U.S. Virgin Islands Ecosystem Services Approach to Support Hazard

Mitigation and Resilience Planning

Submitted by:

Dr. David W. Yoskowitz, Principal Investigator

Christine Hale

Kara Coffey

Dijani Laplace

Socio-Economics Group

August 31, 2021

Prepared for:

U.S. Virgin Islands Hazard Mitigation & Resilience Plan

Acknowledgements: This research was funded by the University of the Virgin Islands through

the Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan partnership with the Virgin Islands Territorial

Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We are

grateful to the subject matter experts and community members that contributed hours of their

time and knowledge to this project. Special thanks to the staff of the Caribbean Green

Technology Center and Virgin Islands Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

for supporting this effort, especially Christopher McDonald, Michael Emanuel, Angelisa

Freeman, Kaisa Prentice, Judith Freeman-Shimel, Dr. Kim Waddell, and Dr. Greg Guannel. The

workshops would not have been as engaging and informative without keynote speakers Dr.

LaVerne Ragster, Rafe Boulon, and Professor Olasee Davis; thank you. Thanks to Dr. Diana Del

Angel for review, and Jae Clark for research assistance.

Suggested citation: Hale, C.; Coffey, K.; Laplace, D.; & Yoskowitz, D. (2021). U.S. Virgin Islands

Ecosystem Services Approach to Support Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Planning. Harte

Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies. Report prepared for USVI Hazard Mitigation and

Resilience Plan.

Executive Summary

The University of the Virgin Islands (UVI), in collaboration with the Virgin Islands Territorial

Emergency Management Agency (VITEMA), is leading a multi-year effort to update the

Territory’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. The updated and adopted USVI Territorial Hazard Mitigation

Plan (Plan) will result in a set of recommendations to identify and integrate principles and

elements of resilience, sustainability, and climate adaptation planning for the U.S. Virgin Islands

(USVI). With formal adoption of the Plan, financial support through the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) for the USVI’s hazard mitigation efforts can be applied. FEMA's

Disaster Mitigation Act requires that State Mitigation Plans be updated and submitted to FEMA

for approval every 5 years to maintain eligibility for non-emergency assistance. However, in

addition to meeting the terms of FEMA’s requirements for the Plan, the goal is to provide a

consistent and Territory-wide approach to assessing hazards and risks through technical

analyses and community engagement. These assessments, in partnership with stakeholders,

are part of the planning process and provide the basis for a comprehensive evaluation of the

Territory’s status in terms of resilience (HMRP, 2020).

Following the adoption of the Plan, hazard mitigation and resilience activities and efforts will

build momentum, projects will be identified for funding, and decisions will be made to advance

the goals set out in the Plan, both in the short and long term. These activities include continued

post-hurricane development and rebuilding of the USVI, which will alter the natural and built

environments, the islands’ social systems, and ultimately, the wellbeing of USVI residents. The

main objective of the Planning team is to evaluate how risks are interlinked with social,

economic, cultural, and ecological factors (HMRP, 2020). With particular focus on the ecological

factors coupled with human wellbeing in the USVI, the results of the activities reported within

this document aim to inform that objective.

Specifically for this project, an ecosystem services assessment was conducted to better

understand the human wellbeing benefits gained from the natural environment of the USVI as

it pertains to hazard mitigation and resilience. Resilience and hazard mitigation are terms that

are often interpreted in multiple ways. For the purposes of this assessment, resilience refers to

the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions and to withstand and recover rapidly

from disruptions. Hazard mitigation is defined as the process of taking measures to minimize

and potentially eliminate the impact of hazard events on human life and property. Additionally,

ecosystem service assessments can be conducted with various methodologies depending on

location and local stakeholder needs. For this assessment, subject matter experts were

consulted, and communities participated in a series of workshops to discuss natural resource

management and hazard mitigation scenarios within the context of a resilient and sustainable

future. Select components of the “ridge to reef” island ecosystem were characterized, along

with inferred changes in provision of ecosystem services.

An overall profile of forests, ghuts, farmland, wetlands, and coral reefs reveals that with the

loss – and change in quality – of these key ecosystem components, comes loss in the services

they have traditionally provided to residents of the USVI. Key findings include:

• The services wetlands provide (especially mangroves) will continue to degrade without

intervention, and their extent will continue to be threatened by future development.

• Urban development in areas designated as prime farmland has increased by over 400%

from 1985-2018, reducing the amount of farm-able land, and impacting food security.

• Despite anthropogenic stressors and poor local management practices that reduce the

mitigation services provided by ghuts, some ghuts can retain many of their ecological

functions and interactions.

• Significant decreases in forest cover combined with development and spread of invasive

species have decreased the extent and quality of local forests, and by extension, some

of the services they provide.

• Both shallow and mesophotic reefs are under severe threat from multiple stressors

(ocean warming, storms, disease, pollution, etc.) and it is likely that the ecological

services that coral reefs provide will decrease if impacts continue to contribute to future

coral die-offs and overall coral decline.

Despite significant changes to ecosystems and ecosystem services over time, results of this

project include suggestions for a path toward resilience:

• Island communities, or community liaisons, must be engaged as leads or co-leads from

the beginning of hazard mitigation and resilience project or program planning and

continue leading throughout the planning, implementation, and evaluation process.

• Decision-makers should use the local community’s feedback to identify wellbeing

outcomes that are important to the community, as well as in identifying priority

ecosystem components and mitigation activities.

• Decision-makers can intentionally target human health outcomes as a starting point in

hazard mitigation and resilience planning.

• Decision-makers should invest in hazard mitigation activities that will most likely benefit

multiple habitats and that influence wellbeing outcomes important to many people (e.g.

human health).

• Consistent, well-planned long-term monitoring of paired terrestrial and marine

ecosystems is necessary to gain a clear picture of how the whole ridge to reef ecosystem

changes over time.

• More local socio-ecological systems research is needed to connect ridge to reef

ecosystem changes to human wellbeing outcomes.

• Developing a human wellbeing monitoring protocol that captures physical, mental,

economic, and other health metrics in tandem with natural resource metrics would

allow for a more holistic assessment of resilience, consistently over time.

1. Introduction

The natural environment provides a multitude of benefits to people. For example, healthy,

functioning ecosystems offer provisioning services, or the provision of natural resources and

raw materials, like food and water. Ecosystems also offer regulating services, or the

maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems for human wellbeing

such as flood and disease control. Additionally, cultural services that enhance emotional,

psychological, and cognitive wellbeing are derived from ecosystems, as are supportive services

that maintain the conditions for life on Earth, such as photosynthesis. These benefits we receive

are known collectively as ecosystem services and underpin human quality of life (Table 1;

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

Table 1. The four types of Ecosystem Services. For full list of ecosystem service types and examples, see

Appendix 1. (Adapted from Harte Research Institute, 2020.)

Provisioning

Regulating

Fresh water

Air quality regulation

Food (e.g. fruit/vegetable crops, fish, etc.)

Climate regulation

Raw materials (e.g. plant fibers, oils, lumber, dyes, etc.)

Water regulation (run-off, flooding, etc.)

Genetic resources (e.g. genes for biotechnology)

Natural hazard regulation (e.g. storm protection)

Medicinal resources, pharmaceuticals

Pest regulation

Ornamental resources (e.g. shells, flowers, feathers)

Disease regulation

Erosion regulation

Water purification and waste treatment

Cultural

Supportive

Cultural heritage

Soil formation

Recreation

Primary production

Tourism

Nutrient cycling

Aesthetic value

Gas sequestration, storage, and production

Spiritual and religious value

Water cycle

Inspiration of art, folklore, architecture, etc.

Photosynthesis

Social relations

Habitat

Science and education

Pollination and seed dispersal

People derive benefits from the natural environment whether they intentionally use the

environment or not; these values are known as use values or non-use values, respectively. Use

values include provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supportive services (Table 1). Non-use

values (more appropriately known as passive values) include bequest value, which is value

people place on knowing that future generations will have the option of using an ecosystem

good or service, as well as existence value, the value people place on knowing that a certain

ecosystem good or service exists. Additionally, option value is value people place on knowing

that they have the option of using or benefiting from a certain ecosystem service or good at

some point in the future (Harte Research Institute, 2020).

Ecosystem services help frame the way that we assess the impacts and consequences of our

interactions with the natural environment. These services also influence how we choose to

manage the natural environment as well as the many human activities taking place within the

natural environment. In order to identify management options (e.g. to preserve, conserve, or

develop an area) the natural environment needs to be integrated into the decision-making

process. In doing so, managers and community members can work together to identify

management options that maximize public benefit and minimize risks associated with excluding

ecosystem services from the management decision. Decisions are incomplete and inefficient if

they do not include all benefits and costs, including those from the environment.

An ecosystem services assessment is the first step toward incorporating ecosystem services into

the decision-making process. It is an evaluation of the condition of a local ecosystem, the

potential supply of services, and their relation to human wellbeing. The assessment is a

mechanism for delineating the value people – in this case USVI residents – place on their

environment. This enables a process to determine which service or set of services is valued by

people and how to develop approaches to maintain those services by managing the natural and

human built systems sustainably.

In the short-term, ecosystem service assessments can guide community leaders and decision-

makers as activities that will alter the ecosystem are selected, and over the long-term, will

allow communities to adapt and align projects as progress is made. Importantly, the

assessment process, as well as its results, not only helps people understand the connections

between environmental wellbeing and human wellbeing (Figure 1), but helps them make

informed decisions about how, where, and when they might make changes to the natural and

human built environments over time.

It is well documented that climate change combined with changing land use practices in the

USVI have altered the biophysical functioning of the “ridge to reef” ecosystem (the integrated

land and seascape) (Virgin Islands EPSCoR, 2021). However, it is not as well documented how

these changes in the ecosystem have been altering the wellbeing benefits humans receive from

diverse ecosystems. Before further development occurs, and as hazard mitigation activities are

identified for funding, the current interdependence between the ridge to reef environment and

islander wellbeing needs to be clarified for informed decision making in the Territory. To realize

the goals of a resilient and sustainable future, island residents need to identify and prioritize

habitats that can realistically provide hazard mitigation services to them now and in the future.

Figure 1. Understanding the linkages between natural habitats of the USVI and the wellbeing of island

residents can help guide decision-making related to hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness.

(Infographic adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment definition and Harte Research Institute.)

1.1 Methods

1.1.1 Literature review

A literature review was conducted with focus on hazard mitigation services and resilience

associated with the USVI ridge to reef ecosystem. The review included relevant peer-reviewed

academic literature and government or institutional reports related to human use of and

reliance on island ecosystems and ways those ecosystems, services, and benefits have changed

over time. While the USVI Territory was the primary area of interest, literature about

ecosystem services relevant to other Caribbean islands and regions was also collected, as

appropriate. This literature review, paired with subject matter expert feedback (below), created

a foundational understanding of previous research into ecosystem services focused on the

USVI, helped identify components of the ridge to reef ecosystem that support resilience and

offer hazard mitigation services, and identified information gaps.

1.1.2 Subject matter expert discussions

Local knowledge from subject matter experts regarding the current state of the USVI ridge to

reef ecosystem was collected through an online discussion process during the months of March

through May 2021. Open-ended questions for discussion were designed by the project team

ahead of time and conversations were conducted using the online Microsoft Teams

video-

conferencing platform to solicit feedback in an open discussion format. Discussion questions

are available in Appendix 2. Based on initial recommendations from the Hazard Mitigation and

Resilience Plan partners and using a snowball sampling method (also known as chain sampling,

where existing subjects suggest names of other subjects to contact), 40 individuals considered

to have local expertise or knowledge pertaining to ecosystems across the entire Territory were

emailed an invitation letter to contribute their knowledge. Of the 40 invited, 16 responded and

provided input. Each discussion lasted approximately one hour, and with permission from

participating experts, all responses were documented by a note-taker while another teammate

facilitated the conversation. Through this process, experts identified components of the ridge

to reef ecosystem – such as habitats and species – that have value for hazard mitigation

services or support resilience and suggested potential indicators for resilience. Experts also

commented on ways communities that are reliant on ecosystem services can be engaged in

developing mitigation strategies and decisions. Responses were used to direct research into

natural resources with hazard mitigation and resilience value in the USVI, to create ridge to reef

natural resource profiles, and to inform the development of community workshops. Subject

matter expert feedback was de-identified to protect anonymity and confidentiality, and

summarized using MAXQDA

, a software program for qualitative and mixed methods research.

Summaries of feedback are provided in the Results section.

1.1.3. Ridge to reef profiles

To provide an overall profile of natural resources in the Territory, the extent of select

ecosystem components and land use was characterized with a focus on indicators of ecosystem

health and function that are tied to resilience. To characterize how change in land cover and

inferred land use patterns have impacted the provision of ecosystem services, and identify

areas with potential for local, targeted management, with the aim of the sustainable use of the

Territory’s natural resources, maps were created using the most recent and available natural

resource or land use extent data for select ridge to reef ecosystem components of the three

main USVI islands. Additionally, select components are described, including extent, condition,

associated ecosystem services, and the relation of the identified habitat or land use to human

wellbeing. This enabled general quantification of human wellbeing benefits that USVI residents

currently gain or do not gain from the natural environment as it pertains to hazard mitigation

and resilience. The profiles are included in the Results section.

The selection of the profiles characterized in this report – forests, ghuts, wetlands, coral reefs,

and farmland – was based on subject matter expert feedback, literature review results, and

data availability. It is important to note that the ridge to reef ecosystem in the USVI is not

limited to only those four habitat types and land use is not limited to farms; there are many

other habitat types such as rocky beaches, sandy beaches, seagrass beds, shallow coral reef,

mesophotic reef, shrublands, grasslands, etc. Likewise, there are additional land uses such as

pastureland, developed or built environment, and conservation and preservation areas that are

critical to making decisions about long-term sustainability. For the purposes of this assessment,

the selected ecosystem components (habitats and land use) were identified by subject matter

experts as important to resilience in terms of ecosystem function and hazard mitigation (see

Results section for expert feedback summaries). Additionally, focus on this set of habitats and

land use enabled efficient use of time in conducting a Relative Ratings (ranking) analysis with

USVI workshop participants as described in the following section.

1.1.4. Community workshops

In partnership with the Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan team, three separate and island-

specific workshops were planned and co-hosted for the communities of St. Thomas, St. John,

and St. Croix in July 2021. The goals for the workshops were to:

1) Identify ways that the communities that are reliant on ecosystem services (e.g, farmers,

fishers, ecotourism businesses, dive shops, recreational boating industry, etc.) can be

engaged in developing mitigation strategies and decisions.

2) Identify ways in which the Territory can strengthen the underlying positive factors and

enhance the resilience of the USVI’s ecosystem services for the Territory’s benefit.

3) Conduct a trade-off analysis on ecosystem service provision given land use changes -

using one or two specific sites that local stakeholders and the project team identify as

priority - to present various development and management options within the

framework of a resilient and sustainable future.

Initially, these workshops were planned to include in-person, full-day interactions with

volunteer participants from each island community. However, due to complications resulting

from the Covid-19 pandemic, and in the interest of maintaining the safety of participants, the

planned in-person workshops were not feasible. All workshops were reduced to half-day and

re-formatted for a virtual experience using the Zoom

video-conferencing platform, and also

shared live through USVI Hazard Mitigation Plan’s Facebook account. These changes had

implications for the above-mentioned objectives. In particular, the methodology for the trade-

off analysis was initially planned to include a Stated Preference approach. This approach is a

market research technique that allows researchers to understand how consumers value

different ecosystem products and/or services. It involves asking consumers to rate, rank, or

how much they would be willing to pay or accept for a certain ecosystem good or service. The

choices made by consumers help determine how they value a certain product or service.

Examples of this technique include contingent valuation, conjoint analysis, and choice

experiment (Harte Research Institute, 2020). This method typically involves full-day workshops

where participants work together in groups, interacting with physical props (items representing

money, tokens, or other units of value) with guidance from facilitators. This method is not

easily transferrable to a virtual platform, so the project team adapted two different approaches

that were more conducive to the web-based format: The Relative Ratings approach, and the

Ecosystem Service Logic Model Framework.

With the Relative Ratings method, individuals rate natural resources as a means of estimating

value. For example, if a wetland provides erosion control and erosion control is highly valued,

then the individual would rate the wetland with a 5, which would represent the highest level of

relative importance (Harte Research Institute, 2020). Additionally, the Ecosystem Service Logic

Model Framework (Figures 2 and 3) represents the way a management action (such as a hazard

mitigation project) cascades through an ecological system and results in ecosystem services and

human wellbeing impacts.

In these logic models, a management action is linked to multiple changes in the biophysical and

ecological environment, or in model terms, the “intermediate components” (see gray box in

Figure 2). This change – whether it is increased, decreased, or stays the same isn’t immediately

important – is only depicted in the logic model if it has been tested or vetted in the scientific

literature. These science-based linkages are depicted with arrows in the model. Additionally,

the intermediate components in the model are then linked to changes in human activity,

depicted in the model as light blue boxes. These changes in human activity then influence

human wellbeing or socio-economic outcomes, such as economic activity, mental health, or

socio-cultural shifts (GEMS, nd.). Logic models are a useful tool to compare actions across

locations to match likely outcomes with stakeholder goals. Evidence that accompanies these

models can be used to clarify uncertainties that need to be considered and to identify critical

research gaps. If standardized, these models can provide a consistent platform for planning,

management, or hazard mitigation approaches and help increase monitoring efficiency (GEMS,

n.d.).

Figure 2. The basic components of an Ecosystem Services Logic Model. (Adapted from GEMS, n.d.)

Through research and application, it is known that some outcomes of mitigation activities, such

as habitat restoration or water quality infrastructure improvements, can be associated with

community resilience. Resilience refers to the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing

conditions and to withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. These disruptions can include

hurricanes, sea-level rise, flooding, drought, earthquakes, disease and other natural and

manmade threats and issues common in the Caribbean region. A community can be resilient in

diverse ways, but in general includes economic, structural, social, and cultural resilience. Some

factors of resilience have been found to correspond with many of the outcomes linked to

hazard mitigation actions, particularly restoration (Table 2; GEMS, n.d.). These outcomes do not

capture all aspects of community resilience but can be used as targets when planning,

implementing, and monitoring hazard mitigation projects, or other resilience activities, in the

USVI.

Thus, for each island workshop, Ecosystem Services Logic Models (ESLMs) were used to

illustrate the complex connections between making changes in the ridge to reef ecosystem and

human wellbeing outcomes of those changes. The project team designed case study scenarios

for each island workshop, using simplified logic chains (pulled from fully developed models) to

walk through hypothetical, but applicable and realistic, examples of management actions within

specific locations that islanders are familiar with, and that experts recommended. For St.

Thomas, two scenarios were presented: mangrove restoration in Magens Bay (Figure 4), and

drought management techniques in the Bordeaux area. Logic models were presented, and

human wellbeing outcomes of these management actions were identified. Likewise, for the St.

John workshop, participants were presented with building and restoring trails and boardwalks

(Figure 5), as well as native forest restoration, as management options in the Coral Bay area.

For the St. Croix workshop, salt pond restoration for the Great Pond location was presented

(Figure 6), as was coral reef restoration for the Cane Bay area.

Using the Mentimeter

interactive

polling device, facilitators applied the Relative Ratings

approach to solicit feedback from participants regarding what components of the ecosystem

they value, what types of hazard mitigation and natural resource management activities they

deem important, and what human wellbeing outcomes they think decision-makers should

prioritize for their island. Finally, Mentimeter

was also used to gather insights from

participants about obstacles in and solutions for engaging communities in decisions that affect

ecosystems as well as their own wellbeing. All workshop feedback is summarized in the Results

section and synthesized for the trade-off analysis in the Discussion section. The three

workshops were held on July 6

, 7

, and 9

, 2021, respectively; see Appendix 3 for each

workshop agenda. Visit the USVI Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan team’s YouTube.com

channel “ResilientVI” to view each of the recorded workshop sessions (or click here directly for

St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix).

Table 2. Socio-economic outcomes associated with resilience. This list is specific to restoration projects,

and the outcomes do not fully capture all aspects of resilience. These outcomes can be used as targets

when planning, implementing, and monitoring hazard mitigation projects, or other resilience activities,

in the USVI. (Adapted from GEMS, n.d.)

Socio-economic outcome

Resilience relevance

Economic activity

Increased economic activity in a particular community through jobs, labor, and

income allow that community to be more resilient to external shocks that harm the

economy.

Jobs

When people in the community are employed, they enjoy greater levels of

economic resilience and respond better to unexpected shocks. Also, diverse job

markets are known to be more resilient because the community does not depend

on one industry.

Costs

Damage to property is a direct reflection of structural resilience, and repair costs

for property damage similarly link to the property owner’s economic resilience.

Expenditures

Increased spending at businesses in a particular community allow that community

to be more resilient to external shocks. If spending takes place at businesses

outside of the target community, then this may not affect local resilience.

Property protection from

flooding or erosion

The ability for shoreline property to withstand external stressors like flooding and

erosion represents a facet of structural resilience.

Human health

Community members’ health and associated capabilities are essential to resilience;

a healthy community is better able to respond to and cope with external shocks.

Cultural values

When community members gain increased knowledge and understanding of their

environment in the context of threats to resilience, this can help spur increased

public support for future similar restoration projects that would add to resilience.

Strengthened (or maintained) cultural values can be linked to community ties and

increased social capital, which in turn lead to increased social resilience.

Property value

Increases in property value can be linked to an individual household’s economic

resilience, and at a larger scale increases in a community’s property values (which

can lead to a larger tax base) can be linked to economic resilience at the

community level.

Social disruption

Critical facilities (e.g. hospitals, schools, government buildings) are important for a

community’s ability to respond to hazardous events, therefore changes in their

closure rate impact a community’s resilience.

Figure 3. A fully developed Ecosystem Services Logic Model representing the outcomes from the management action of mangrove restoration

(dark blue box). Key pathways to strongly linked socioeconomic outcomes (yellow boxes) are indicated with bold arrows as well as with bold

outlines around the intermediate components (gray boxes) and human activity outcomes (light blue boxes). Solid arrows indicate long-term

effects and dashed arrows indicate short-term effects. The faded-out yellow box indicates weakly linked socioeconomic outcomes, whereas non-

faded or bold yellow boxes indicate strongly linked outcomes. (GEMS, n.d.)

Figure 4. For the Magens Bay scenario, a simple logic chain was built for the St. Thomas workshop participants showing some of the human

wellbeing outcomes of restoring mangroves in Magens Bay. (GEMS, n.d.)

Figure 5. For the Coral Bay scenario, a simple logic chain was built for the St. John workshop participants showing some of the human wellbeing

outcomes of building new or restoring existing trails and boardwalks in the Coral Bay area. (GEMS, n.d.)

Figure 6. For the Great Pond Bay scenario, a simple logic chain was built for the St. Croix workshop participants showing some of the human

wellbeing outcomes of salt pond restoration in Great Pond. (GEMS, n.d.)

2. Results

2.1 Subject matter expert feedback summaries

Discussions with subject matter experts were initiated with a set of pre-determined, open-

ended questions, yet the conversations were not bound to only those questions. Feedback

collected from experts was used to direct research and workshop development. The input from

those conversations was noted consistently across the 16 discussions with experts, where the

notetaker documented responses to each question asked (see Appendix 2 for questions). A

project team member sorted and coded segments of the conversations, to identify the

following:

• Key themes related to ecosystems, hazard mitigation, and resilience

• Components of the ridge to reef ecosystem with hazard mitigation and resilience value

• Potential indicators of resilience

• Community engagement challenges, solutions, and ideas

Table 3 provides a summary of the key themes as well as how frequently the themes appeared

in the discussion notes. The most common theme revolved around issues and threats, for

example these could include issues and threats related to management and policy, human use

of natural resources, natural hazards, ecosystems or parts of ecosystems, socio-cultural and

economic issues, and communications. For a breakdown of the common issues and threats

mentioned by experts, see Table 4, along with select coded segments as examples.

Additionally, the “issues and threats” segments of conversations were further analyzed to

understand what specific habitats and land uses were mentioned in association with those

issues and threats (Table 5). Commentary regarding “development” was the most frequent

issue that emerged in conversations. Within the context of issues and threats, the habitats (or

natural resources) and/or land uses experts most frequently discussed were wetlands, forests,

and coral reefs. Ghuts and whole watersheds, fresh water, harvest/fishing/farming, were also

mentioned. Beaches and paved surfaces were mentioned as well, but did not emerge as

frequently in conversation.

Similarly, all conversations were analyzed for mention of habitats, components of the

ecosystem, or land uses that provide human wellbeing benefits or with hazard mitigation and

resilience value (Table 6). In addition to broad discussion about ecosystem services and benefits

that people derive from the environment in general, the idea that the whole watershed (or

ridge to reef ecosystem) provides a multitude of benefits to people surfaced as a frequent

consideration; some experts felt strongly that the entire ridge to reef ecosystem, in its natural

state is most beneficial in terms of successfully mitigating disaster and supporting resilience.

Additionally, experts frequently mentioned that islanders benefit from specific components of

the ecosystem that relate to food, coded in Table 6 as, “Harvest/fishery/farmland”. Other

habitats, components of the ecosystem, and land uses repeatedly mentioned by subject matter

experts as providing human wellbeing benefits or with hazard mitigation and resilience value

were forests, mangroves, the marine ecosystem, and coral, in addition to others mentioned less

frequently.

To gain an understanding of potential indicators of resilience, experts were asked, “How do we

know when the island ecosystems (or natural habitats) have changed? What are the indicators

(signs)?” The most frequent idea expressed was related to change in biodiversity and species

(Table 7). In other words, experts felt that in general, monitoring biodiversity and species

change (e.g. changes in species population numbers, changes in species richness) in the ridge to

reef ecosystem will allow for resilience signals to be perceived. Experts also had more specific

ideas; birds, coral health, native vs. non-native species, fish and fisheries, and prevalence of

droughts and floods were mentioned the most often as key indicators of resilience (Table 7).

Experts were also asked to comment on community engagement in the USVI. Specifically, they

were asked, “Are communities involved in decisions concerning the USVI ecosystem (or natural

habitats)? How so? If not, how can they be?” The most common idea expressed in response to

this set of questions was coded as “Attitudes, perception, and/or behavior”. For example, one

respondent described how there was little concern for terrestrial biodiversity in USVI or other

smaller Caribbean islands and that typically terrestrial biodiversity is more important in the

geographically larger islands. As a result, this respondent expressed that we are losing “huge

benefits” when we place value on terrestrial biodiversity, and the need to change perception of

this in the USVI. Additionally, communication was mentioned often, and usually within a

negative context, by experts as an important aspect of community engagement. For instance,

some experts shared that information on public hearings related to natural resource

management is hard to find, and that the Department of Planning and Natural Resources

website is particularly hard to navigate. One comment described a language disconnect, in that

information doesn’t reach all the diverse communities that make up the USVI; Haitians, people

from the Dominican Republic are large parts of the community who may not get contacted

effectively. Other comments on community engagement frequently touched upon issues

related to improving education and/or awareness concerning the environment and its

connection to human wellbeing. Some experts discussed ideas related to galvanizing pride in

the local environment and ways to engage and increase support, coded as

“Pride/support/engaged”. Coded summaries with examples are provided in Table 8.

Taken together, this subject matter feedback helped the project team determine what habitats

or land uses to consider describing for the ridge to reef profiles, and what ecosystem

components to develop for creating ecosystem services logic models, case studies, and

conducting rankings exercises and discussion sessions at the three workshops.

Table 3. Key themes that subject matter experts in the USVI expressed during individual discussion

sessions. Experts responded to pre-determined, open-ended questions. Frequency = number of

mentions in coded segments of conversations.

Key themes

Frequency

(n=976)

Issues and threats in the USVI

290

Community engagement

107

Ecosystem condition

101

Benefits

Solutions

Indicators

Hazard mitigation

Table 4. The key theme of “Issues and threats in the USVI” were coded to evaluate the most common

issues and threats mentioned by subject matter experts. Frequency = number of mentions in coded

segments of conversations.

Issues and threats

Frequency

(n=473)

Example coded segment from conversations

Development and/or built

environment

We continually replace natural resources with human development.

Drainage, run off, and/or

flooding

Roadways cutting across hillsides “messes up” natural waterways; causes

vertical flooding.

Waste management and/or

pollution

The trash issue on the island; Waste management has an issue with

pickup and waste overflow; a lot of the dumpsites are located near ghuts

and heavy rains carry trash to the coast.

Storms and/or hurricanes

Hurricanes have damaged forests, their structure and foliage.

Attitudes, perception,

and/or behavior

VI pride is not necessarily connected to our local land and nature, but to

cultural values/notions and historical ideas. Should be related to both,

make connections in both.

Education and/or awareness

People aren’t always aware of different solutions/ways of doing things in

regards to protecting their property; natural solutions like planting trees

could help limit erosion but people just do what they are used to.

Drought and/or water

availability

Number of short-term droughts has increased dramatically, but annual

rainfall has not changed dramatically. There is more periods of extremely

dry weather followed by heavier rain periods.

Enforcement and/or

regulation

We regularly don’t follow laws; e.g. VI code states that you should not

build within 30 ft. of any watercourse, but this is not followed.

Community engagement

and/or communications

Public hearings don’t typically let the community get involved, dismissive

of local input, testimony.

Invasive vs. native species

Replanting areas with non-native plants; don’t cope with drought well;

leads to sediment runoff.

Climate change

Climate change and the Sahara dust now negatively impacts locals.

Harvest/fishing/farming

Gardening, and farming are trendy at the moment, have led to

conversations about food resilience. But it is superfluous and abstract, it

doesn’t connect consistently to the environment.

Sedimentation

Water flow from rain now flows straight into the ocean, carries all the

sediment into the ocean; we need to find out how to get water to stay in

the watershed.

Deforestation

Invasive vegetation. When you clear vegetation, it makes room for

invasive seeds to make their way in and inhabit this cleared land; a lot of

the shrubs become invasive and not endemic.

Disconnect between locals

and nature

General public may be confused or ignorant (in true sense of the word

meaning not aware) of connections between ecosystem services and

natural resources.

Species decline

Reduction in certain species of organisms (cushion sea stars used to be

more common in the past).

Short-term vs. long-term

Need more long-term planning & management in the VI to deal with

issues.

Table 5. Habitats, land use, or resource use most often mentioned in relation to the issues and threats

to USVI ecosystems and human wellbeing. Frequency = number of mentions in coded segments of

conversations.

Habitats & land use related to issues &

threats

Frequency

(n=193)

Development

Wetlands (mangroves, ponds, lagoons,

seagrass)

Forests (plants, vegetation, trees, shrubs,

grasslands)

Coral reefs

Ghuts & watersheds

Fresh water

Harvest/fishing/farming

Beaches

Paved surfaces

Table 6. Habitats, components of the ecosystem, and land uses mentioned by subject matter experts as

providing human wellbeing benefits or with hazard mitigation and resilience value. Frequency = number

of mentions in coded segments of conversations.

Habitats & land uses that benefit humans in

the USVI

Frequency

(n=239)

General benefits & services

Whole watershed/ridge to reef

Harvest/fishery/farmland

Forest

Mangroves

Marine ecosystem

Coral

Water quality

Seagrass

Beaches

Shoreline

Preserved land

Ghuts

Salt ponds/lagoons

Table 7. Potential indicators of resilience mentioned by subject matter experts. Frequency = number of

mentions in coded segments of conversations.

Potential indicators of resilience

Frequency

(n=76)

Species change & biodiversity

Birds

Coral health

Native/non-native species

Fish & fisheries

Droughts & floods

Bats

Beaches

Frogs

Change in fruiting & blooming of plants

Mangroves

Land cover and use change

Access to nature

Challenges (lack of data; should be

ecosystem based)

Fresh water availability

Plants

Water quality

Wetlands

Soil retention levels

Table 8. Ideas related to community engagement in the USVI mentioned by subject matter experts.

Frequency = number of mentions in coded segments of conversations.

Community engagement ideas

Frequency

(n=170)

Example coded segment from conversations

Attitudes, perception, and/or behavior

People have opportunities to get involved but there is a

disconnect, inconsistent attention to projects that are legally

approved, there is typically a snowballing effect, outrage on

one issue leads to outrage on other issues that occurred

under the radar. People tend to care intensely for a short

period of time but them give up. How do we make people

care AND see connections to the ecosystems?

Communications

Notification is not consistent for persons who live near

development. E.g. North side community was not notified

about supermarket being built in the area.

Education and/or awareness

Community may not understand how decisions are made in

the USVI.

Pride/support/engaged

The general population only gets involved in ecosystem

issues when their favorite places or places with cultural

value are being threatened by development. E.g. Mandahl

area wasn’t used much; had scrap and old tires there. After

development was slated to occur there; people came

together try to stop this development. Speaks to the level of

ecosystem awareness/ ecosystem consciousness in the

Territory; all action is reactionary.

Organization/Coordination

Fishermen, banded together after the storms, especially

some that were not accustomed to working together. A

positive response.

Disconnect

Language disconnect, information doesn’t reach all

communities, USVI community is diverse, Haitians, Persons

from the Dominican Republic are large parts of the

community who may not get contacted effectively.

Social media

Public hearings may be one of the major ways to get

through to the government, social media posts are common,

but issues may not actually be addressed by relevant

officials.

2.2 Ridge to reef profiles

2.2.1 Territory overview

The United States Virgin Islands (USVI) are part of the Leeward Islands of the Lesser Antilles,

located to the east of Puerto Rico and west of the British Virgin Islands (Figure 7). The USVI

includes the three main islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, as well as more than 50

smaller offshore cays. The Danes controlled the area during the 17th and early 18th centuries

when sugarcane, produced by African slave labor, drove the islands' economy. In 1917, the

United States purchased the islands which have since remained an organized, unincorporated

Territory of the United States. In terms of land area, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix

combined total approximately 353 km

(137 square miles) (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). St.

Thomas and St. John are situated 64 km (40 mi) to the north of St. Croix. The most recent

human population estimate for the Territory is 106,405 (U.S. Census, 2020). Between 2.5 and 3

million tourists visit the Territory per year, with most arriving from cruise ships. Tourism, trade,

and other services are the primary economic activities, accounting for nearly 60% of the Virgin

Island's GDP and about half of total citizen employment (CIA World Factbook, 2021). The

Territory's capital is Charlotte Amalie on the island of St. Thomas.

Figure 7. Location of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Image adapted from Google Earth.

While St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix have a shared history, each maintains a distinct culture

influenced by characteristics of the land and sea unique to each island. St. Thomas is

mountainous, with a land area of 74 km

(29 mi

). It is highly developed and with a population

of 51,634 considered densely populated (U.S. Census, 2010). Tourism-related industries drive

St. Thomas’s economy, with marinas, hotels, restaurants, shopping districts, and a major cruise

ship port as key players. St. Thomas also hosts many U.S. businesses that take advantage of

Economic Development Commission benefits while providing economic support to the local

community (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). St. John is around 50 km

(19 mi

), making it the

smallest of the three islands, and with a human population estimated to be less than 4,170, also

the least populated. The Virgin Islands National Park owns approximately two thirds of the land

area on St. John, and with significant prehistoric sites on almost every beach and in every bay in

the Park, it is regarded as one the most comprehensive and undisturbed Caribbean landscapes

(National Park Service, 2021). Tourism is important to the economy of St. John, though because

it is not as easy to access (visitors must fly into St. Thomas first, then take a ferry over to St.

John), tourists are more likely long-stay visitors who rent villas or camp at the National Park or

private campsites. (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Spanning 217 km

(84 mi

) and nearly double

the size of St. Thomas, St. Croix is the largest of the three islands, though its population (50,601)

is similar in size to St. Thomas (U.S. Census, 2020) . Agriculture has dominated the landscape of

St. Croix, both historically and currently, and for many Crucians, farming and harvest is not only

important economically, but contributes significantly to cultural identity (Jackson & Barrios,

2020). In 1966, Hess Corporation built a large petroleum refinery on the south shore of St.

Croix, which for a long time contributed to the economy of St. Croix, until it was shut down in

2012 (Johnson, 2019). It was reopened by Limetree Bay Terminals, but the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) recently revoked the operator’s permit after an accidental oil vapor

release that impacted the health of residents in the community, along with multiple other

environmental and health concerns (United States Department of Justice, 2021) Tourism also

supports the economy of St. Croix, with active restaurant and hotel industry primarily in the

island’s two major towns, Christiansted and Frederiksted.

The USVI continues to endure challenges associated with climate change, such as drought,

flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, and landslides. In September 2017, Hurricane Irma passed

over St. Thomas and St. John, severely damaging structures, roads, the airport,

communications, and electricity. Less than two weeks later, Hurricane Maria passed over Saint

Croix, causing substantial damage with heavy winds and flooding rains. Illness, such as

mosquito-borne Dengue fever and Chikungunya, or the recent Covid-19 pandemic, are

significant public health concerns in the USVI. Changing land use practices, particularly

increased development, impact the environment as well as human wellbeing in the USVI.

Importantly, the Territory does not currently have a comprehensive land and water use plan to

guide development or other land and water use decisions. Territorial government agencies and

partners have drafted plans over the years, but those have not been formerly adopted by the

government (Farrelly, 1993).

Looking at spatial land use data from 1985 through 2018 (Figure 8), it is evident that as

development increased, less space has become available for the natural environment. Given

that the natural environment has changed, and continues to change, the many beneficial

services that ecosystems provide change too, ultimately influencing human wellbeing. The

following section describes five components of the ridge to reef ecosystem that are associated

with human wellbeing in the USVI: Ghuts, wetlands, forests, farms, and coral reefs. The most

recent and available data about the extent and health of these ecosystem components is

shared, along with inferences about how the services provided by these areas has changed over

time.

Figure 8. Land use in St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, USVI, in 1985 (top) vs. 2018 (bottom). Data from

the Caribbean Green Technology Center.

2.2.2 Ghuts

Watercourses, known in the United States Virgins Islands as ghuts, are well defined natural

channels formed overtime by the action of rain and stormwater flowing over impermeable rock

(Figure 9) (DPNR, 2018). Ghuts are a defining characteristic of the terrain of the USVI, where

two of the three major islands (St. Thomas and St. John) are mostly “ridges and ghuts”

(Gardner, 2008; Gardner et al., 2008). Additionally, the lack of gentle sloping land has made

ghuts the major source of fresh water on the islands (Platenberg, 2006). Furthermore, many of

the ghuts on the islands connect vegetated upland and marine systems since they drain from

hills directly towards the ocean (Gardner et al., 2008).

Many upland, relatively undisturbed ghuts in the Territory are forested, with gallery shrubland

and gallery moist forest being the dominant forest types present. (Platenberg & Valiulis 2018;

Gardner et al., 2008; DPNR, 2018). The forests that exist in these ghuts include a variety of

native plant species, and some are considered rare. Gardner et al. (2008) noted that the

endangered plant species, Egger’s Cock’s-Spur (Erythrina eggersii), was present in ghuts and

many of the plant species were yet to be inventoried. Additionally, vegetated ghuts can form

“habitat corridors” that some species may use for migration where ghuts overlap with urban

areas. Platenberg & Valiulis (2018) noted that the endangered Virgin Islands Tree Boa

(Chilabothrus granti) uses vegetated ghuts as a corridor on St. Thomas’s East End. Some

examples of notable vegetated ghuts on each major island are Caldonia Ghut on St. Croix, Reef

Bay on St. John, and Bonne Resolution Ghut in St. Thomas.

Ghuts in the Territory are key habitats for a variety for wildlife. They provide nursery and

nesting areas, are used for foraging, and are important watering holes and migration corridors

(Gardner et al., 2008; Thomas & Devine, 2005). Some have permanent freshwater pools

(particularly during the rainy season) that are home to a variety aquatic species such as native

freshwater shrimp (Machrobrachium spp., Xiphocaris elongate, Atya spp.) native fish species

such as the Goby (Sicydium plumieri), Mountain Mullet (Agonostoma monticola), American eel

(Anguila rostrata) and non-natives such as Guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and Tilapia (Oreochromis

spp.) (Platenberg & Nemeth, 2007; Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018; DPNR, 2018). Freshwater

shrimp species also move between downstream marine waters and upstream freshwater

habitats (Thomas & Devine, 2005). Some species of freshwater shrimp filter stormwater by

trapping organic debris with their modified claws (Thomas & Devine, 2005). Terrestrial species

such as bats, migratory birds (warblers), iguanas, deer, bees, goats and water-associated

invasives like the Cane toad (Rhinella marina) and Cuban tree frog (Osteopilus septentrionalis)

rely on ghuts as a fresh source of water.

Ghuts have long benefitted the people of the USVI. Historically, ghuts were the major source of

water for settlers in the USVI from the colonial era up to the 1960’s in some areas (Gardner et

al., 2008). Most of the settlements in the past were placed near ghuts to provide easy access to

water that was primarily used for domestic, industrial, and agricultural purposes (mostly sugar

production). Many ghuts were also used as food source in the past in the recreational practice

of catching freshwater shrimp (Gardner et al., 2008). Some ghuts that have historical

significance and archaeological significance include Savan Ghut, Water Gut, Bethlehem Ghut,

Living Ghut, Fairplain Ghut, Saly, Magen’s Bay Ghut, and Turpentine Run (Conservation Data

Center, 2010).

Currently, ghuts are used still used recreationally for hiking, nature walks, and professional

tours (Gardner et al., 2008). Nature walks and hikes have also been used as ideal segue ways

into educational and learning opportunities for students at the elementary and junior high

level. Students and faculty at the university level have also made ghuts and associated habitats

the foundation of their research in the areas of water quality, gut biodiversity, and wildlife

(Gardner et al., 2008; Conservation Data Center, 2010; DPNR, 2018). Importantly, ghuts

mitigate the potential for flooding. As natural stormwater channels, torrential downpours

produced by storms and hurricanes drain straight down the ghuts, to the bay, and out to sea

(Reiblich & Ankersen, 2016; Gardner et al., 2008). Furthermore, the gallery moist and gallery

shrubland forests associated with ghuts prevent soil erosion and the sedimentation of

downstream habitats (coastal wetlands, coral reefs) as well as filter any other potential runoff

from pollutants. (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018; Benoit & Nemeth, 2011).

Many of the ghuts in the Territory have been infringed upon and degraded. Currently, there are

variety of legal protections that may be applied to ghuts in the Territory. One in particular is VI

Code Title 12 Chapter 3 which prohibits “the cutting or injury of any tree or vegetation within

30 feet of the center of any natural watercourse or 25 feet from the edge, whichever is greater,

without written permission from the Commissioner” (VIC 12 Chapter 3; Gardner et al., 2008,

Platenberg, 2005). Despite this, lack of enforcement allows development to continue,

vegetation is regularly removed from ghuts, and ghut boulders moved by property owners,

impacting ghut banks, channels, and water flow (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018; subject matter

experts pers. comm., 2021). During their surveys, the Center for Watershed Protection (2008)

stated that there were “a number of instances” where they observed ghuts being encroached

upon in the Coral Bay Watershed. Gardner et. al (2008) surmised that the land use practices

detrimental to ghuts could be explained by ignorance and indifference, greed, lack of

stormwater management, and the limited space that a small island provides. Many ghuts were

previously paved over in the past and now exist in highly trafficked areas, and many intersect

with major roadways (Figure 9). The storms of 2017 further exacerbated the anthropogenic

issues many of the ghuts were already experiencing since rapid water flows caused them to be

filled and blocked with debris, severing their natural connections to coastal wetlands and the

marine systems. Downed and defoliated ghut vegetation also caused ghut temperatures to rise

in the immediate aftermath of the storms, encouraging algal growth (Platenberg & Valiulis,

2018). Other issues that continue to negatively impact ghuts in the Territory range from

changed drainage patterns via development, improper solid waste disposal (both residential

and commercial), loss of rare plant species, sewage disposal, agricultural waste disposal, and

bacterial and nutrient contamination (Gardner et al., 2008). Overall, the anthropogenic

stressors combined with poor local management practices have led to a decrease in some of

the mitigating factors that ghuts provide (subject matter experts pers. comm., 2021). However,

some ghuts are able to retain many of their ecological functions and interactions despite

external negative pressure (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

Figure 9. Locations of major ghuts in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Data from: ArcGis Online Server “USVI Ghuts

Revised”.

2.2.3 Wetlands

Wetlands are areas with inundated or waterlogged soil that typically support vegetation that is

adapted to living in these specific conditions (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Although some

freshwater ponds exist in the USVI, wetland areas are typically found near the coast (UVI &

VIMAS, 2009) or in the case of ghuts, lead to the coast. Overall, there are five (5) major types of

wetland areas found in the Territory: mangroves, salt ponds, salt flats, freshwater ponds, and

ghuts (Figure 10). Because ghuts emerged in subject matter expert discussions as a uniquely

important habitat component regarding mitigation and resilience, they were discussed in the

previous section.

Mangroves

“Mangrove” is a term used to describe trees, shrubs, and other types of vegetation that persist

in saline and brackish conditions. Mangroves are found in tropical climates and seven (7)

species can be found in the Caribbean (Platenberg, 2006). Four (4) species of mangroves can be

found in the USVI: the Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), Black Mangrove (Languncularia

racemosa), White Mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and Buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus). In a

mangrove community, there may be distinct zonation of mangrove species due to their special

adaptations. Red Mangroves are found in calm, shallow ocean waters, followed by Black

Mangroves (extremely salt tolerant) near the water’s edge. White mangroves are found in

moist soils further inland or near salt ponds, while Buttonwood prefers the drier soils on the

fringe of the community.

Mangroves are integral parts of the ecosystems they help create. They serve as nursery areas to

many juvenile fish and bird species which all have varied recreation and commercial importance

(Platenberg, 2006). Mangroves in Hurricane Hole, St. John have even sheltered and fostered

the growth of a variety of coral in between their prop roots (Rogers, 2019). They also provide

nutrients to some of these organisms within and near to these habitats due to the detritus

produced from their leaf litter. The Great Land Crab (Cardisoma guanhumi) uses the leaves of

buttonwood, red, and white mangroves as its primary food source (Platenberg, 2006).

Mangroves also support many species of resident and migratory birds in the Territory. It is

estimated that about 90% of the resident and migratory birds in the USVI use mangrove

wetlands for feeding, nesting, or roosting (Philibosian & Yntema, 1977) and up to 75% of the

121 species on St. Croix use mangrove habitats in some way (Platenberg, 2006). In fact, many of

the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the USVI have or are associated with mangrove habitats

(Corven, 2009).

Mangrove habitats also perform numerous physical functions beneficial to nature and humans

in their associated ecosystems. Mangroves and mangrove forests help to sequester carbon in

their biomass which can help to reduce the impacts of climate change (Mcleod et al., 2011).

Mangroves trap and stabilize sediment between their roots, helping to prevent coastal erosion

(UVI & VIMAS, 2009). Mangroves also protect low-lying inland areas by acting as a buffer from

storm surge and similar wave action since they reduce the amount of oncoming wave energy

(Granek & Ruttenberg, 2008). On St. John, residents typically anchor their boats in the

Hurricane Hole area (that is filled with fringing mangroves) since it has historically offered

adequate protection from storm surge (Rogers, 2019). Mangroves also help maintain

surrounding water quality by trapping oncoming runoff and removing harmful pollutants from

the water and soil (Alongi & McKinnon, 2005; Chakroff, 2010; Mcleod et al., 2011). Sediment

studies in the St. Thomas East End Reserve (STEER) have shown that the mangroves in the

Mangrove Lagoon may be acting as a buffer, preventing toxic metals and other pollutants from

entering the marine areas east of the landfill (Pait et al., 2016).

Currently, the mangroves in the Territory are still recovering from the cumulative impacts of

Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. At Hurricane Hole, most of the fringing mangroves were

uprooted and destroyed (Rogers, 2019). The slow growth of mangroves makes it challenging to

restore them to their pre-hurricane state, but mitigating external stressors (pollution, removal

of dead or decaying mangroves) is beneficial for the recovery process (Platenberg & Valiulis,

2018). The ecological services mangroves provide will certainly continue to degrade without

intervention (Department of Homeland Security, 2020), and their extent (whose decrease is

confirmed by aerial imagery) will continue to be threatened by future development (Platenberg

& Valiulis, 2018).

Salt Ponds and Salt Flats

Salt ponds are small bodies of saltwater that form intertidal basins. There are over sixty (60) salt

ponds in the Territory (Rennis et al., 2006), making them the dominant type of wetland found in

the USVI (UVI & VIMAS, 2009). Salt flats differ from salt ponds since they are not always

inundated with water, but rather have muddy soils that are periodically submerged by tidal

waters. Many salt ponds and salt flats in the Territory have mangroves and other salt tolerant

plants growing near or around them and their general conditions (size, salinity, oxygen

concentration, temperature, water depth) are heavily influenced by rainfall and evaporative

processes (Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2005; Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

Due to their high salinity, salt ponds make good substrate for black and white mangroves in the

Territory. It is estimated that 71% of the salt ponds have White mangroves, 45% have Black

mangroves and 80% have Buttonwood (Stengel, 1998). Their close association with mangroves

allows them to support a variety of wildlife and it also makes them the premium habitat for

resident and migratory birds in the islands (Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2005). Salt ponds and

salt flats also prevent marine sedimentation by trapping runoff and pollutants that flow down

the steep terrain toward the ocean (Rennis, 2006). This process protects coral reef or seagrass

beds that may be located in the shallow waters nearby. Salt ponds also help to alleviate coastal

flooding from storm surge by acting as a catchment system for oncoming waves (Department of

Fish and Wildlife, 2005).

Salt ponds have significant cultural value in the Territory. Historically, salt ponds were

important for local and recreational fishing, and people would visit salt ponds to collect

mangrove roots and branches to design fish traps (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Salt harvesting

was also a common practice in the hypersaline ponds in the Territory, and when conditions

allow, still occurs at Salt Pond in St. John (Platenberg, 2006).

Salt ponds were heavily impacted by saltwater intrusion due to storm surge from the 2017

hurricanes. Storm surge, along with strong winds and heavy rain, introduced pollutants and

debris into these ponds and severely damaged their associated mangroves (Platenberg &

Valiulis, 2018). Additionally, the berm of Great Pond on St. Croix was breached by the storms,

linking it to the ocean for a number of months, potentially changing the hydrology and ecology

of the pond (subject matter experts pers. comm., 2021). It is difficult to assess the current

quality of salt ponds in the territory (last complete inventory was Stengel in 1998) but issues

with sedimentation, encroachment, and rising sea levels have likely lead to a decline in their

water quality and sediment retention capabilities (Rennis et al., 2006; Platenberg & Valiulis,

2018; subject matter experts pers. comm. 2021).

Freshwater Ponds

Due to the steep topography and shallow soils of the USVI, many of the freshwater ponds that

currently exist are manmade. Most of the ponds exist on the relatively flat island of St. Croix

(which has about 130 ponds), many of them being impoundments (Conservation Data Center,

2010; Platenberg and Valiulis, 2018). Many of the ponds in the Territory were created for

agricultural purposes historically by forming dams and impoundments, and currently some

farms have ponds as their predominant source of water e.g. Bordeaux Pond on St. Thomas

(Department of Planning and Resources, 2010).

Unlike salt ponds, freshwater ponds in the Territory are not generally found near vegetation,

but some ponds do have algae, macrophytes and non-native plants (UVI & VIMAS, 2009). Two

exotic species of fish, Guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) are

commonly found in many of the freshwater ponds in the Territory (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

Many indigenous and migratory waterbirds, such as the Least Grebe (Tachybaptus dominicus),

the Blue- Winged Teal (Spatula discors), the White-Cheeked Pintail (Anas bahamensis) and the

Green Heron (Butorides virescens) use freshwater ponds as habitats, and some native (five bat

species) and non-native mammals (deer, mongoose) use the ponds as source of freshwater

(Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

Freshwater ponds in the Territory are mostly used in agriculture for irrigation and as water

source for livestock (Platenberg, 2006). A farmer living in Bordeaux, a relatively isolated

community in St. Thomas, mentioned that farmers in that area rely on a freshwater pond to

irrigate their farms (ResilientVI, 2021). Man- made ponds capture agricultural runoff and

sediment and prevent it from entering marine systems (Division of Environmental Protection,

2018).

Many of the freshwater ponds in the territory are improperly maintained are home to invasive

species such as the Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), the Cane toad (Rhinella marina) and

the Red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta) (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Some ponds with

agricultural uses are cleared by the farmers that use them for water, but there is no policy that

dictates this for all ponds (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Freshwater water ponds were also

subject to sedimentation and an influx of stormwater, pollutants, and various forms of debris

from the 2017 hurricanes (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

The U.S. Caribbean region (Puerto Rico and the USVI) is expected to become drier and have

longer periods between significant precipitation events (Gould et al., 2018). Within the last

year, U.S. Drought Monitor data has shown extended periods of abnormally dry weather

occurring in each of the three islands, especially in St. Croix (National Drought Mitigation

Center, 2021). Drier climatic conditions and poor management may lead to a reduction in the

water levels of many of these freshwater ponds, thereby reducing their ecological and

agricultural functionality.

Figure 10. Extent of wetland areas in the U.S. Virgin Islands including mangroves, salt ponds, salt flats,

and freshwater ponds. Data from: Caribbean Green Technology Center.

2.2.4 Forests

Forests in the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) are typically defined as areas of land not slated

for agricultural use spanning at least 0.5 hectares, with trees five (5) meters or higher, and over

10% canopy cover in situ (Brandeis & Chakroff, 2010). There are an estimated 118 live species

of trees in the USVI; with the non-native species Tan Tan (Leucaena leucephala) having the

highest biomass of all trees (Marcano-Vega & Williamson, 2017). Land use and topography

have had a distinct effect on the forest cover of each island (Figure 11). About two thirds (2/3)

of St. John is a part of the Virgin Islands National Park (VINP), allowing the island to remain 81%

forested (Marcano-Vega & Williamson, 2017). St. Croix, a more industrial and agricultural

island, is 56% forested, with most of these forests being centered on the northwestern end of

island while St. Thomas- the most densely populated island- is about 44% forested (Brandeis &

Turner, 2013; Marcano-Vega & Williamson, 2017).

The forests in the Territory are mostly comprised of subtropical dry forests found at lower

elevations and subtropical moist forests found at higher elevations, but some overlap between

forest types is common. Subtropical dry forests in the USVI are typically comprised of semi

deciduous dry forest, dry woodland. Native tree species such as Lignum Vitae (Guaiacum

officinale), Turpentine Tree (Bursera simaruba), Torch Wood (Amyris elemifera) and Jamaican

Caper (Capparis cynophallophora) are commonly found in the subtropical dry forest system

(Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018; Brandeis & Chakroff, 2010). Broad-leaved, evergreen trees, upland

moist forest, gallery moist forests (near ghuts), and basin moist forests are all associated with

subtropical moist forest systems on the island. Common trees found in this forest type are Dog

Almond (Andira inermis), Black Mampoo (Guapira fragans), Dog Plum (Spondias mombin), Gre

Gre (Bucida buceras), Sandbox Tree (Hura crepitans), Kapok Tree (Ceiba petandra), Cigar Box

Cedar (Cedrela odarata), Bayrum Tree (Pimenta racemosa), Royal Palm (Roystonea

borinquena), Stinking Toe (Hymanaea courbaril, Pumpwood (Cecropia schreberianaI), and Pink

Poui/White Cedar (Tabeuia heterophylla) (Brandeis & Chakroff, 2010; Platenberg & Valiulis,

2018).

Forests provide many important ecosystem services in the Territory and are a critical habitat for

many of the terrestrial animal species (birds, bats, frogs, lizards, snakes, insects, other

invertebrates) that persist in the islands (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). McGinley et al. (2017)

stated that up to 16 terrestrial mammal species, 99 bird species, and 8 amphibian species were

associated with forest habitats in the USVI and that as many as 1,769 insect species were

documented living on the islands. Additionally, 22 animal and 13 plant species native to the

Territory are on the IUCN’s Red List (IUCN, 2015). Forests also help to sequester carbon in their

biomass (stems, leaves, etc.) which is critically important in mitigating the effects of global

warming and climate change. In 2014, it was estimated that for trees whose stems were at least

an inch in diameter, live tree carbon was 12.1 tons per acre in dry forests and 15.4 tons per acre

in moist forests, with a total of 611,622 tons overall in USVI forests (Marcano-Vega &

Williamson, 2017). Another estimate from 2009 stated above ground living tree biomass was

609,000 tons, and below ground was 737,000 tons (McGinley et al., 2017).

The topography in the USVI (many hills, little flat land) makes forests incredibly important in

erosion control and in the prevention of sediment runoff. Forests help to control water flow in

their watersheds and filter sediment from runoff (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018; McGinley et al.,

2017; Benoit & Nemeth, 2011). Many of the forest areas in the Territory also overlap with and

are cut through by urban development, and fragmented forests in these areas provide shade,

reduce noise pollution, absorb radiating heat from roads and sidewalks, and potentially trap

some of the CO

produced by vehicles (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Slatton et al. (2012) stated

that there were 9,929 trees near roads in St. Croix, and urban forests constitute 30.5% of the

forests in St. Thomas and 17% in St. Croix (Allerton & Van Bloem, 2018). Some species of trees

in these forests such as mahogany (Swietenia spp.) and Tibet (Albizia lebbeck) were used for

craft and building material in the 1990’s, producing up to 189,000 board feet per year. Non-

wood products, such as fruits and medicinal plants, are still commonly produced by these

forests today (McGinley et al., 2017). Some examples of medicinal plants that may be found in

or adjacent to local forests are worrywine (Stachytarpheta jamaicensis) and inflammation bush

(Verbesina alata) (Palada et al., 2003; UVI Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine,

2021).

Many of the forests in these USVI are intrinsically valuable to the Territory’s residents for their

overall wellbeing. These forests have significant cultural and spiritual value, whether via

aesthetics (lush, green views) and recreation (nature walks, hiking, forest trails). Hiking also

becomes an economic driver via ecotourism, where many tourists enjoy walking on these trails

during their visits. Magens Bay, a popular tourist beach on St. Thomas, has a nature trail and an

arboretum (which closed after the 2017 storms) where residents and tourists were able to use

for relaxation or to view various flora and fauna (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

Forests in the USVI were significantly damaged by the 2017 hurricanes, and many trees were

left with little to no leaves, broken branches, and stems, or uprooted altogether (Platenberg &

Valiulis, 2018). Prior to this, many of the forests in the Territory were already plagued by a

variety of other issues. Brandeis and Turner (2009) stated that 85% of the forests are

dominated by many small diameter trees (2.5cm at the stem at 1.4m high). Many trees also

suffered from minor stem decay (54%) and defoliation was a significant issue in seedlings

(Marcano-Vega & Williamson, 2017). Other notable challenges for USVI forests ranged from

natural hazards (fire, drought, hurricanes/storms, flooding, climate change), animal damage

(white tailed deer, wild hogs, Indian mongoose, goats, rats), anthropogenic stressors

(urbanization and forest fragmentation) and invasive plant species (Allerton & Van Bloem,

2018). Significant decreases in forest cover (down 20% from 1985 to 2018 via GIS Data)

combined with the anthropogenic stressors (development and invasives like tan tan) have

decreased the extent and quality of local forests, and by extension, some of the services they

provide.

Figure 11. Extent of forested areas in relation to development in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Data from:

Caribbean Green Technology Center.

2.2.5 Coral Reefs

Coral reefs are underwater structures formed by a community of coral polyps, which form hard

skeletons of calcium carbonate on a hard, solid substrate. Coral polyps are living organisms, and

they can form a variety of complex structures. Coral reefs are found in the waters of the USVI

since they meet the conditions that coral needs to persist (water is 20-32℃, clear, clean, and

stable). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated that existing

coral reef hardbottom only in the USVI was 299.014 km

. If associated vegetation (algae and

seagrass) is included in the coral reef ecosystem, the extent is estimated to be 463.841 km

(NOAA, 2009). There are at least 40 different species of coral living in the Territory (Pittman et

al., 2014), mostly comprised of scleractinian corals (hard or stony species) and Millepora

species. (Rogers et al., 2008).

There are several different reef structures that can be found in the USVI. Fringing reefs are

generally near the shore and are linear. Patch reefs are small and isolated reefs typically

separated from more complex reef structures by sand, seagrass, and other seafloor elements.

Spur and groove reefs are parallel ridges of reefs (spurs) separated by channels (grooves).

Further offshore reef structures are barrier (lagoon separates reef from the shoreline), shelf

reefs (form platform reefs that rise to the water’s surface), submerged shelf reefs, and

mesophotic reefs. Mesophotic reefs are found in waters generally 30-100m deep and account

for a large portion of the reefs in the Territory (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018). Mesophotic reefs

(204km

) in the USVI are thought to be the most well developed mesophotic reef ecosystems in

the Caribbean (Ennis et al., 2019), and account for more than double the total area of shallow

reef ecosystems (71km

) in the Territory (Holstein et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2019).

Coral reef ecosystems support some of the highest biodiversity found in the USVI. Besides a

variety of coral species, many different species of fish, algae, seagrass, marine invertebrates,

and other marine organisms can be found living in and around reef systems (Platenberg &

Valiulis, 2018). In 2019, the Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program (TCRMP) recorded 148

species of fish at their monitoring sites in St. Thomas and St. John, and 128 species at the sites

in St. Croix (Ennis et al., 2019). Due to their high biodiversity, many commercial and local

fishermen have used waters near coral reefs as their favorite fishing spots. These reefs support

a variety of economically important species such as conch, whelk, spiny lobster, snapper, and

grouper (Ennis et al., 2019). Fishermen involved in coral fisheries produced about $6.6 million in

2007 dollars, which was $8 million in 2015 dollars (Pendleton et al., 2016).

Coral reefs are a significant part of the USVI’s tourism driven economy. In 2016, over 2.5 million

people visited the USVI and tourism-related expenditures were more than $1.3 billion (Bureau

of Economic Research, 2018). Coral reef ecosystems provide many recreational opportunities

for tourists who visit the islands, such as snorkeling, diving, and ocean tours. Sports fishing and

charter boats are also common in Territorial waters (Ennis et al., 2019). Edwards (2013)

estimated that coral reefs provided a total value of $210 million in 2012 dollars, through

tourism, recreation, cultural value, amenities, coastal protection, and commercial fishing.

Economic value from snorkeling and diving alone was estimated to be $12.8 million annually

(Van Beukering et al., 2011).

The physical structures of coral reefs perform very essential functions as well. Coral reefs

reduce oncoming wave energy which aids in preventing coastal erosion and reduces the effects

of storm surge and elevated wave action (Taylor et al., 2009). Coastal protection from reefs in

the Territory was estimated to be $1.2 million annually (Van Zaten et al., 2014). Storlazzi et al.

(2019) stated that by reducing the impacts of wave action, coral reefs directly protect people,

buildings and economic activity in the Territory. They estimated that reefs directly protected

$22 million in buildings, 340 people, and $25.3 million in economic activity (Storlazzi et al.,

2019).

Coral reefs in the Territory, like most in the Caribbean region, have experienced a significant

number of die-offs and stressors in the last few decades. NOAA’s 2020 status report for corals

in the USVI declared that they are in “fair condition” since they are in moderate decline and

there is human awareness and beneficial intervention to improve their overall condition

(NOAA, 2020). However, coral cover is still not near the level it was just two decades prior.

Many of the corals in the Territory were significantly reduced by the 2005 coral bleaching event

and were further stressed by bleaching events in 2010, 2012, and 2019 (Ennis et al., 2019).

Bleached and damaged corals have been competing with macroalgae for substrate, with

species such as the invasive Ramicrusta outcompeting and effectively killing coral on some reefs

(Ennis et al., 2019). Coral reefs were also significantly damaged by the 2017 hurricanes, and

complex and unique coral systems such as the mangrove/coral system at Hurricane Hole, St.

John, were lost (Rogers, 2019). The Territory’s corals are also under the threat of disease, and

more recently (2019), Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease has been documented at many of the

coral monitoring sites around the island of St. Thomas (Ennis et al., 2019) and is continuing to

spread to St. John, St. Croix, and outlying cays (Brandt, 2021). Other factors that affect USVI

coral reefs are mostly anthropogenic and are related to overfishing, influx of people via

tourism, pollution, invasive species (e.g. lionfish) and global climate change (Jackson et al.,

2014). Overall, the combination of stressors continues to keep both shallow and mesophotic

reefs under threat (Smith et al., 2016; Ennis et al., 2019). Although some success stories exist

(Ennis et al., 2019) it is likely that the ecological services that coral reefs provide will decrease if

impacts of ocean warming, storms, disease, and preventable anthropogenic stressors continue

to contribute to future coral die-offs and overall coral decline (Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018).

Figure 12. Coral cover in the USVI. Data from The Nature Conservancy (2017). For further details on the

complex array of mesophotic reefs that exist along the Puerto Rican Shelf, see Smith et al. 2019.

2.2.6 Farmland

USVI farmland is defined as “any agricultural operation where $500 dollars or more of

agricultural products were produced and sold (or would normally be sold) in a 12-month

period” (USDA, 2018). The USDA’s 2018 census of agricultural activity in the Territory stated

there were 565 active farms (up from 219 in 2007) totaling 9,324 acres (37.7km

) of land (16.5

acres/0.668km

per farm) (Figure 13). Out of those farms, 415 were designated for crops (400

were harvested), 224 had pasture or grazing land, 53 had woodland, and 333 had land

designated for other use. Many farms use private irrigation systems (247 farms) supplied

mainly by cisterns and wells, but some also use ponds and other public water sources (USDA,

2018).

Most farms in the USVI produce three (3) main types of crops: field/forage, vegetables, and

fruits (USDA, 2018). Common field crops include cassava, dry corn, hay nut, sugarcane, sweet

potatoes, taniers and yams. The vegetable crops produced include cabbage, carrots, celery,

cucumbers, eggplant, green beans, lettuce, okra, onions/chives/scallions, peppers, spinach,

squash, tomatoes/cherry tomatoes, sorrel, and herbs. Fruit crops are avocados, bananas,

breadfruit, coconuts, grapefruit, lemons, limes, mangoes, oranges, papayas, pineapples,

plantains, nuts and ornamental plants. Many farms also produce a variety of livestock such as

cattle (cows, calves, and bulls), sheep and lamb, goats, pigs/hogs, and poultry (chicken, turkey,

ducks, geese) (USDA, 2018).

Farms in the USVI directly support the USVI economy. The USDA stated that farms in the in

Territory produced $3.33 million in 2018, more than double than $1.3 million produced in 2007

(USDA, 2018). Despite recent increases in agriculture, the USVI still relies heavily on imports for

its food supply. It is estimated that the USVI imports at least 95% of its raw and processed food

(Laurencin, 2017), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated that fresh fruits and

vegetables account for $4.4 million of the $110.3 million the Territory currently spend on food

product imports (OMB, 2020).

Local agriculture is also important to the Territory in other ways besides food production.

Agriculture as a practice is a significant part of local culture and identity. Farming in some

families on St. Croix is held in high regard and is a generational practice (Laurencin, 2017). It

also allows some farmers to feel closer with their ancestors who farmed before them

(Laurencin, 2017). On a larger scale, agriculture can have some tourism- related activities in the

USVI to a limited extent. Many tourists tend to purchase produce locally grown and sold by

small vendors that may not even identify as farmers (Laurencin, 2017). Local restaurants prefer

to buy local produce to use in the dishes they sell and would prefer if they were more readily

available (Crossman et al., 2008). St. Croix’s annual “Taste of St. Croix” event invites famous

U.S. chefs to use local produce to create their most notable dishes (Laurencin, 2017). Proper

management practices of farms in the Territory can maintain soil quality, prevent soil erosion,

and inhibit weed growth via cover cropping (Weiss et al., 2017).

Farming in the Territory is hindered by a variety of factors. The USVI has moved away from its

reliance on agriculture as its major economic driver since the 1960’s (McElroy & Alburquerque,

1984) and transition to a tourism and service-based economy left has local agriculture with

little governmental investment. Farming on small islands is always very limited by lack of

available land, and the steep topography of the islands (mainly St. John and St. Thomas)

significantly limits the availability of farmable land (Pluke, 2008). Furthermore, arable land in

the USVI is typically encroached upon by other land use practices such as the erection of

buildings and impervious surfaces (Chakroff, 2010). As a result, over 70% (407/565) of the

existing farms in the territory are less than 9 acres, and many are less than 3 acres (268). Many

of the farmers also have not adopted more modern farming techniques and tools in part due to

the age of the farming populace (average farmer age is 61) and lack of revenue (USDA, 2018).

Less than half the farms in the Territory (244/565) have implemented computerized systems to

help manage their business (USDA, 2018). Other limitations farmers in the Territory experience

range from relatively high labor costs, low profitability of produce, water availability, and lack of

farming resources (Pluke, 2008). Unfortunately, farming as a practice has generally been

forgotten by the majority USVI residents, and urban development in areas designated as prime

farmland has increased by over 400% from 1985-2018, reducing the amount of available farm-

able land (Figure 13; Laurencin, 2017; USDA, 2018).

Figure 13. Areas of pre-existing USVI prime farmland in 1985 (top), compared to 2018 (bottom). Red

areas designate low, medium, and high-density urban development. Yellow areas are undeveloped

prime farmland (prime farmland is determined by USDA soil surveys). Data from USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service and Caribbean Green Technology Center (2021).

2.3 Community workshops

2.3.1 Wellbeing outcome rankings

Participants in each island workshop were asked to “Rank the human wellbeing outcomes that

you think decision-makers should prioritize for your island community.” The options they were

presented with are some of the human wellbeing outcomes often associated with community

resilience and hazard mitigation activities such as restoration (Table 2). Across all three

workshops, the highest rank was unanimous: Human health. In fact, the rankings were almost

the same for each workshop (Table 9). Cultural and heritage values and property protection

also received high rankings. At the bottom of the ranked list was Property value. In terms of

resilience outcomes of management actions (e.g. habitat restoration), the “property value”

outcome refers to increases in property value that can be linked to an individual household’s

economic resilience, and at a larger scale increases in a community’s property values (which

can lead to a larger tax base). Property value can be linked to economic resilience at the

community level. Group discussion at the St. Thomas workshop revealed some possible

explanation for why property value might not be as important in terms of managing ecosystems

for improved resilience. One participant explained that in the islands, most people rent their

homes or can’t afford to own, so management decisions that might affect the value of a home

that they are not financially or legally responsible for may not concern them as much as

management decisions that affect their health, which is essential to resilience; a healthy

community is better able to respond to and cope with external shocks.

Table 9. Participants responses to “Rank the human wellbeing outcomes that you think decision-makers

should prioritize for your island community.” *Note that “Culture and heritage values” was

unintentionally left out of the choices for the St. John workshop. The error was pointed out to

participants, who discussed that they would have ranked it highly, had it been on the list of options.

Rank

St. Thomas

St. John

St. Croix

1st

Human health

2nd

Cultural and heritage values

Property protection

Cultural and heritage values

3rd

Property protection

Economic activity

Property protection

4th

Social disruption

Economic activity

5th

Costs & expenditures

Social disruption

6th

Economic activity

Jobs

Costs & expenditures

7th

Jobs

Property value

Jobs

8th

Property value

*see note in caption

Property value

2.3.2 Habitat selections

Participants in each island workshop were asked the open-ended question, “What habitat do

you value as most important for hazard mitigation and resilience?” While they had been

presented with information specific to ghuts, wetlands, forests, farms, and coral reefs, they

were encouraged to list any USVI habitats that they felt were most valuable. All feedback was

coded and summarized in Figure 14.

Forests/terrestrial vegetation, mangroves, and coral reefs emerged as the top three choices

across all of the workshops. Ghuts were also important to all participants across the three

workshops, although participants in the St. John workshop placed coastlines/shorelines slightly

above ghuts, and in St. Croix, mangroves received slightly more votes than ghuts. Even though

mangroves are technically included in the “wetlands” category – and participants could have

selected “wetlands” to include all types of wetland habitats in their choice – mangroves

emerged as important enough to mention as a habitat to focus on separately from the rest of

the wetland types. Spatially, mangroves only occupy a very small proportion of land when

compared to other habitats and land uses, but the services they provide are significant in terms

of hazard mitigation and resilience. The whole watershed was mentioned as important to St.

John and St. Croix participants. In all three workshops, discussion ensued about how difficult it

was to choose because the interactions within the whole system were important. Additionally,

some participants did not respond with habitats, but mentioned types of species (e.g. sea

turtles), land use (e.g. historical properties, conservation areas), and actions (e.g. erosion

control, soil protection) as important.

2.3.3 Hazard mitigation activity selections

Participants in each workshop were asked the multiple-choice question, “If you had to pick one,

which type of mitigation activity do you feel would benefit your island community the most?”

(Figure 15). Native forest and plant/vegetation restoration emerged as the top choice across all

three workshops, but especially in St. Croix. Drought management came in second place as

most important in St. Thomas and St. Croix, but not for St. John participants, which could be

explained by the fact that most of farming activity (which is significantly impacted by drought)

takes place in St. Thomas and St. Croix. St. John workshop participants had slightly more

interest in wetland restoration. Interest in coral reef restoration was lowest in all three islands.

Figure 14. Responses from all participants across three island workshops to the open-ended question,

“What habitat do you value as most important for hazard mitigation and resilience?” are along the Y

axis. The X axis represents total combined number of responses across all three islands. Numbers in

colored bars represent total responses per individual island for that habitat.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Forest, terrestrial…

Mangroves

Coral

Ghuts

Coastlines/shorelines

Wetlands

Seagrass beds

Beaches

Ponds

Bays

Watershed

Water

Sea turtles

Conservation areas

Erosion control

Soil protection

Historical properties

What habitat do you value as most important for hazard mitigation

and resilience?

St. Thomas St. John St. Croix

Figure 15. Total responses from all participants across three islands, separated by island workshop, to

the multiple-choice question, “If you had to pick one, which type of mitigation activity do you feel would

benefit your island community the most?” The X axis represents total combined number of responses

across all three islands. Numbers in colored bars represent individual responses per island.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Wetland restoration

Native forest/plant restoration

Coral reef restoration

Drought management techniques

If you had to pick one, which type of mitigation activity do you

feel would benefit your island community the most?

St. Thomas St. John St. Croix

2.3.4 Community engagement discussion results

Following the ratings exercise, participants in each island workshop were asked to discuss

obstacles affecting community engagement with ecosystem management decisions (Table 10)

and to share ideas for how people can get more involved (Table 11). In general, responses were

similar to the feedback collected from subject matter experts. Major obstacles mentioned

included poor communication, lack or education or awareness, and a general disconnect from

environmental issues and decisions. Policy, lack of government enforcement, and power

structures/sense of powerlessness were also mentioned as obstacles. As for how to get the

community more involved, ideas included getting involved with local organizations or working

groups, attending public hearings, and traveling/going to communities (“meet where we live

and play”) to listen and learn from them directly.

Additionally, to encourage discussion about solutions and how to build on success, participants

were asked to share any success stories concerning local ecosystems and where community

engagement resulted in positive change. In St. Thomas workshop, the St. Thomas East End

Reserve was pointed out as a successful collaborative effort between citizens, academia, and

local and federal government. In St. John, one participant mentioned that the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and local partners are removing invasive plants starting a propagation program

for endangered species. In St. Croix, the coral restoration effort led by The Nature Conservancy

and other partners was mentioned as an example of positive change. The full list of examples is

available in Table 12.

Table 10. Responses divided by island workshop to the discussion question, “What obstacles keep individuals or

communities from being involved in decisions that affect ecosystems? Answer with three words or phrases.”

St. Thomas

St. John

St. Croix

hardship; awareness; positivity

poor telecommunications; cultural

differences; diverse values

awareness avenues opportunities

poorly organized; distribution

Lack of knowledge

poor communication; lack of

awareness; sense of

powerlessness

availability; access; isolation

unaware lack of information

management

power structures

lack of knowledge; lack of connection

Lack of notice; Not understanding

issues

time; discrimination; knowledge

lack of information; poverty; despair

Local Government enforcement of

laws; Poor communication

Lack of education; Collaborative

environment; Mutual respect

Silos; Resistance; Financial Interests

Governance Awareness Money

Toxic runoff; Shareholder profit;

Silencing

Never asked; Education; Economic

hardship

Values void of Nature; No value

for Nat Resources; Lack Education

awareness; finances; apathy

apathy or frustration; uneducated in

environment; selfishness

Government; Big Investors Dollars

Access or inclusion; Funding to

lead projects

disenfranchisement education

political decisions

Time; Education; Policy

Lack of information; Failure to speak

lack of knowledge; lack of

transparency; awareness

Persistence Awareness

disenfranchisement

Lack of Knowledge; Concerns

more pressing; lack of gvt

collaboration

disinterest; small worldview timescale

ignorance

outreach; situational awareness

lack of knowledge; lack of interest

No respect for nature; Teacher

Education; Public education

Lack of awareness; Political

framework

lack of engagement; cultural

obstacles; racial economic

poverty

political apathy; voicelessness;

diverse expectations

no power to effect change

Education; Lack of Public Outreach;

Lack of Interest

Lack of engagement by gov; Perceived

powerlessness; Again gov doesn't

engage

Uphill battle; lack of knowledge;

awareness; hard to work in groups

Table 11. Responses divided by island workshop to the discussion question, “How can people get more involved in

decisions concerning the USVI ecosystem and their wellbeing? Answer with three words or phrases.” (Responses

not corrected for spelling/grammar.)

St. Thomas

St. John

St. Croix

invite them; education; more

enforcement

band together; speak out; do it

yourself

community engagement; place-

based conversations; meet where

we live play

include in cultural event

Better networking; Government

transparency; Government

accountability

More public forums; multi-medium

platforms; Increased Collaboration

more access opportunities; more

outreach; demonstrate successes

go to them; listen to them;

connect them to wellbeing

Time; Outreach

Join Community Groups; Talk with

Neighbors

Read local news; Engage w

nonprofits; Vote

pay attention; join enviro

organization; network

vote; speak up; ask questions

Value Nature; Get Involved; Be

Informed

Collaborative workshops;

Community interaction; Community

Champion sector

Get connected; Read newspaper or

social; Listen to the radio

Work with NGOs; Go to town

halls and mtgs; Self-educate

Challenge VI Govt; Teacher

Education; Parent Education

Adopt a small plot; Call your

senators; Press groups to cooperate

word of mouth

pay attention

Follow relevant outlets; Attend

public meetings; Leverage advocacy

NGOs

trust that voice is heard; public

forums; collaboration by orgs

go to them; listen to them; talk to

kids

Speak Up; Stay with the process;

Lead

Explain the benefits; Your

involvement important; Sell quality

of life

attend public hearing; listen open

minded; react to everything

join influential boards; join non-

profits

outreach at public fairs; outreach in

shopping area

Join an environmental org Advocate

with legislators Network with

relevant off

Connection to the Land; Teacher

Education; Parent Education

find like-minded; make concerns

heard

early education

publicize what going on

grass roots efforts; school

curriculum; community influencers

Table 12. Participant responses to the open-ended discussion question, “Are there any success stories

concerning local ecosystems, where community engagement resulted in positive change?” (Responses

not corrected for spelling/grammar.)

St. Thomas

St. John

St. Croix

Cas Cay

mangrove clean ups in Coral Bay

Get Trashed clean ups around the island

SEA purchase of Southgate!

STEER

Cleaning up of mangroves

Salt Pond, Salt River

Awareness of Coral ecosystems by

Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease

Research

Montessori has done a lot of work with

beach cleanups. It's mostly gauged towards

the school students, but it can certainly be

replicated elsewhere.

The establishment of Smith Bay Park

on St. Thomas

development of a management

plan for Cas Cay involved students

and the community and VIG in

1980s.

Yes, CBCC as an NGO has become a

watershed mgt agency and has engaged in

a number of projects that have worked.

more needs to be done, as always -

particularly to recover from hurricane

damage.

decision NOT to build an aerospace

facility at Great Pond east (now

EEMP office)

In the 60's the north side stopped

condos from being built on Hull

Point

Blocking Summers End

Tulipan Park in Estate Welcome

Stony coral tissue loss disease

awareness

distribution of water filters for cistern use

after Hurricane Irma

Volunteers help plant endangered

Agave eggersiana at Sandy Point

NWR, Southgate Coastal Reserve,

and onto private properties on STX.

St Croix Enviro Assoc purchase of

land for conservation easement at

Chenay Bay, STX

huge amount of volunteer work, and

supported by donations from generous

people to remove debris from ecosystems

Coastal Clean Ups!

stopping hotel development near

private (at the time) portion of

Magens Bay

USFWS is partnering with the Friends of the

VIIS to remove invasive plants and to start

a propagation program for listed species on

STJ.

Mangrove planting in Salt River

Mandahl bay development

constrained

Huge amount of volunteer work to remove

debris - and donations of dollars too

Coral restoration at TNC

Volunteers planting trees to

enhance the habitat of Buck Island

Cay NM. St. Croix Environmental

worked with Cub Scouts and local

volunteers to plant over 100

endangered Agave eggersiana at

Southgate.

Newspaper online & print, word of mouth

The establishment of drinking water

vending machines, which

encourages plastic bottle recycling

mangrove cleanups

Outreach/fundraising to targeted

local neighborhood allowed our org

to cover the cost for us to take

ownership of forest and ephemeral

pond property to ensure long term

protection.

3. Discussion

In general, a trade-off involves losing one quality or quantity of something in return for gaining

another quality or quantity. In terms of ecosystem services, trade-offs occur when management

decisions are made that directly or indirectly affect the potential provision of an ecosystem

service. For example, a decision is made to restore mangroves in a particular bay to help reduce

storm-caused erosion, but that would mean displacing some sea grass which provides soil

stabilization, among other things. Another important point is that ecosystems and ecosystem

services can be highly interdependent in space and time.

Trade-offs of ecosystem services can be categorized along three axes: spatial scale, temporal

scale, and reversibility. “Spatial scale” refers to whether the effects of the trade-off are local or

distant. “Temporal scale” refers to whether the effects of the trade-off happen quickly or over a

longer period. “Reversibility” refers to whether the ecosystem service will return to its original

state (Rodriguez et al., 2006; Howe et al., 2014). For example, overharvesting of fish today, in

their spawning aggregation area, can impact catch elsewhere in the region (spatial) as well as

future catch and recreational opportunities (temporal), and intense overharvesting could

jeopardize the ability of the stock to rebound (reversibility), putting at risk connected ecosystem

services.

On the other hand, a synergy amongst ecosystem services exists when the enhancement (or

degradation) of one ecosystem service directly increases (or decreases) the provision of another

service. For example, the protection of coral reef areas for recreational (non-extractive)

purposes positively impacts fish abundance, which increases algal grazing and thus protects the

coral (Bennett et al., 2009). There can also be a decrease in multiple services when synergies

are present. For example, property owners might decide to remove trees and clear vegetation

for building on an island hillside. This activity will impact downstream water quality because the

roots of trees and vegetation keep sediment in place, and without that forest, the sediment

flows down the hillside and into the bay. Therefore, recreation (e.g. hiking, bird watching)

previously associated with that forested area will be impacted, as well as in the downstream

area, such as beaches, bays, and reefs where swimming, fishing, or tourism activities take place.

Management for – or enhancement of – ecosystem services for resilience involves managing

the habitats (systems) that services are supplied from and the demand – and expectations –

that people have for these services. Critical to making resource allocation decisions for the

restoration or protection of habitats that provide services and enhance resilience is

understanding what communities want or need, and from a resource management perspective,

what is feasible to achieve within a given time frame and budget. At that point trade-offs

between services may occur or synergies may develop. The Relative Ratings polling that was

conducted to elicit workshop participants’ professional opinion on what wellbeing outcomes

should be prioritized provides important information on what services – and by extension what

habitat(s) – should be enhanced or protected.

Specifically, across all island workshops, participants unanimously selected human health as the

wellbeing outcome that decision-makers should prioritize (Table 9). Although this workshop

series was an exercise and does not represent the perspectives of the whole USVI population, it

is safe to say that human health could be a value shared across the entire Territory when it

comes to planning for a more resilient future. As discussed previously, community members’

health and associated capabilities are essential to resilience; a healthy community is better able

to respond to and cope with external shocks (Table 2). Of course, “human health” can mean

different things to different people, as it encompasses the many physical, mental, emotional,

psychological, and spiritual aspects of living in the USVI. People gain or access health benefits

from their natural environment in different ways (e.g. swimming, wading, trail walking,

meditating, socializing, source for nutrition). Despite the diversity of health-related outcomes

and approaches to those outcomes, decision-makers can intentionally target human health

outcomes as a starting point.

With this target in mind, it follows that decision-makers can then identify which habitats and

mitigation activities are known to be linked to or result in the desired wellbeing outcomes (in

this case, human health; Table 9). There are science-based tools that can help decision-makers

do that (e.g. GEMS tool) but importantly, those decision-makers should use the local

community’s feedback to identify the habitats and mitigation activities that are important to

them. For example, across all the island workshops, participants selected forests, mangroves,

and coral reefs as habitats that they value the most in terms of providing ecosystem services.

Native forest restoration was the most preferred type of hazard mitigation activity. However,

coral reef restoration was rated low for preferred mitigation activities even though coral was

rated highly on the habitat poll. So, in consideration of their community’s interests, should

decision-makers focus on forest restoration or coral restoration? What about mangrove

restoration, since communities rated mangroves highly, too? This is where tradeoffs and

synergies must be considered alongside best available science.

As discussed previously in Section 2.2 (Ridge to reef profiles), it is likely that the ecological

services that coral reefs provide will decrease if ocean warming, storms, disease, and

anthropogenic stressors continue to contribute to future coral die-offs and overall coral decline

(Platenberg & Valiulis, 2018; Ennis et al., 2019). Also, significant decreases in forest cover

combined with the anthropogenic stressors (urban development and invasives species) have

decreased the extent and quality of local forests, and by extension, some of the services they

provide. Decision-makers could choose to focus hazard mitigation efforts on forests, knowing

that by doing so, the positive effects of restoring native plants and forests will not only benefit

the forests, but will also benefit downstream mangroves and coral reefs (e.g. reduces erosion,

sedimentation, and pollution). Forests, mangroves, and coral reefs were all highly valued by

workshop participants, so choosing and investing in hazard mitigation activities that will likely

benefit multiple habitats and outcomes that are important to many people (e.g. human health)

increases community engagement and support.

One way to synthesize this feedback into a science-based blueprint for resilience planning is to

apply the Ecosystem Services Logic Model (ESLM) framework as discussed previously and as

presented in the local island workshops. While the models were adapted from ongoing efforts

in the Gulf of Mexico, the ESLM framework, the process for creating the models, and the

models themselves can certainly be applied to projects and programs in the USVI. However, to

effectively link ridge to reef ecological changes to human wellbeing outcomes using best

available science, more local socio-ecological systems research is needed in the USVI.

Additionally, the subject matter experts consulted in this project suggested many ideas about

ecological indicators that can and should be used for resilience monitoring (Table 7). In

gathering data layers and discussing the health and function of the USVI ridge to reef

ecosystem with local experts for this project, it became clear that consistent, well-planned long-

term monitoring of paired terrestrial and marine ecosystems is necessary to gain a clear picture

of how the whole ridge to reef ecosystem changes over time. While the Territorial Coral Reef

Monitoring Program continues to deliver consistent and useful data for management decisions,

coral reefs are just one component of the larger ridge to reef ecosystem. There is no equivalent

in the Territory for terrestrial monitoring and assessment. However, there are many examples

of local experts and resource managers that have been working to identify issues and develop

solutions on the whole-ecosystem scale, such as the Watershed Management Project.

To comprehensively understand the connections between environmental change and human

wellbeing, human wellbeing should be monitored. Developing a human wellbeing monitoring

protocol that captures physical, mental, economic, and other health metrics in tandem with

natural resource metrics would allow for a more holistic assessment of resilience, consistently

over time. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, a region that continues to experience issues and

threats like the USVI, a Community Health Observing System (CHOS) is being developed to

assess adverse human health consequences of future disasters like well-established

environmental observing systems (Sandifer et al., 2020). If the ESLM framework is to be

applied, USVI resilience planning leadership will be able to determine which socio-behavioral-

economic indicators to focus on, and which metrics will effectively capture the changes in the

socio-ecological system.

The ESLM framework is just one of several approaches to planning, for example the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation recently completed a Coastal Resilience Assessment for the USVI,

and created a USVI module for the Coastal Resilience Evaluation and Siting Tool (CREST) that

project managers can use to make informed decisions about the siting of coastal restoration

and resilience projects. Similarly, the BlueValue (Harte Research Institute, 2020) database is a

searchable database of simplified and useful ecosystem valuation information, and the

Economic Decision Guide Software and Online Tool (EDGe$) was designed by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to support community-level resilience planning.

Regardless of the planning tools of choice, it is evident through the feedback collected from

both subject matter experts and professional community workshops that island communities

must be engaged as leads (or co-leads with technical experts) from the beginning of project or

program planning and continue as leads throughout the planning, implementation, and

evaluation process. When asked to share local examples of successful community engagement

within the context of environmental decisions and resilience planning, participants were able to

point to some evidence of positive engagement (Table 12). For instance, native

plant/vegetation restoration emerged as a top choice for mitigation activities in all workshops,

and one participant mentioned that Cub Scouts and other volunteers were successful in

planting plant over 100 endangered Agave eggersiana to enhance the habitat of Buck Island in

St. Croix. These types of community events can enhance engagement and community sense of

agency, which was noted as one of the many community engagement issues (Table 10). These

experiences are opportunities for learning what did or did not work for each local case and can

serve as a foundation upon which to build for improved adaptive planning. Planning is a

community- or place-based process that provides a future vision for communities and

translates social values into government policies and programs to protect human and ecological

wellbeing (Daniels & Daniels, 2003). Adaptation planning considers approaches for managing a

changing environment and community conditions (Figure 16; Del Angel, 2021).

Figure 16. The three phases and process stages of adaptation planning. Figure adapted by Del Angel,

(2021) from Moser and Ekstrom (2010).

It is recognized that like many small island jurisdictions, the USVI is limited in capacity and

resources in terms of research, monitoring, and implementation of hazard mitigation activities

and resilience projects and programs. However, there are methods of community capacity

building which draws from positive experiences like those discussed in the workshop (Table 12)

and that could be adapted for the USVI, such as Asset Based Community Development (ABCD).

The ABCD approach mobilizes individuals, local associations, and institutions for capacity-driven

development. It focuses on community assets and strengths rather than problems and needs,

and identifies and mobilizes individual and community assets, skills, and passions. It is

community driven – ‘building communities from the inside out’ – and is relationship driven

(Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).

4. Conclusion

In summary, this ecosystem services assessment is an evaluation of the general condition of the

USVI ridge to reef ecosystem, with particular focus on habitats and land use that contribute to

hazard mitigation and resilience. Importantly, this assessment process, as well as its results,

helped improve understanding of the connections between environmental and human

wellbeing specific to the USVI, factors to consider in decisions surrounding the natural and built

environments, and offered a framework for moving toward a more resilient and sustainable

future. This process has informed the following suggestions for ways in which the Territory can

strengthen the underlying positive factors and enhance the resilience of the VI’s ecosystem

services for the Territory’s benefit:

1. Island communities, or community liaisons, must be engaged as leads or co-leads from

the beginning of hazard mitigation and resilience project or program planning and

continue leading throughout the planning, implementation, and evaluation process.

2. Decision-makers should use the local community’s feedback to identify wellbeing

outcomes that are important to the community, as well as in identifying priority

ecosystem components and mitigation activities.

3. Decision-makers can intentionally target human health outcomes as a starting point in

hazard mitigation and resilience planning.

4. Decision-makers should invest in hazard mitigation activities that will likely benefit

multiple habitats and that influence outcomes important to many people (e.g. human

health). Focusing hazard mitigation efforts on upland habitats (e.g. forests, ghut-

associated forests, native vegetation, farms), will not only benefit upland areas and the

people living there, but will also have cascading benefits to other habitats that provide

ecosystem services crucial to hazard mitigation and resilience (e.g. mangroves and coral

reefs).

5. Consistent, well-planned long-term monitoring of paired terrestrial and marine

ecosystems is necessary to gain a clear picture of how the whole ridge to reef ecosystem

changes over time.

6. More local socio-ecological systems research is needed to connect ridge to reef

ecosystem changes to human wellbeing outcomes.

7. Developing a human wellbeing monitoring protocol that captures physical, mental,

economic, and other health metrics in tandem with natural resource metrics would

allow for a more holistic assessment of resilience, consistently over time.

References

Allerton, T. A.P., & Van Bloem, S.J. (2018). Forest Health Conditions of St Thomas and St. Croix,

U.S. Virgin Islands. Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science. Clemson University.

78 p.

Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D. & Gordon, L.J. (2009). Understanding relationships among

multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12: 1394-1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-

0248.2009.01387.x

Blondeau, J., Brandt, M., Donovan, C., Eakin, M., Edwards, K., Edwards, K., & Viehman, S.

(2020). Coral reef condition: A status report for the US Virgin Islands. NOAA.

Brandeis, T.J., & Turner, J.A. (2013). US Virgin Islands’ forests, 2009. Resource Bullentin SRS-RB-

196. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 56

p., 196: 1-56.

Brandeis, T., & Chakroff, M. (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Country Report:

United States Virgin Islands. Forestry Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations. 37p.

Brander, L., & Beukering, P.V. (2013). The total economic value of US coral reefs: a review of the

literature.

Brandt, M.E., Ennis, R.S., Meiling, S.S., Townsend, J., Cobleigh, K., Glahn, A., & Smith, T.B.

(2021). The Emergence and Initial Impact of Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD) in the

United States Virgin Islands. Frontiers in Marine Science.

Bureau of Economic Research. (2018). U.S. Virgin Islands Annual Tourism Indicators. U.S. Virgin

Islands.

Center for Watershed Protection. (2008). Coral Bay Watershed Management Plan. A Pilot

Project for Watershed Planning in the USVI. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.

Department of Planning and Resources. U.S. Virgin Islands.

Chakroff, M. (2010). U.S. Virgin Islands Forest Resources Assessment and Strategies: A

comprehensive analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats and opportunities. VI

Department of Agriculture. 100 pp.

CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/virgin-islands/

Conservation Data Center. (2010). Wetlands of the U.S. Virgin Islands. Division of Environmental

Protection, Department of Planning & Natural Resources. U.S. Virgin Islands.

Corven, J. (2009). United States Virgin Islands. Devenish, C., Díaz Fernández, D.F., Clay, R.P.,

Davidson, I., & Yépez Zabala, I., Eds. Important Bird Areas of the Caribbean: Priority Sites for

Biodiversity Conservation. Birdlife International. 329-338 pp.

Crossman, S., Robles, C., Petersen, L., Wailes, E.J., & Mwaijande, F.A. (2008). Linking Agriculture

and Tourism: Constraints and Opportunities with a Focus on Local Food Chains in the US Virgin

Islands. No. 1875-2017-345.

Daniels, T.L., & Daniels, K. (2003). The Environmental Planning Handbook for Sustainable

Communities and Regions. Chicago, Ill: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Del Angel, D. C., “Social-ecological System Approach for Assessing Impacts of Sea-level Rise and

the Benefit of Natural and Nature-based Features”. PhD Dissertation., Texas A&M University –

Corpus Christi, 2021. ProQuest.

Division of Environmental Protection. (2018). USVI Integrated Water Quality Monitoring &

Assessment Report. Department of Planning and Natural Resources. U.S. Virgin Islands.

Division of Fish and Wildlife. (2005). United States Virgin Islands Marine Resources and Fisheries

Strategic and Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Department of Planning and Resources. U.S.

Virgin Islands. 567 pp.

Ennis, R.S., Kadison, E., Heidmann, S.L., Brandt, M.E., Henderson, L.M., & Smith, T.B. (2019). The

United States Virgin Islands Territorial Coral Reef Monitoring Program. 2019 Annual Report.

University of the Virgin Islands, United States Virgin Islands. 295pp.

Farrelly, A. (1993). The Virgin Islands Comprehensive Land and Water Use Plan. Prepared by the

Division of Comprehensive and Coastal Zone Planning of the V. I. Department of Planning and

Natural Resources in consultation with Strategic Planning Group of Jacksonville, Florida.

Gardner, L. (2008). A Strategy for Management of Ghuts in the US Virgin Islands. Water

Resources Research Institute, University of the Virgin Islands.

Gardner, L., Henry, S., & Thomas, T. (2008). Watercourses as Landscapes in the U.S. Virgin

Islands: State of Knowledge. Water Resources Research Institute, University of the Virgin

Islands. U.S. Virgin Islands.

GEMS (Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models & Socio-Economic Indicators). Nicholas

Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. (n.d.).

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/project/gems.

Graham, B. (2012). Profile of the small-scale farming in the Caribbean. In Workshop on Small–

Scale Farming in the Caribbean. FAO–Initiative Hunger-Free Latin American and the Caribbean.

Granek, E., & Ruttenberg, B.I. (2008). Changes in biotic and abiotic processes following

mangrove clearing. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 80: 555–562

Gould, W.A., E.L. Díaz, (co-leads), N.L. Álvarez-Berríos, F. Aponte-González, W. Archibald, J.H.

Bowden, L. Carrubba, W. Crespo, S.J. Fain, G. González, A. Goulbourne, E. Harmsen, E.

Holupchinski, A.H. Khalyani, J. Kossin, A.J. Leinberger, V.I. Marrero-Santiago, O. Martínez-

Sánchez, K. McGinley, P. Méndez-Lázaro, J. Morell, M.M. Oyola, I.K. Parés-Ramos, R. Pulwarty,

W.V. Sweet, A. Terando, and S. Torres-González, (2018). U.S. Caribbean. In Impacts, Risks, and

Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,

D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart

(eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 809–871. doi:

10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH20

Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies. (2020). BlueValue: Resource Database for

Ecosystem Services. Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. World Wide Web electronic

publication. http://www.bluevalue.org, June 2020.

Holstein, D.M., Fletcher, P., Groves, S.H., & Smith, T B. (2019). Ecosystem services of

mesophotic coral ecosystems and a call for better accounting. In Mesophotic Coral Ecosystems.

Springer, Cham. 943-956 pp.

Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G.M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs?

Ecosystem services for human wellbeing: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and

synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change. 28: 263-275.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (IUCN). 2015 Red List of Threatened Species

online database. http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Jackson, J.B.C., Donovan, M.K., Cramerm K.L., & Lam, V.V. (editors). (2014). Status and Trends of

Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland.

Jackson, A. & Barrios, R. (2020). Development of a Comprehensive Community Profile for the

U.S. Virgin Islands Final Interim Report.

Kretzmann, J.P., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path

toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Evanston, Ill: The Asset-Based Community

Development Institute, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Laurencin, E. (2017). Fighting Against History, Nature and Politics: Small-Scale Farmers,

Agricultural Production and Self-Sustainability on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Rutgers The State

University of New Jersey-New Brunswick.

Marcano-Vega, H., & Williamson, J.R. (2017). Forests of U.S. Virgin Islands, 2014. Resource

Update FS–144. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern

Research Station. 4 p.

Johnson, M.P. (2019). “Black Gold of Paradise: Negotiating Oil Pollution in the US Virgin Islands,

1966–2012,” Environmental History 0 (2019). 1–27 pp. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/emz031

McGinley, K.A., Robertson, G.C., Friday, K.S., & Carpenter, C.A. (2017). Assessing forest

sustainability in the tropical islands of the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-GTR-48. San Juan,

PR:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry.

115 p.

McLeod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E,

Schlesinger, W.H, & Silliman, B.R. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved

understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment 9: 552–560

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Moser, S.C., & Ekstrom, J.A. (2010). A Framework to Diagnose Barriers to Climate Change

Adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November, 201007887.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107.

National Drought Mitigation Center. (2021). United States Drought Monitor. U.S. Department of

Agriculture. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. (2009). Coral Reef Habitat Assessment for U.S.

Marine Protected Areas: U.S. Virgin Islands. 44 p.

National Park Service. (2021). https://www.nps.gov/viis/learn/historyculture/index.htm

Nemeth, D., Platenberg, R., Mathurin, R., & Hodge, D. (2007). Impact of watershed

development on diversity of freshwater fish and crustaceans on St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands.

In SEVENTH CARIBBEAN ISLANDS WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS. p. 70.

Office of Management and Budget. (2020). Review of the USVI Territorial Economy 2019.

Pait, A. S., Hartwell, S. I., Bauer, L. J., Apeti, D. A., & Mason, A. L. (2016). An integrated

environmental assessment of the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER). National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. USA.

Palada, M.C., Mitchell, J.M., Becker, B.N., & Nair, P.K.R. (2003). The integration of medicinal

plants and culinary herbs in agroforestry systems for the Caribbean: a study in the US Virgin

Islands. In III WOCMAP Congress on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants-Volume 2: Conservation,

Cultivation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal and 676. 147-153 pp.

Pendleton, L., Comte, A., Langdon, C., Ekstrom, J., Cooley, S., Suatoni, L., Beck, M., Brander, L.,

Burke, L., Cinner, J., Doherty, C., Edwards, P., Gledhill, D., Jiang, L., van Hooidonk, R., The, L.,

Waldbusser, G., & Ritter, J. (2016). Coral Reefs and People in a High-CO2 World: Where Can

Science Make a Difference to People? PLoS ONE 11(11): e0164699.

Philibosian R., & Yntema, J.A. (1977). Annotated checklist of the birds, mammals, reptiles, and

amphibians of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Information Services, St. Croix.

Pittman, S.J., Bauer, L., Hile, S.D., Jeffrey, C.R.G., Davenport, E., & Caldow, C. (2014). Marine

protected Areas of the U.S. Virgin Islands: Ecological Performance Report. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 187. Silver Spring, MD. 89 pp.

Platenberg, R.J. (2017). Ecosystem integrity of riparian waterways on St. Thomas.

Platenberg, R.J. & Valiulis, J.M. (Eds). (2018). United States Virgin Islands Wildlife Action Plan,

Vol. 2: Habitats and Species. Final report to the USVI Department of Planning and Natural

Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife. University of the Virgin Islands and St. Croix

Environmental Association, U.S. Virgin Islands

Platenberg, R.J., Hayes, F.E., McNair, D.B., & Pierce, J.J. (2005). A Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Plan for the U.S. Virgin Islands. Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. 216 pp.

Platenberg, R.J. (2006). Wetland Conservation Plan for St. Thomas and St. John, U.S. Virgin

Islands. Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Thomas. 108 pp.

Pluke, R.W. (2008). Finding an Agricultural Development Model for St. Thomas, USVI-Adapting

an Extension Approach to a Small, Densely Populated, Caribbean Island. No. 1875-2017-388.

Reiblich, J., & Ankersen, T. (2016). Got Guts: The Iconic Streams of the US Virgin Islands and the

Law's Ephemeral Edge. J. Envtl. L. & Litig., 32, 71.

Rennis, D. S., Finney, C. M., & Devine, B. E. (2006). Evaluating the sediment retention function

of salt pond systems in the US Virgin Islands. Water Resources Research Institute, University of

the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas.

ResilientVI. (2021). Got Drought Webinar (3-3-2021). YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK4Go0VjiiI

Rodríguez, J., Beard, T., Bennett, E., Cumming, G., Cork, S., Agard, J., & Peterson, G. (2006).

Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services. Ecology and Society, 11(1). Retrieved

August 24, 2021.http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267786

Rogers, C. S. (2019). Immediate effects of hurricanes on a diverse coral/mangrove ecosystem in

the US Virgin Islands and the potential for recovery. Diversity, 11(8), 130.

Rogers, C.S., Miller, J., Muller, E.M., Edmunds, P., Nemeth, R.S., Beets, J.P., & Voss, J.D. (2008).

Ecology of coral reefs in the US Virgin Islands. In Coral Reefs of the USA. Springer, Dordrecht.

303-373 pp.

Sandifer, P. A., Knapp, L. C., Lichtveld, M. Y., Manley, R. E., Abramson, D., Caffey, R., ... & Singer,

B. H. (2020). Framework for a community health observing system for the Gulf of Mexico

region: preparing for future disasters. Frontiers in public health, 8, 588.

Sjoken, R. & Uwate, R. (2005). United States Virgin Islands Marine Resources and Fisheries

Strategic and Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Department of

Planning and Resources. U.S. Virgin Islands.

Slatton, R., Daley, B., & Valiulis, J. (2012). St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands roadside tree inventory

and management strategies. Christiansted, VI: Geographic Consulting, LLC. 47 pp.

Smith, T.B. & Holstein, D.M. (2016). Chapter 3.4 The United States Virgin Islands, USA. in Baker,

E.K., Puglise, K.A. & Harris, P.T. (eds.). Mesophotic coral ecosystems — A lifeboat for coral

reefs? In: Baker, E.K., Puglise, K.A., & Harris, P.T. (eds.) Mesophotic coral ecosystems — A

lifeboat for coral reefs? The United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal,

Nairobi and Arendal. 98 pp.

Smith, T.B., Brandt, M.E., Brandtneris, V.W., Ennis, R.S., Groves, S.H., Habtes, S., & Nemeth, R.S.

(2019). The United States Virgin Islands. In Mesophotic coral ecosystems. Springer, Cham. 131-

147 pp.

Storlazzi, C.D., Reguero, B.G., Cole, A.D., Lowe, E., Shope, J.B., Gibbs, A.E., Nickel, B.A., McCall,

R.T., van Dongeren, A.R., & Beck, M.W. (2019). Rigorously valuing the role of U.S. coral reefs in

coastal hazard risk reduction: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1027, 42 p.

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20191027

Taylor, M., Noori, L., Lewis, K.A. & Holecek, A. (2009). Waves of Change: A Resource for

Environmental Issues in the U.S. Virgin Islands. University of the Virgin Islands. Virgin Islands

Marine Advisory Service. 36 p.

U.S. Census. (2020) https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-

census/decade/2020/2020-census-main.html

U.S. Virgin Islands using physical and biological indicators. Virgin Islands Water Resources

Research Institute. University of the Virgin Islands. (n.d)

United States Department of Agriculture. (2020). Census of Agriculture: Virgin Islands of the

United States (2018) Territory and Island Data. http://usviber.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/03/Review-of-the-Virgin-Islands-Economy-Final-March-25-2020.pdf

United States Department of Homeland Security. (2021). Ecological Assessment: Virgin Island

Shoreline Protections. Federal Emergency Management Agency. University of the Virgin Islands.

United States.

United States Department of Justice. (2021). Office of Public Affairs. Justice News. United States

Files Complaint and Reaches Agreement on Stipulation with Limetree Bay Terminals LLC and

Limetree Bay Refining LLC Relating to Petroleum Refinery in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-complaint-and-reaches-agreement-

stipulation-limetree-bay-terminals-llc

United States Virgin Islands Territorial Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2019).

https://www.usviodr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-Territorial-Hazard-Mitigation-

Plan_Revisions_29May2020-6.12.20.pdf

UVI Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (2021).

https://sites.google.com/a/myuvi.net/ccam/vi-plants-at-a-glance/vi-medicinal-plants-at-a-

glance

USVI Hazard Mitigation and Resilience Plan. (2020). www.resilientvi.org

Van Beukering, P., Brander, L., van Zanten, B., Verbrugge, E., & Lems, K. (2011). The Economic

Value of the Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States Virgin Islands. IVM Institute for

Environmental Studies. Report number: R-11/06. 160 pp.

Van Zanten, B., Van Beukering, P., & Wagtendonk, A. (2014). Coastal Protection by Coral Reefs:

A Framework for Spatial Assessment and Economic Valuation. Ocean and Coastal Management.

96. 94-103.

Virgin Islands EPSCoR. A National Science Foundation Program. (2021). Ridge to Reef. Summer

2021 Newsletter. Retrieved August 30, 2021 from https://indd.adobe.com/view/dcb2c05f-

1691-41e5-bdb2-2c1e178aa114

Weiss, S.A., Hensley, D.A., & Beamer, K.P. (2017). Evaluation of Three Cover Crops Terminated

with a Roller-Crimper on Cover Crop Re-Growth and Weed Development under Tropical

Conditions. Agricultural Experiment Station, 7.

Appendix 1. Ecosystem services organized by Use Value and Non Use Value. (Harte Research Institute, 2020)

USE VALUES

Ecosystem Service

Description of service

Example

Supportive Functions and

Structure

Ecological structures and functions that are essential to the delivery of ecosystem services

Nutrient processing

The cycling of nutrients, including acquisition and storage, within the

biosphere.

Nitrogen cycle; phosphorus cycle; maintenance of

soil fertility

Primary production

The conversion of sunlight into biomass.

Plant growth

Pollination and seed dispersal

Movement of plant genes.

Insect pollination; seed dispersal by animals

Habitat

The physical place where organisms reside.

Refugium for resident and migratory species;

spawning and nursery grounds

Hydrological Cycle

Movement and storage of water through the biosphere.

Evapotranspiration; stream runoff; groundwater

retention

Regulating Services

Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems for human wellbeing

Gas sequestration, storage, and

production

Regulation of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and

oceans.

Sequestration of carbon dioxide and release of

oxygen; vegetative absorption of volatile organic

compounds

Climate processes

Processes related to regulation of climate from a local to global scale.

Direct influence of land cover on temperature,

precipitation, wind, and humidity

Storm surge protection

Dampening or reducing environmental impacts from storm surge.

Marshes and other coastal habitats absorbing

waters from surge

Biological control

Species interactions.

Control of pests and diseases; reduction of

herbivory (crop damage)

Water flow

Flow of water across the planet’s surface.

Modulation of the drought-flood cycle; purification

of water

Soil retention

Erosion control and sediment retention.

Prevention of soil loss by wind and runoff;

avoiding buildup of silt in lakes and wetlands

Pollution abatement

Removal or breakdown of non-nutrient compounds and materials, or

other forms of potentially harmful pollution.

Pollution detoxification; absorption of noise

pollution

Provisioning Services

Provisioning of natural resources and raw materials

Freshwater provision

Filtering, retention, and storage of freshwater.

Provision of freshwater for drinking; medium for

transportation; irrigation

Food

Provisioning of edible plants and animals for human consumption.

Hunting and gathering of fish, game, fruits, and

other edible animals and plants; small-scale

subsistence farming and aquaculture

Raw materials

Products harvested from natural resources for human use such as

building, manufacturing, energy, fertilizer.

Lumber, skins, plant fibers, oils and dyes; fuel

wood, organic matter (ex: peat); topsoil,

leaves, litter, excrement

Genetic resources

Genetic resources.

Genes to improve crop resistance to pathogens

and pests and other commercial applications

Medicinal resources

Biological and chemical substances for use in drugs and

Pharmaceuticals.

Quinine; Pacific yew; Echinacea

Ornamental resources

Resources for fashion, handicraft, jewelry, pets, worship, decoration

and souvenirs.

Feathers used in decorative costumes; shells used

as jewelry

Cultural Services

Enhancing emotional, psychological, and cognitive wellbeing

Recreation

Opportunities for rest, refreshment, and recreation.

Ecotourism; bird-watching; outdoor sports

Aesthetic

Sensory equipment of functioning ecological systems.

Proximity of houses to scenery; open space

Science and education

Use of natural areas for scientific and educational enhancement.

A natural field laboratory and reference area

Cultural, spiritual and historic

Use of nature for symbolism or representation; natural

landscapes/seascapes with significant spiritual, religious, or cultural

value.

Oyster middens; burial sites; ancestral lands

NON-USE VALUES

Bequest

Value people place on knowing that future generations will have the option of using an ecosystem good or service.

Existence

Value people place on knowing that a certain ecosystem good or service exists.

Option

Value people place on knowing that they have the option of using/benefiting from a certain service or good.

Total Economic Value (TEV)

Value of all Use and Non-Use Ecosystem Services.

Appendix 2. Questions for Subject Matter Experts

1. In what ways do people benefit from the “ridge to reef” ecosystems (or natural habitats;

terrestrial, coastal, marine) of the USVI? For example, clean ocean water is important for

our health – it sustains fish that we eat or sell, attracts tourism to our islands, and is a

place to swim and relax.

2. Thinking about all the diverse habitats and species that make up the “ridge to reef”

ecosystem of the USVI, what aspects reduce risks to communities? For example, are

forests important for protecting us from hazards like mud slides?

3. How have these ecosystems (or natural habitats) changed due to natural hazards? For

example, how have droughts impacted the landscape?

4. As ecosystems have changed, and the services they provide changed, have islanders

changed their methods for dealing with this change, how have they adapted? For

example, as trees and bush are removed, soil becomes loose, and over time we build

bigger retaining walls to keep the soil in place.

5. How have these ecosystems (or natural habitats) changed due to human activity? For

example, how have building developments impacted the land or sea?

6. How do we know when the island ecosystems (or natural habitats) have changed? What

are the indicators (signs)? For example, when a fisherman is out at sea and sees too many

lionfish – an invasive species – that could signal a problem. What examples can you think

of on land or in the sea?

7. Are communities involved in decisions concerning the USVI ecosystem (or natural

habitats)? How so? If not, how can they be? Are they at the table, do they care to be? Do

they know that decisions are being made?

8. Are there any specific places within the Territory that have come to your mind during our

conversation today? Would any of these places be good for a case study? We will be

hosting a workshop this spring and will focus on a place currently facing a management

challenge or decision related to ecosystems and resilience.

9. Is there anyone else that you recommend we talk to?

Appendix 3. Workshop agendas