Title: Management framework for a system of marine protected areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/CA01300652/00001
 Material Information
Title: Management framework for a system of marine protected areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Gardner, Lloyd
University of the Virgin Islands. ( Contributor )
Publication Date: 2002
 Subjects
Subject: Caribbean   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States Virgin Islands
Caribbean
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: CA01300652
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

ManagementFramework_9-24-02 ( PDF )


Full Text









MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK


FOR

A SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

FOR THE

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS






Prepared by:
Lloyd Gardner

In collaboration with:
University of the Virgin Islands



For:
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Zone Management
Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
A SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
FOR THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS



Note:

This document was commissioned by the University of the Virgin Islands from Lloyd
Gardner under the Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Coastal Zone
Management's VI Marine Park Project (NOAA Award No. NA070Z0513).


For bibliography purposes this document may be cited as:

Lloyd Gardner. 2002. Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas for
the U.S. Virgin Islands. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and
Natural Resources. USVI, September 24, 2002.


Final Report Page 1 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 1


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CONTENTS
Page#

List of Tables 4
List of Figures 4
List of Maps 4
List of Acronyms 5
Acknowledgements 6

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1 Background 7
1.2 System of Protected Areas for the USVI 8

PART I: POLICY FRAMEWORK 11

Chapter 2. MARINE RESOURCES AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 12

Chapter 3. GOALS OF A SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 15

Chapter 4. TYPES OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 18

4.1 Existing Situation 18
4.2 Desired Situation 19
4.3 Adjustments Required to Achieve the Desired Situation 20

Chapter 5. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 21

5.1 Existing Situation 21
5.2 Desired Situation 25
5.3 Adjustments Required to Achieve the Desired Situation 26

Chapter 6. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 28

6.1 Existing Situation 28
6.2 Desired Situation 31
6.3 Adjustments Required to Achieve the Desired Situation 36

Chapter 7. PLANNING PROTECTED AREAS 37

7.1 System-Wide Planning 37
7.2 Site Selection and Establishment 41
7.3 Site Planning 43


Final Report Page 2 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 2


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Chapter 8. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

8.1 Existing Situation
8.2 Desired Situation


PART II:

Chapter 9.

Chapter 10.


MARINE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE USVI

EXISTING MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS

PROPOSED MARINE PROTECTED AREAS


PART III: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 11. GAPS IN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK

Chapter 12. REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

List of references

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Institutions and Persons Consulted
Appendix 2: Marine Protected Areas Presidential Executive Order 13158
Appendix 3: Potential Benefits of Marine Reserves
Appendix 4: IUCN Protected Area Categories


Final Report Page 3 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 3


September 24, 2002













Table 1:

Table 2:


Final Report Page 4 September 24, 2002


Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


List of Tables


Threats to Marine Biodiversity

Selection Criteria for USVI Marine Protected Areas








List of Figures


Planning Levels for the Protected Area System



Rationale for Protected Area System Planning






List of Maps

Existing Marine Protected Areas St. Croix

Existing Marine Protected Areas St. John and St. Thomas

Potential Marine Protected Areas St. Croix

Potential Marine Protected Areas St. John

Potential Marine Protected Areas St. Thomas


Page

38


Page#

13

42


Figure 1:



Box 1:








Map 1:

Map 2:

Map 3:

Map 4:

Map 5:


Final Report


Page 4


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


LIST OF ACRONYMS


APC
APR
CBD
DCCA
DHPR
DPNR
DPNR-DFW
DP&P
DPW
ICRI
MPA
NGO
NMF S
NOAA
NPS
PAA
PAAC
SNA
SPAW
TPS
USVI
UVI
VI
VICD
VI-DoA
VI-DoE
VI-DoT
VIPA
VITEMA
WAPA


Area of Particular Concern
Area of Preservation and Restoration
Convention on Biological Diversity
Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish & Wildlife
Department of Property and Procurement
Department of Public Works
International Coral Reef Initiative
Marine Protected Area
Non-governmental Organization
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
Protected Area Authority
Protected Area Advisory Council
Significant Natural Area
Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife
Territorial Park System
U.S. Virgin Islands
University of the Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands Conservation District
Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture
Virgin Islands Department of Education
Virgin Islands Department of Tourism
Virgin Islands Port Authority
Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency
Water and Power Authority


Final Report Page 5 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 5


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



This report was prepared by Lloyd Gardner, Consultant to the University of the Virgin
Islands (UVI), in his capacity as Coordinator of the VI Marine Park Project. The
management framework outlined in this report does not necessarily reflect the official
position of the UVI or the Department of Planning and Natural Resources.

This report is a recommendation to the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands for the
establishment and management of a system of protected areas in the U.S. Virgin islands
(USVI).

The report draws on existing policies and legislation, on previous work done by a number of
persons and government agencies concerning the development of a VI park system, and on
the experiences of a number of persons previously and presently involved in protected areas
policy and planning. Lastly, the report incorporates the recommendations of a number of
public, private, and civil society institutions.

We take this opportunity to acknowledge the inputs by various institutions and individuals
that participated in this process (Appendix 1).

We hope this report effectively captures and represents your inputs.

Thank You.

Lloyd Gardner.


Final Report Page 6 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 6


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This report is presented as an output of the VI Marine Park Project. The project is an
initiative of the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, implemented as part of the National
Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs.

The U.S. National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs was developed to guide the
sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems within the jurisdiction of the United States of
America, including its Territories and Commonwealths. Sustainable use simply means that
coral reef ecosystems should be used and managed in such a manner as to ensure the security
of the economic, cultural, social, and environmental values and benefits of such ecosystems
in perpetuity.

The overall goal of the VI Marine Park Project is to establish the objectives, policies, and
procedures for management of marine resources within the territorial waters of the U.S.
Virgin Islands (USVI), through the development of marine protected areas.

The VI Marine Park Project involves four main components:

* A Resource Description Report, prepared by Island Resources Foundation (IRF);

* A Socio-economic Assessment, prepared by Hinds Unlimited;

* A Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas, prepared by Lloyd
Gardner of Environmental Support Services, LLC; and

* A Management Plan for the East End Marine Park, St. Croix, prepared by The Nature
Conservancy (TNC).

A protected area is defined as "an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources, and managed through legal or other effective means" (IUCN, 1994). The main
purposes for establishment and management of protected areas are identified as:
* Scientific research;
* Wilderness protection;
* Preservation of species and genetic diversity;
* Maintenance of environmental services;
* Protection of specific natural and cultural features;
* Tourism and recreation;
* Education;
* Sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems; and
* Maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes.


Final Report Page 7 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 7


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


There are several variations of a definition for marine protected areas (Kelleher 1999). The
May 26, 2000 Marine Protected Areas Executive Order (Appendix 2) signed by President
Clinton defines marine protected areas as "... any area of the marine environment that has
been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide
lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein" (National
Research Council 2001). Even this definition focuses on resources, omitting the implications
for the wider ecosystem functions and benefits. As such, this report adopts the simple
definition offered by Day & Roff, 2000, which defines a marine protected area as "any
marine area set aside under legislation to protect marine '/,h/ei".

Due to the increasing number of protected areas, the increased demand on protected area
resources, the fact that a number of institutions directly manage and/or monitor the status of
those resources, and the recognition that many threats originate outside the protected area,
there is increasing awareness of the need to adopt a systems approach to protected area
management. The establishment of a national system of protected areas is supposed to
rationalize the approach to protected area planning, as well as link conservation priorities and
efforts to other development strategies and activities. A management plan focused at the
system level is usually referred to as a System Plan.



1.2 System of Protected Areas for the USVI

The basic principle underlying system planning for protected areas is that protected areas
should be an integral part of a wider natural resource and land use management strategy, and
that planning and management of several protected areas require a coordinated approach.

The above principle encapsulates the concepts that (a) natural resource management
strategies should be part of a wider macro-economic planning process, and (b) individual
units are unable to address the range of threats that are societal and originate outside the
units. A system plan is therefore said to have the following uses (Davey 1998):
* Clarifying objectives;
* Promoting achievement of objectives;
* Identifying options and their implications;
* Encouraging systematic evaluation of options;
* Increasing understanding of the issues;
* Defining future management issues;
* Predicting and orienting future actions;
* Identifying priorities for investment;
* Coordinating a range of inputs;
* Building and sustaining commitment;
* Creating and maintaining partnerships; and
* Establishing a baseline for evaluation of future action, and for monitoring.

The range of reasons for protected areas system planning is well established (Box 1), and all
are of relevance to the USVI.


Final Report


Page 8


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Box I
Reasons for Adopting a System Approach to Protected Area Planning
Adrian Davey, 1998

* To relate protected areas to national priorities, and to prioritise different aspects of protected
area development;

* To facilitate access to international and national funding, by defining priorities for
investment in protected areas and increasing the level of confidence in the efficient use of
funds and resources;

* To get away from a case by case, ad hoc, approach to resource management decision
making;

* To target proposed additions to the protected area estate in a more rational and persuasive
manner than ad hoc planning;

* To facilitate integration with other relevant planning strategies, such as those for national
tourism, national biodiversity conservation, or sustainable development;

* To help resolve conflicts, assist in making decisions relating to trade-offs, clarify roles and
responsibilities of different stakeholders, and facilitate diverse stakeholder involvement;

* To provide a broader perspective for addressing site-specific issues, such as tourism
management;

* To enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the way in which budgets are developed and
spent;

* To assist in meeting obligations under international treaties;

* To assist countries to be more proactive in conservation management, and in developing
effective protected area systems;

* To encourage consideration of a "system" which incorporates formal protected areas and
areas outside of protected areas;

* To provide a structured framework for a system of protected areas, ranging from areas
managed for strict conservation to areas managed for a range of conservation and
appropriate ecologically-sound activities;

* To assist protected area agencies to build political support for protected areas as a
worthwhile concern;

* To define a better process of decentralisation and regionalisation of protected area activities,
resources and responsibilities, including the involvement of NGOs and the private sector;
and

* To foster transboundary collaboration.


Final Report Page 9 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 9


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


However, this report is not a system plan, due to the following factors:

a. This VI Marine Park Project focuses on the marine resources, and hence marine
protected areas (MPAs). However, there is overwhelming evidence that inshore
marine resources cannot be adequately protected without management of land-based
activities. As such, any protected area system plan must incorporate terrestrial
protected areas, as well as address the issues of land management and development
activities/pressures.

b. The full range of possibilities concerning public participation in environmental
management has not been clearly articulated in the past. Clearly the role of civil
society institutions in the protected area management process has not been fully
explored. The community needs to arrive at some basic agreements on the issue
before such roles can be outlined in a system plan.

c. Previous focus on protected areas in the USVI has been skewed primarily towards
recreation. With the increased awareness of the need to address ecological and
resource-specific issues (such as overfishing), there is increasing focus on
establishment of protected areas to address a wider range of economic, social, and
environmental objectives.

Based on the above, this Management Framework should be viewed as a critical first step in
the preparation of a system plan.

This report is presented to the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands for adoption, following
which it becomes a statement of government policy, and provides the guidance for the
development of a comprehensive system plan for protected areas in the USVI.

This document points the way forward, but achieving the full range of benefits from a
comprehensive system of protected areas will require the cooperation of all peoples of the
USVI, with government institutions working in full partnership with non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), community groups, private sector organizations, and private citizens.


Final Report Page 10 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 10


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


PART I: POLICY FRAMEWORK


While there has been a substantial amount of previous discussion and effort concerning a
Territorial Park System (TPS), there is no clear government policy that articulates the policy
framework for management of a system of protected areas. The policy statement focused on
this particular topic is usually contained in a "Policy and Plan for a System of Protected
Areas".

Some of the chapters in this Part I of the report present information in a manner that
describes the existing situation, the recommended policy framework, and the efforts that are
required to transform the existing situation into the desired system management framework.


Final Report Page 11 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 11


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 2: MARINE RESOURCES AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

The marine environment (oceans, coastal waters, and estuaries) covers 71% of the planet, and
therefore provides a great abundance and diversity of foods, raw materials, and services.

Food from marine sources Of the 99.5 metric tons of finfish and shellfish caught in 1989,
86% (85.8 metric tons) came from the marine environment, with the remainder from inland
waters (FAO 1991). Other materials (irish moss, etc.) have been used for food and drink.

Medicines from the sea Of the 33 animal phyla, 32 occur in the sea, and 15 are exclusively
marine (Norse 1993). The discovery of anti-viral and anti-tumor agents from marine
organisms has spurred greater interest in the potential of marine organisms for medical
research.

Services from the sea The marine environment provides a wide range of goods for
consumption and as raw materials. However, one of the most significant contributions of the
marine environment is in the form of ecosystem services, including:
* Coastal protection (mangroves, seagrass beds, coral reefs);
* Transportation (cargo and passengers);
* Stabilization of global climate (control of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere
by phytoplankton at the oceans' surface);
* Recreational/amenity value (tourism); and
* Waste treatment and disposal.

However, the Caribbean Sea and the resources it contains are threatened by a number of
factors, some natural, most anthropogenic in origin. These sources can be grouped as
follows:
* Natural events (storms, coral bleaching, diseases);
* Over-exploitation and destructive harvesting practices;
* Coastal development;
* Pollution derived from land-based sources (sediments, chemicals, nutrients);
* Maritime activities (pollution, physical damage); and
* Population increase (increased urbanization and its impacts).

Establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) has been used as an effective mechanism to
reduce the threats to marine resources. This is done primarily through (a) the protection of
biological communities and habitats, (b) through the protection of selected species of
wildlife, and (c) through the resolution of use and user conflicts.

However, even with the numerous benefits provided by MPAs (Appendix 3), alone they
cannot protect the entire marine environment. This results from the fact that MPAs usually
cover less than 10% of the marine area of a state. The goal established for the USA is to
achieve 20% coverage. More importantly, MPAs cannot address many of the issues related
to threats to marine resources (Table 1).


Final Report Page 12 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 12


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Table 1: Threats to Marine Biodiversity

Risk or Speed of Threatening Process Can the Risk
Degradation of to Biodiversity
Biodiversity be Reduced by
an MPA?

High Physical habitat destruction (e.g. dredging) Yes
Blast fishing using explosives Yes
Toxic pollution (e.g. chemical spills) Maybe
Chemical fishing (e.g. using cyanide) Yes
Introduction of exotic organisms Maybe
Loss of genetic variability Yes
Biological invasions Maybe
Overexploitation/overfishing Yes
Bioaccumulation of noxious materials (e.g. heavy metals) Maybe
Indirect pollution (e.g. pesticides, herbicides in runoff) Maybe
Disease/parasite infection Maybe
Depletion of spawning sites Yes
Sea dumping of dredge spoil Yes
Incidental take/by-catch Yes
Destruction of adjoining watersheds Maybe
Impacts of adjacent land-use practices (e.g. aquaculture) Maybe
Effluent discharge (e.g. sewage, pulp/paper mill effluent) Maybe
Natural events (e.g. cyclones, tsunamis) No
Direct marine pollution, ocean dumping Yes
Downstream impacts from dams, dikes, etc. Maybe
Net/debris entanglement Maybe
Siltation Maybe
Noise pollution Maybe
Toxic blooms/red tides Maybe
Thermal pollution Yes
Rising sea temperatures (climatic change) No
Rising sea level (climatic change) No
Salinity changes No
Low Take by Aboriginal people Maybe


Source: Day & Roff 2000


Final Report Page 13 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 13


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Major national, regional, and international initiatives to reduce the threats to marine
resources include:

* The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): This international convention
was established to protect biological diversity, primarily through the protection of both
species and ecosystems. The importance accorded this convention is contained in the
recognition that "biological resources are vital to humanity's economic and social
development". The implementation of this convention includes a focus on marine
biodiversity.

* Regional Programme on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW): The
SPAW Programme implements the provision of the SPAW Protocol, under the Cartagena
Convention. In addition to protected areas and wildlife, the Caribbean component of
ICRI is coordinated through this programme.

* The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI): ICRI is a global initiative to
address the rapid degradation of coral reefs. Launched in 1994, ICRI is a partnership
among governments, international intergovernmental organizations, and non-
governmental organizations. The U.S.A. has developed a national action plan, within
which is a US All Islands Coral Reef Initiative Strategy. The VI Marine Park Project is
part of the coral reef monitoring and assessment program of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Within the USVI, initiatives have included:
* Establishment of a number of marine reserves and sanctuaries;
* Establishment of two marine national monuments;
* Designation of eighteen Areas of Particular Concern (APCs);
* Development of a Non-point Source Pollution Program;
* Fisheries management strategies;
* Oil spill contingency planning; and
* Development of a major permits process for Tier 1 and marine development activities,
with a similar permitting process adopted for Tier 2 development activities.

Given the above interventions, as well as the impressions expressed by many persons that
there is already too much regulation, what are the reasons for, and benefits of, having a
system of marine protected areas?


Final Report Page 14 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 14


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 3: GOALS OF A SYSTEM OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

The system of protected areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) should support the
development of the community by providing opportunities and benefits for meeting general
economic, conservation, and social goals. The system, both as a whole and as individual
sites, will provide a strategic and essential mechanism for:
a. Environmental protection;
b. Demonstrating and ensuring sustainable use of important natural resources;
c. Expanding and diversifying the recreational opportunities for residents and visitors;
d. Assisting in the diversification of economic opportunities;
e. Protecting important cultural and natural heritage; and
f. Improving education, awareness, and training.

In pursuit of the above goals, the following principles should be applied:
* The integrity of important ecosystems and other natural and cultural resources must be
protected.
* Resources must be used in a sustainable manner.
* Management strategies should promote social harmony.
* Initiatives and actions should be sustainable.
* Where applicable, the precautionary principle should be applied.


GOAL 1: Economic Development

Primary Objective: To expand and diversify the nature-based component of the VI
economy.

By:
* Protecting the supply and quality of natural resources that support the economy, in
particular water and air.
* Improving the livelihoods of individuals and the community by increasing their earning
potential.
* Contributing to the sustainability of the the tourism sector by protecting beaches, coral
reefs, coastal water quality, wildlife, and providing opportunities for nature interpretation
and experiencing VI cultural heritage.
* Promoting sustainable harvesting practices.


GOAL 2: Environmental Conservation

Primary Objective: To conserve the natural and cultural heritage for the benefit of present
and future generations of Virgin Islanders.


Final Report Page 15 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 15


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


By:
* Protecting representative areas of indigenous flora and fauna, natural communities, and
ecosystems.
* Protecting areas representing major components of the natural and cultural heritage of the
USVI; inclusive of prominent and/or unique natural features, landscapes and seascapes,
scenic areas, historic artifacts, buildings, and historic and archeological sites.
* Protecting and enhancing unique ecosystems that are fragile or are threatened by
development and other human activities.


GOAL 3: Sustainable Resource Use

Primary Objective: To protect natural resources and ecosystems that provide goods and
services.

By:
* Protecting and restoring watersheds, wetlands, coral reefs, and other important
ecosystems that provide important economic resources, such as fish, wildlife, water, and
other similar goods.
* Protecting ecosystems, such as coral reefs, wetlands, and forests that maintain life-
support systems and reduce the impacts of natural disasters.
* Providing opportunities for research in sustainable resource use.


GOAL 4: Recreation

Primary Objective: To provide recreational opportunities to maintain and improve the
quality of life for residents and visitors, for present and future generations.

By:
Promoting recreational opportunities for residents and visitors that are compatible
with the objectives of sustainable resource use.
Protecting natural areas to meet the public demand for passive recreational uses.
Promoting appreciation of historic and cultural resources by providing opportunities
for interpretation and enjoyment of those resources.
Promoting equal opportunities for access to recreational areas, particularly beaches
and historical sites.
Protecting outstanding scenic vistas, landscapes, and seascapes.


GOAL 5: Education

Primary Objective: To improve understanding of the life-supporting processes and other
benefits provided by natural ecosystems.


Final Report Page 16 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 16


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


By:
* Preserving natural ecosystems and providing opportunities for ecological and other
scientific research.
* Providing opportunities for environmental education.
* Promoting appreciation of historical and cultural resources.
* Providing opportunities for research on the socio-economic impact of protected areas on
local communities.


GOAL 6: Community Development

Primary Objective: To generate local support for protected areas.

By:
* Providing for the participation of all interested groups and individuals in all aspects of
protected area planning and management.
* Demonstrating that protected areas generate improved livelihoods and other benefits for
local communities.


Final Report Page 17 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 17


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 4: TYPES OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

The marine protected areas (MPAs) currently in existence in the U.S Virgin Islands (USVI)
are either marine reserves or national monuments. However, many sites that are commonly
referred to as coastal protected areas have marine components. These are currently either
national parks or areas of particular concern (APCs). These sites were established by both
Federal laws and USVI laws, and are managed by either the National Parks Service (NPS) or
the Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of Fish & Wildlife (DPNR-
DFW). DPNR's Division of Environmental Enforcement provides enforcement support to
both local and Federal agencies.

The future protected areas system of the USVI should include representative examples of the
natural resources, unique natural features, and outstanding landscapes and seascapes. The
system should protect valued ecosystems, features, and species, and provide linkages to each
other, as well as to other ecosystems outside the boundaries of protected areas.

The classification, designation, and management objectives of protected areas should reflect
their importance to the USVI, at the same time being cognizant of national and international
systems of classification. Due to the importance of national, regional, and international
environmental initiatives and multilateral environmental arrangements, where possible, the
local classification will follow the guidelines developed by IUCN-The World Conservation
Union (Appendix 4). Where a local protected area qualifies for designation under a national
or international system, such designation should be pursued.



4.1 Existing Situation

Types of MPAs and coastal protected areas in existence in the USVI (Chapter 9) include the
following:
* National Monuments;
* Wildlife Sanctuaries;
* Marine Reserves;
* Marine Conservation Areas/Districts;
* Significant Natural Areas;
* National Parks; and
* Areas of Particular Concern and Areas of Preservation and Restoration.

The current situation facing these areas is characterized by the following:
* The presence of gaps in the coverage of ecosystem types, as well as types of MPAs;
* The primary focus for areas managed by the Government of the USVI being species
protection;
* Site design is not based on ecosystem units in many cases;
* There is an apparent lack of correlation between areas, in terms of relative locations
and management objectives;


Final Report


Page 18


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


* Development activity (primarily tourism projects) sometimes result in the loss of
areas identified as potential sites for protected areas;
* Development activity presents an ongoing significant threat to the integrity of
existing and proposed protected area sites; and
* There is inadequate institutional coordination for natural resources and protected area
management.

The current approach to MPA designation and management often creates conflicts between
the Federal and USVI Governments, and between government and affected stakeholders.

Designation of protected areas by both Federal and USVI government agencies appear to be
opportunistic, rather than being logical steps in the expansion of an agreed system of
protected areas relevant to the development needs and conservation and economic strategies
of the USVI.



4.2 Desired Situation

The system of MPAs' in the USVI will include four basic types of areas; national
monuments, marine parks, marine reserves, and marine sanctuaries. These four basic types
will continue to be supplemented by the existing and future coastal protected areas
designated as national parks and areas of particular concern (APCs).

National Monuments2
These are sites or areas of, or containing, natural, historic, or cultural features that are
of outstanding value because of its inherent rarity, exceptional aesthetic qualities,
ecological significance, or cultural significance. Primary uses: protection of natural
and/or cultural values, allowing compatible research, education, and public
access/recreation.

Marine Parks
These are natural areas displaying unique biodiversity or ecological value and
recreational potential. Primary uses: protection of natural and recreational values,
allowing compatible recreational, scientific research, and educational uses.

Marine Reserves3
Marine reserves are areas designated specifically to protect selected species,
resources, or areas from exploitation. Primary use: species and/or resource
restoration, allowing scientific research and education.



1 It was previously noted that a system composed of only MPAs is unsustainable in the USVI. As such, it is
anticipated that the protected area system will be expanded to included terrestrial sites, thus enabling the
establishment of a comprehensive and logical system.
2 National Monuments are usually designated by the Federal Government.
3 This category also includes Fishery Management Areas.


Final Report


Page 19


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Marine Sanctuaries4
Marine sanctuaries are areas containing unique biodiversity, are required for critical
life stages of important species of wildlife, or possessing other unique ecological
values. Primary use: maintenance of the ecological integrity of the site, allowing
compatible research and educational uses.



4.3 Adjustments Required to Achieve the Desired Situation

To change the existing situation concerning MPAs in the USVI to one that meets the goals of
the system of MPAs, a number of actions have to be undertaken. The main actions required
are:

a. Undertake a gap analysis to ensure that all the important/critical resources and/or
ecosystems are represented in the MPA system.

b. Identify and select areas to provide all the potential benefits of the MPA system, not
just species protection.

c. Conduct detailed assessments of existing sites in order to; (i) ensure that management
objectives of each are being met, (ii) set a baseline of resource status, and (iii) ensure
that the existing boundaries cover complete habitats.

d. Revise existing regulations for MPAs to prevent damage from developmental and
recreational activities.

e. Develop a rational basis for site selection to ensure that sites are complementary.

f. Improve coordination between MPA management agencies to improve MPA
planning, administration, monitoring, and data management.













4 The existing laws governing marine sanctuaries allow for levels of commercial and other activities, which
often generate adverse impacts on the site. Obviously a species/resource is not protected if the habitat
("sanctuary") it needs is damaged or destroyed. If this definition of marine sanctuaries is accepted in the USVI,
some refinement in the law will be necessary.


Final Report


Page 20


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 5: LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The different types of marine protected areas (MPAs) in existence in the U.S. Virgin Islands
(USVI) have been designated under different laws, both Federal and local. Consequently,
management of different sites also fall under the jurisdiction of both Federal and USVI
government agencies. Additionally, there is no single law to provide a unifying framework
for a system of protected areas in the USVI, though a Draft Bill, The Territorial Park System
Act, was prepared in 1995.

The development of a system of protected areas requires the coordination of policy, planning,
and management between the various Federal and USVI government agencies engaged in
protected area management. A unified vision and effective coordination therefore require
new legislation, changes in existing legislation, and new regulations.



5.1 Existing Situation

Sites that fall within the national parks system are designated by the United States Congress,
the Secretary of Commerce, or by Presidential Proclamation and managed by the National
Park Service (NPS). Though there are many laws that impact on the management of
protected areas, there are eight main Federal laws that allow for designation of MPAs.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431-1434)
National marine sanctuaries may be designated by the Secretary of Commerce or by
Congress, and are usually administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). These areas are usually designated for the purpose of
preserving or restoring such areas for their conservation and recreational values. The
public and private uses of such areas are permitted in most cases, unless otherwise
prohibited by other regulations.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-
1883)
This Act covers the designation of fishery management areas, which are usually
closed areas meant to protect spawning aggregations, essential fish habitat, and
habitat areas of particular concern. Fishery management areas are usually designated
by the Secretary of Commerce, on the advice of the appropriate regional fishery
management council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1, 2-4)
National parks and marine parks are usually designated by Congress for the purpose
of preserving unique or pristine scenic or wildlife features, and are managed by the
National Park Service. National parks are managed primarily to provide public
recreational opportunities, and many contain large marine areas.


Final Report Page 21 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 21


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Coastal Zone Management Act 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq.)
The Act provides for the establishment of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System. These sites are designated to provide estuaries for research, restoration, and
education, and are managed by NOAA. Sites designated under this Act also require
protection by local (State) law. Areas of Particular Concern (APCs) are also
designated under this Act.

National Wildlife System Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd)
This Act establishes wildlife refuges for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and for
habitat protection. The sites are designated by Congress or Presidential Proclamation,
and managed by the Fish & Wildlife Service.

Endangered Species Act 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407)
This Act protects endangered species of plants and animals, and covers the
designation of critical habitat to protect the endangered species.

Archeological Resources Protection Act 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)
This Act is used to designate and protect historic sites.

National Historic Preservation Act 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)
This Act permits the designation of properties/sites that are of historical and cultural
significance. It is considered relevant for the management of marine archeological
sites. Sites designated by the Federal Government under this law are usually
managed by State/territorial government agencies.

Presidential Proclamations
Used to designate national monuments to protect important ecological or historic
resources.

In addition to the different legislation and regulations, the Executive Order concerning MPAs
issued by President Clinton in 2000 presents a basic policy framework for a system of MPAs
throughout the United States and its territories (Appendix 2). In addition to providing
guidance on the elements appropriate for the development of the system of MPAs, the
Executive Order requires coordination between Federal agencies.

The primary legal foundation for marine protected areas in the USVI is the Virgin Islands
Code, specifically Title 12 (Conservation). The main laws that permit local designation of
MPAs are shown below.

Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act 1978 (Act No. 4828)
Following the requirements of the national Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act requires an inventory and
designation of areas of particular concern (APCs). The same laws also make
provision for the designation of Areas for Preservation and Restoration (APRs).
While APCs are areas deemed to be "... ofyet greater significance", based on criteria
set out within the Virgin Islands Coastal Management Program and Final


Final Report


Page 22


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Environmental Impact Statement, APRs are designated specifically for the purpose of
preserving or restoring areas "...for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or
IaeIiLtic u1,//le" (NOAA 1979). APCs and APRs are designated by the Legislature
of the USVI, on the recommendation of the Coastal Zone Management Commission.
The Act also provides for the designation of significant natural areas (SNAs), defined
as areas that are unique, fragile, of high natural productivity, or are essential habitat
for living resources and endangered species.

Government Reorganization and Consolidation Act 1987 (Act No. 5265)
This Act split the mandate of the then Division of Parks and Natural Resources
(Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs), assigning responsibility for the
administration and maintenance of parks to the newly created Department of
Housing, Parks and Recreation (DHPR) and the responsibility for natural resources
management to the equally new Department of Planning and Natural Resources
(DPNR). Parks created under this law are generally for recreational purposes, with
little attention given to natural resource issues.

Wildlife and Marine Sanctuaries Act 1980 (Act No. 5229)
This allows the Department of Planning and Natural Resources to designate wildlife
sanctuaries and marine reserves, and promulgate associated rules and regulations.

Trustlands, Occupancy and Alteration Control Act 1975 (Act No. 3667)
Allows for the protection, preservation, maintenance, and improvement of lands and
submerged lands transferred to the USVI Government. This includes regulation of
Federal submerged lands transferred to the USVI Government.

Additional legislation of relevance to the development of a system of MPAs include:
* Act No. 350 Provides for the acquisition and development of areas as
historical and recreational areas. It also gives the Executive Branch the
authority to enter into agreements with Federal Government agencies for park
development and management;
* Act No. 2036 Established the Virgin Islands Conservation Fund;
* Act No. 2347 Established the Land Bank Fund to support a range of public
uses, including conservation;
* Act No. 2708 Established the VI Students Conservation Corps;
* Act No. 3063 (The Open Shorelines Act 1971) Established public use rights
to the foreshore;
* Act No. 5294 Dealt specifically with Cas Cay and the Mangrove Lagoon as
protected areas. It also required the preparation of a "marine sanctuary plan"
for the Mangrove Lagoon area, removed the term "protected areas" from the
then legislation, and authorized the Commissioner of DPNR to designate and
establish additional wildlife and marine sanctuaries; and
* Act No. 5665 (The Indigenous and Endangered Species Act 1990) Provided
for protection of indigenous wildlife species. It also established a "net loss
policy" for wetlands.


Final Report


Page 23


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


5.1.1 Major Issues

A review of past initiatives, as well as interviews with a number of persons familiar with
protected areas planning and management in the USVI, has identified a number of issues that
need to be addressed if a system of MPAs is to be developed. The major issues are:

a. There is no single piece of legislation giving effect to a system of protected areas in
the USVI. A draft Bill for a Territorial Park System (TPS) was prepared in 1995, but
the process of adopting it into law was not completed.

b. There is no plan for a system of protected areas. A draft plan for the TPS was
prepared in 1981, when the Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs
(DCCA) was given responsibility for territorial parks. The plan was not submitted for
serious consideration. Site establishment is therefore opportunistic (e.g. using the
opportunity of the Columbus Quintecennial Celebrations to designate the Salt River
Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Reserve).

c. The reorganization of the DCCA into the DHPR and DPNR somehow created a
legislative gap, wherein neither agency had responsibility for development and
management of a system of protected areas. Additionally, the language used in the
associated bit of legislation implies that parks are urban recreational spaces and
beaches. Parks for natural resource management objectives was apparently not
contemplated. As such, even with the overlap between DHPR and DPNR, there is
still a gap with respect to lead responsibilities for national parks.

d. Given the large number of areas recommended for inclusion in the TPS (Maps 3-5
and Page 81) and the available resources and responsibilities of the existing agencies,
it has been suggested that a Territorial Park Authority be created. A Bill to that effect
was drafted in 1992, but was never promulgated.

e. Though there are agreements in place between the National Park Service and the
USVI Government, a number of recent initiatives suggest that some legislative fine
tuning is required. The 2000 designation/expansion of national monuments by the
President created a dispute between the Federal and USVI Governments concerning
ownership of the submerged lands and the legality of the designation. Other
legislative problems associated with enforcement have surfaced in the case of the co-
management arrangements for Salt River.

f. Some sites have multiple designations. For example, many of the APCs contain areas
designated as SNAs, wildlife reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries. Additionally, many
of the APCs contain historic resources, and a number of sites have been identified as
being eligible for recommendation as World Heritage Sites. There is no policy or
legislative guidance on how to treat multiple designations. Of the 18 APCs,
management plans have been prepared for only 35, and these do not address the issue
of multiple designation (or site within site) in any specific way.

5 The 3 management plans are currently going through the approval process.


Final Report


Page 24


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


g. Existing laws require the development of policies and plans that have apparently not
been prepared (e.g. Act No. 5294 required the preparation of a marine sanctuary plan,
and Act. No. 5665 required the development of a net loss policy for wetlands).

h. There are major policy gaps related to the treatment of conservation and
development, within the context of protected areas. Examples include:
Loss of designated sites and historic resources to development pressure;
Increased densities of developments adjacent to protected areas; and
The absence of conservation areas (neither demarcated nor discussed) in the
land and water use plan.

i. Two trust funds exist that are of potential use to the TPS. However, the issues of
management of the funds by the Department of Finance, contributions from the trust
funds to the general fund, and the development and implementation of a financial
management plan all have to be addressed.

j. Public participation appears to be limited to public hearings when areas are to be
designated. The policies and laws need to be revised to accommodate a broader and
more in-depth level of participation from civil society groups and the general public.

k. There are other major issues that have not been addressed in any way, such as the
matter of in-holdings and the designation of private lands as protected areas.



5.2 Desired Situation

The different types of marine protected areas designated under the various laws of the USVI
will be rationalized to fall into the four categories which constitute the MPA system (Section
4.2). Coastal and other types of protected areas will be designated based on the priorities
identified in a Policy and Plan for a System of Protected Areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The legal foundation for the system of protected areas will be the Territorial Protected Areas
System Act. The Act will place responsibility for overall protected area policy and system
development, management, monitoring, and evaluation with the Protected Area Authority
(Territorial Park Authority6). The Act will empower the Legislature to designate or de-list
areas on the recommendation of the Board of Directors of the Authority.

The Territorial Protected Areas System Act will also provide for the development of
regulations dealing with the full range of issues relevant to the development and management
of the system; including the various types of protected areas, the process for selecting and
declaring protected areas, the process for delisting areas, procedures for public participation,


6 The original name can be retained if persons are more comfortable with it, as long as it is quite clear that the
new Authority will manage all types of protected areas within the Territorial limit of the USVI.


Final Report


Page 25


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


as well as the range of guidelines and policies required for full system management (Section
7.1).

Existing legislation and regulations dealing with protected areas will be amended where
necessary to ensure that a rational, comprehensive, and coherent policy and legislative
framework is developed to support the system. MPAs already designated under existing
legislation will be incorporated into the system of protected areas, either by reference or by
management control.

The Authority will consult with other institutions having a role in protected area and system
management (Chapter 6) prior to recommending any new area for designation or de-listing.
Conversely, the Act will require other institutions with responsibility for other types of
protected areas to consult with the Authority prior to any new designation or de-listing of
areas.

Areas recommended for listing as protected areas may be privately owned, or may include
in-holdings. Regulations to deal with conservation easements/rights, loss of development
rights, and/or outright acquisition of land will be developed.

The system of protected areas will require the availability of a sustained input of financing.
The laws, regulations, and management mechanisms for the existing trust funds that can be
used for conservation purposes will be reviewed, with the purpose of consolidating the
financing arrangements for the system. Funding mechanisms will include a range of use
fees, merchandizing, contributions, government direct input (such as a tourism head tax), and
implementation of a capital campaign for the trust fund (Chapter 8).

Issues of public health and safety, hazard management, or area designation under emergency
conditions will be dealt with by the development of new regulations.

The legislation and regulations will ensure that the USVI meet its obligations under the
national legislative and policy framework. Additionally, it will support the national efforts
related to obligations under multilateral environmental agreements.



5.3 Adjustments Required to Achieve the Desired Situation

Given the issues raised above, a significant amount of work is required to develop the
appropriate policy and legislative basis for a system of protected areas. However, the critical
first steps in this process are:

a. Adoption of this Management Framework by the USVI Government, with, if
necessary, the Governor issuing an Executive Order to ensure that participation at the
highest level of the Administration takes place. The adopted management framework
then becomes the official policy framework, and sets the stage for the full
development of the system plan.


Final Report


Page 26


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


b. A detailed review of the relevant legislation and regulations is necessary; first to
determine what is required to support development of the system, and should
therefore be contained in the Territorial Protected Area System Act; and secondly, to
determine what revisions are necessary in existing legislation and regulations to
bring them into compliance with the new laws and regulations.


Final Report Page 27 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 27


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 6: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

The development and management of a system of protected areas involves a range of
functions, from policy making, through system management, financing, and evaluation to site
management. The institutional mix will involve those with direct management
responsibilities and those that are involved in supporting roles. Additionally, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) should participate in the development and management
of the system, as a number of NGOs not only focus their activities on environmental issues,
but go as far as to purchase properties in furtherance of conservation objectives.

The institutional framework therefore requires an articulation of roles and responsibilities,
building on existing mandates, experiences, and strengths. Any reorientation/reorganization
of institutional mandates should be based on system requirements and institutional
assessments. Where necessary, new institutions will be created.

Of utmost importance are the coordination mechanisms and institutional spaces that are
created to support an effective and efficient partnership among the various institutions that
have responsibilities for, or interest in, the system of protected areas.



6.1 Existing Situation

There are three main institutions that are responsible for the establishment and management
of protected areas within the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). These are:
a. The National Park Service (NPS);
b. The Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation (DHPR); and
c. The Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR).

National Park Service
The National Park Service is responsible for managing the protected areas designated
under Federal laws. Sites currently being managed in the USVI include Buck Island
Reef National Monument, Salt River National Historic Park and Ecological Reserve,
and Christiansted National Historic Monument on St. Croix (Map 1), Virgin Islands
National Park and Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument on St. John (Map
2), and Hassel Island on St. Thomas.

The NPS has entered into agreements with the Government of the USVI to provide
support to the local management efforts. The most notable of these agreements is the
co-management arrangement for Salt River mandated by Congress. The
consultations conducted as part of this VI Marine Park Project indicate that the
agreements are not as productive as they should be.

Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation
The mandate for the DHPR is provided by the Government Reorganization and
Consolidation Act 1987. The DHPR has two divisional units that deal with parks.


Final Report


Page 28


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


The Division of Parks and Recreation promotes and organizes various sports and
other recreational activities, while the Division of Parks and Open Space
Beautification is responsible for public parks, beaches, sports complexes and other
recreational areas, and for beautification of the environment. The mandate of the
agency makes it responsible for preparation of the 5-year Territorial Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan.

The DHPR enters into agreements with DPNR for site assessment and management.

Department of Planning and Natural Resources
The DPNR is charged with a wide range of functions pertinent to protected areas
management, including; conservation, pollution control, flood control, protection of
archeological and historic resources, coastal zone management, fisheries
management, environmental enforcement, development control, coordination of
library services and museums, and comprehensive planning for the USVI. As such,
all the divisions within DPNR have roles in supporting protected area activities. The
main units that presently deal with site designation and management are the Division
of Fish and Wildlife, Division of Coastal Zone Management, and Division of
Archeology and Historic Preservation.

Supporting Institutions
Institutions with secondary roles include:
Office of the Lieutenant Governor Tax assessment and cadastral maps;
Department of Agriculture Maintenance of forests and provision of
recreational opportunities;
Department of Education Has agreements with NPS, DPNR, and DHPR for
training;
Department of Property and Procurement Controls government-owned
properties;
Department of Public Works Responsible for scenic overlooks and byways;
University of the Virgin Islands Provides support in training, research, data
management, and public education;
Virgin Islands Port Authority Responsible for port development and harbor
management. Owns lands proposed and/or suitable for protected area
designation; and
Virgin Islands Conservation District provides for "...the conservation and
development of the soil, water, and other natural resources of the Virgin
Islands".







SThe role of conservation forests has not been explored in the USVI to date, but should be addressed when the
full system plan is being prepared.


Final Report


Page 29


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


6.1.1 Coordinating Mechanisms

Institutional coordinating mechanisms used in the USVI to date include:

a. Commissions such as the joint Federal/USVI Commission to oversee the
preparation of the management plan for the Salt River National Historic Park and
Ecological Preserve;

b. Establishment of a management entity for a specific site such as in the case of the
Magens Bay Authority;

c. Inter-agency Committees such as the Territorial Parks System Committee
established between DHPR and DPNR in 1993; and

d. Working Groups such as used by DHPR in the planning and preparation of the
Master Plan (2001) for the Great Salt Pond.

The above arrangements have worked to different degrees, ranging from the problematic Salt
River Commission to the successful Magens Bay Authority. No evaluation of these different
arrangements has been undertaken, but factors impacting adversely on the consistency and
productivity of these institutional arrangements appear to include:
* Inadequate human and financial resources;
* Limited political support;
* Arrangements are based on personal affiliations rather than structured institutional
agreements; and
* Changing demands and priorities resulting from a series of tropical storms, as well as
changes in senior personnel in the USVI Government.


6.1.2 Major Issues

A review of the existing information has identified a number of major institutional issues that
need to be addressed for the development of a system of protected areas in the USVI. These
major issues include:

a. The major initiatives undertaken in conservation and protected areas development
over the past forty years (IRF 2002) have not been translated into any program for the
systematic development of protected areas in the USVI, resulting in a high level of
cynicism among institutions and individuals regarding current and future efforts.

b. The absence of a clear framework for a system of protected areas increases the
difficulty of placing protected areas within the development planning process for the
USVI, especially considering that conservation and development are considered by
most Virgin Islanders to be opposing/contradictory development options.


Final Report Page 30 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 30


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


c. The wider community has been excluded from the process, resulting in a very narrow
institutional and political support base.

d. The level of awareness of the benefits of protected areas in the general populace is
very low. The existing perceptions are mostly negative, if not about protected areas
generally, then certainly about the management approaches used in the USVI. This
perception is maintained by the periodic negative publicity surrounding specific
initiatives related to management of the existing national parks.

e. The issue of protected areas has rarely been placed seriously on the political agenda
of a political representative or an administration. In fact, the reverse is true, where
elected officials have been known to exploit the public's misconceptions concerning
protected areas.

f. The two existing trust funds established for conservation have not been capitalized,
and financial resources to implement the large amount of work to be undertaken in
the development of a system of protected areas are not readily available.

g. The human resources needed to manage a system of protected areas in the USVI is a
major limiting factor, and a programme of training for all levels of personnel will
have to be instituted.



6.2 Desired Situation

Protected Area Authority (PAA)
The Protected Area Authority will be a statutory body, functioning under the
guidance of a Board of Directors.

The Protected Area Authority is the lead agency with overall responsibility for the
USVI protected area system, ensuring that all protected areas meet their various
objectives to the greatest extent possible, while protecting or improving the natural
resources and supporting the appropriate use of public resources.

The Authority will develop the policy framework for all aspects of protected area
planning and management, including procedures and guidelines for planning,
establishment, and management of protected areas. The Authority will also be
responsible for preparation and/or revision of the System Plan.

The Authority may fulfill its mandate through the activities of other public, private, or
non-governmental institutions. As such, the Authority will be given the legislative
authority to provide general policy direction to the management institutions, approve
management plans, and assume management responsibility for specific sites when
deemed necessary.


Final Report


Page 31


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Where new protected areas are designated, the Authority may enter into agreements
with other institutions for management of the site. In such cases, the Authority will:
Assess the capabilities and needs of institutions identified for management of
sites;
Approve the management and operational plans (where prepared by other
organizations); and
Provide technical assistance to management organizations, particularly in the
areas of site planning, design of cost recovery systems, design of research and
monitoring programmes, and legal services.

Where sites are to be designated and managed by a Federal agency within the
Territorial Limit8, the Authority will provide a consulting role to ensure that site
location, design, establishment, and management strategies result in the smooth
integration of the Federally-managed site with the USVI system.

The Authority will be responsible for setting standards for the overall system, as well
as the individual units. Additionally, it will coordinate the permit and license system
for the system of protected areas.

The Authority will design and implement a programme of monitoring to ensure
performance effectiveness of management institutions, maintenance of system
integrity, and achievement of system objectives.

The Authority will develop and maintain an information management system and
resource centre for the system of protected areas. This will enable the Authority to
better coordinate with the other institutions involved in environmental monitoring,
research, and projects relating to the system of protected areas

The Authority will coordinate a public education programme relating to the system of
protected areas.

The Authority will coordinate initiatives with external institutions related to the
system of protected areas. Where appropriate, initiatives will continue to be
implemented by the existing institutions, especially where there is a legal obligation
so to do.

The Authority will develop a financial policy and financial management system to
guide the operation of the system of protected areas. It will also be responsible for
the development of mechanisms (such as a trust fund) to ensure adequacy of financial
support for the system of protected areas.

The Authority will establish and support a Protected Area Advisory Council.




8 The same provision obviously applies in the context of terrestrial sites.


Final Report


Page 32


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Protected Area Advisory Council (PAAC)
The Protected Area Advisory Council will be established and supported by the
Protected Area Authority. The Council will be composed of representatives from
public, private, environmental, and community based organizations representing a
wide cross section of community interests. The Council functions as the main
institutional space for inter-agency and cross-sectorial cooperation in the
development and management of the system of protected areas. As such, the Council
will advise the Authority on issues relating to administration of the system of
protected areas, inter-agency program linkages, protected area policy, public demand
for natural resources, relevant socio-economic and cultural issues, and income
generation for protected areas.

Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)
DPNR will no longer be responsible for designating protected areas9, but will
cooperate in management of protected areas where they have mandated
responsibilities. DPNR will retain some policy oversight, ensuring that protected area
policy and implementation meet the objectives articulated by the overall conservation
strategy for the USVI10.

DPNR will ensure that the Comprehensive Land and Water Use Plan and other plans
recognize existing and proposed protected areas. Additionally, through the work of
the various divisions, DPNR will support the enforcement, research, monitoring, and
planning of protected areas, particularly in the buffer zones and watersheds.

DPNR, through its programs with areas of particular concern (APCs) and watersheds
management, will identify and recommend significant natural and/or cultural
resources that require protection by inclusion in the system of protected areas, and
will thereafter take steps to ensure that the development activities in those APCs and
watersheds do not impair the value of those protected area resources.

DPNR will continue to access sources of funds as appropriate in support of the
system of protected areas.


Department of Housing Parks and Recreation (DHPR)
DHPR will cooperate in the management of the system of protected areas by
coordinating projects and programs, sharing information, providing support and
advice in its area of expertise, and accessing funding sources to support protected area
activities.






9 This change will be one that requires legislative support.
10 A conservation strategy for the USVI does not currently exist, and as such, is one of the missing policy
elements.


Final Report


Page 33


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Department of Agriculture (VI-DoA)
The Department of Agriculture will cooperate in the management of the system of
protected areas by sharing information, providing support and advice in its area of
expertise, and accessing funding sources to support protected area activities.

The VI-DoA may manage upland or coastal forests that are designated protected
areas, based on agreements reached with the Protected Area Authority and its
capacity to manage those areas.

The VI-DoA will collaborate with the PAA and other relevant institutions in the
design, establishment, and management of forests that will function as corridors
linking the various sites in the system of protected areas.

Department of Education (VI-DoE)
The Department of Education will contribute to the management of the system of
protected areas by providing training in a number of skills relevant to site
management. The VI-DoE will also provide training to enhance the
management/entrepreneurial skills that may be needed by organizations that will wish
to provide services to the protected areas or make use of business opportunities
provided by the system".

VI-DoE will develop curriculum to improve the awareness of students in the primary
and secondary education levels about environmental matters generally. VI-DoE will
also coordinate with the PAA and other relevant institutions in the development and
implementation of education and public awareness materials and programs relevant to
the formal education system.


Department of Property and Procurement (DP&P)
The Department of Property and Procurement will support ongoing efforts to develop
and manage the system of protected areas by acquiring or facilitating the acquisition
of landsl2 identified as protected areas, or needed for the operational requirements of
the system. This will include land currently under the control of government agencies
and lands under private ownership. This does not preclude the PAA from directly
acquiring property for the establishment of protected areas.


Department of Public Works (DPW)
The Department of Public Works will support the development of the system of
protected areas by coordinating the development of scenic areas and overlooks with
the system plan implementation. DPW will also continue to access funds available
for the construction of trails and other infrastructure in support of the system of
protected areas.

1 VI-DoE previously entered into an agreement to this effect with DPNR and DHPR.
12 The legislative changes required to support the system of protected areas should include provisions to
prevent disposal by government agencies of lands identified as being necessary for the system.


Final Report


Page 34


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


DPW will cooperate with the PAA and other relevant agencies in the design and
construction of infrastructure projects, as well as in the maintenance of infrastructure,
guts, and other facilities that impact on protected areas.


University of the Virgin Islands (UVI)
The University of the Virgin Islands provides tertiary level and workforce training,
and will contribute to the development and management of the system of protected
areas by providing training opportunities for protected area personnel. Additionally,
UVI will collaborate through conducting or participating in social, economic, and
environmental research relevant to protected areas.

Other major areas of input by UVI will be made through the activities of the
Conservation Data Center and the Virgin Islands Marine Advisory Service.


Virgin Islands Port Authority (VIPA)
The Virgin Islands Port Authority is responsible for port development and harbor
management, and its operations will therefore impact significantly on MPAs. As
such, VIPA will site and design port developments and operate marine traffic
management systems in such a manner as to eliminate or minimize the impacts on
MPAs. Where the VIPA owns lands suitable for protected area designation, those
lands will be transferred to the PAA for designation and management.

VIPA will also collaborate on the implementation of the system of mooring and
navigational markers for the MPAs.


Department of Tourism (VI-DoT)
The tourism sector will be one of the main beneficiaries of a system of protected
areas. The Department of Tourism will therefore collaborate in supporting the system
development by supporting specific initiatives and providing access to financing
where possible.


Virgin Islands Territorial Emergency Management Agency (VITEMA)
As the Territory's emergency management agency, VITEMA will collaborate in the
management of the system of protected areas by sharing its expertise in preparing
emergency management plans, by advising on the siting and design of structures and
facilities, and by addressing emergencies in protected areas as they arise.


Virgin Islands Conservation District (VICD)
The VICD has responsibility for promoting conservation and orderly development of
the USVI. As such, the VICD will participate in the development and management of


Final Report


Page 35


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


a system of protected areas by facilitating the integration of protected areas into
development plans, supporting public awareness initiatives, facilitating the
development of agreements with land occupiers/owners in furtherance of protected
areas objectives, and securing financial support for the system as appropriate.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Non-governmental organizations13 that focus on conservation issues form a critical
part of the support network for the system of protected areas. Their continued
participation should be supported to the fullest extent possible in all aspects of system
development, from advocacy through project implementation to site management.
Where appropriate, NGOs may be considered for management of specific protected
area sites, based on an assessed capacity to function in a management role.


Private Sector Organizations
Private sector organizations will be encouraged to participate in the development and
management of the system of protected areas, primarily by participating in activities,
providing services to the system, and participating in advisory groups14



6.3 Adjustments Required to Achieve the Desired Situation

A wide range of activities need to be undertaken to develop and maintain the institutional
framework suggested above. The first steps in that process are:

a. Adoption of a policy framework (by the Government of the USVI) for protected area
management (see also Section 5.3).

b. Establishment of an inter-agency committee, with stakeholder representation. The
primary role of this inter-agency committee at this juncture would be to conduct the
preparatory work for a program of action for the development of the system of
protected areas. The committee would therefore focus on confirming and reviewing
the status of existing agreements, institutional mandates and programmes related to
protected areas, available and potential resources, and preparation of a draft plan of
action. Given the existence of the VI Marine Park Project, as well as the other related
initiatives being undertaken by DPNR (such as the APC management plans), it is
recommended that DPNR be the lead agency in this effort.

c. A project should be designed and implemented for the preparation of a system plan
for protected areas for the USVI15 (Chapter 12).



13 NGOs in this context mean those organizations that are not for profit, and include environmental groups,
community-based organizations, service clubs, and other such organizations.
14 Site management by private sector interests was not discussed during the public consultations for the VI
Marine Park Project. However, such a role for the private sector is not unknown in the Caribbean and the USA.


Final Report


Page 36


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 7: PLANNING PROTECTED AREAS

The policy framework for the system of protected areas has to be translated into a series of
programmatic initiatives and actions. This is done through the production of plans and
procedures, which in turn are used in making decisions about priorities, establishment of
areas, and management responsibilities. The planning process must be flexible enough to
accommodate the active participation of the public, yet with enough structure to prevent
conflicts and ensure an effective process.

Planning for a system of protected areas is focused at several levels, starting with the highest
and broadest at the system level to the most detailed and narrow at the day-to-day operations
at the site level (Figure 1).


7.1 System-Wide Planning

System level planning is based on a set of guiding principles that are used to craft the design
of the system of protected areas. It provides not only the targets and strategies for the
development and management of the system, but also standardized criteria and procedures
for operations and site selection and management. This ensures standardized operating
procedures and transparency and efficiency in decision making.


7.1.1 Principles for System Design

Broad principles that should be used as guidelines in the design of the system of protected
areas are:

a. System design should ensure the achievement of the goals of the system of
protected areas. Protected areas are not tools for simply preventing inappropriate
use of natural resources, nor are they devised to provide only recreational
opportunities and/or consumptive values. The establishment of a system of protected
areas should be a deliberate development strategy, and should therefore contain units
that provide the range of ecological, social, economic, and educational benefits.

b. Ensure ecological sustainability. The loss of ecological integrity will eventually
result in the loss of all other benefits, and as such, maintenance and/or restoration of
ecosystem integrity of the units and resources is the top priority of the system of
protected areas.

c. Ensure cultural appropriateness. Procedures must be sensitive to societal norms
and cultural practices, as well as legal systems. However, sensitivity to such norms
should not extend to allowing the integrity of the system to be compromised.

15 During the public consultations for the VI Marine Park Project it was suggested that UVI prepare and
implement the project for the preparation of the system plan. UVI has not been officially approached to lead
this effort.


Final Report


Page 37


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


d. Be practical in setting goals and targets. Objectives and targets should be based on
the capacities of the institutions, individuals, and local communities.

e. Maintain flexibility in system design. Designing the system involves more than the
establishment of individual units; requiring institutional coordination, promulgation
of legislation, competing demand for resources from local communities, fundraising,
and a range of other similar activities. As such, factors ranging from resource
availability, through institutional capacities, to politics determine opportunities as
well as obstacles to system development and management. These factors influence
both system design and site selection and establishment.

f Ensure network connectivity. Wildlife populations are seldom restricted to single
sites in nature. Particularly in the marine environment, there are extensive migratory
and dispersion patterns in some species. A well-designed system must therefore
ensure that sites are large enough to support patterns of movement, as well as
maintaining connectivity between the different units wherever possible.


Final Report Page 38 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 38


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Figure 1: Planning Levels for the Protected Area System


Policy and Legislative Frameworks
for the System of Protected Areas


System Level


Site Level


Proctcted Area
p System Plan


Management Plans


Final Report Page 39 September 24, 2002


System Guidelines
* Management Plans
* Commercial Services
Plan
* Interpretive Plan
* Monitoring and
Evaluation
* Etc.


System Development
Strategies
* Financing
* Monitoring and
Evaluation
* Data Management
* Communication


Operations Plans
* Annual Plan
* Health and Safety
* Interpretation
* Enforcement
* Disaster Management
* Monitoring and
Evaluation
* Etc.


'i


Final Report


Page 39


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


7.1.2 Policy Guidelines for System Planning

System-wide planning is the responsibility of the Protected Area Authority (PAA), and will
be done in collaboration with other agencies that have responsibilities for protected area
management or have specific supporting roles in system development and management.
System-wide planning will be carried out under the general guidance of the Protected Area
Advisory Council, and plans generated from this process will be approved by the Board of
Directors of the PAA before going to public hearings.

This management framework, on adoption by the Government of the USVI, will become the
overall policy framework for the protected area system. This Policy for the System of
Protected Areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands will provide the guidance for development and
management of the protected area system.

The preparation of a System Plan for all protected areas is also the responsibility of the
PAA. The system plan sets out priorities for protected area and system development, and
provides a guide for the planning of annual work programs, budgets, staffing, training, and
other management activities. The system plan also provides a framework for site
management plans (Figure 1). The system plan will be updated every five years.

Supporting plans for system level planning and management include System Development
Strategies and System Guidelines. System development strategies provide detailed
strategies and plans for conducting the main system level supporting activities, and include:
* Financial Sustainability Plan;
* System Monitoring and Evaluation;
* Information Management; and
* Communication Strategy.

System guidelines are guidelines for management of sites, developed to ensure the
maintenance of standardized procedures and practices throughout the system. The guidelines
to be produced are:
* Feasibility Assessment for Sites;
* Management Plans;
* Operations Plans;
* Commercial Services Plan;
* Monitoring and Evaluation;
* Research;
* Listing and De-listing of Sites;
* Species Management (protected species, invasive species);
* Signage;
* Disaster Management;
* Interpretation;
* Community Engagement;
* Dispute Resolution; and
* Financial Management.


Final Report


Page 40


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


7.2 Site Selection and Establishment

Site selection should be based on clear criteria that ensure that the system objectives and
guiding principles are being met, and the use of selection criteria facilitates objectivity of the
process. Selection criteria (Table 2) are used primarily to determine if a site should be
accorded protected area status. A secondary use is to rank sites in order of priority if a
number of sites are eligible for development.

Any group or institution may request that an area be designated as a protected area. Where a
group other than the PAA requests such designation, that institution will provide
documentation to the PAA supporting the eligibility of the site for protected area designation,
and will be required to initiate and be active in the planning and feasibility assessment.


Final Report Page 41 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 41


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Table 2: Selection Criteria for USVI Marine Protected Areas


Biogeographic Criteria Social Criteria

* Inclusion of unique geological features Existing or potential value to the local,
* Inclusion of rare biogeographic features or national, or international communities
types because of its heritage or historical, cultural,
* Representativeness aesthetic, educational, or recreational
* Uniqueness qualities
Social and political acceptance
Degree of community support
Ecological Criteria Practicability or Feasibility

* Contribution to the maintenance of essential Degree of insulation from external
ecological processes or life support systems destructive influences
* Integrity Accessibility for education and recreation
* Degree to which the area encompasses or Compatibility with existing uses
contributes to a functional ecosystem Degree of danger to users
* Inclusion of a variety of habitats Urgency
* Inclusion of habitats for rare or endangered Size
species Opportunism
* Inclusion of nursery or juvenile areas Availability for acquisition
* Inclusion of rare or unique habitat for any Restorability
species Ease of management and compatibility with
* Degree of genetic diversity existing management regimes
* Degree of disturbance
* Vulnerability to natural or man-made threats
Economic Criteria Scientific Criteria

* Existing or potential contribution to Value for research and education
economic activities International or national importance
* Potential value for tourism Potential to be listed as a site of national or
international importance
Source: Adapted from Day & Roff 2000, Salm & Clark 2000, Kelleher 1999


The general process for establishing sites includes the following steps:

Step 1. Initiate Action
The PAA is expected to initiate action to establish and manage priority sites.
However, a community group or other institution can identify a possible new
protected area, and thereafter submit a request for designation of the area to the PAA.
On receipt of a positive response from the PAA, the requesting organization forms a
planning team, composed of public sector agencies and community interests.


Final Report Page 42 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 42


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Step 2. Build Community Participation
Workshops, community meetings, and other means are used to identify community
issues, interests, and needs. Organizing community participation becomes the
responsibility of the initiating agency or group, with the assistance of the PAA.

Step 3. Assess Feasibility of Site for Designation
Regardless of the type of protected area proposed, the planning team completes a
Feasibility Assessment. Issues to be examined include boundaries, land ownership,
local management potential, and costs. The study may result in a recommendation
that the area be formally added to the list of proposed sites in the Protected Areas
System.

Step 4. Prepare Management Plan
A lead institution will be identified for coordinating the detailed planning and site
assessment, as well as preparation of a management plan, using guidelines developed
by the PAA. The completed plan, with boundary coordinates, is then submitted to the
PAA for approval.

Step 5. Obtain Legislative Approval
The PAA or relevant agency will seek to have the site designated under the relevant
legislation.

Step 6. Prepare Operations Plan
The management organization prepares a proposal for managing the area in
accordance with the management plan, including a business plan for the operation
and a long term financial sustainability strategy. Where the management institution is
not the PAA, the operations plan will be submitted to the PAA for approval.



7.3 Site Planning

Site planning will normally be carried out by the management institution, and in the case
where that management institution is not the PAA, collaboration with the PAA in the site
planning process should be maintained. In any event, management plans developed for sites
within the Territorial system will be submitted to the PAA for approval.

Management Plans are the major tools for guiding management activities at the level of the
individual protected area. The management plan outlines the policies and procedures that
guide management actions, describes the natural resources to be managed, evaluates the
major issues to be addressed during the plan period, describes the programs and strategies to
be undertaken in the plan period, the targets to be achieved, and the resources required to
undertake the program.


Final Report Page 43 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 43


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Where management planning is being undertaken as part of the process of site designation,
the planning process may be coordinated by an organization other than the PAA (Section
7.2).

Operations Plans are of two types. The first is the Annual Plan, which sets out how the
management plan will be implemented on an annual basis. Issues of budgeting and activity
scheduling will be dealt with in much more detail in annual plans. The second type of
operational plan is really detailed plans that are theme specific, not time specific. These
include:
* Health and Safety;
* Interpretation;
* Enforcement;
* Disaster/Emergency Management;
* Monitoring and Evaluation;
* Concessions Management/Commercial Services Plan;
* Signage;
* Maintenance; and
* Research.


Final Report Page 44 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 44


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 8: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The full benefits of a system of protected areas cannot be realized unless the resources to
support the system become available. In this respect, the financial sustainability of the
system is of critical importance. Financial sustainability can be defined as the ability to
support the management and operational requirements of the system without continued
reliance on regular infusions of grant funds.

Given the resource shortages of most governments, it is unreasonable to expect that public
sector budgetary support can be the sole source of funds to achieve this financial
sustainability. It is therefore expected that the entire society, as well as external entities that
receive benefits and/or encourage protected area development, will participate in the
financing of the system of protected areas.

The most reliable source of funds on a sustained basis is the income generated by a trust
fund. However, it can be difficult and expensive to capitalize trust funds. Sources of
funding for trust funds include the following:
* Government direct contribution;
* Debt-for-nature swaps;
* Capital campaign (grants and donations);
* Special appeals;
* Cost recovery mechanisms at the sites;
* Sales, merchandising, etc; and
* Tourism head or departure taxes.

All of the above also form sources of income at the site level. In addition to the above, other
direct and indirect means of mobilizing resources exist, including:
* Projects;
* Investment in site management by private sector firms;
* Fiscal incentives to encourage cash and in-kind support, or direct investment;
* Tax and/or duty exemptions on equipment, vehicles, supplies, etc.; and
* Volunteerism (local and international).



8.1 Existing Situation

The financial resources currently available to support protected area development is very
small. Funds are available from two sources, these being:
* Grant funds from the Federal Government; and
* Funds from two USVI Government trust funds, the Virgin Islands Conservation Fund
and the Land Bank Fund.

The available information suggests that neither of the local trust funds had been properly
capitalized, and both have long been depleted. As such, the only source of funds currently


Final Report


Page 45


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


being used for protected area management is grants from the Federal Government16. The
experience with grant funds is that they are sporadic, uncertain, inadequate, and usually
require a substantial amount of effort to access.

The existing situation is clearly undesirable, and a more consistent source of funds to support
the system of protected areas has to be established.



8.2 Desired Situation

The management of the financial management system will involve the input of several
institutions, at both site and system levels, and will therefore require clear policy and
legislative and procedural guidelines.


Policies Related to Funding Mechanisms

The system of protected areas will require a revitalized trust fund, to be managed by
an independent Foundation, from which the funds will be used solely for the support
of protected area management. Income generated from site operations, grants, and
other similar sources of funds will be managed directly by the PAA.

The trust funds shall be invested, not only to protect the fund but to generate income.
Only the real income generated by the trust fund, the earnings reserve after protecting
the corpus from inflation, shall be available for expenditure on operating, expanding
and improving the system. Specific sums will be transferred to principal to achieve
the goal of an inflation-proof fund.

Donations can be made to the trust fund, to the system, or in support of a special
project. Special appeals (project or building campaigns) will be mounted to support
special projects, such as the purchase of lands or development of headquarters
buildings for a site.

Wherever feasible, cost recovery mechanisms, including fees for use of system
resources and sale of services, shall be put in place to enhance the trust fund or to
augment income generated by trust, project, and other funds.

Mechanisms such as increased departure and hotel bed taxes, donation boxes at ports
and airports, carefully designed eco-tourism packages, and special appeals in selected
tourism markets will be used to tap the demonstrated willingness of visitors to pay for
the protection and restoration of spectacular natural and historic areas. Funds
generated from such mechanisms will be added to the trust fund.



16 This does not include direct budgetary support given to the National Park Service.


Final Report


Page 46


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Elements of the system of protected areas that are established and managed by
agencies other than the PAA will continue to be supported by those agencies.

Fiscal incentives shall be made available to encourage gifts of land, in-kind services
and financial donations to the trust fund and other special appeals.

Tax exempt and charitable status, and/or exemption from tax on donations and
savings account interest should be readily obtainable by qualified site management
organizations.


Policies Related to Sources of Funds

Development of an overall financial sustainability plan will consider a broad mix of
local, national, and international funding sources, to be approached systematically on
a continuing, regular, or one-time basis.

Sources of funds to build the income-generating capacity of the trust fund include an
annual budgetary contribution from the USVI Government, dedicated windfalls as in
the "debt for nature" swaps, other one-time grants from major international donors,
individual bequests, a national capital campaign, a local capital campaign, and
income transferred to principal as described above.

Government agencies in such sectors as agriculture, water, and tourism that will
benefit from the protection and enhancement of natural resources (such as the quality
of the marine environment, soils, forests and tourist attractions) will be expected to
make annual contributions to the trust fund.

Effective national and local capital campaigns will address a variety of sources,
including foundations, businesses and corporations, government, religious
institutions, federated funding organizations, service clubs, potential pledges by
individuals, and international donors and NGOs.

Potential donors as well as individual local residents may be approached for support
of special project or building appeals.

Foundations and international donors may offer grants for land acquisition, research,
planning, and development projects in response to proposals.

Local and international donors will be encouraged to take advantage of the
opportunity to leverage their contributions and will have the option of donating to the
trust fund.

In-kind donations in the form of land, equipment, services and volunteer assistance
will be encouraged to expand the system and enhance management capacity,
providing they meet identified needs.


Final Report


Page 47


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Site management, including a careful assessment of carrying capacity, will be
intelligently balanced with marketing to ensure that visitation and ecotourism
generate net financial and environmental benefits on a sustained basis.


Policies Related to Fundraising Strategies

Both levels of the system of protected areas will need to approach a broad mix of
funding sources systematically on a continuing, regular, or one-time basis.

The Foundation (trust fund) must build investor confidence through clearly stated
investment and fiduciary principles and a record of sound and effective management.

National and local capital campaigns will be coordinated and designed to focus on
clearly differentiated target donors or donor interests so as to avoid duplication of
effort and donor confusion.


Policies related to Management of Costs and Expenditures

Achievement of financial sustainability for the system and individual protected areas
will entail containment of capital and operating costs and efficient operations as well
as ongoing intelligent and creative fundraising.

As part of their regularly updated operations plans, management organizations will be
required to prepare financial sustainability plans containing estimates of expected
funds, by source, and estimates of capital and recurrent costs for system and protected
area management and improvement.

Each management organization will also be required to prepare an annual funding
plan with funding targets by source and detailed proposed fundraising.

Management and operations plans will be prepared and implemented to minimize
development and maintenance costs, with maximum feasible use of local resources,
appropriate and indigenous technologies, low-impact practices in siting and designing
facilities, and reservation systems for keeping visitor numbers within manageable
limits.


Final Report Page 48 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 48


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


PART II: MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
OF THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS


This section provides summaries of the existing marine and coastal protected areas, as well
as the proposed marine protected areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The list of proposed sites is taken from the Resource Description Report (IRF 2002) prepared
as part of this project.


Final Report Page 49 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 49


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 9: EXISTING MARINE AND COASTAL PROTECTED AREAS

St. Croix (Map 1)
* Buck Island Reef National Monument
* Christiansted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern
* East End Area of Particular Concern
* Frederiksted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern
* Great Pond and Great Pond Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation
and Restoration
* St. Croix Mutton Snapper Spawning Area
* Salt River Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration
* Salt River Marine and Wildlife Sanctuary
* Salt River National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve
* Sandy Point Area of Particular Concern
* South Shore Industrial Area of Particular Concern
* Southgate Pond/Chenay Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
* St. Croix Coral Reef System Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration

St. John (Map 2)
* Chocolate Hole/Great Cruz Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation
and Restoration
* Coral Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration
* Enighed Pond/Cruz Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
* Frank Bay Wildlife and Marine Sanctuary
* Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument
* Virgin Islands National Park

St. Thomas (Map 2)
* Botany Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration
* East End Conservation Area (comprised of Cas Cay/Managrove Lagoon Marine
Reserve, St. James Marine Reserve, and Compass Point Marine Reserve and Wildlife
Sanctuary)
* Magens Bay and Watershed Area of Particular Concern
* Mangrove Lagoon/Benner Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation
and Restoration
* Mandahl Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration
* St. Thomas Harbor and Waterfront Area of Particular Concern
* Vessup Bay/East End Area of Particular Concern

Most of the Government-owned cays off the St. Thomas coast are declared wildlife
sanctuaries (Map 2).


Final Report


Page 50


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Buck Island Reef National Monument

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: Presidential Proclamation No. 3443, January 4, 1962. Added 30 acres of
submerged lands by Presidential Proclamation No. 4346, February 4, 1975.
b. Category of Designation: National Monument
c. IUCN Equivalent: Natural Monument

Description Summary
a. Location: Buck Island, 1.5 miles off the north-eastern shore of St. Croix.
b. Size: 880 acres, comprised of 176 acres of land and 704 acres of submerged lands. Expanded
in January 2001 to 1,800 acres.
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Coral reef protection.
d. Name of Management Institution: National Parks Service
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Nesting for three endangered species (hawksbill and leatherback turtles, and brown
pelican);
Nesting for one threatened species (St. Croix Ground Lizard);
Cultural artifacts on Buck Island;
Protection of a significant coral reef ecosystem.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Coral reef management and
fisheries management.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Protection of outstanding natural and historic values for public use and enjoyment;
International Coral Reef Initiative;
Wildlife management (e.g. Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife).

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Impacts from recreational activities;
Presence of invasive species;
Inappropriate fishing practices;
Storms;
Coral diseases.
b. Challenges:
Prevention of impacts from invasive species;
Decreasing the impacts from recreation and other uses;
Engendering greater support from the USVI community;
Improving collaborative arrangements with USVI government agencies.

Current Initiatives
* The 2001 expansion to 1,800 acres is contested by the USVI Government;
* The General Management Plan is being revised;
* Ongoing monitoring (fish surveys in 2001, one coral reef site included in the DPNR 2001-
2003 Coral Reef Monitoring Project).

Information Source: National Park Service.1983. Buck Island Reef National Monument: General
Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Environmental Assessment. September 1983. U.S.
Department of the Interior.


Final Report


Page 51


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Christiansted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Christiansted, St. Croix
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Improved development, protection of historic resources,
recreation, and natural functions.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Protestant Cay is a critical habitat for the St. Croix Ground Lizard;
Altona Lagoon is a breeding ground for 3 species of endangered birds, 8 species of
herons and egrets, and 19 species of shorebirds. Also functions as an over wintering
site for migrant species of birds;
Long Reef and Round Reef are habitats for 59 fish species;
6 Federally listed protected species and 13 locally listed protected species.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Wildlife protection.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: None

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Sewage input to Christiansted Harbor;
Surface runoff into Christiansted Harbor and Gallows Bay;
Elevated levels of heavy metals in sediments in Gallows Bay;
Thermal effluent from WAPA.
b. Challenges:
Pedestrian access between Gallows Bay and downtown Christiansted.

Current Initiatives
* A management plan for the APC has been prepared, and is undergoing the approval process.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Christiansted Waterfront Area of
Particular Concern: A Comprehensive Analytical Study. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 52 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 52


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


East End Area of Particular Concern

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: East End of St. Croix Hughes Point to Cramer Park
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Potential
for incorporation of site into a Territorial Parks System.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Coral reef ecosystem;
Brown Pelican and Least Tern;
3 species of sea turtles;
4 species of whales.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Territorial parks system, coral
reef protection, recreation, wildlife protection, fisheries management.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
National Coral Reef Action Plan (and ICRI);
Wildlife management (e.g. Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife).

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats: None
b. Challenges: Balancing the development needs with resource management

Current Initiatives: None.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. East End Area of Particular Concern: A
Comprehensive Analytical Study. Department of Planning & Natural Resources and University of
the Virgin Islands. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 53 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 53


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Frederiksted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Fredericksted, St. Croix
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Support of water-based commerce, recreational
opportunities, and marine habitat protection.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
4 prehistoric sites;
Fredericksted Historic District listed on National Register of Historic Places August
9, 1976. Entire town designated as a historic district by the USVI Government in
1990;
Public beaches and other recreational opportunities (dive sites);
Protected species (3 species of marine turtles, Brown Pelican. 2 species of egrets, 3
species of herons, 4 species of whales).
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Preservation of historic resources;
Provision of recreational opportunities.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Preservation of historic resources.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Poor water quality threatening subsistence and recreational uses, resulting from
sediment in runoff, sewage, and land-based pollutants;
Anchor damage to seagrass habitats;
Marine debris.
b. Challenges:
Reduction of user conflicts between fishermen and dive operators.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Fredericksted Waterfront Area of
Particular Concern: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin Islands and
Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 54 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 54


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Great Pond and Great Pond Bay
Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: South-east shore of St. Croix Milord Point to Mt. Fancy
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection as wildlife, educational, and natural areas.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management and Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
The salt pond is the second largest in the USVI protection of resources and wildlife;
Significant coral reef ecosystem;
Large seagrass beds supports an active fishery;
Long list of Federal and USVI listed protected species (see APC report).
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Significant Natural Area designation;
Recommended for inclusion in Territorial Parks System (1999);
Identified in the 1979 Coastal Zone Management Plan as important for wildlife, as a
natural area, and for education.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Coastal Barrier Reef System designation in 1990;
Recommended for conservation development by DOI/NPS (1960).

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Recurring proposals for large developments;
Vehicular traffic on beach (causes beach erosion and sedimentation);
Illegal solid waste dumping;
Sedimentation from development activity in watershed;
Damage and human impacts resulting from lack of facilities to support human
activities.
b. Challenges:
Allowing road access to beach without damage to the resource.

Current Initiatives
Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation developed a Draft Master Plan for
Great Pond. The plan is currently under review.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Great Pond and Great Pond Bay Area of
Particular Concern and Area for Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytical Study.
Department of Planning and Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 21,
1993.


Final Report


Page 55


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


St. Croix Mutton Snapper Spawning Area

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1995
b. Category of Designation: Closed Area. Annual closure, March 1 to June 30.
c. IUCN Equivalent: Habitat/Species management area

Description Summary
a. Location: Southwestern shore of St. Croix, between Long Point and the southwest cape of
Sandy Point.
b. Size: Approximately 10 square miles
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of fish spawning aggregation
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Fish and Wildlife
e. Resource Protected by the Site: Fish spawning area
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Fisheries management
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Fisheries management

Major Issues: None

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Division of Fish & Wildlife and Division of Environmental Protection. 2001.
Recreational and Commercial Fisherman's Information Booklet. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. June 2001.


Final Report Page 56 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 56


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Salt River Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
b. IUCN Equivalent: Natural Monument

Description Summary
a. Location: Northern shore of St. Croix, 4.5 miles west of Christiansted.
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of significant cultural and natural resources.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management and National Park Service
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Pre-Columbian and Columbian archeological resources;
Significant reef ecosystems;
Significant natural areas recommended in 1979;
A submarine canyon;
The largest remaining mangrove forest in the USVI;
108 species of birds, 17 of which are listed locally as endangered;
Three species of marine turtles.
f. Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Protection of important fish habitat;
Supports the APC program;
Supports the non-point source pollution program;
Preservation of important cultural and historic resources.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Supports the National Marine/Estuarine Sanctuaries Program;
National Historic Landmark status in 1965 for 17th century fort;
National Nature Landmark status in 1980, for 690-acre portion of area;
Listed in the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System;
Listed on the national inventory of Critical Wetlands;
Over wintering site for migratory birds.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Residential development in the watershed diverts runoff to the main stream, yet
generates heavy sediment loads in high rainfall events;
Impacts from agriculture in the lower reaches of the floodplain.
b. Challenges:
Improving cooperation between the Federal and USVI governments for site
management;
Managing development activity on the in-holdings.
c. Other: A number of opportunities exist:
Local environmentalists routinely lead tours into the area;
There is continued interest by NOAA in the area as a national wildlife refuge;
Recommendation for the site to be designated as a World Heritage Site.


Final Report


Page 57


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Current Initiatives
* A Management Plan is being prepared by the NPS.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Salt River Bay Area of Particular
Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of
the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 58 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 58


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Salt River Marine and Wildlife Sanctuary

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: July 19, 1995
b. Category of Designation: Wildlife sanctuary
c. IUCN Equivalent: Nature Reserve

Description Summary
a. Location: Northern shore of St. Croix, 4.5 miles west of Christiansted
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of fish nursery area
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Fish and Wildlife
e. Resource Protected by the Site: Fish nursery
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Fisheries management
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Fisheries management

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats: Fishing and commercial harvesting of fisheries resources still
take place in the sanctuary.

Current Initiatives: Regulations pending to prohibit commercial fishing in the sanctuary.

Information Source: Division of Fish & Wildlife and Division of Environmental Protection. 2001.
Recreational and Commercial Fisherman's Information Booklet. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. June 2001.


Final Report Page 59 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 59


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Salt River National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1992. Created by an Act of Congress
b. Category of Designation: National Natural Landmark (1980). Historic and Ecological
Preserve.
c. IUCN Equivalent: Natural Monument

Description Summary
a. Location: Northern shore of St. Croix, 4.5 miles west of Christiansted.
b. Size: 912 acres
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of significant cultural and natural resources.
d. Name of Management Institution: National Park Service and Government of the USVI, with
oversight by a Commission constituted by Congress.
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Pre-Columbian and Columbian archeological resources;
Significant reef ecosystems;
A submarine canyon;
The largest remaining mangrove forest in the USVI.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Protection of important fish habitat;
Supports the APC program;
Supports the non-point source pollution program.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Supports the National
Marine/Estuarine Sanctuaries Program (protection of areas for conservation, recreational,
ecological, and aesthetic values).

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Residential development in the watershed diverts runoff to the main stream, yet
generates heavy sediment loads in high rainfall events.
b. Challenges:
Improving cooperation between the Federal and USVI governments for site
management;
Managing development activity on the in-holdings.
c. Other: A number of opportunities exist:
Local environments routinely lead tours into the area;
There is continued interest by NOAA in the area for wildlife refuge/sanctuary
benefits;
Recommendation for the site to be designated as a World Heritage Site.

Current Initiatives
* A Management Plan is being prepared by the NPS*.

Information Source:
* Vauthrin, Carla D. 1993. Legacy to Treasure: Salt River National Historic Park and
Ecological Reserve.
* *Personal Communication Joel Tutein, Superintendent


Final Report


Page 60


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Sandy Point Area of Particular Concern

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: Natural Monument

Description Summary
a. Location: At the southwestern tip of St. Croix
b. Size: Approximately 500 acres
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of habitat of significant value, and protection of
endangered wildlife species
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Planning
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
West End Salt Pond (the largest in the USVI);
The 398-acre Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge;
A 3-mile nesting beach for turtles (the most important in the USVI and USA for
leatherback turtles, and 1 of only 13 significant nesting sites worldwide);
99 species of birds;
Endangered species 5 Federally-listed species and 12 locally-listed species;
Sandy Point was identified as a significant natural area in 1979, and declared a
National Natural Landmark in 1988;
Exceptional education values, supporting research by visiting scientists and fieldtrips
of local students;
Prehistoric sites.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Wildlife protection;
Provision of recreational and educational opportunities;
Recommended for inclusion in the proposed Territorial Park System.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Wildlife protection

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Heavy recreational use of beach and refuge creates a garbage disposal problem, and
damages nesting sites;
Use of off-road vehicles damage nesting sites and kills animals;
Mongoose prey on the eggs and young of the endangered species.
b. Challenges:
The ecology of the salt pond still not known. Detailed study previously
recommended;
Carrying capacity study for recreational uses and improved management of area
required.

Current Initiatives: Ongoing turtle research

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Sandy Point Area of Particular
Concern: Draft Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and
Natural Resources. July 1993.


Final Report


Page 61


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


South Shore Industrial Area of Particular Concern

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Approximately midway along the south shore of St. Croix, extending from
Canegarden Bay to Manning Bay
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Reduction of pollution impacts to marine environment
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Largest industrial complex in the USVI;
Valuable coastal and marine habitats.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Pollution control
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: None

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Pollution from oil, storm water runoff, process water from the industrial complex,
and thermal effluent;
Inadequate solid waste disposal and sewage treatment at the Anguilla site;
Continued loss of wetland areas;
Contamination of groundwater.
b. Challenges: Completion of mapping of significant natural areas in the APC.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Southshore Industrial Area of Particular
Concern: Draft Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and
Natural Resources. January 1993.


Final Report Page 62 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 62


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Southgate Pond/Chenay Bay
Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Pull Point/Green Cay, St. Croix
b. Size: Total size unknown. Southgate Pond 39.5 acres
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of environmentally sensitive area. 1979
Environmental Impact Statement for the USVI Coastal Zone Management Plan
recommended that the eastern end of the site be preserved as a wildlife, educational, and
research site.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Southgate Pond important wetland and bird habitat;
Chenay Bay nesting ground for Hawksbill, Leatherback, and Green sea turtles;
Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge designation in 1977.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Site designated in 1980 as
Significant Natural Area, 1981 identified for inclusion in the Territorial Park System, 1990 as
site for the Coastal Barrier Resource System.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Sea turtle conservation;
Endangered species protection;
Coral reef protection.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Planned developments (hotels, etc.);
Sedimentation reducing size of eastern "natural" portion of Southgate Pond;
Water quality problems caused primarily by Green Cay Marina.
b. Challenges:
Reducing sedimentation;
Maintenance of hydrological integrity of Southgate Pond (filled portion is
increasingly being vegetated);
Large private sector ownership of land in the APC.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1983. ~n,,1uigoic Pond/Chenay Bay Area of
Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study.
Department of Planning and Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 21,
1993.


Final Report Page 63 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 63


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


St. Croix Coral Reef System
Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
c. IUCN Equivalent: Marine Park

Description Summary
a. Location: Coakley Bay on the northeast coast, around the eastern tip of St. Croix, to Great
Pond on the southeast coast.
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of the coral reef ecosystem and areas of high
biological productivity. Recommended for placement in the Territorial Park System.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management.
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Coral reef communities;
Sea turtles;
St. Croix Ground Lizard and a variety of birds.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Includes several sites designated as Significant Natural Areas;
Contains Coastal Barrier Reef System sites (1990);
Inclusion in proposed National Marine Sanctuary/Marine Reserve System (1980);
Includes Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge (1977).
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Supports Buck Island Reef National Monument and Green Cay National Wildlife
Refuge;
National Coral Reef Action Plan (and ICRI);
Sea turtle conservation (SPAW Programme).

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Tropical storms;
Global warming and coral bleaching;
Coral diseases;
Sedimentation and nutrient loading;
Industrial pollution and oil spills;
Recreational use impacts;
Inappropriate fishing practices.
b. Challenges:
User conflicts;
Reducing impacts from land-based development;
Reducing recreational use impacts;
Reducing impacts from marine traffic (garbage, oil, etc.);
The January 2001 expansion of the Buck Island National Monument is being
contested by the Government of the USVI.


Final Report


Page 64


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Current Initiatives
The NPS is revising the General Management Plan for the Buck Island National
Monument;
DPNR has included the greater portion of this APC in the proposed East End Marine
Park;
The Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation has prepared a development plan
for Great Pond.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. St. Croix Coral Reef System Area of
Particular Concern and Area for Preservation and Restoration Management Plan. Department of
Planning and Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 1993.


Final Report Page 65 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 65


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Chocolate Hole/Great Cruz Bay
Area of Particular Concern and Area for Preservation and Restoration


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Protection and Restoration
b. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Southwest coast of St. John
b. Size: Unkown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Support of water-based commerce, recreational
opportunities, and marine habitat protection.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
6 Federally-listed endangered species (the green sea turtle, hawksbill turtle, Brown
Pelican, Peregrine Falcon, Roseate Tern, and Prickly Ash tree);
21 locally-listed animal species and 11 plant species;
Cultural resources (2 pre-historic sites).
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Non-point source pollution program;
Institutional coordination in development control.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: None

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Increased residential and commercial development in the watershed has transported
sediment and other pollutants to the marine environment, resulting in water quality
degradation;
The large number of anchored and moored boats creates difficulty in maneuvering
and creates use conflict;
Boat propellers re-suspend sediments;
There is increasing sediment and nutrient loading from watershed runoff and boat
waste discharge.
b. Challenges:
Maintenance of marine water quality, especially in Chocolate Hole;
Maintenance of riparian and gallery moist forest in Guinea Gut.

Current Initiatives
S DPNR and the Virgin Islands National Park conduct water quality monitoring programs
within the APC.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Chocolate Hole/Great Cruz Bay Area of
Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study.
University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21,
1993.


Final Report Page 66 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 66


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Coral Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
b. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Southeast shore of St. John
b. Size: Total size unknown. Total shoreline length approximately 10 miles
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of significant natural resources
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
4 sites designated as Significant Natural Areas;
A part of the area was recommended for inclusion in the proposed VI Marine
Reserve System;
Lagoon Point is designated as a National Natural Landmark;
5 Federally-listed species of wildlife (2 sea turtles and 3 birds), and 20 locally-listed
species (15 birds, 3 bats, the black coral, and the Jewfish);
Part of the Virgin Islands National Park falls within this APC.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Coral reef conservation;
Protection of significant natural areas.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Recommended for inclusion in the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources System;
National parks system.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
High flood potential;
Sedimentation in surface runoff results in degradation in marine water quality;
Sewage pollution from marine vessels and land-based sources.

Current Initiatives
* A large portion of the area was included in the new Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
Monument (2001).

Information Source:
* Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Coral Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of
Preservation and Restoration: Draft Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and
Department of Planning and Natural Resources. July 1993.
* Federal Register. Monday, January 22, 2001. Part XX.


Final Report Page 67 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 67


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Enighed Pond/Cruz Bay
Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
b. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Western side of St. John
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Continued provision of facilities for water-dependent
commerce; provision of opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of unique, cultural,
historical, and scenic qualities; and maintenance of clean water and health fish and wildlife
habitats.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Wetlands Enighed Pond and Little Enighed Pond;
Protection of water quality;
8 endangered species of wildlife 3 Federally listed and 5 locally listed;
Pre-historic and historic human settlements.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Non-point source pollution
program.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: None

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Flood hazard;
Infilling of wetlands, and use for sewage disposal;
Sedimentation from surface runoff;
Noise levels from both marine and land-based activities.
b. Challenges:
Development of a boat traffic management system to reduce use conflicts between
commercial and recreational users;
Maintenance of Class B water quality standards in the marine component of the APC.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Enighed Pond/Cruz Bay Area of
Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study.
University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21,
1993.


Final Report Page 68 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 68


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Frank Bay Wildlife and Marine Sanctuary


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: March 24, 2000
b. Category of Designation: Wildlife and marine sanctuary
c. IUCN Equivalent: Strict Nature Reserve


Description Summary
a. Location: Southern shore o
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation:


f St. John


Protection of essen


Name of Management Institution: Department of PI
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Resource Protected by the Site: Fish habitat
Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:


tial fish habitat
planning and Natural Resources,


Fisheries management
Fisheries management


Major Issues: None

Current Initiatives: Regulations are pending that will prohibit fishing or resource harvesting
within Frank Bay Pond.

Information Source: Division of Fish & Wildlife and Division of Environmental Protection. 2001.
Recreational and Commercial Fisherman's Information Booklet. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. June 2001.


Final Report Page 69 September 24, 2002


d.


September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 69







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: January 17, 2001, by Presidential Proclamation No. 7399
b. Category of Designation: National Monument
c. IUCN Equivalent: Natural Monument

Description Summary
a. Location: East and south of St. John
b. Size: 12,708 acres
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of endangered and other scientific assets
d. Name of Management Institution: National Park Service
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Nearshore nursery habitats;
Fish spawning sites;
Feeding sites for 25 species of seabirds;
Endangered species of turtles (4 species), whales (2 species), dolphins (4 species), 2
species of terns, and the Brown Pelican;
"Countless species of reef fish, invertebrates, and plants".
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Coral reef protection;
Fisheries management;
Protection of essential habitats.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Coral reef protection;
Fisheries management;
Protection of essential habitats.

Major Issues: None
a. Internal and External Threats: None
b. Challenges:
Maintenance of water quality;
Generating community support for the new monument.

Current Initiatives: Preparation of the General Management Plan by the National Park Service.

Information Source: Federal Register. Monday, January 22, 2001. Part XX.


Final Report Page 70 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 70


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Virgin Islands National Park

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: Established 1956. Expanded in 1962 to include offshore and submerged
areas
b. Category of Designation: National park
c. IUCN Equivalent: National park

Description Summary
a. Location: St. John17
b. Size: 5,650 acres of submerged land18
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of significant ecological and scenic values
d. Name of Management Institution: National Park Service
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Coral reefs;
12 Federally-listed threatened species of wildlife;
A diverse mix of species of flora and fauna;
Historic resources (including Pre-Columbian sites).
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Protection of natural and historic
resources
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Protection of significant natural
and historic resources to provide recreational opportunities.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Vandalism, poaching, and violations by visitors;
Impact of invasive/exotic species;
Deterioration of historic structures;
Alteration of viewsheds by developments on inholdings;
Sedimentation from run-off;
Non-point source pollution.

b. Challenges:
Inadequate financing;
Need for improved relationship with local community;
Management of the new 12,708 acre Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument
declared in 2001.
c. Other: Significant support from the Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park

Current Initiatives
Gateway planning;
New General Management Plan and other operational plans under preparation.

Information Source: National Parks Conservation Association. 2001. Virgin Islands National
Park: Business Plan. National Parks Service, Summer 2001.


17 Hassel Island in Charlotte Amalie Harbor (St. Thomas) is designated as part of the Virgin Islands
National Park, but is has no marine component.
18 The size of the terrestrial portion of the national park is approximately 7,200 acres.


Final Report


Page 71


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Botany Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area for Preservation and Restoration


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area for Preservation and
Restoration
c. IUCN Equivalent: Natural Monument

Description Summary
a. Location: Western end of St. Thomas
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of natural and archeological/historical resources
and values.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site: Extensive. Refer to 1993 analytical study.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Contains 4 sites nominated as Significant Natural Areas;
Entire Estate Botany Bay recommended for inclusion in the Territorial Park System
(1976);
Contains 2 sites listed as wilderness areas (1960 Park and Recreation Plan);
Marine areas recommended for inclusion in the VI Marine Reserve System.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
2 sites listed on National Register of Historic Places (1976);
10 islets and cays listed in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Resort development in the area pending.
b. Challenges:
Balancing development and conservation objectives.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Botany Bay Area of Particular Concern
and Area for Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Study. Department of Planning and
Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 72 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 72


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


East End Conservation Area


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared:
St. James Marine Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary September 16, 1994
Cas Cay/Mangrove Lagoon Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary September 16, 1994
Compass Point Marine Reserve and Wildlife Sanctuary September 24, 1992
b. Category of Designation: Marine Reserve
c. IUCN Equivalent: Strict Nature Reserve

Description Summary
a. Location: East end, St. Thomas
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of essential fish habitat
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Fish and Wildlife
e. Resource Protected by the Site: Essential fish habitat
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies: Fisheries management
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Fisheries management

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats: Pollution from land-based sources
b. Challenges: Maintaining integrity of habitats.

Current Initiatives: Permit system required to catch baitfish or hook and line fish in reserve.


Information Source: Division of Fish & Wildlife and Division of Environmental Protection. 2001.
Recreational and Commercial Fisherman's Information Booklet. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. June 2001.


Final Report Page 73 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 73


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Magens Bay and Watershed Area of Particular Concern

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: North shore of St. Thomas, between Tropaco and Picara Points
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: To ensure watershed management for protection of
resources and scenic quality, and improved public access to the beach and park.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management and Magens Bay Authority
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
One of the primary archeological sites in the USVI;
Several forest types, including a moist forest community;
Fish nursery habitats in the bay;
Endangered species of wildlife, 4 Federally-listed and 4 locally-listed species.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Preservation of archeological sites, some listed on the National Register of Historic
Places;
The area was recommended in 1991 for inclusion in the Territorial Parks System;
Identified as a Significant Natural Area in the Coastal Zone Management Program
and Final Environmental Impact Assessment 1979.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Recommended by the National Park Service as a scenic park in 1960;
Part of the area was included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System in 1990.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Sewage disposal via septic systems and filter fields;
Periodic proposals for resort-style development;
Litter;
Inadequate public transportation from Charlotte Amalie;
Marine resource use conflicts (between boaters and swimmers);
Noise nuisance (beach parties bothering other beach users, helicopter tours bothering
residents);
Sediment loading to marine environment resulting from construction of residences.
b. Challenges:
Minimizing development in the watershed to protect the water quality in the bay;
Restricting commercial development in the watershed;
Increasing visitation without overloading capacity of the beach and other public
areas.
c. Other:
Carrying capacity study of the beach and other facilities recommended.

Current Initiatives: None.


Final Report


Page 74


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Magens Bay and Watershed Area of
Particular Concern: A Comprehensive Study. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of
Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 75 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 75


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Mandahl Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and
Restoration
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: North side of St. Thomas, between Lovenlund and Tutu Bays
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Provision of wildlife and scenic park; protection of
significant natural resources and potential recreation areas; halt degradation and preserve
and/or restore area
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
Salt ponds;
Birds and other wetlands species;
Abundant marine resources (fish, corals, etc.);
Hawksbill turtle nesting sites;
13 endangered/threatened species of wildlife, including the humpback whale.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Wildlife protection;
Provision of recreational opportunities;
Education;
Recommended for inclusion in Territorial Parks System.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Included in Federal Coastal Barrier Resource System;
Wildlife protection;
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Protocol concerning Specially
Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW).

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Erosion of beach;
Deteriorating water quality from storm water runoff
b. Challenges:
Curtailing recreational use to reduce beach erosion;
Ensuring appropriate development in the APC;
Improved solid waste removal.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Mandahl Bay Area of Particular
Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: Management Plan. University of the Virgin
Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 1993.


Final Report Page 76 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 76


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Mangrove Lagoon/Benner Bay
Area of Particular Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration

Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: Managed Resource Protected Area

Description Summary
a. Location: Southeast shore of St. Thomas
b. Size: Unknown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: To protect exceptional natural values, particularly the fish
nursery areas.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site:
One of the largest remaining mangrove areas in the USVI;
495 species of flora and fauna, including 100 species of shorebirds, sightings of the
humpback whale;
Fish nursery habitats;
Over-wintering site for approximately 20 species of migratory bird;
Designated as significant natural area. Cas Cay and Compass Point Pond designated
as Territorial Wildlife Refuges;
Recommended for designation as National Marine Sanctuary;
Prehistoric sites.
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Preservation of historic sites;
Protection of fish nursery and wildlife habitat;
Identified as a Significant Natural Area in the Coastal Zone Management Program
and Final Environmental Impact Assessment 1979.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives:
Part of the area was included in the Coastal Barrier Resources System in 1990.

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Sewage disposal from plants, leach fields, and live-aboard boats;
The APC supports approximately a third of the population of St. Thomas, resulting in
significant levels of input of pollution into the marine environment from residential,
commercial, and industrial activities;
Litter;
Leachate from the garbage dump;
The marinas contribute to habitat destruction and water pollution;
Damage to cultural/historic resources.
b. Challenges:
Reduction of land use conflicts;
Reduction of non-point source pollution loading to the marine environment;
Reducing pollution impact and maintaining flows in Turpentine Run, the largest
perennial stream on St. Thomas.
c. Other:


Final Report


Page 77


September 24, 2002







Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Determination of the level of groundwater contamination from the dump and other
sources;
Improving passive recreation/access to the shoreline, significantly reduced by private
and commercial development.

Current Initiatives:
A management plan has been prepared for this APC, which is now going through the
approval process.

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Mangrove Lagoon/Benner Bay Area of
Particular Concern and Area ofPreservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Study. University of
the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 78 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 78


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


St. Thomas Harbor and Waterfront Area of Particular Concern


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent in IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Charlotte Amalie Harbor, St. Thomas
b. Size: Total size unknown. St. Thomas Harbour is approximately 0.72 square miles
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Protection of native fishing boat uses; recreational uses;
protection of traditional waterfront commercial activities.
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site: Endangered species. Humpback whale sighting in 1993 and
manatee sighting in 1998
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Sprat Bay and South Limestone Bay (Water Island) included in Federal Coastal
Barrier Resources System in 1990;
Part of southeast shore of Water Island identified as part of the proposed VI Marine
Reserve System;
Flamingo Point (Water Island) identified as a significant natural area in the coastal
zone management program, 1979.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Wildlife protection

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Deterioration of natural, historical, and cultural resources;
Damage to infrastructure and property from storm hazards and flooding;
Significant pollution loading to the harbor from solid waste, runoff, and ship-
generated waste.
b. Challenges:
Inadequate facilities for recreational and pedestrian uses of the waterfront;
Use conflicts in marine traffic, overcrowding, safety concerns;
Pollution control;
Traffic congestion and delays;
Preservation of historic character of downtown Charlotte Amalie.
c. Other:
Official designation of significant natural areas uncompleted.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. St. Thomas Harbor and Waterfront Area
of Particular Concern: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin Islands and
Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 79 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 79


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Vessup Bay/East End Area of Particular Concern


Category of Protected Area
a. Date Declared: 1979, Legislature of the USVI. October 1, 1991, Coastal Zone Commission
b. Category of Designation: Area of Particular Concern
c. IUCN Equivalent: No equivalent I IUCN system

Description Summary
a. Location: Red Hook, St. Thomas
b. Size: Unkown
c. Primary Reason for Designation: Importance of the harbor facilities, and the need to address
the intense concentration of activities in the area
d. Name of Management Institution: Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Zone Management
e. Resource Protected by the Site: Endangered species (snake, 3 sea turtles, birds)
f Relevance to USVI Environmental/Conservation Strategies:
Red Hook Pond placed within Coastal Barrier Resources System. Also
recommended for inclusion in the Territorial Parks System;
The APC also covers part of Great Bay and Mangrove Lagoon/Brenner Bay;
A number of good beaches, Muller Bay Beach and Vessup Beach, occur in the area.
g. Relevance to National/International Agreements/Initiatives: Coastal Barrier Resources
System designation

Major Issues
a. Internal and External Threats:
Water pollution (mainly nutrients) resulting from discharges from boats;
Sediment loading to the marine environment from development activity;
Noise pollution from boat and vehicular traffic and recreational activities (outdoor
bands);
Wrecks present a safety hazard, especially to small children;
Marine debris impacting on the mangrove communities;
Increasing air pollution from marine and vehicular traffic.
b. Challenges:
Reduction of impacts from development activity;
Reduction of water pollution, especially from non-point sources.

Current Initiatives: None

Information Source: Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Vessup Bay/East End Area of Particular
Concern: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of
Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 80 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 80


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 10: PROPOSED MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

St. Croix (Map 3)
* Annaly Point
* Chenay Bay/Southgate Pond
* Coakley Bay
* Great Pond Bay
* Issac Bay
* Jack Bay
* Long Reef
* Manchenil Bay
* Point Udall
* Salt River/Sugar Bay
* Sandy Point
* Shoy Beach/Altona Lagoon


St. John (Map 4)
* Coral Bay Harbor
* Fish Bay
* Johns Folly Bay
* Hurrican Hole
* LeDuck Island
* Newfound Bay
* Round Bay


St. Thomas (Map 5)
* Botany Bay
* Brewers Bay
* Flat, Turtledove, & Saba Cays
* Hans Lollick
* Mandahl Bay
* Little Hans Lollick/Pelican Cay
* Perseverence Bay
* Salt Cay/West Cay
* Sandy Bay/Little St. Thomas
* Smith Bay/Linquist Beach
* Vessup Bay

A more detailed treatment of potential sites is provided in the 2002 Resource Description
Report by Island Resources Foundation.


Final Report Page 81 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 81


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


PART III: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT


The preceding chapters of this document clearly shows that despite ongoing initiatives
related to protected area management, a significant amount of work remains to be undertaken
in order to establish a system of protected areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands. This ranges from
policy development, through site assessment, to community development initiatives.

The subsequent chapters identify the most critical issues and requirements, and propose a set
of priorities for implementation.


Final Report Page 82 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 82


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 11: GAPS IN THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK

This document has as its focus, a system of marine protected areas for the U.S. Virgin Islands
(USVI). However, as previously articulated, the integrity of a system of protected areas
based solely on marine sites cannot be sustained in the long term. A number of issues need
to be addressed in order to develop a comprehensive and sustainable system.

Issue # 1: Unifying Policy Framework"9
There has been some discussion and previous initiatives examining the issue of
development of a Territorial Park System (TPS). That discussion has taken place
among a restricted number of institutions, has been sporadic, and has not been
presented and pursued as a major initiative that supports the development thrust
articulated for the Territory.

There needs to be a clear framework that places protected areas in a more central and
complementary position within the development planning process. The absence of
that framework has resulted in conflicts, wastage of time and money, and a continued
hodge podge approach to protected area development. The absence of a clear and
consistent framework has also severely hampered the allocation of public resources to
support an ongoing initiative.

Issue # 2: Unifying Legislative Framework
There is evidence to suggest that the legislative framework to support a TPS was
fragmented during the reorganization of the Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs in 1987. Legislation is once again required that speaks specifically to a
system of protected areas for the USVI.

An overall legislation as suggested would significantly reduce, if not prevent outright,
the practice of giving sites multiple designations over a period of years without
improvement in the status of the resources such designations are supposed to protect.
More importantly, it would clearly set out how the development of the system should
proceed.

Issue # 3: Marine versus Terrestrial Sites
Protected areas within the control of the Government of the USVI will fall within the
3-mile territorial limit. As such, these sites will be impacted by nearshore activities
as well as those taking place on land. The main problem presently facing the marine
environment, and hence the VI economy in the short term, is the impact of land-based
sources of pollution. As such, activities on land need to be managed in a manner that
reduces, to the greatest extent possible, the adverse impacts on the marine
environment. Additionally, terrestrial protected areas are required to protect
terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and to address a range of conservation issues.



19 The unifying policy framework is the recommended Policy and Plan for a System of Protected Areas for the
U.S. Virgin Islands (Section 5.2).


Final Report


Page 83


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


A large portion of the marine area that falls under some form of protected area regime
is contained within areas of particular concern (APCs). Though APCs provide a good
framework for addressing a number of issues related to development impacts on
protected areas, the relationship between both initiatives has not been clearly
articulated. The fact that APCs often contain other types of protected areas
underscores the need for a more consistent and comprehensive system, which can
only be achieved by having a unifying policy and legislative framework.

Issue # 4: Private Lands and Protected Areas
A number of coastal and terrestrial sites identified as potential protected areas are
privately owned. The business of acquiring access to, or ownership of, such lands for
protected area management purposes need to be supported by policy and legislation,
as well as the necessary financial resources. The parcels, and the process of acquiring
such parcels, should be clear so as to reduce or eliminate conflicts with private
owners as well as with future business investors. The process for acquisition of such
lands would normally be set out in the enabling legislation and policy framework.

Issue # 5: Representative Sites
To date, the emphasis in marine protected areas in the USVI has been on species
management, particularly fisheries management, and even more narrowly on
regulating catch. Even from the perspective of fisheries management, more emphasis
needs to be placed on habitat management.

More importantly, a range of types of sites is needed to provide and sustain the range
of potential benefits to be accrued from managing a system of protected areas. The
maintenance of landscapes and seascapes are difficult at best, and need to be
addressed within the wider land use planning and development control process as
well.

A number of these gaps can be addressed by taking a more systematic approach to protected
area development.


Final Report Page 84 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 84


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


CHAPTER 12: REQUIREMENTS FOR SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The development of a system of protected areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands require a number
of supporting elements, involving the various sectors and groups in the community. The
program elements identified below should all be developed in the first five years of
development of the system of protected areas.

a. Public Education Program

The existing negative perception of protected areas held by the general public has to
be overcome if public support and active participation by stakeholders is to be
achieved. The public education program must therefore:
Portray realistic benefits;
Address local concerns;
Deliver target-specific messages; and
Encourage participation.

b. Policy and Plan for a System of Protected Areas

The need for a policy and legislative framework to support system development and
management was previously discussed (Chapter 11). Additionally, a clear plan of
action is required to translate the policies into specific programs, procedures, and
targets. This will facilitate long-term planning and resource commitments by
government agencies, private groups, and civil society organizations. The System
Plan would necessarily include both marine and terrestrial sites.

The National Park Service regularly updates their management policies (National
Parks Service 2000), but a similar set of policies for the USVI system of protected
areas need to be developed.

c. Detailed Site Assessments

Many of the sites previously recommended have changed significantly in the past
decade or two. The most recent assessment was done in 1990, in the aftermath of
Hurricane Hugo. There have been other hurricanes since then, and the present status
of the resources is uncertain. Detailed site assessments will be required to set
baseline conditions, determine boundaries, and establish priorities for establishment.
The determination of priorities for site establishment should include a gap analysis, to
ensure that critical ecosystems are captured in the mix of sites to be established as
part of the system.

d. Legislative Review and Revisions

Legislative changes are required to support a wide range of issues. These changes
range from overall legislation to support a system of protected areas to obligating
public participatory mechanisms (Chapter 5).


Final Report


Page 85


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


e. An Agreed Institutional Framework

Previous discussions among the main protected area management institutions have
identified the need for a new agency with responsibility for managing the system of
protected areas. In addition to redefining the roles of the existing institutions, the
institutional mandates and coordination mechanisms need to be restructured to
accommodate not only this new lead agency, but also the civil society institutions that
have the capacity to participate in the process.

f. Consultation Mechanisms and Communication Strategy

The institutional framework must provide an institutional space that facilitates
programmatic linkages and rationalization. An institutional space recommended for
this purpose is the Protected Area Advisory Council (Section 6.2). A
communications strategy facilitates the ongoing dialogue, providing not only
feedback on programmes and actions, but also supporting the free entry to, and exit
from, the process by institutional members. A key objective of this component is to
periodically reaffirm the objectives and strengths of the process.

g. Trust Fund and Capital Campaign

Preliminary projections for the operations of the East End Marine Park, St. Croix,
indicate funding requirement of approximately US$5 million for the first 5 years,
with demand at approximately US$1 million per year (The Nature Conservancy,
2002). If several sites are brought into the system, the annual funding requirement,
not to mention new capital costs, will be substantial. A reliable and consistent source
of funds must be developed.

Though Chapter 8 addresses the policies for financial management, it does not
address the actual financial demand, nor does it state the length of time it takes to
capitalize trust funds. With a $5 million price tag for the first marine park, with the
APCs about to come on stream, and with other sites such as Great Pond and Salt
River looming large on the horizon, the development of the funding mechanism must
be one of the first priorities addressed.

h. Procedural Guidelines

In addition to the system policies, procedural guidelines provide guidance on
implementation of a wide range of strategies. Such guidelines not only establish
standards for the system, but also ensure transparency and consistency. While such
system guidelines are not critical to the establishment of the first site, they should be
developed as soon as possible.


Final Report Page 86 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 86


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


i. Institutional Strengthening

The main institutions supporting the development of the system of protected areas
should be targeted for institutional strengthening. This should have at its core:
additional staff, appropriately trained staff, and appropriate management systems.

j. Stakeholder Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Processes

Environmental decision making in the USVI is fairly antagonistic, even with the
legally mandated public hearing process. More consistent and better mechanisms
have to be developed to encourage the articulation of stakeholder/group preferences,
concerns, and eventually support group decision making. The building of community
trust and collaboration processes cannot be legislated. As such, the civil society
institutions should be targeted for institutional strengthening in the development and
maintenance of community consultation processes.

k. Detailed Socio-economic Study

The socio-economic assessment conducted as part of this VI Marine Park Project was
quite preliminary, even though it yielded good results. Just as importantly, it has
identified critical issues that need to be addressed, as well as information/data
required for decision making. A much more detailed study should be undertaken to
quantify the use of the environmental resources, the value of those resources to the
economy, and the actual demand for such resources. Without that data, decisions
made solely on the basis of the number of hotel rooms to be built will continue to
generate social conflict.

1. Data Management System

Obviously better management requires a system of capturing, storing, evaluating, and
disseminating information. Currently, different institutions store their own
data/information. As such, collection protocols are often dissimilar, storage formats
are different, and the consistency and usefulness of the data is questionable. Good
decision making requires good information, across all the institutions that generate or
capture relevant data. As such, both a data management system to support the
management of the system of protected areas and an information network to support
interaction of the institutions, need to be developed.


Final Report Page 87 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 87


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


List of References


Davey, A.G. 1998. National System Planning for Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland.

Day, J.C. and J.C. Roff. 2000. Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas: A
Frameworkfor Canada's Oceans. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto.

Division of Fish & Wildlife and Division of Environmental Protection. 2001. Recreational
and Commercial Fisherman's Information Booklet. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. June 2001.

FAO. 1991. Statistics Series No. 68: Catches andLandings. FAO, Rome.

Federal Register. Monday, January 22, 2001. Part XX.

Island Resources Foundation. 2002. Resource Description Report. University of the Virgin
Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. St. Thomas, USVI.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Christiansted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern: A
Comprehensive Analytical Study. Department of Planning and Natural Resources and
University of the Virgin Islands. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. East End Area ofParticular Concern: A Comprehensive
Analytic Study. Department of Planning & Natural Resources and University of the Virgin
Islands. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Fredericksted Waterfront Area of Particular Concern: A
Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning
and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Great Pond and Great Pond Bay Area of Particular
Concern and Area for Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study.
Department of Planning and Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands.
September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Salt River Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of
Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin
Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Sandy Point Area of Particular Concern: Draft
Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. July 1993.


Final Report Page 88 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 88


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Island Resources Foundation. 1983. .,ni/ihgaie Pond/Chenay Bay Area of Particular Concern
and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. Department of
Planning and Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. .Smlhel,,, Industrial Area of Particular Concern: Draft
Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural
Resources. January 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. St. Croix Coral Reef System Area ofParticular Concern
and Area of Preservation and Restoration: Management Plan. Department of Planning and
Natural Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Chocolate Hole/Great Cruz Bay Area of Particular
Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study.
University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources.
September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Coral Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of
Preservation and Restoration: Draft Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and
Department of Planning and Natural Resources. July 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Enighed Pond/Cruz Bay Area ofParticular Concern and
Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the
Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Botany Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area for
Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Study. Department of Planning and Natural
Resources and University of the Virgin Islands. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Magens Bay and Watershed Area of Particular
Concern: A Comprehensive Study. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of
Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Mandahl Bay Area of Particular Concern and Area of
Preservation and Restoration: Management Plan. University of the Virgin Islands and
Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Mangrove Lagoon/Benner Bay Area of Particular
Concern and Area of Preservation and Restoration: A Comprehensive Study. University of
the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.

Island Resources Foundation. 1993. St. Thomas Harbor and Waterfront Area of Particular
Concern: A Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin Islands and Department
of Planning and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.


Final Report Page 89 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 89


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Island Resources Foundation. 1993. Vessup Bay/East End Area of Particular Concern: A
Comprehensive Analytic Study. University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning
and Natural Resources. September 21, 1993.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. CNPPA with the
assistance of WCMC. IUCN, Gland.

Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelinesfor Marine ProtectedAreas. IUCN, Gland.

National Parks Conservation Association. 2001. Virgin Islands National Park: Business
Plan. National Parks Service, Summer 2001.

National Park Service. 2000. Management Policies 2001. U.S. Department of the Interior.

National Park Service. 1983. Buck Island Reef National Monument: General Management
Plan, Development Concept Plan, Environmental Assessment. September 1983. U.S.
Department of the Interior.

National Research Council. 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean
Ecosystems. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.

NOAA. 1979. The Virgin Islands Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC.

Norse, E. (Ed.). 1993. GlobalMarine Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Building
Conservation into Decision Making. Island Press, Washington.

Salm, R.V, Clark, J. and Siirila E. 2000. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A guide for
planners and managers. IUCN. Washington DC.

Sobel, J. 1996. "Marine Reserves: Necessary Tools for Biodiversity Conservation?", in
Global Biodiversity. 1996: 8-18.

The Nature Conservancy. 2002. St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan.
University of the Virgin Islands and Department of Planning and Natural Resources. USVI,
January 25, 2002.

Vauthrin, Carla D. 1993. Legacy to Treasure: Salt River National Historic Park and
Ecological Reserve.


Final Report Page 90 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 90


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


APPENDIX 1
Institutions and Persons Consulted


1. Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Sue Higgins Senior Planner, Division of Coastal and Comprehensive
Planning
Janice Hodge Director, Division of Coastal Zone Management
Barbara Kojis, Ph.D. Director, Division of Fish & Wildlife
Myron Jackson Director, Division of Archeology & Historic Preservation

2. The Nature Conservancy
Stephanie Wear
Robert Weary Director, Virgin Islands Program

3. Caribbean Fisheries Management Council
Virdin Brown Chair

4. Department of Housing, Parks and Recreation
Ira Hobson Commissioner

5. National Park Service
Zandy Hillis-Starr Manager, Biological Resources
Joel Tutein Superintendent
John King Superintendent
Don Catanzaro, Ph.D.

6. St. Croix Environmental Association
Bill Turner Executive Director

7. Virgin Islands Port Authority
Darlan Brin

8. Community Briefings, Focus Groups Meetings, and Stakeholder Meetings
St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas November and December 2001 and
January 2002


Final Report Page 91 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 91


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


APPENDIX 2
Marine Protected Areas Presidential Executive Order


Executive Order 13158
Marine Protected Areas

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United
States of America and in furtherance of the purposes of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-ee), National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.),
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.),
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362 et seq.), Clean
Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (42 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), and
other pertinent statutes, it is ordered as follows :

Section 1. Purpose. This Executive Order will help protect the significant natural and
cultural resources within the marine environment for the benefit of present and future
generations by strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of marine protected areas
(MPAs). An expanded and strengthened comprehensive system of marine protected areas
throughout the marine environment would enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural
and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the
marine environment for future generations. To this end, the purpose of this order is to,
consistent with domestic and international law: (a) strengthen the management, protection,
and conservation of existing marine protected areas and establish new or expanded MPAs;
(b) develop a scientifically based, comprehensive national system of MPAs representing
diverse U.S. marine ecosystems, and the Nation's natural and cultural resources; and (c)
avoid causing harm to MPAs through federally conducted, approved, or funded activities.


Section 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:

(a) "Marine protected area" means any area of the marine environment that has been
reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide
lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.

(b) "Marine environment" means those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great
Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands thereunder, over which the
United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with international law.

(c) The term "United States" includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.


Final Report


Page 92


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Section 3. MPA Establishment, Protection, and Management. Each Federal agency
whose authorities provide for the establishment or management of MPAs shall take
appropriate actions to enhance or expand protection of existing MPAs and establish or
recommend, as appropriate, new MPAs. Agencies implementing this section shall consult
with the agencies identified in subsection 4(a) of this order, consistent with existing
requirements.


Section 4. National System of MPAs. (a) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Department of Commerce and the Department of the
Interior, in consultation with the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the United
States Agency for International Development, the Department of Transportation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and other pertinent
Federal agencies shall develop a national system of MPAs. They shall coordinate and share
information, tools, and strategies, and provide guidance to enable and encourage the use of
the following in the exercise of each agency's respective authorities to further enhance and
expand protection of existing MPAs and to establish or recommend new MPAs, as
appropriate:

(1) science-based identification and prioritization of natural and cultural resources for
additional protection;

(2) integrated assessments of ecological linkages among MPAs, including ecological
reserves in which consumptive uses of resources are prohibited, to provide synergistic
benefits;

(3) a biological assessment of the minimum area where consumptive uses would be
prohibited that is necessary to preserve representative habitats in different geographic
areas of the marine environment;

(4) an assessment of threats and gaps in levels of protection currently afforded to
natural and cultural resources, as appropriate;

(5) practical, science-based criteria and protocols for monitoring and evaluating the
effectiveness of MPAs;

(6) identification of emerging threats and user conflicts affecting MPAs and
appropriate, practical, and equitable management solutions, including effective
enforcement strategies, to eliminate or reduce such threats and conflicts;

(7) assessment of the economic effects of the preferred management solutions; and

(8) identification of opportunities to improve linkages with, and technical assistance
to, international marine protected area programs.


Final Report


Page 93


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


(b) In carrying out the requirements of section 4 of this order, the Department of
Commerce and the Department of the Interior shall consult with those States that
contain portions of the marine environment, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, tribes, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and
other entities, as appropriate, to promote coordination of Federal, State, territorial,
and tribal actions to establish and manage MPAs.

(c) In carrying out the requirements of this section, the Department of Commerce and
the Department of the Interior shall seek the expert advice and recommendations of
non-Federal scientists, resource managers, and other interested persons and
organizations through a Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee. The
Committee shall be established by the Department of Commerce.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior shall establish and
jointly manage a website for information on MPAs and Federal agency reports
required by this order. They shall also publish and maintain a list of MPAs that meet
the definition of MPA for the purposes of this order. (e) The Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall establish a
Marine Protected Area Center to carry out, in cooperation with the Department of the
Interior, the requirements of subsection 4(a) of this order, coordinate the website
established pursuant to subsection 4(d) of this order, and partner with governmental
and nongovernmental entities to conduct necessary research, analysis, and
exploration. The goal of the MPA Center shall be, in cooperation with the
Department of the Interior, to develop a framework for a national system of MPAs,
and to provide Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments with the
information, technologies, and strategies to support the system. This national system
framework and the work of the MPA Center is intended to support, not interfere with,
agencies' independent exercise of their own existing authorities.

(f) To better protect beaches, coasts, and the marine environment from pollution, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), relying upon existing Clean Water Act
authorities, shall expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary,
to ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment. Such
regulations may include the identification of areas that warrant additional pollution
protections and the enhancement of marine water quality standards. The EPA shall
consult with the Federal agencies identified in subsection 4(a) of this order, States,
territories, tribes, and the public in the development of such new regulations.


Section 5. Agency Responsibilities. Each Federal agency whose actions affect the natural or
cultural resources that are protected by an MPA shall identify such actions. To the extent
permitted by law and to the maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency, in taking such
actions, shall avoid harm to the natural and cultural resources that are protected by an MPA.
In implementing this section, each Federal agency shall refer to the MPAs identified under
subsection 4(d) of this order.


Final Report


Page 94


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


Section 6. Accountability. Each Federal agency that is required to take actions under this
order shall prepare and make public annually a concise description of actions taken by it in
the previous year to implement the order, including a description of written comments by any
person or organization stating that the agency has not complied with this order and a
response to such comments by the agency.


Section 7. International Law. Federal agencies taking actions pursuant to this Executive
Order must act in accordance with international law and with Presidential Proclamation 5928
of December 27, 1988, on the Territorial Sea of the United States of America, Presidential
Proclamation 5030 of March 10, 1983, on the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States
of America, and Presidential Proclamation 7219 of September 2, 1999, on the Contiguous
Zone of the United States.


Section 8. General. (a) Nothing in this Order shall be construed as altering existing
authorities regarding the establishment of Federal MPAs in areas of the marine environment
subject to the jurisdiction and control of States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes.

(b) This Order does not diminish, affect, or abrogate Indian treaty rights of United
States trust responsibilities to Indian tribes.

(c) This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its
officers, or any person.


William J. Clinton
The White House
May 26, 2000


Final Report Page 95 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 95


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


APPENDIX 3
Potential Benefits of Marine Reserves

Marine Reserves offer many potential benefits, which include; protecting ecosystem
functions, improving recreational and educational opportunities, improving fishery yields,
and increasing knowledge and understanding of marine systems.


I. Protects Ecosystem Structure, Function, and Integrity
* Protects physical structure of habitat;
* Protects ecological processes;
* Restores population structure of fisheries(size and age);
* Restores community composition (presence and abundance of plant and animal species);
* Protects biodiversity at all levels;
* Protects important species;
* Protects vulnerable species;
* Protects threshold effects;
* Protects food web and trophic structure;
* Reduces incidental damage; and
* Facilitates ecosystem recovery after major human or natural disturbances.


II. Improves Support to Human/Economic Systems
* Reduces fishing gear impacts;
* Maintains high quality feeding areas for fish and wildlife;
* Improves non-consumptive opportunities, especially recreation;
* Enhances and diversifies economic activities;
* Enhances and diversifies social activities;
* Enhances aesthetic and spiritual experiences;
* Improves wildlife opportunities;
* Provides opportunities for education;
* Increases sustainable employment opportunities;
* Creates public awareness about environment;
* Reduces the impacts from irresponsible development activities;
* Encourages holistic approach to natural resources management; and
* Stabilizes the local economy.


III. Improves Fishery Yields
* Protects spawning fish stocks;
* Increases spawning stock biomass;
* Provides undisturbed spawning conditions, habitats, sites;
* Increase egg and larval production;
* Enhances recruitment;


Final Report


Page 96


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


* Provides spill over of adults and juveniles to areas outside reserve;
* Reduces chances of recruitment overfishing;
* Reduces overfishing of vulnerable species;
* Protects diversity of fishing opportunities;
* Enhances recovery from stock collapses and management failures;
* Reduces bycatch fishing mortality
* Simplifies enforcement and compliance;
* Reduces conflicts among users;
* Maintains sport trophy fisheries;
* Reduces variance of yield;
* Allows increased fish outside reserves;
* Facilitates stakeholder involvement in management;
* Provides fishery management data to improve fisheries;
* Increases understanding and acceptance of fishery management;
* Reduces impacts of environmental variability; and
* Provides some protection with limited resources and without data or information.


IV. Increases Knowledge and Understanding of Marine Systems
* Provides long-term monitoring sites;
* Provides focus for study;
* Provides continuity of knowledge;
* Provides opportunity to restore or maintain natural behaviors;
* Reduces risks to long-term experiments;
* Provides experimental sites needing natural areas;
* Provides controlled natural areas for assessing anthropogenic impacts, including fishing
and other impacts;
* Provides sites for enhanced primary and adult education; and
* Provides sites for high-level graduate education.

Sobel, J. 1996. "Marine Reserves: Necessary Tools for Biodiversity Conservation?", in
Global Biodiversity. 1996: 8-18.


Final Report Page 97 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 97


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


APPENDIX 4
IUCN Protected Areas Categories and Management Objectives


A protected area is defined as: "An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the
protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated
cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means" (IUCN 1994').

The above definition does not mean that no use will be permitted within protected areas. In
fact, the most wide spread use of protected areas is for recreation.

The current IUCN WCPA categories (IUCN 1994) are as follows:

1. Strict protection
a. Strict Nature Reserve
b. Wilderness Area

11. Ecosystem conservation and recreation (National Park)

111. Conservation of natural features (Natural Monument)

IV. Conservation through active management (Habitat/Species Management Area)

V. Landscape/seascape conservation and recreation (Protected Landscape/ seascape)

V1. Sustainable use of natural ecosystems (Managed Resource Protected Area)


The mix of management objectives relevant to each of the categories is summarised in the
following table (IUCN 1994, p.8):

Management Objective la Ib II III IV V VI
Scientific research 1 3 2 2 2 2 3
Wilderness protection 2 1 2 3 3 2
Preservation of species and genetic diversity 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
Maintenance of environmental services 2 1 1 1 2 1
Protection of specific natural/cultural features 2 1 3 1 3
Tourism and recreation 2 1 1 3 1 3
Education 2 2 2 2 3
Sustainable use of resources from natural 3 3 2 2 1
ecosystems
Maintenance of cultural/traditional attributes 1 2
Key: I: Primary objective; 2: Secondary objective; 3: Potentially applicable objective;
Not applicable


Final Report


Page 98


September 24, 2002






Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas in the USVI


The definitions, objectives, and selection criteria for the categories and sub-categories are
summarised as follows (IUCN 1994, p.17):

Category I Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: protected area managed mainly
for science or wilderness protection

Category la Strict Nature Reserve: protected area managed mainly for science

Definition: Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative
ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for
scientific research and/or environmental monitoring

Objectives of management:

* To preserve habitats, ecosystems and species in as undisturbed a state as possible;

* To maintain genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary state;

+ to maintain established ecological processes;

* To safeguard structural landscape features or rock exposures;

+ To secure examples of the natural environment for scientific studies, environmental
monitoring and education, including baseline areas from which all avoidable access is
excluded;

+ To minimise disturbance by careful planning and execution of research and other
approved activities;

+ To limit public access.

Guidance for selection:

+ The area should be large enough to ensure the integrity of its ecosystems and to
accomplish the management objectives for which it is protected.

+ The area should be significantly free of direct human intervention and capable of
remaining so.

* The conservation of the area's biodiversity should be achievable through protection and
not require substantial active management or habitat manipulation (c.f. Category IV).

Equivalent category in IUCN (1978): Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve.


Final Report Page 99 September 24, 2002


Final Report


Page 99


September 24, 2002




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs