oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-14/386 | February 2015
www.epa.gov/ord
Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems
Decision Support Workshop
April 27-29, 2010
Caribbean Coral Reef Institute
La Parguera, Puerto Rico
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-14/386 | February 2015
www.epa.gov/ord
Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision
Support Workshop
April 27-29, 2010
Caribbean Coral Reef Institute,
La Parguera, Puerto Rico
Prepared by:
Patricia Bradley
US EPA
Atlantic Ecology Division
NHEERL, ORD
33 East Quay Road
Key West, FL 33040
William Fisher
US EPA
Gulf Ecology Division
NHEERL, ORD
1 Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Brian Dyson
US EPA
NRMRL, ORD
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Amanda Rehr
Piraeus Consulting
14084th Ave Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98101
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
sponsored the workshop described in this document. This document has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This is a contribution to the EPA Office of Research and Development's Ecosystem Services
Research and Safe and Healthy Communities Research Programs.
The appropriate citation for this report is:
Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B and Rehr A. 2014. Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision
Support Workshop, April 27-29, 2010, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, La Parguera, Puerto Rico.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, Rl.
EPA/600/R-14/386.
This document can be downloaded from: http://www.epa.gov/GED/
Cover photos taken by: Tom Moore (NOAA), Alan Humphrey (EPA ERT), Scott Grossman and
Jon McBurney (Lockheed Martin), Buddy LoBue (EPA Region 2), and Mike Morel (USF&WS).
ii | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables vii
Acknowledgements viii
Executive Summary ix
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and the Guanica Bay Watershed Initiative 1
1.2 Workshop Goals 4
1.3 The Structured Design Process 5
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions, and Management of
Coral Reef Resources 9
2.1 Status of Southwest Puerto Rico's Coral Reef and Coastal Resources 9
2.2 Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico's Coral Reef and Coastal Resources 13
2.2.1 The Problems 14
2.2.2 Responding to the Problems 17
2.3 USDA's Detailed Plans forthe Guanica Watershed 20
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge about Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Using a
Systems Framework (DPSIR) 23
3.1 Systems Thinking and Example DPSIR 23
3.2 DPSIR Breakout Groups 31
3.2.1 Agricultural Practices 33
3.2.2 Lagoon Restoration 39
3.2.3 Low Impact Development 46
3.3 Guanica Bay Watersheds DPSIR 54
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds 57
4.1 Homework Assignment 57
4.2 Social Network Analysis 58
4.3 Uncertainty and the Value of Information (VOI) in Multi-stakeholder
Environmental Decision Making 61
4.4 Adaptive Management (AM) 68
4.5 DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy and Society 70
4.6 Decision Breakout Session 72
Chapter 5. Conclusions 81
5.1 Lessons Learned 81
5.2 Next Steps 83
5.3 Summary 97
Table of Contents
-------
Appendices
A. Puerto Rico Overview 99
B. Guanica Bay Watershed 107
C. Socioeconomics of the Guanica Bay Watershed 115
D. Workshop Agenda 119
E. Workshop Participants 125
F. Glossary 129
G. References 131
iv | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
List of Figures
1-1. Guanica Bay Watershed 2
1-2. Map of the flow of water between watersheds that contribute water to Guanica Bay.... 3
1-3. Multiple factors influence steps in any decision-making process 6
1-4. The DPSIR framework 7
2-1. Coral reefs at Guanica 10
2-2. Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program-site locations 10
2-3. Thermal stress in the Caribbean 11
2-4. Percent coral cover (by species) at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guanica 12
2-5. Percent cover for 5 substrate categories at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guanica 12
2-6. Debris that had been captured by former railroad structures 15
2-7. Impervious surfaces in the Guanica Bay watershed 16
2-8. Proposed constructed treatment wetlands 18
2-9. FWS and farmers surveying a farm, the Envirosurvey nursery, and plants delivered
to the farmer 19
2-10. Illustration showing a buffer strip design for an agricultural landscape 20
3-1. Driving Force-tourism and recreation economic sector 26
3-2. Pressures associated with recreational fishing and boating 26
3-3. An initial coral reef DPSIR conceptual map showing one example Driving Force
creating a Pressure that affects the State of harvested organisms 27
3-4. Changes in environmental and ecological state associated with recreational
fishing and boating 27
3-5. Ecosystem services affected by recreational fishing and boating 28
3-6. Additional tourism and recreation subsectors generate additional Pressures and
changes in environmental and ecological State 29
3-7 Responses that could be implemented to mitigate the impact of the tourism
and recreation sector 30
3-8. Responses aligned with Drivers and Pressures 31
3-9. Template used by Cmap note-takers to develop the DPSIRs 32
3-10. DPSIR template forthe Agricultural Practices breakout group 34
3-11. Pressures associated with Agricultural Practices 35
3-12. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Agriculture 36
3-13. Ecosystem services associated with changes in Ecosystem State 37
3-14. Final Agricultural Practices DPSIR 38
3-15. DPSIR template forthe Lagoon Restoration breakout group 40
3-16. Pressures associated with the loss of the Guanica Lagoon 41
3-17. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Pressures generated by restoration
of the Guanica Lagoon 42
3-18. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State 43
3-19. Socio-economic sectors that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted
by management actions relating to restoration of the historic Guanica Lagoon 44
List of Figures | v
-------
3-20. Final Guanica Lagoon restoration DPSIR 45
3-21. DPSIR template for the LID breakout group 47
3-22. Pressures that can be mitigated with LID 48
3-23. Changes in environmental and Ecosystem State possible from LID 49
3-24. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State 50
3-25. Socio-economic sectors that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted by LID ..51
3-26. Additional decision points and management actions not identified
in the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan that related to LID 52
3-27. Final DPSIR 53
3-28a.Guanica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information
from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for Drivers, Pressures,
and Responses to each 55
3-28b.Guanica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information
from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for State, Impact,
and benefits to Drivers 56
4-1. Social network analysis views social relationships and interactions in terms
of network theory about nodes and links 59
4-2. Preliminary social network based on responses from workshop participants
who are identified by institution or role 60
4-3. Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) developed at the workshop for a participant 66
4-4. CMP Adaptive Management Cycle 69
4-5. DASEES Webpage design 71
5-1. Map showing the location of the historic Guanica Lagoon 84
5-2. Aerial photos from 1950 showing the Guanica Lagoon, and 2007 showing the area
that was drained with the lagoon footprint superimposed 84
5-3. Parcels inventoried in the historic Guanica Lagoon region 85
5-4. The surveyed parcels of the Lajas Valley below 5M elevation and an overlay
of the historic lagoon area 86
5-5. Land ownership in the historic Guanica Lagoon footprint 86
5-6. Sub areas in the study site 87
5-7. Model output for the 2-hr flood event under various lagoon height scenarios 89
5-8. The majority of flooding increases takes place on existing forested land 89
5-9. The 50-yr flood event projection with no lagoon vs. the flood projections
shows almost no additional flooding 90
5-10. Soil salinity study, Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve 91
5-11. The surface salinity layer, Lajas Valley 92
5-12. Protectores de Cuencas and Ridge to Reefs, Inc., hydro-seeding a steep slope along
the side of a mountain road in the Guanica Bay Watershed 93
5-13. Shade-grown coffee roundtable and proposed certification label 94
5-14. Location of coral nursery operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
during 2013 96
vi | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
A-l. Map of Puerto Rico showing municipality boundaries and forested areas 99
A-2. Map of municipality boundaries and watershed basins in the Guanica Bay Watershed ... 101
B-l. The monument on the waterfront in Guanica, commemorating the U.S. invasion
in September 1898 107
B-2. Former Guanica Lagoon area and the adjacent community of Fuig 108
B-3. Photos of the Guanica State Forest 109
B-4. The Puerto Rican nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus) and the Puerto Rican
emerald-breasted hummingbird (Chlorstilbon maugeaus) in the Guanica State Forest.... 109
B-5. The Punta Ballenas Reserve and Cayo Aurora (Gilligan's Island) 110
B-6. Colorful houses in Yauco and the Yauco town square Ill
B-7. The Rico Loco runs through the Susua State Forest 112
B-8. The Gumbo Limbo (Bursera simaruba) and the Blue-Tailed Ground Lizard
(Ameiva wetmorei) are found in Susua State Forest 112
B-9. The plaza in La Parguera and stilt homes on the bay 113
B-10. Offshore cays and islets and mangroves 114
B-ll. The wall off La Parguera is a world-class dive destination 114
C-l. View of the Central Guanica circa 1910 116
List of Tables
1-1. Contrasting features of science and management cultures 5
2-1. Priority pollutants in the Guanica Bay/Rio Loco Watershed 14
2-2. Agricultural practices that potentially affect water quality 21
3-1. Topics captured on the flipchart but not included in the basic Agriculture
Practices DPSIR 39
3-2. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic Lagoon
Restoration DPSIR 46
3-3. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic LID DPSIR 54
4-1. Important resources and outcomes in the Guanica Bay Watershed 62
4-2. Workshop participants' best estimates and associated confidence regarding the
strengths of the cause-effect relationships that impact important resources
and outcomes in the Guanica bay Watershed (N-25) 63
4-3. Workshop participants' best estimates and associated confidence regarding the
effects of management actions for reducing threats to resource outcomes
in the Guanica Bay Watershed 64
4-4. Critical uncertainties and suggested research studies 65
4-5. Management options developed during the workshop 80
A-l. Puerto Rico public corporations 102
C-l. Demographic information for GB/Rio Loco municipalities and Puerto Rico 115
List of Tables I vii
-------
Acknowledgements
This workshop was convened through the collaborative efforts of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Region 2, and through the
University of Puerto Rico. The technical content of the workshop was developed by Patricia
Bradley, William Fisher, Ann Vega, Leah Oliver, Walt Galloway, and Joe Williams of ORD;
Charles LoBue and Evelyn Huertas of Region 2; Richard Appeldoorn and Francisco Pagan of the
University of Puerto Rico, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, (UPR CCRI); Kelly Black and Tom Stockton
of Neptune & Company; and Paul Sturm of Center for Watershed Protection.
We would like to recognize Richard Appeldoorn and Francisco Pagan, UPR CCRI, for dedicating staff
and resources to deal with the planning, logistics, and communications of this effort.
This document was peer reviewed by Marilyn ten Brink and Leah Oliver, ORD; Evelyn Huertas,
Region 2; and Paul Sturm, Ridge to Reefs, Inc.
viii | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Caribbean Coral Reef Institute (CCRI) hosted a
Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop on April 27-28, 2010, at the
Caribbean Coral Reef Institute in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Forty-three participants, including
representatives from federal and territorial government agencies, non-governmental organizations
and academic institutions, and Guanica Bay watershed citizens participated in the workshop. The
purpose of the workshop was to facilitate development of a decision analysis framework with
stakeholder and decision-maker input to help address problems related to ecologically damaging
human activities (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off,
and wetland loss) in the Guanica Bay Watershed in southwest Puerto Rico.
During the workshop, participants reviewed the characteristics and threats to the Guanica Bay
watershed, coral reefs and coastal ecosystems and overviewed ongoing NOAA and USDA activities
in the watershed. EPA introduced an organizational framework (DPSIR), which can be used to link
ecological and socioeconomic factors and to scope the important causal elements of environmental
decision-making. The group incorporated knowledge and issues relevant to the Guanica Bay
watershed and southwestern Puerto Rico into the framework. Using the Guanica Bay Management
Plan as a foundation, EPA applied a structured decision analysis process to the decision-making
processes in the watershed.
This report serves two purposes: 1) to document the workshop and 2) to provide a process and
tools for implementing some of the approaches used at the workshop. The report provides detailed
step-by-step examples, accompanied with graphics, guidance, templates, and discussion of
potential software.
Executive Summary | ix
-------
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and the Guanica Bay Watershed
Initiative
The United States Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) was established in 1998 by Presidential Executive
Order to lead U.S. efforts to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. The USCRTF includes
leaders of 12 Federal agencies and seven U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths (Florida,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas) and three Freely Associated States (Federated States of Micronesia, Republic
of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau).
In 2000 the USCRTF adopted the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, the first U.S. plan to
comprehensively address the most pressing threats to coral reefs. The National Action Plan is the
Nation's roadmap to more effectively understand coral reef ecosystems and reduce the adverse
impact of human activities. In 2002 the USCRTF collaborated to produce a complementary
document, A National Coral Reef Action Strategy, to address priorities and strategies in the short
term.
Recognizing that the threat of land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) to coral reef ecosystems
occurs in all U.S. coral reef jurisdictions, and both authority and responsibility to address LBSP
involve a multitude of governmental and jurisdictional levels, the USCRTF initiated a Watershed
Partnership Initiative in 2009. The initiative is intended to facilitate and enhance coordination,
partnerships, and contribution of Agency resources and expertise to implement geographically
specific and integrated activities to reduce pollutant loads to coral reef ecosystems, while also
promoting consistent and strengthened application and enforcement of laws and authorities
intended to address LBSP. The USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative includes two distinct
components:
a. Individual federal and state/territory agency contributions through direct application
of resources, authorities, technical assistance, and/or program expertise; and
b. A competitive funding opportunity that awards Federal funds to local organizations and
individuals to implement projects in support of clean water. This fund is administered for
the USCRTF through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).
The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) and the USCRTF
chose Guanica Bay Watershed as the first Watershed Initiative. Partners in the Guanica Bay
Watershed Initiative include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US
Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), Puerto Rico DNER, Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture (PRDA), Puerto
Rico Lands Authority (PRLA), Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), US Geological Survey (USGS), University of Puerto Rico (UPR), Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority (PREPA), and Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA).
Chapter 1. Introduction
-------
The Guanica Bay Watershed
The Guanica Bay Watershed is located in the southwestern corner of Puerto Rico (Fig. 1-1),
approximately 32 kilometers west of Ponce and 160 kilometers southwest of San Juan (CWP 2008).
It includes portions of Guanica, Yauco, Lajas and Cabo Rojo municipalities. Rainfall in the watershed
ranges from less than 20 inches/year in the arid southwest to over 100 inches/year in the
mountains, and includes Spanish Colonial cultural resources. More detailed information about
Puerto Rico is included in Appendix A.
2.5 5 10 15 20
Figure 1-1. Guanica Bay Watershed. The Guanica Bay drainage area (purple) includes portions of eight
12-digit HUC watersheds.
Guanica Bay receives fresh water primarily from a single location, the mouth of the Rio Loco at the
northern end of the bay. Human alterations have significantly altered the volume and flow of water
in the Guanica Bay watershed. The water originates in several different watersheds and travels
several different paths to reach the bay. In the 1950's, as part of the Southwest Puerto Rico Project
(or the Southwest Project, SWP) five reservoirs and two hydroelectric plants (Yauco 1 and 2) were
built in the ridges north of Guanica Bay to increase and regulate potable water from the high
elevation watersheds of the central cordillera (mountain region) for use by the local populations in
Yauco and Guanica.
At about the same time, as part of the Lajas Valley Irrigation Project, canals and channels were
constructed to divert water from just below the southernmost reservoir (Lago Loco) along the
foothills to the west primarily to provide water for agriculture in the broad Lajas Valley. A long
drainage channel along the southern edge of the valley returns the water eastward to rejoin the
Rio Loco near its mouth.
Water entering Guanica Bay therefore receives flow from the five smaller basins and associated
reservoirs: Lago Yahuecas, Lago Guayo, Lago Prieto, Lago Lucchetti, and Lago Loco (Fig. 1-2). The
altered watershed is approximately 391 square kilometers in size.
2 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
0 2.5 5
10
15
20
Figure 1-2. Map of the flow of water between watersheds that contribute water to Guanica Bay
The watershed includes an array of ecosystems including forests, mangroves, coral reefs, and a
bioluminescent bay. Historically there was also a large natural freshwater wetland and lagoon
system, which was drained in 1955 as part of an agricultural development project in the Lajas
Valley. Shallow, open water, occupying most of the lagoon, provided foraging habitat for resident
and migrant waterfowl, and the surrounding emergent vegetation was used for nesting by resident
aquatic birds. The gradual decline in water levels associated with the dry season extended foraging
opportunities for wading species. The lagoon also served as a sink for sediments and nutrients.
There is a proposed plan to restore Guanica Lagoon to reclaim its value as a wildlife refuge and
ecological resource (CWP 2008). Restoration of the Lagoon would reduce sediment, nitrogen, and
total phosphorus from moving into Guanica Bay and the coastal coral reef system.
More detailed information about the Guanica Bay watershed is included in Appendix B.
The population in the Guanica watershed is of relatively low density—there is only one small city
(Yauco) and several small towns and communities. Unemployment is high in Guanica (13.8%) and
Yauco (12.6%), and approximately 60% of the population lives below the poverty level.
Agriculture and tourism are two of the key economic sectors in the Guanica Bay watershed.
Current agriculture in the watershed is primarily coffee on the northern slopes and various fruit
and vegetable crops and pastureland in the Lajas Valley. Additional information on economics is
included in Appendix C.
The upper watershed (Yauco) is heavily farmed for coffee, however, the coffee yield has dropped in
the watershed from 21,527,000 pounds in 1998 to 14,476,000 pounds in 2002 (CWP 2008). This
was approximately 7% of the annual coffee grown in Puerto Rico and has a value of $2M.
Chapter 1. Introduction | 3
-------
Lajas Valley was established as an agricultural reserve in 1999, by enabling legislation, Law 277.
Agricultural production in Lajas Valley is economically important. On the lands owned by the
Puerto Rico Land Authority (2818 acres), farm income totaled $4,300,158 annually (2009-2010).
Crops include: coffee, citrus, plantains, bananas, tomatoes, peppers, papaya, pumpkins,
cantaloupes, and other vegetables. Area farmers also produce beef, pork, sheep, goats, and eggs.
Because this region has an extended dry season, agriculture in the Lajas Valley is only possible
because of the Lajas Valley irrigation system.
Tourism, an important component of Puerto Rican economy, supplies approximately $1.8 billion
annually. Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 3,407,483 visitors per year (excluding same-day
visitors) visited Puerto Rico. Three quarters of the visitors were from the Americas. Coral reefs
provide substantial benefits to communities throughout Puerto Rico. EPA and NOAA will be
conducting an economic valuation study of Puerto Rico's coral reef tourism and recreation to
better understand the economics associated with this sector. The study results will be provided for
all of Puerto Rico and for five regions in Puerto Rico (Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, Northwest,
and the islands of Culebra and Vieques).
Growth in the Guanica Bay watershed (urban and agricultural) has provided social and economic
benefits for residents. However, this same growth has led to reduced forest cover, draining of the
historic Guanica Lagoon and increased sediment and nutrient runoff. Coastal communities, such as
the city of Guanica, partially rely on fishing and tourism, both of which have been adversely
affected by diminishing coastal water quality, e.g., decline offish habitats such as coral reefs,
seagrasses and mangroves, as well as pathogens and contaminants in the coastal waters (Whitall
et al. 2013). The Center for Watershed Protection developed a Watershed Management Plan
(WMP) that proposed management actions to reduce sediment runoff and effects in the coastal
zone (CWP 2008).
1.2 Workshop Goals
EPA invited decision makers, scientists and other coral reef stakeholders in the Guanica Bay
Watershed to a workshop held at the University of Puerto Rico's Caribbean Coral Reef Institute in
La Parguera, Puerto Rico, on April 27-28, 2010. The workshop agenda is shown in Appendix D,
workshop participants in Appendix E, and a glossary in Appendix F.
Through a facilitated process, the workshop participants began to:
• Look at the watershed as a system
• Share a collaborative vision for sustainable coral reefs
• Initiate a systematic, deliberative process to analyze coastal and watershed decisions that
impact coral reefs and other ecosystems that provide services to humans
• Advance an integrative framework to incorporate the ecological, social, economic and legal
consequences of alternative decisions
There was also an optional working meeting on April 29, 2010. The purpose of the meeting on
April 29 was to (1) refine and detail the organizational framework and decision analysis process;
(2) consolidate findings from the workshop into workshop and research products that will support
the Guanica managers in their decision-making; and (3) discuss future potential interactions.
4 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
1.3 The Structured Decision Process
The USCRTF chose the Guanica Bay Watershed as a pilot watershed for their interagency efforts to
protect coastal and stream water quality, improve wildlife habitat and enhance near-shore coastal
and coral reef health through land-based management. Effective protection of coral reefs begins
with the recognition and appreciation of services they provide. Land-use and water management
decisions in the watershed are improved with full understanding of resulting economic and social
losses to downstream resources such as coral reefs. One of the greatest challenges of resource
management is melding scientific information and approaches with management needs and
objectives. Part of this challenge is simply a consequence of different cultures; scientists and
managers perceive aspects of any issue differently (Table 1-1). Nonetheless, management without
relevant facts and understanding of ecological concepts may result in unexpected adverse
outcomes; likewise research on issues over which managers have no authority may not be very
useful to the managers.
Table 1-1. Contrasting features of science and management cultures (adapted from Bernstein et al. 1993)
Aspect
Valued Action
Timeframe
Goals
Basis for Decisions
Expectations
Granularity
World View
Science
Research
That needed to gather evidence
Increase understanding
Scientific evidence
Understanding never complete
Focus on details, contradictions
Primacy of biological, physical, chemical
mechanisms; factors (including human
activities) heavily parameterized
Management
Decisions, plans
Immediate, short-term
Manage problems, set policy
Science, values, opinions, economics
Expect clear answers from science that
form the basis of decisions
Focus on broad outline
Primacy of political, social,
interpersonal, economic considerations;
factors often dealt with qualitatively
One way to approach this challenge is to apply a structured-deliberative process, which is simply
the give and take between scientists and managers to reach an appropriate course of action.
Analytic products—theories, results and scientific insights—inform the deliberative process to
determine a course of action, and the deliberative process concurrently frames scientific analysis
(Judd et al. 2005). The iterative process is intended to assist communication among decision-
makers and scientists and to reach a 'good' decision - "one that is consistent with what we know
(information), what we want (value and preferences), and what we can do (options)" (North and
Renn 2005; Dietz 1994). It is emphasized that scientific information is only one factor that
influences a decision (Fig. 1-3).
Given the recognized risks of over-reliance on scientific information for environmental
management (Gregory et al. 2006), the need for a structured decision process to effectively include
facts and values for better environmental decision-making is increasingly apparent (Gregory and
Keeney 2002). The general process is well documented (Failing et al. 2007; Gregory et al. 2012;
Carriger and Benson 2012), and is a key component of EPA's Decision Support Framework for
better inclusion of ecosystem services and stakeholder values into the decision-making process
(EPA 2009).
Chapter 1. Introduction | 5
-------
Social
Scientific
Economic
Characterization
Synthesis
Legal
Political
Technological
Public Value
Figure 1-3. Multiple factors influence steps in any decision-making process (EPA 2014a)
The Structured Decision Process entails five steps 1) Understand the Decision Context; 2) Define
Objectives; 3) Develop Decision Alternatives; 4) Evaluate Alternatives; and 5) Take Action.
According to Gregory et al. (2011), the first three steps are more qualitative and seek to establish
scope, goals, and value preferences, while the latter steps are more quantitative and serve to
assess and evaluate proposed actions developed in Steps 1-3. It should be noted that while the
process description is linear, its application is typically iterative with re-visiting of previous steps as
analysis of information and on-going deliberation improves understanding of the decision context
and subsequent management options. Each step is discussed in more detail below.
Step 1 - Understand the decision context
The first step in the structured-deliberative process is to establish the context for the management
problem. Environmental decisions will commonly have multiple stakeholder perspectives and
require a variety of data and information from environmental, economic, and social sciences.
Gathering and organizing information relevant to the decision is defining the decision landscape
(Rehretal. 2012).
The first step in describing the decision landscape is to frame the decision context (i.e., the
problem, issue, or reason for making a decision) that defines the scope of the information that will
be needed (Gregory et al. 2012). The decision context includes identifying all the stakeholders
(e.g., who is involved in a decision and their role in the decision process) as well as legal issues
(e.g., applicable laws and who is responsible for enforcing them) and historical issues and current
conditions.
Stakeholders generally fall into two broad categories: direct users and beneficiaries of the
ecosystem (e.g., commercial and recreational fishers), and information gatherers (e.g., scientists in
government agencies and academia). Communication among these groups is vital but not always
direct or sufficient. A Social Network Analysis (SNA) at this step provides a visual insight into who is,
and more importantly, who is not sharing in the information flow.
6 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
A systems-based conceptual model of the issue(s) to be resolved and the likely effects of different
decisions on the things that people care about can prove very useful for decision-makers. The
Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) conceptual model (Fig. 1-4) can be developed to
demonstrate relationships among the many issues in a decision context and provide a sense of
causes and effects and the likely tradeoffs (Bradley et al. 2013; EPA 1999).
T
Drivers
Pressures
State
Impact
Response <«-
Figure 1-4. The DPSIR framework
DPSIR is an inherently human-centric framework, and terminology can often confound discussion.
In DPSIR, the driving forces are the socio-economic sectors that support human needs. This
definition allows us to directly map the driving forces with the North American Industry
Classification Standards (NAICS) that economists use to derive socio-economic indicators, including
the gross domestic product. However, ecologists and other environmental scientists use the term
"driver" more generally - defining a driver as anything that drives a change in ecological condition.
This would include things like global climate change. This looser use of terminology presents a
problem when trying to develop the conceptual model, since climate is in truth a part of the natural
environmental state. The changes to climate can be anthropogenic (from human use of fossil fuels)
or part of a natural cycle. The EPA DPSIR definitions provide more precision and resolve this
conundrum. The definitions allow us to tease out the impact of human activities from natural
environmental processes.
Step 2 - Define objectives
Once the decision landscape is well formulated and bounded, and communication pathways are
clarified, the context and structure for inclusion of stakeholder values is established. Values can be
ecological, economic, social, or human health related.
Objectives reflect the values of stakeholders. Objectives are described with a direction of
preference (maximize or minimize) and an item of value (availability of quality habitat or costs)
(Mollaghasemi and Pet-Edwards 1997, Dunning et al. 2000, McDaniels 2000, Keeney 2007).
Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit values and structure objectives from
stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating decisions and
identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005).
Once elicited, the objectives are organized into an objectives hierarchy, which arranges objectives
from broad, or inclusive values to lower-level, specific accomplishments or actions. Evaluation
measures (i.e., attributes that can be used to evaluate performance toward higher-level objectives)
are at the bottom of the objectives hierarchy (Keeney 1992). When possible, objectives can be
prioritized in anticipation of tradeoffs to be made (not all objectives can be fulfilled) (Gregory and
Keeney 1994).
Chapter 1. Introduction | 7
-------
Step 3 - Develop decision alternatives
In the third step, alternatives for achieving the objectives are identified. Decision alternatives
should be considered only after objectives are understood. By fully considering the various options,
decision-makers can be more certain they will achieve the objectives (Payne et al. 1999). Eliciting
stakeholder input on decision alternatives is extremely important because stakeholders have
innovative ideas and a strong local sense of what is threatened, what is creating the threat, what
responses are feasible in their community and who or what might be affected by different
decisions.
Step 4 - Evaluate alternatives and select management option
The next step is to assess the options and assemble or provide scientific information to address
critical unknowns. Most decision situations can be characterized as a set of alternative options,
each with a set of consequences and varying degrees of uncertainty. Decision alternatives can be
rated for complexity (which affects the amount of time or cost to implement), effectiveness for the
proposed objective, and potential consequences to other objectives. Sensitivity and uncertainty
analysis will be a crucial element of all studies, as it assists in understanding the confidence that
can be placed in predictions and helps to identify critical needs for further research and data
collection. The level of confidence that decision-makers require in order to make a decision also
needs to be taken into account. Sometimes, if not often, new information will generate new
concerns, objectives, decision options or evaluation criteria.
Although not generated in the workshop, a consequence table is extremely helpful for evaluating
options and typically contains a matrix of potential effects of alternatives on performance
measures for objectives in each cell (Gregory et al. 2012). The consequence table provides a
feedback loop to earlier stages in the decision making process, including generating new
alternatives, identifying missing or insufficient objectives and performance measures, eliminating
dominated alternatives, identifying information sources for the impact of alternatives on
objectives, trade-off analysis, and appraising the impact of objectives on alternatives from the best
available information.
Once a consequence table is populated, the next step is to explore tradeoffs that stakeholders are
willing to make among the objectives (e.g., how much of one objective are they willing to sacrifice
to have more of another) (Keeney 1992). A variety of methods are available for considering
tradeoffs (e.g., direct ranking and swing weighting).
Step 5 - Take action
After deciding on a management that best meets objectives in Step 4, decision-makers must begin
implementation. This step often involves monitoring and adaptive management within a structured
decision-making process.
8 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder
Perceptions, and Management
of Coral Reef Resources
Three presentations were given during the first workshop session, each designed to help frame the
decision context. These included an overview of coral reef and coastal resources in southwestern
Puerto Rico, an overview of USDA-NRCS plans to reduce soil erosion in the watershed, and a
summary of the alternatives proposed in the WMP to protect coral reefs from further degradation
(CWP 2008). These presentations provided a common understanding of the Guanica Bay
Watershed Management Plan for the participants.
2.1 Status of Southwest Puerto Rico's Coral Reef and Coastal Resources
Summary of a Presentation given by Jorge (Reni) Garcia-Sais, Department of Marine Sciences,
UPRM
This presentation was intended to provide the workshop participants with a summary of the
extent, distribution, composition and condition of Puerto Rico's coral reef and coastal ecosystems.
Puerto Rico has fringing coral reefs with a total area of 3,370 km2 off the east, south and west
coasts (Wilkinson 2004, Burke and Maidens 2004). Puerto Rico's coral reef ecosystem is a complex
mosaic of interrelated habitats, including mangrove forests, seagrass beds and coral reefs (Garcia-
Sais 2008). Reefs in Puerto Rico were historically dominated by the reef-building coral taxa,
Montastraea annularis (complex), Agaricia agaricites, Montastraea cavernosa, Porites astreoides
and Colpophyllia natans. Dense thickets of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis provided
high relief in fore and back reef habitats (Morelock et al. 2001).
On Puerto Rico's southern coast, coral reefs fringe many small islands (such as those off La
Parguera and Guanica), and are found as extensive coral formations associated with the shoreline
at the mouths of coastal bays (such as Guanica Bay) (Garcia-Sais and Sabater 2004) (Fig. 2-1).
The Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program (PRCRMP), which is sponsored by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and administered by the Puerto Rico Department
of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER), was implemented in 1999-2002 to provide a
baseline characterization of Puerto Rico's coral reefs and to monitor water quality. Monitoring was
conducted in 27 areas within nine reserves. DNER identified the natural reserves of Mayaguez Bay,
Desecheo Island, Mona Island, Rincon, Guanica, Caja de Muerto Island, Ponce Bay, La Parguera,
Cordillera de Fajardo, and the islands of Culebra and Vieques as high-priority monitoring sites.
Baseline characterizations for these reef systems were prepared by Garcfa-Sais et al. (2001a,
2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2004, 2005, 2006). The baseline characterization and monitoring for the
Culebra Marine Reserve was prepared by Hernandez-Delgado (2003).
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 9
-------
La Parguera
*
Is la Maqueyes
Collado
San Cristobal
*"««" Laurel MediaLu
Turrumote II
Cana Gorda
Buoy ,C°"";a v Cayo
las Lajas \ Aurora
ImaqaOiUU CNts/Aslnum
Google
17.94471J" bn -60 . 300
Figure 2-1. Coral reefs at Guanica (source: CWP 2010, Morelock et al. 2001)
The monitoring program follows the CARICOMP protocols (CARICOMP 2001). At each reef,
quantitative measurements of the percent substrate cover by sessile-benthic categories and visual
surveys of species richness and abundance of fishes and motile megabenthic invertebrates were
performed along five permanent transects per station. Four stations are located on the south coast,
including sites off Guanica and La Parguera (Fig. 2-2).
' •
.
Figure 2-2. Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program - site locations
10 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
In the fall of 2005, record-breaking sea surface temperatures (SST) resulted in 14.3 degree heating
weeks. Corals start to feel stressed when the sea surface temperature is more than 1°C above the
average we expect to see in the hottest month. NOAA maps cumulative stress, or Degree Heating
Weeks (DHWs), by adding up the HotSpots over a 3-month period. DHWs pinpoint areas where
corals are at risk for bleaching. When DHW reaches 4°C-weeks (7.2°F-weeks), significant coral
bleaching is likely, especially in more sensitive species. When DHW is 8°C-weeks (14.4°F-weeks) or
higher, widespread bleaching and mortality from thermal stress may occur.
Comparison of satellite data from the previous 20 years confirmed that thermal stress from the
2005 Caribbean event was greater than the previous 20 years combined (Fig. 2-3).
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure 2-3. Thermal stress in the Caribbean (source: NOAA Coral Reef Watch, Mark Eakin)
A major bleaching event in the fall of 2005 was associated with high sea surface temperature (SST)
and was followed in 2006 by post-bleaching coral mass mortality. This caused drastic shifts in the
community structure of Puerto Rican coral reefs. Boulder Star Coral, Montastraea annularis, was
the most severely affected species, presenting large-scale mortalities throughout Puerto Rico. Reef
systems dominated by M. annularis suffered significant degradation (Figs. 2-4 and 2-5). Affected
corals were subsequently hit by outbreaks of white plague and yellow band disease, causing even
more colony and tissue loss. During the 2009 monitoring survey, live coral cover presented a
pattern of mild improvement in most reefs surveyed, particularly associated with what appears to
be an indication of partial recuperation of Montastraea annularis colonies previously affected by
bleaching.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 11
-------
Coral Species
Montastraea annularis
Colpophyllia natans
Montastraea cavernosa
Porites astreoides
Eusmilia fastigiata
Siderastrea siderea
Agaricia agaricites
Cayo Coral - Guanica
Figure 2-4. Percent coral cover (by species) at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guanica (Garcfa-Sais et al. 2014)
Cayo Coral
Live Coral
Sponges
Benthic Algae
Abiotic
Gorgonlans
Substrate Categories
Figure 2-5. Percent cover for 5 substrate categories at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guanica
(Garcfa-Sais et al. 2014)
12 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
2.2 Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico's Coral Reef and Coastal Resources
Summary of a presentation given by Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection
This presentation was intended to provide the workshop participants with an overview of the type,
duration and intensity of threats to Southwest Puerto Rico's coral reef and coastal ecosystems from
the agricultural watershed, and to describe the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan,
development process, participants and stakeholders, and planned actions.
NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program funded the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) to
create a model sub-watershed plan for a portion of the Guanica watershed. After meeting with
Federal government staff from NOAA, USGS, DNER, USDA/NRCS, academicians from the University
of Puerto Rico (UPR) and local farmers and residents, to better understand the historic and current
land use, farming practices, water usage, waste water treatment, local political constraints, and
condition of the Rio Loco and its contributing drainage area, it was determined that focusing on
only one sub-watershed may be a mistake as there were important challenges facing multiple areas
of the watershed. As a result, rapid assessment techniques were chosen to assess the watershed
including stream assessments evaluating general measures of stream stability and other visual
indicators (Kitchell and Schueler 2004) and visiting representative upland areas to evaluate
potential pollution sources and determining restoration and conservation opportunities throughout
the watershed (Wright et al. 2004).
After conducting the field study, CWP, DNER and NOAA worked together to identify priority
management recommendations and implementation strategies for the Guanica Watershed based
on a review of existing studies, input from local experts, observations from on-the-ground
assessments, CIS analysis of exposed soils and cropland, and customization of the Watershed
Treatment Model (WTM) to construct a rough nutrient and sediment budget for the watershed
and to estimate water quality benefits of identified implementation measures (Caraco 2001).
The priority management recommendations and implementation strategies were documented in
the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008). The field study and existing literature
helped identify potential pollutants that were impacting the Guanica Bay and the offshore coral
reefs, as well as the sources of those pollutants. These include increased loading of nitrogen,
sediment, bacteria, PAHs, PCBs and pesticides (Table 2-1).
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 13
-------
Table 2-1. Priority pollutants in the Guanica Bay/Rio Loco Watershed (source: CWP 2010)
Pollutant
Impact
Sources
Nitrogen Eutrophication, algae growth, enrichment Wastewater, fertilizers, stormwater
beyond tolerance of coral reefs runoff, atmospheric deposition
Sediment Deposition on reefs, effects on sediment Soil erosion, channel erosion, poor
intolerant reef organisms, sediment particles erosion and sediment control
leading to water temperature warming, practices, African dust
pollutants attached to sediment particles
Bacteria Health related illnesses due to water contact, Untreated wastewater, sewage
swimming, beach closures, source of overflows, stormwater runoff, pet
pathogens that effect coral reefs waste, animal waste, wildlife
PAHs Toxicity to coral reefs
DDT, PCBs Toxicity to coral reefs
Stormwater runoff of automobile
related contaminants, boat engine
discharge particularly 2-stroke engines
Legacy contaminants, erosion of legacy
sediments
2.2.1 The Problems
CWP found that five land-based activities were the source of most of the pollutants: 1) agriculture
on steep slopes, 2) historic irrigation infrastructure in stream channels, 3) cleared riparian areas,
4) increased impervious surfaces, and 5) sewage treatment. A brief discussion of each was
provided.
Agriculture on steep slopes
Puerto Rico is largely composed of mountainous and hilly terrain, with nearly one-fourth of the
island covered by steep slopes. The mountains are the easternmost extension of a tightly folded
and faulted ridge that extends from the Central American mainland across the northern Caribbean
to the Lesser Antilles. High amounts of agriculture on steep slopes can increase the amount of soil
erosion leading to increased sediment in streams, lakes and estuaries. Farms also export nutrients
to water bodies from inorganic fertilizers and non-stable organic residues.
Factors contributing to potential soil loss include the steepness and length of slope, surface cover,
rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, and management practices (Hillel 1998). These factors are all
present in the Guanica Bay Watershed. Coffee and other crops are being grown on high elevation
steep slopes with very little evidence of conservation practices. Sun-grown coffee without any
cover crop predominates, leaving soils more exposed to the elements, particularly drenching rains
typical during the rainy season. Hartemink (2006) estimated that sun-grown coffee results in
3.5 times more erosion than shade-grown coffee over the first several years after establishment.
14 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Historic irrigation infrastructure in stream channels
The Rio Loco contains head dams, concrete footers, and other structures that were previously used
for irrigation purposes. This relict infrastructure continues to act as strainers and constrictions in
the channel causing debris to become lodged and changes in erosive forces to destabilize banks,
which increases channel erosion, bed scour and sediment transport (Fig. 2-6).
Figure 2-6. Debris that had been captured by former railroad structures (photo provided by Paul Sturm)
Cleared riparian areas
Throughout the Guanica Bay Watershed, riparian zones have been completely eliminated as
humans have cleared land for agriculture or commercial and residential development. Removing
riparian vegetation increases the erodibility of stream banks and can also speed the rate of channel
migration. Severe erosion is associated with areas that lack mature riparian trees, particularly those
areas that contain non-native species that seem to exacerbate erosion (CWP 2008).
Increased impervious surfaces
Impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, driveways and parking lots eliminate rainwater
infiltration and increase stormwater runoff. While only approximately 2.3% of the Guanica Bay
watershed is currently impervious (Fig. 2-7), the urban areas of Yauco and Guanica have significant
amounts of impervious surfaces that convey untreated stormwater to the Rio Loco and Guanica
Bay respectively. Storm water picks up pollutants and carries them into storm sewer systems
during storm events. Common pollutants include oil and grease from roadways and parking lots,
pesticides and fertilizers from lawn treatment and maintenance, sediment from construction sites,
and carelessly discarded trash, such as cigarette butts, paper wrappers, and plastic bottles.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 15
-------
Unn. (HUCB)
rlHy*cteflc Uwtl (MUCW)
(WUC1?)
ri^c
e HJCO
NOAfl Uwvg^l 113991
IKWA Bttithic HabMt
R*d* GfcM (CotoO
GAP.IC Mi (HH.mU) AsncuHunl
auuc
COP USVI OTO'l AgKuNur* LW4
C-CW- USVi I2W 0
(1970
Figure 2-7. Impervious surfaces in the Guanica Bay watershed (shown in red) (source: EPA 2014b)
NOAA's Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Marine Sediments of Southwestern Puerto
Rico, National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality (Pait et al. 2007) found
relatively high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the sediment samples
in Guanica Bay. A fingerprinting analysis linked the PAHs primarily to automobile related sources.
During rain events, the PAHs are carried in stormwater runoff. These pollutants have very little
chance for attenuation or remediation due to the flashy nature of the Rio Loco and the loss of
Guanica Lagoon. EPA has classified seven PAH compounds as probable human carcinogens:
benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene.
Sewage
Sewage contains a variety of harmful pollutants, including disease-causing organisms, metals and
nutrients (EPA 2014c). Humans exposed to sewage-polluted water can develop waterborne
infections including hepatitis, gastroenteritis, as well as skin, wound, respiratory and ear infections.
Humans develop waterborne diseases after ingesting contaminated water, inhaling water vapors,
eating contaminated fish and shellfish, and swimming. The most common symptoms are diarrhea
and nausea (EPA 2011).
Scientific evidence also supports significant impact of sewage pollution on water quality and health
of seagrasses and corals. The most common response to sewage loading include an increase in
benthic algae and filter feeding invertebrates such as bryozoans, sponges, and tunicates, with a
corresponding decrease in the diversity and abundance of hermatypic corals (Pastorak and Bilyard
1985). Lapointe (1997) suggests that a critical nitrogen threshold for coral reefs may be 14 parts
per billion (ppb). Primary and secondary treated sewage is between 40,000 and 30,000 ppb.
16 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Pristine ocean waters are typically around 1 ppb. Recently, scientists found that a gut bacterium
found in human feces called Serratia marcescens causes white pox disease that affects Elkhorn
coral (Sutherland et al. 2011).
Puerto Rico's Water Quality Standards classify Guanica Bay's designated use to be SB: "Coastal
waters and estuarine waters intended for use in primary and secondary contact recreation, and for
propagation and preservation of desirable species, including threatened or endangered species".
The Water Quality Standards permit a limit of 5,000 ppb daily maximum allowable daily
concentration for total nitrogen (PR EQB 2010).
Two wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are located in tidal areas in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
Guanica WWTP has been recently upgraded with one additional module, increasing its capacity to
2 million gallons per day for secondary-advanced treatment. The Cana Gorda Beach WWTP handles
about 3000 gallons per day but has a treatment regime dictated by seasonal use of the public
beach and associated facilities. Also in the watershed, but not in the tidal areas, are two additional
WWTPs - Yauco and Lajas. Yauco has an NPDES permit to provide secondary treatment for an
average daily flow of 4.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater, and Lajas has an NPDES to
provide advanced secondary treatment with nutrient removal to a monthly average flow of
1.2 MGD, and to remove 85% of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and total suspended solids
(TSS).
However, many homes and businesses in the Guanica Bay Watershed are not connected to central
sewer systems; instead they utilize septic systems and cesspools or discharge directly into the Bay.
These sewage treatment methods or lack of treatment provide a nearly direct input of nutrients
into coastal waters due to discharging to groundwater that is likely hydrologically connected to
adjacent tidal water. Additionally, coastal resorts and beaches are often served by onsite sewage
treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS). These systems are akin to secondary treatment and
therefore provide very little reduction of nutrients.
2.2.2 Responding to the Problems
The Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) lays out a series of management
actions proposed to address these problems. Several key actions became the focus of the
workshop discussions and exercises:
Restoration of the historic Guanica Lagoon (top priority project)
There is a proposed plan to restore historic Guanica Lagoon in Barrio Arenas of Guanica. DNER and
EPA originally commissioned a study to evaluate the feasibility of restoring the Lagoon to reclaim
its value as a wildlife refuge and ecological resource. Gregory Morris Engineering (GME) was
contracted by DNER to conduct a hydrologic and hydraulic study of the lagoon. The resulting
reports: "Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Guanica Lagoon Restoration Impacts on Regulatory
Flood Levels" and "Guanica Lagoon Hydrology & Restoration Alternatives" were both prepared in
1999 (GME 1999a and 1999b). These reports have been updated, an extensive farm inventory has
been performed, and a salinity and ground water survey has been completed. The objective is to
look at the feasibility of partially or completely restoring the lagoon to maximize economic and
ecological benefits of the area while minimizing any impact on important agricultural lands in the
Lajas Valley. The lagoon served as a sink for sediments and nutrients-restoration of the Lagoon
would reduce an estimated 8,760 tons of sediment, 108 tons of total nitrogen, and over 8 tons of
total phosphorus annually from moving closer to Guanica Bay and the coastal coral reef system.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 17
-------
Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., sewage, erosion and storm water)
The second highest priority project in the WMP is a demonstration project to construct a series of
treatment wetland cells at the 850,000 GPD Guanica wastewater treatment plant to reduce
nutrient concentrations from secondary effluent before being discharged into Guanica Bay
(Fig. 2-8). This is important because secondary treatment only provides for minimal nutrient
reduction and tropical coastal systems, particularly coral reefs, are more sensitive to nutrient
enrichment than other coastal systems because of the extremely low natural [N] in these locations.
Figure 2-8. Proposed constructed treatment wetlands (photo provided by Paul Sturm)
NOAA and CWP are planning to convene a roundtable of experts and practitioners to develop
regional amendments to hydro seed mixtures and erosion control practices, stabilize up to 19 acres
of highly erodible bare soils in the Guanica Watershed, provide on-site demonstrations and erosion
control design and implementation training, and monitor the impact of the erosion control
techniques.
Several other projects are proposed, including pet waste cleanup and education and ordinance in
coastal cities such as Guanica to reduce transport of nutrients and pathogens in stormwater runoff,
rainwater collection systems in Guanica and Yauco, exploring the possibility of slower releases for a
longer duration from Rio Loco, and dredging of reservoirs that are filled beyond their capacity.
18 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Agricultural BMPs are practical, cost-effective actions that farmers can take to reduce the amount
of pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and other pollutants entering waterbodies, and to conserve
water supply. BMPs are designed to benefit water quality and water conservation while
maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production. Several BMPs were proposed in the WMP.
Through their Coastal and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Caribbean Ecological
Services Field Office of the FWS, has begun working in close cooperation with USDA/NRCSto
promote sun-to-shade coffee and riparian reforestation initiatives in the extended upper
watershed of the Rfo Loco in Yauco as part of the Guanica Bay Watershed Restoration Plan.
The FWS is providing plant material and technical assistance, in conjunction with NRCS and
Envirosurvey, to contact farmers and orient them on the initiative, evaluate the farm for
treatments, assist the farmer with the layout for planting shade trees, and certifying the practice
once tree seedlings are planted (Fig. 2-9). NRCS provides technical assistance and incentives to the
farmers for planting the trees and other practices.
Figure 2-9. FWS and farmers surveying a farm (A), the Envirosurvey nursery (B), and plants delivered to
the farmer (C) (photos provided by USF&WS)
Upland erosion in the coffee growing regions was identified as a land-based source of pollution
where steep slopes, high tropical rainfall patterns, and highly erodible lands exist. Converting from
sun-grown coffee to shade-grown coffee keeps the sediment on the farms and out of waterbodies.
Early successes in the Guanica Bay to convert to shade-grown are ongoing but several obstacles still
exist to ensure shade-grown coffee growers are economically successful. The CWP planned to hold
a Shade-Grown Coffee Roundtable to: 1) assist farmers in Puerto Rico growing shade-grown coffee
to improve marketing and receive a higher premium and return for shade-grown products; 2) bring
together a group of experts and farmers to convene a discussion about how to the achieve the
above; and 3) identify domestic/Puerto Rico coffee markets as well as international and Caribbean
markets.
NRCS is also planning demonstration projects on several farms in the relatively unstable area of the
Rio Loco between Yauco and the La Laguna community to remove old irrigation infrastructure and
plant native species of trees to promote bank stability. Conservation buffers, which are
permanently vegetated areas or strips of land designed to intercept pollutants and manage other
environmental concerns, are being promoted (Fig. 2-10). Strategically placed buffer strips in the
agricultural landscape can effectively mitigate the movement and export of sediment, nutrients,
and pesticides. It is anticipated that these demonstration projects will showcase the benefits of
these best management practices and lead to a more comprehensive program to improve stream
stability and buffers in the watershed.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 19
-------
Zone 2
Zone 3
Figure 2-10. Illustration showing a buffer strip design for an agricultural landscape. Zone 1 shows native
trees, Zone 2 shows native woody vegetation (shrubs), and Zone 3 would be the agricultural zone.
Education and Outreach
Finally, the watershed management plan (CWP 2008) proposed development of programs that
would introduce children and their parents to the coral reefs, fisheries, and the importance of both
to ecological health and the economy. The programs would include conservation-based activities
that enable participants to learn as a group and to learn from experience. Experiential learning
experiences have been shown to have a strong positive impact on changing environmental
conservation attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.
2.3 USDA's Detailed Plans for the Guanica Watershed
Summary of a presentation given by Jose Castro, USDA NRCS
This presentation was intended to provide the workshop participants with an overview of USDA's
plans for the Guanica Bay watershed.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) works with
private landowners to help them conserve, maintain and improve their natural resources. NRCS
emphasizes voluntary, science-based conservation, technical assistance, partnerships, incentive-
based programs, and cooperative problem solving at the community level.
NRCS and its conservation partners have started a project to reduce land-based sources of
pollutants in the Guanica Bay Watershed through soil conservation practices on agricultural land
and water (Table 2-2). NRCS will provide technical and financial assistance to eligible land stewards
on eligible lands to improve soil conditions and water qualities impaired by nonpoint source
pollutants, as well as increase the efficiency of water management for agricultural purposes. These
practices will help improve the fertile valley lands, restore infrastructure and agricultural irrigation,
and protect adjacent coral reefs.
20 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Table 2-2. Agricultural practices that potentially affect water quality (source: UNEP 1998).
Agricultural
Activity Potential Impact on Surface Waters
Tillage/ploughing Sediment/turbidity: sediments carry nutrients and pesticides adsorbed to
sediment particles; siltation and loss of habitat, spawning ground, etc.
Fertilizing Nonpoint source pollution, especially nutrients, leads to eutrophication, excess
algae growth leading to deoxygenation of water and fish kills
Manure spreading Nonpoint source pollution containing pathogens, metals and nutrients leads to
eutrophication and potential contamination.
Pesticides Nonpoint source pollution leads to contamination of surface water and biota;
dysfunction of ecological system in surface waters by loss of top predators due to
growth inhibition and reproductive failure; public health impact from eating
contaminated fish.
Irrigation Runoff of fertilizers and pesticides to surface waters leads to ecological damage,
bioaccumulation in edible fish species, etc.
Clear-cutting Erosion of land leads to high levels of turbidity, siltation of bottom habitat, etc.
Hydrologic regime is disrupted and changed.
The Upper Rio Loco watershed has very steep slopes and humid subtropical forest vegetation.
Conservation goals are to reduce erosion, improve water quality and quantity, improve forest
habitat for wildlife, and apply conservation practices like tree and shrub planting, nutrient and pest
management and riparian forest buffers. NRCS and the USFWS Caribbean Field Office are
partnering to provide technical assistance to area stakeholders to convert sun coffee plantations
to shade to improve wildlife habitat.
The Lower Rio Loco watershed has flat slopes and dry subtropical forest vegetation. Conservation
objectives are to reduce erosion and sediment deposition from the upper watershed, improve
water quality and quantity for irrigation, manage flooding and stabilize riverbanks. Conservation
practices include: water management, sediment basins, nutrient and pest management, tillage
systems using residues and cover crops, and runoff control. NRCS, the PR Department of
Agriculture and the PR Land Authority are partnering to assist stakeholders.
The conservation objectives of the Guanica Watershed Project will be addressed though the
execution of 2008 Farm Bill conservation programs in partnership with federal, state and local
agencies and the support of local NGOs. Over $2 million in assistance will be devoted to
implementation of projects on private lands through Conservation Technical Assistance Program
(CTA), the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), and the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP).
The Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA) is a voluntary conservation network that
fosters partnership between NRCS, conservation districts, state conservation agencies, and private
landowners. This assistance may be in the form of resource assessment, practice design, resource
monitoring, or follow-up of installed practices. Although the CTA program does not include
financial or cost-share assistance, clients may develop conservation plans, which can serve as a
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 21
-------
springboard for those interested in participating in USDA financial assistance programs. CTA
planning can also serve as a door to financial assistance and easement conservation programs
provided by other Federal, State, and local programs.
The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) provides financial assistance to implement
conservation practices. Owners of land in agricultural production or persons who are engaged in
livestock or agricultural production on eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. Program
practices and activities are carried out according to an EQIP program plan of operations developed
in conjunction with the owner/producer that identifies the appropriate conservation practice or
measures needed to address the resource concerns. Contracts are offered with a minimum term
that ends one year after the implementation of the last scheduled practices and a maximum term
often years.
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program that provides technical and financial
assistance to private landowners and Tribes to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange
for retiring eligible land from agriculture. The program offers three enrollment options:
1. Permanent Easement is a conservation easement in perpetuity. USDA pays 100 percent
of the easement value and up to 100 percent of the restoration costs.
2. 30-Year Easement is an easement that expires after 30 years. USDA pays up to
75 percent of the easement value and up to 75 percent of the restoration costs.
3. Restoration Cost-Share Agreement is an agreement to restore or enhance the wetland
functions and values without placing an easement on the enrolled acres. USDA pays
up to 75 percent of the restoration costs.
Stage 1: In 2010, NRCS allocated $1 million in federal and state funds for the project's first stage
sediment control and restoration of irrigation systems on Santa Rita and Maria Antonia farms in
Guanica Valley. Practices to be installed during this first stage include three 3-acre water reservoirs,
two 3-acre sediment basins, 5,500 linear feet of open channels, 6,000 linear feet of pipeline, 4,500
feet of grassed waterways, and pump houses with irrigation system upgrades to serve
approximately 900 acres.
Stage 2: In 2011, NRCS plans to allocate $1 million for the second stage to connect the Puerto Rico
Electric Power Authority (PREPA) irrigation channel with a 6,000 foot, 18" pipeline to the first stage,
and at the same time restore irrigation systems and runoff control on Fraternidad farms in Guanica.
Conservation practices to be installed in this second stage include 6,000 linear feet of water
conveyance, pump houses, two water reservoirs, one sediment basin, and irrigation water system
upgrades to serve approximately 350 acres.
Both stages 1 and 2 include stabilization projects along the riverbanks of Rio Loco. Three initial
riverbank segments (Las Lajas sector, the former irrigation channel crossing, and the old bridge
pilasters of the Sugar Cane train) will be reconstructed using bioengineering.
Stage 3: Planning will be initiated in Fiscal Year 2012 to restore the existing runoff control channel
system and restore agricultural irrigation and sediment control systems in the Cano section of
Guanica. As part of this project, NRCS helped local landowners and community leaders form the
new Southwestern Soil and Water Conservation District (SWSCD). The Southwest District will
administer construction of the NRCS Guanica Bay Watershed projects.
22 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge about
Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems
Using a Systems Framework (DPSIR)
The second workshop session began with a presentation on systems thinking and the DPSIR
framework. This presentation set the stage for three breakout groups to discuss and characterize
specific decision scenarios that had been outlined in the management plan (CWP 2008). These
were:
1. Change Agricultural Practices
Removal of historic irrigation system
Stream bank riparian plantings near farms
Cover crops at high elevation farms
Switch from sun to shade-grown coffee [through subsidies]
2. Restore Guernica Lagoon
Re-flooding of the lagoon
Restoration of wetland vegetation
Monitoring of discharge into the lagoon
3. Low Impact Development
Rainwater collection systems
Stormwater runoff treatment centers
Hydro seeding of bare soil associated with roads and homes
Enhanced wetlands for sewage treatment
Pet waste cleanup ordinances in coastal cities
3.1 Systems Thinking and Example DPSIR
Systems thinking focuses on understanding how a system's constituent parts interrelate and how
the system works over time and within the context of larger systems. Systems thinking is extremely
effective at resolving difficult problems. Examples of types of problems where systems thinking can
result in improved decision-making include:
• Complex problems that involve helping many actors see the "big picture" and not just
their part of it;
• Recurring problems or those that have been made worse by past attempts to fix them;
• Issues where an action affects (or is affected by) the environment surrounding the issue,
either the natural environment or the competitive environment; and
• Problems whose solutions are not obvious (Aronson 1996).
Use of systems thinking when approaching a problem may result in strikingly different conclusions
than those generated by traditional forms of analysis, especially when what is being studied is
dynamically complex or has a great deal of feedback.
EPA's Coral Reefs Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) adopted the European
Environmental Agency's DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response) framework
to show the broad array of human interactions with coral reefs, and for examining consequences
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 23
-------
(e.g., changes in benefits, costs and sustainable delivery of ecosystem services) across multiple
socioeconomic sectors (EEA 1999). DPSIR has been used by the United Nations to organize
information about the state of the environment in relation to human activities (UNEP 2007).
The utility of a DPSIR framework lies in its transparency to stakeholders and its ability to organize
components and relationships among components are clearly obvious. It also brings a capacity to
isolate particular linkages and interactions while retaining conceptual relevance to the larger
system. The framework does not capture every situation perfectly but is a reasonable means to
depict the many social, economic and ecological interactions of any resource decision.
The framework assumes cause-effect relationships between interacting components of social,
economic, and environmental systems (Pierce 1998; Smeets and Weterings 1999), which are:
• Driving Forces: The factors that motivate human activities. Driving Forces can be divided into
economic and social categories. Ultimately, Social and Economic Driving Forces arise within a
society as the means to fulfill basic human needs, which have been consistently identified as
the necessary conditions and materials for good life, good health, good social relations,
security, and freedom. Hence, Economic Driving Forces fulfill core human needs for food and
raw materials, water, culture, security, health, shelter, and infrastructure; and Social Driving
Forces fulfill human needs for social relations, equity, governance, value fulfillment (e.g.,
environmentalism) and cultural identity. The spatial distribution and intensity of Driving Forces
varies-they can originate and act globally, regionally or locally.
• Pressures: Human activities, derived from the functioning of Social and Economic Driving Forces
that induce changes in the environment. Pressures are not stressors. Stressors are the naturally
occurring components of state that are changed by pressures (e.g., land development [the
pressure] - increases sediment [the stressor] in the coastal zone, which then may stress the
ecological components of the reef).
• State: Natural systems (e.g., the quantity and quality of physical, chemical, and biological
components). Chemical, physical and biological processes interact to affect different ecosystem
components (e.g. chemicals, biological species) that can be measured by their attributes
(metrics of quantity or quality). Abiotic State includes the non-living chemical and physical
factors in the environment, which affect the survival, growth, and distribution of living
organisms in the Biological State. Abiotic phenomena underlie all of biology. The Abiotic State
reflects the magnitude, frequency, and concentration of abiotic components of the
environment including:
* Physical environment (e.g., climate, air and sea temperature, precipitation, storms and
hurricanes, drought, hydrology, ocean circulation patterns, fire)
* Chemical environment (e.g., nutrients, pH, atmospheric C02 levels, salinity,
contaminants)
Biotic State includes the biological components of the ecosystem and their interactions,
including humans. In general, this includes sessile plants or animals that provide the living
habitat and base of the food web that supports higher trophic levels. Biological condition
may be measured by individual- or community-level attributes, including:
* Living habitat (e.g., deserts, wetlands, forests, grasslands, coral reefs, agricultural lands)
* Inhabitants (e.g., birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates)
* Invasive/non-native species (e.g., plants, animals, insects)
* Microorganisms and pathogens (e.g., decomposers, mycorrhizae, bacteria, fungi, viruses)
24 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
• Impact: delivery of ecosystem goods and services as a consequence of changes in ecological
state. Ecosystem services, in particular, are the benefits that ecosystems can provide. Other
factors, such as human health, habitat, and behavior also contribute to human well-being.
Human well-being is an abstract concept that captures a mixture of people's life circumstances
and quantifies the degree of fulfillment of basic human needs for food, water, health, security,
culture, and shelter.
• Response: A key benefit in using the DPSIR framework is that it explicitly includes an Action or
Response component that can be taken at any level of the causal network. In the DPSIR
framework, Responses are actions taken by groups or individuals in society and government to
prevent, compensate, ameliorate or adapt to changes in the state of the environment.
Generation of a comprehensive framework to link ecological and socioeconomic factors, even an
introductory version, is significant because it has never been attempted for coral reefs. For
decades, scientists have conducted research to assess and understand the ecological phenomena
of coral reefs around the world. While the body of information is extensive, it is unevenly
distributed across disciplines, times and places. Consequently, the information has not been
effectively used to identify gaps and prioritize research; nor has it been easily synthesized into
concepts and tools for conservation that resonate with stakeholders and influence management.
This situation is not unique to coral reefs, a recent commentary (Curran 2009) suggests that there
are currently no single programs capable of delivering overall support (including social and
economic perspectives) to environmental decision-making, and emphasizes the need for further
research on viable decision-support frameworks. Application of the DPSIR framework will better
ensure that we do not overlook critical relationships and that we recognize the full consequence of
a decision to related parts of the larger system (O'Connor and McDermott 1997).
During the Guanica workshop, Dr. William Fisher, EPA, walked through an example DPSIR,
demonstrating how it might be used to display knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems
and linkages between human-ecosystem interactions. The facilitator used CmapTools software
(Canas et al. 2004) to construct a concept map of a coral reef and some associated human
influences. Concept maps are graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge, which
include concepts, usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type, and relationships between
concepts indicated by a connecting line linking two concepts. Words on the line, referred to as
linking words or linking phrases, specify the relationship between the two concepts.
In this example, Dr. Fisher began with one Driving Force-the tourism and recreation economic
sector. Coral reef-based tourism and recreation used to be an important industry in the Guanica
Bay Watershed. The tourism and recreation industry includes facilities and services for various
cultural, entertainment, and recreational interests of residents and tourists, such as swimming,
diving and snorkeling; cruise ships; recreational fishing and boating; and the infrastructure needed
to support the industry, including hotels, restaurants, and transportation. In the concept map,
these were introduced as Driver sub-sectors, and recreational fishing was chosen as an example for
demonstration purposes (Fig. 3-1). Participants added harvesting, by-catch and waste; anchor, gear
and boat groundings; and oil, metals and sewage discharge as Pressures generated by recreational
fishing, and identified changes in State from these pressures included effects on the harvested
species, namely invertebrates, fish and sponges (Fig. 3-2).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 25
-------
j Tourism and Recreation)
Transportation Energy Hotels &
Figure 3-1. Driving Force-tourism and recreation economic sector
Next, Dr. Fisher asked which pressures resulted from the economic sub-sectors. In this example he
focused on recreational fishing and recreational boating. The pressures included harvesting, by-
catch and waste; anchor, gear and boat groundings; and oil, metals and sewage discharge (Fig. 3-2).
Tourism and Recreation j
Drivers
Pressures
Harvesting,
by-catch
& waste
Anchor, gear
& boat
1 groundings
Oil, metals & |
sewage
discharge
Figure 3-2. Pressures associated with recreational fishing and boating
Focusing down again, Dr. Fisher asked what organisms were being harvested, and identified
invertebrates, fish and sponges (Fig. 3-3).
Further construction of the map illustrated how more complex relationships could be captured.
Recreational fishing and boating were additionally linked to oil, metals and sewage discharge
pressures (Fig. 3-4). To account for physical and chemical changes (rather than biological and
ecological) a separate State category was introduced. Changes in environmental state were shown
to have an effect on ecological state, including invertebrates, fish, sponges, stony corals,
octocorals, seagrasses, mangroves and macro-algae, in the DPSIR map (Fig. 3-4).
26 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
[Tourism and Recreation J
Drivers
Pressures
State
(Environmental)
State
(Ecological)
including
Recreational
sport fishing
leads to
Harvesting,
by-catch
& waste
Invertebrates J f Fish J f Sponges
Recreational
boating
Figure 3-3. An initial coral reef DPSIR conceptual map showing one example Driving Force (recreational
fishing) creating a Pressure (harvesting, by-catch and waste) that affects the State of harvested organisms
(invertebrates, fish and sponges)
Drivers
Pressures
State
(Environmental)
State
(Ecological)
[Tourism and Recreation J
decrease
[Harvesting,
by-catch
& waste
damage
Contaminants J
\
influence
[ Invertebrates J f Fish J ( Sponges
rate) [seagrasses] [Mangroves] [ "acroalgae
Figure 3-4. Changes in environmental and ecological State associated with recreational fishing and boating
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 27
-------
Participants then identified a wide range of ecosystem services that would be impacted by an
altered ecological state, and these were added to the model in the Impact category (Fig. 3-5). The
list included services that directly benefit humans (food, erosion control, Pharmaceuticals, tourism
and recreation), as well as supporting services-the processes and functions that underlie many
ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity, primary production, and nutrient cycling).
[Tourism and Recreation j
State
(Ecological)
Invertebrates]^ Fish )_[ Sponges ]_J Stony corals ] [octocorals J f Seagrasses 1 [ Mangroves J [ Macroalga
' Erosion 1 f Land
control J [ formation ^
CaCO3
deposition
Primary
production
Pharmaceuticals &
aquarium fish
f Aesthetic 1
quality
Tourism &
recreation
Nutrient
cycling
Figure 3-5. Ecosystem services affected by recreational fishing and boating
Most of the services provided by coral reefs are affected by Driver sub-sectors other than tourism
and recreation, such as swimming, diving and snorkeling; cruise ships; and infrastructure, so these
were added back into the conceptual map with appropriate links to Pressures. Additional Pressures
generated by these Drivers were introduced, including beach re-nourishment, sunscreen, trampling,
dredging, greenhouse gas emissions, point and non-point source discharges, hydrology, and
shoreline alterations (Fig. 3-6).
28 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
[Tourism and Recreation )
Transportation 1 [ Energy 1 Hotels &
rr—Tl I Economic I [ Erosion 1 Land ] f CaC03 ] { Primary 1 f Pharmaceuticals &1 Aesthetic Tourism 8> Nutrient Trophic
lFcodJ benefits control [ formation J deposition production aquarium fish | quality ][ recreation J [ cycling ) [redundancy)
Figure 3-6. Additional tourism and recreation subsectors generate additional Pressures and changes in
environmental and ecological State. Services provided by coral reefs (Impact) remain unchanged
In developing the DSPIR framework, an important next step was to incorporate potential responses
that could mitigate adverse changes in Impact. The participants suggested several management
and policy options including recreational fishing regulations and enforcement, market incentives,
tourism policies, damage assessment and mitigation, coastal zone management and marine
protected areas (Fig. 3-7). Many other policies that were related to tourism and recreation
infrastructure were identified, such as land use zoning, building permits, point and nonpoint
pollution control, Clean Water Act enforcement, agricultural best management practices and CCh
emission regulations. These policies regulate or define responses.
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 29
-------
[Tourism and Recreation )
f Transportation J [ Ene
Hydrology & 1 f Point-sou
pH Temperature Contaminants Microbes I Nutrients Salinity
Mangroves Macroalgae
@ Economic
[ benefits
nfluenced by influenced by
Market CO2 emission Agricultural Land use I Building
forces regulations BMPs zonlno permits
NPDES I BiOCriteria Non-poinl
Figure 3-7. Responses that could be implemented to mitigate the impact of the tourism and recreation
sector
The last step in the example of building a DPSIR was to demonstrate how different potential
responses could be applied in different parts of the framework. Most of the suggested Responses
were related to curbing a Pressure (Fig. 3-8) but Responses could be applied to any section of the
DPSIR framework. For example, changes in market forces (such as tax incentives and subsidies)
would act at the level of Impact and land use zoning would act at the Driver level. The importance
of this last step was to illustrate that responses can be leveraged at several levels and that no single
response may be sufficient to alter adverse impact.
30 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
[Tourism and Recreation j
control formation deposition production
Figure 3-8. Responses aligned with Drivers and Pressures
3.2 DPSIR Breakout Groups
Following the DPSIR presentation, workshop participants broke into small groups to develop three
DPSIRs around topics based upon management actions proposed in the Guanica Bay Watershed
Management Plan (CWP 2008). The goals of the DPSIR breakout groups were to 1) use the DPSIR
framework to characterize information related to a management response (agricultural practices,
lagoon restoration, low impact development) and the effects on persistence of reefs and the
delivery of ecosystem services; 2) identify the current state-of-knowledge on human-environ-
mental relationships affecting coral reef and coastal ecosystems management in southwest Puerto
Rico; and 3) summarize this knowledge in a framework that links the various components of the
human-environmental system in southwest Puerto Rico.
Each breakout group had a facilitator and a note-taker who captured the discussion into DPSIR
using the CmapTools software. The management actions were grouped into three categories:
• Change Agricultural Practices
* Remove historic irrigation system
* Re-vegetate riparian zones near farms
* Plant cover crops on farms with steep slopes
* Switch from sun to shade-grown coffee [through subsidies]
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 31
-------
• Restore Guanica Lagoon
* Re-flood the Lagoon
* Restore wetland vegetation
* Monitor water discharge into Guanica Lagoon
• Low Impact Development
* Construct rainwater collection systems
* Construct stormwater runoff treatment centers
* Hydro seeding of bare soil associated with roads and homes
* Construct wetlands for sewage treatment
* Enact pet waste cleanup ordinances in coastal communities
The facilitators guided the participants through the process of building the DPSIR, beginning with
the management action (Response) and tracking vertically through Pressure, State, Impact, and
Drivers. Note-takers began with a template that showed the DPSIR running from top to bottom,
and the Responses running along the top (Fig. 3-9). The template was projected on a screen and
the DPSIR was completed in real-time during the breakout discussions.
| Low Impact Development I
Lagoon Restoration
Changes in Agricultural Practices
What are possible 1
anagement actions? I
Drivers
Economic
Sectors
Rainwater collection
systems
Who is creating
the pressures
or could be
affected by
decisions?
Stormwater runoff
treatment centers
Hydroseeding
Riparian
plantings
near farms
Convent to
shade grown
Figure 3-9. Template used by Cmap note-takers to develop the DPSIRs
32 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
The facilitators asked a series of questions:
• Why is this management action proposed? What Pressures or human activities is it
intended to reduce?
• What effect do these Pressures or human activities have on the State of the ecosystem,
abiotic and biotic (environmental and ecological)?
• What are the Impact on benefits to humans provided by the ecosystem?
Why should we care about the State of coral reefs?
• What social or economic sectors (Drivers) benefit from ecosystem services?
What other sectors could be affected by any decisions (Drivers)?
As the participants responded to the questions, a basic DPSIR concept map was completed. The
facilitator then guided the participants to further complete the DPSIR map by brainstorming
additional decision points where something else could change a Driver, Pressure, State or Impact
and then identifying the corresponding decisions (Reponses), pointing them to the decision point in
the framework. Most Reponses point to Pressures or Drivers, but some pointed to State or Impact.
The note-taker continued to add more DPSIR boxes as participants continued to brainstorm.
Throughout the process, the facilitator captured discussions on a flip chart. For each decision, the
facilitator elicited information about the decision (Who makes the decision? Who is impacted?
What tools and information are needed? How do you value benefits and costs?). Finally, the
facilitator asked the participants to prioritize the decisions and to identify what would determine
the priority of decisions (e.g., money, politics, scientific knowledge, confidence in result). The
facilitators also emphasized that decisions at one level may have repercussions at another level
(i.e., a decision to limit Pressures will have a consequence for Drivers).
3.2.1 Agricultural Practices
A set of Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) were proposed in the Guanica Bay
Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008), some of which were being implemented throughout
the watershed (Chapter 2). The breakout group began to develop an Agricultural Practices DPSIR
around those management actions (cover crops, riparian plantings, shade-grown coffee, and
removal of historic irrigation systems). Dr. Fisher (EPA) facilitated the Agricultural Practices DPSIR
breakout group and Dr. Amanda Rehr (Carnegie Mellon) was the Cmap note-taker.
The group began with the DPSIR template for the Agricultural Practices Management Actions that
were proposed in the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan. These included converting sun-
grown coffee to shade-grown coffee, removing historic irrigation infrastructure, planting cover
crops and planting riparian areas near farms (Fig. 3-10).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 33
-------
Guanica Bay Watershed
Responses
Changes in Agricultural Practices |
What management
actions were
proposed in the GBWMP?
Convert to
shade grown
Removal
of historic
irrigation
system
Plant cover I
I crops I
Riparian I
plantings I
near farms I
Pressure
Human
Activities
Impact
Ecosystem
Services
Drivers
Economic
Sectors
Figure 3-10. DPSIR template for the Agricultural Practices breakout group
The facilitator asked a series of questions to facilitate the development of the DPSIR Cmap. The first
questions focused on the Pressures.
• Why is this management action proposed?
• What Pressures or human activities is it intended to reduce?
The group identified a suite of stressors, including: scouring, sediment transport, erosion, fertilizer,
nitrogen loadings, phosphorus, and legacy contaminants (Fig. 3-11).
34 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
[Changes in Agricultural Practices j
Removal
of historic
irrigation
system
What activities
are creating
stress?
Impact
Ecosystem
Services
legacy
contaminants
(PCB's, DDT's)
Drivers
Economic
Sectors
Figure 3-11. Pressures associated with Agricultural Practices (developed during the DPSIR breakout session)
As the discussion turned to changes in State from the identified Pressures, the concept map
became much more complex (Fig. 3-12). Suggestions for changes in environmental
(physical/chemical) State included effects on water quality, air quality, soil quantity and quality,
natural hydrology, stream bank stability, habitat for birds and wildlife, groundwater recharge and
evapotranspiration rates among others. Potential changes in ecological State included effects on
biodiversity and species richness, population abundance and reproduction, algal growth, coral reef
condition, other aquatic species condition (freshwater and marine), native and invasive species and
agricultural production.
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 35
-------
Changes in Agricultural Practices
Evapotranspiration I
Rates |
Figure 3-12. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Agriculture (developed during the workshop
breakout group session)
Several topics were raised to address the question of Impact, or changes in services provided by
the affected ecosystems. These included agriculture and fisheries (food provision); provision of
drinking water and future Pharmaceuticals; shoreline protection, flood protection and coastal
property values; and tourism, recreation and the aesthetic value of the environment. Some
ecosystem services were aggregated into broader concepts during the discussion, such as human
wellbeing (cultural identity and mental health [peace of mind] created by aesthetic values of nature
and sense of stewardship from ecological integrity) and economics (increased production efficiency
created by higher productivity and lower costs in a shorter period of time).
A consequence of the discussion was not only a more complex map (Fig. 3-13) but also a better
understanding of how ecosystems benefit humans socially, economically and spiritually.
Unfortunately, there was insufficient time in the breakout session to discuss Drivers and additional
Response topics, but additional information from later discussions (Table 3-1) were included in the
final Agricultural Practices conceptual map (Fig. 3-14).
36 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Changes in Agricultural Practices
Figure 3-13. Ecosystem services (Impact) associated with changes in Ecosystem State (identified during the
Agricultural Practices breakout group session)
The group did not have time to discuss the Drivers, or to brainstorm additional Responses.
By the end of the breakout group session, the group had produced a basic DPSIR for Agricultural
Practices in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 37
-------
Changes in Agricultural Practices
Pharmaceuticals
Cultural 1 f Mental Health 1
Identity I (Peace of Mind)
Figure 3-14. Final Agricultural Practices DPSIR (developed during the breakout group session)
Additional discussions not reflected in the DPSIR were captured on a flipchart (Table 3-1), and were
incorporated into the final consolidated DPSIR for the Guanica Bay Watershed (Figs. 3-28a and b,
see pages 55 and 56).
38 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Table 3-1. Topics captured on the flipchart but not included in the basic Agricultural Practices DPSIR
Coral Reef State
Migration of
species
Deep hydrology
Reproduction
Biodiversity
Algal growth
Coral abundance
Coral mortality
CO2N2 fixation
Terrestrial State
Habitat for birds/wildlife
Soil quality
Invasive species
Shoreline
Protection
Property values
Flood protection
Other
Ecosystem
Services
Spiritual
Cultural
Aesthetic
Improve air
quality
Shade-Grown Coffee
Less disease
Less pesticides
Less nutrients
Base flows
Groundwater discharge
Better coffee
Increased vegetation
Species richness/native
species
Drinking water
Stewardship
Less coffee/higher value
3.2.2 Lagoon Restoration
The restoration of the historic Guanica Lagoon is identified as the top priority management action
in the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan. Ms. Kelly Black (Neptune and Company, Inc.)
facilitated the Agricultural Practices DPSIR breakout group, and Ms. Leah Oliver (EPA) was the
Cmap note-taker.
Restoration of the lagoon includes three major actions: reconnecting the historical Rio Loco
watershed and floodplain with the Guanica Lagoon; restoring the wetland vegetation in the lagoon;
and establishing long-term monitoring of the water discharge rates from Lago Loco to ensure
sustainable flow rates for the Guanica Lagoon and the and Rio Loco. The group began with the
DPSIR template for the Lagoon Restoration Management Actions that were proposed in the
Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (Fig. 3-15).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 39
-------
Lagoon Restoration
Response
Decisions
What are possible I
management actions? I
Monitoring I
of discharge 1
rates 1
Reflooding I
of lagoon
Restoration I
of wetland 1
vegetation 1
Drivers
Economic
Sectors
Pressure
Human
Activities
State
Ecosystem
Impact
Ecosystem
Services
Drivers
Economic
Sectors
Figure 3-15. DPSIR template for the Lagoon Restoration breakout group
The facilitator asked a series of questions to facilitate the development of the DPSIR Cmap. The first
two questions focused on the Pressures.
• Why is this management action proposed?
• What Pressures or human activities is it intended to reduce?
The group identified two main categories of pressures (non-point source pollution and
development/construction) (Fig. 3-16).
40 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
[ Lagoon Restoration 1
Monitoring/
managing
in&out discharge
rates
Reflooding
of lagoon
Restoration
of wetland
vegetation
mitigates
I
could invite
Non-point source
pollution
Development/ |
construction I
State
Ecosystem
Impact
Ecosystem
Services
Figure 3-16. Pressures associated with the loss of the Guanica Lagoon (developed during the DPSIR
breakout session)
The next question focused on the Abiotic and Biotic State.
• What affect do these Pressures or human activities have on the State of the ecosystem,
Abiotic and Biotic?
The group identified some changes in environmental State, such as clean water, sediment, water
quality, and spatial distribution of water (Fig. 3-17), and several changes in ecological State,
including effects on biota (birds, mangroves, oysters, coral reefs, sea grass, fish, food crops and
wetland vegetation). One participant identified a change in mosquito populations related to
reflooding of the Lagoon. This is important because the community of Fuig has grown closer to the
Lagoon footprint since it was drained, and mosquito-borne dengue fever is a human health threat
in Puerto Rico.
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 41
-------
Possible ^
upstream migration I
Figure 3-17. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Pressures generated by restoration of the Guanica
Lagoon (developed during the workshop breakout group session)
The facilitator next asked about the Impact or ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem.
• What are the Impact on benefits to humans provided by the ecosystem?
• Why should we care about the State of reefs?
The group identified Impact as changes in food, jobs and income (from changes in food crops and
fish production); changes in biodiversity and marine fisheries (from changes in water quality), and
changes in tourism (from changes in bird populations). The group also identified some of the
Drivers (economic sectors) that would be affected, including agriculture, land ownership (real
estate) and potential housing development (Fig. 3-18). One suggestion was that the aquaculture
sector would benefit from a restored lagoon.
42 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
I Lagoon Restoration 1
[Water Quality |_
in Guanica Bay
m proves N
, impro
/ *
4 [Marine Fisheries Y« ??"
Figure 3-18. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State (developed during the Lagoon Restoration
breakout group session)
The group then discussed the Drivers, or socio-economic sectors, and how the Drivers either
benefit from the ecosystem services or are affected by any decisions.
• What social or economic sectors (Drivers) benefit from ecosystem services?
• What sectors could be affected by any decisions (Drivers)?
Socio-economic sectors that could be affected include agriculture, aquaculture, housing, land
ownership, and tourism and recreation (Fig. 3-19).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 43
-------
Who is creating
the pressures
or could be
affected by
decisions?
Drivers
Economic
Sectors
Who benefits "|
Tom services? I
f Tourism &
I Population
I '
recreation sector 1
\
enhances
v
Figure 3-19. Socio-economic sectors (Drivers) that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted by
management actions relating to restoration of the historic Guanica Lagoon (developed during the breakout
group session)
By the end of the breakout group session, the group had produced a basic DPSIR for the restoration
of the historic Guanica Lagoon (Fig. 3-20).
44 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
State
Ecosystem
What is the
environmental
consequence?
in Guanica Bay I"'1* es ~~*^ Marine Fisheries J^_ ???? C
improves \
^ \
^ sustains/
[ Biodiversity 1 encourages
Possible
upstream migration
[Tourism & recreation 1 -_
sector I
Figure 3-20. Final Guanica Lagoon restoration DPSIR (developed during the breakout group session)
The breakout group discussion focused mainly on how the lagoon restoration would impact the
coral reef ecosystem (corals, fishes and seagrasses). However, there was also some discussion
about the costs and benefits of a restored wetland. These were not reflected in the DPSIR concept
map constructed during the workshop but were captured on a flipchart (Table 3-2) for incorpora-
tion into the final consolidated DPSIR for the Guanica Bay Watershed (Figs. 3-28a and b, see pages
55 and 56).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 45
-------
Table 3-2. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic Lagoon Restoration
DPSIR
Wetland (Lagoon)
Ecology
Pulse events (tropical storms
& water releases)
Wetland plants (Cattail)
Retention time
Birds
Non-native species
(caimans, tilapia)
Invertebrates
(shrimp, crabs)
Diversion of Rio Loco
Wetland (Lagoon)
Ecosystem Services
Recreational Fishing
Recreation - Bird watching
Recreational boating
Hunting
Other Management
Actions (Responses)
Lagoon as an ecological
reserve
Management plan for the
lagoon
Manage wetland vegetation
Permits
Research (WQ, pulse event)
Local Community
Issues
Housing
Mosquitoes
Flooding (FEMA)
3.2.3 Low Impact Development
Low Impact Development (LID) is an approach for land development that attempts to work with
nature to manage stormwater runoff as close to its source as possible (EPA 2012). LID principles
include preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing impervious surfaces.
LID can maintain or restore a watershed's hydrologic and ecological functions and has been
adapted to a range of land uses from high-density ultra-urban settings to low-density development.
The Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) recommended several approaches to
more effectively manage wastewater. A high priority action was a demonstration project to
construct a series of treatment wetlands at the Guanica wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to
reduce nutrients from secondary effluent before being discharged into Guanica Bay. Other related
actions included rainwater collection systems, stormwater runoff treatment centers, hydro-seeding
of erodible land, and enactment and enforcement of pet waste ordinances.
Ms. Deb Caraco (CWP) facilitated the Low Impact Development DPSIR breakout group and Dr. Tom
Stockton (Neptune and Company, Inc.) was the note-taker.
The group began with the DPSIR template for the LID Management Actions that were proposed in
the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (Fig. 3-21).
46 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
[Low Impact Development I
Response
Decisions
What are possible
management actions?
Rainwater collection
systems
K Storm water runoff j I Hydroseeding j | Using wetlands for i I Pet waste
treatment centers J\^ ^J!\ sewage treatment | | clean-up
m '^^^^^"^^^^^^ -
ordinances J
Figure 3-21. DPSIR template for the LID breakout group
The facilitator asked a series of questions to facilitate the development of the DPSIR Cmap. The first
questions focused on the Pressures.
• Why is this management action proposed?
• What Pressures or human activities is it intended to reduce?
The group identified several Pressures related to rainwater collection systems and stormwater
runoff treatment centers, including changes in irrigation needs and practices, bank erosion, land
erosion and flooding (Fig. 3-22).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 47
-------
( Low Impact Development
Rainwater collection
| systems
btormwater runorr /— —\ usmia msucmuo iui
treatment centers J [ Hydroseeding J [^sewage treatment
Using wetlands for
Pet waste
clean-up
ordinances
effects
effects
effects
bank erosion^ | land erosion | [flooding |
Figure 3-22. Pressures that can be mitigated with LID (developed during the DPSIR breakout session)
The next question focused on the Abiotic and Biotic State.
• What affect do these Pressures or human activities have on the State of the ecosystem,
Abiotic and Biotic?
From these Pressures the group recognized several changes in environmental State, including
changes to sediment runoff and filling of reservoirs, contaminants and nutrients, water turbidity,
groundwater volume and recharge, and sedimentation in the Bay and reef zone. These changes
were expected to lead to changes in Ecosystem State, such as effects on phytoplankton,
mangroves, coral reefs and reef fish (Fig. 3-23).
48 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Low Impact Development J
What is the
environmental
& ecological
consequence?
Rainwater collection
systems
Stormwater runoff /— >, Using wetlands for
[ treatment centers J ^Hydroseeding J ^ sewage treatment
Pet waste
clean-up
ordinances
| reservoir | [contaminants^
water column |
turbidity |
water column 1
nutrients |
groundwater
volume 1
/ effects
| Mangroves j | Coral Reef \ | Fish
Figure 3-23. Changes in environmental and Ecosystem State possible from LID (developed during the
workshop breakout group session)
The facilitator next asked about the Impact, or ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem.
• What are the Impact on benefits to humans provided by the ecosystem?
• Why should we care about the State of reefs?
The ecosystem services (Impact) that could be affected from rainwater collection programs and
stormwater treatment centers were flood control, shoreline protection, water supply and
recreation (Fig. 3-24).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 49
-------
What benefits
could be lost? I
Low Impact Development 1
Stormwater runoff
btormwater runorr /• \ WMIHI mw«uiu» mi
treatment centers I [ Hydroseeding J ^ sewage treatment
Using wetlands for
effects
Pet waste
clean-up
ordinances
effects
effects |phytoplankton|
| Mangroves | | Coral Reef | | Fish
effects
Figure 3-24. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State (developed during the LID breakout group
session)
The group then discussed the Drivers, or socio-economic sectors, and how the Drivers either
benefit from the ecosystem services or are affected by any decisions.
• What social or economic sectors (Drivers) benefit from ecosystem services?
• What sectors could be affected by any decisions (Drivers)?
The group identified the following Drivers: land development, agriculture, human safety, tourism
and water supply (Fig. 3-25).
50 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
What human needs
and benefits
could be affected
by decisions?
What sectors
benefit
from services?
flow Impact Development]
Stormwater runoff
treatment centers
I Hydroseeding I
Using wetlands for
sewage treatment
Pet waste
clean-up
ordinances
provides
/
incompatible effects effects
water supply j
provides
_L
irrigation!
| Mangroves | | Coral Reef| |Fish
effects
Development^ | Agriculture^
Human
Safety
Figure 3-25. Socio-economic sectors (Drivers) that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted by LID
(developed during the breakout group session)
The facilitator guided the group to complete the DPSIR concept map by brainstorming additional
decision points where something else could change a Driver, Pressure, State or Impact. These
responses were then placed into the map at the appropriate decision point (Fig. 3-26).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 51
-------
Low Impact Development!
Stormwater runoff
treatment centers
Using wetlands for
Hydroseeding 1 sewage treatment
Pet waste
clean-up
ordinances
What are possible
management actions
More WQB
Inspectors
| SMART Growth |
Figure 3-26. Additional decision points and management actions not identified in the Guanica Bay
Watershed Management Plan that relate to LID
By the end of the breakout group session, the group had produced a basic DPSIR for LID in the
Guanica Bay Watershed (Fig. 3-27).
52 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Low Impact Development!
provides incompatible effects effects
with
\
Stormwater runoff I ( —v
treatment centers J [ Hydroseeding J
I
jets
Using wetlands for I clean-up
sewage treatment I ordinances
Community
Involvement
in Planning
More WQB
Inspectors
Enforce current
regulations
flooding I
water column 1
turbidty |
/
/
effects
i
water column
nutrients
effects
i
\ \
\ \
groundwater
volume
\
\
I phytoplankton |
Shoreline | I recreation
Protections
effects
Sewage
Treatment
Upgrade |
STPs
Wastewater I
Enforcement |
Septic Systems 1
to STP |
| Development | | Agriculture | safety
SMART Growth I
Figure 3-27. Final DPSIR (developed during the LID breakout group session)
The group focused largely on stormwater and those discussions were captured fairly well in the
DPSIR concept map. Wastewater was also discussed but not reflected in the concept map that was
developed during the breakout session. However, this discussion was captured on a flipchart
(Table 3-3), and was incorporated into the final consolidated DPSIR for the Guanica Bay Watershed
(Figs. 3-28a and b, see pages 55 and 56).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 53
-------
Table 3-3. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic LID DPSIR
LID
Issues
Landfills
Less stress
on water
supply
Management
Actions
Pervious parking lots
Revise codes to allow
rooftop capture
Centralize
infrastructure when
possible
Education &
outreach
Smart growth
policies
Enforce regulations
(inspectors)
Research
Wastewater
Issues
Septic and
unsewered
wastes
Can have
non-PRASA
outside of
network
Management
Actions
Education and
outreach
Enforce regulations
(inspectors)
Watershed board
or mgmt. group
Ecosystems
Sediment in
rivers
Turbidity
Reef
sedimentation
Mangroves
(services &
restoration)
Sea grass beds
Reservoirs
Sediment from
development
Reduced water
supply
Human health
& well-being
Flooding (mold,
contaminants,
safety)
Chemical spill in
Bay in 1979
3.3 Guanica Bay Watersheds DPSIR
Each breakout group presented their DPSIR concept map when the participants regrouped. There
was additional discussion about the lagoon restoration, particularly about how the flooding of the
lagoon might impact existing farms (e.g., salinity and production). There was also discussion about
the fact that once a decision has been made and implemented, like the decision in the 1950s to
drain the lagoon, it becomes politically difficult to reverse the decision.
Participants overall appreciated the DPSIR breakout session.
• They articulated the need for a holistic, integrated decision-making framework, like the DPSIR
systems approach, for the entire watershed.
• There have been numerous studies that provide data and information, but these are not
organized in a coordinated system. The studies could, however, have been organized around
the DPSIR framework to provide more transparency and utility.
• The Guanica Bay watershed is a complex system for which any decision will have trade-offs.
The DPSIR systems approach can help to identify potential trade-offs.
• There is a need to focus on benefits and not just costs of environmental protection. The DPSIR
framework can help with this.
• Construction of a DPSIR can begin at any point by asking a series of simple questions.
Subsequent to the workshop, EPA developed the ReefLink Database, which is now available on the
web at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=242306. This database is
built around a generic coral reef DPSIR. The ReefLink Database provides a navigable hierarchy of
related topics and information for each topic including concept maps, scientific citations,
management options, and laws related to coral reefs. DPSIR definitions are provided in a glossary
that will resolve terminology issues.
54 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
The three DPSIRs and the information from the discussions were used to develop a DPSIR for
Guanica (Figs. 3-28a and b).
a)
Infrastructural
management
[ Construction codes]
Economic \
development]
Transportation!
management 1
| Corporate |
ILJ
Fishing &
hunting
policies
Food& energy policy
"i Incentivt
Energy ^_
management {permits
Agricultural
BMPs
Convert to
Shade Grown
Coffee
influ
Soil Test ing prior
to Fertilizer
Application
ence
V
3
[
3
Health policy
Waste
management
policies
1 Biomedical 1 f Patenting natural
research funding 1 I biochemicals
Solid Waste
\ Permits]
Pet Waste
Clean-up Ordinance
Landfill Management \
Waste Water (Sewage) \Upgrade WWTPs]
\ Additional WQB inspectors
I
(Construct Treatment ™
( Convert septic , ^ " ^
[ & unsewered to sewer ] Monitor Discharge Rates }
\
[3
Cultural policy
education
f outreach
Tourism policie.
Grants & funding^
^ Collaboration]
\
\
1
influence
«
Security policy
] Political pressure \
Law
enforcement
Existing
Laws & ^
Regulations
\ Additional \
inspectors ]
\
\
Resource use
management
Hunting &
fishing licenses
Designated}
1 US6S J
Protected area*
Lagoon as an
Ecological
Reserve
Management
Plans
Lagoon
Management
Plan
id
1
Regulating Services],Supporting Services] L
Cultural Services ' [Provisioning Services J
Figure 3-28a. Guanica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the
Decision-support Workshop, showing details for Drivers, Pressures, and Responses to each (source Bradley
et al. 2013). Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Figure 3-9 (e.g., light green=Driving forces;
darkgreen=Pressures; orange=State; pink=lmpacts; and purple=Responses)
The nodes presented here link with those in Fig. 3-28b.
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 55
-------
b)
Infrastructure
Manufacturing
Transportation
Construction]
Finance &
insurance
^Technical"
services
Utilities
[ Waste Water W
[ Treatment Plants
Figure 3-28b. Guanica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the
Decision-support Workshop, showing details for State, Impact, and benefits to Drivers (source Bradley et
al. 2013). Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Figure 3-9 (e.g., light green=Driving forces;
darkgreen=Pressures; orange=State; pink=lmpacts; and purple=Responses)
56 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework
for Coastal Watersheds
The second day of the workshop was designed to introduce the concepts of decision analysis and
walk through the first three steps of the decision support framework for science-based ecosystem
services assessment and multi-stakeholder deliberation. To initiate the topic, 'homework' from the
first day was presented and discussed by participants (Section 4.1, below). This was followed by
small group discussions throughout the day, interspersed with presentations on related topics.
These included presentations on social network analysis, uncertainty and the value of information,
adaptive management and a decision support tool that uses a structured decision analysis
framework. In the afternoon, there were three breakout groups focused on different types of
decisions-permitting and enforcement decisions, natural resource decisions, and scientific support.
A summary of the homework results, presentations and breakout group deliberations is provided
below.
4.1 Homework Assignment
At the end of the first day, participants had been asked to write down the top 2-3 objectives for
coastal ecosystem health of their organization or constituents and possible measurable endpoints.
A summary of these follows:
Objectives
• Land-use planning
• Environmentally sensitive development
• Soil conservation and farm land quality
• Water quality
• Bay (HhO and sediment)
• Inland
• Drinking
• Marine
• Law and regulation enforcement
• Community awareness/education
• Quality of life
• Recreation
• Aesthetics
• Economic well-being
• Fisheries
• Tourism
• Response to oil spills/boat groundings
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 57
-------
Measurable Attributes:
• Coral ecosystem health
• Oyster egg count
• 3-dimensional coral cover
• Leaf area index
• Density of corals/seagrass/etc.
• Disease
• Presence or absence
• Extent
• Epibiont cover (seagrass)
• Sediment type and cover
• Reproduction (presence or absence)
• Coral recruits (number of)
• Tissue Nitrogen levels
• Species (richness and abundance and size/age structure)
• Coral (soft and hard)
• Fish
• Invertebrates
• Algae
• Seagrass
• Extent (spatial coverage); 7 acres = WAG at current status; (could research historical size of
seagrass coverage-using sediment cores)
Participants also identified some possible goals for some of the measurable attributes:
• Percent increase in coverage
• Return to historical levels
• Sustainable queen conch habitat
• New/shifting species
4.2 Social Network Analysis
Ms. Patricia Bradley, Dr. Marilyn ten Brink & Dr. Tom Stockton (presenter)
Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a method to map and measure the relationships and interactions
among people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and other connected information/
knowledge entities in order to identify knowledge flows (Krebs 2002). SNA has been used in
business since the 1930s to improve production and organizational structure. It is a tool that can be
used to support strategic collaboration, facilitate knowledge creation and transfer, and increase
our capacity to manage ecosystems and resources.
SNA is: (1) guided by formal theory organized in mathematical terms, and (2) grounded in the
systematic analysis of empirical data. SNA views social relationships and interactions in terms of
network theory about nodes and links. The nodes in the network are the people and groups while
the links show relationships or flows between the nodes (Fig. 4-1). SNA provides both a visual and a
mathematical analysis of human relationships (Krebs 2008).
58 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Points represent
the individuals
Lines represent
informa. on flow
Figure 4-1. Social network analysis views social relationships and interactions in terms of network theory
about nodes and links
To understand networks and their participants, SNA identities the location of actors in the
network-who are the leaders, bridges, isolates, where are the clusters of actors and who is in
them, who is in the core of the network, and who is on the periphery? SNA also identifies the
direction of information flow in the network-who generates information, who receives
information?
For this workshop, EPA demonstrated how SNA could help:
• Identify and support leadership functions and identify gaps
• Increase participation by reconnecting isolated teams or individuals
• Detect information bottlenecks
• Identify opportunities for improving the flow of knowledge
• Accelerate the flow of knowledge and information across functional and organizational
boundaries
• Improve the effectiveness of formal communication channels
• Target opportunities through which increased knowledge flow will have the most impact
• Raise awareness of existing informal networks
• Identify types of information that are communicated or not
In a workshop exercise, participants were asked:
• With whom they communicated most frequently and second most frequently
• The topic of communication
• The importance of the communication (very, average, minor)
• The frequency with which they communicated (scale of 0-8, once a year to many times per day)
• The types of information they received from each person
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 59
-------
An SNA software program (NodeXL) was used to provide mathematical and statistical routines for
exploratory analysis and visualization of the network. NodeXL is a free and open network overview,
discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 2007/2010 (Smith et al. 2010). The data were compiled
into an Excel spreadsheet, and a clustering algorithm was run on the network. Individuals in the
network were identified by their institution or role (Fig. 4-2). The thickness in arrows represents
how often communication occurred (the thicker the arrow, the more often the communication).
UPRM
Guanica
Citizen
'RASA
V
iRED CAP
IV
CAMARED
HOAA
HRCS
NOAA
NRCS
PR
DNER
UPRM
HDAP.
Figure 4-2. Preliminary social network based on responses from workshop participants who are identified
by institution or role. Line width is proportional to importance. (Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.)
60 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
The preliminary SNA was based only on the input of the workshop participants and did not
represent the many other people who are involved in decision-making in the Guanica Bay
Watershed. Results from the analysis allow exploration of patterns:
• Does the communication network serve needs well?
• Are any individuals or clusters of individuals poorly connected?
• Is critical information held outside the information network?
• Does the network support learning?
There are several clusters that are not connected to each other. There is a large cluster, where
individuals from NOAA are playing central roles. The NOAA employees appear to be communicating
well with each other and are receiving information from other groups but have limited outgoing
communications to other groups. There is a smaller network of mostly EPA employees that work
interactively but have connection with only one external participant (NOAA). The lack of
connection to a larger network is a concern, because EPA has both a mission and regulatory
responsibility for managing and regulating land-based sources of pollution. Similarly there is a
smaller, unconnected network of individuals representing Puerto Rico departments that are
interactive with FWS and NRCS but not with the broader NOAA network.
From the preliminary SNA, EPA hoped to identify strengths and weaknesses in communication
within the Guanica Bay Watershed management and stakeholder community that can be modified
to better support sharing of information and values. A more inclusive and comprehensive SNA
would be extremely value in this respect. Increased understanding by participants of information
flow in the GBW aided in planning of future workshops.
4.3 Uncertainty and the Value of Information (VOI) in Multi-stakeholder
Environmental Decision Making
Dr. Amanda Rehr (presenter) and Dr. Mitchell Small, Carnegie Mellon University/US EPA Special
Government Employees
In decision analysis, each alternative must be evaluated by appraising it against criteria. This step is
challenging for two reasons because: 1) each stakeholder has their own set of values and would
apply their own weights to the criteria and 2) there is almost always some uncertainty about the
consequences of a proposed management action. Ideally, this uncertainty can be reduced by
additional scientific study. In practice, scientific studies and their interpretation are sometimes as
much a point of contention as the decisions they are designed to inform. Arguments over the
objectivity, validity, and relevance of scientific findings are now common in debates regarding
climate change, energy exploration, nuclear power, chemical regulation, food safety, and other
domains with high stakes and high uncertainty. Nonetheless there is value in information and the
credibility it brings to valuing outcomes (i.e., applying weighting criteria).
In the section of the workshop described here, participants were guided through a process for
designing a system model that could be used to predict the outcomes of alternative management
options aimed at protecting important resources. The process concluded with a method for
identifying where additional information could add the most value to decisions and resolve
possible conflicts over preferred management actions.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 61
-------
Step 1 - Identifying important resources and outcomes
During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion about which resources and outcomes
should be considered in decision-making for environmental quality and coral reef management in
the Guanica Bay Watershed in terms of their importance and value. Responses are grouped into
categories of Higher and Lower Priority roughly based on how often they were mentioned by
participants (Table 4-1). This first step acts as a preliminary brainstorming exercise. The eventual
system model included a further-reduced set of important resources and participants were asked
in a later step to rate each one relative to others.
Table 4-1. Important resources and outcomes in the Guanica Bay Watershed
Higher Priority Resources and Outcomes
Coral reef health
Guanica Bay water quality
Fisheries (Commercial)
Drinking water quality
Agriculture
Tourism
Construction and development
Lower Priority Resources and Outcomes
Offshore water quality
Soil conservation and farmland quality
Quality of life
Rapid response to oil spills
Other community awareness
Aids to navigation
Law and regulation enforcement
Planning-before construction
Aesthetics and public resources
Seagrass and other benthic communities other
than coral reefs
Fisheries (Recreational and Artisanal)
Vegetative communities in watershed
Community surrounding areas
Home sewers connected to rivers, lakes, sea
Bay sediment quality
Step 2 - Identifying cause-effect relationships that impact resources and outcomes
During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion of cause-effect relationships believed to
impact resources and outcomes of importance in the Guanica Bay Watershed. A consensus-based
assignment of relationship strength was employed.
Table 4-2 includes a summary of participants' best estimates (min, mean and max) on a scale of 0-
100 and associated confidence (slightly, somewhat or very) regarding the strengths of these
relationships. It was discussed how the reported distributions would later be translated into
probabilistic assessments of the causal relationships between variables in the eventual system
model.
62 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Table 4-2. Workshop participants' best estimates (on a scale of 0-100) and associated confidence (slightly,
somewhat or very) regarding the strengths of the cause-effect relationships that impact important
resources and outcomes in the Guanica Bay Watershed (N=25)
Environmental Threat
(Driver/Pressure)
1. Sewage and wastewater
treatment plant loadings
2. Sewage and wastewater
treatment plant loadings
3. Agrochemical discharges
4. Agrochemical discharges
5. Sediment loadings
6. Sediment loadings due
to clear-cutting
7. Sediment loadings due
to building construction
8. Bay water quality
(nutrient level)
9. Bay water quality
(sediment level)
10. Bay water quality
(toxics and pathogens)
11. Ocean acidification
12. Ocean temperature rise
13. Coral reef health
14. Coral reef health
Affected
Resource/Outcome
(States/Impact)
Reservoir and drinking
water quality
Bay water quality
Reservoir and drinking
water quality
Bay water quality
Reservoir and drinking
water quality
Bay water quality
Bay water quality
Coral reef health
Coral reef health
Coral reef health
Coral reef health
Coral reef health
Fisheries
Tourism
Strength of Relationship
Min
10
40
35
40
15
20
20
35
45
10
10
35
30
10
Mean
40
60
50
55
50
55
50
60
70
60
50
60
65
50
Max
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
Confidence
(slightly,
somewhat, very)
somewhat/very
very/somewhat
somewhat
somewhat/very
somewhat/very
very/somewhat
somewhat/very
somewhat/very
very
somewhat/very
somewhat
very
very
somewhat/very
Step 3 - Identifying management actions considered effective for reducing threats
During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion about which management actions were
considered to be viable and effective for reducing threats or ensuring important resource
outcomes in the Guanica Bay Watershed. Table 4-3 shows participants' best estimates and
associated confidence regarding the effects of these management actions on important outcomes.
Participants were asked to indicate the amount of improvement that resource outcomes (drinking
water quality, bay water quality, and coral reef health) would benefit from by implementing
specified management actions. The amount of improvement was defined qualitatively ("A Little",
"Moderately", and "A Lot"). A consensus-based assignment of the effects was employed with the
average of the responses being recorded here.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 63
-------
Table 4-3. Workshop participants' best estimates and associated confidence regarding the effects of
management actions for reducing threats to resource outcomes in the Guanica Bay Watershed
This Affected
Resource Outcome
Reservoir and
Drinking Water
Quality
Bay Water Quality
Coral Reef Health
Will be improved by this management action:
A Little
Moderately
• Restrictions on agrochemicals (somewhat)
• Wastewater treatment wetlands (somewhat)
• Rio Loco stream bank riparian plantings
(somewhat)
• Hydro-seeding of areas with bare soil in high
elevation erodible soil areas (somewhat)
• Cover crop outreach and cost share to high
elevation coffee farms
• Restoration of Guanica Lagoon
• Reef education for youth and their parents
• Subsidy for shade grown coffee
A Lot
• Advanced
wastewater
treatment (very)
Marine protection areas
(somewhat)
Step 4 - Identifying scientific uncertainties and studies to reduce uncertainties
During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion about the key data gaps or scientific
uncertainties they believed limited the ability to understand and manage the coral reefs and
related ecosystems in the Guanica Bay Watershed. For each, they also suggested additional
monitoring or scientific studies that would likely reduce these uncertainties.
A summary of the critical uncertainties and suggested research studies is shown in Table 4-4,
roughly in order of a combination of how often they were mentioned (most often to least often)
and their strength in reducing the associated uncertainty (a lot to a little). This ranking provides an
initial prioritization of the perceived needed studies to reduce uncertainty for decision-making. As
data and quantified results are generated, more formal VOI methods can be used.
64 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Table 4-4. Critical uncertainties and suggested research studies
Addressing
Pollutant Sources
Pollutant Loadings
Pollutant Fate
Coral Reef Impact
Stakeholder Participation/Deliberation
Human Activity Studies
Research Tasks
• Land use-hydrology studies
• Wet vs. dry weather sampling of streams
• Lake/Rio Loco/other surface water flow path studies
• Model scenarios for watershed mgmt. options
• Stream gauging in Rio Loco
• Calibration & use of SPARROW
• Monitoring sediment & nitrogen in Rio Loco
• Stream sediment studies
• Marine stable isotope studies
• Coral reef toxicological studies
• Coral reef ecological studies
• Stakeholder engagement in effect mgmt. options
• Survey residents and visitors for their values
• Survey of decision makers (interviews)
• Decision flow charting
• Mapping current uses and impact
• Tracking temporal trends in uses and impact
Demonstrating a new method: Value of Information for Conflict Resolution
During the workshop, Drs. Rehrand Small presented and demonstrated a new decision support
method called Value of Information for Conflict Resolution (VOICR) for identifying where additional
scientific research may be needed to support better-informed decisions and resolve possible
conflicts over preferred management actions. The method combines and builds on aspects of
multiple stakeholder deliberation, multiple criteria analysis, Bayesian Belief Networks, and value of
information (VOI) analysis. In the simplest context, a value of information analysis can show
whether a decision is likely to be the same regardless of the effort to acquire additional
information. In more complex analysis, it can help to focus where to focus the effort on acquisition
of information that will influence the decision.
A subset of the workshop participants (seven) participated in the VOICR demonstration. The
demonstration centered on the important subject reducing loadings from three sources: sewage,
agriculture, and development. The scenario assumed that loadings would be reduced incrementally
from each source through a series of management steps, which would be ranked in order of
maximizing benefits. Importantly, the loading rates from each source were not known and research
to determine those rates had not been conducted.
The exercise combined the DPSIR conceptual model of the Guanica Bay Watershed developed
earlier in the workshop, with participant preferences for outcomes (coral reef health, tourism and
fisheries) and beliefs about science drawn from workshop discussions (% loadings from sources,
effectiveness of a lagoon at filtering out pollutants, and the probabilities that stressors will produce
different outcomes) into a probabilistic Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). The final outcome,
"Benefits", was computed as x*Tourism + y*Fisheries + z*Coral Health*Ecosystem Services, where
x, y, and z were the weightings assigned by participants to these different resource outcomes.
Drs. Rehr and Small used a set of additional face-to-face elicitation questions to inform the BBN (as
follows). Figure 4-3 shows a BBN for one of the seven participants who participated in the exercise.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 65
-------
Sew Load
Low 23 0
Medium 24 0
High 25.0
VeryHigh 28 0
ml i ;
Z i
1 1 9 ± 89
Ag Reduction
None 100
Forty 0
Seventy 0
Ninety 0
0
Total Load
VeryLow 0
Low 0
ModLow 20.6
ModHigh 33.1
High 40.5
VeryHigh 5.78
|
^M :
^^M
^^™^»
• I
268 ± 1 50
DevLoad
Low
Medium
High
VervHigh
400
36.0
23.0
1.0
HHH :
^M
! I i
59. 2 ±43
Coral Links
None
Wq
Ow
Mp
WqOw
WqMp
OwMp
WqOwM p
0
3.00
400
10
300
200
5.00
10
^^
|
^^•M
^H
•
Sew Load Research
Low 232
Medium 24.1
High 25.0
VeryHigh 278
I
Ag Load Research
Low 100
Medium 0
High 0
VeryHigh 0
_•___
| i i
DevLoad Research
Low 38 B
Medium 35.1
High 23 2
VeryHigh 2.92
Ef|
i
Coral Effects Research
None 3 00
Wq 628
Ow 33.4
Mp 3.76
WqOw 258
WqMp 182
OwM p 6 80
WqOwMp 376
•
^^^m
•
.
Fish Links
None
Cr
Ow
Mp
CrOw
CrMp
OwMp
CrOwM p
0
1 0
1 0
3.00
200
30.0
5.00
400
^M i
_
•
^^^~
Coral Eco. Services Research
Low 263
Medium 47 5
High 26.3
H ! i
Fisheries Research
None 3 00
Cr 3.76
Ow 3.76
Mp 528
CrOw 182
CrMp 258
OwMp 680
CrOwMp 33.4
•
Figure 4-3. Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) developed at the workshop for a participant. (The BBN is a
system model of the Guanica Bay Watershed, in this case focusing on loadings, with five possible
management levers (in light blue), five research effects nodes, and an end node, Benefits, which is
computed by: x*Tourism + y*Fisheries + z*Coral Health*Ecosystem Services, where x, y, and z were the
weightings assigned by participants to these different resource outcomes. The BBN was designed to be used
for computing the preferred management option based on maximizing benefits and then comparing results
between without- and with-information conditions.
A BBN consists of a graphical structure and a probabilistic description of the relationships among
variables in a system, and presents an effective way to represent uncertainty in environmental
decision problems. Variables, in this case coral reef health, tourism, and fisheries, and their
associated stressors, are represented as nodes. Causal relationships, the stressor-outcome
relationships in this instance, are represented as directed links between the nodes and are
specified by conditional probability distributions.
BBNs can be used to estimate the probability of a decision option having a particular outcome, and
the corresponding stakeholder valuation of that outcome. A BBN is especially useful when
individual nodes of the network will be updated with evidence or new information to see how
these change the preferred management strategy. The expected increase in value of the optimal
decision informed by the knowledge, compared to the choice made under the pre-information
state is the VOI.
The participants responded to the following four face-to-face elicitation questions to inform the
conditional probability tables of nodes in the BBN:
66 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
1) How would you rate the following outcomes in relation to one another? (A score of 1 for tourism
and a score of 2 for fish indicate that fish health is twice as important as tourism health).
a) Tourism -
b) Fish-
c) Coral -
2) What percentage of the total loadings (nutrient and sediment) to the Guanica inland water
system comes from development, agriculture, and sewage, respectively? (percentages must sum
to 100%)
a) Development -
b) Agriculture -
c) Sewage -
3) How sure are you that the lagoon will work (i.e., be effective in reducing loadings that enter
the Bay)?
a) I am % sure that the lagoon will work.
4) Are the probabilities that the following sets of environmental stressors would produce:
a) good/bad coral reef health; and b) good/bad fisheries health, respectively?
(percentages should sum to 100%)
a) Stressors for coral reef health:
i) Water quality (WQ),
ii) Ocean warming/acidification (OW)
iii) Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
b) Stressors for fisheries health:
i) Coral reef health (CR)
ii) Ocean warming/acidification (OW)
iii) Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
Example 1 - If water quality is considered to be most responsible, followed by ocean
acidification/warming, and then marine protection areas (considered useless in this
example), and no synergism is assumed, the following probabilities could apply:
25%WQ/OW/MPA
20%WQ/MPA
25% WQ/OW
5%MPA/OW
20% WQ
0%MPA
5% OW
Example 2 - If water quality combined with ocean warming/acidification and MPAs is
thought to be the most important set of stressors contributing to coral health, followed by
water quality and ocean warming/acidification, and then followed by water quality and
MPAs, and assuming synergism among the various factors, the following probabilities
could apply:
50%WQ/OW/MPA
30% WQ/OW
10%WQ/MPA
4%MPA/OW
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 67
-------
3% WQ
2%MPA
1% OW
c) Probabilities that these sets of stressors lead to good/bad coral reef health:
% that it's all3 (WQ/OW/MPA) -
% that it's these 2 (WQ/MPA) -
% that it's these 2 (WQ/OW) -
% that it's these 2 (MPA/OW) -
% that it's only 1 factor (WQ) -
% that it's only 1 factor (MPA) -
% that it's only 1 factor (OW) -
d) Probabilities that these sets of stressors lead to good/bad fisheries health:
% that it's all3 (CR/OW/MPA) -
% that it's these 2 (CR/MPA) -
% that it's these 2 (CR/OW) -
% that it's these 2 (MPA/OW) -
% that it's only 1 factor (CR) -
% that it's only 1 factor (MPA) -
% that it's only 1 factor (OW) -
The facilitators used the BBN to determine how the participants' beliefs regarding current resource
conditions and responses to alternative management options may change given different possible
outcomes of new research (Fig. 4-3). The goal of the analysis was to identify where additional
scientific research would support better-informed decisions and resolve possible conflicts over
preferred management actions. The exercise can be summarized as follows:
Assuming that two stakeholders have different prior beliefs:
1. Identify their initial preferences for options aimed at reducing loadings.
2. Assess agreement without and with new research result that clarifies the levels
of loadings from sources.
3. Identify the capacity of research projects to promote agreement.
In the VOI exercise, for this set of participants and assumptions, it was shown that in terms of
prioritizing a research agenda to reduce uncertainty and resolve conflicts, stakeholders would
pursue determining loadings from agriculture and sewage, and would likely forego research to
determine loadings from development, since the latter was not predicted to make a difference.
The detailed results of this exercise have since been published in a journal article (Rehr et al. 2014).
4.4 Adaptive Management (AM)
Kelly Black, Neptune and Company, Inc.
Ms. Black gave a brief presentation on AM to provide a general background for workshop
participants. The Guanica Bay Watershed is a complex decision landscape with many stakeholders,
different interests and different value sets that result in complex issues that are responsive to
management interventions but subject to uncertainties about the impact. The challenges
presented by these complexities and uncertainties require an AM approach.
68 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
AM is a structured, iterative decision-making process where decision-makers learn from experience
and modify subsequent behavior (improve on decisions) in light of that experience. AM relies on
partnerships of managers, scientists, and other stakeholders working together on how to create
and maintain sustainable ecosystems by applying the following principles:
• Use of a scientific-based approach to address the objectives;
• Use of feedback loops that iteratively feed new information into the decision-making process;
• Use of an open, inclusive, and integrative process; and
• Emphasis on collaboration and conflict resolution in order to reconcile competing objectives.
AM has been successfully applied in natural resource management since the 1950s (Beverton and
Holt 1957; Moiling 1978; Walters and Hilborn 1978; Walters 1986; Lee 1993; Failing et al. 2004;
Gregory et al. 2006; Goffredo and Lasker 2008). The Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP)
developed the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP 2013), a compilation and
adaptation of best practices and guidelines across several fields and across several organizations
within the conservation community. The Open Standards lay out 5 main steps to an AM project
cycle (Fig. 4-4).
1. Conceptualize
• Define initial team
• Define scope, vision, targets
• Identify critical threats
' Complete situation analysis
5. Capture and Share
Learning
• Document learning
• Share learning
• Create learning environment
Conservation
Measures
Partnership
Open Standards
2. Plan Actions and
Monitoring
• Develop goals, strategies,
assumptions, and objectives
• Develop monitoring plan
• Develop operational plan
4. Analyze, Use,
Adapt
Prepare data for analysis
Analyze results
Adapt strategic plan
3. Implement Actions
and Monitoring
• Develop work plan and
timeline
• Develop and refine budget
• Implement plans
Figure 4-4. CMP Adaptive Management Cycle (CMP 2013)
"Adaptive Management:
• Helps science managers maintain FLEXIBILTY in their decisions, knowing that uncertainties exist
and provides managers the latitude to change direction
• Will improve UNDERSTANDING of ecological systems to achieve management objectives
• Is about taking ACTION to improve progress towards desired outcomes" (DOI 2010).
AM can be applied throughout the structured decision process.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 69
-------
4.5 DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy
and Society
Dr. Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.
To better enable environmental decision-making, EPA has developed an open-sourced web-based
structured decision making tool - DASEES (Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment,
Economy, and Society). An integrated trans-disciplinary research team of EPA, university, and
private company researchers is developing DASEES. DASEES will support any Web 2.0 compliant
web browser that also supports Adobe FLASH technology (Stockton et al. 2011). The framework
outlined in this chapter serves the process for working through complex, multi-dimensional
decision problems. Tracking progress through this decision process can be greatly facilitated with
these framework tools accessible to stakeholders via the Web.
DASEES is organized around the five steps of the Structured Decision Process (see Chapter 1).
DASEES consists of a set of guidance and software tools designed both to educate decision-makers
in using the structured decision process and to allow them to create their own decision-specific
conceptual model using interactive tools to input data and generate graphs, charts, and statistical
analyses. By using these tools, different decision options can be quantified and evaluated in the
larger context of the conceptual model. In addition, DASEES houses case studies that demonstrate
how the tools and guidance can be applied to specific real-world decisions. The case studies can be
used as the building blocks for the upper levels of DASEES.
In terms of site navigation, the structure described above has been implemented as a series of tabs
(Fig. 4-5). Each top-level tab contains sub-tabs housing tools useful in the decision process. The
"DASEES steps" contains an overview tab, which provides an introduction to the individual steps.
Each of the sub-tabs contains its own sub-tabs, housing guidance or tools. Requirements for each
tab and sub-tab depend on whether they contain guidance or house a software tool, or both.
Step 1 - Understand the decision context
DASEES provides a suite of tools to assist users to establish the context within which the
management problem is contained.
• A Decision Landscape Section allows users to summarize the political, regulatory, social,
institutional and scientific context of the decision.
• A Social Network Analysis (SNA) tool provides a visual insight into who is, and more
importantly, who is not sharing in the information flow for the decision at hand.
• Complementary to these approaches are systems-based cognitive maps. DASEES allows users to
characterize the activity with the Drivers-Pressures-States-Impacts-Response (DPSIR) model
that enables causal understanding in the decision context. Other selected aids in this step
include CIS-based visualization tools and a Sandbox area for exploring and recording thoughts
and ideas that arise during deliberation.
70 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
, y
p
File E
-------
fundamental objectives. The Means Objectives Tool also supports the identification of
management options or alternatives.
• A Management Scenario Tool that assists users in creating competing collections of
management options reflecting identified means objectives and aimed at achieving final
objectives in Step 2.
Step 4 - Evaluate alternatives (management options)
The next step is to assess the options and assemble or provide scientific information to address
critical unknowns.
• A Bayesian Network Tool for causal assessments of management scenario alternatives.
A Bayesian approach supports explicit consideration of uncertainty, and provides a normative
framework for integrating science-based information and user defined option preference
valuation.
• A Decision Map that allows the user to move through the Objectives Hierarchy and Means-
End Networks.
Step 5 - Take action
Finally-the decision-makers begin implementation. Monitoring and adaptive management should
accompany implementation.
• DASEES provides some guidance for implementing Adaptive Management.
4.6 Decision Breakout Session
On the morning of the second day, there were two breakout sessions. The first breakout session,
Decision-making in Practice, was designed to gain an understanding of how the workshop
participants currently make decisions regarding issues that impact coastal ecosystem health.
The discussions focused on six questions regarding decisions:
1) What decisions need to be made?
2) Who makes those decisions?
3) What information is needed to make the decisions?
4) What level of accuracy or confidence is needed for the decisions?
5) What tools are needed to assist in making these decisions?
6) What would help them make better decisions?
The second breakout session, Develop Options, was designed to identify alternative management
strategies or policy options that can be implemented to address threats to coastal ecosystems.
Group 1. Permitting and Enforcement Decisions
Facilitator: Ms. Kelly Black; Note-taker: Dr. William Fisher
Background
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of water resources, including the biological inhabitants of coral reefs. The CWA
requires that states have water quality standards, monitor conditions regularly, and submit reports
summarizing water quality assessments (usually every two years).
Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are
72 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by the
state. The law requires that the state establish priority rankings for waters on the list and develop
TMDLs for these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.
Puerto Rico's Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is the commonwealth agency with responsibility
under the CWA. EQB issued the most recent Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards Regulation on
March 31, 2010. The goal of this regulation is to "preserve, maintain and enhance the quality of the
waters of Puerto Rico in such manner that they be compatible with the social and economic needs
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The purposes of this regulation are: (1) designate the uses
for which the quality of the water bodies of Puerto Rico shall be maintained and protected; (2)
prescribe the water quality standards required to sustain the designated uses; (3) identify other
rules and regulations applicable to sources of pollution that may affect the quality of the waters
subject to this regulation; and (4) prescribe other measures necessary for achieving and
maintaining the quality of the waters of Puerto Rico" (PR 2010).
Under the CWA, EPA works in partnership with EPA Regions, states, local governments, Tribes, the
private sector, and non-governmental organizations to regulate discharges into surface waters. EPA
controls storm water and wastewater discharge and treatment through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). While EPA has delegated primary NPDES program
responsibility in most states and territories, EPA retains lead responsibility for developing and
enforcing NPDES permits in Puerto Rico.
Decision-making in practice
The PR EQB prepares the bi-annual water quality report.
• The Rio Loco is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list. Sources of pollution include urban
runoff/storm sewers, land disposal, onsite wastewater systems, hydro-modification, and
upstream impoundment. Causes of pollution include: pathogens (fecal coliforms), metals,
arsenic, low dissolved oxygen, other inorganics, and manganese. Workshop participants felt
that more effective enforcement of wastewater treatment systems and residential septic
systems was a key management action.
• Guanica Bay (an estuary) and the adjacent marine waters are not listed as impaired on the
303(d) list. They are not monitored as part of EQB's water quality monitoring program.
The PR Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) is the agency representing
Puerto Rico on the USCRTF. In this capacity, DNER formed a multi-agency group to help develop the
Local Action Strategies (LAS) in 2003 and 2011. Two primary focus areas in the 2003 LAS were
1) land-based sources of pollution and 2) overfishing. The LAS focused on improved enforcement of
existing laws and regulations and non-regulatory best management practices (BMPs). The multi-
agency group has been instrumental in non-regulatory activities, such as building partnerships,
securing project funding, and community outreach and education. The group also identified
decisions/issues that were not regulatory/permitting, including the numerous scientific studies
that have been conducted in the Guanica Bay Watershed (baseline characterization, 1979
inventory, coral reef extent), the lack of water quality information for the watershed, and a
pervasive lack of personnel to get the work done.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 73
-------
Alternative management strategies or policy options
Several alternative management strategies were proposed by the group: development of a TMDL
for the Rio Loco, forest management plans, the Forest Legacy Program, the Community Forest and
Open Space Conservation Program, and the addition of water quality monitoring stations on the
Rio Loco. These proposals are summarized below.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). The CWA requires states to establish a priority
ranking for waters on the 303(d) list of impaired waters and establish Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs) for such waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. A
TMDL will identify clear targets for guiding pollutant cleanup activities. A TMDL for the
Rio Loco would address some or all of the pollutants of concern: pathogens (fecal
coliforms), metals, arsenic, low dissolved oxygen, other inorganics, and manganese. Since
the Guanica Bay and marine waters are not in the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies, a
TMDL is not required.
Establish Non-Point Source Monitoring Stations in the Rio Loco. EQB is the Commonwealth
government agency with the legal responsibility to implement federal and state laws and
regulations concerning pollution in Puerto Rico. EQB collects surface and ground water quality
data both from its own water quality monitoring network and from monitoring stations
operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). There are currently no USGS water
quality monitoring stations and no EQB stations in the Rio Loco, Guanica Bay, or marine waters
off Guanica Bay. A more comprehensive monitoring program, similar to that established in the
Rfo Grande de Lofza, Rfo De La Plata and Rfo Grande de Arecibo basins and the San Juan Bay
Estuary, should be established in the Guanica Bay Watershed, including the Rio Loco. This is an
important management action, since these waterbodies are not in the 303(d) list of impaired
waterbodies, even though they may actually be impaired.
Forest Management Plans. Forest landowners value their land for many reasons: from realizing
an economic return (from timber or other sources) to providing ecological values (wildlife
habitat, water and soil protection, carbon storage) and personal enjoyment (for recreation,
solitude or other purposes). A comprehensive forest management plan should provide the
information necessary and a flexible framework for achieving the landowner's goals including:
statements of goals and objectives, current condition of the forest and potential for future
benefits, possible actions to achieve objectives, and environmental laws that might apply. Some
landowners develop their own plans but most hire a licensed forester. DNER foresters can help
landowners with resource inventories and management planning and also can help landowners
apply for cost-share or conservation easement programs such as the Forest Legacy Program.
Forest Legacy Program (FLP). The FLP was established in the 1990 Farm Bill to protect
environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses
and to promote forestland protection through the use of conservation easements and fee-
simple purchase. The FLP provides an incentive-based mechanism to protect critical important
fish and wildlife habitat, conserve watershed functions, and maintain recreation opportunities.
PR DNER, as the custodian of the Commonwealth's forest resources, could apply for FLP grant
funds to acquire land, or interests in land, and hold title.
74 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP). The CFP, established in the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, is a grant program that authorizes the U.S. Forest
Service to provide financial assistance to local governments, Tribal governments, and qualified
nonprofit entities to establish community forests that provide continuing and accessible
community benefits. Community forests provide many benefits, including: economic benefits
from sustainable forest management and tourism; environmental benefits from natural
resource conservation, such as storm water management, clean air and water, and wildlife
habitat; forest-based educational programs; model forest stewardship activities; and
recreational opportunities. The community is involved in the establishment of the community
forest and long-term management decisions. Public access to the community forests is required
and intended to enhance public health and wellbeing. The program pays up to 50% of the
project costs and requires a 50% non-federal match. In addition, the program authorizes funds
to state/territorial foresters for technical assistance to implement community forest projects.
Development Planning. A Land Use Management Plan was created for the town of Guanica
that reflected the ongoing economic activities at the time (fishing, tourism, recreation). It was
agreed that the Land Use Management Plan was going to be integrated into future decision-
making, but that has not occurred. Subsequently, the Commonwealth made the decision to
allow a fertilizer plant (i.e., Ochoa Fertilizer Plant, which was not in the plan). Workshop
participants felt that this fertilizer plant possibly contributed to the deterioration of Guanica
Bay and the town's economy. Workshop participants felt that use of the Land Use Management
Plan to guide future development was important.
Education and Outreach. Workshop participants emphasized the need to inform, engage, and
motivate water quality managers, elected officials, stakeholders, regulated industries, and the
public to take positive personal actions and work together to improve and preserve water
quality and natural resources in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
Group 2. Natural Resource Decisions
Facilitator: Ms. Leah Oliver; Note-taker: Dr. Tom Stockton
Background
The Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico (DNER) is the executive
department of the territorial government tasked with protecting, conserving, developing, and
managing the natural and environmental resources of Puerto Rico. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
U.S. Forest Service, and Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico are also land managers (Gould et al.
2012), and the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council is responsible for fisheries management in
federal waters extending from 16.7 km to 370.4 km (the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ).
Decision-making in practice
It is U.S. policy that regulatory decisions must be based on the best available science (EO 13563
2011). Workshop participants felt that comprehensive monitoring (including baseline and
effectiveness monitoring) and laboratory studies would provide the scientifically credible
information needed for decision-making. They also felt that resource users (commercial fishers,
famers, etc.) should be involved in decision-making. The group gave several examples of typical
decisions:
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 75
-------
• Beach Cleaning. Beach cleaning involves removing broken glass, cigarette filters, syringes,
stones, weeds, wood, pop-tops, hardened tar balls, animal droppings, etc., from beaches. There
are limited resources to accomplish beach cleaning, and decisions must be made about which
beaches, when and how to clean.
• Beach Closure. When water quality standards (fecal coliform and enterococcus) are exceeded
at a particular beach, Puerto Rico requires beach managers to post an advisory or closure. An
advisory warns people that there is an increased health risk associated with entering the water,
and a closure warns people to completely avoid contact with the water. Once a beach is
deemed "unsafe", it remains on that list until further testing shows that the bacterial levels
have dropped into the "safe" zone. Only two beaches are monitored in the Guanica
municipality: Playa Santa and Balneario Cana Gorda. The workshop participants felt that
additional beaches should be monitored.
• Manage Stakeholder Conflicts. Resource carrying capacity is an issue, along with the decision
of how many and which types of users can use the resource. There needs to be more and better
communication with stakeholders to manage/minimize/restrict resource use.
• Regulation/Law Enforcement. More resources are needed to enforce existing regulations and
laws. The enforcement personnel also need additional physical tools (boats, cars, etc.).
Collaboration between the various managing agencies (Puerto Rico DNER, NOAA, etc.) could
help to address some of the resource deficiencies. Information on regulations can be hard to
find - better outreach and education are needed to ensure that the users are informed. Some
significant data gaps exist, including the lack of a license system for fishing, diving or snorkeling.
• Research and Monitoring Support. The decisions about which research will be conducted and
by whom is another decision area. There has been a long history of environmental research in
Puerto Rico, and multiple government agencies, academic institutions, and NGOs are currently
conducting research in the Guanica Bay Watershed. A research planning process needs to be
established, including prioritizing the research, determining who should conduct the research,
securing adequate funding and resources, and releasing research results to the public, including
some sort of report card on how the natural resources are doing. Tools such as CIS, network
analysis, and models can contribute to the research planning.
• Vessel Groundings. The coral reefs and seagrass meadows offshore of Guanica are productive
habitats that support the fishing, diving, and tourism industries. A boat hitting the reef can
topple coral heads or grind coral colonies into tiny fragments, damaging and killing coral that
may have taken centuries to build. Vessels that run aground on seagrass cut scars or large
swaths through the meadows, creating injuries that may never heal, depriving marine life of
important habitat. A program should be developed and implemented to respond to vessel
groundings, including those of small recreational vessels. To support this effort, better maps of
the marine resources are needed. There also needs to be some way to tease out the stress
caused by the physical damage from the more chronic land-based sources of pollution.
Alternative management strategies or policy options
This breakout group developed a list of management strategies, some of which had been discussed
earlier in the workshop and some which had not. A brief discussion of each strategy not previously
mentioned in this report is provided below.
76 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
• Restoration of the Historic Guanica Lagoon. This was the highest priority management option
in the WMP. The lagoon served as a refuge for native and migratory birds, and filtered
sediment and pollutants generated from upstream headwaters. The group felt, however, that
there was uncertainty about how the restoration of the lagoon would improve the condition of
coral reef ecosystems. There was a lack of scientific study and data gaps.
• Enforcement of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Participants felt that there was inadequate
enforcement of the CWA, and this lack of enforcement was endangering human health and the
environment. Areas that were emphasized included erosion control, septic tanks, permit
compliance and point source discharges (NPDES). The group was concerned that water quality
standards were not being met and that lack of water quality criteria or water quality monitoring
allowed continued degradation of water bodies.
• Enforcement of Fishing Regulations. Puerto Rico has enacted fishing regulations, including the
requirement for recreational fishing licenses, prohibition on recreational spear fishing with
scuba, prohibition of beach seine nets, size limits and daily quotas on several species, and the
requirement for species-specific permits for high-value and sensitive species. The breakout
group felt that Puerto Rico needs to strengthen enforcement of its existing fishing regulations
by improving public awareness, providing further training and support for rangers, and
addressing other critical constraints to enforcement.
• Mooring Buoys. The Marine Resources Division of the DNER has installed over 270 mooring
buoys, which are permanently anchored buoys that allow boaters to moor without damaging
the seafloor. In some cases, boaters are not properly using the mooring buoys. Participants felt
that additional mooring buoys should be installed and the DNER Rangers should enforce use of
the buoys.
• Aids to Navigation. The participants felt that additional channel markers were needed. The
group also felt that Puerto Rico needed to improve their navigational charts to reflect water
depth, coral reefs and other sensitive resources.
• Scientific Studies. The group felt that additional scientific studies were needed to provide
information for decision-making. They wanted to expand the baseline characterization of the
Guanica Bay Watershed, including additional long-term monitoring of water quality and biotic
condition of the coral reefs and Guanica Bay. They also felt it important to measure or model
base flow, ground water, water replacement times, and currents.
• Riparian Restoration. The diverse vegetation that grows along streams, rivers or reservoirs is
known as the "riparian zone". Riparian areas act as protective buffers between the land and the
water, slowing runoff that is accelerated by paving of urban areas, filtering chemicals and
excess nutrients coming of agricultural lands, and to some extent ameliorating the effects of
increased sediment delivery from eroding hill slopes. Riparian restoration can often be the most
cost-effective means for restoring water quality in streams impacted by non-point source
pollution (EPA 1996). Riparian restoration involves restoring hydrologic processes and
geomorphic features, and/or reestablishing native riparian vegetation. The WMP (CWP 2008)
recommended riparian restoration along the Rio Loco. Workshop participants supported this
action, and felt riparian restoration should be undertaken throughout the Guanica Bay
Watershed.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 77
-------
• Runoff Controls. Construction activities can produce massive, short-term increases in erosion
and sediment, because (1) the stabilizing effect of vegetation is lost, (2) soil surfaces are
exposed to direct raindrop impact, and (3) additional precipitation is converted into runoff by
impermeable surfaces (UNEP 1994). Runoff control measures and other BMPs (i.e., native
vegetation) can be implemented at the time of construction to reduce runoff pollution both
during and after construction. The Center for Watershed Protection developed a fact sheet that
summarizes the Puerto Rico regulations (CWP 2006). Workshop participants felt that EQB
should enforce the requirement for runoff controls and other BMPs at construction sites.
• Mosquito Control. Dengue is a prevalent disease in Puerto Rico, where frequent rains allows
standing water, which is where mosquitoes breed. Aedes aegypti, the principal mosquito
carrier of dengue viruses in Puerto Rico, lives in urban areas. An outreach and education
program needs to be expanded.
This group also highlighted some of the actions proposed by the first focus group, including
development planning and education and outreach. They felt that an outreach plan should be
developed for marketing Guanica agricultural products such as shade-grown coffee. They also felt
that an educational program should be developed to address the cultural component of some
practices, such as the idea of "cleaning the land", which was contributing to sedimentation.
Group 3. Scientific Support
Facilitator: Dr. Amanda Rehr; Note-taker: Mr. Joe Williams
Background
EPA has articulated four core principles of watershed management (EPA 2013b):
• Watersheds are natural systems that we can work with.
• Watershed management is continuous and needs a multi-disciplinary approach.
• A watershed management framework supports partnering, using sound science, taking
well-planned actions and achieving results.
• A flexible approach is always needed.
A strong scientific foundation is essential to the formulation of sound decisions. In order to
understand how a watershed functions, decision makers need information on watershed dynamics,
processes and interactions.
Decision-making in practice
Multiple agencies are partnering in the Guanica Bay Watershed to provide the science and
information needed to formulate more sustainable decisions. These include Puerto Rico (DNER and
EQB), NOAA, USDA-NRCS, USEPA, and US F&WS. The University of Puerto Rico and several non-
profits are also involved, including Ridge to Reefs, Inc., and Protectores de Cuencas. Additionally,
NFWF administers grant funding provided by the federal agencies to implement small- to mid-scale
projects.
There is not a formal body to make decisions for the Guanica Bay Watershed. Decisions are being
made by multiple organizations (DNER, NOA Fisheries, the PR Land Authority, the municipalities).
At the time of the workshop, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) was coordinating the
process, with primary funding through the Coral Restoration Program (NOAA). The coordination
responsibility has now moved to Ridge to Reefs, Inc., and Protectores de Cuencas.
78 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
The strength of the Guanica Bay Watershed approach is the established partnership that links
together organizations providing science and information with those making the decisions.
Workshop participants provided some examples:
• Stressor identification procedures will help to identify the different sources within a watershed
that may be contributing to biological impairment. It is important to identify stressors and
potential sources of stressors so that water quality programs can target limited resources to
address these issues. Useful data may come from chemical analysis of effluents, organisms,
ambient waters, and sediments; toxicity tests of effluents, waters, and sediments; necropsies;
biotic surveys; habitat analyses; hydrologic records; and biomarker analyses. These data do not
in themselves, however, constitute evidence of causation. Researchers will have the insight for
the usefulness of the information. Decision-makers can then take the appropriate regulatory or
non-regulatory approach based upon the source and type of stressor (e.g., sewage could be
regulatory-WWTP permit compliance, or a BMP such as composting toilets at state parks
and reserves).
• NOAA has mapped the ocean floor, surveyed the fish and other seafloor creatures, and
measured contaminants in sediments and corals, nutrient levels in surface waters, and
sedimentation rates at coral reef sites. The University of Puerto Rico (Dr. Clark Sherman) has
deployed an array of sediment traps at nine reef sites adjacent to Guanica Bay and at two sites
within the bay itself to determine both the amount of sediment accumulation and its
composition. During the workshop it was identified that watershed modeling was a research
gap, and EPA has begun to employ several different models (SWAT, GSSHA, BBNs) to model
watershed hydrological and sediment and nutrient transport throughput in the Guanica Bay
Watershed. The combined information that will result from these efforts will support decision-
makers in making land management decisions.
• Many decisions have a strong social component. For example, the NOAA Caribbean Fisheries
Management Council makes regulatory decisions about fishing. They are engaging fishing
communities to understand the impact of regulations on those communities. Additionally,
University of Puerto Rico (Dr. Manolo Pizzini) is developing a report on the social system for the
Guanica Bay Watershed.
Alternative management strategies or policy options
This breakout group developed a list of management strategies, some of which had been discussed
earlier in the workshop and some which had not. A brief discussion of each strategy not previously
mentioned is provided.
• Constructed Wetlands. Constructed wetlands are treatment systems that use natural processes
involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to improve
water quality (EPA 2004). The workshop participants strongly support WMP recommendation
#2: a demonstration project where sewage effluent would be treated in a series of treatment
wetlands or living machine to reduce nitrogen export.
• Reforestation. Reforestation is the natural or intentional restocking of existing forests and
woodlands that have been depleted. In the Guanica Bay Watershed, NRCS and USFWS have
been supporting farmers in shifting from sun-grown to shade-grown coffee, where a canopy of
assorted types of shade trees is created to cultivate shade-grown coffee.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 79
-------
• Restoration of Guanica Bay Estuary. Guanica Bay was the focal point around which Guanica
and its communities grew. The workshop participants would like a program specifically targeted
at restoring Guanica Bay so it can once again provide diverse habitats for wildlife and aquatic
life and support local economy through fishing and recreational activities. Participation in a
program such as the National Estuary Program would be one way of moving towards a restored
Guanica Bay.
A summary of the management options developed by this breakout group is shown in Table 4-5.
The management options are organized into broad, general categories.
Table 4-5. Management options developed during the workshop
Aquatic Resource
Management
Restoration of Guanica Bay
Estuary
Develop a TMDL for the Rio Loco
Establish non-point source
monitoring stations in the GBWS
Monitor additional beaches for
WQ
Vessel grounding program
Additional mooring buoys
Enforce use of mooring buoys
Additional channel markers
Improved navigational charts to
reflect water depth, coral reefs
and other sensitive resources
Enforcement of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)
Enforcement of fishing
regulations
Long-term monitoring of water
quality and biotic condition of
the coral reefs and Guanica Bay
Scientific studies to measure or
model base flow, ground water,
water replacement times, and
currents
Implement stressor
identification procedures
Restoration of the historic
Guanica Lagoon
Terrestrial
Management
Reforestation
Forest management plans
Forest Legacy Program (FLP)
Community Forest and Open
Space Conservation Program
(CFP)
Land use management plan to
guide future development
Beach cleaning program
Riparian restoration throughout
the Guanica Bay Watershed
Enforce the requirement for
runoff controls and other BMPs
at construction sites
Waste
Management
Constructed WW
treatment wetlands
Enforcement of waste-
water treatment systems
Enforcement of
residential septic
systems
Social/Political
Education and outreach
Process to manage
stakeholder conflicts
Education program to address
the cultural component of
some practices
Education and outreach
on mosquito control
Enforce existing regulations
and laws
More resources for law
enforcement
Research planning process
80 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Chapter 5. Conclusions
5.1 Lessons Learned
In April 2010, a Coral Reefs workshop was held in La Parguera, Puerto Rico, at the Magueyes Island
Facilities, Department of Marine Sciences, and University of Puerto Rico.
The primary goal of the workshop was: To deliver quality information concerning the human-
ecosystem relationship so that decision-makers can serve human interests while sustaining
ecosystem services.
The purpose of the workshop was: To facilitate development of a decision support framework
with stakeholder/decision-maker input to help address problems related to ecologically-
damaging human activities (e.g., agriculture on steep slopes, unbridled development, excess
sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off due to impervious surfaces, wetland
consumption, etc.). Ecological damage includes damage to coral reefs and other ecosystems
that provide services to humans.
The three-day workshop was organized as follows (see Appendix D for full agenda):
Day 1: Framing Knowledge about Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems using a Systems
Framework (DPSIR)
Day 2: Decision-Making for Coastal Issues
Day 3: Optional: Elicitation of Decision Inputs for Coral Reef and Coastal Issues
Based on a compilation of notes during large- and small-group discussions, the following key points
can be summarized.
Watershed management should be more inclusive of the stakeholders
There was a strong feeling that more time was needed to bring stakeholders up to speed on the
watershed issues. Stakeholders need to understand both science and management concerns, and
scientists and managers need to understand the stakeholders' values and concerns. Scientists,
managers, and stakeholders must work together continuously. The Guanica Bay Watershed
Management Plan is a good starting point for further discussions; however, when beginning new
watershed studies it would be preferable to convene stakeholders prior to issuing a watershed
management plan.
Participants felt that a comprehensive and inclusive Social Network Analysis (SNA) for the Guanica
Bay Watershed could identify strengths and weaknesses in communication among these groups,
although they did not feel that it was a priority.
The Guanica Bay watershed is a complex system and a holistic, integrated decision-
making framework is needed
Workshop participants felt that, on the whole, opening-day presentations provided a good
overview of the watershed and issues. They felt, however, that the presentations did not address
some areas of concern, such as coastal and other development, wastewater, and recreational and
commercial uses on land and in the water. Use of the DPSIR decision framework to consider trade-
offs could prevent unintended consequences.
Chapters. Conclusions | 81
-------
An understanding of ecosystem services could enhance the ability for various stakeholders to
communicate their concerns on a common level. The decision framework should incorporate
ecosystem services into the way people think about their environment. Decision science/analysis is
needed to help pull all of the relevant research and valid concerns into a coherent system from
which decisions that are protective of ecosystem services can be identified and implemented. The
DPSIR framework can help with this and was well received as a potentially beneficial tool by the
workshop participants. They appreciated that the DPSIR process allowed folks to consider other
points of view. They did feel, however, that the DPSIR session was not long enough. Not all
discussion points were incorporated into the DPSIR, and they would have liked more time to focus
on additional responses that were not identified in the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan.
Feedback about DASEES recognized the value of the tool for decision-making and encouraged
continued development of DASEES. Specific suggestions included: a user-friendly interface, clear
concise instructions, and case studies. To date, the user-interface has been improved, and
instructions and case studies are in development.
We need to move beyond plans into active management of the watershed
Watershed management must be proactive in addition to reactive. It would be preferable to
prevent problems from happening in the first place (e.g., the workshop participants felt the
Guanica Lagoon should not have been drained).
Stakeholders expressed a desire for a central figure to coordinate all efforts in the watershed. The
central figure should also have the support of decision-making agencies, to ensure that the
watershed management plan is efficiently and effectively completed.
The participants felt that it was important to identify up front the costs of various alternative
management actions and adequate funding needs to be secured. There are currently plans to deal
with some problems, but the resources have not been provided. In some cases this is due to lack of
political will or deeply rooted social paradigms.
Much is known, but much remains to be learned
The dynamics of the reef ecosystem are not fully understood. More research is needed to
understand the system, particularly the impact of land-based activities on the reef ecosystem.
Confidence in data for management decisions needs to be considered. In some cases, a high level
of accuracy is needed, in other cases, not. It is necessary to balance resources and additional
research with the level of accuracy needed. Value of Information (VOI) elicitation may have some
utility, but participants felt the presentation was too theoretical. Participants felt the exercise was
too complicated.
Once documented, research and resources need to be coordinated to focus on addressing
problems within the holistic plan. In other words, we need to determine needs first, and then
collect the right data.
Additionally, there are numerous studies that provide data and information, but these are not
organized in a coordinated system. Some of the data needed for good decision-making has already
been, or is currently being, collected, but many stakeholders were unaware of past or ongoing
efforts by other stakeholders. Currently, a few very knowledgeable individuals largely hold the
information. A centralized web site for storing relevant information and tools that is accessible to
multiple groups would help address this issue.
82 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
5.2 Next Steps
While workshop participants seemed comfortable with most proposed actions in the Guanica Bay
Watershed Management Plan, several were more controversial (restoration of the historic Guanica
Bay Lagoon and creation of wetlands at the waste water treatment plant). Since the workshop,
many of the management actions proposed in the WMP have begun. Additionally, some of the
additional options suggested during the workshop have also been implemented. A short discussion
of these is provided below.
Guanica Bay Watershed coordinators
As part of its commitment to strengthening local management capacity, NOAA funded the CWP to
staff an on-site person in the Guanica Bay Watershed to interact with stakeholders. Mr. Roberto
Viquiera was hired to serve in that role. Mr. Louis Meyer-Comas was hired to work with Mr.
Viquiera. Mr. Viquiera has formed a non-profit organization (Protectores de Cuencas) and has
applied for 501(c) status, which is a tax-exempt non-profit that can receive unlimited contributions
from individuals, corporations, and unions.
Funding and grants to support restoration efforts in the Guanica Bay Watershed
NOAA and FWS have utilized a public-private partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) to provide funding through the Coral Reef Conservation Fund and the U.S.
Coral Reef Task Force Partnership Initiative for a series of projects in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
The Coral Reef Conservation Fund, which is administered by NFWF, awards matching grants for
projects that are solicited through a competitive process each year; proposals are selected based
on merit and relevance to the priorities of the partnership that are listed in the annual request for
proposals. Funding to date has advanced conservation throughout the Guanica Bay/Rio Loco
watershed—with more than $1.1 million put on the ground since its initial efforts in 2009. Grants
have included projects to reduce sediment erosion through stream bank stabilization, provide
incentives or best management practices on agricultural lands, and supported capacity building of
management and conservation organizations to sustain conservation outcomes. Information about
grants opportunities can be found at: http://www.nfwf.org/Pages/coralreef/home.aspxft
Guanica Lagoon restoration progress
The agricultural establishment (e.g., University Of Puerto Rico professors) has historically not been
in agreement with restoring the Guanica Lagoon. Workshop participants felt that the agencies need
to better understand how the farmers feel about the Lagoon restoration. Fig. 5-1 shows the
location of the Guanica Lagoon, and Fig. 5-2 shows aerial photos of the region from 1950 and 2007.
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 83
-------
Figure 5-1. Map showing the location of the historic Guanica Lagoon (Greg Morris Engineering)
Figure 5-2. Aerial photos from 1950 (left) showing the Guanica Lagoon, and 2007 showing the area that
was drained with the lagoon footprint superimposed (right)
Following the workshop, USDA-NRCS and the Center for Watershed Protection held a series of
meetings and workshops with farmers in the Lagoon area to share information and better
understand their concerns. The major concerns of the farmers are: 1) loss of agricultural
production in areas that will be flooded; 2) that restoring the Guanica Lagoon will increase the
drainage problems that already exist in the Valley, particularly where the drainage channels have
not been properly maintained for the past decades; and 3) that the water table will rise, bringing
underground salts to the surface, damaging productive agricultural lands, and causing loss of
agricultural production.
To address the farmers' uncertainties, a series of studies were conducted: 1) an inventory of farms,
2) a hydrologic and hydraulic study, and 3) a groundwater and soil salinity study. These studies
84 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
show more precisely the impact that restoring the Guanica Lagoon may have on the agriculture of
the surrounding area.
Inventory of farms
Two open meetings where conducted with farmers to discuss the study and to get the farmer's
support for the survey process. Three other meetings where held with the Guanica Office of the
Puerto Rico Land Authority (PRLA) to identify lands owned by PRLA and information about the
farmers that are renting the public lands for farming.
Protectores de Cuencas inventoried a total of 179 parcels with an average of 80 acres per parcel.
Mr. Viquiera and Mr. Meyer-Comas (Protectores de Cuencas) visited thirty-eight farms between
May 12, 2011, and October 18, 2011 (a total 15,678 acres) (Fig. 5-3).
Leyenda
LJ Hueila Historica Lagina Guanica
Num. de Pamela
0 750 !,50D
Imogen Satelital Puerto Rico 2010
Figure 5-3. Parcels inventoried in the historic Guanica Lagoon region (Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L.
2012)
After the inventory was conducted, two additional meetings were held with PRLA personnel to
review the information gathered at the farms and farmers' meetings. Another meeting with
farmers was conducted after completion of the study to present the results to the farmers.
The data collected on the farm parcels included crops, yields, fertilizer and pesticides, drainage and
salinity problems. From that data, summary maps (Figs. 5-4 and 5-5) and economic estimates were
prepared. Subareas of the Lajas Valley were created to help summarize the information on
different areas of the valley-these are shown in Fig. 5-6.
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 85
-------
Sabana
Grande
/"a^w^w ™ »«7 6l2424
32822 282 221 10>M* ™* «*Ł'»
1303 ,2«190 1?3 236352424*> "87 250153^"°
ll»»» 1«Z 311 1» 55 '517019480 f
!13222 MM5 20469 18e18T 32428,61
9, 18 32176 20635 172 , 232174 1
_
210 210 5
317 317 13 322
4ST« 352
Study Site
• Loco River
Guanica Lagoon
Main Drainage Channel
Municipal Boundary
Land Inventory
2S84923 8«
414229 445 X48?
"9 445471 \
>23 86 84445 487 N.
313 445
56272445 2M
it 300*"" •
11 Soo298 299299 ~
299 29« 214
Parguera
J Kil
Figure 5-4. The surveyed parcels of the Lajas Valley below 5M elevation and an overlay of the
historic lagoon area (Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L 2012)
PR-2
- PR-116
Guanica Lagoon
River
Main Drainage Channel
Land Inventory
Figure 5-5. Land ownership in the historic Guanica Lagoon footprint (Viqueira-Rios R and
Meyer-Comas L. 2012)
86 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Sub Areas
Anegado
Lagoon
| North of Lagoon
| South of Lagoon
H West of Anegado
PR-2
- PR-116
Main Drainage Channel
Loco River
Guanica Lagoon
Land Inventory
Figure 5-6. Sub areas in the study site (Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L 2012)
A total of 14,932 acres were surveyed. Of these, 5,545 acres are dedicated to forage (hay)
production, 4,127 acres are used for grazing meat cattle, 1,288 acres are used for rice seed
production, and 123 acres for horse production. Of the total area surveyed, 10,882 acres are
privately owned (69%), and 4,050 acres are publicly owned (31%). The area of study generates a
total of approximately $8,163,152 of gross income per year, including $259,887 for the lagoon
area, $433,244 for south of the lagoon area, $819,522 for north of the lagoon area, $2,778,549
for the El Anegado area, and $3,871,449 for west of the El Anegado area.
Fertilizer and pesticide usage in the study area is relatively low as the inventory shows only 49 of
187 parcels apply fertilizer and generally at relatively low application rates. Fertilizer and pesticide
usage is most commonly associated with rice production (100% of farms applying) and to a much
smaller degree, hay production.
Based on the inventory, approximately 28 of 179 farms employ conservation practices. This not
only indicates the potential for additional conservation measures that could be employed on farms,
but also the nature of some of the farm operations, particularly the lack of fertilizer and the
preponderance of hay operations and grazing operations in the Lajas Valley. Parcels that are
applying conservation practices are in actual contracts with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). These include a number of dairy operations where conservation practices are
important to manage nutrients in particular.
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 87
-------
Summary
• There is very limited annual production in the lagoon area-approximately $259,000 annually
compared to the total contribution of over $8.1 million annually of the entire evaluated Lajas
Valley area below 5 meters. The lagoon area (parcels adjacent or connected to the historic
lagoon) is mostly cattle and hay production on land rented from the Puerto Rico Land
Authority, and only a portion of this would be lost with the proposed restoration of the
Guanica lagoon.
• Existing water drainage, salinity and water uprising problems are common yet relatively
predictable based on soils and landscape position-these are reflected in the soil salinity and
hydrologic modeling reports.
• Improved drainage, particularly the ability to more rapidly drawdown large storm events
from the Lajas Valley, may help to increase agricultural production-one of the major
limitations is that the drawdown happens from only one confined channel. Adding an
additional channel that could also be used by migrating fish would help to limit inundation
times of the valley.
Hydrologic and hydraulic study
Greg Morris and Associates COOP (GMA COOP) conducted a modeling study to incorporate recent
data (1999-present) and to model events of higher frequency (2 to 50 years). GMA modeled 4
different water levels-current, 2.4m, 2.7m, and 3.1m. They also considered an additional
secondary scenario, no water in the Rio Loco, to represent localized rain events over the Lajas
Valley without the Rio Loco controlling the water levels within the lagoon. The numerical model
summarized below demonstrated very little changes in the volume of various flooding events (2yr,
50yr and lOOyr) due in part to the small volume of the lagoon compared to the volume associated
with larger flow events.
• Numerical Model: ICPR/FLOW-2D
• Rainfall Frequency Data: NOAA Atlas 14
• Recent detailed topographic survey of the Lajas Valley completed for this study
• Models Calibration: Eloisa event from!975 (ICPR) and an isolated event on August 3, 1963
(FLOW-2D)
• Based on input from farmers, a model simulation was also run to determine the duration of
inundation to insure the duration of inundation would not be sufficiently changed over
existing conditions
A series of outputs from the model runs are shown in Figs. 5-7 through 5-9.
88 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
2-year Flood Extent
Increase in Flood
Extent
Water Volumes:
Lagoon= 2,500 acre-ft
2-yr Flood= 3,700 acre-ft
Volume Ratio= 0.7
D 1000 2000 3.000
Figure 5-7. Model output for the 2-yr flood event under various lagoon height scenarios
(Greg Morris Engineering)
Increase in Flood
Extent
Figure 5-8. The majority of flooding increases takes place on forested land, except for a small portion on
the left side of the figure, which is hay land. In total, increased flooding is projected to impact less than
25 acres. (Greg Morris Engineering)
Chapters. Conclusions | 89
-------
50-year Flood Extent
Water Volumes:
Lagoon= 2,500 acre-ft
50-yr Flood= 29,100 acre-ft
Volume Ratio= 0.09
1.000
zooo
3.000
Flood Extent is not
significantly increased.
Figure 5-9. The 50-yr flood event projection with no lagoon (current condition in red) vs. the flood
projections (thin lines-yellow, green, blue) shows almost no additional flooding. (This is due in part
to the small volume of the lagoon compared to the large volume associated with a 50-year event ~8.6%)
(Greg Morris Engineering)
Restoration of a 950-acre lagoon versus the historic 1200 acres is estimated to minimize impact to
agricultural land and maximize both ecological and economic benefits. Evaluated lagoon water
level will not increase regulatory flood levels by more than 0.15 m in compliance with Planning
Board regulations. Flood extent will not be significantly changed by the increase in flood water
levels resulted from the Guanica Lagoon restoration.
Groundwater and soil salinity study
A study was undertaken to better understand the existing impact of salinity and hydrology on the
agricultural lands in the valley (Fig. 5-10). The study consisted of analyzing the soils and mapping
electrical conductivity. Soil analysis included measuring the clay content, mineralogy, salts and
moisture content that can influence the electrical conductivity of the soil. Soil salinity was
measured using inductive electromagnetic techniques to determine the conductivity of soils.
Electrical conductivity devices produce an electric field, which in a salty soil produce a second
electric field. In addition, over 90 samples were analyzed using the extracted paste method for soil
salinity to provide calibration points for the duel electromagnetic device. The National Soil Salinity
Expert at the USDA Central National Technology Service Center (CNTSC) in Texas supervised this
work.
90 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Legend
Soil Sample Sites
Areas Mapped with EM Device
Old Guanica Lagoon
Farm Parcel Numbers
Puerto Rico 2010 Satellite Image
Figure 5-10. Soil salinity study, Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve (source: Weber 2012)
The soils data for Guanica Clay in Web Soil Survey, the electrical conductivity mapping with the
Dual EM, and the soils laboratory analysis mutually support the following conclusions.
1. The Guanica Lagoon existed as a recharge depressional wetland prior to drainage. This
wetland received surface runoff from the Lajas Valley and ponded water above a deeper
groundwater table, from which it was hydraulically disconnected.
2. Minerals, including salt, which are dissolved with surface runoff water, move slowly
downward through very low permeability soils. Vegetation removes water from this
unsaturated profile, leaving behind salts.
3. The presence of salts in the soil profile is associated only with areas where surface
ponding exists.
4. Since there is no shallow water table capable of moving salt-laden water into or out of the
lagoon, there is no potential for groundwater effects to increase salinity levels in land areas
outside of ponded areas.
5. The areas subject to increases in salinity from an increase in depth will be limited largely to
the areas actually subject to increased inundation only.
6. The restoration of the original hydrology of Guanica lagoon has the potential to provide
nutrient cycling for surface runoff originating in the Lajas Valley.
Chapters. Conclusions | 91
-------
If the lagoon were supplied with groundwater, the groundwater surface profile would be driven
upward at the margins of the lagoon because of the planned increase in lagoon depth and duration
of ponding. If this groundwater carried concentrations of salts, salinity effects would be felt in areas
subject to this groundwater rise. However, evidence provided by soils, electrical conductivity, and
soil laboratory analysis mutually support the conclusion that this is not a system supplied by
groundwater.
The findings are consistent with a plot of the USDA national soil survey dataset, which
demonstrates lower levels of salinity concentration in the historic lagoon area and the presence of
groundwater seeps with high salinity levels at some of the historic wetland fringe areas and
adjacent to geomorphic features including hillsides which create groundwater artesian pressure
(Fig. 5-11). High salinity and saline soils are an issue in portions of the Lajas Valley for these
reasons, and restoration of the lagoon will not impact or worsen those existing conditions. The soil
salinity values were saturated paste data samples reported as Electrical Conductivity (EC) in the
USDA/NRCS SSURGO database. The use of this data was coordinated directly with the National Soils
Laboratory in Lincoln, NE. Higher concentrations of soil salinity are presumably due to areas of
vertical movement due to artesian pressure from the surrounding hillsides and historical wetlands
when they fringed the historic sea in the Lajas Valley.
Lajas Valley - Salinity
Legend
Electrical Conductivity
(millimhos per centimeter)
0.5-2.0
2.0-9.0
•• 9.0 -12.0
Guanica Wetland
I I Lajas Valley
I |
Figure 5-11. The surface salinity layer, Lajas Valley. The areas of highest soil salinity (3.0 - 6.0 mm/cm) in
magenta, the areas of medium salinity (0.5-3.0 mm/cm) in yellow/tan, and areas of lowest salinity (<0.5
mm/cm) in blue; in addition 1 meter contour lines based on Lidar data are shown (source: Weber 2012).
Socioeconomic study of the Guanica Lagoon
A socioeconomic study of Guanica lagoon has been funded by PRDNER and is currently underway.
It is being led by economist Alfredo Izzarry Mora of the University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez (UPRM)
and Protectores de Cuencas. The financial costs and benefits of lagoon restoration are being
evaluated and will be summarized in a report. In addition, public meetings of stakeholders are
occurring to provide input into the study.
92 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Hydro-seeding (source: Sturm et al. 2012)
Ridge to Reefs, Inc. and Protectores de Cuencas held an Exposed Soil Roundtable in the upper
Guanica Bay Watershed with experts in plants, soils, restoration, agronomy and erosion and
sediment control from NRCS, FWS, NOAA and NC State University. The roundtable proposed
several mulch/seed mixtures consisting of local materials that were tailored to high-mountain and
dry coastal sites in Puerto Rico.
Ridge to Reefs, Inc., and Protectores de Cuencas purchased a hydro-seeder and established ten
plots to test various hydro-seeding mixtures in an effort to determine their effectiveness and cost
effectiveness (Fig. 5-12). The initial plots were tested at a 70-75% slope with unconsolidated soil
and an 85-90% slope with a mix of consolidated (more rock and compacted soil) and
unconsolidated (less compacted soil). Together these represent some of the more extreme
conditions encountered in the high mountain areas, and if effective, stabilization can occur on
these plots-similar methods should be applicable to less severe slopes.
Based on the test results, the methods were used on a larger and broader scale and to diversify the
types of sites, which included two farm sites and one commercial site: 1) Finca Santa Rita-a 3-acre
site composed of a conveyance channel and a sediment basin; 2) Finca La Paz-a farm site
composed of 2 acres of hydro-seeding steep slopes in the Lajas Valley; and 3) Hardware Store (ACE)
Ferreteria Solar El Almacigo, where 1 acre of highly erodible bare soil was stabilized very close to a
direct tributary of the Rio Loco in Yauco. Each of the sites resulted in very high levels of stabilization
and vegetative cover.
These methods are applicable to other sites across the Caribbean and likely also in tropical areas
of the Pacific.
Figure 5-12. Protectores de Cuencas and Ridge to Reefs Inc., hydro-seeding a steep slope along the side of
a mountain road in the Guanica Bay Watershed (photo provided by Paul Sturm)
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 93
-------
Shade-grown coffee initiative
Significant sources of sediment are being addressed by the conversion of sun-grown coffee to
shade-grown coffee from the upper Guanica Bay Watershed near the ridges, which receive over
100 inches of rainfall annually. To date, 28 farms have contracts to convert over 1500 acres back to
shade coffee as part of NRCS and USFWS Partners in Wildlife efforts. A set of standards has been
adopted including best management practices for managing the shade canopy, erosion reduction,
and minimizing energy and water use in processing.
Protectores de Cuencas has led a roundtable of coffee farmers, agencies, NGOs and other
stakeholders to develop a set of criteria for shade-grown coffee farms (Fig. 5-13). Certification
labeling and logos have been created and adopted by the roundtable group (Fig. 5-13). Next steps
include certifying farms, training farmers to manage the transition from sun-grown to shade-grown
coffee, training coffee pickers to maximize the coffee's value, and assisting farmers in helping to
develop coffee markets both domestically and internationally for the shade-grown coffee market.
Figure 5-13. Shade-grown coffee roundtable and proposed certification label (photos provided by
Paul Sturm)
Shade-grown coffee has the potential to improve the economics, habitat and ecological value of
the area and increase resilience to drought and temperature fluctuation associated with climate
change. It also represents a way for the historic coffee-based communities in Puerto Rico to help
address food and economic security while restoring natural functions of the forest, soils, the health
of rivers and streams, and ultimately improve nearshore coastal habitat. The effort is in the process
of becoming national policy in Puerto Rico, which will benefit other watersheds and coral reef
areas.
Together with hydro-seeding of bare soils by Protectores de Cuencas and Ridge to Reefs, the
criteria is also being incorporated into the "Bosque Modelo" (Model Forest) criteria for Puerto Rico,
which is part of a larger international movement of forest protection. These efforts recognize the
need for systemic, institutional changes to achieve long-term sustainability and resilience of
forests, adjacent coastal resources, including coral reefs, and local economies.
94 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Baseline assessment
In 2013, NCAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), in partnership with NCAA's
Restoration Center and the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagiiez, released the results of an
interdisciplinary assessment to help establish baseline conditions in and around Guanica Bay.
Scientists assessed habitat types, coral cover, fish and chemical contaminant status in sediment and
coral tissues (Whitall et al. 2013). Results from the assessment include:
• The Guanica study region is more degraded than the La Parguera region to the west. Percent-
cover of hard corals, gorgonians and seagrass was lower in Guanica than in La Parguera.
• The pollutants measured in the sediments of Guanica Bay were among the highest
concentrations of PCBs, chlordane, chromium and nickel ever measured in the history of
NCAA's National Status & Trends, a nationwide contaminant-monitoring program that began
in 1986.
• Because contaminant threshold values do not exist for coral, it is unclear what effect the
observed contaminant levels might have on coral health. Future studies should consider fish
tissue contaminants to assess whether there is an ecological or seafood safety issue related
to contaminants in the Bay.
• Accumulated sediment composition (i.e., land-based versus marine) is relatively uniform.
Sediments on the reefs are coming from both land-based sources and re-suspension
from Guanica Bay.
• Nutrient concentrations track precipitation patterns, with higher phosphorus, ammonium
and urea concentrations during the rainy season. In offshore waters, phosphorus rarely
exceeded proposed coral health thresholds, however, nitrogen exceeded thresholds 10%
of the time.
The preponderance of evidence presented in Whitall et al. 2013 suggests that this system is
experiencing anthropogenic stress, which may be resulting in coral decline. Further monitoring and
assessments are needed in order to detect changes in the ecosystem over a variety of time scales
ranging from relatively short-term responses in sediment loading, to potentially decadal-long
recovery processes for reef systems.
Coastal managers will be able to use the assessment to measure changes resulting from
management actions in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
Grounding response program
US reefs are impacted by 3-4 large groundings and hundreds of small incidents annually. In the
aftermath of groundings, impacted corals are often broken, dislodged, or flipped over. These
fragments are subject to abrasion, scour, and sedimentation, which ultimately result in death.
Unchecked, these damages can result in reef loss and instability. However, if dislodged fragments
can be collected and stabilized shortly after physical impact then the probability of survival
increases substantially (Rinkevich 2005; Edwards and Gomez 2007).
Response to physical impact is a jurisdictional priority in both Puerto Rico and USVI, an identified
capacity gap in both jurisdictions, and a priority element of the draft Acropora recovery plan
(NCAA 2014). As the primary federal natural resource trustee for coastal resources, NCAA has
responsibility for ensuring the restoration of coastal resources injured by releases of hazardous
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 95
-------
materials and of damage caused by larger ship groundings. The territories are responsible for
dealing with smaller groundings and damage caused by anchors and fishing gear. However, Puerto
Rico and the USVI have limited funding and staff to deal with the groundings and requested that
NOAA provide assistance to help stem the unchecked and unnecessary coral losses that were
occurring after physical impact.
In 2009, NOAA established an emergency response support contract with a local firm to respond to
physical impact and also provide additional restoration, research and monitoring activities in the
region. Funding for this work was provided from NOAA's Restoration Center, the Coral Reef
Conservation Program, Protected Resources Division, Assessment and Restoration Division and
the South East Regional Office.
Additionally, NOAA and partner organizations have established coral nurseries in Puerto Rico
and USVI (Fig. 5-14) to grow coral colonies in a relatively protected environment (ideally free of
predators, disease, sedimentation, algae, etc.) and provide a source of corals that can subsequently
be transplanted back out onto the reef or re-fragmented to expand the nursery (NOAA 2013 and
Griffin 2014). In 2012, Acropora palmata nurseries were set up in Guanica after A. palmata thickets
in the area were damaged by tropical storms. In 2014, NOAA began transplanting Acropora
cervicornis from the nursery in Guayanilla to the reefs in Guanica.
2013 Nursery Locations in Puerto Rico
& the U.S. Virgin Islands
NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
St. Thomas, USVI
2 3
Caribbean Sea
A. palmata only
Nursery Types
A. cervicornis only
St. Croix, USVI
Both A. cervicornis
& A. palmata
Figure 5-14. Location of coral nursery operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S Virgin Islands during 2013.
1) La Parguera, 2) Guanica, 3) Guayanilla, 4) Culebra, 5) West Cay, 6) Flat Cay, 7) Coki Point, 8) Lindquist Bay,
9) Cane Bay, and 10) league Bay (Griffin 2014)
96 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
DPS//? coral reef website and decision support
Based on the information gathered from this workshop (and from the previous workshop in the
Florida Keys in June of 2009), EPA developed the on-line ReefLink Database
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=242306) utilizing a systems
approach to integrate ecosystem services into the decision process, including elucidating the
linkages between decisions, human activities, and provisioning of reef ecosystem goods and
services. The database employs the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework as a
systems framework to ensure that critical concepts are not overlooked. This scientific and
management information database utilizes systems thinking to describe the linkages between
decisions, human activities, and provisioning of reef ecosystem goods and services. This database
provides a navigable hierarchy of related topics and information for each topic including concept
maps, scientific citations, management options, and laws.
The ReefLink Database can be used by: 1) the public to learn how their community may affect or
benefit from coral reefs, 2) scientists to identify decision scenarios for which their research may be
relevant, and 3) reef managers to understand how systems thinking can aid in identifying
alternative management options. Although specifically designed for coral reefs, the database
provides an example of using a systems thinking framework to integrate scientific research with
decision-making, and in concert with the systems thinking tutorial
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=235356), presents approaches
that are broadly applicable to any environmental management problem. Usage statistics for
ReefLink average about 200 hits per month.
EPA also established a project on the EPA's Web-based Environmental Science Connector (ESC).
The Coral Reefs Puerto Rico ESC Project is now being used to share information. Documents,
presentations, and web-links are all available on the Coral Reefs Puerto Rico ESC Project.
EPA took the workshop participants' ideas and concerns and developed an objectives hierarchy for
the Guanica Bay Watershed. An objectives hierarchy arranges objectives from broad, overarching
goals to lower-level, specific accomplishments or actions. Objectives in the uppermost levels of the
hierarchy reflect broad or inclusive values. Progress towards these objectives is achieved by
meeting lower-level, subordinate objectives. This is presented in Carriger et al. 2013.
The participants' response to the proposed decision support framework (DASEES) was very mixed.
EPA has overhauled DASEES in response to their comments to try to make the system more
responsive to decision-maker and stakeholders needs.
5.3 Summary
Since 2009, when the USCRTF designated the Guanica Bay Watershed as its first priority watershed
partnership, a multi-agency and stakeholder partnership has worked together to address land-
based sources of pollution. Watershed restoration is challenging and requires a commitment of
resources and a willingness to work collaboratively. Watershed restorations are characterized by:
• Complexity and uncertainty
• Difficult judgments
• High stakes
• Limited resources
• Growing expectations
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 97
-------
The 2010 Guanica Bay Decision-Making Workshop brought together representatives from federal
and territorial government agencies, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions,
and Guanica Bay Watershed citizens to develop a decision-analysis framework built upon the
Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008). The workshop provided a forum for
participants to 1) review characteristics of, and threats to the Guanica Bay watershed, coral reefs
and coastal ecosystems, and 2) discuss ongoing and future restoration activities in the watershed.
The structured decision-making (SDM) approach demonstrated throughout the workshop helps
watershed managers to define the problem(s) under consideration, develop a set of management
options, determine who should be involved, create a shared understanding of how people with
different interests and perspectives view different options, and compare the trade-offs created by
each option. This process can be used in other watersheds to achieve similar objectives.
The Guanica Bay Watershed project has shown that the watershed approach, which includes
stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound science and appropriate
technology, can be used to protect coral reefs from land-based sources of pollution. Based upon
the success of the Guanica Bay Watershed project, the USCRTF has designated two additional
priority watersheds-Faga'alu, American Samoa in 2010, and West Maui, Hawai'i in 2011.
98 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview
Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States of America. Puerto Rico is part of
the Antillean archipelago located between the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean and consists
of the main island of Puerto Rico and a variety of keys and islands, such as the municipalities of
Culebra and Vieques to the east, and the uninhabited islands of Mona, Monito and Desecheo to the
west. The main and largest island is about one hundred eleven miles (160 km) long, thirty-six miles
(60 km) wide, and approximately three thousand five hundred square miles (9,000 km2) of land
area (Fig. A-l). The population of Puerto Rico is estimated at 3.7 million people. The capital and
largest city, San Juan, is home to over 400,000 people.
Deseclieo I
deques
0 12.5 25
50 km
Figure A-l. Map of Puerto Rico showing municipality boundaries and forested areas
History
The earliest known settlers were the Ortoiroid people from the Orinoco region in South America
who arrived 4000-5000 years ago. Between the 7th and llth centuries, the Tamo culture
developed on the island. By 1000 AD the Tamo culture was dominant (Rouse 1992). The Tamo
called the island Boriken, "the land of the brave lord."
Christopher Columbus landed in Boriken during his second voyage to the New World on November
19, 1493, and renamed the island San Juan Bautista in honor of Saint John the Baptist. In 1508, Juan
Ponce de Leon founded the first European settlement, Caparra, not far from the modern city of San
Juan. The Tamo Chief Agueybana welcomed Ponce de Leon. However, within a year, the Spanish
had subjugated a majority of the Tamos and gained control over most of the island. Ponce de Leon
was named Governor in 1509. He abandoned Caparra and relocated the settlement to a nearby
coastal islet, named Puerto Rico (Rich Port). In the 1520s, the Spanish renamed the island Puerto
Rico, and the port (Puerto Rico) became San Juan. After a Tamo uprising in 1511, a second
settlement, San German, was founded on the southwestern part of the island.
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 99
-------
As early as 1511, Dominican Friars preached against slavery and the inhumane treatment of the
Tamo in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. They were eventually successful in influencing the Spanish
crown, however the high death rate among the Tamo due to enslavement and European diseases
(smallpox, influenza, measles, and typhus) persisted. King Ferdinand II issued a royal decree that
emancipated the Tamos in 1520. However, the harsh working conditions and epidemics of
infectious disease had taken their toll on the Tafnos-the 1530 census reported the existence
of only 1148 Tamo remaining in Puerto Rico (Schimmer 2010).
The Spanish brought African slaves to Puerto Rico in 1513. By 1540 the gold reserves on the island
were nearly exhausted. The farms originally established to supply cattle, grain, fruits, and
vegetables to the mining camps continued to use slave labor to sustain cash cultivation of cassava,
corn, tobacco, plantains, rice, ginger, cocoa, cereals, vegetables, tropical fruits, and medicinal
plants (Schimmer 2010). Sugar was introduced in the early 1500s and coffee in 1736.
In 1873 slavery was abolished. In that same year, the first "Centrales" or factories with equipment
operated by steam were established, greatly increasing the potential of sugarcane production, and
by 1898, sugar was the most important cash crop.
Spain possessed Puerto Rico for over 400 years, despite invasion attempts by the French, Dutch,
and British. In 1898, Spain was defeated in the Spanish-American War and ceded Puerto Rico to the
United States under the terms of the Treaty of Paris. Since then Puerto Rico has remained under
United States rule.
Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917 and having become a Commonwealth in 1947,
have elected their own governor since 1948. In 1952 the Constitution of Puerto Rico was adopted
with a democratically elected bicameral legislature. In November 2012, sixty-one percent of
respondents voted in a non-binding referendum for statehood as the preferred alternative to the
current territorial status.
Puerto Rico is divided into 78 municipalities, which are comparable to counties in the continental
United States. Seven of these municipalities are at least partly in basins that contribute water to
Guanica Bay (Fig. A-2). An eighth, St. German, overlaps only marginally with the Lajas basin, but
water from the Lajas irrigation canal is filtered to supply public drinking water used in the city
of San German.
100 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
A ( > , , -' '""
.-' \ '•-' ^
-•'"\ •' \ C. I 'I
•'"-./ - »_„. /-' i !;
\\, ->..,..^ / t-^ -- ""
"^ ! <(
"^ ? x rs f
-x xi ^v ^^
} "V .-•''"""'- .._ \ ) • \ ^"; / ;'
- -.-.r-< 7^:< ^
; v ; TT- ?H- ~
; fr-4^:",: ;, [
f" L y-r->(<^fi ,r & |rv^
>x 0 5 10
:\,
i
j
s
f"
Western Puerto Rico Municipios
j Watersheds of interest
Municipios Outside Watersheds
| San German
^] Guanica
Lajas
| Maricao
Yauco
^J Adjuntas
I Sabana Grande
20 30 40
Figure A-2. Map of municipality boundaries (see legend) and watershed basins (red outline) in the
Guanica Bay Watershed
Governance
A complex and multi-layered system of laws, organizations, and strategies exists to manage and
govern uses of natural resources. Resource management authority is fragmented among a variety
of federal, state, and local agencies, often resulting in redundant efforts, inefficiency, and lack of
coordination among agencies. The current management framework has evolved through the
collection of single-issue management laws and authorities, without regard for the
interconnectedness of human activities and biological and physical systems.
U.S. environmental laws and regulations are applicable in Puerto Rico (i.e., Clean Air Act [CAA],
Clean Water Act [CWA], Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA], Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 [CZARA], Coral Reef Conservation Act [CRCA], Endangered Species Act [ESA],
Farmland Protection Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [FWCA], Lacey Act, Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 [MSA], and National
Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]).
The U.S. Code also includes a section (48 USC Chapter 4) specially addressing the relationship with
Puerto Rico and the authorities of Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory and commonwealth.
Federal organizations with natural resource missions and regulatory authority that operate in
Puerto Rico include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).
At the Commonwealth level, the executive branch of Puerto Rico's government operates through
two distinct administrative structures that operate independently: the agencies and departments,
which constitute the "central government" of the Commonwealth, and the state-owned "public
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 101
-------
corporations". The public corporations are usually located outside government departments; a
group (as opposed to the governor alone) appoints their boards of directors; and the boards of
directors appoint their managers. Currently there are 51 public corporations in operation which
generate annual revenues of $8.9 billion, equivalent to approximately 13 percent of Puerto Rico's
GNP (Table A-l).
Table A-l. Puerto Rico public corporations
Name in English
Automobile Accident
Compensation
Administration
Agricultural Insurance
Corporation
Aqueducts and Sewers
Authority
Authority for the Financing
of Industrial, Touristic,
Educative, Medical and
Environmental Control
Facilities
Authority for the Financing
of Housing
Authority for the Financing
of the Infrastructure of
Puerto Rico
Cano Martfn Pena ENLACE
Corporation
Cardiovascular Center of
Puerto Rico and the
Caribbean Corporation
Commission on Traffic
Safety
Comprehensive Cancer
Center
Conservatory of Music
Corporation
Convention Center District
Authority
English
Abbreviation
PRAACA
PRAIC
PR AS A
AFITEMECF
PRAFH
AFI
ENLACE
CCPRCC
PRCTS
PRCCC
PRCMC
PRCCDA
Name in Spanish
Administracion de
Compensacion por
Accidentes de Automoviles
Corporacion de Seguros
Agrfcolas
Autoridad de Acueductos y
Alcantarillados
Autoridad para el
Financiamiento de
Facilidades Industrials,
Turfsticas, Educativas,
Medicas y de Control
Ambiental
Autoridad para el
Financiamiento de la
Vivienda
Autoridad para el
Financiamiento de la
Infraestructura de Puerto
Rico
Corporacion del Proyecto
ENLACE del Cano Martfn
Pena
Corporacion del Centre
Cardiovascular de Puerto
Rico y el Caribe
Comision para la Seguridad
en el Transito
Centre Comprensivo de
Cancer
Corporacion del
Conservatorio de Musica
Autoridad del Distrito del
Centre de Convenciones
Spanish
Abbreviation
ACAA
CSA
AAA
AFICA
AFV
AFI
ENLACE
CCCPRC
CST
CCCPR
CCM
ADCCPR
Industry
Insurance
Agriculture
Public utility
Banking
Banking
Banking
Real estate
Healthcare
Insurance
Healthcare
Education
Travel and
leisure
102 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Table A-l (continued)
Name in English
Corporation for the
Development of Arts,
Sciences and
Cinematographic Industry
Corporation of Industries
for the Blind, Mentally
Retarded People, and
Other Handicapped People
Credit Unions Supervision
and Insurance Corporation
Economic Development
Bank
Electric Power Authority
Government Development
Bank
Health Insurance
Administration
Highways and
Transportation Authority
Industrial Development
Company
Integral Development for
the Cantera Peninsula
Company
Institute of Puerto Rican
Culture
Lands Administration
Lands Authority
Maritime Transport
Authority
Medical Services
Administration
Metropolitan Bus Authority
Municipal Financing Agency
English
Abbreviation
PRCDASC
PRCIBMRPOHP
PRCUSIC
EDB
PREPA
GDB
PRHIA
PRHTA
PRIDCO
PRIDCPC
IPRC
PRLA
PRLA
PRMTA
PRMSA
MBA
MFA
Name in Spanish
Corporacion para el
Desarrollo de las Artes,
Ciencias e Industria
Cinematografica
Corporacion de Industrias de
Ciegos, Personas
Mentalmente Retardadasy
Otras Personas Incapacitadas
Corporacion para la
Supervision y Seguros de
Cooperativas de Puerto Rico
Banco de Desarrollo
Economico
Autoridad de Energia
Electrica
Banco Gubernamental de
Fomento
Administracion de Seguros
de Salud
Autoridad de Carreteras y
Transportacion
Compania de Fomento
Industrial
Compania para el Desarrollo
Integral de la Peninsula de
Cantera
Institute de Cultura
Puertorriquena
Administracion de Terrenes
Autoridad de Tierras
Autoridad deTransporte
Maritime
Administracion de Servicios
Medicos de Puerto Rico
Autoridad Metropolitana de
Autobuses
Agencia de Financiamiento
Municipal
Spanish
Abbreviation
CDACIC
GRID
COSSEC
BDE
AEE
BGF
ASES
ACT
FOMENTO
CDIPC
ICP
AT
ATPR
ATM
ASEM
AMA
AFM
Industry
Entertainment
Industrial
development
Insurance
Banking
Public utility
Banking
Healthcare
Transportation
Industrial
development
Industrial
development
Entertainment
Real estate
Agriculture
Transportation
Healthcare
Transportation
Banking
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 103
-------
Table A-l (continued)
Name in English
Musical Arts Corporation
National Guard
Institutional Trust
National Parks Company
Performing Arts Center
Corporation
Ponce Port Authority1
Ports Authority
Public Broadcasting
Corporation
Public Buildings Authority
Sales Tax Financing
Corporation
School of Plastic Arts
Solid Waste Authority
State Insurance Fund
Corporation
Symphony Orchestra
Corporation
Trade and Export Company
Tourism Company
Training and Work
Enterprises Corporation
University of Puerto Rico
English
Abbreviation
PRMAC
PRNGIT
PRNPC
PRPACC
PPA
PRPA
PRPBC
PBA
COFINA
SPAPR
SWA
PRSIFC
PRSOC
PRTEC
Tourism
PRTWEC
UPR
Name in Spanish
Corporacion para las Artes
Musicales
Fideicomiso Institucional
de la Guardia Nacional de
Puerto Rico
Compafiia de Parques
Nacionales
Corporacion del Centro de
Bellas Artes
Autoridad del Puerto de
Ponce
Autoridad de los Puertos
Corporacion para la
Difusion Publica
Autoridad de Edificios
Publicos
Corporacion del Fondo de
Interes Apremiante
Escuela de Artes Plasticas
Autoridad de Desperdicios
Solidos
Corporacion del Fondo del
Seguro del Estado
Corporacion de la Orquesta
Sinfonica
Compafiia de Comercio y
Exportacion
Compafiia deTurismo
Corporacion de Empresas
de Adiestramiento y
Trabajo
Universidad de Puerto Rico
Spanish
Abbreviation
CAM
FIGNA
CPNPR
CBA
APP
APPR
WIPR
AEP
COFINA
EAP
ADS
CFSE
COSPR
CCE
Turismo
CEAT
UPR
Industry
Entertainment
Banking
Real estate
Entertainment
Transportation
Transportation
Entertainment
Real estate
Banking
Education
Public utility
Insurance
Entertainment
Industrial
development
Travel and
leisure
Education
Education
Environmental protection in Puerto Rico is founded on the Public Policy Environmental Act (Law
No. 9 of 18 Jun 1970, as amended). The Puerto Rico's Environmental Quality Board (EQB) sets out
regulations and guidelines for the environmental protection of the island, reports to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and must comply with federal requirements.
1 Owned by the PR Executive Branch, but legally transferred to the municipality of Ponce.
104 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Land-use planning, overseen by the Puerto Rico Planning Board, is an especially difficult problem,
since residential, industrial, and recreational developers are all competing for about 30% of the
total land area on an island that is already more densely populated than any state of the U.S.,
except New Jersey.
Puerto Rico has codified their laws, and these are available
at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lawsofpuertorico/. The Code is divided into 34 titles
(listed below), which deal with broad, logically organized areas of legislation. Titles most applicable
to natural resource management and protection have been shown in bold.
Title 1. The Commonwealth
Title 2. Legislature
Title 3. Executive
Title 4. Judiciary
Title 5. Agriculture
Title 6. Nonprofit Associations
Title 7. Banking
Title 8. Public Welfare & Charitable Institutions
Title 9. Highways and Traffic
Title 10. Commerce
Title 11. Workmen's Compensation
Title 12. Conservation
Title 13. Taxation and Finance
Title 14. Private Corporations
Title 15. Sports and Parks
Title 16. Election & Registration
Title 17. Housing
Title 18. Education
Title 19. Negotiable Instruments
Title 20. Examining Boards & Professional Colleges
Title 21. Municipalities
Title 22. Public Works
Title 23. Public Planning & Development
Title 24. Health & Sanitation
Title 25. Internal Security
Title 26. Insurance
Title 27. Public Service
Title 28. Public Lands
Title 29. Labor
Title 30. Mortgage Law & Regulations
Title 31. Civil Code
Title 32. Code of Civil Procedure
Title 33: Penal Code
Title 34: Code of Criminal Procedure
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 105
-------
-------
Appendix B. Guanica Bay Watershed
Both Columbus and Ponce de Leon landed in Guanica, and Ponce de Leon founded a town called
Guaynfa on August 12, 1508. The word was derived from the Tamo indigenous culture that is
believed to have meant, "Here is a place with water". Guaynfa was destroyed during the indigenous
uprising of 1511, and throughout the 16th century, was the object of constant threats and attacks
from the indigenous Tamos, as well as from pirates and corsairs. The Spanish abandoned the area
for some years, during which time San Juan became the capital of the island (Wikipedia 2014).
On July 25, 1898, American forces landed in Guanica during the Spanish-American War. American
troops fought a series of battles with the Spanish and Puerto Rican troops, but the war was
militarily inconclusive. Instead, it ended when Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in
accordance with the Treaty of Paris of 1898. A monument on the waterfront (Fig. B-l), a large coral
boulder marked by the carved words, "3rd Battalion, 1st U.S.V. Engineers, September 16, 1898"
commemorates the invasion. Today, July 25 is a Puerto Rican holiday, commemorating the day of
the establishment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952. On March 12, 1914, the Legislative
Assembly of Puerto Rico designated Guanica an independent municipality.
Figure B-l. The monument on the waterfront in Guanica, commemorating the U.S. invasion in
September 1898 (photo provided by Debbie Santavy)
Appendix B. Guanica Bay Watershed | 107
-------
The Historic Guanica Lagoon
The Guanica Lagoon was a natural freshwater wetland and lagoon system that served as a sink for
nutrients sediment and other contaminants (Warne et. al., 2005). The lagoon consisted of Laguna
Guanica (a shallow coastal lagoon, Fig. B-2) and Cienaga El Anegado (a freshwater herbaceous
marsh dominated by Southern cattail [Typha dominguensis]). Cienaga El Anegado was located
about 2.7 km west of the western shoreline of Laguna Guanica (Ortiz-Zayas and Terrasa-Soler
2001). The Guanica Lagoon was drained in 1955 as part of an agricultural development project in
the Lajas Valley. There is a proposed plan to restore Guanica Lagoon to reclaim its value as a
wildlife refuge and ecological resource (CWP 2010; GME 1999a & 1999b).
Figure B-2. Former Guanica Lagoon area and the adjacent community of Fuig (photo provided
by Tom Moore)
Guanica State Forest
Bordering Guanica Bay to the east and west is the Guanica State Forest (Fig. B-3), which is a
subtropical dry forest. Subtropical dry forests occur in regions where there are several months of
severe drought, with most rain falling during a (usually) brief wet season. The absence of
precipitation during a prolonged portion of the year is what produces the dry forest, an ecosystem
type characterized by plants and animals possessing specific adaptations to survive the dry season.
Guanica Dry Forest is one of fifteen (15) state forests maintained by the Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources (DNER). It is the largest tract of tropical dry coastal forest still intact in the
world (almost 9,500 acres) and is considered the best example of dry forest in the Caribbean (Ewel
and Whitmore 1973). Due to its ecological importance, it has been designated as a United Nations
International Biosphere Reserve in 1981 (Miller and Lugo 2009).
108 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
The forest offers 36 miles (58km) of trails through four forest types (deciduous trees, a coastal
region with tree-size milkweed and nine-foot-tall prickly pear cactus, a mahogany forest, and
twisted gumbo limbo trees). More than 700 plant species occur within the forest, 48 of which are
endangered and 16 which are endemic to the forest.
Figure B-3. Photos of the Guanica State Forest
Guanica State Forest is home to about half of Puerto Rico's terrestrial bird species, including the
Puerto Rican nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus) and the Puerto Rican emerald-breasted
hummingbird (Chlorostilbon maugeaus), making it a bird-watcher's paradise (Fig. B-4).
Figure B-4. The Puerto Rican nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus) and the Puerto Rican emerald-breasted
hummingbird (Chlorostilbon maugeaus) are both found in the Guanica State Forest (photos taken by
Mike Morel and Jose Angel Torres)
The Punta Ballenas Reserve (Fig. B-5) is along the coast of the Guanica Forest and is managed as
part of the forest. It contains a mangrove forest, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and coral
reefs (Miller and Lugo, 2009), which provide habitat for many aquatic species including manatees
and crested toads, and nesting sites for Hawksbill turtles.
Appendix B. Guanica Bay Watershed | 109
-------
Just a mile off the coast is a tiny, uninhabited island, Cayo Aurora, commonly known as Gilligan's
Island (Fig. B-5), also managed as part of the Guanica State Forest.
Figure B-5. The Punta Ballenas Reserve (left photo) and Cayo Aurora (Gilligan's Island) (right photo)
Ensenada, La Pieza and Fuig
Ensenada is a borough (or unincorporated community) located in the municipality of Guanica. In
the 2010 census it had a population of 1705 inhabitants and a population density of 628.75 persons
per km2.
La Pieza is located on the west side of Guanica Bay at relatively low elevation. All of the homes in
La Pieza (approximately 30) have septic systems. In Puerto Rico a septic system is a concrete box
with holes. Water quality measurements taken around La Pieza have high levels of bacteria and
ammonia, suggesting that many of the septic systems may be failing (Paul Sturm, personal
communication).
Fuig is a town located in the municipality of Guanica on the south side of the historic Guanica
Lagoon where the existing Lajas drainage channel enters the Rio Loco.
Yauco
The largest city within the Guanica Bay Watershed is Yauco (Fig. B-6), named after the Yauco River.
Other rivers in the municipality are the Rfo Chiquito, Rfo Loco and Rfo Naranjo. On July 26,1898,
Spanish forces and Puerto Rican volunteers fought against the U.S. invasion forces in what became
known as the Battle of Yauco of the Puerto Rico Campaign. The municipality has 20 wards and the
main city, or Yauco Urban Zone. The population of Yauco was 42,043 persons in 2010. Yauco's main
crops are coffee, plantains, oranges and tobacco. Yauco is known as "El Pueblo del Cafe"
(coffee city).
Prior to the arrival of Spanish conquistadors, Yauco was the capital of Puerto Rico and was
governed by Agueybana, who ruled over all other island chiefs. Agueybana received the Spanish
conquistador Juan Ponce de Leon upon his arrival to Puerto Rico in 1508. Upon Agueybana's death
in 1510, his nephew, Agueybana II, succeeded him. Agueybana II mounted an unsuccessful
insurrection against the Spanish in 1511.
110 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Yauco was the location of the first major land battle between Spanish/Puerto Rican and U.S. armed
forces in Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War.
In 1755, the Spanish settlers of the region built a small chapel and requested that the Spanish
government allow the establishment of a municipality. In 1756, the King of Spain granted the
settlers their request, and the town of Yauco was established.
In the 19th century, Spain issued the Royal Decree of Graces, by which non-Hispanic Catholics were
encouraged to move to Puerto Rico for work. This brought an influx of Corsican families who
selected coffee as their main crop, and by the 1860s the Corsican settlers were the leaders of the
coffee industry in Puerto Rico. This industry was centered in Yauco.
The second and last major revolt against Spanish colonial rule in Puerto Rico, by Puerto Rico's pro-
independence movement, known as the "Attempted Coup of Yauco", was staged in Yauco on
March 26, 1897. It was during this uprising that the current flag of Puerto Rico was unfurled on
Puerto Rican soil for the first time. The local Spanish authorities acted swiftly and put an end to the
uprising.
Figure B-6. Colorful houses in Yauco and the Yauco town square
Susua State Forest
The Susua State Forest is located between Yauco and Sabana Grande in the foothills of the Central
Range (La Cordillera). Elevations range from 262-1551 feet above the sea level. Mean annual
precipitation is 56 inches, and mean annual temperature is 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Most rainfall
falls as brief showers. Rainfall is generally heaviest in August, September and October and is
lightest during February and March. Within the Susua State Forest boundaries are born four rivers
or their tributaries: Coco Rio, Rio Canas, Rio Loco and Quebrada Grande.
The Susua State Forest is influenced by a climatic transition zone (dry to moist) and a combination
of volcanic and serpentine soils. Two vegetation associations (dry slope forest and gallery forest)
have been delineated in the sub-tropical moist life zone. Forest native vegetation is represented by
157 tree species of which 18 species are rare or endangered. The trees are slender, open crowned,
and usually less than 39 feet tall. The forest soil supports little herbaceous growth, leaving an open
forest floor. The Rio Loco runs through the Susua State Forest (Fig. B-7). Common species found in
the Susua forest include: Gumbo Limbo (Bursera simaruba) and Limpleaf spikemoss (Selaginella
laxifolia). The forest does not support significant agriculture or forestry.
Appendix B. Guanica Bay Watershed | 111
-------
Figure B-7. The Rio Loco runs through the Susua State Forest
Forty-four bird species have been found in the Susua State Forest, including the Puerto Rican
nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus). The forest also supports at least seven species of amphibians
and seven species of reptiles, including the Blue-Tailed Ground Lizard (Ameiva wetmorei) (Fig. B-8).
Figure B-8. The Gumbo Limbo (Bursera simaruba) and the Blue-Tailed Ground Lizard (Ameiva wetmorei)
are found in Susua State Forest
112 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Lajas
The Lajas Municipality borders the Caribbean Sea, south of San German and Sabana Grande; east of
Cabo Rojo; and west of Guanica. Lajas is spread over 11 wards plus Lajas Pueblo (the downtown
area and the administrative center of the city). Lajas was officially established in 1883. In 2010 it
had a population of 25,753.
The Lajas Valley is located in four municipalities: Lajas, Cabo Rojo, Guanica, and Sabana Grande.
It is a large plain, ranging from 1.6 to 4.8 km in width, formed by a ridge of hills to the north (max
altitude 300 m) and a secondary ridge of hills to the south separating it from the Caribbean Sea
(max altitude 285 m) (Sotomayor-Ramfrez & Perez-Alegrfa, 2011). Lajas Valley lacks rivers, but has
areas of very fertile soils. The Lajas Valley Irrigation Project, established in the 1950s, consists of
a main canal that starts at a dam regulating the Rio Loco until the entrance to the Valle de Lajas,
along the northern border of the valley, next to the base of the hills in Boqueron. The land south of
the main canal is served from several lateral branches.
La Parguera, Lajas
South of semi-arid farmland in the Lajas Valley, the fishing village of La Parguera has developed into
a popular resort center while maintaining much of its small town atmosphere. Guesthouses and
inns, seafood restaurants, water sports and boating centers and small shops fan out from the small
plaza (Fig. B-9). Although not part of the Guanica Bay Watershed, the coastal waters off La
Parguera are impacted by activities within the Guanica Bay Watershed.
Figure B-9. The plaza in La Parguera (left) and stilt homes (casetas) on the bay
La Parguera Nature Reserve includes all the coastline of the municipality of Lajas extending 1 km
towards land from the shore and 9 nautical miles offshore. The Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources administers La Parguera Nature Reserve. The mangrove forests and
estuaries within the reserve make it an ideal location for kayaking through its canals or simply
observing local wildlife in its natural habitat. There are about 30 cays and islets, accessible only
by boat (Fig. B-10).
Appendix B. Guanica Bay Watershed | 113
-------
Figure B-10. Offshore cays and islets (left) and mangroves (right)
In the evening, boats regularly leave La Parguera for the nearby Phosphorescent Bay ("60/7/0
Fosforescente"), where millions of microscopic organisms known as dinoflagellates sparkle when
disturbed. This phenomenon occurs only in the tropics, typically in mangrove-protected bays. La
Parguera, is one of three areas in Puerto Rico that has this remarkable year-round nighttime
attraction. The others are in Vieques and Fajardo.
Paralleling the coast from the seaside village of La Parguera to the city of Ponce, the continental
shelf drops off precipitously, producing a dramatic wall 20 miles long where visibility can exceed
100 feet. The wall descends in slopes and sheer drops from 60 to 120 feet before disappearing into
1,500 feet of sea. Scored with valleys and deep trenches, it is cloaked in deep-water gorgonians and
other coral formations (Fig. B-ll) (Morelock et al. 1977).
Figure B-ll. The wall off La Parguera is a world-class dive destination
114 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Appendix C. Socioeconomics of the
Guanica Bay Watershed
The population of the Guanica Bay Watershed in 2010 was 19,427, decreasing from 21,888 in 2000
(U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Communities in the Guanica Bay watershed are relatively rural, with
low population densities compared to the rest of Puerto Rico (Table C-l). There are, however,
some population centers: Yauco is the 17th largest city in Puerto Rico with a population of 20,295,
San German 12,055 (#25), Guanica 9,224 (#36), and Sabana Grande 8,961 (#38).
Table C-l. Demographic information for GB/Rio Loco municipalities and Puerto Rico
Municipality
Adjuntas
Guanica
Lajas
Lares
Maricao
Sabana Grande
San German
Yauco
Puerto Rico
Pop. 1990
19,451
19,984
23,271
33,016
6,206
22,843
34,962
42,058
3,522,037
Pop. 2000
19,143
21,888
26,261
34,415
6,449
25,935
37,105
46,384
3,808,610
Pop. 2010
19,483
19,427
25,753
30,753
6,276
25,265
35,527
42,043
3,725,789
Area (Km2)
172
138.35 (96)
199.04 (158)
161.18
96.0
96
141.18
178.1 (176.5)
9,104
Density 2010
113.3
140.4
129.4
190.8
65.4
263.2
251.6
236.1
409.2
Economic Status
Unemployment in Puerto Rico is around 14% but ranges as high as 20% in Guanica and Yauco
municipalities. Median income for Puerto Rico is around $22,000, but is much lower ($11,000-
15,000) in the Guanica Bay Watershed. Those living below poverty level are higher (~60%) in the
region than for Puerto Rico as a whole (45%). By comparison Mississippi (the poorest state) had
median household income of $38,014 in 2010, and the U.S. median income for 2010 was $51,625.
Economy
Gold was the first economy of Puerto Rico and the gold was sent to Spain. Puerto Rico's gold mines
were declared depleted in 1570.
Initially, Spanish colonists had small subsistence farms. Export markets developed over time with
export of three main crops to Europe: tobacco, sugar and coffee. Tobacco dominated early Puerto
Rican exports, making up more than half of the export tonnage until the late 1600s. Sugar was first
introduced in the early 1500s, and many small landowners relied on its export as a source of
income. Coffee plants came to Puerto Rico with immigrants in 1736, but it was grown mostly for
personal and domestic use. This changed in the mid 1800s, when French immigrants from the
Mediterranean island of Corsica settled around Yauco and became well known as premium
exporters to Europe.
The role of the three cash crops changed drastically in 1898 when Puerto Rico was ceded to the
U.S. as a result of the Spanish-American War. This opened up U.S. markets for tariff-free trade and
made trade with Europe more difficult due to embargoes. In the same year, two devastating
Appendix C. Socioeconomics of the Guanica Bay Watershed | 115
-------
hurricanes hit Puerto Rico, which largely destroyed the coffee industry. Sugar became the biggest
crop.
Huge sugar mills such as the Central Guanica, located in the town of Ensenada, were established
(Fig. C-l). It was one of the largest sugar mills in the Caribbean, and prior to World War II, it was
one of the largest mills in the world. It ceased operations in 1982.
Figure C-l. View of the Central Guanica circa 1910
During the first decades of the 20th century, the sugar industry continued to develop, and by 1930,
there were 44 mills in operation. In the 1940s, however, the mills began to weaken, due to the
falling price of sugar, mismanagement by some administrators, the restriction of credit to
independent farmers, and strikes by workers.
The first sugar factory closed in 1942, but this didn't mark the decline of the industry, as the record
harvest came in 1952. However, it did mark declining support from the government, which had
now shifted its focus to industrializing Puerto Rico's economy. Between 1951 and 1968,17 mills
ceased operations, and in 2000 the last mills closed.
In 1948 the United States government began Operation Bootstrap, which enticed U.S. companies
to Puerto Rico by providing labor at costs below those on the mainland, access to U.S. markets
without import duties, and profits that could enter the country free from federal taxation. As a
result, Puerto Rico's economy shifted from agriculture to manufacturing and tourism.
Since that time, the manufacturing sector has shifted from labor-intensive industries (e.g.,
manufacturing of food, tobacco, leather, and apparel products) to more capital-intensive industries
(e.g., Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, machinery, and electronics).
However, being an island nation prone to severe floods and droughts, food security is also
important. Consequently, Lajas Valley was established as an Agricultural Reserve in 1999, by
enabling legislation, Law 277. However, 90% of the food currently consumed in Puerto Rico is
imported.
Agricultural production in Lajas Valley is important economically as well. On the lands of the Puerto
Rico Land Authority (2818 acres), farm income totaled $4,300,158 annually (2009-2010). Crops
include: coffee, citrus, plantains, bananas, tomatoes, peppers, papaya, pumpkins, cantaloupes, and
other vegetables. Area farmers also produce beef, pork, sheep, goats, and eggs.
116 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Tourism is an important component of Puerto Rican economy supplying an approximate $1.8
billion annually. Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 3,407,483 overnight visitors per year
visited Puerto Rico. Three quarters of the visitors were from the Americas. Coral reefs provide
substantial benefits to communities throughout Puerto Rico. Coral reef habitats are attractive to
tourists and provide essential habitat to a wide range of recreational and commercially important
species of fish and invertebrates. The permanent reef structures protect coastlines from ocean
storms and floods and have served as a source for many pharmaceutical and cosmetic products.
Appendix C. Socioeconomics of the Guanica Bay Watershed | 117
-------
-------
Appendix D. Workshop Agenda
GO3l: To deliver quality information concerning the human-ecosystem relationship so that
decision-makers can serve human interests while sustaining ecosystem services.
DAY 1: Framing Knowledge about Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Issues Using a Systems
Framework (DPSIR)
8:00 Registration
8:30 Purpose of the Workshop-to facilitate development of a decision support framework with
stakeholder/decision-maker input to help address problems related to ecologically-
damaging human activities (e.g., agriculture on steep slopes, unbridled development, excess
sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off due to impervious surfaces, wetland
consumption, etc.). Ecological damage includes damage to coral reefs and other ecosystems
that provide services to humans.
Purpose: This session will introduce the overall purpose of the workshop.
Desired Outcomes: A "roadmap" of what lies ahead for the next two days.
8:45 Introductions (incorporating themes from the objectives in introductions)
Purpose: Get to know who is attending/who they represent/what their main interests are.
Desired Outcomes: Relaxed, friendly atmosphere.
9:15 Baseline Information. Presentations will provide everyone with information regarding the
state of the coral reefs/coastal ecosystems; threats to these systems (including an overview
of the Guanica Watershed Management Plan); and USDA plans for the watershed.
Presentation #1: Status of Southwest Puerto Rico's Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems
Presenter: Dr. Jorge (Reni) Garcia Sais, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez
9:45 Presentation #2: Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico's Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems
from the Agricultural/Urbanizing Watershed and the Guanica Watershed Management Plan
Presenter: Mr. Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection
10:15 BREAK
10:45 Presentation #3: USDA's Detailed Plans for the Guanica Watershed
Presenter: Mr. Jose Castro, USDA NRCS
11:15 Introduce Organizational Framework for Human-Reef Interactions
Presenter: Dr. William Fisher, U.S. EPA
Purpose: Introduce the concept of ecosystem services and the DPSIR (Driving forces,
Pressures, State, Impact and Response) organizational framework as a tool for linking
ecological and socioeconomic factors.
Desired Outcomes: Participants will have seen the DPSIR framework and can think about it
during lunch.
Appendix D. Workshop Agenda | 119
-------
11:30 LUNCH
1:00 Example DPSIR and Charge to Break-Out Groups
Purpose: Walk through an example DPSIR, demonstrating how it might be used to display
knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems and linkages between human-
ecosystem interactions. For the demonstration and break-out groups, we will focus on
coral reef ecosystems.
Desired Outcomes: Understanding of the DPSIR framework and how it might be used
to display knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems and linkages between
human-reef interactions.
1:30 Break-Out Groups
Decisions that influence human-reef interactions. We will break into 3 focus groups to look
at topics that are addressed in the Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan-agricultural
practices, lagoon restoration, and low impact development.
These groups will be charged with:
1) Brainstorming what fits in all sections of the DPSIR framework related to their topic,
including linkages. Generate a DPSIR graphic for 2-3 issues of importance and identify
the linkages. (Target 60 min.)
2) Identify decision points in the framework. (Target 10 min)
3) Briefly characterize the decision that might be made at these decision points.
(Target 10 min)
4) Prioritize the decisions/decision points based on their importance for overall health
and maintenance of the coral reef and coastal ecosystems. (Target 10 min.)
Purpose: To characterize, using the DPSIR framework, information related to a
management response (agricultural practices, lagoon restoration, low impact development)
and the effects on persistence of reefs and the delivery of ecosystem services. Identify the
current state-of-knowledge on human-environmental relationships affecting coral reef and
coastal ecosystems management in Southwest Puerto Rico. Summarize this knowledge in
a framework that links the various components of the human-environmental system in
Southwest Puerto Rico.
Desired Outcomes: For EPA-to fill in the DPSIR with the participants understanding of the
aspect of the system on which they are focused, and to understand where they see decision
points. For the participants-to learn how the DPSIR framework can be a convenient way
to organize information.
3:00 BREAK
3:30 Decisions that Influence Human-Reef Interactions: Reports from Break-out Groups
Purpose: Relate findings of breakout groups to all participants for corroboration and
to explore missing linkages, concepts, decision alternatives, and decision characteristics.
Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of the linkages, decision alternatives, and
decision characteristics.
120 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
5:00 Wrap-up with Overview of Day 2. Each participant will be given their original VOI exercise
back in light print so that they can see their original responses. They will revise that exercise
to show if they have had any changes based on Day 1 of the workshop.
Purpose: Orient the participants to how what they did today will dovetail into Day 2.
Identify values, preferences, and objectives for coastal ecosystems outcomes.
Desired Outcomes: Warm fuzzies that Day 1 was beneficial, anticipation of Day 2, and
revised ucompleted by morning to assist in the Day 2 sessions.
CCRI Reception hosted by the Department of Marine Science, University of Puerto Rico,
Mayaguez
DAY 2: A Decision Analysis Framework for Coastal Ecosystems (with an Emphasis on Coral Reefs)
8:30 Social Network Analysis (SNA)
Presenter: Dr. Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company Inc.
Purpose: Share results of SNA pre-workshop exercise and generate discussion of the
identified actors and critical missing actors.
Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of the actors and their relationships and how
an SNA could be useful in decision-making.
8:50 Decision Making in Practice-Small Group Discussion
Purpose: Gain an understanding of how decisions are currently made by the workshop
participants.
Desired Outcomes: 1) For the participants-a cursory understanding of their own decision-
making process and how it differs from others. 2) For EPA-an understanding of the range of
decision-making styles in practice. This information will inform tool development.
9:45 DASEES - Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society
Presenter: Dr. Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.
Purpose: Preview the remainder of this day's activities, and to provide an understanding of
a decision-making process that allows one to include ecosystem services, societal needs,
and economic viability all at the same time.
Desired Outcomes: Understanding of a decision process that allows incorporation
of ecosystem services, societal needs, and economic viability, being aware of the
interrelationship between the DPSIR and decision-making. Set the stage for the rest
of Day 2.
10:15 BREAK
Appendix D. Workshop Agenda | 121
-------
10:45 Develop Options-Small Group Discussion
Purpose: Identify alternative management strategies to address threats to coastal
ecosystems.
Desired Outcomes: A list of management or policy options for each break-out group.
11:15 Certainty/Uncertainty and Value of Information (VOI) for Conflict Resolution
Presenter: Dr. Amanda Rehr, Carnegie Mellon University/U.S. EPA Special Government
Employee
Purpose: Explain how uncertainty plays a role in decision-making. Identify the value of
further information (e.g., monitoring, surveys, and scientific studies) for clarifying
environmental conditions and the likely effects of management options on these
conditions.
Desired Outcomes: Understanding of how what we don't know can be as important as what
we do know.
12:00 LUNCH
1:30 Applying the Objectives as Criteria for Decision Making-Small Group Discussion
Purpose: Use all of the previously gathered info (the DPSIR framework, the management or
policy options, the objectives, and DASEES) to evaluate options and recommend
appropriate actions.
Desired Outcomes: A set of recommended actions (recognizing that this is based on just a
day and a half of discussion and these aren't meant to be the best possible
recommendations because on the limited input).
2:30 BREAK
2:50 Recommended Actions: Reports from Small Group Discussions
Purpose: Learn from each group how they applied the objectives as criteria and what
recommended action(s) they reached.
Desired Outcomes: Proposed actions. (Note that these are not to run out and implement
the next day, but to demonstrate the process of reaching them. They may be very valid, but
further assessment and thought would definitely be needed before moving forward with
them.)
4:00 Adaptive Management
Presenter: Ms. Kelly Black, Neptune and Company, Inc.
Purpose: To discuss what triggers or timeframe should cause decisions to be reconsidered.
Desired Outcomes: Revision of recommended action based on uncertainties.
122 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
4:30 Recap of Decision Process, Overview of Day 3 activities, and many thanks for participating!
Complete evaluations.
Presentation: Dr. William Fisher, U.S. EPA
Purpose: To briefly review the DPSIR as a framework for organizing information, DASEES as
a method for making decisions (including the importance of stakeholder interactions in
defining objectives), and to thank the participants for applying both to Southwest Puerto
Rico coastal ecosystems issues over the past two days.
Desired Outcomes: A feeling of accomplishment and understanding of how what we've
discussed might be useful as the participants return to their ongoing projects.
PM Phosphorescent Bay Trip (prior registration required)
DAY 3: Synthesizing the Input into DASEES
The third day of the Workshop will involve summarizing the information and stakeholder inputs
compiled during the first two days of the meeting, in the context of decision analysis and decision
support tools and assessments. Core Decision Support and Coral Reef researchers will participate in
this effort. Other Workshop attendees may also participate at their option, but this will not be
expected. Decision makers and other stakeholders who do participate will provide useful input for
interpretations (e.g., "No, I don't think that is what she meant to imply when she said XYZ"), and
will benefit from seeing how their input is being analyzed using decision support tools and
methods.
The objective of the working session will be to formulate and code:
1. An updated version of the Social Network Analysis diagram for participants in Southwest
Puerto Rico coastal ecosystems management.
2. A decision analysis framework (DASEES) for coastal ecosystems management in Guanica.
Information from the workshop will be incorporated into DASEES and next steps will be
discussed.
AGENDA:
9:00 Facilitated Discussion about the Workshop
9:15 Social Network Analysis-Gaps
9:30 Complete Objectives and Identify How to Measure Success
10:15 BREAK
10:30 DPSIR, Bayesian Belief Net, and Measures Consistency
11:45 Close workshop. Thanks to participants! Complete evaluations.
12:00 Adjourn
Appendix D. Workshop Agenda | 123
-------
-------
Appendix E. Workshop Participants
Richard Appeldoorn (organizer)
Department of Marine Sciences
University of Puerto Rico
Mayaguez, PR 00681-9013
787-899-2048, ext. 251
Richard.appeldoorn@upr.edu
Kelly Black (organizer)
Neptune and Company, Inc.
8550 W. 14th Ave., Suite 100
Lakewood, CO 80215
720-746-1803, ext. 5
kblack@neptuneinc.org
Patricia Bradley (organizer)
U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL
Atlantic Ecology Division
c/o FKNMS
33 East Quay Road
Key West, FL 33040
305-809-4690
Bradley.patricia@epa.gov
Lia Brune
NOAA NCCOSN/SCI 1 SSMC4, 9th Floor
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
850-261-8212
lia.brune@noaa.gov
Chris Caldow
NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CCMA
1305 East-West Highway
9th Floor, N/SCI-1
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-3028
chris.caldow@noaa.gov
Miguel Canals
Department of Engineering Science
and Materials
University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez
Stefani Building, Office 601,
P.O. Box 9044
Mayaguez, PR 00681-9044
787-832-4040, ext. 3065
mcanals@uprm.edu
Miguel Canals Sr.
Guanica State Forest
P.O. Box 1185
Guanica, PR 00653
menqi@hotmail.com
*Madeleine Cancel
Caribbean Maritime Educational Center, Inc.
787-821-4164
Deb Caraco
Center for Watershed Protection
606 N.Aurora St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-277-6337
dsc@cwp.org
LisaMarie Carrubba
NOAANMFS
Caribbean Field Office
P.O. Box 1310
Boqueron, PR 00622
787-851-3700
Lisamarie.Carrubba@noaa.gov
Jose Castro
USDANRCS
654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 604
Hato Rey, PR 00918
809-766-5206, ext. 226
Jose.Castro@pr.usda.gov
"deceased
Appendix E. Workshop Participants | 125
-------
John Czapiga
Southwest Coast of Puerto Rico
28 Velero
Ensenada,PR 00647-9545
czapiga@verizon.net
Damaris Delgado-Lopez
Puerto Rico Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources (DNER)
Urb. El Cerezal 1642 Calle Nieper
San Juan, PR 00926
787-999-2200, ext. 2615
ddelgado@drna.gobierno.pr
Raimundo Espinoza
Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico
2256 Calle Cacique, Apt. C
San Juan, PR 00913
202-486-4359
respinoza@drna.gobierno.pr
Annette Feliberty-Ruiz
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
San Juan, PR 00910
787-767-8181, ext. 3453
annettefeliberty@jca.gobierno.pr
Angel Figueroa
USDA NRCS
P.O. Box 364868
San Juan, PR 00936-4868
787-766-5206
angel.figueroa@wdc.usda.gov
Magaly Figueroa
USDA Forest Service
International Institute of Tropical Forestry
Jardin Botanico Sur
1201 Calle Ceiba
San Juan, PR 00926-1115
787-766-5335, ext. 118
mafigueroa@fs.fed.us
William Fisher (organizer)
U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL
Gulf Ecology Division
1 Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
850-934-9394
Fisher.william@epa.gov
Walt Galloway (facilitator)
U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL
Atlantic Ecology Division
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, Rl 02882
401-782-3096
galloway.walt@epa.gov
Jorge (Reni) Garcia-Sais
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez
Department of Marine Sciences
P.O. Box 3424
Lajas, PR 00667
787-899-2048, ext. 247
renigar@caribe.net
Miguel A. Garcia
Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife
Puerto Rico Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources (DNER)
P.O. Box 366147
San Juan, PR 00936
787-999-2200, ext. 2607
magarcia@drna.gobierno.pr
Evelyn Huertas (organizer)
U.S. EPA Region 2
Centre Europa Building
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 417
San Juan, PR 00907-4127
787-977-5852
Huertas.evelyn@epa.gov
126 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Aaron Hutchins
The Nature Conservancy
3052 Estate Little Princess
Christiansted
St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00820
340-718-5575
ahutchins@tnc.org
Nilda M. Jimenez-Marrero
Puerto Rico Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources (DNER)
P.O. Box 366147
San Juan, PR 00936
787-999-2200, ext. 2710
njimenez@drna.gobierno.pr
Craig Lilyestrom
Marine Resources Division
Puerto Rico Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources (DNER)
San Juan, PR 00906-6600
787-999-2200, ext. 2615
craig.lilyestrom@drna.gobierno.pr
Luis Meyer-Comas
Center for Watershed Protection
P.O. Box 1140
Guanica, PR 00653-1140
787-246-2870
frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com
Leah Oliver (organizer)
U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL
Gulf Ecology Division
1 Sabine Island Drive
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
850-934-2470
Oliver.leah@epa.gov
Francisco Pagan (organizer)
Caribbean Coral Reef Institute
University of Puerto Rico
Mayagiiez, PR 00681-9013
787-899-2048, ext. 265
Franciscoe.pagan@upr.edu
Manuel Valdes Pizzini
University of Puerto Rico
Apartado 9266,
Recinto Universitario de Mayaguez
Mayagiiez, PR 00681-9266
787-751-8879
mvpizzini@uprm.edu
Lillian Ramirez
University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez
Sea Grant Program
P.O. Box 9011
Mayaguez, PR 00681-9011
787-832-8045
lillian.ramirez@upr.edu
Carlos E. Ramos Scharron
Department of Geography and
the Environment
University of Texas at Austin
210 W 24th Street 334
Austin, TX 78712-1098
787-587-0416
cramos@irf.org
Amanda Rehr
Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Baker Hall 129
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-708-1780
pearlgrl@gmail.com
Aida Rosario
Puerto Rico Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources (DNER)
P.O. Box 3665
Mayaguez, PR 00681
787-833-2025
arosario@drna.gobierno.pr
Appendix E. Workshop Participants | 127
-------
Mitchell J. Small
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Carnegie Mellon University
Porter Hall 119, Frew Street
Pittsburgh PA 15213
412-268-8782
ms35@andrew.cmu.edu
Luis Soler-Lopez
Caribbean Water Science Center
GSA Center
651 Federal Drive, Suite 400-15
Guaynabo, PR 00965-5703
787-749-4346, ext. 278
lssoler@usgs.gov
Tom Stockton (organizer)
Neptune and Company, Inc.
1505 15th Street, Suite B
Los Alamos, NM 87544
505-662-0707, ext. 17
stockton@neptuneinc.org
Paul Sturm (organizer)
Center for Watershed Protection
8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Ellicott City, MD 21043
410-461-8323
pes@cwp.org
Skip Van Bloem
USDA Forest Service
Guanica Dry Forest NEON Site
P.O. Box 9030
Mayagiiez, PR 00681
svanbloem@uprm.edu
Lisa Vandiver
NOAA Restoration Center
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-0174, ext. 182
lisa.vandiver@noaa.gov
Roberto Viqueira
Center for Watershed Protection
Guanica Coordinator
P.O. Box 673
Yauco, PR 00698
rviqueira@hotmail.com
Ernesto Weil
Department of Marine Sciences
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus
P.O. Box 908
Lajas, PR 00667-0908
787-899-2048, exts. 241, 272
eweil@caribe.net
Dave Whitall
NOAA NCCOSN/SCI 1 SSMC4, 9th Floor
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-3028, ext. 138
Dave.Whitall@noaa.gov
128 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Appendix F. Glossary
Bayesian belief network (BBN) or Bayesian network - a graphical network in which the nodes
represent random variables, and the connections describe relationships between them.
Brainstorming - a group problem-solving technique in which members spontaneously share ideas
and solutions.
Coral reef - a complex tropical marine ecosystem dominated by soft and hard (stony) corals,
anemones and sea fans. Stony corals are small animals with an outer skeleton of calcium carbonate
that form colonies and are responsible for reef building.
Decision landscape - a decision support framework for capturing the physical, legal, and
institutional environment in which a particular management choice is made; it includes
identification of management and policy options, outcomes of interest, and stakeholder valuation
of outcomes, as well as the key participants involved in making the decision (decision makers,
information collectors, and stakeholders), the information they use to inform the decision and its
associated uncertainty, and the methods of assessment they use to evaluate outcomes.
Decision maker - a person(s) entrusted with the responsibility to make a decision. Decision
makers include federal, territorial and governmental managers, corporations, non-governmental
organizations and the general public.
Decision-making - an outcome of mental processes leading to the selection of a course of action
among several management options.
Decision point - a key step in the decision making process.
Decision support framework (DSF) - an organizing structure to support decision making.
Decision support tools-software, models, data sets, maps, etc., to support decision-making.
DPSIR - a decision support framework for capturing the physical and human processes in a decision
process; it includes the identification of the Drivers (socioeconomic sectors that drive human
activities), Pressures (human activities that stress the environment), resulting environmental and
ecological States (reflect condition of the natural and living phenomena), Impact on services and
values (effects of environmental degradation of ecological attributes and ecosystem services), and
Responses to those impact (policies and responses).
Drivers - socioeconomic sectors that drive human activities (waste disposal, agriculture,
construction, fisheries, and tourism).
Ecosystem - includes the plant and animal communities in an area together with the non-living
physical environment that supports them. Ecosystems have physically defined boundaries, but
they are also dynamic: their boundaries and constituents can change over time. They can import
and export materials and energy and thus can interact with and influence other ecosystems. They
can also vary widely in size.
Ecosystem services - the products of ecological functions or processes that directly or indirectly
contribute to human wellbeing (clean air and water, food and fiber, erosion and flood control,
habitat and biodiversity, climate stability, and aesthetic enjoyment).
Appendix F. Glossary | 129
-------
Granularity-the extent to which a system is broken down into small parts, either the system itself
or its description or observation. It is the extent to which a larger entity is subdivided. Coarse-
grained systems consist of fewer, larger components than fine-grained systems; a coarse-grained
description of a system regards large subcomponents while a fine-grained description regards
smaller components of which the larger ones are composed.
Hydro-seeding - a planting process which utilizes a slurry of seed and mulch, which is transported
in a tank, either truck- or trailer-mounted, and sprayed over prepared ground in a uniform layer.
Impact - effects of environmental degradation on ecosystem functioning, affecting the quality and
value of ecosystem services.
Lagoon - a body of comparatively shallow salt or brackish water separated from the deeper sea by
a shallow or exposed barrier beach, sandbank of marine origin, coral reef, or similar feature.
Management and policy options - a number of alternatives that are under the control of decision
makers and from which one or a combination of several of them (to be implemented as a strategy)
can be chosen.
Model - a physical, mathematical, or logical representation of a system of entities, phenomena, or
processes, i.e., a simplified abstract view of the complex reality.
Outcomes - the results, impact or consequences of making a decision.
Pathogen - microorganisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or parasites) that can cause disease in humans,
animals and plants.
Pressures - human activities that stress the environment (discharge, boating activities, climate
change, land use/land cover change, and coastal erosion).
Riparian - of or relating to or located on the banks of a river or stream.
Social network - a decision support framework for capturing the people involved in a decision-
making process and the relationships between them, such as who has authority to make decisions
and who they work or interact with. Social relationships are typically depicted in terms of nodes
(individuals within networks) and ties (relationships between the individuals).
Stakeholders - individuals, groups, or organizations impacted by a management choice.
States- reflect condition of the natural and living phenomena (such as air, water and soil
parameters and growth, survival and reproductive parameters).
Strength or magnitude of the relationship (between variables) - the degree to which one variable
is associated with or can cause a change in a second variable (i.e., between decisions and
outcomes).
Toxics- poisonous chemicals.
Uncertainty- inability to predict outcomes due to random variability (for example, stream flow is
sometimes high and sometimes low) or incomplete scientific knowledge regarding causal
relationships (for example, how a given concentration of sediments in the harbor affects coral reef
growth rates).
130 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Appendix G. References
Aronson D. 1996. Overview of Systems Thinking.
URL: http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf
Bernstein BB, Thompson BE and Smith RW. 1993. A combined science and management framework
for developing regional monitoring objectives. Coastal Management 21(3):185-195.
Beverton RJH and Holt SJ. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Fishery
Investigations Series II Volume XIX. Chapman and Hall, Blackburn Press, 2004.
Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B, Yee S, Carriger J, Gambirazzio G, Bousquin, J and Huertas E. 2013.
Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in
Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Narragansett, Rl. Internal Report. 158 pp.
Burke L and Maidens J. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC. 81 pp.
Canas AJ, Hill G, Carff R, Suri N, Lott J, Gomez G, Eskridge TC, Arroyo M and Carvajal R. 2004.
CmapTools: A Knowledge Modeling and Sharing Environment. In Concept Maps: Theory,
Methodology, Technology, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept
Mapping, ed. A.J. Canas, J.D. Novak, and F.M. Gonzalez, 125-133. Pamplona: Universidad
Publica de Navarra.
Caraco D. 2001. The Watershed Treatment Model. Center for Watershed Protection.
Ellicott City, MD.
Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP). 2001. CARICOMP Methods Manual
Levels 1 and 2: Manual of Methods for Mapping and Monitoring of Physical and Biological
Parameters in the Coastal Zone of the Caribbean. CARICOMP Data Management Center,
Centre for Marine Sciences, University of the West Indies Mona, Kingston, Jamaica.
Carriger J and Benson WH. 2012. Restoring and Managing Gulf of Mexico Fisheries: A Path
toward Creative Decision-Making. In: Estuaries, Classification, Ecology, and Human Impacts.
Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppage, NY. pp. 291-334.
Carriger JF, Fisher WS, Stockton TB and Sturm PE. 2013. Advancing the Guanica Bay (Puerto Rico)
Watershed Management Plan. Coastal Management 41:19-38.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2006. Erosion Control 101 for Puerto Rico-Factsheet.
Ell icott City, MD.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2008. Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan: A Pilot
Project for Watershed Planning in Puerto Rico. Ell icott City, MD.
Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation,
Version 3.0. The Conservation Measures Partnership. 51 pp.
Curran MA. 2009. Wrapping our brains around sustainability. Sustainability 1:5-13.
Appendix G. References | 131
-------
Dietz T. 1994. What should we do? Human ecology and collective decision-making. Human Ecology
Review 1:301-309.
Dunning DJ, Ross QE and Merkhofer MW. 2000. Multiattribute utility analysis for addressing
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Environmental Science and Policy 3:S7-S14.
Edwards A and Gomez E. 2007. Reef Restoration Concepts and Guidelines: Making Sensible
Management Choices in the Face of Uncertainty. Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity
Building for Management Programmes: St. Lucia, Australia. 38 pp.
European Environment Agency (EEA). 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview.
Technical report No 25. URL: http://reports.eea.eu.int/TEC25/en/tab_content_RLR.
Ewel JJ and Whitmore JL. 1973. The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
USDA Forest Service, Institute of Tropical Forestry, Research Paper ITF-018.
Executive Order (EO) 1356. 2011. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Federal Register
76(14):3821-3823.
Failing L, Horn G and Higgins P. 2004. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate
adaptive management options. Ecology and Soc/ety 9:13.
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/issl/artl3.
Garcfa-Sais J, Appeldoorn R, BattistaT, Bauer L, Bruckner A, Caldow C, Carrubba L, Corredor J, Diaz E,
Lilyestrom C, Garcfa-Moliner G, Hernandez-Delgado E, Menza C, Morell J, Pait A, Sabater J, Weil
E, Williams E and Williams S. 2008. The state of coral reef ecosystems of Puerto Rico. In: The
State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008,
ed. J.E. Waddell and A.M. Clarke, 75-116. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73.
NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's Biogeography Team. Silver
Spring, MD.
Garcfa-Sais J, Esteves R, Williams S, Sabater-Clavell J and Carlo M. 2014. Monitoring of Coral Reef
Communities from Natural Reserves in Puerto Rico. Final Report-NOAA Grant NA07NOS4260055,
307 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR and Sabater J. 2004. Distribution and Biological Characterization of Major Marine
Habitats in the Nature Reserve of La Parguera, Lajas, PR. Final report to DRNA, San Juan,
Puerto Rico. 140 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R and Sabater J. 2001a. Coral Reef Communities from Natural Reserves in
Puerto Rico: A Baseline Quantitative Assessment for Prospective Monitoring Programs. Vol. 1-
Cordillera de Fajardo, Guanica, Bahia de Mayaguez, Caja de Muertos. US Coral Reef Initiative
Program, NOAA-DNER. 232 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2001b. Coral Reef Communities from Natural
Reserves in Puerto Rico: A Baseline Quantitative Assessment for Prospective Monitoring
Programs. Vol. 2-La Parguera, Boqueron, Isla de Mono, Isla Desecheo. US Coral Reef Initiative
Program, NOAA-DNER. 193 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2001c. Coral Reef Communities from Natural
Reserves in Puerto Rico: A Baseline Quantitative Assessment for Prospective Monitoring
132 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Programs. Volume 3-Guayanilla, Ponce, Guayama, Arroyo. US Coral Reef Initiative Program,
NOAA-DNER. 147 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2001d. Baseline Characterization of Coral Reef and
Seagrass Communities from Isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico. US Coral Reef National Monitoring
Program, NOAA, DNER. 108 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2004. Inventory and Atlas of Corals and Coral Reefs,
with Emphasis on Deep-water Coral Reefs from the U. S. Caribbean EEZ. Caribbean Fisheries
Management Council. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 36 pp.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater-Clavell J, Esteves R and Carlo M. 2005. Monitoring of Coral Reef
Communities at Isla Desecheo, Rincon, Mayaguez Bay, Guanica, Ponce, and Isla Caja de Muertos,
Puerto Rico. Final Report. Lajas, PR.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater-Clavell J, Esteves R and Carlo M. 2006. Monitoring of Coral Reef
Communities from Natural Reserves in Puerto Rico, 2006: Isla Desecheo, Rincon, Mayaguez Bay,
Guanica, Ponce and Isla Caja de Muerto. Final Report submitted to the Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR. 151 pp.
Goffredo S and Lasker HR. 2008. An adaptive management approach to an octocoral fishery based
on the Beverton-Holt model. Coral Reefs 27:751-761.
Gould WA, Martinuzzi S and Pares-Ramos IK. 2012. Land use, population dynamics, and land-cover
change in Eastern Puerto Rico. Pages 24-42 in: Murphy SF and Stallard RF (eds.) 2012. Water
Quality and Landscape Processes of Four Watersheds in Eastern Puerto Rico. Professional Paper
1789-B. Reston, VA. US Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
Gregory Morris Engineering (GME). 1999a. Guanica Lagoon Hydrology & Restoration Alternatives.
Prepared for Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.
Gregory Morris Engineering (GME). 1999b. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Guanica Lagoon
Restoration Impacts on Regulatory [Controlled] Flood Levels. Prepared for Puerto Rico
Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.
Gregory R, Failing L and Higgins P. 2006. Adaptive management and environmental decision
making: A case study application to water use planning. Ecological Economics 58:434-447.
Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T and Ohlson D. 2012. Structured Decision
Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Gregory RS and Keeney RL. 1994. Making smarter environmental management decisions. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 38(6):1601-1612.
Gregory RS and Keeney RL. 2002. Making smarter environmental management decisions. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 38:1601-1612.
Griffin S, Spathias H, Moore TD, Baums I, Griffin BA. 2012. Scaling Up Acropora Nurseries in the
Caribbean and Improving Techniques. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef
Symposium 5 pp.
Appendix G. References | 133
-------
Griffin S. 2014. Acropora Nursery Operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 2013 Annual
Report. 8 pp.
Hartemink, A.E. 2006. Assessing soil fertility decline in the tropics using soil chemical data.
Advances in Agronomy 89:179-225.
Hillel D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, San Diego. CA. 771 pp.
Moiling CS (Ed). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester:
Wiley, Walters and Hilborn 1978.
Judd NL, DrewCH, Acharya C, Mitchell TA, DonatutoJL, Burns GW, BurbacherTM and Faustman
EM. 2005. Framing scientific analyses for risk management of environmental hazards by
communities: Case studies with seafood safety issues. Environmental Health Perspectives
113(11):1502-1508.
Keeney RL. 1992. Value-focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-making. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Keeney RL. 2007. Developing objectives and attributes. In Advances in Decision Analysis: From
Foundations to Applications, ed. W. Edwards, R. F. Miles Jr., D. von Winterfeldt, 104-128.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kitchell A and Schueler T. 2004. Unified Stream Assessment: A User's Manual. Manual 10 in the
Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Center for Watershed Protection.
Ellicott City, MD.
Krebs V. 2004. How to do Social Network Analysis. Orgnet.com. URL:
http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html.
Krebs V. 2008. Social capital: The key to success for the 21 Century organization. IHRIM Journal
2(5):38-42.
Lapointe BE. 1997. Nutrient thresholds for bottom-up control of macroalgal blooms on coral reefs
in Jamaica and southeast Florida. Limnology and Oceanography 42:119-1131.
Lee KN. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment.
Washington, D.C. Island Press.
McDaniels TL. 2000. Creating and using objectives for ecological risk assessment and management.
Environmental Science and Policy 3:299-304.
Merrick J, Parnell G, Barnett J and Garcia M. 2005. A multiple-objective decision analysis of
stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Analysis 2:44-57.
Miller GL and Lugo AE. 2009. Guide to the Ecological Systems of Puerto Rico. IITF-GTR-35. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan,
PR. 444pp.
Mollaghasemi M and Pet-Edwards J. 1997. IEEE Computer Society Technical Briefing: Making
Multiple-Objective Decisions. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
134 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
Morelock J, Ramirez W, Bruckner A and Carlo M. 2001. Status of coral reefs, southwest Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Journal of Science, Online Special Publication 4:57.
URL: www.uprm.edu/biology/cjs/reefstatus.htm.
Morelock J, Schneidermann N and Bryant WR. 1977. Shelf reefs, southwestern Puerto Rico. Studies
in Geology 4:17'-25.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013. Coral Nurseries Replant Damaged
Caribbean Reefs. NOAA in the Caribbean 2(2):1.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. Draft Recovery Plan for Elkhorn
coral (Acropora palmata) and Stag horn coral (A. cervicornis). Southeast Regional Office,
Protected Resources Division, Saint Petersburg, Florida. 162 pp.
North DW and Renn 0. 2005. Decision Analytic Tools and Participatory Decision Process.
Background Paper Prepared for the Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment
and Decision Making. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
O'Connor J and McDermott I. 1997. The Art of Systems Thinking: Essential Skills for Creativity and
Problem Solving. San Francisco: Thorsons Publishing.
Ortiz-Zayas JR and Terrasa-Soler JJ. 2001. Allocating Water Resources for Public Supply within a
Complex HydroelectricalSystem: The Case Study of Yauco, Puerto Rico. In Latin America Puerto
Rico 2001. 2nd Latin American Technical Conference and Exhibition, November 11-14, 2001,
San Juan, PR.
Pait AS, Whitall DR, Jeffrey CFG, Caldow C, Mason AL, Christensen JD, Monaco ME and Ramirez J.
2007. An Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Marine Sediments of Southwest Puerto
Rico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 52. Silver Spring, MD. 112 pp.
Pastorak RA and Bilyard GR. 1985. Effects of sewage pollution on coral reef communities. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 21:175-189.
Payne JW, Bettman JR and Schkade DA. 1999. Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a
building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19:243-270.
Peirce M. 1998. Computer-Based Models in Integrated Environmental Assessment. European
Environment Agency (EEA). Copenhagen, Denmark.
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PR EQB). 2010. Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards
Regulation. 90 pp.
Rehr AP, Small MJ, Bradley P, Fisher WS, Vega A, Black K and Stockton T. 2012. A decision support
framework for science-based, multi-stakeholder deliberation: A coral reef example.
Environmental Management 50(6):1204-18.
Rehr AP, Small MJ, Fischbeck P, Bradley P, Fisher B and Vega A. 2014. The role of scientific studies
in building consensus in environmental decision making: A coral reef example. Environment,
Systems and Decisions 34(l):60-87.
Rinkevich B. 2005. Conservation of coral reefs through active restoration measures: Recent
approaches and last decade progress. Environmental Science Technology 39:4333-4342.
Appendix G. References | 135
-------
Rouse I. 1992. The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University
Press. 232 pp.
Schimmer R. 2010. Puerto Rico. Genocide Studies Program, Yale University.
URL: http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/puerto-rico/index.html.
Smeets E and Weterings R., 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Report No. 25, 19 pp.
Smith M, Milic-Frayling N, Shneiderman B, Mendes Rodrigues E, Leskovec J and Dunne C. 2010.
NodeXLAfree and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel
2007/2010. Social Media Research Foundation. URL: http://nodexl.codeplex.com/.
Smith M, Shneiderman B, Milic-Frayling N, Rodrigues E, Barash V, Dunne C, Capone T, Perer A and
Cleave E. 2009. Analyzing (Social Media) Networks with NodeXL. Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Communities and Technologies, pp. 255-264.
Sotomayor-Ramfrez D and Perez-Alegrfa L. 2011. An Assessment of Agricultural Activities in the
Eastern Portion of the Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve, within Lajas and Guanica Municipalities.
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Agricultural Experiment Station, Unpublished Manuscript.
Stockton T, Dyson B, Houghteling W, Black K, Buchholtz ten Brink M, Canfield T, Vega A, Small M
and Rehr A. 2011. Decision Support Framework Implementation of DASEES: Decision Analysis for
a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-12/008.
Sturm P, Viqueira R, Ferguson R and Moore T. 2012. Addressing Land Based Sources of Pollution in
Guanica, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, 5 pp.
Sutherland KP, Shaban S, Joyner JL, Porter JW and Lipp EK. 2011. Human pathogen shown to cause
disease in the threatened eklhorn coral Acropora palmata. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23468.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1994. Guidelines for Sediment Control Practices in
the Insular Caribbean. Caribbean Environment Programme, CEP Technical Report No. 32.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1998. Best Management Practices for Agricultural
Non-Point Sources of Pollution. Caribbean Environment Programme, CEP Technical Report No.
41.141pp.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. Global Environment Outlook GE04, Nairobi
and Valletta. URL: www.unep.org/geo/geo4/.
US Census Bureau. 2012. America Community Survey. URL: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ft.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Constructed Treatment Wetlands. EPA/843-F-03-
013, Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream
Quality. Washington, DC. EPA/841-F-95-007.
136 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. USEPA Office of Research and Development
Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP): Decision Support Framework (DBF) Team Research
Implementation Plan. EPA/600/R-09/104, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Keeping Raw Sewage & Contaminated
Stormwater out of the Public's Water. Region 2. New York, NY. 23 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Benefits of Low Impact Development: How LID
Can Protect Your Community's Resources. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. EPA 841-
N-12-003A. Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Tutorial on Systems Thinking using the DPSIR
Framework. URL:
http://http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=235356.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Puerto Rico-US Virgin Islands Change Detection
Viewer. URL: http://gispub4.epa.gov/PR-USVI/.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014c. National Enforcement Initiative: Keeping Raw
Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation's Waters.
URL: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-keeping-raw-sewage-
and-contaminated-stormwater-out-our.
Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L. 2012. Farm Inventory of the Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve
Guanica Lagoon and El Anegado Areas Guanica, Puerto Rico. Protectores de Cuencas. 33 pp.
Walters G and Hilborn R. 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 9:157-188.
Walters G. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Warne AG, Webb RMT and Larsen MC. 2005. Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Discharge
Characteristics in Rivers of PR and Their Potential Influence on Coral Reefs. USGS Science
Investigative Report 2005-5206.
Weber RA. 2012. Guanica Lagoon Area Salinity Study Final Report. National Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), Central National Technology Support Center, Fort Worth, TX. 37 pp.
Whitall D, Bauer LJ, Sherman C, Edwards K, Mason A, Pait T and Caldow C. 2013. Baseline
Assessment of Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico in Support of Watershed Restoration. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS NCCOS 176.
Wikipedia. 2014. Guanica, Puerto Rico. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%Alnica,_Puerto_Rico.
Wilkinson C (Ed.). 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. Vol.1. Townsville, Queensland,
Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science. 316 pp.
Wright T, Swann C, Cappiella K and SchuelerT. 2004. Unified Subwatershed and Site
Reconnaissance: A User's Manua\. Manual 11 in the Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual
Series. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.
Appendix G. References | 137
------- |