and the federally endangered VI Tree Boa (Chilabothrus granti) are vulnerable to stressors on the larger islands but maintain relatively protected populations on the cays (although the tree boa has been introduced; Tolson 2005). Sea turtles also nest on the beaches of several cays such as Hans Lollick and Inner Brass near St. Thomas and Buck Island off St. Croix. Coastal wetlands on cays provide habitat for a variety of invertebrates, shorebirds, and indigenous waterbirds. Numerous species of waterbirds visit the cays, especially during migration, and several indigenous species such as the White-cheeked Pintail (Anas bahamensis) may nest on some of them (e.g., Saba Island, Shark Island, and Buck Island off St. Croix) where offspring are possibly less vulnerable to predation than on the major islands. Landbird fauna include Zenaida Doves (Zenaida aurita) and the territorially listed White-crowned Pigeon (Patagionas leucocephala) which nests on all four cays off St. Croix (McNair and Lombard 2006). Seabird communities inhabit a diverse constituent of cays and adjacent marine ecosystems, making these sites Important Bird Areas (Corven 2008). The major seabird nesting areas in the USVI are found on about 25 of the most remote or rugged cays off St. Thomas and St. John, where their eggs and offspring are less vulnerable to predators than on the major islands (Pierce 1996). The species composition of breeding seabirds varies among the cays depending upon the availability of nest 76 sites. For example, Flat Cay and Saba Island harbor active rookeries of gulls and terns, Cockroach Cay and Dutchcap Cay host colonies of boobies and tropicbirds, and Congo Cay, Dutchcap Cay, Buck Island (St. Croix), and Green Cay (St. Croix) support nesting pelicans. Except for some terns, most seabirds nest at the same colony year after year, and rarely form new colonies. A variety of techniques have been used on some of the islands to augment suitable nesting habitat for seabirds. These include removal of non-native invasives (e.g., rats and goats), thinning vegetation on Saba Island and Cockroach Cay for Sooty Terns (Onychoprion fuscata) and Masked Boobies (Sula dactylatra), planting native trees on Saba Island to replace those lost to storms, and repairing nest cavities for tropicbirds at Capella Island, Cas Cay and Cockroach Cay. Several larger cays off the north shore of St. Thomas have cliff caves and fissures that are occupied by the Antillean Fruit-eating Bat (Brachyphylla cavernarum), and the Jamaican Fruit-eating Bat (Artibeus jamaicensis) has been recorded on Lovango Cay off St. John (Koopman 1975), but the extent to which bats use cays has not been assessed. White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been observed swimming from cay to cay east of St. Thomas. The waters around the offshore cays have shallow shelves that are colonized by coral reef communities. These reef systems are protected from stressors associated with inhabited islands, such as runoff and sedimentation, although erosion from goats can be a problem. Threats Despite their beauty and charm which lure human visitors, the cays can be treacherous. Some are inaccessible at certain times due to high winds and sea swells, and the more rugged cays require swimming from anchored boats and confident climbing skills. These hindrances tend to buffer the less accessible cays from the adverse effects of human encroachment, yet many cays are readily accessible and several have succumbed to extensive habitat degradation. In addition to marine activities such as fishing and diving, many cays are frequently visited by humans for hiking and picnicking. Seabird egg poaching and dove hunting were once popular activities that have declined greatly in recent decades. Goats have been introduced to the cays by local farmers. During the 1940s, the United States military used several cays for naval artillery and bombing practice. Some cays have been degraded through development for residences or commercial use. The threat of establishment of non-native plants and animals to the cays is ever present. Boats may run aground during storms, potentially introducing rats (Rattus spp.) which are already present on several of the cays. Rats eat native vegetation and prey upon wildlife, including the eggs and nestlings of seabirds, and seabirds have abandoned some of these islands. Because rats prey directly upon the food, offspring, or adults of most, if not all, native animal species, their eradication from small cays is essential to enhance and ultimately restore the habitat of native species. Rats also eat the new shoots of vegetation, further degrading necessary wildlife habitat. Goats (Capra hircus) are present on many of the cays, where they selectively forage on native vegetation resulting in large areas comprising monocultures of unpalatable Croton flavens. Their removal and trampling of native vegetation causes significant erosion of shallow soils, leading to sedimentation of reef systems. Goats also trample seabird nests and remove valuable nest site cover. Goats and rats were removed in 2004 from Dutchcap Cay, site of an important seabird colony in the USVI, although they still remain on Thatch, and many other privately owned cays. 77 The removal of goats from cays can be an unpopular exercise, as there are still cultural values attached to maintaining these insular populations for hunting. The Small Indian Mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) was established on Buck Island (off St. Croix), but has been eradicated after much effort (Witmer et al. 1998, Fitzgerald et al. 2015). They have also been reported from Bovoni Cay and Cas Cay in the Mangrove Lagoon on the eastern side of St. Thomas, although these sightings are unverified. Even the domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus) was once temporarily common on Saba Island where they no longer exist (J. LaPlace pers. comm.), and are also present on Hans Lollik and Inner Brass (R. Platenberg, pers. obs.) The impact of non-native plants on native flora and associated fauna is poorly known, although invasiveness can have a major influence on species composition and habitat structure. African guinea grass (Urochloa maxima) was introduced on several cays after 1890 (Saba Island, Henley Cay, Flanagan Cay) for use by grazing animals and was burned periodically to improve forage. More recent efforts have been implemented to document and control invasive plants on NPS islands, particularly Buck Island (STX; Clark 2005, Z. Hillis-Starr, pers. comm.). Natural impacts such as periodic hurricanes and tropical storms may damage or destroy trees on cays, including nest sites for seabirds, and increase erosion, yet they otherwise perform a useful service for many species that prefer open environments by scaling back succession. Privately owned cays are subject to development pressure and several of these have been extensively altered, including Hassel Island (joint private and federal ownership), Little St. James Island (private), and Protestant Cay (VI government ownership); Table 5.2 identifies cay ownership. Development has been repeatedly proposed on Hans Lollick Island, the fifth largest island in the USVI, but no viable projects have emerged. As yet, there is no policy in place for guiding development on cays, such as pest management, shoreline protection, and insular habitat protection to limit impact of development threats. Climate change is likely to have a disproportionate impact on cays through sea level rise and changes in precipitation patterns. Drought is especially harsh on cays with only shrub cover that offers limited water storage capacity. Extended drought periods are likely to result in reduced fitness for reptiles and seabirds and changes in vegetation communities. Brush fires could pose potential serious threats to seabirds that nest during hot dry summer seasons. Research, Management, and Monitoring on the Cays The DFW maintains sanctuary signs on the important seabird cays to limit foot traffic into the seabird colonies and to inform the public of the conservation restrictions, including required permits for visitation beyond the beach. The Commissioner of DPNR is charged with the lead governmental responsibility of protecting and managing these cays. In a partnership between DFW and USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services, rat and goat eradication has been conducted on several cays important for seabird nesting. NPS has removed rats from Buck Island (St. Croix). USFWS has made several attempts to eliminate rats from Green Cay (STX) , and Congo Cay (STT), but have so far been unsuccessful. The DFW monitors the effectiveness of the rat eradication by periodically trapping the islands for rats and monitoring the recovery of plant 78 and animal species. NPS has been monitoring nesting of Hawksbill (and more recently Loggerhead) sea turtles on Buck Island (St. Croix). DFW, NPS, and USFWS have collaboratively conducted management activities toward the recovery of the St. Croix Ground Lizard, in partnership with several universities and their students. Seabird nesting has been the focus of DFW activities on cays for decades. A coastal vulnerability analysis was conducted for 20 cays around Puerto Rico and the USVI between 2010 and 2013 that assessed historic shoreline change using aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and LiDAR, and projected future change using current sea-level rise data (Bush et al. 2014). This provides valuable baseline and projected data for measuring and monitoring shoreline impacts and targeting vulnerable sites for management. Since 2014, the USFWS has been allocating funds from the Coastal Program to collect ecological information at landscape and seascape levels for at least 16 cays around Puerto Rico and the USVI to develop vulnerability models that can be linked to existing and widely used geophysical models. This information will be used to assess species’ vulnerability to coastal hazards, climate change effects, needs for habitat restoration and/or enhancements, and to identify and implement best management strategies. This project is expected to be completed by the end of 2017 and will provide the basis for developing assessment methods that are widely applicable to many coastal settings along the Southeastern U.S. Region and the entire Caribbean (I. Llerandi-Román, pers. comm. 2017). The cays of the USVI offer a unique opportunity for research and management of wildlife resources, especially seabirds. Early studies of the cays provided some documentation of their herpetofauna (Maclean et al. 1977) and avifauna (Danforth 1935, Nichols 1943, Leopold 1963). More recent studies have focused on: descriptions of the cays and summaries of the flora and fauna (Dewey and Nellis 1980, Dammann and Nellis 1992); St. Croix Ground Lizard (McNair 2003, McNair and Coles 2003, McNair and Lombard 2004, McNair and Mackay 2005); seabirds (e.g., Dewey and Nellis 1980, Pierce 1996; see Seabirds chapter for more references); and the effect of exotic rats on bird diversity (Campbell 1991). Many of the cays are under statutory protection. In 1973, the territorial government set aside several cays as wildlife reserves, affording some protection from detrimental activities, such as seabird egg poaching and habitat degradation, and since then all territorial-owned cays, including several that were donated to the territorial government, have been designated as wildlife refuges. The USVI government owns 34 cays (two are owned in part; Protestant Cay is leased to a hotel; see table 5.2 for list of ownership). The federal government owns nine cays and part of two others; all federally owned cays are protected within Virgin Islands National Park, Hassel Island National Monument, Buck Island Coral Reef National Monument, or as National Wildlife Refuges. Conservation Actions Implemented Since 2005 Due to their critical value to vulnerable and endangered wildlife, the cays have received considerable management and conservation attention since the 2005 CWCS prioritized their protection through invasive species control. 79 Eradication of Invasives In partnership with USDA/APHIS, eradication of rats on Congo, Dutchcap, and Saba cays was completed in 2004, with rats also removed from Buck and Capella islands off St. Thomas. APHIS also removed goats from Dutchcap. The rat eradication on Congo was unsuccessful, although it is uncertain if that was due to recolonization from nearby cays or from a remnant surviving population (Savidge et al. 2012). Periodic efforts to eradicate rats from Ruth Island have yet to be successful, but these efforts have only included the use of snap traps and not rodenticide due to concerns of the effects of poison on the endangered St. Croix Ground Lizard. However, with the recent attempt at rat eradication on Green Cay (STX) using rodenticide and without obvious effects on the lizard, it may be possible to eliminate rats from Ruth Island in the future. Rats are an ongoing problem on Protestant Cay. Endangered Species Management and Recovery The St. Croix Ground Lizard survives only in remnant populations on cays around St. Croix (see Reptiles chapter for more information). Efforts to expand the population from Green and Protestant cays resulted in the establishment of a translocated population on Ruth Island in the 1970s. Using lessons learned from that project, the NPS, USFWS, and DFW collaborated with Texas A&M University to introduce ground lizards to Buck Island in 2008 (Fitzgerald et al. 2015). Monitoring of the population and distribution status of the St. Croix Ground Lizard has occurred periodically on all four St. Croix cays, with special attention to the successfully established Buck Island population to evaluate the success of the recovery effort. Several efforts have been made to work with the management of the Hotel on the Cay (Protestant Cay, STX) to manage and minimize the effect of the hotel’s activities on the population of the St. Croix Ground Lizard on the island. Ground maintenance by the hotel reduced cover for the lizards, and increased their risk of predation from cattle egrets nesting in large trees. DFW contracted Geographic Consulting to produce a user-friendly management plan for ground lizard habitat on the cay (Valiulis 2011). A variety of native trees were planted to increase habitat, but many were subsequently bulldozed or left unmaintained by hotel staff. Frequent changes in hotel management has made the implementation of long term habitat improvement measures difficult. In 2010, DFW contracted USDA-Wildlife Services to implement measures to harass the cattle egrets; while these measures were successful in the short term, it was not until the large trees were removed that the cattle egrets ceased to be a significant threat to the lizards. In-water studies of sea turtle use of near-shore habitat around Buck Island (St. Croix) have been conducted and several turtles that were satellite tagged have revealed long-distance migration patterns. UVI students have been involved in several thesis projects that have contributed to the knowledge of these turtles. Resource Surveys Ruth Island was the focus of an in-depth mapping project in which areas of interest, such as the extent of invasion by tan-tan and hurricane grass, were delineated. Surveys for nesting birds, especially Least Terns and White-crowned Pigeons, were also conducted on this island. Initial efforts were made to improve habitat for the St. Croix ground Lizard by removing invasive 80 vegetation. Surveys of herpetofauna on cays around St. Thomas were conducted between 2004 – 2008. Several genetic samples were collected although these have yet to be processed. Priorities for Conservation Actions Restoration Actions: Removal of non-native predators and herbivores is an effective restorative measure. While rats have been eradicated from most cays that support important seabird breeding colonies, many other cays with valuable wildlife resources have not received this treatment. Protection Actions: Better permitting and policy regarding development on cays is critical to protect fragile habitats and vulnerable species on private lands. Guidelines for sustainable development and management of construction impacts should be developed to prevent introduction of non-natives (including pets), erosion, and pollution. Acquisition Actions: Several private islands have been under considerable development threat in recent years; acquisition of cays to bring them into the wildlife refuge system would safeguard those resources and metapopulation opportunities. Priority islands for acquisition are Hans Lollik, Great St. James, and Thatch. Education/Recreation Actions: Cays around St. Croix already offer recreational activities, with a hiking trail on Buck Island and a popular beach on Protestant Cay. Although most cays around St. Thomas/St. John are difficult to access, several have the potential to offer recreational opportunities, such as Cas Cay and Buck Island (USFWS Wildlife Refuge). Tours and signage can increase the educational value of these experiences. Post-hurricane Needs: Because of their limited extent, terrestrial resources on the cays were disproportionately affected by the 2017 hurricanes. Mapping and monitoring of vegetation and habitat mosaics including marine environments is important towards understanding resilience to these disturbances. Vigilance and response towards new invaders is an important priority. Figure 7.1. St. Thomas and St. John and surrounding cays. Refer to Table 5.2 for island names. 81 Figure 7.2. St. Croix and surrounding cays. Refer to Table 5.2 for island names. Figures adapted from Gould et al. 2013. Table 7.1. Islands, cays and rocks names of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Island # Island # Island # Island # Bovoni Cay 1 Inner Brass Island 18 Sula Cay 35 Mingo Cay 52 Buck Island (STT) 2 Kalkun Cay 19 Thatch Cay 36 Perkins Cay 53 Capella Island 3 Little Flat 20 Turtledove Cay 37 Ramgoat Cay 54 Cas Cay 4 Little Hans Lollik Island 21 Water Island 38 Rata Cay 55 Cockroach Cay 5 Little St James Island 22 Welk Rocks 39 St. John 56 Cricket Rock 6 Little St Thomas Island 23 West Cay 40 Steven Cay 57 Current Rock 7 Lizard Rocks 24 Blunder Rock 41 Trunk Cay 58 Dog Island 8 Outer Brass Island 25 Booby Rock 42 Two Brothers 59 Dog Rocks 9 Patricia Cay 26 Carval Rock 43 Waterlemon 60 Dutchcap Cay 10 Pelican Cay 27 Cinnamon Cay 44 Whistling Cay 61 Fish Cay 11 Rotto Cay 28 Cocoloba Cay 45 Buck Island (STX) 62 Flat Cay 12 Saba Island 29 Congo Cay 46 Green Cay (STX) 63 Frenchcap Cay 13 Sail Rock 30 Flanagan Island 47 Protestant Cay 64 Great St. James 14 Salt Cay 31 Grass Cay 48 Ruth Cay 65 Green Cay (STT) 15 Savana Island 32 Henley Cay 49 St Croix 66 Hans Lollik Island 16 Shark Island 33 Leduck Island 50 Hassel Island 17 St. Thomas 34 Lovango Cay 51 82 Table 7.2. Ownership of islands and cays of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Island Ownership Territorial Government Federal Government Private Bovoni Cay Capella Island Carval Rock Cas Cay Cockroach Cay Congo Cay Cricket Rock Dog Island Dutchcap Cay Flanagan Island Flat Cay and Little Flat Cay Frenchcap Cay Grass Cay Hassel Island (partial) Kalkun Cay Leduck Island Outer Brass Island Perkins Cay Protestant Cay Ruth Cay Saba Island Sail Rock Salt Cay Savana Island Shark Island Steven Cay Sula Cay Turtledove Cay Water Island (partial) West Cay Whistling Cay National Park Service Buck Island (St. Croix) Booby Rock Cocoloba Cay Hassel Island (partial) Henley Cay Ramgoat Cay Rata Cay Trunk Cay Waterlemon Cay USFWS - NWR Buck Island (St. Thomas) Green Cay (St. Croix) U.S. Dept. of Interior Water Island (partial) Unknown Two Brothers Green Cay (St. Thomas) Cinnamon Cay Current Rock Fish Cay Great St. James Island Hans Lollick Island Hassel Island (partial) Inner Brass Island Little Hans Lollick Island Little St. James Island Lovango Cay Mingo Cay Patricia Cay Pelican Cay Rotto Cay Thatch Cay Water Island (partial) Source: Dammann and Nellis (1992), with corrections by Judy Pierce. Contributors (2005): JJP, FEH, DBM, RJP Contributors (2017): RJP, JV Banner photo: Dutchcap Cay by R. Platenberg 83 Bibliography Chapter Two: Introduction to the USVI Wildlife Action Plan National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership (NFWPCAP). 2012. National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/pdf/NFWPCAS-Final.pdf The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. Conservation Action Planning Handbook. Arlington, VA. Available online at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Cap%20Handbook_June2007.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Structured Decision Making Fact Sheet. National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/science/doc/structured_decision_making_factsheet.pdf Chapter Three: Status of USVI Species Lindsay, K. C., E. Gibney, T. Thomas, J. P. Bacle. 2015. Plants of conservation concern: herbs and plants of the United States Virgin Islands. Island Resources Foundation. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. 2015. Puerto Rico State Wildlife Action Plan: Ten Year Review. Available online at: http://drna.pr.gov/documentos/puerto-rico-state-wildlife-action-plan-ten-year-review/ (accessed 27 March 2017). IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2016. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 12. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. Available online from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed 25 March 2017). Chapter Four: Threats Overview Beati, L., J. Patel, H. Lucas-Williams, H. Adakal, E. G. Kanduma, E. Tembo-Mwase, R. Krecek, J. W. Mertins, J. T. Alfred, S. Kelly, and P. Kelly. 2012. Phylogeography and Demographic History of Amblyomma variegatum (Fabricius) (Acari: Ixodidae), the Tropical Bont Tick. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 12(6):514-525. doi:10.1089/vbz.2011.0859. Brandeis, T. J. and S. N. Oswalt. 2007. The status of U.S. Virgin Islands' forests. Resource Bulletin -Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Bruno, J. F., L. E. Petes, C. D. Harvell, A. Hettinger. 2003. Nutrient enrichment can increase the severity of coral diseases. Ecology Letters 6(12):1056-1061. 84 Chakroff, M. 2010. U. S. Virgin Islands Forest Resources Assessment and Strategies: A comprehensive analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and strategies. Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. Chen, I. C., J. K. Hill, R. Ohlemüller, D. B. Roy, and C. D. Thomas. 2011. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024-1026. Gaines, A. G. and R. E. Crawford.. 2004. Southgate Pond: The Geology and Ecology of a Coastal Pond. SCR Technical Report 2. The Coast and Harbor Institute, Woods Hole, MA. Corn, J., P. Berger, and J. W. Mertins. 2009. Surveys of Ectoparasites on Wildlife Associated with Amblyomma variegatum (Acari: Ixodidae) Infested Livestock in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Journal of Medical Entomology 46:1483-1489. Daley, B., J. Valiulis, and R. Slatton. 2012. Exotic Invasive Species; U.S. Virgin Islands; Species Affecting Forests. Doc. # GS-VIDA-1201. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands Desneux, N., A. Decourtye, J. M. Delpuech. 2007. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology 52: 81-106. EPA. 2015. Climate Change: Basic Information. Official Website of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/. (accessed April 9, 2017). Gurevitch, J., and D. K. Padilla. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 470-474. Henry, M., M. Beguin, F. Requier, O. Rollin, J-F. Odoux, P. Aupinel, J. Aptel, S. Tchamitchian, A. Decourtye. 2012. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336(6079):348-350. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias- Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857):1737-1742. Horsley Witten Group. 2013. St. Thomas East End Reserves Watershed Management Plan, St. Thomas, USVI. Island Resources Foundation (IRF). 1977. Marine Environments of the Virgin Islands, technical supplement #1. Prepared for the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program. Jennings, L. N., J. Douglas, E. Treasure, and G. González. 2014. Climate change effects in El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean region. General Technical Report SRS-193. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research & Development Southern Research Station. Johnstone, N., I. Hascic, T. Jones. 2008. Costs of Inaction on Key Environmental Challenges. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. Kairo, M., A. Bibi, O. Cheesman, K. Haysom, and S. Murphy. 2003. Invasive species threats in the Caribbean Region. A report to the Nature Conservancy, Arlington. Retrieved from: http://issg.org/database/species/reference_files/Kairo%20et%20al,%202003.pdf Lasseigne, D. 2018. Microplastic Abundances Influenced by Anthropogenic Activity. Master in Marine and Environmental Science thesis, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas, VI. Lovell, S. J., S. F. Stone, and L. Fernandez. 2006. The economic impacts of aquatic invasive species: a review of the literature. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35:195. 85 Lugo, A. E., C. S. Rogers, and S. W. Nixon. 2000. Hurricanes, coral reefs and rainforests: resistance, ruin and recovery in the Caribbean. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29:106-114. McCarthy, J. J. 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Miller, J., E. Muller, C. Rogers, R. Waara, A. Atkinson, K. R. T. Whelan, M. Patterson, and B. Witcher. 2009. Coral disease following massive bleaching in 2005 causes 60% decline in coral cover on reefs in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 28: 925. Mooney, H. A., and Hobbs, R. J. (Eds.). 2000. Invasive species in a changing world (Vol. 23). Washington, DC: Island Press. Muller, E. M., C. S. Rogers, A. S. Spitzack, and R. Woesik. 2008. Bleaching increases likelihood of disease on Acropora palmata (Lamarck) in Hawksnest Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 27:191-195. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. Da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403:853-858. Nickol, B. B., C. A. Fuller, and P. Rock. 2006. Cystacanths of Oncicola venezuelensis (Acanthocephala: Oligacanthorhynchidae) in Caribbean termites and various paratenic hosts in the U. S. Virgin Islands. Journal of Parasitology 92:539 - 542. Page, G., D. Nemerson, S. B. Olsen. 2012. An Analysis of Issues Affecting the Management of Coral Reefs and the Associated Capacity Building Needs in the United States Virgin Islands. Prepared by SustainaMetrix. Pastula, D. M., D. E. Smith, J. D. Beckham, and K. L. Tyler. 2016. Four emerging arboviral diseases in North America: Jamestown Canyon, Powassan, chikungunya, and Zika virus diseases. Journal of Neurovirology 22:257. doi:10.1007/s13365-016-0428-5 Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273- 288. Platenberg, R. J. 2016. U.S. Virgin Islands Invasive Non-Native Species Action Plan. Prepared for the Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. Platenberg, R. J., and R. H. Boulon, Jr. 2006. Conservation status of reptiles and amphibians in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Applied Herpetology 3: 215-235. Platenberg, R. J. and D. S. Harvey. 2010. Endangered species and land use conflicts: a case study of the Virgin Islands boa (Epicrates granti). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5: 548-554. Raffaele, H. 1989. A guide to the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Second edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Santidriàn Tomillo, P., V. S. Saba, C. Lombard, J. Valiulis, N. J. Robinson, F. Paladino, J. Spotila, C. Fernandez, M. L. Rivas, J. Tucek, R. Nel, and D. Oro. 2015. Global analyses of the effects of the local climate on the hatchling output of leatherback turtles. Scientific Reports 5:16789. Schall, J.J. and A.R. Pearson. 2000. Body condition of a Puerto Rican Anole, Anolis gundlachi: Effect of a malaria parasite and weather variation. Journal of Herpetology 34:489-491. Seaman, G.A. 1973. Sticks from a hawk’s nest. V.I. Council for the Arts, Virgin Islands. 86 Short, F. T., and H. A. Neckles. 1999. The effects of global climate change on seagrasses. Aquatic Botany 63:169-196. Smith, T.B., E. Kadison, L. Henderson, J. Gyory, M.E. Brandt, J.M. Calnan, Kammann, M. V. Wright, R.S. Nemeth, J.P. Rothenberger. 2012. The United States Virgin Islands territorial coral reef monitoring program. 2011 Annual Report. University of the Virgin Islands, United States Virgin Islands. Staples, J. E. and M. Fischer. 2014. Chikungunya Virus in the Americas — What a Vectorborne Pathogen Can Do. New England Journal of Medicine 371:887-889. Strand J., A. Jørgensen, and Z. Tairova. 2009. TBT pollution and effects in molluscs at U.S. Virgin Islands, Caribbean Sea. Environment International 35(4):707-711. Theoharides, K. A., and Dukes, J. S. 2007. Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist, 176:256- 273. Treglia, M. L., J. Valiulis, D. J. Leavitt, and L. A. Fitzgerald. 2013. Establishment of the Puerto Rican ground lizard (Ameiva exsul: Teiidae), on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands: a threat to native fauna. Caribbean Journal of Science 47:360-365. UNEP (United Nation Environment Programme). 2008. Climate Change in the Caribbean and the Challenge of Adaptation. UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Panama City, Panama. Printed in Panama City, in October 2008 http://www.pnuma.org/deat1/pdf/Climate_Change_in_the_Caribbean_Final_LOW20oct. pdf USGS. 2016. Avian Botulism. National Wildlife Health Center. www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/avian_botulism/ Walther, G. R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. Beebee, J. M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-Guldberg and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416(6879):389-395. Weil, E., G. Smith, and D. Gil-Agudelo. 2006. Status and progress in coral reef disease research. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 69:1-7. Whittaker, R. J., and J. M. Fernández-Palacios. 1999. Island biogeography: ecology, evolution and conservation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Williamson, J. R., R. A. Arancibia, T. W. Zimmerman, and G. S. Hodges. 2008. First Report of Philephedra tubercolosa (Hemiptera: Coccidae) in the United States Virgin Islands. Florida Entomologist 91:483-484. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2). IUCN, Gland. Available online at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical- documents/classification-schemes/threats-classification-scheme Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. 2015. Puerto Rico State Wildlife Action Plan: Ten Year Review. Available online at: http://drna.pr.gov/documentos/puerto-rico-state-wildlife-action-plan-ten-year-review/ (accessed 27 March 2017). 87 Chapter Five: The VI-WAP Conservation Strategy International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2016. Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2). IUCN, Gland. Available online at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical- documents/classification-schemes/threats-classification-scheme National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership (NFWPCAP). 2012. National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Available online at: https://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/pdf/NFWPCAS-Final.pdf Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. 2015. Puerto Rico State Wildlife Action Plan: Ten Year Review. Available online at: http://drna.pr.gov/documentos/puerto-rico-state-wildlife-action-plan-ten-year-review/ (accessed 27 March 2017). The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2007. Conservation Action Planning Handbook. Arlington, VA. Available online at: https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Cap%20Handbook_June2007.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Structured Decision Making Fact Sheet. National Conservation Training Center, Shepherdstown, WV. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/science/doc/structured_decision_making_factsheet.pdf Chapter Six: Ecosystem Services Alcamo, J., 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Balvanera, P., A. B. Pfisterer, N. Buchmann, J. S. He, T. Nakashizuka, D. Raffaelli, and B. Schmid. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9:1146-1156. Balvanera, P., G. C. Daily, P. R Ehrlich, T. H. Ricketts, S. A. Bailey, S. Kark, C. Kremen, and H. Pereira. 2001. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Science 291:2047. Barkmann, J., K. Glenk, A. Keil, C. Leemhuis, N. Dietrich, G. Gerold, and R. Marggraf. 2008. Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 65:48-62. Bear, D. 2014. Integration of ecosystem services valuation analysis into National Environmental Policy Act compliance: legal and policy perspectives. Federal resource management and ecosystem services guidebook. National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Bennett, E. M., G. D. Peterson, and L. J. Gordon. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394–1404. Bockstael, N. E., A. M. Freeman, R. J. Kopp, P. R. Portney, and V.K. Smith. 2000. On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science & Technology 34:1384-1389. Boyd, J., and A. Krupnick. 2009. The definition and choice of environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 09-35. 88 Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63(2–3): 616-626. Brander, L., and P. van Beukering. 2013. The total economic value of U.S. coral reefs: a review of the literature. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Silver Spring, MD. Brown, T. C., J. C. Bergstrom, and J. B. Loomis. 2007. Defining, valuing, and providing ecosystem goods and services. Natural Resources Journal 47:329-376. Bryan, B. A., and N. D. Crossman. 2008. Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 88:1175-1189. Burke, L., S. Greenhalgh, D. Prager, and E. Cooper. 2008. Coastal Capital: economic valuation of coral reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative (CLCC). 2017. “Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative.” http://www.caribbeanlcc.org (May 13, 2017). Chan, K. M., M. R. Shaw, D. R. Cameron, E. C. Underwood, and G. C. Daily. 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology 4:e379. Chan, K. M., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8-18. Chee, Y. E. 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation 120:549-565. Cooper, E., L. Burke, and N. Bood. 2008. Coastal Capital: economic contribution of coral reefs and mangroves to Belize. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260. Curtin, R., and R. Prellezo. 2010. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Marine Policy 34:821-830. Daily, G. C. 1997. Nature’s Services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. De Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41:393-408. Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1:488-494. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. Science Advisory Board Report EPA-SAB-09-012, Washington, D.C. Executive Office of the President of the United States. 2015. Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making. Memorandum for Executive Departments and Agencies. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16- 01.pdf. Executive Office of the President. 2011. Sustaining Environmental Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy. Report to the President, Washington, D.C. https://faculty.geography.wisc.edu/robertson/docs/439Documents/PCAST%20Report%2 0Summary.pdf Fisher, B., K. Turner, M. Zylstra, R. Brouwer, R. De Groot, S. Farber, P. Ferraro, R. Green, D. Hadley, J. Harlow, and P. Jefferiss. 2008. Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy‐relevant research. Ecological Applications 18:2050-2067. 89 Fisher, B., R. K. Turner, and P. Morling. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68:643-653. Freeman, A. M. 2003. Economic valuation: what and why. Pp. 1-25 in: A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, and T. C. Brown, eds. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Freeman, P., R. Rosenberger, G. Sylvia, S. Heppell, and M. Harte. 2013. Guide for valuing marine ecosystem services to support nearshore management in Oregon. Oregon Sea Grant. Corvallis, OR. Frost, P., B. Campbell, G. Medina, and L. Usongo. 2006. Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes. Ecology and Society 11:30. Gatto, M., and G. A. De Leo. 2000. Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services: the never-ending story. BioScience 50:347-355. Gillet, C. P., R. Delayney, and H. Oxenford. 2007. Recreational Fishing in the British Virgin Islands: Current Status, Opportunities for Development and Constraints. CERMES Technical Report No. 3. Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados. Granek, E. F., S. Polasky, C. V. Kappel, D. J. Reed, D. M. Stoms, E. W. Koch, C. J. Kennedy, L. A. Cramer, S. D. Hacker, E. B. Barbier, and S. Aswani. 2010. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem‐based management. Conservation Biology 24:207-216. Hajkowicz, S. 2007. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis and unaided approaches to environmental decision making. Environmental Science and Policy 10:177-184. Heal, G. M., E. B. Barbier, K. J. Boyle, A. P. Covich, S. P. Gloss, C. H. Hershner, J. P. Hoehn, C. M. Pringle, S. Polasky, K. Segerson, and K. Shrader-Frechette. 2005. Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Holmlund, C. M., and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics 29:253-268. Island Resources Foundation (IRF). 1981. Economic impact analysis of the Virgin Islands National Park. St. Thomas, VI. Israel, J. 2004. Impact of Visitor Spending and Park Operations on the Regional Economy: Virgin Islands National Park. Report prepared for the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park, St. John, VI. Johnston, R. J., and M. Russell. 2011. An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecological Economics 70:2243-2249. Jordano, P., C. García, J. A. Godoy, and J. L. García-Castaño. 2007. Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:3278-3282. Kearns, C. A., D. W. Inouye, and N. M. Waser. 1998. Endangered mutualism: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:83–112. Kiker, G. A., T. S. Bridges, A. Varghese, T. P. Seager, and I. Linkov. 2005. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1:95-108. 90 Kontogianni, A., G. W. Luck, and M. Skourtos. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: a potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecological Economics 69:1479-1487. Kremen, C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8:468-479. Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, M. A. Aizen, B. Gemmill‐Herren, G. LeBuhn, R. Minckley, L. Packer, S. G., Potts, T. A. Roulston, I. Steffan‐Dewenter, and D. P. Vázquez. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land‐use change. Ecology Letters 10:299-314. Kremen, Claire, Neal M Williams, and Robbin W Thorp. 2002. “Crop Pollination from Native Bees at Risk from Agricultural Intensification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99(26): 16812–16. Lacava, J., and J. Hughes. 1984. Determining minimum viable population levels. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:370-376. Landers, D. H, and A. M. Nahlik. 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Larsen, T. H., N. M. Williams, and C. Kremen. 2005. Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecology Letters 8:538-547. Limburg, K. E., R. V .O'Neill, R. Costanza, and S. Farber. 2002. Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics 41:409-420. Loreau, M., and C. de Mazancourt, C. 2013. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of underlying mechanisms. Ecology Letters 16:106-115. Luck, G. W., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2003. Population diversity and ecosystem services. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:331-336. Luck, G. W., R. Harrington, P. A. Harrison, C. Kremen, P. M. Berry, R. Bugter, T. P. Dawson, F. de Bello, S. Díaz, C. K. Feld, J. R. Haslett, D. Hering, A. Kontogianni, S. Lavorel, M. Rounsevell, M. J. Samways, L. Sandin, J. Settele, M. T. Sykes, S. van den Hove, M. Vandewalle M. Zobel. 2009. Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience 59:223-235. Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243-253. McKenzie, S. 2013. Willingness to pay assessment of visitors to the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER), St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy USVI/Puerto Rico Program, St. Thomas, VI. McLeod, K. L., J. Lubchenco, S. Palumbi, and A. A. Rosenberg. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Signed by 217 academic scientists and policy experts with relevant expertise and published by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea at http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM. National Ecosystem Services Partnership (NESP). 2014. Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. www.nespguidebook.com. Norton, B. G., and D. Noonan. 2007. Ecology and valuation: big changes needed. Ecological Economics 63:664-675. Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-364. Olander, L., R. J. Johnston, H. Tallis, J. Kagan, L. Maguire, S. Polasky, D. Urban, J. Boyd, L. Wainger, and M. Palme. 2015. Best practices for integrating ecosystem services into 91 federal decision making. National Ecosystem Services Partnership, Duke University, Durham, NC. Oliver, T. H., M. S. Heard, N. J. Isaac, D. B. Roy, D. Procter, F. Eigenbrod, R. Freckleton, A. Hector, C. D. L. Orme, O. L. Petchey, and V. Proença. 2015. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:673-684. Paquette, A. and C. Messier. 2011. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20:170-180. Pikitch, E. K., C. Santora, E. A. Babcock, A. Bakun, R. Bonfil, D. O. Conover, P. Dayton, P. Doukakis, D. Fluharty, B. Heneman, E. D. Houde, J. Link, P.A. Livingston, M. Mangel, M. K. McAllister, J. Pope, K. J. Sainsbury. 2004. Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305:346-347. Polasky, S., E. Nelson, J. Camm, B. Csuti, P. Fackler, E. Lonsdorf, C. Montgomery, D. White, J. Arthur, B. Garber-Yonts, R. Haight, J. Kagan, A. Starfield, and C. Tobalske. 2008. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation 141:1505-1524. Potts, S. G., J. C. Biesmeijer, C. Kremen, P. Neumann, O. Schweiger, and W. E. Kunin, 2010. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:345-353. Preston, S. M., and C. Raudsepp-Hearne. 2017. Completing and using ecosystem service assessment for decision-making: an interdisciplinary toolkit for managers and analysts. Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Principe, P. P., P. Bradley, S. H. Yee, P.E. Allen, and D. E. Campbell. 2012. Quantifying Coral Reef Ecosystem Services. EPA/600/R-11/206. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. Ricketts, T. H., J. Regetz, I. Steffan‐Dewenter, S. A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, A. Bogdanski, B. Gemmill‐Herren, S. S. Greenleaf, A. M. Klein, M. M. Mayfield, L. A. Morandin, A. Ochieng, and B. F. Viana. 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecology Letters 11:499-515. Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31:131-134. Slocombe, D. S. 1998. Lessons from experience with ecosystem-based management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:31-39. Spash, C. L. 2008a. Deliberative monetary valuation and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Economics 84:469-488. Spash, C. L. 2008b. How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environmental Values 17:259-284. Tidwell, T. 2010. An All-Lands Approach to Conservation. Western States Land Commissioners Association Winter Conference, January, 2010, Little Rock, AR. https://www.fs.fed.us/speeches/all-lands-approach-conservation. Tilman, D. 1996. Biodiversity: population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77:350-363. US Forest Service. 2012. National Forest System Land Management Planning. 36 CFR Part 219. Federal Register 77:21262-21276. Van Beukering, P.J.H., L. Brander, B. van Zanten, E. Verbrugge and K. Lems. 2011. The Economic Value of the Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States Virgin Islands. Report number R-11/06. Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Amsterdam. 92 Waite, R., L. Burke, E. Gray, P. van Beukering, L. Brander, E. McKenzie, L. Pendleton, P. Schuhmann, E. Tompkins. 2014. Coastal Capital: Ecosystem Valuation for Decision Making in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Wallace, K. J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological conservation 139:235-246. Wallace, K., 2008. Ecosystem services: multiple classifications or confusion? Biological Conservation 141:353-354. White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, D.C. http://www.iooc.us/wp- content/uploads/2010/09/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2013. Principles and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources. Washington, D.C. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/final_principles_and_requiremen ts_march_2013.pdf White, C., C. Costello, B. E. Kendall, and C. J. Brown. 2012. The value of coordinated management of interacting ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 15:509-519. Worm, B., E. B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J. E. Duffy, C. Folke, B. S. Halpern, J. B. Jackson, H. K. Lotze, F. Micheli, S. R. Palumbi, E. Sala, K. A. Selkoe, J. J. Stachowicz, and R. Watson. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314:787-790. Yee, S. H., J. A. Dittmar, and L. M. Oliver. 2014. Comparison of methods for quantifying reef ecosystem services: a case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI. Ecosystem Services 8:1-15. Yee, S. H., L. M. Oliver, J. A. Dittmar, K. Vache, and W. S. Fisher. 2012. Sustainability of reef ecosystem services under expanded water quality standards in St. Croix, USVI. Presented at Ecological Society of America 97th Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, August 05 - 10, 2012. Chapter Seven: Ecosystem Management-Cays Bush, D. M., C. W. Jackson Jr., P. A. Llerandi-Román, W. J. Neal, R. M. Runyan, E. M. Perison- Parrish, and K. W. Siemer. 2014. A coastal vulnerability analysis of select small islands of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Presentation. 2014 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, October 2014. Campbell, E. W. 1991. The effect of introduced roof rats on bird diversity of Antillean cays. Journal of Field Ornithology 62:343-348. Clark, D. 2005. Cays of the U.S. Virgin Islands – control phase. FY 2006 project proposal. Florida/Caribbean Exotic Plant Management Team, National Park Service, St. John. Corven, J. 2008. U.S. Virgin Islands. Pages 329-338 in Important Bird Areas in the Caribbean: Key sites for conservation (D. C. Wege and V, Anadόn-Irizarry, editors) Birdlife International, Cambridge, UK. Dammann, A. E., and D. W. Nellis. 1992. A natural history atlas to the cays of the U. S. Virgin Islands. Pineapple Press, Inc., Sarasota, FL. Danforth, S. T. 1935. Supplementary account of the birds of the Virgin Islands, including Culebra and adjacent islets pertaining to Puerto Rico, with notes on their food habits. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 19:439-472. 93 Dewey, R. A., and D. W. Nellis. 1980. Seabird research in the U. S. Virgin Islands. Pages 445-452 in: Transactions of the Forty-Fifth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (K. Sabol, ed.). Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Fitzgerald, L. A., M. L. Treglia, N. Angeli, T. J., Hibbitts, D. J. Leavitt, A. L. Subalusky, I. Lundgren, and Z. Hillis‐Starr. 2015. Determinants of successful establishment and post- translocation dispersal of a new population of the critically endangered St. Croix ground lizard (Ameiva polops). Restoration Ecology, 23:776-786. Gould, W. A., M. C. Solórzano G. S, Potts, M. Quiñones, J. CastroPrieto, L. D. Yntema. 2013. U.S. Virgin Islands Gap Analysis Project – Final Report. USGS, Moscow ID and the USDA FS International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Río Piedras, PR Koopman, K. F. 1975. Bats of the Virgin Islands in relation to those of the Greater and Lesser Antilles. American Museum Novitates 258:1-7. Leopold, Jr., N. F. 1963. A checklist of the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Puerto Rico Bulletin 168:1-119. MacLean, W. P., R. Kellner, and H. Dennis. 1977. Island lists of West Indian amphibians and reptiles. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 40:1-47. McNair, D. B. 2003. Population estimate, habitat associations, and conservation of the St. Croix Ground Lizard Ameiva polops at Protestant Cay, United States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Journal of Science 39:94-99. McNair, D. B., and W. Coles. 2003. Response of the St. Croix Ground Lizard Ameiva polops to severe local disturbance of critical habitat at Protestant Cay: before-and-after comparison. Caribbean Journal of Science 39:392-398. McNair, D. B., and C. D. Lombard. 2004. Population estimates, habitat associations, and management of Ameiva polops (Cope) at Green Cay, United States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Journal of Science 40:353-361. McNair, D. B., and C. D. Lombard. 2006. Ground versus above-ground nesting of Columbids on the satellite cays of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology, 19:8- 11. McNair, D. B. and A. Mackay. 2005. Population estimates and management of Ameiva polops (Cope) at Ruth Island, United States Virgin Islands. Caribbean Journal of Science 41:352- 357. McNair, D. B., L. D. Yntema, C. D. Lombard, C. Cramer-Burke, and F. W. Sladen. 2005. Information on rare and uncommon birds from recent surveys on St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. North Am. Birds:58. Nichols, R. A. 1943. The breeding birds of St. Thomas and St. John, Virgin Islands. Memoirs of the Society of Cuban Natural History “Felipe Poey” 17:23-37. Pierce, J. J. 1996. Survey of cay nesting avifauna in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Grant W5-11, Study 2. Final report. Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. Pierce, J. J. 2003. Eradication of non-native rats from Virgin Islands offshore cays. Environmental Assessment Report, Wildlife Restoration Project W-11, Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. Savidge, J. A., M. W. Hopken, G. W. Witmer, S. M. Jojola, J. J. Pierce, P. W. Burke, and A. J. Piaggio. 2012. Genetic evaluation of an attempted Rattus rattus eradication on Congo Cay, US Virgin Islands, identifies importance of eradication units. Biological invasions 14:2343-2354. 94 Tolson, P. J. 2005. Reintroduction evaluation and habitat assessments of the Virgin Islands tree boa, Epicrates monesis granti, to the U.S. Virgin Islands. Grant T-1. Final report. Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. Valiulis, J. 2011. Habitat restoration plan for the St. Croix Ground Lizard (Ameiva polops) on Protestant Cay, St. Croix, USVI. Report to Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. Witmer, G. W., E. W. Campbell III, and F. Boyd. 1998. Rat management for endangered species protection in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In: Proceedings of the 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference. R.O. Baker & A.C. Crabb (Eds.), University of California, Davis. 95 APPENDICES 96 Appendix 1.1. Progress toward the 2005 CWCS Priority Action Goals The following tables provide the priority actions for species and habitats from the 2005 VI- CWCS and identify how the goals were met by DFW, including grant programs and publications, and by other entities. Goals towards Species Conservation Resource CWCS Priority Progress Reference Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrates Species Inventory, including distribution and reference collection Not completed for terrestrial invertebrates Surveys of freshwater invertebrates Nemeth & Platenberg, 2007; Tennant unpublished data Populations surveys of the Great Land Crabs were conducted on St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix (S. Gordon) T-7 (SWG) 2008-2011 Determine Species of Concern Not completed Evaluate crab harvest of crabs to establish regulations Completed (S. Gordon) T-7 (SWG) 2008 Amphibians Distribution and abundance surveys Ongoing; Population monitoring of reptiles and amphibians. T-05 (SWG) T-07 (SWG) 2006-2011 Ecological parameters of native herpetofauna. T-5 (SWG) 2006 Population surveys and climate change impact baseline data for St. Thomas. T-9-R-1 (SWG) 2011-2012 Dissemination of conservation status Platenberg & Boulon 2006 Habitat Protection Not completed; protection measures initiated as opportunities arise T-5 (SWG) 2006 Impacts of non-natives Completed; Study of invasive amphibians T-07 (SWG) 2007-2011 Public education Do One Thing for Wildlife T-09 (SWG) 2009-2012 Establish monitoring protocol Completed for amphibians (R Platenberg) T-7 & T-9 (SWG) Distribution maps of native and non- native herpetofauna in the USVI (R Platenberg) T5 (SWG) Terrestrial Reptiles Distribution and abundance surveys Ongoing T-05-2 (SWG), T-05-3 (SWG) E-7-HM-2 (2012) Reynolds et al. 2015, Barker et al. 2011 Survey of terrestrial reptiles and amphibians within the northern US Virgin Islands. T-05 (SWG) 97 Resource CWCS Priority Progress Reference Ecological studies Completed: habitat models for Tree Boas Harvey & Platenberg 2009 T-1 (SWG) and E-3 (ES) 2005-2006 Behavioral surveys of the St. Croix Ground Lizard were conducted on Green Cay. T-4-2 (SWG) 2005 Habitat protection Completed: Boa habitat delineation protocol Platenberg & Harvey 2010 T5-3 (SWG) 2006 Restored and monitored St. Croix ground lizard habitat on Protestant Cay. E-7-HM-2(ES) 2012 Conservation measures for endangered reptiles Completed: habitat restoration plan for Protestant Cay Valiulis 2011 E-7-HM-1 (ES) 2011 Habitat restoration Protestant Cay began E-7-HM-1 (ES) 2011 Completed: draft recovery plan revision for VI Boa Platenberg 2011 E-5-R-2 (ES) 2011 Impacts of non-natives Not completed Assess feasibility of translocation Completed: Ameiva polops introduction to Buck Island; monitoring protocol established R-1- 3 (ES) 2006 Public education Do One Thing for Wildlife; Boa outreach project T-9 (SWG) Sea Turtles Habitat protection Not completed Conservation measures for sea turtles STAR established to help stranded sea turtles on STT and STX. E-6-R-3 (ES) 2011 Impacts of non-natives Reduction of mammalian predators in turtle nesting areas E-6-R-3 (ES) 2011 Extend nesting beach monitoring STT & STJ beach patrols E-6-R-3 (ES) 2011-2012 Seabirds Distribution and abundance surveys Protected bird population surveys on Ruth Cay W-23-1, Amendment 1 (WR) 2009 Roseate Tern surveys on St. Thomas, St. John, and surrounding cays. Nellis et al., 2016 Nesting site surveys for Least Terns on St. Croix were. W18 (WR) 2005 Reduce disturbance to breeding colonies Signs posted at all colonies Predator management of Least Tern colonies. W-18- 2 (WR) 2005 Public education Seabird flyers produced Habitat protection & restoration Trails established to monitor Masked Boobies populations on Cockroach Cay. W- 23-HM- 3-(WR) 2010 GIS habitat and monitoring maps were created for Ruth Cay. W-23-1 (WR) 2009 Assess seabird bycatch Fishermen surveys of bycatch W-23 (WR) 2010 Regional conservation measures for seabirds Satellite tracking of Frigatebirds Zaluski (JVDPS) 2015 Impacts of non-natives Rat & goat eradication from cays W-23-1 (WR) 2009 Information dissemination Leaflets produced Population monitoring Least Tern population and nesting W18-2 (WR) 2005 98 Resource CWCS Priority Progress Reference activity were surveyed on STX. Cays monitored for seabird nesting and presence of non-natives W-23-1, Amendment 1 (WR) 2009 Waterfowl, Marshbirds, and Shorebirds Distribution and abundance surveys Population and distribution surveys of waterbirds were conducted on STX. W-20- 1 (WR) 2009. Valiulis, 2009 Breeding site monitoring Monitored /surveyed to determine breeding productivity and nesting survival. W-12-9 (WR) 2006 Population monitoring Population and distribution surveys of waterbirds were conducted on STX. W-20- 1 (WR) 2009 Conservation measures for extirpated species Not completed Control of cattle egrets Dissuasion and removal of roost trees on Protestant Cay Population surveys of and depredation measures were taken to control the cattle egret population and removed large mahogany trees on Protestant Cay. T-8-R- 1 (SWG) and T-8-R-2 (SWG) 2010-2011 Regional conservation measures Participation in Caribbean Waterbird surveys Assess nuisance birds Technical guidance to hotels about ducks Landbirds Distribution and abundance surveys Pop surveys of nesting Columbids were conducted on STX. W-12-8 (WR) 2005-2006 Ecological studies Compared pre- and post-hurricane bird species composition and abundance 13 years after Hurricane Hugo. W-19- 1(WR) 2006 Population assessment and monitoring Not completed Conservation measures for species of concern White-crowned pigeon surveys W-23 (WR) 2009, Santiago- Rios Impacts of stochastic events Not completed Impacts of harvest on hunted species Not completed Evaluate threats to migrants Not completed Assess nuisance birds Kestrel nest box program DFW Special Projects Terrestrial Mammals: Bats Inventory & population assessment Completed; population and habitat surveys IRF 2009; W-22 (WR) W-24-R-4 (WR) 2011 Identify habitat use Bat houses were deployed and monitored on St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. W-24-R-2-4 (WR) 2010-2012 Terrestrial Mammals: non- natives Survey distribution Not completed Reduce non-natives in sensitive habitats Rat & goat eradication from cays, mongoose control in turtle nesting W-23-1 (WR) 2009 99 Resource CWCS Priority Progress Reference areas Exotic Species Impose more stringent importation restrictions Not completed Increase availability of funding for response Not completed Increase training for inspection Not completed Evaluate impact on natives Conducted distribution and population surveys to locate non- native species of reptiles and amphibians to look at impacts on native herpetofauna populations T-07- 1(SWG) 2008 Eradicate new arrivals Prioritize target areas for response Eradicate rats & goats from cays Completed; monitoring ongoing W- 23-HM- 3 (WR) 2011 Post rat-eradication monitoring was conducted on offshore cays (Ramgoat Cay, Buck Island (STT), Cas Cay, and Protestant Cay. W-23- HM-4 (WR) and T-6 (SWG) 2006-2010 Identify pathways of invasion Not Completed Monitor populations White-tailed Deer Monitoring on STX. W-23- 1,(WR) 2009-2011 Took 163 rat tail clippings from offshore cays. W-23-1 (WR) 2009 100 Goals toward Habitat Conservation Resource CWCS Priority Progress Reference Beaches & Rocky Shorelines Habitat protection Reduce threats from runoff, erosion, and trash CoastWeeks Beach Clean-ups Monitor wildlife use Sea turtle beach patrols E-6-R-3 (ES) 2011 Monitor detrimental impacts Not completed Wetlands’ Habitat conservation measures Wetland Conservation Plans for St. Thomas/St. John Platenberg 2006, McNair publications Final draft of STEER management plan was completed. W-25-P-2 (WR) 2012 Monitor & assess wildlife use Breeding bird surveys, St. Croix McNair publications W-12-9 (WR) 2006 Habitat protection Land acquisition, St. John; Golden Pond Coral Bay Community Association Identified species of concern and their habitats. DFW CWCS, T-9 (SWG) 2010-2012 Monitor development and encroachment Enhanced GIS capability Shrublands & Grasslands Inventory distribution & extent Not completed Monitor wildlife use Not completed Habitat conservation measures Not completed Monitor development and encroachment Not completed Forests Inventory distribution & extent Monitor wildlife use Habitat protection & restoration Forest surveys Habitat surveys for bats, other wildlife USFS, USDA DFW T-9 (SWG) 2010-2012, W-24 (WR) 2012 Establish monitoring protocol WRRI watershed project Platenberg, 2017 101 Resource CWCS Priority Progress Reference Cays Habitat protection Increased enforcement of cay visitation regulations Habitat conservation measures Invasive plant removal DFW W-23 (WR) 2009 Land acquisition Not completed Wildlife protection & conservation Ongoing; Signage, public education, eradication of non-natives DFW W-23 (WR) 2009 Base map of 10 cays. DFW W-23 (WR) 2009 Ruth Cay habitat maps DFW W-23 (WR) 2009 Monitor wildlife use Ongoing; Seabird population surveys, herpetofauna surveys DFW T-7, T-9 (SWG) 2010- 2012 W-23 (WR) 2009 Monitor habitat threats Ongoing; identifying and managing threats W-23 (WR) 2011 References Cited Barker, B. S., R. B. Waide, and J.A. Cook. 2011. Deep intra‐island divergence of a montane forest endemic: phylogeography of the Puerto Rican frog Eleutherodactylus portoricensis (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae). Journal of Biogeography, 38:2311-2325. Harvey, D. S. and R. J. Platenberg. 2009. Predicting habitat use from opportunistic observations: a case study of the Virgin Islands tree boa (Epicrates granti). The Herpetological Journal 19:111-118. Hedges, S. B. and C. E. Conn. 2012. A new skink fauna from Caribbean islands (Squamata, Mabuyidae, Mabuyinae). Zootaxa 3288:1-244. Nellis D., P. Byerly, K. Davis. 2016. 2016 mid-season nest count of Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) in the United States Virgin Islands. 1 Division of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources. Nemeth, D. and R. Platenberg. 2007. Diversity of freshwater fish and crustaceans of St. Thomas watersheds and its relationship to water quality as affected by residential and commercial development. Water Resources Research Institute Project 2006VI73B, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas. Platenberg, R. 2005. Survey of terrestrial reptiles and amphibians within the northern US Virgin Islands. Division of Fish and Wildlife Annual Report. Platenberg, R., 2006. Wetland Conservation Plan for St. Thomas and St. John, US Virgin Islands. Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. Platenberg, R. J., 2007. Impacts of introduced species on an island ecosystem: Non-native reptiles and amphibians in the US Virgin Islands. Platenberg, R.J. and Boulon, R.H., 2006. Conservation status of reptiles and amphibians in the 102 US Virgin Islands. Applied Herpetology 3:215-235. Platenberg, R. J. and D. S. Harvey. 2010. Endangered species and land use conflicts: a case study of the Virgin Islands boa (Epicrates granti). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5:548-554. Reynolds, R. G., A. R. Puente-Rolón, R. Platenberg, R. K. Tyler, P. J. Tolson, and L. J. Revell. 2015. Large divergence and low diversity suggest genetically informed conservation strategies for the endangered Virgin Islands boa (Chilabothrus monensis). Global Ecology and Conservation 3:487-502. Valiulis, J. 2009. Semi-annual Indigenous Waterbird Surveys. An examination of seasonal variation in population size and dispersal of indigenous waterbirds on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Department of Planning and Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife. 103 Appendix 1.2. Participants in the VI-WAP Development and Review The following is a list of the professional and community stakeholders that participating in WAP planning meetings. “MWAP” was a Marine Resources meeting held at Bolongo Beach Resort, St. Thomas, on 1 February, 2017; “STT” was a joint CLCC / VI-WAP meeting held at UVI, St. Thomas, on 17 February 2017, and “STX” was a joint CLCC / VI-WAP meeting held at TNC, St. Croix, on 2 March 2017. Name Affiliation Meeting attended Sarah-Ann Charles Fish & Wildlife (DFW) MWAP 1 Feb 17 Amy Kelley Red Hook Dive Center MWAP 1 Feb 17 Rob Tutton Vital Freediving, CORE MWAP 1 Feb 17 Karen Hauer Canines, Cats & Critters MWAP 1 Feb 17 Julianne Lilholt Ritz-Carlton MWAP 1 Feb 17 Jason Quetel CORE MWAP 1 Feb 17 Tarrant Dunford Diver MWAP 1 Feb 17 Akacia Halliday UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Lora Johansen UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Kristen Ewan UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Mareike Duffing UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Chrystal Okamoto unaffiliated MWAP 1 Feb 17 Miles Brill unaffiliated MWAP 1 Feb 17 Brenda Sylvia Silver Raven Studios MWAP 1 Feb 17 Marilyn Brandt UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Tyler Smith UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Kitty Edwards CZM MWAP 1 Feb 17 Renata Platenberg UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Haley Goodson UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Danielle Lasseigne UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 John Osoinach UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Steve Matthews unaffiliated MWAP 1 Feb 17 Leslie Henderson CZM MWAP 1 Feb 17 Valerie Peters Blue Flag MWAP 1 Feb 17 Alex Silva VIMSIA Montessori MWAP 1 Feb 17 Tom O'Brien unaffiliated MWAP 1 Feb 17 Katharine Egan UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Sydney Nick UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Amelie Jensen UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Carolyn Courtien UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Allie Durdall UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Rick Manseau Aqua Action MWAP 1 Feb 17 Alex Gutting UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 104 Name Affiliation Meeting attended Vernita Smith UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Elizabeth Smith UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Paul Anderson UVI MWAP 1 Feb 17 Karl Callwood Camp Umoja & Environmental Rangers MWAP 1 Feb 17 Kitty Edwards DPNR CZM Outreach STT 17 Feb 17 James Yrigoyen USFWS STT office STT 17 Feb 17 Valerie Peters VICS (Blue Flag, Coral World) STT 17 Feb 17 Kristin Grimes UVI, UVI WRRI STT 17 Feb 17 Teresa Turner UVI STT 17 Feb 17 Haley Goodson UVI STT 17 Feb 17 Vanessa McKague UVI STT 17 Feb 17 Patsy Breunlin Phantasia Tropical Botanical Garden STT 17 Feb 17 Stevie Henry UVI STT 17 Feb 17 Brent Murry USFWS CLCC STT 17 Feb 17 Peter Freeman Northside Resource Economics STT 17 Feb 17 Mareike Duffing WAP UVI STT 17 Feb 17 Miguel Garcia CLCC STT 17 Feb 17 Dave Worthington VI National Park STT 17 Feb 17 Benita Martin WE Grow Food VI STT 17 Feb 17 Jose Cruz USFWS STT 17 Feb 17 Alan Shane McKinkley USDA-APHIS STT 17 Feb 17 Caroline Rogers USGS STT 17 Feb 17 Paul Jobsis UVI CMES STT 17 Feb 17 Renata Platenberg UVI STT 17 Feb 17 Susan Zaluski BVI JVD Preservation STT 17 Feb 17 Pedro Nieves DPNR-CZM STT 17 Feb 17 Jonathan Brown DPNR Fish & Wildlife STT 17 Feb 17 Margaret (Magoo) Boller Save Salt River Bay Coalition STX 2 Mar 17 Nathaniel Hanna Halloway NPS STX 2 Mar 17 Renata Platenberg UVI STX 2 Mar 17 Ivan Butcher II STX Hiking/SEA/VIUCFC STX 2 Mar 17 Bernard Cstillo II UVI STX 2 Mar 17 Marlon Hibbert NOAA. OCM STX 2 Mar 17 Claudia Lombard USFWS STX 2 Mar 17 Caroline Pott DPNR-CZM STX 2 Mar 17 Devon Bracy DPNR STX 2 Mar 17 Lisa Yntema unaffiliated STX 2 Mar 17 Luis Villanueva USFWS STX 2 Mar 17 Brent Murry USFWS CLCC STX 2 Mar 17 Kavita Balkaran DPNR Fish & Wildlife STX 2 Mar 17 105 Name Affiliation Meeting attended Jennifer Olah Cruzan Cowgirls STX 2 Mar 17 Julio M Santiago Rios DPNR Fish & Wildlife STX 2 Mar 17 Kemit-Amon Lewis TNC STX 2 Mar 17 Aaron Hutchins unaffiliated STX 2 Mar 17 Jennifer Valiulis SEA STX 2 Mar 17 The following individuals submitted comments on review of the 2017 VI-WAP. Name Affiliation Ivan Llerandi-Roman USFWS Jan Zegarra USFWS James Yrigoyen USFWS Brent Murry CLCC Miguel Garcia-Bermudez CLCC William Coles DPNR-DFW Daniel Nellis DPNR-DFW Sarah-Ann Charles DPNR-DFW Eric Wooden DPNR-DFW Matt Kamman DPNR-DFW Alexis Sabine DPNR-DFW Caroline Pott DPNR-EEMP Sharon Coldren CBCC Rachel McKinley CBCC Olassee Davis UVI Toni Thomas UVI Michael Evans USFWS Jason Budsan EAST Karl Callwood Save Mandahl Bay Nicole Angeli unaffiliated Robert Powell unaffiliated Margaret Boller unaffiliated 106 Appendix 1.3. Stakeholder and Public Participation in the VI-WAP Development and Revision The VI-WAP is a plan for the Territory and needed to be developed with input from resource managers across entities and the VI community. The joint collaboration between UVI, DFW, and SEA aimed to join research, management, and community interactions into the planning effort. In updating the plan, we put considerable effort into taking a collaborative approach by reaching out to stakeholders; we felt that if people participated in drafting the plan that they would be interested in seeing and using it on completion. Information Mining Our first step was to distribute an online survey to resource managers that asked two simple (but loaded) questions: 1) what are your main concerns about the resources you manage or are interested in, and 2) what are the top five actions that might be taken to address those concerns. We used this initial feedback (from 14 individuals) to structure our subsequent conversations. Natural resource managers and habitat/species experts were targeted for additional specific input on their area of expertise or on the plan in general. Input was solicited through email, one-on-one interviews, group meetings and any other method that elicited a response from individuals with the NPS, USFWS, UVI, DPNR, TNC, and others. We also worked with groups that are creating related plans, such as the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative (CLCC), to share planning strategies and input received from community and stakeholders. We reached out to participants in related workshops and meetings for input and review of the WAP. DFW hosted a VI Sea Turtle Workshop in June 2016, during which one of the authors presented on the VI-WAP, and an Invasive Species Workshop in September 2016. These opportunities elicited discussion on broader conservation challenges that were integrated into the plan. In addition to gathering information from experts and through extensive searches of literature, existing management plans and other relevant documents, we solicited input from the community through a variety of means, including social media and public meetings. Threat Assessment Using stakeholder and expert input, personal experience with resources, and information mined from reports and published accounts, we used the IUCN threat classification scheme (IUCN 2016) to evaluate each species/habitat. We ranked realized and potential threats according to scope and severity of threat to each resource, and assigned a rank (high, medium, low) based on scope and severity of threat to the resource (see Appendix 1.4 for an example for selected terrestrial species; we did the rankings across all terrestrial species and for marine habitats and organisms). Using these rankings, we identified the priority threats for each resource and across resources. The threats that ranked the highest across terrestrial resources were habitat loss, pollution (both trash and sediment/sewage input to aquatic systems ranked high), human disturbance, and invasive species. Climate change was identified as posing a threat across resources but was much more difficult to rank due to unknown influences. The major climate change threats across marine 107 resources were increased temperature, ocean acidification, and changes to habitat structure and species distribution. Development of Conservation Goals, Strategies, and Actions Focusing on major threats to habitats, we conducted stakeholder meetings on St. Croix and St. Thomas to prioritize strategies and actions on threats. These day-long meetings brought university researchers, NGOs, government agencies, tour operators, and other interested parties together for an intensive planning effort, with participation from all three islands. We also conducted a marine resources community meeting to gain insight on threats and solutions from marine stakeholders. At these meetings, participants were asked to rank threat categories according to the strength of impact on habitats, and then identify and rank solutions to counter the threats. For a list of experts that contributed input to this document, see Appendix 1.2. We also compiled priority actions from the 2005 CWCS and categorized them according to theme (e.g., inventory, species/habitat studies, education, capacity, etc.). We used these categories to classify objectives and actions into broad goals for conservation action. We then compiled the stakeholder input into broad “solutions” to develop an overarching strategy for wildlife resources within the USVI and regionally. We aligned the solutions with fundamental objectives, and aligned threats, threat rankings, and resource needs to conservation action (solution) categories and developed goals, strategies, and actions based on resource needs and priority ranking from stakeholder input. Using the input from the surveys, interviews, and meetings, we identified eight priority goals toward addressing the main issues surrounding species and habitat conservation in the territory with the following themes: 1) habitat and species protection, 2) habitat and species management, 3) capacity, 4) research, 5) education and outreach, 6) adaptive management, 7) adaptation and mitigation, and 8) economics and incentives. We adapted the goals and strategies from the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov) as a framework and translated the goals and strategies to match USVI needs. The main concerns of most of the participants of each public input session were more societal: lack of enforcement and lack of knowledge/concern about the resources within the community. Community members focused on single-use plastics as being both a physical threat (plastic debris in the environment) and a societal problem (absence of concern). We categorized these influences on species and habitat condition as “ubiquitous threats”, being those impacts that are associated with multiple resources and/or the conservation management of these resources. These include challenges such as data sharing capability, poorly defined and enforced regulations, and shortfalls in personnel and funding. This observation clearly emphasizes that wildlife and species conservation cannot be relegated as a task for DFW alone, but is a multi-agency endeavor that must include community participation. Stakeholder and Public Review The draft VI WAP was made available to stakeholders for review in March 2017 prior to submission to the SWAP Review Team. Comments were received from several USFWS partners. This was deemed insufficient and a second review period was opened up for five weeks from May to June 2018 upon recommendation from the SWAP review team. A Google website was created 108 that allowed open access to each section contained within a separate page to allow for ease of access and navigation. A comment form was also provided at this site to collect reviewer feedback; reviewers were also able to download sections for a more thorough evaluation. In total, comments were received from 22 individuals (listed in Appendix 1.2). The most common comment referred to the impractical format, i.e., that the document was too large to be useable. Our response was to break the document into two sections that separated the management/compliance requirements from the natural history component. We also streamlined the text by moving cited literature into bibliographies for each section. While we received comments that the document contained too much detail, particularly for certain taxa (i.e., amphibians, reptiles, and bats), we also received comments, primarily from non-technical sources, that praised the depth, detail, and content of the document. Several individuals felt that this is a useful document towards addressing conservation challenges in the USVI. We felt that the value of the 2005 CWCS was contained within the collection of information on natural history that is not published elsewhere and made the decision to retain the detail. We recommend that the document sections be formatted into individual webpages within a VI-WAP website for ease of access. Reviewers also struggled to locate specific conservation actions. The overarching strategy (Table 5.2) was difficult to interpret and also contained objectives that indirectly aided in wildlife and habitat conservation. We created a new Priority Action table (Table 5.3) to provide specific direct action steps that identified indicators, resources (particularly SGCN) expected to benefit from actions, and potential partners in accomplishing each action. Other comments provided or directed us to additional information that we made every effort to incorporate into the document. The draft document was completed prior to the 2017 twin hurricanes Irma and Maria, and many reviewers felt that a significant component had been omitted, i.e., the impacts of the storms, ecosystem response, and recovery and resiliency management needs. While we were unable to fully address these during the limited revision period, we included a brief section of post-hurricane needs for each resource. We acknowledge several deficiencies in our approach to updating this plan. We did not thoroughly communicate with some key entities such as the Waste Management Authority, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Tourism, and even divisions within the Department of Planning and Natural Resources. Most of our community input came from people that were willing and able to come to public meetings about conservation; this is not necessarily a representative cross section of the entire community. We acknowledge these deficiencies for the purpose of identifying and ensuring the need to include these entities in implementation of the WAP strategy within the action steps and subsequent revisions. 109 Appendix 1.4. Threat Rankings The tables on the following pages were used to identify and prioritize threats for USVI terrestrial species, including SGCN, terrestrial habitats, and marine habitats and organisms (invertebrates, fish, and sea turtles). Each threat (from IUCN threat categories; iucnredlist.org) was ranked according to severity (how bad it is) and scope (how widespread it is, i.e., how many populations are affected) for each resource. Where specific threats were known, these were identified. The threat prioritizations were then used to develop potential solutions which were aligned with goals and fundamental objectives (Chapter 5). The accompanying tables are for example only, the full assessment is not included within this document. 110 Gut Fauna (shrimp & fish) Frogs Bats Stenoderma M H 1.1 Housing & urban areas H 1.2 Commercial & industrial areas (marinas) M 1.3 Tourism & recreational areas M 2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops 2.1.2 small-holder farming L L M 2.1.3 Agro-industry farming 2.2 Wood & pulp plantations 2.2.1 small-holder plantations 2.3 Livestock farming & ranching 2.3.1 Nomadic grazing L M 2.3.2 small-holder grazing, ranching or farming 2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture 2.4.1 Subsistence / artisinal aquaculture U M Energy production & mining 3.1 Oil & gas (drilling) 3.2 Mining & quarrying L M L L 3.3 Renewable energy L H H Transportation & service corridors 4.1 Roads H M L M 4.2 Utility & service lines U U 4.3 Shipping lanes cruise ships/cargo ships 4.4 Flight paths Biological resource use 5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals U 5.1.1 Intentional use (species is target) 5.1.2 Unintentional use (species is not the target) 5.1.3 Persecution/control L M L 5.1.4 Motivation unknown/unrecorded 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants 5.2.1 Intentional use (species is target) 5.2.2 Unintentional use (species is not the target) L L 5.2.3 Persecution/control 5.2.4 Motivation unknown/unrecorded 5.3 Logging & wood harvesting M M 5.3.1 Intentional use (species is target): subsistence/small scale 5.3.2 Intentional use (species is target): large scale 5.3.3 Unintentional effects (species is not the target): subsistence/small scale 5.3.4 Unintentional effects (species is not the target): large scale 5.3.5 Motivation unknown/unrecorded Residential & commercial development Agriculture & aquaculture Threat Categories (from IUCN) Table 1. Ranking of threat risk to resources. H (high risk) = significant/widespread impact, affects a large proportion of populations; M (medium risk) = risk that poses moderate impact or exposure; L (low risk) = risk limited in extent or scope 111 112