xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 600/R-15/248 | January 2016
www.epa.gov/ord
Office Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
-------
-------
EPA 600/R-15/248 | January 2016
www.epa.gov/ord
Application of a Structured Decision Process
for Informing Watershed Management Options
in Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico
by
Patricia Bradley1, William Fisher2, Brian Dyson3, Susan Yee2, John Carriger4,
Gerardo Gambirazzio5, Justin Bousquin6 and Evelyn Huertas7
Atlantic Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD, 33 East Quay Road, Key West, FL 33040
2Gulf Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD, 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
3Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, ORD, Cincinnati, OH 45268
40ak Ridge Institute for Science Education (ORISE) Fellow
(formerly employed by EPA/ORD/NHEERL/GED), Gulf Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD
1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
5Marine Corps Activity Guam (formerly employed by EPA/ORD/NERL/ESD)
PSC 488 Box 105, FPO, AP 96537-1005
60ak Ridge Institute of Science Education (ORISE) Fellow
Atlantic Ecology Division, NHEERL, ORD, 27Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rl 02887
7Region 2, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
City View Plaza II - Suite 7000, #48 Rd. 165 km 1.2, Guaynabo, PR 00968-8069
Contract #EP-C-08-007, Task Order 64
Neptune and Company, Inc.
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, RI 02887
-------
Notice and Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
(ORD) funded and collaborated in the research described herein under Contract #EP-C-08-
007, Task Order 64, to Neptune and Company, Inc. It 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 ORD Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research
Program. Research for this report was also conducted under the Ecosystem Services
Research Program and the Safe and Sustainable Waters Research Program.
The appropriate citation for this report is:
Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B, Yee S, Carriger J, Gambirazzio G, Bousquin J and Huertas E.
2015. 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. EPA/600/R-15/248.
-------
Table of Contents
Notice and Disclaimer ii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgements xi
Executive Summary xiii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Sustainability, the watershed approach and structured decision-making 2
Chapter 2. The Formal Decision Process 5
2.1 Background on values and decision-making 5
2.2 Description 7
2.3 Why SDM is needed 9
2.4 How SDM is used 11
2.5 Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico, case study 14
Chapter 3. Clarify the Decision Context 15
3.1 The decision landscape 15
3.2 Initial decision context for coral reef protection at Guanica Bay 18
3.2.1 Initial decision context 22
3.2.2 Decision-maker: U.S. Coral Reef Task Force 23
3.3 Systems thinking and systems diagrams 25
3.4 Coral reef and coastal ecosystems decision-support workshop 28
3.4.1 Framing the decision 29
3.4.2 Developing the sketch 30
3.4.3 Planning the consultation and analysis 33
3.5 Archival research 36
3.5.1 Geographical setting: Guanica Bay 36
3.5.2 Historical perspective 37
3.5.3 Operation Bootstrap: Industrialized agriculture and manufacturing 39
3.5.4 Puerto Rico, a Free Associated State (Commonwealth) 40
3.5.5 Guanica Bay and southwestern Puerto Rico 41
3.5.6 The Southwest Puerto Rico Project and the Lajas Valley Irrigation System 43
3.5.7 The rise of sun-grown coffee production 43
3.5.8 Erosion and sediment distribution 44
3.5.9 Analysis - economic independence and self-determination 46
3.6 Summary 48
Chapter 4. Define Objectives and Develop Alternatives 49
4.1 Introduction 49
4.1.1 Defining objectives 49
4.1.2 Developing decision alternatives 54
in
-------
4.2 Decision-making workshop 55
4.2.1 Decision issues in Guanica Bay watershed 57
4.2.2 Non-market values of ecosystem resources 62
4.2.3 Summary 66
4.3 Public Values Forum 67
4.3.1 Summary 81
4.4 Summary of the workshops 82
Chapter 5. Estimate Consequences and Evaluate Tradeoffs 85
5.1 Estimating consequences 85
5.2 Identifying information needs 86
5.3 Scientific investigations to reduce uncertainties 89
5.3.1 Coral reef condition 89
5.3.2 Ecosystem goods and services production 94
5.3.3 Social and economic benefits of coral reefs 101
5.3.4 Effects of water quality and availability on human health 106
5.4 Decision-support tools for evaluating alternatives 107
5.4.1 Bayesian networks 108
5.4.2 Spatially dynamic modeling with Envision 112
5.5 Evaluating trade-offs, implementation and monitoring 115
5.6 Summary 117
Chapter 6. Tools Supporting the Decision Process 119
6.1 Practical approaches to support decision-makers 119
6.2 Decision-support tool design: considerations and characteristics 121
6.3 Decision-support illustration: DASEES 122
6.4 Benefits from decision-support tools 128
Chapter 7. Evaluating the Formal Decision Process in Guanica Bay 129
7.1 Guiding information collection 130
7.2 Improving communication 134
7.3 Stakeholder involvement 136
7.4 Interconnecting decisions 137
7.5 Guiding strategic thinking 140
7.6 Creating alternatives 142
7.7 Additional benefits 143
7.8 Challenges 144
7.9 Future research 145
7.10 Afterwards 146
Appendix A. The Guanica Bay Watershed-An Historical Perspective 149
Appendix B. Guidance for Selecting the Decision Context and Developing the
Decision Landscape 156
Appendix C. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop Participants ...163
Appendix D. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop Agenda 165
IV
-------
Appendix E. 2012 Decision-Making Workshop Agenda 171
Appendix F. 2012 Decision-Making Workshop Participants 175
Appendix G. 2013 Public Values Forum Participants 176
Appendix H. Guidance and Sample Agendas for Public Values Forum and Objectives Workshops .178
Appendix I. Glossary 192
References 213
-------
List of Figures
1-1. A watershed is an area of land that drains the streams and rainfall to a common
outlet, such as the mouth of a bay 4
2-1. Relationship between Alternative-Focused Thinking (AFT) and Value-Focused
Thinking (VFT) for decision-making 5
2-2. Approaching decision-making by thinking about values before developing
alternatives, informs every dimension of the decision process 6
2-3. The structured decision-making (SDM) formal decision process 9
2-4. SDM supports better informed decision-making 10
3-1. Components and key relationships in an environmental management
Decision Landscape 17
3-2. Coral reefs fringe the southwestern coast of Puerto Rico and provide coastal
recreation and tourism opportunities 18
3-3. Images of coral reefs in the areas of La Parguera and Guanica illustrate
their natural beauty 18
3-4. Reef-building stony corals formed the structure of Caribbean reefs
(e.g., Orbicella annularis and Acropora palmata) 22
3-5. The 2008 Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan identified potential
sources of pollution and proposed a series of management actions 24
3-6. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework
and conceptual relationships among DPSIR sectors 26
3-7. A coral reef DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses)
conceptual map developed by EPA using information from workshops held
in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Florida Keys, discussions with
expert focus groups, and literature 27
3-8. Forty-three representatives from Federal and Commonwealth government agencies,
non-governmental organizations and academic institutions, and citizens from the
Guanica Bay watershed participated in the 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems
Decision-support Workshop at La Parguera, Puerto Rico 28
3-9a. Guanica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses)
concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support
Workshop, showing details for Driving Forces, Pressures, and
Responses to each proposed decision alternative 31
3-9b. Guanica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses)
concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support
Workshop, showing details for State, Impact, and benefits to Driving Forces 32
3-10. Key urban and natural areas of the Guanica Bay Watershed 37
3-11. Depiction of U.S. troops landing at Guanica in 1898 by artist Howard
Chandler Christy 38
3-12. Operation Bootstrap shifted Puerto Rican labor from agriculture to
manufacturing and tourism 40
VI
-------
3-13. Central Guanica, a major sugar cane processing plant was on the west shore
of Guanica Bay 42
3-14. Ochoa Fertilizer Company, Inc. was on the east shore of Guanica Bay 42
3-15. The Southwest Puerto Rico Project consisted of five dams, three of which
reversed watershed flow from north to south 44
3-16. Mountain farm near Yauco, Puerto Rico, cleared to plant sun-grown coffee 45
3-17. Water and sediment leaving Guanica Bay enter the coastal zone and are
swept to the west towards La Parguera by prevailing ocean currents 46
4-1. Example objectives hierarchy (OH) for one of the proposed fundamental
objectives for the Guanica Bay Watershed 51
4-2. Means-end network for the Guanica Bay watershed based on expected effects
of recommended actions from the Watershed Management Plan on
fundamental objectives proposed in Carriger et al. 2013 53
4-3. Workshop participants included farmers, fishermen, and representatives of local
and Commonwealth government agencies and non-governmental organizations 57
4-4. Public Values Forum participants included academics; representatives of
government agencies, non-government organizations and businesses
and citizens 68
4-5. Day 1 breakout groups for establishing an initial list of values in the social category
and economics category at the Public Values Forum held for the Guanica Bay
watershed in Puerto Rico 71
4-6. Social Network Analysis (SNA) of workshop participants at the
Public Values Forum 77
4-7. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Economics workgroup for
restoring the Guanica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by
knowledge of current initiatives in the watershed 79
4-8. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Social workgroup for
restoring the Guanica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by
knowledge of the 2008 watershed management plan 80
5-1. Display of stony coral density results from reef assessment surveys completed
at St. Thomas and St. John and St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands 90
5-2. Generalized Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) 91
5-3. Photos from EPA coral reef stations reflect a range of coral reef conditions,
from good, to intermediate quality, to severely degraded 92
5-4. Structure to trace changes in ecosystem services values based on a
management option 96
5-5. Maps of predicted reef ecosystem service production around St. Croix,
U.S. Virgin Islands 100
5-6. Illustrations depicting: High Condition, Medium Condition, and Low Condition,
to be used as visual aids during the economic valuation surveys 104
5-7. The economic valuation of Puerto Rico's coral reef-based tourism and recreation
will be analyzed and reported at the whole territory scale, as well as for five (5)
sub-regions: northeast, southeast, northwest, southwest, and the islands of
Vieque and Culebra 105
VII
-------
5-8. Volunteer 4-H Club members take water samples for the Region 2 Citizen
Science Program testing for water quality in southwestern Puerto Rico 107
5-9. Nodes in a Bayesian belief network (BBN) represent random variables, and arcs
are used to indicate a conditional relationship between the parent and child
nodes 108
5-10. Lago Lucchetti in southwestern Puerto Rico receives water from its watershed
as well as through a tunnel from upstream reservoirs 109
5-11. Conceptual diagram of model to estimate the life expectancy of Lago Lucchetti
under two management options: coffee conversion and reservoir dredging 110
5-12. Bayesian belief network (BBN) model derived from the conceptual model and
showing distributions of probabilities for life expectancy (in years) of Lago
Lucchetti under two management options: conversion to shade-grown coffee
(Conversion Implementation node) and reservoir dredging (Start Water
Storage Capacity node, reflecting potential dredging levels) Ill
5-13. Screenshot of Envision decision-support tool 113
5-14. Envision's conceptual framework 114
5-15A/B/C/D. Illustration of Envision input models for the Guanica Bay watershed 115
6-1. Decision analysis conceptual approach to requisite model development using
decision-support tools 120
6-2. Categorization of decision-support system (DSS) options based on degree of
problem structure and support delivered 121
6-3. Generic architecture for a decision-support system 122
6-4. Contextual information for the Guanica Bay Decision Landscape in Decision
Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) 123
6-5. SystemSketch tool in Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment,
Economy, and Society (DASEES) showing a linkage between the Pressure (P)
Landscape Changes, States (S) such as Terrestrial Habitat, Built Environment,
and Abiotic State 124
6-6. Segment of the Guanica Bay Objective Hierarchy focusing on aquatic ecology 125
6-7. Means objectives Minimize sediment runoff associated with the fundamental
objective Improve Water Quality and management option Subsidize
Shade-grown Coffee developed by Guanica Bay stakeholders 126
6-8. An influence diagram for a Bayesian Belief Network showing the management
option (subsidize Shade-grown Coffee), the environmental state variables
(nutrient runoff, precipitation, and sediment runoff), and the corresponding
measures (nutrients, coliforms, solids in suspension and turbidity) 127
6-9. The Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society
(DASEES) sharing interface provides a place for storing all the data and
information needed to make a decision 128
7-1. The Watershed Management Plan graphically illustrating its primary objective
of restoring high ecological integrity to coral reefs 141
7-2. Elaboration of objectives and benefits of proposed management actions
derived from discussions during the 2010 Decision Support Workshop 141
VIM
-------
A-l. Paintings of Christopher Columbus and Juan Ponce de Leon 149
A-2. Workers cutting sugar cane in a field in Puerto Rico 150
A-3. Cigars have been produced in Puerto Rico for centuries 151
A-4. A large coral boulder marked with the carved words, "3rd Battalion, 1st U.S.V.
Engineers, September 16, 1898", commemorates the invasion 152
A-5. Women working in a garment factory in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 1942 155
B-l. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework 158
B-2. Example DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses)
framework linking watershed and coastal ecosystems 160
H-l. An influence diagram is a tool to separate means and ends 183
H-2. Example objectives hierarchy for one of the proposed fundamental objectives
from the Guanica Bay Watershed 184
List of Tables
2-1. A generic formalized decision process consistent with values-based
decision-making illustrating the Decision Analysis (DA) concept 8
2.2. Examples of possible SDM processes of varying levels of budget and timeline 13
3-1. Preliminary objectives list created through workshop discussions during the
2010 Decision-support Workshop 33
3-2. Management options developed by participants during the
2010 Decision-support Workshop 33
3-3. Information gaps and research studies suggested by participants at the
2010 Decision-support Workshop 34
4-1. Priorities for natural resource management and associated objectives
developed by participants at the 2012 Decision Workshop 59
4-2. Transparency and access concerns raised by participants at the
2012 Decision Workshop 62
4-3. Economic sectors and challenges to economic sustainability, as identified
by participants during the 2012 Decision Workshop 66
4-4. Categories used for targeting stakeholders for the Guanica Bay watershed
Public Values Forum 68
4-5. Initial objectives generated from four breakout groups in the first day
of the Public Values Forum 72
4-6. Initial priority management actions from different breakout groups shown
with potential performance measures and the values served 75
4-7. Illustrative consequence table developed interactively for Guanica Lagoon
restoration, showing objectives in rows and possible management alternatives
in columns 78
4-8. Priority actions identified by each of the four work groups in the Public
Values Forum.., ...81
IX
-------
5-1. Issues in a DPSIR-based framework, sample research questions from
stakeholder discussions, and targeted EPA research activities 87
5-2. Coral reef attributes of a very good to excellent site and a poor site 92
5-3. Fish species assigned to attribute 2-highly sensitive or specialist taxa 93
5-4. Categories and examples of ecosystem goods and services 94
5-5. Identification of ecosystem goods and services that align with stakeholder
objectives identified in the Guanica Public Values Forum 95
5-6. Quantitative methods for linking reef ecosystem attributes to production of
ecosystem services 97
5-7. List of key terrestrial ecosystem services for the Guanica watershed and production
function methods for linking them to changes in environmental condition 99
5-8. Identification of performance measures related to valuation of ecosystem
goods and services that align with stakeholder objectives identified in the
Public Values Forum 101
5-9. Economic benefits provided by coral reefs 102
5-10. A subset of objectives that reflect the social concerns of stakeholders at the
three EPA Guanica Workshops 106
5-11. Life expectancy of Lago Lucchetti reservoir under different management
scenarios 112
5-12. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the
worst-case scenario to best-case scenario might be considered in a
swing-weighting exercise 116
H-l. Hypothetical consequence table 187
H-2. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the
worst-case scenario to best-case scenario might be considered in a
swing-weighting exercise 190
-------
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the effort of the peer reviewers who took the time to carefully read and
greatly improve the report: Lisamarie Carrubba (NOAA), Kasey Jacobs (Caribbean
Landscape Conservation Cooperative), Paul Sturm (Ridge to Reefs, Inc.), Charles LoBue
(EPA Region 2), and Marilyn ten Brink, Peg Pelletier and Giancarlo Cicchetti (EPA ORD).
We also recognize several people for their outstanding contributions to this effort:
in particular Paul Sturm (Ridge to Reefs, Inc.), and Roberto Viquiera and Louis Meyer
Comas (Protectores de Cuencas), all of whom have hosted tours, introduced us to
stakeholders and shared their extensive knowledge of the watershed.
2010 Decision-support workshop - Richard Appeldoorn and Francisco Pagan (University
of Puerto Rico, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute) hosted the workshop and dedicated staff
and resources for planning, logistics, and communications. Ann Vega, Joe Williams and
Walt Galloway (EPA ORD), and Kelly Black and Tom Stockton (Neptune & Company)
assisted in all aspects of planning. Jorge Garcia-Sais (University of Puerto Rico,
Mayaguez), Paul Sturm (Center for Watershed Protection), Jose Castro (USDA/NRCS),
Kelly Black (Neptune & Company), Tom Stockton (Neptune & Company) and Amanda
Rehr (Carnegie-Mellon University) provided valuable background presentations. Walt
Galloway (EPA ORD) facilitated the workshop. Kelly Black (Neptune & Company, Inc.),
Deb Curaco (Center for Watershed Protection), Leah Oliver (EPA ORD), and Amanda
Rehr (Carnegie-Mellon University) led the breakout groups.
2012 Decision-making workshop - Roberto Viquiera (Protectores de Cuencas) graciously
helped with planning, logistics and facilities.
2013 Public Values Forum - Roberto Viquiera (Protectores de Cuencas) and Paul Sturm
(Ridge to Reefs, Inc.) helped identify stakeholders and coordinated logistics. Robin
Gregory and Julian Gonzalez (Value Scope Research) deftly facilitated the Forum in both
English and Spanish. Richard Appeldoorn (University of Puerto Rico, Caribbean Coral
Reef Institute), Manuel Valdes Pizzini (University of Puerto Rico), and Roberto Viquiera
(Protectores de Cuencas) provided valuable background information.
Information on the Biological Condition Gradient was generated through two EPA-
sponsored workshops that brought together scientists from Puerto Rico, the United
States' Virgin Islands, Florida and the Mesoamerican Reef who have expertise in coral
reef taxonomic groups (e.g., stony corals, fishes, sponges, gorgonians, algae, seagrasses
and macroinvertebrates), as well as community structure, organism condition,
ecosystem function and ecosystem connectivity. Debbie Santavy (EPA) and Jeroen
Gerritsen (TetraTech) facilitated and gave workshop presentations.
XI
-------
Information on economic valuation was provided by Bob Leeworthy (NOAA Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries), who in partnership with EPA, the University of Puerto
Rico, Puerto Rico Sea Grant and local agencies and communities are conducting a study
to provide the economic valuation information for Puerto Rico's reef-associated tourism
and recreation. The results can help decision- makers to better understand the real
costs and benefits of decisions.
Cover photo credit: Deborah Santavy, US EPA, ORD.
XII
-------
Executive Summary
This report demonstrates the application of a structured decision-making (SDM) process
in the Guanica Bay watershed (GBW) in southwestern Puerto Rico. SDM is an organized
approach for helping people, especially groups, identify creative options and make
informed, defensible and transparent choices. It is particularly useful in complex
decision situations. SDM has six steps: 1) clarify the decision context; 2) define
objectives and evaluation criteria; 3) develop alternatives; 4) estimate consequences;
5) evaluate trade-offs and select alternatives and 6) implement, monitor and review.
Key to the SDM process is the engagement of stakeholders, experts and decision-makers
in a deliberative environment that deals rigorously with facts and values in
decision-making.
The Guanica Bay watershed has been a priority for research, assessment and
management since the 1970s, and since 2008, has been the focus of a U.S. Coral Reef
Task Force (USCRTF) research initiative involving multiple agencies assembled to address
the effect of land management decisions on coastal resources. Municipal and
agricultural growth in the Guanica Bay watershed has provided social and economic
value but has led to changes in forest cover (highly valued for biodiversity, endangered
species and ecotourism), declining quality and availability of drinking water, and
increased sediment and nutrient runoff that adversely affects coastal seagrasses,
mangroves and coral reefs. Communities in the coastal region, such as the city of
Guanica, rely partially on fishing and tourism economies, both of which are adversely
affected by diminishing coastal water quality. In 2008, with funding from NOAA's Coral
Reef Conservation Program, the Center for Watershed Protection developed a
Watershed Management Plan (WMP) that included a suite of proposed management
actions to reduce sediment runoff and its harmful effects in the coastal zone. The WMP
served as the initial SDM decision context for EPA's research to generate tools and
procedures to better inform the decisions made across the watershed and to facilitate
complementary actions.
Application of SDM in Guanica Bay included archival research on social and economic
history of the region and three workshops with stakeholders, experts and decision-
makers to explore past decisions, characterize the decision landscape for the WMP,
and better understand what stakeholders value in the watershed. The workshops
included detailed discussions of the effects of human activity in the watershed on
downstream environmental condition and ecosystem services.
XIII
-------
The outcomes of this investigation and these workshops include:
An improved understanding of multiple values and perceptions of citizens
in different communities of the watershed,
A broader, more comprehensive decision landscape (beyond coral reef
protection), and
A clearer understanding of the decision alternatives and how they might support
or conflict with different objectives.
Through this process, EPA scientists and members of the USCRTF gained important
insights to the value of engaging stakeholders early and often in the decision process.
This report is intended to serve as a demonstration of the techniques and procedures
used in SDM.
XIV
-------
Chapter 1. Introduction
This report will assist watershed managers, agencies, and organizations involved in
watershed management to use structured decision-making (SDM). SDM is an organized
approach for identifying and evaluating alternatives and making defensible choices in
complex decision situations. SDM has six steps: 1) clarify the decision context; 2) define
objectives and evaluation criteria; 3) develop alternatives; 4) estimate consequences;
5) evaluate trade-offs and select alternatives and 6) implement, monitor and review
(Gregory et al. 2012). A key aspect of SDM is the engagement of stakeholders, experts and
decision-makers to create a deliberative environment that deals rigorously with both facts
and values in decision-making (Keeney 1992; Gregory and Keeney 2002; Failing et al.
2007; Gregory et al. 2012).
Objectives are statements of stakeholders' values. Objectives can:
Help determine what information to seek
Help explain the final decision(s) to others
Determine a decision's importance, and consequently, how much time
and effort it deserves
Help define evaluation criteria for identifying and evaluating alternatives
SDM is expected to serve multiple purposes:
1) It will assist decision-makers and stakeholders to assemble information in an
organized manner, using a systems framework (in this case the DPSIR [Driving
Force, Pressure, State, Impact and Response] framework and the Decision
Landscape). Information and knowledge becomes a shared resource, leading to
better and more informed decisions.
2) It will provide a formal process to engage stakeholders early and often in the
decision process. Stakeholders hold a variety of values and perceptions that may
appear to be conflicting. Particularly valuable in this process is the ability of
stakeholders to hear other viewpoints in a constructive environment and to
recognize that there are ways to move through disagreements. Separating values
and objectives from science facts and knowledge is an important step in this
process.
3) It will also provide better communication between stakeholders and decision-
makers (and between the various federal and territorial agencies) and make
the decision-making process more transparent.
-------
4) It will guide strategic thinking by helping decision-makers and stakeholders
to understand how decisions are inter-related and to see what tradeoffs might
occur under different alternatives.
5) Finally, it will support creation of new alternatives that are directly responsive to
stakeholder values, and have a better chance of acceptance and successful
outcome.
The process documented in this report serves as a model for future watershed or
community studies. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force members can implement the
approaches demonstrated in the report in other priority watersheds. The Appendices
provide tools and references that can be used when implementing SDM.
1.1 Sustainability, the watershed approach and structured
decision-making
Decisions are most often made within a very narrow context prescribed by the mission or
objectives of the decision-maker and decision-making body. The cumulative result is
multiple independent decisions made at various spatial and temporal scales with little to
no relationship to each other or to a management plan, much less to a sweeping long-
term goal like sustainability.
Sustainability: "to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and
nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic,
and other requirements of present and future generations" EO 13514.
NRC (2011) provided an operational framework for integrating sustainability within the
regulatory responsibilities of EPA and recommended that EPAs Office of Research and
Development (ORD) develop scientific and analytic tools to support this framework.
Suggested research areas included development of:
A suite of decision-support tools for long-term impact analysis and simple decision
tools for use by communities;
System models capable of providing projections and develop alternative projections
for present and future outcomes for key types of issues; and
Robust methods that could readily incorporate uncertainty, variability,
vulnerability, and resilience.
In 2011, ORD redesigned its research programs to advance the science of sustainability,
creating six integrated research programs: Air, Climate and Energy; Safe and Sustainable
Water Resources; Sustainable and Healthy Communities; Chemical Safety for
Sustainability; Homeland Security; and Human Health Risk Assessment. In a systems-
based approach, EPA and its partners began to develop integrating decision support tools
-------
(models, methodologies, and technologies) and supporting data and analysis that will
guide decision makers toward environmental sustainability and sustainable development.
The Guanica Bay research is a case study under the Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research Program (SHCRP). The goal of SHCRP is to inform and empower decision makers
to equitably weigh and integrate human health, socio-economic, environmental, and
ecological factors to foster sustainability in the built and natural environments. The
primary focus of the SHCRP is on developing tools and approaches to help local decision
makers understand the effects on sustainability of alternative policies and actions
(EPA2012a).
Since the mid-1980s, EPA has been working with watershed organizations, tribes, and
federal, state and territorial agencies to manage water quality through a watershed
approach. A watershed is the area of land that contributes water flows to a lake, river,
stream, wetland, estuary, or bay (Fig. 1-1). Land-based sources of pollution pose a major
threat to water quality in the Nation. Land-based pollutants are transported in surface
water runoff and by groundwater seepage into coastal waters.
The watershed approach incorporates a broader decision context with explicit
consideration of social, economic and environmental values. The stakeholders in the
watershed are actively involved in selecting the management strategies that will be
implemented to solve the problems. The EPA "Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans
to Restore and Protect Our Waters" (EPA 2008) provides information on developing and
implementing watershed management plans that help to restore and protect water
quality. While each watershed plan will address different issues and reflect unique goals
and management strategies, every watershed planning process is iterative, holistic,
geographically defined, integrated, and collaborative (EPA 2008).
EPA is conducting research to generate tools and procedures to better inform the
decisions made across watersheds, and to facilitate complementary actions and optimal
fulfillment of multiple objectives. This report introduces results from that research: an
organizational framework (SDM), a method to elicit multiple stakeholder values and
objectives, and a method to generate and weigh alternatives that optimally achieve the
objectives. The report also provides tools to support the application of SDM in a
watershed context.
-------
Figure 1-1. A watershed is an area of land that drains the streams and rainfall to a common outlet, such as
the mouth of a bay (credit: Whitewater River Alliance 2015).
The SDM process represents a departure from conventional practices and methods of
regulatory and environmental management. SDM can help decision-makers in a variety
of ways, including guiding strategic thinking and information collection, improving
communication, engaging stakeholders, understanding the interconnectedness of
decisions, and creating new alternatives that are directly responsive to stakeholder
values.
Successful decision-making is the result of having:
Clear objectives
Creative alternatives
Defensible impact estimates
Clarity about fundamental trade-offs
Honest representation of uncertainty
A way to update information, and perhaps revise decisions over time,
to reflect new knowledge.
SDM requires a dedicated management force with a thorough grasp of strategic thinking
and structured decision-making. This requires continued exposure to the process,
appropriate resources for workshops and public forums, and dedication to improving the
manner and method of engaging stakeholders in balanced resource protection.
-------
Chapter 2. The Formal Decision Process
2.1 Background on values and decision-making
The Latin definition of 'decision' is 'to cut off (Merriam-Webster 2013). When faced with
a choice, a decision-maker considers alternatives from which one is selected and the
others are cut off. Resources are then committed to the selected alternative (Howard
1966). In an environment with multiple stakeholder perspectives and limited resources,
the need to clearly establish what to consider (criteria) for choosing among alternatives is
necessary to achieve creative, effective, defensible, and robust outcomes (Gregory et al.
2012). Making decisions based on 'what is important' is the basis of value-focused
decision-making and is fundamentally distinct from the more common alternative-focused
decision-making that emphasizes the range of possible routes to achieve a single, primary
objective.
Key concepts:
Values are what we fundamentally care about
Objectives define what matters in the decision and are based upon values
Alternatives are means to achieve our objectives
Keeney (1992) describes the relationship (Fig. 2-1) between values and alternatives as:
Values are what we fundamentally care about in decision-making. Alternatives are means
to achieve our objectives, which are based upon our values. Alternative-focused decision-
making does consider values, but often only implicitly. They may not be clearly stated and
thus not fully considered when making a decision.
AFT VFT
I
\
s
Figure 2-1. Relationship between Alternative-Focused Thinking (AFT) and Value-Focused Thinking (VFT)
for decision-making. The common tendency is to start with AFT without first clarifying and explicitly stating
the values and criteria that will be used for making a decision. Starting with VFT leads to a more transparent
and inclusive decision-making process (adapted from Corner et al. 2001).
-------
Explicitly stating the values, and by extension the objectives and criteria used to define
and measure their attainment, promotes a more transparent, inclusive, and defensible
process. It helps to create an environment for fostering options with better prospects for
desired outcomes and minimal negative impacts (Gregory 1999; Gregory et al. 2012). For
a decision-maker faced with a multi-faceted decision context involving several viewpoints
across stakeholder groups, it is beneficial that the identification, creation, evaluation and
selection of decision alternatives be grounded in the common values of the interested
parties. Common values are those that most stakeholders will agree upon, i.e., values that
they share even if at different magnitudes. A decision process that incorporates Values-
Focused Thinking (VFT) (Fig. 2-2) will work toward finding those common values. Although
adding an extra step in the decision process, VFT gives decision-makers greater flexibility
in finding acceptable solutions to problems.
Creating
alternatives
Uncovering Identifying
hidden decision
objectives alternatives
Guiding
strategic
thinking
Connected
decisions
Guiding
information
collection
Figure 2-2. Approaching decision-making by thinking about values before developing alternatives,
informs every dimension of the decision process. This leads to better alternatives, greater acceptance by
stakeholders, and improved chances for successful decision outcomes (adapted from Keeney 1992).
In brief, these advantages include (Keeney 1992):
Guiding information collection: Values help prioritize the spending of limited
resources on gathering information relevant to what is important to the
stakeholders;
Improving communication: VFT keeps the discussion on what is important to the
whole group (all stakeholders) and not on specific, technical aspects of
alternatives;
-------
Involving stakeholders: All parties, regardless of education or socio-economic
status know what is important to them and can communicate those values in VFT;
Recognizing interconnectedness: Decision-makers make decisions in different
contexts. It is important to be able to see if decisions in one context affect how a
decision will be made in another;
Guiding strategic thinking: Inter-related decisions show the necessity of clarity of
values for strategic level decision-making;
Creating alternatives: New alternatives can be created that are directly responsive
to stakeholder values. These have a better chance of acceptance and successful
outcome;
Avoiding common traps: common traps including anchoring on the first proposed
alternative can hamper decisions, accepting constraints as immoveable, avoiding
discussions of controversial tradeoffs, and rushing to premature solutions
(Gregory etal. 2012).
2.2 Description
In many cases, single issue, well-defined decisions do not need a formal methodology for
successful outcomes. Everyday decisions (e.g., when to hold a meeting or the best travel
route to work) are quickly made with available information and common sense guided by
experience. For most environmental decision-making, however, experience alone is
insufficient. There are significant information inputs required from environmental,
economic, and social sciences, coupled with the inherent uncertainty of natural systems.
Keeney (1982) described the emerging discipline of Decision Analysis (DA) as "a
formalization of common sense for decisions that were too complex for the informal use of
common sense."
Applying the ideas of value-based decision-making to complex environmental
management problems requires a conceptual framework or formalized process to ensure
that a decision is consistent with stakeholder values, cognizant of tradeoffs among
alternatives, and accounts for associated uncertainties and risks. While there are several
formulations for decision analysis (Gregory et al. 2006; Gregory and Keeney 2002) two
formal processes are highlighted here as examples. Table 2-1 shows the sequential steps
in a generic DA process with a brief description of what is entailed in each step.
-------
Table 2-1. A generic formalized decision process consistent with values-based
decision-making illustrating the Decision Analysis (DA) concept (source: Carriger
and Benson 2012).
Generic steps in a decision analysis process
Decision context
Objectives
Alternatives
Prospects
Trade-offs
Recommendations
The reason for a decision opportunity
Expressions of what is valued in the decision opportunity
The choices needed to fulfill the objectives
The potential outcomes from the decisions and their uncertainties
The willingness of stakeholders to accept more or less of one objective
for another
The optimal strategy for achieving the objectives
Any decision with personal and/or societal ramifications has intended or unintended
consequences. The consequences that stakeholders care about are considered values.
The decision analysis field provides tools and frameworks for identifying values and
making them explicit in a decision context with important ramifications. In multi-
stakeholder deliberation processes, the objectives step can be regarded as an opportunity
to elicit and include the values of stakeholders within a decision analysis.
The aim of DA is to construct a model of the decision that is amenable to analysis and
computation for the evaluation of alternatives (Howard 1966). An overall decision process
(e.g., Table 2-1) makes the goals of DA possible and is consistent with value-based
decision-making, as shown in the Objectives step (expressions of what is valued). A
decision process facilitates these goals through the integration of science and fact-based
information with stakeholder-derived values in an analytic-deliberative structure (Gregory
et al. 2006; Failing et al. 2007).
The SDM approach in Fig. 2-3 (Gregory et al. 2013) is very similar to the process outlined
in Table 2-1. The SDM formulation includes the additional step of implementing the
decision and monitoring to evaluate the results against stated values. Thus, each
management decision sets the context for the next round of decision-making. It is this
emphasis on the adaptive nature of environmental decision-making that makes SDM the
operational framework for decisions that will be used throughout this report.
-------
Clarify the
decision
context
Implement,
monitor and
Define
objectives and
measures
Evaluate
tradeoff sand
select
Develop
alternatives
Estimate
consequences
Figure 2-3. The structured decision-making (SDM) formal decision process. This approach exemplifies the
iterative nature of environmental decision-making and the need to monitor and adapt to changing
conditions (adapted from Gregory et al. 2012).
2.3 Why SDM is needed
A generation ago, environmental degradation had become so widespread that concerted
government-mandated remedies became a necessity. For the most acute problems (e.g.
untreated sewage in waterways, smog-filled cities and unchecked industrial pollution),
science-based, straightforward technical solutions yielded rapid and relatively effective
results. Such results were deemed successful when end-of-pipe single pollutant levels in
a single medium (i.e. suspended solids in effluent, or sulfur oxides in exhaust) met
legislated levels.
As these readily defined, acute problems were being addressed, more intractable
problems came into focus with unpopular trade-offs resulting from mandated approaches
(Camper and Turcanu 2007). Increased and better science, and technological innovation
can help offset some of the trade-offs, but the future role of science and technology for
environmental management will require clarity of values (Gregory et al. 2006) and a
logical process for linking values to alternative development and risk-based evaluation
(Reckhow 1994; EPA 2009; Rehr et al. 2012).
-------
There is increasing recognition that top-down regulatory and technology-driven responses
are not sufficient (Grossarth and Hecht 2007) to address current and emerging
environmental challenges such as climate change, sustainable communities and
environmental justice (Fig. 2-4). Rittel and Weber (1973) describe pervasive
environmental problems with economic constraints and conflicting social values as
"wicked" in contrast to the "tame" problems that are amenable to regulation and
technical solutions. Management of the Guanica Bay watershed is an example of a
"wicked' problem.
TOUGH
DECISIONS
AHEAD
Figure 2-4. SDM supports better informed decision-making. People will be better equipped to make tough
choices when they have the best alternatives and analyses available (photo credit: Diane O'Keefe).
Such problems require new ways to understand the scientific, economic and social
interactions, to develop sustainable solutions and to foster effective environmental
decision-making. These new approaches neither negate nor reduce the role of biophysical
science; rather there is a need to better integrate biophysical science into an appropriate
context for more effective decision-making. Recognizing this need, EPA, a federal agency
mandated to regulate and control pollution, is adopting practices to promote
sustainability through stewardship and collaborative problem solving (Grossarth and
Hecht 2007). Central to these practices is ongoing research into development and use of
processes, ideas and tools for incorporating decision, behavioral, and social sciences into
existing environmental research (EPA 2009; EPA 2012b).
10
-------
2.4 How SDM is used
The SDM decision process is "...the facilitated and collaborative application of
multi-objective decision-making and group deliberation methods to environmental
management..." and is encapsulated in two broad aims (Gregory et al. 2012):
Build common understanding of a complex problem
Identify and evaluate management alternatives
The usefulness of an SDM process is based on the rigor it applies to structuring and
analyzing the values and preferences of stakeholders. Without this structure, decision-
makers may run the risk of applying resources to the wrong problem and potentially
exacerbating an already contentious management issue (Carriger and Benson 2012).
The broad aims listed are both qualitative (building common understanding) and
quantitative (evaluate alternatives), so the tools for SDM include both.
Some of the tools and concepts include:
Driving Force, Pressure, State, Impact and Response (DPSIR) model: This is
a conceptual systems modeling approach that seeks to graphically and
comprehensively capture the socio-economic, environmental and human health
relationships for a decision context (Yee et al. 2011, 2012a, 2014a; Rehr et al. 2012;
Bradley et al. 2014b). It also provides a means to begin thinking about remedial
actions (Responses) and how they fit in the overall system.
Objectives Hierarchies: A formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the
key objectives stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). An
objectives hierarchy organizes objectives from broad, overarching goals
(fundamental objectives) to narrower, more specific objectives (means objectives).
This formal structure allows decision-makers to view each alternative in context of
the broader objective to which it contributes, and also to the specific objectives that
contribute to it (Bradley et al. 2014b).
Swing Weighting: A rigorous way to rank and assign relative stakeholder
preferences for objectives to be used in a quantitative assessment of alternatives
(Gregory et al. 2012). In the swing weight method, stakeholders describe the worst
consequences of a decision and then are asked to identify which attribute they
would prefer most to change from its worst outcome to its best outcome. Swing
weighting ranks objectives by "swinging" the value measure from its worst to
its best level.
11
-------
Influence Diagram: An intuitive visual display of a decision problem that depicts the
key elements, including decisions, uncertainties and objectives as nodes of various
shapes and colors. It shows influences among them as arrows. Implemented in
software applications, they are a powerful way to conduct quantitative assessment
of alternatives through the use of multi-objective decision models.
The use of these tools and others within a SDM process have been applied to a wide range
of decision problems including management of lake eutrophication (Reckhow 1994),
watershed management (Ohlson and Serveiss 2007), dolphin conservation (Conroy et al.
2008), municipal solid waste management (Chambal et al. 2003) and coral reef
management (Rehr et al. 2012). With increasing opportunities for collaboration via the
Internet, web-based decision-analytic architectures are developing for e-participation in
decision-making (French et al. 2007; Black and Stockton 2009). EPA is also involved in this
area of research with the ongoing development of a web-based application Decision
Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society DASEES (EPA 2012b). The
DASEES approach is consistent with SDM and utilizes many of the same decision tools in
the overall process.
Concerns raised about an SDM process are that it sounds expensive and time consuming
(Gregory et al. 2012). Because SDM places emphasis on problem structuring, it can
ultimately reduce costs, or minimally shift costs, by helping to focus expensive data
gathering efforts on the information most needed for the decision at hand. SDM is a
flexible framework that can be adapted to a variety of budgets and timelines (Table 2-2),
and numerous examples exist of SDM processes ranging from 1 day to 2 years (Gregory et
al. 2012). While it is true that an SDM process may require more time in the early stages,
the time spent building a common understanding and prioritizing information needs and
help streamline later steps.
12
-------
Table 2-2. Examples of possible SDM processes of varying levels of budget and timeline
(source: Gregory et al. 2012).
Timeline or
Budget
SDM Meeting Plan
Fast timeline
(<6 months)
Small budget
1. Decision sketching: Quickly sketch through decision context, objectives,
alternatives, consequences, tradeoffs; identify "low hanging fruit" that can be
initiated quickly
Medium
timeline
(6-18 months)
Medium
budget
1. Clarify decision context, objectives, & alternatives: Develop a work plan; confirm
roles and responsibilities; confirm objectives that will be used as evaluation
criteria; develop menu of alternatives
2. Review existing information with technical experts: Identify key uncertainties
where more information is needed
3. Work with technical experts to conduct assessment of alternatives: Identify
performance measures; conduct evaluations (expert opinion, quantitative
analyses) to compare alternatives
4. Review consequences of alternatives and make draft recommendations: Uncover
tradeoffs and find balance across competing objectives;
5. Make a decision and develop a strategy for implementing the plan: Develop
a plan, including plans for monitoring and addressing critical uncertainties
moving forward
Slower timeline
(1-5 years)
Larger budget
1. Decision process: Develop a work plan; confirm roles and responsibilities
2. Decision sketching: Build a common understanding of the scope of the problem
3. Define objectives: Confirm objectives that will be used as evaluation criteria
4. Specify performance measures: Define the evaluation criteria with help from
expert judgment
5. Develop alternatives: Develop a preliminary menu of alternatives
6. Identify information needs: Identify key uncertainties where more information is
needed
7. Technical working group: Identify technical needs and process
8. Technical field work and analysis: Conduct field work, modeling, or expert groups
as needed to evaluate consequences
9. Round 1 alternatives & consequences: Review outcomes from technical
evaluations; identify potential tradeoffs; revise objectives, performance
measures, or alternatives as necessary; conduct additional technical evaluations
as necessary to revise;
10.Round 2 alternatives & consequences: Explore tradeoffs; identify areas
of agreement;
11.Make a decision and develop a strategy for implementing: Develop a plan,
including plans for monitoring and addressing critical uncertainties moving
forward
12.Monitor and review: Conduct technical monitoring and field work to evaluate
success of plan; adapt as necessary moving forward
13
-------
2.5 Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico, case study
In this report, we provide an example of the decision process for an ongoing case study in
the Guanica Bay watershed, in southwest Puerto Rico. EPA became involved in this study
when the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) selected Guanica Bay as the first priority
watershed in its multi-agency initiative to reduce watershed impacts on coral reefs. The
report includes results from a 2010 stakeholder workshop to clarify the decision context
(Chapter 3), information from archival research into the economic and political history
related to the decision context (Chapter 3), summaries of two workshops that
characterized historical decision-making and better defined stakeholder objectives and
values (Chapter 4), an overview of ongoing EPA research to provide data, information and
tools to forecast the potential outcomes of different decision options (Chapter 5) and a
synopsis of the Guanica Bay decision landscape as captured by the EPA tool DASEES in a
stepwise decision analytic process (Chapter 6). A summary evaluation of the process and
its apparent utility in the Guanica Bay watershed study is also provided (Chapter 7).
The Appendices provide supplemental information and tools that can be used in the
SDM process.
14
-------
Chapter 3. Clarify the Decision Context
Environmental decisions, particularly complex intractable decisions with unpopular
tradeoffs, will commonly have multiple stakeholder perspectives and require a variety of
data and information from environmental, economic and social sciences. Decision-makers
can follow a reasonably structured process that assembles information in a manner that
facilitates examination of the decision alternatives and likely tradeoffs. Gathering and
organizing information relevant to the decision is creating a decision landscape. As the
decision landscape is shaped, the decision context should transform to a clearer and more
workable focus.
3.1 The decision landscape
The decision landscape is a characterization of issues surrounding a potential decision,
such as the scale, science underpinnings, decision-makers and affected stakeholders
(Rehr et al. 2012). The first step in describing the decision landscape is to frame the
decision context, which is the problem, issue, or reason for making a decision, all of which
defines the scope of the information that will be needed (Gregory et al. 2012). The
decision context can be narrow (nutrient loadings from a wastewater treatment plant are
too high) or broad (unsustainable management of watershed resources), but the context
must be relevant to the decision-making potential. For example, context for the narrow
case above (nutrient loadings) must have some potential for nutrient management within
the available options and context for the broader case (watershed sustainability) must
have some potential for influencing socioeconomic policy. The decision context is
probably easier to develop first in communication with a few key stakeholders; it may be
adapted and refined throughout the ensuing process with information gained from
others, but a thoughtful initial attempt will save later controversy and challenge. This
initial stage can also help define who needs to be involved in the process and what role
will they play. For example, a collaborative multi-stakeholder committee may be deeply
involved in all the SDM steps, consulting periodically with technical experts or public
representatives, and ultimately providing recommendations to a decision-maker.
The decision landscape is drawn from and constrained by the decision context; it is
intended to identify and organize information relevant to the problem, values,
alternatives and tradeoffs in a decision context.
15
-------
Initial characterization of a decision landscape should include:
a) Scale of the decision: How big an area, how long a time, how many communities,
will be affected?
b) Facts and current knowledge: What is known about relationships between pieces
of the decision puzzle (i.e., effects of stressors and potential benefits of reducing
them)?
c) Current condition: What is the status of the issue and why is a decision needed
now instead of later?
d) Unintended consequences: What else, other than its intended purpose, will the
decision affect?
e) Decision-makers: Who would be making the decision or components of the
decision? Who would be funding the actions if decisions were made? Who
authorizes the different steps of a potential action?
f) Stakeholders: Who will be positively affected and who will be negatively affected?
How have stakeholders been engaged in the past?
g) Legal status: Who owns or is responsible for property that might be altered by
decisions? What laws are applicable and who is responsible for enforcing them?
h) History: What decisions have been made in the past and how did they lead to the
current situation? Are planning or visioning documents already developed that are
relevant to the issue?
The decision landscape is useful only if it can be communicated to decision-makers and
stakeholders. A graphic representation (e.g., Fig. 3-1) or flow chart of the issue to be
resolved and the likely effects of different decisions on the things that people care about
is very useful. Another possibility is an issue paper (or 'white paper') that describes the
decision context and provides an overview of the issues affecting decision alternatives
and tradeoffs. The overview can be at a basic level to satisfy most stakeholders with
appendices or additional material available to technical experts and those who want
greater detail. Characterization and communication of the decision landscape should be
unbiased (i.e., should present information without predisposition for a particular decision
outcome).
16
-------
Science (relationship
between options &
outcomes)
predii
Valuation by participants
(Utility)
Preferences
& Values
characterize
Figure 3-1. Components and key relationships in an environmental management Decision Landscape
(source: Rehret al. 2012).
The following is the process used to characterize the decision landscape for the Guanica
Bay watershed in southwestern Puerto Rico. It describes the initial decision context
(Section 3.2), a systems framework for generating a comprehensive decision landscape
(Section 3.3), a workshop summary that led to better understanding and a 'sketch' of the
decision landscape (Section 3.4), a summary of archival literature research to characterize
the broader landscape and tradeoffs that covered a range of environmental, economic,
and social outcomes (Section 3.5) and a re-casting of the decision context in the broader
scope (Section 3.6). Additional historic information is provided in Appendix A.
This Guanica Bay watershed example illustrates a decision context that is initially limited
in scope (i.e., one or two focused objectives). When a systems framework is used to
examine these objectives, it leads to a comprehensive assessment of issues, a broader list
of objectives, multiple decisions, and a broader group of stakeholders. Anticipating these
multiple decisions and including them in the discussion can reasonably be expected to
satisfy more stakeholders. Guidance to develop the decision landscape is provided in
Appendix B.
17
-------
3.2 Initial decision context for coral reef protection at
Guanica Bay
Coral reefs are present along the entire southern coast of Puerto Rico and some of the
most attractive reefs for snorkeling and diving occur on and around the cays near La
Parguera in the municipality of Lajas, which is west and down current of Guanica Bay.
Coral reefs in the areas of La Parguera and Guanica are a valued natural resource and a
mainstay of the coastal recreation and tourism economy (Fig. 3-2).
Municipalities
Coral Reef and Colonized Hardbottom
Figure 3-2. Coral reefs fringe the southwestern coast of Puerto Rico and provide coastal recreation and
tourism opportunities.
Puerto Rico has used images of their pristine coral reefs and biologically diverse mountain
forests to promote ecotourism (Fig. 3-3).
Figure 3-3. Images of coral reefs in the areas of La Parguera and Guanica illustrate their natural beauty
(photo credits: Alan Humphrey, EPA and Jon McBurney, Lockheed Martin).
18
-------
The Puerto Rico legislature has passed several laws to promote the ecotourism industry:
1998 - Law 340 that established a public policy for promoting ecotourism with the
intention to create an Ecotourism Board.
2006 - Law 254 "Law for the Sustainable Development of Tourism in Puerto Rico",
which is administrated by the Puerto Rico Tourism Company (PRTC).
In June 2013, the PRTC formed an Interagency Commission to coordinate efforts at the
Commonwealth government level for optimal development and promotion of sustainable
tourism, as well as ecotourism throughout the island. In the southwest, the PRTC has
established a tourism route through the towns of Yauco, Utuado, Guanica, Sabana
Grande, Maricao and Las Manas to highlight the natural ecologies and habitats of
the region.
The presence of coral reefs has made the Guanica Bay area a priority for investigation,
assessment and management.
1978: The Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program (PRCZMP) designated
eight areas as Special Protection Areas (SPA), including the Southwest, which was
divided into three sectors - La Parguera, Guanica and Boqueron (DRNA et al. 2008).
The PRCZMP also recommended the designation of 12 areas as natural reserves
because of the quality and extent of coral reefs, including the Guanica State Forest.
Guanica State Forest was added to the PRCZMP in 1988 (DRNA et al. 2008;
NOAAetal. 2009).
1978: The Federal Court approved the first Order of Consent between EPA and
PRASA for violation to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 88 of 97 wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) owned at the time by PRASA (91% of the WWTPs). Guanica and
Lajas WWTPs were subject to the original 1978 Court Order (U.S. v. PRASA,
Civil Action 78-0038 (CC) 1978)
1985: The U.S. District Court amended the 1978 Court Order and imposed sewer
connection limitations to about 40 WWTPs. Guanica and Lajas WWTPs were subject
to this ban (U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (TR), 83-0105 (TR) 1985).
1997: The Federal Court approved a stipulation requiring PRASA to identify WWTPs
that needed Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) (U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-
0038 (CC) and 83-0105 (CC) 1997). Lajas WWTP was required to either be upgraded
or to relocate its outfall to a larger stream with an increased assimilative capacity
(Vincenty Heres & Lauria et al. 1997). The plant was upgraded to tertiary treatment.
19
-------
1997: EPA filed a criminal case and civil suit against the Copamarina Beach Resort
and its operators for discharging sanitary sewage directly into the Caribbean Sea
without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 2000
EPA and Copamarina signed a Consent Decree that required Copamarina to pay a
civil penalty of $200,000 to the U.S. and permanently barred the resort from
discharging any pollutants.
1998: Gregory Morris & Associates, Inc. conducted two studies on the impacts of
restoring the historic Guanica Lagoon for the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources (DNER), which was funded by EPA (GMA 1999a&b).
1999-2002: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Puerto
Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program (PRCRMP), administered by Puerto Rico DNER,
was implemented in nine reserves (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) to provide a baseline
characterization of Puerto Rico's coral reefs and to monitor water quality (Garcfa-
Sais et al. 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2004, 2005, 2006; Hernandez-Delgado 2003).
2002: The USCRTF identified the need for action at the local level to reduce key
threats to coral reefs in the seven states and territories with significant coral reef
resources (Florida, Hawai'i, American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, Puerto Rico and USVI).
PR DNER formed an interagency partnership to develop the Local Action Strategy.
2004: NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program and the Center for Watershed
Protection (CWP) held a capacity building workshop in San Juan that focused on the
Local Action Strategies for each jurisdiction. Workshop participants decided that
each jurisdiction should have a watershed of emphasis to serve as a demonstration
that could be tied to effects of land-based sources of pollution on coral reefs. NOAA
and CWP chose Guanica Bay Watershed because of prior coral reef work by NOAA's
PRCRMP; the strong DNER leadership and stakeholder engagement at the Guanica
State Forest; and former studies of the historic Guanica Lagoon (personal
conversations with Jen Kozlowski and Anne Kitchell).
2004: The University of Puerto Rico (UPR - M), in collaboration with the Puerto Rico
DNER and funded by NOAA, established the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute (CCRI) at
the Magueyes Island Marine Laboratory in La Parguera, PR. CCRI has been
conducting research and ecosystem assessment activities around Puerto Rico,
including the coastal areas near Guanica and La Parguera.
20
-------
2005-2007: NOAA conducted the Coral Reef Habitat Assessment for Puerto Rico
at 40 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) including the Guanica State Forest Natural
Reserve and Biosphere Reserve. As part of the assessment, NOAA mapped and
calculated the areal extent of the benthic habitats (NOAA 2009).
2006: EPA closed the 1978 Court Order and other administrative open orders issued
to PRASA. The same year EPA and PRASA signed a Consent Decree that addressed
PRASA's CWA violations involving discharges in violation of its NPDES permits; failure
to operate and properly maintain all 61 wastewater treatment plants in Puerto Rico;
and discharges of raw sewage from seven collection systems. Under the terms of the
Consent Decree, PRASA paid a $1 million penalty, undertook a Supplemental
Environment Project valued at $3 million, and implemented injunctive relief valued
at approximately $1.7 billion. PRASA agreed to complete 145 short-term, mid-term
and/or long-term capital improvement projects at its wastewater treatment plants
(including construction of a new Biological Nutrient Removal [BNR] treatment plant
providing tertiary treatment in Guanica) over the next 15 years.
2007: PRASA was able to construct a BNR module for the Guanica WWTP with
a capacity of 1.25MGD.1
2008: EPA issued an administrative compliance order against Puerto Rico
National Parks Company from the Cana Gorda Public Beach WWTP for discharging
pollutants into the sea without an NPDES permit.2
1 The BNR didn't have enough inflow to operate because the projects for the new hookups were not completed. In
2011, PRASA decided to start operations of the BNR since part of the hookup projects have been completed.
However, the BNR needed to undergo through some repairs in order to starts operations because several parts have
been deteriorated due to the years that was out of service. In August 2015, the BNR finally started up.
2 The NPDES permit was issued on 2009. On 2014, EPA sent to the PR National Parks Company (NPC) a letter to show
cause for failure to comply with its permit effluent limits. The PR NPC opted to stop their discharge and to haul their
effluent into PRASA Guanica WWTP.
21
-------
3.2.1 Initial decision context
Across the Caribbean, coral reefs are dying from the cumulative effect of global and local
factors (Hughes 1994; Jackson et al. 2001, 2012, 2014; Knowlton 2001; Morelock et al.
2001; Pandolfi et al. 2003; Garcfa-Sais et al. 2005; Pandolfi and Jackson 2006; Alvarez-Filip
et al. 2009). Among the local factors are sediment, nutrient and contaminant efflux from
human activities in the adjacent watershed. This is the case for Guanica Bay. Coral reefs
near Guanica and La Parguera have declined, with dramatic reductions in living colonies of
reef-building stony corals like the Boulder Star Coral, Orbicella annularis (fig. 3-4J.
Figure 3-4. Reef-building stony corals formed the structure of Caribbean reefs (e.g., Orbicella annularis
[left] and Acropora palmata [right]) (photo credits: left - Charlie Veron; right - Alfredo Montanez Acufia,
UPR).
Bleaching events in 1981, 1987, 1990, 1998 and 2005 caused by elevated sea surface
temperature have also adversely affected stony corals (Williams and Bunkley-Williams
1989, 1990; Williams et al. 1987; Goenega et al. 1989; Velazco-Domfnguez et al. 2003;
Garcfa-Sais et al. 2006, 2008; Miller and Lugo 2009). Disease outbreaks have increased in
number, prevalence and spatial distribution (Gladfelter 1982; Weil et al. 2003, 2009; Weil
and Rogers 2011; Bruckner and Bruckner 1997, 2006; Croquer and Weil 2009; Harvell et
al. 2009), causing further decline in stony coral communities.
Furthermore, other coral reef assemblages have shown signs of disease and have been
affected by bleaching, including octocorals and hydrocorals (Weil et al. 2002; Weil 2004;
Toledo-Hernandez et al. 2007, 2009; Prada et al. 2009; Flynn and Weil 2009), crustose
coralline algae (Weil 2004; Ballantine et al. 2005), zoanthids and sponges (Weil 2004; Weil
et al. 2006; Weil et al 2009).
22
-------
Massive fishing pressure has also adversely impacted Puerto Rico's coral reefs. Large
vertebrates (e.g., the green turtle, hawksbill turtle, manatee and Caribbean monk seal)
have been decimated in the central and northern Caribbean Sea, herbivores and
predators were reduced to very small fishes and sea urchins (Jackson 1997).
The problem (issue) is that coral reefs, which are highly valued for tourism and recreation,
fisheries, shoreline protection and natural products (i.e., sources and templates for
Pharmaceuticals, biochemicals, and biomaterials), are declining from the effects of
multiple stressors (Warne et al. 2005; CWP 2008). Some of these stressors (e.g., land-
based sources of pollution) might be reduced or alleviated through changes in human
activities in the watershed.
The decision-maker in the initial decision context is the USCRTF (see below). There is a
reasonable presumption by the USCRTF that many, if not most, stakeholders would prefer
to preserve the services delivered by healthy reefs. The SDM process should include all
those alternatives (management options) that might be employed to stop or reverse the
decline. The reason for making a decision now rather than later is to reverse the trend
before the damage is irreparable and the valuable services provided are lost forever.
3.2.2 Decision-maker: U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
The USCRTF is responsible for assisting U.S. jurisdictions (States, Territories and
Commonwealths) in protecting the coral reef ecosystem. Based on the results of the
2007 workshop and discussions with DNER and CWP, NOAA contracted the CWP to
develop a WMP for the Guanica Bay Watershed (Fig. 3-5).
The CWP conducted interviews with natural resource managers, academics, local farmers
and residents to better understand Guanica Bay and its watershed. CWP compiled the
findings of the interviews with the results of a weeklong field survey, including assessment
of stream channels and point sources, and visits to representative areas to evaluate
restoration and conservation opportunities. The resulting report Guanica Bay Watershed
Management Plan (CWP 2008) not only identified potential sources of pollution but
proposed several actions to reduce pollution in watershed runoff, including agricultural
practices, river- and stream-bank erosion and improved sewage treatment at the Guanica
wastewater treatment plant. The WMP also identified actions to reduce sediment loads in
reservoirs and restoration of an historic lagoon in the Lajas Valley to filter pollutants from
waters entering Guanica Bay. The rationale for all proposed actions was to reduce
physical, chemical and biological stressors in effluent waters with the objective of
protecting resources in the watershed, including coral reefs, from land-based sources
of pollution.
23
-------
Guanica Bay Watershed
Management Plan
A Filul r v. lv« Spiuu- f"
Prepared by
Cnln for \V»tn \fcrd ProHxliMi
S3-»OM*mii -lldHw
tllurotlC«r MD'KWUJ'iA
Proposed Management
Options
Agricultural Practices
Lagoon Restoration
Reservoir Restoration &
Maintenance
Sewage/Waste Management
Riparian Restoration
Figure 3-5. The 2008 Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan identified potential sources of pollution
and proposed a series of management actions.
In 2009, the USCRTF initiated a Watershed Initiative to better incorporate land-based
sources of pollution and socio-economic considerations of those living in the watershed
into strategies for coral reef protection. During its 2009 meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico,
the USCRTF selected Guanica Bay as the location of its first multi-agency priority
watershed. A driving force for the selection of Guanica Bay was the availability of the
WMP(CWP2008).
In Guanica, the USCRTF has combined the efforts of NOAA, CWP, EPA, US Department of
Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS), US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER),
Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture (PRDA), Puerto Rico Land Authority (PRLA), US
Geological Survey (USGS), University of Puerto Rico (UPR), Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority (PREPA), and Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). The
consortium of agencies has therefore become a stakeholder and decision-maker in the
Guanica Bay watershed.
The USCRTF watershed initiative and the WMP demonstrate alternative-focused thinking
(i.e., seeking alternatives on a particular issue prior to formally characterizing the broader
values and objectives of stakeholders). The driving force for the WMP was to guard
against and reverse the effects of land-based sources of pollution in the watershed. While
care was taken to incorporate the concerns of many stakeholders, particularly farmers,
into the WMP, the focus was identifying and characterizing alternative actions rather than
stakeholder values. In value-focused thinking (and SDM), the values and objectives of
stakeholders, in a formal elicitation process, would have been documented before
alternatives were proposed.
24
-------
3.3 Systems thinking and systems diagrams
Scientists often take an analytic or reductionist approach to solving problems: splitting
complex phenomena into elementary parts to better understand the individual processes
(e.g., molecular biology). But modern environmental decision-making cannot be about
individual processes or isolated issues. 'Systems thinking' is an approach to problem
solving that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system are best
understood not in isolation but in the context of relationships and interactions with one
another and with other systems (von Bertalanffy 1972). The USCRTF focus in Guanica Bay
is an example of a reductionist approach, applying resources to address a single issue (i.e.,
coral reef protection) relatively isolated from consideration of impinging factors and
unintended outcomes. A systems approach considers more than one issue and broadens
the decision context. While it is more costly and time consuming, the systems approach
should ultimately provide better information for decision-making.
There are several core principles about how systems function (AST 2008):
Feedback: performance of organizations and systems is largely determined by a web
of interconnected circular (not linear) relationships;
Delay: actions have both immediate and delayed consequences;
Unintended consequences: today's problems are too often yesterday's solutions;
Awareness: comprehending the relative benefits of the various options, as well
as the underlying factors and trade-offs; and
Leverage: systems will improve with a few key coordinated changes sustained
overtime.
A systems approach is built on the understanding that everything affected by a change is
connected to something else that may also be affected. Not every effect will be
important, but it is worth going through the process to make sure all possible
consequences have been considered.
One framework supporting a systems approach is the DPSIR, which has been a valuable
tool for organizing and communicating complex environmental issues. The DPSIR
framework was developed by the European Environmental Agency (EEA 1999) and has
been used by the United Nations (UNEP 2007).
The framework (Fig. 3-6) assumes cause-effect relationships among interacting
components of social, economic, and environmental systems (Pierce 1998; Smeets and
Weterings 1999). These are:
Driving Forces: Socio-economic sectors that describe basic needs of human society
(i.e., food, water, fuel and shelter) and secondary needs (i.e., recreation, cultural
heritage and sense of place)
25
-------
Pressures: Driving Force-generated emissions and land use changes that affect the
environment
State: Status of the environment and ecological resources, including attributes that
provide services
Impacts: Changes in delivery of ecosystem goods and services as a consequence of
changes in ecological state
Responses: Societal reactions to changes in ecosystem services, values and
sustainability (e.g., management actions)
T
Driving
Forces
Pressures
State
Impacts
Responses
Figure 3-6. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework and conceptual
relationships among DPSIR sectors (source: Bradley et al. 2014b).
EPA's ORD has used the DPSIR approach to generate conceptual maps for examining
socioeconomic implications of coral reef management actions (Yee et al. 2011).
Information gained from a decision-support workshop in Puerto Rico (described in
Section 2.4), from two previous workshops in U.S. Virgin Islands and the Florida Keys, and
from discussions with expert focus groups and literature reviews, has led EPA to develop a
coral reef DPSIR conceptual map (Fig. 3-7) that is presented in greater detail at EPA's
ReefLink web site (EPA 2014a). A DPSIR tutorial prepared by EPA is also available (EPA
2014b). EPA is also developing a DPSIR technical support document (Bradley and Yee
2015).
26
-------
Policies 1 Cultural] i Health I j
Infrastructural
management
1
influences
\
Infrastructure
\^
Responses
Landuse zoning & management
Discharge regulations j
Technological innovation
X,
influer
Environmental
responses
B0
t standards for
X
Abiotic State
Physical
Climate variables
1 Storms! frrr
' ' J upweihng |
Temperature _ «
[Precipitation t"ydr°'°9yJ
1 r« jE ^
ISealav9l'|Ught|
Hums
L are i Food 8
*" supported I Water)
by ! '
laadlo
Pressures
l>ood & energy ^Security
influence
Jt?
n Needs
raw material^ [Health |
D
Shelter i| Culture' [ Security 1
lead to
/
.'
Responses
Resource use
& management
Coastal zone
management
Landscape Changes . j
|Wal»rbome discharge Atmospheric discharge! - influences
; Applied chemicals | Biological harvest
(Physical damage Biological addition
/
lead LO
inputs
& alter
/
CMnrfot
variables
I Contaminants 1 Q
Nutrients ! , pH ' «
[cozjllaiinl^l
* indUBnes "lnflu
distribution of 5un
\
impat
Biological
State
Living L^
habitat k
Reef
L 1 j»^
3nce --*
rval
»
Ecosystem [
responses
Is influence abundance
^^^ & Knowledge of
Microorganisms &
pathogens
/
disease in^ riirdsT] Inhabitants
Mammals
~ J,°ld(?, f 1 "eptltes & 1 fe
toodwsb [Amphibians] «
GQfTJP?t9 » ^-_^_
"fh [Invertebrates! ^
Invasive
species
Ecosystem Services
Regulating Services | ( Supporting Services
|i
Cultural Services Provisioning Services!
Figure 3-7. A coral reef DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) conceptual map
developed by EPA using information from workshops held in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico
and the Florida Keys, discussions with expert focus groups, and literature. (Note: the Driving Forces,
Pressures, Impacts and Responses boxes have been collapsed. More detail is included
at www.epa.gov/ged/coralreef. Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Fig. 3-6 (e.g., light
green=Driving Forces; dark green=Pressures; orange=State; pink=lmpacts; and purple=Responses).
27
-------
3.4 Coral reef and coastal ecosystems decision-support
workshop
In 2010, the U.S. EPA and the CCRI hosted a Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-
support Workshop at La Parguera, Puerto Rico (Bradley et al. 2014b). Forty-three
representatives from Federal and Commonwealth government agencies, non-
governmental organizations and academic institutions, and citizens from the Guanica Bay
watershed participated (Fig. 3-8), (Appendix C).
. Academic
. Federal
Commonwealth
. Municipal
NGO
Citizen
Corporate
Figure 3-8. Forty-three representatives from Federal and Commonwealth government agencies, non-
governmental organizations and academic institutions, and citizens from the Guanica Bay watershed
participated in the 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision-support Workshop at La Parguera,
Puerto Rico.
The workshop served as an exercise in decision-sketching (Gregory et al. 2012) which is a
means to quickly identify preliminary information on objectives and possible measures, a
range of possible management actions and their consequences, and key pieces of
information and their uncertainties. Sketching can help to identify what key stakeholder
groups or decision-makers are needed for participation in future workshops and what
kinds of information may be needed for future analysis.
The three key steps to decision sketching are (modified from Gregory et al. 2012):
1. Framing the decision: What is the decision? Who are the decision-makers?
What is the relationship to other decisions? What is the goal?
2. Developing the sketch: What is the range of objectives and alternatives under
consideration? What information is known and are there critical gaps? What
trade-offs or uncertainties are likely to be most critical?
3. Planning the consultation and analysis: Given what you've learned, what tools
and information are needed?
28
-------
The workshop was designed to garner stakeholder and decision-maker input to develop a
decision analysis framework for addressing problems related to human activities (e.g.,
agriculture, urbanization, sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off and wetland
loss) believed to be damaging to coastal resources (Appendix D). The workshop was
invaluable for fleshing out the decision landscape (Bradley et al. 2014b).
3.4.1 Framing the decision
Three presentations were given at the outset of the workshop, each designed to help
frame the decision context. These included an overview of declining coral reefs in
southwestern Puerto Rico (presented by Jorge Garcia-Sais, Department of Marine
Sciences, UPRM), an overview of plans by USDA/NRCS to reduce soil erosion in the
watershed (presented by Jose Castro, USDA/NRCS), and a summary of the alternatives
proposed by CWP in the WMP to protect coral reefs from further degradation (presented
by Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection). This information provided a common
basis of understanding for the participants.
The next session was initiated with a presentation on systems thinking and the DPSIR
framework. This set the stage for three facilitated breakout groups to discuss and
characterize specific decision scenarios that had been outlined in the management plan;
these were (Bradley et al. 2014b):
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
- Hydroseeding of bare soil associated with roads and homes
- Enhanced wetlands for sewage treatment
- Pet waste cleanup ordinances in coastal cities
A facilitator and a DPSIR conceptual mapping note-taker led each breakout group to
generate a concept map using the DPSIR framework as a guide. The transparency of DPSIR
was an asset in this exerciseparticipants could easily see how different factors affected
others and there were many discussions on the strengths of these relationships;
moreover, many new relationships were revealed. By the end of the allotted time, the
groups had developed a relatively detailed concept map for each set of alternatives (see
Bradley etal. 2014b).
29
-------
3.4.2 Developing the sketch
EPA merged the DPSIR concept maps from the three breakout groups, and participants
were provided an opportunity to comment, revise, and make further suggestions to the
developing sketch. Although participants originally completed all of the concept maps
during the workshop, EPA ultimately refined the input into a single Guanica Bay concept
map (Fig. 3-9a & Fig. 3-9b).
The importance of this step was to link the different decision alternatives into a common
framework that showed the possible consequences and the likely tradeoffs. Several
examples include:
Converting mountain farms from sun-grown to shade-grown coffee would require
money and time for farmers to convert to the new strains and new methods.
It would however, eventually provide increased vegetative cover and habitat
for wildlife.
Restoration of the lagoon would remove it from agricultural production and could
bring mosquito problems to the community of Fuig, which has grown out to the
lagoon area since it was drained. However, the lagoon restoration would increase
nutrient cycling, trap sediments and provide new tourism and recreational
opportunities (i.e., boating, fishing and bird-watching).
There are benefits of reducing sediment efflux not only to coral reef condition
but also to stream habitats and preventing agricultural soil loss. Additionally,
sediments are filling the reservoirs and reducing the availability of drinking water
and irrigation water.
The integrated concept maps also illustrated how several different actions could have an
effect on a single endpoint, and how one action could have an effect on several
endpoints.
30
-------
Ecosystem Services
guimnSS«vicMl[SuPPi»1'n9s«VK«J *
Figure 3-9a. Guanica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) concept map
developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for
Driving Forces, Pressures, and Responses to each proposed decision alternative (source Bradley et al.
2014b). Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Fig. 3-6 (e.g., light green=Driving Forces; dark
green=Pressures; orange=State; pink=lmpacts; and purple=Responses). The nodes presented here link with
those in Fig. 3-9b.
31
-------
Biologic./ Cond^ton ««Mc»
' kimltntstty ', | spK
Figure 3-9b. Guanica-specific DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) concept map
developed by EPA based upon information from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for
State, Impact, and benefits to Driving Forces (source Bradley et al. 2014b). Boxes are color-coded to follow
the scheme used in Fig. 3-6 (e.g., light green=Driving Forces; darkgreen=Pressures; orange=State;
pink=lmpacts; and purple=Responses). Grey boxes identify some possible performance measures identified
by the group. The nodes presented here link with those in Fig. 3-9a.
32
-------
3.4.3 Planning the consultation and analysis
Information gathered in the early steps of decision sketching is used to inform the
information needs for the decision landscape. While considering the conceptual maps
they had developed, workshop participants provided information that was later organized
into a preliminary list of objectives (Table 3-1).
Table 3-1. Preliminary objectives list created through workshop discussions during the
2010 Decision-support Workshop (source: Bradley et al. 2014b).
Objective
Land-use planning
Water quality
Law and regulation enforcement
Community awareness/education
Quality of life
Economic well-being
Response to oil spills/boat groundings
Sub-objective
- Environmentally sensitive
- Soil conservation and farm
development
land quality
- Bay (water and sediment)
- Inland
- Drinking
- Marine
- Recreation
- Aesthetics
- Fisheries
-Tourism
Also discussed were measurable attributes for these objectives that could be used to
gauge their performance. Workshop participants created preliminary lists of management
options (Table 3-2) and information gaps requiring further research (Table 3-3).
Table 3-2. Management options developed by participants during the 2010 Decision-
support Workshop
Water Management
Restoration of Guanica Bay
Develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Rio Loco
Establish non-point source monitoring stations in the Guanica Bay Watershed
Monitor additional beaches for water quality
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
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
33
-------
Terrestrial Management
Reforestation
Forest management plans
Forest Legacy Program
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
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 Best Management Practices at construction
sites
Waste Management
Construct wastewater treatment wetlands
Enforcement of wastewater treatment systems
Enforcement of residential on-site septic systems
Social/Political
Education and outreach
Process to manage stakeholder conflicts
Education program to address the cultural component of some management practices
Education and outreach on mosquito control
Enforce existing regulations and laws
More resources for law enforcement
Research planning process
Table 3-3. Information gaps and research studies suggested by participants at the 2010
Decision-support Workshop (source: Bradley et al. 2014b).
Issue
Pollutant Sources
Pollutant Loadings
Pollutant Fate
Coral Reef Impacts
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 (hydrology model)
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 impacts
Tracking temporal trends in uses and impacts
34
-------
Information from the workshop strongly influenced the decision sketch. Information was
gained from stakeholders that characterized many concerns, identified several additional
alternatives related to the initial decision context (protecting coral reefs) and laid a path
for describing broader, more comprehensive goals for the watershed.
Participants at the Decision-support Workshop elevated several important factors for
developing a complete decision landscape:
Communities in the Guanica Bay watershed are linked by a complex hydrologic
system that brings pollutants, in the form of sediment and nutrients, from
agricultural economies to the coastal waters that support fishing economies.
Sediment and nutrients originate in mountain ridges (coffee farming) and valley
farms (vegetables and pastureland) and are transported by a man-made construct of
dams, reservoirs, tunnels and canals. Both the infrastructure and agricultural
practices influence the quality and quantity of water moving downstream.
Moreover, municipal development in the foothills (Yauco) and coastal region
(Guanica and La Parguera) has affected water uses and water quality.
While it is generally understood that sediment and nutrient efflux from Guanica Bay
can adversely affect coral reef condition, it is not known how much local activities
are contributing to reef decline nor what level of local management actions will be
required to reverse the trend.
Alternatives proposed by the WMP (CWP 2008) were consistent with the USCRTF
goal of reducing sediment efflux into Guanica Bay, but except for monetary costs,
other potential tradeoffs were not described.
The positive effects of reducing sediment in the watershed reach far beyond
protection of coral reefs. Positive effects include (among others) reduced soil loss
from farms, reduced sedimentation in reservoirs, improved stream and river water
quality, improved fish and bird habitat and greater tourism and recreation potential.
It was not always clear where the authority lay to permit, delay or deny an action.
Also, there are actions that Federal and Commonwealth agencies can take without
consulting local stakeholders. An integrated decision-making framework for the
watershed could circumvent some of these inconsistencies and avoid future
confusion.
These factors were instrumental in guiding the next step of developing a decision
landscapearchival research on past decisions and policies. To understand where
we stand now, we have to see where we've been.
35
-------
3.5 Archival research
Archival research is a type of primary research that involves locating, evaluating, and
systematically interpreting and analyzing information from original archival records
(Corti 2004; Schmidt 2011). Interpretation and analysis of past decisions requires a
historical context. Consequently, EPA's archival research included a broad search for
historical information on Puerto Rico and particularly for policies that affected
communities in southwestern Puerto Rico. Based upon information gleaned from the
2010 workshop and further discussions with several Federal, Commonwealth and local
decision-makers, the archival research was initially focused on 1) the construction of
hydrologic infrastructure (hydroelectric plants, dams; sanitary sewer systems, municipal
stormwater systems; irrigation and drinking water) and 2) agriculture (sugar cane , shade-
grown and sun-grown coffee), draining the historic Guanica Lagoon, and the
establishment of the Lajas Valley agricultural reserve.
Reviews of historical information provided a means to further focus archival research on
specific decisions related to land and water use. Ultimately, the most relevant historical
decision that emerged was the construction of a massive reservoir and irrigation system in
the 1950s to supply water for agriculture irrigation. To interpret this event requires some
recognition of the history and economy of Puerto Rico, which is summarized below.
(Additional historical background is provided in Appendix A.) Existing perceptions of past
decisions and the decision-making process were then elicited from stakeholders during a
workshop held in 2012 (see Section 4.2). The information gathered during the archival
research has been used throughout the research project.
3.5.1 Geographical setting: Guanica Bay
Guanica Bay is a narrow body of water south of the town of Guanica in southwestern
Puerto Rico (Fig. 3-10). The Bay has a narrow opening (about % mile [440 m] across),
which is less than 2 miles (3 km) from the mouth of the Rio Loco. There are low, rugged
hills on both sides of the Bay and three areasGuanica downtown, Ensenada ward and La
Pieza sectoron its shores. The hills on each side of the mouth of the Bay comprise the
Guanica Dry Forest, a United Nations Biosphere Reserve since 1981 (Miller and Lugo
2009). Coral reefs occur outside the mouth of the Bay as they do across most of southern
Puerto Rico (Garcfa-Sais et al. 2005). To the west of Guanica is a coastal plain, (Lajas
Valley) and La Parguera, a coastal town that is a tourism destination for divers, boaters
and fishers. Northeast of Guanica lies the city of Yauco.
36
-------
0 1.25 2.5 5 Kilometers
ill i
Figure 3-10. Key urban and natural areas of the Guanica Bay Watershed (adapted from Carriger et al.
2013). Black shading = developed areas, medium grey shading=cultivated crops & pasture, spotted grey
shading=terrestrial protected areas, offshore hatched shading=seagrass, coral, and rubble benthic habitats,
stars=locations of Loco and Luchetti dams. Credit for map layers: The hydrography layers came from the
USGS National Hydrography dataset (Simley and Carswell Jr. 2009) (downloaded from http://nhd.usgs.gov/);
and land cover came from the 2001 National Land Cover Database (Homer et al. 2004) (downloaded from
http://www.mrlc.gov/). Additional map layers were downloaded from Florida International University's Map
Imagery User Service, which included Kendall et al. (2001) and Keel (2005).
3.5.2 Historical perspective
Guanica Bay and Puerto Rico have a rich history. Tamo Indians inhabited the island when
Christopher Columbus landed in 1493 and Juan Ponce de Leon established a Spanish
settlement at (what is now) Guanica in 1508. During this time, the economy of Puerto
Rico, and that of the Guanica Bay area, was shaped by gold mining and subsistence
farming of tobacco, coffee and sugar cane, relying on slave labor. While slaves were
present in Puerto Rico for nearly four centuries, it was not until the large-scale
37
-------
development of the sugar industry that slaves were imported in mass numbers (Bowman
2002): in 1765 there were only about 5,000 slaves in the colony; by 1830 there were more
than 30,000 slaves. In 1873 slavery was abolished, however, their contributions and
heritage are reflected in Puerto Rico's art, music, cuisine, and religious beliefs.
Tobacco became the dominant product in the mid-1600s (Carrion 1983). The amount
of coffee grown in Puerto Rico was insignificant until 1736 and blossomed by the
mid-1800s with the immigration of Corsican coffee growers to the Yauco region.
But after nearly 400 years of Spanish rule, many Puerto Ricans desired autonomy. In 1897
Puerto Rico was granted constitutional autonomy and representation in the Spanish
parliament. But this limited autonomy was short-lived. In February 1898, over 16,000 U.S.
soldiers landed at Guanica Bay as an offensive in the Spanish-American War. By August,
Spain had ceded Puerto Rico to the American forces (Fig. 3-11).
Figure 3-11. Depiction of U.S. troops landing at Guanica in 1898 by artist Howard Chandler Christy
(source: Wikipedia 2014).
Under U.S. influence, Puerto Rico quickly underwent many changes, often to the benefit
of U.S. economic interests rather than the well-being of Puerto Ricans. It was not until
1917 that the U.S. Congress passed the Jones Act granting U.S. citizenship for all Puerto
Ricans and provided unrestricted entry to the U.S. mainland. Two months later Congress
passed the Selective Service Act, which brought nearly 20,000 young Puerto Ricans into
U.S. military service during World War I.
38
-------
Heavy U.S. investment in sugar cane began to pay off by the 1920's when sugar became
the main export crop of Puerto Rico. For Puerto Ricans, however, sugar cane provided a
static monoculture economy that employed most of the population at extremely low
wages. By 1938, per capita income for Puerto Ricans had not risen above $100 a year.
An important aspect of this historical context (see greater detail in Appendix A) is that
U.S. sugar interests owned most of the land, controlled the economy and sold over 90% of
the sugar produced to the U.S. market. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture
eventually eliminated sugar subsidies the industry waned. Because much of the land that
fell out of production was still in U.S. ownership, Puerto Rico was forced to import most of
its food from U.S. markets. Prices were held artificially high by U.S. tariffs, so the island
became more and more indebted and dependent. The land monopoly was not broken
until 1941, when the Land Reform Act limited ownership to 500 acres. By this time,
however, there were few Puerto Ricans who could afford to buy land.
3.5.3 Operation Bootstrap: Industrialized agriculture and
manufacturing
The term bootstrap refers to a leather loop used to pull a boot on and is commonly used
to mean an ability to help oneself without the aid of others. The U.S. Congress determined
that Puerto Rico would be less dependent and more able to fend for itself in the world
economy if it had a modern industrial infrastructure. The Industrial Incentives Act of 1947,
commonly called "Operation Bootstrap", was intended to replace the failing sugar
economy by incentivizing industrialization in agriculture and manufacturing. At this time
Puerto Rico was one of the poorest islands in the Caribbean with a high population
density (600 per square mile) that had not (and could not, it was believed) subsist as an
agrarian system (Davis 1948).
The result of Operation Bootstrap was to shift Puerto Rican labor from agriculture to
manufacturing and tourism. Manufacturing that occurred on the island shifted from
labor-intensive (e.g., apparel, tobacco) to capital-intensive industries, particularly
Pharmaceuticals, chemicals, machinery and electronics (Fig. 3-12). It wasn't the intent
of Operation Bootstrap to eliminate the agrarian economy. Some economists emphasized
manufacturing while others had argued for a balanced approach that included
manufacturing and 'industrial' agriculture, using modern agriculture technologies
and water delivery systems for irrigation.
39
-------
Figure 3-12. Operation Bootstrap shifted Puerto Rican labor from agriculture to manufacturing and
tourism. On the left, Governor Luis Mufioz Marin is laying the first stone for the Puerto Rican Can Company
as part of Operation Bootstrap (1962). On the right, women are working in a textile factory (source:
Wikipedia 2014).
The resulting strategy was drawn from capitalistic, free enterprise models of production,
which included economic incentives to hold down labor wages, train the labor force in
new technologies, and create an infrastructure (roads, water systems, airports) to support
a strong export-based economy. If the government provided the infrastructure, the
private sector would provide the production, distribution and transportation of goods.
The program consisted of three inter-related components: Market-oriented export
manufacturing, export-based natural resource industries (agriculture) and labor reform.
Although modeled specifically for Puerto Rico, this was similar to economic plans of other
Caribbean nations.
The U.S. consequently infused millions of dollars to build factories for industries that
would benefit from the large labor pool and low wages. Under the Industrial Incentives
Act, goods could enter the U.S. without tariff and profits were not taxed. By 1950, there
were over 80 large industrial plants in Puerto Rico and the rural agricultural society was
transformed into an industrial working class (Wells 1969). However, funding was also
made available for industrialized agriculture, including a massive dam construction project
for southwestern Puerto Rico.
3.5.4 Puerto Rico, a Free Associated State (Commonwealth)
In 1950, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Munoz Marin, successfully requested that
the U.S. Congress declare Puerto Rico a Free Associated State (Commonwealth). This
agreement preserved strong ties to the U.S. but allowed Puerto Rico its own constitution,
legislature and elections. The Governor's political party (Populares) won the first true
election (1952) by an overwhelming majority despite concerns the party was too close,
and too often acquiesced, to U.S. interests.
40
-------
In 1954, the U.S. Congress revoked the Puerto Rico exemption for the Federal Labor
Standards Act, forcing wages for needlework and manufacturing dramatically higher and
causing many factory employers to leave the island. Poor economic conditions and few
opportunities drove large numbers of Puerto Ricans to emigrate to the U.S., mostly to
New York City. There was such a huge emigration that even with a high birth rate the
population of Puerto Rico declined. A new boom in manufacturing was engineered
through the 1976 Federal Tax Reform offering tax exemptions to U.S. corporations.
Nonetheless, unemployment sometimes reached 20% during this period and Puerto Rico
remained heavily subsidized. The tax exemptions were curtailed in 1996 and over 16,500
manufacturing jobs were lost within a few short years (Miller and Lugo 2009).
Puerto Rico passed an "Agricultural Reserve Law" in 1999 in attempt to reverse the trend
of declining agriculture. Lands used for agriculture in Puerto Rico declined during the 20th
century from 2 million to only 500,000 acres. Many farmers abandoned their farms and
these had reverted back to forest (Gellis et al. 1999). The law was intended to protect land
for agricultural use by requiring farmers who received irrigation water to keep acreage in
production. In most places, including Lajas Valley, the law has failed due to the Puerto
Rico government's inability to collect the penalty of $50 per acre not in production.
3.5.5 Guanica Bay and southwestern Puerto Rico
Towns and communities around Guanica Bay, although culturally and geographically
isolated from San Juan and the U.S. political agenda, were not unchanged by the events of
the 20th century. Ensenada, on the west coast of the Bay, was home to Central Guanica, at
one time the largest sugar processing plant in the world (Fig. 3-13). The central remained
in operation, despite a declining sugar industry, until 1982. Across the Bay, a fertilizer
plant, Ochoa Fertilizer Co. (Fig. 3-14), which is still in existence, was built in 1948 with
storage silos and a pier for shipping. People living in the area worked as laborers in the
sugar cane fields or mountain coffee farms. Unlike sugar production, Puerto Ricans owned
many of the coffee farms. These were generally small farms on steep mountain slopes
north of Yauco. Others in the area lived by subsistence artisanal fishing or by small fruit
and vegetable farms scattered throughout Lajas Valley.
Likewise, the historical events shaped the attitudes of the people living in the area. Many
were delighted that the U.S. invasion in 1898 removed elite Spanish farm managers
(hacendados) who had rigorously maintained a system of agricultural serfdom and kept
rural Puerto Ricans in perpetual servitude. They were also excited about the concept of
U.S. democracy and the right to free elections. Unfortunately, voting was limited to male
landholders until the 1950s and the economic outlook never really changed. For some,
especially for members of the Nationalist Party headquartered in nearby Ponce, the U.S.
was viewed as an unwanted oppressor with no right to rule a sovereign island state. Even
41
-------
Puerto Rican leaders in San Juan were viewed suspiciously for their apparent compliance
with and adherence to U.S. policy.
Figure 3-13. Central Guanica, a major sugar cane processing plant (top photo) was on the west shore
of Guanica Bay (photo credit: Herbert A. French, 1947).
Figure 3-14. Ochoa Fertilizer Company, Inc. was on the east shore of Guanica Bay (photo credit: Yongping
Yuan, EPA, ORD).
42
-------
3.5.6 The Southwest Puerto Rico Project and the Lajas Valley
Irrigation System
A component of Operation Bootstrap was to industrialize agriculture along the southern
coast of Puerto Rico by providing irrigation and cheap hydroelectric energy for pumping
water onto fields. As early as 1908, the South Coast Irrigation Service was formed to
maximize farming potential, but under its aegis only small irrigation projects were
completed. In 1915 the first reservoir was built at Carite (southeast Puerto Rico), which
fostered sugarcane production and provided hydroelectric power for water pumps.
Similar plans had been prepared for the southwest by the Puerto Rico "Utilization of the
Water Resources" department, but these never matured, usually for lack of funding.
In 1941, the department was changed to a public-private entity (Puerto Rico Water
Resources Authority) and, with better funding, planned and implemented the Southwest
Puerto Rico Project (SWP) and the Lajas Valley Irrigation System (LVIS), a series of five
dams and an extensive irrigation canal and drainage system (Fig. 3-15). The intent of these
projects, at an anticipated cost of $32 million (1950 dollars), was to improve sugar cane
production in the southwest coastal plain and provide inexpensive hydroelectric power
for farmers to pump irrigation water. The dams were completed from 1951-1956 and the
irrigation system, including drainage of a large lagoon (Guanica Lagoon, northwest of the
Bay), was completed by 1961.
The SWP and LVIS were both complementary and contradictory to Operation Bootstrap.
Electrifying rural areas was a step toward industrialization, but jobs were moving from the
fields to the factories, leaving fewer laborers for sugar cane harvesting. Agricultural
employment for Puerto Rico declined from over 200,000 to only 120,000 between 1950-
1960. Sugar cane was still harvested by machetes and required cheap, plentiful labor. By
the mid 1960's the growth of the sugar cane industry across most of Puerto Rico had all
but stopped. The soil had become depleted of nutrients and stalks yielded only about V*
the sugar yielded in 1950. However, in Lajas Valley sugar cane production increased until
about 1972 and the Central Guanica stayed in operation until 1982. The newly irrigated,
fertile lands sustained sugar cane production during this period, but were ultimately
unable to save it as the underpinning of an agricultural economy.
3.5.7 The rise of sun-grown coffee production
With sugar production in decline, coffee production was elevated in importance. Coffee
cultivation had existed in the mountains of Puerto Rico since the mid-1700s and was its
most lucrative export by the end of the 19th century (Wilson 1899). However, hurricanes
and storm events continually decimated coffee farms to the extent that the government
of Puerto Rico was forced to step in with protective taxes, inflated farm prices, crop
43
-------
insurance and even direct payments to farmers. Often these incentives benefited larger
farms over smaller.
Riot
Rio Boqueron
;./ / / .ML*
. * ^nfr
^""^ LaiasValievl
l^A v
Ridge
Guanica Bay
»v>
Figure 3-15. The Southwest Puerto Rico Project (blue arrows) consisted of five dams, three of which
reversed watershed flow from north to south (adapted from Bousquin et al. 2014). The Lajas Valley
Irrigation System (red arrows) consisted of a long canal that diverted water from Lago Loco across the Lajas
Valley for irrigation, with a return ditch for drainage into Guanica Bay. The natural flow of Rio Loco and Rio
Boqueron is shown (gold arrows).
In an effort to increase coffee production, Puerto Rico's Agricultural Experiment Station
advocated a strategy to increase coffee yield by eliminating shade trees (canopy) and
raising sun-tolerant coffee varieties in full sunlight (Vicente-Chandler et al. 1968). 'Sun-
grown' coffee was not immediately adopted, despite government encouragement and
incentives, until the 1980s (Borkhataria et al. 2011). Part of the reason was that the
transition required not only elimination of the canopy, but also destruction of shade-
coffee trees and replanting with sun-tolerant varieties (Fig. 3-16). For small farmers,
time out of production causes a major lapse in cash flow. Consequently, widespread
conversion to sun-grown coffee did not occur until the latter half of the 1980s.
3.5.8 Erosion and sediment distribution
Little by little, in the mountain ridges surrounding the five reservoirs of the SWP, the land-
use transition began to take effect. Here, as elsewhere in Puerto Rico, sun-grown coffee
cultivation began to replace shade-grown. This resulted in reduced biodiversity (from loss
of canopy habitat) and increased soil erosion from the steep, and now poorly
44
-------
Figure 3-16. Mountain farm near Yauco, Puerto Rico, cleared to plant sun-grown coffee (photo credit: Ross
Lunetta, EPA, ORD).
vegetated, slopes. Soil began to wash from hillsides into streams and ultimately into the
reservoirs and irrigation canals.
But, coffee farming practices are not the only land-use activity that generates sediment in
the Guanica watershed. Water delivery systems have altered the path of streams,
riparian zones have been stripped of vegetation and municipal areas have grown.
Although sedimentation is always a concern for reservoir longevity, the rate of sediment
strapping and accumulation in Puerto Rico reservoirs has quickened dramatically. Today,
the reservoirs of the SWP, only 60 years old, have about % their original water storage
capacity (Soler-Lopez 2002).
Continuing sedimentation threatens the ability to meet future water needs, which include
irrigation, hydro-electric power generation, drinking water, wastewater diluent,
downstream aquatic ecosystems and in-stream and in-reservoir recreational activities.
Sediment accumulation in reservoirs also reduces the capacity to protect downstream
communities from floods during severe rain events.
The increased sediment loads in the SWP reservoirs and aqueducts has led to increased
sediment deposition in Guanica Bay (Bousquin et al. 2014). Increasing sediment deposits
over the last several decades have changed the bathymetry of the Bay (Miguel Canales Jr.
personal communication) and, after rain events, plumes of sediment can be seen
45
-------
dispersing from Guanica Bay into the nearby coastal zone and travelling west on prevailing
currents toward La Parguera (Fig. 3-17). The occurrence of sediment plumes in coastal
zones harboring valued coral reef ecosystems led to a concern that corals were
experiencing inhospitable conditions caused by land use practices and instigated the
USCRTF Guanica Bay Watershed Initiative.
Figure 3-17. Water and sediment leaving Guanica Bay enter the coastal zone and are swept to the west
(see sediment trail) towards La Parguera by prevailing ocean currents (photo credit: Google Earth).
3.5.9 Analysis - economic independence and self-determination
The EPA analysis of the literature located during the archival research determined that
Operation Bootstrap and the development and implementation of plans for the SWP and
LVIS were key decisions that have influenced the Guanica Bay Watershed. Operation
Bootstrap was also the subject of analysis by Gordon K. Lewis (1963), who observed both
the decision process and its aftermath. Lewis documented the efforts of the Spanish and
the U.S. military governments to alleviate poverty and support economic growth in Puerto
Rico through a series of failed attempts to develop agricultural exports, notably sugar,
coffee and tobacco. The strategy was to generate an export-oriented economy
46
-------
(like postwar Japan) through industrialization of both manufacturing and agriculture
(similar to Latin American models, but designed specifically for Puerto Rico). However,
there was political resistance because an island like Puerto Rico was perceived to emulate
a more 'natural' existence and should depend on subsistence economy rather than an
'artificial' manufacturing economy.
In his analysis, Lewis (1963) presents evidence that Operation Bootstrap was economically
beneficial but, in balance, the benefits favored the landowners and investors rather than
the workers. This in fact perpetuated, rather than remedied, the cycle of poverty for most
Puerto Ricans. Lewis also concluded that plans for economic development were too
closely linked to the U.S. economy. The industries that benefitted from the Industrial
Incentives Act were U.S. companies that relocated to Puerto Rico to take advantage of
the low wages, low environmental regulation and tariff and tax reductions. The
beneficiaries were more the U.S. companies and less the Puerto Rican communities.
An anonymous author (1949), highly knowledgeable of Operation Bootstrap and likely one
of its early strategists, presented some different perspectives. This author also described
the plan as a strategy to reduce poverty through subsidies (tax incentives), land reform
and labor reform. The challenges were finances, attitude and programmatic structure.
To run the program, new agencies were formed with staffs of newly trained technical
experts. Success of the program was, according to this author, tied to the abilities of these
public managers to achieve a level of cooperation with private interests. But an additional
concern was the 'whims' of the U.S. Congress in manipulating trade markets. There was a
fear that changing economic policies could only deepen the "precarious condition" of
Puerto Rican dependency on the U.S.
Archival evidence thus indicates that the most significant issue affecting the watershed of
Guanica Bay was at its core a dedicated effort to reduce poverty and foster economic
independence across Puerto Rico. Unfortunately this purpose did not materialize and
today the U.S. taxpayers still heavily subsidize Puerto Rico. The unsuccessful attempts
in agriculture and manufacturing have spurred greater interest in the tourism and
recreation sectors of the Puerto Rican economy. The enactment of Law in 254 in 1998
in an attempt to form an Ecotourism Board is evidence of a continued desire to be
economically independent. The promise for ecotourism relies on pristine, natural coral
reefs, tropical forests and other natural resources.
The SWP and LVIS permanently altered the hydrology of the Guanica Bay watershed
for the promise of economic development. But the failure of Operation Bootstrap to bring
prosperity to Puerto Rico has resulted in the inability to maintain the infrastructure built
for that very purpose. Maintaining the SWP and flow of water through the LVIS for
agriculture and other uses is still important to stakeholders, but has become increasingly
47
-------
difficult with limited funds for reducing or removing sediment that is filling the reservoirs
and canals. The conundrum that they now face is that of competing economic sectors.
Higher yield sun-grown coffee farms in the mountain ridges, through soil loss, are
threatening the delivery of water to struggling farms in Lajas Valley; and the farms in both
the mountains and the valley, through sediment and nutrient pollution, are threatening
the existence of coral reefs and the fishing and tourism opportunities they provide.
Another important factor that emerged from EPA's archival research is the lack of
self-determination for Puerto Ricans. With both Spanish and U.S. rule, external political
bodies have made major decisions about the island's economy and social structure.
Puerto Ricans, certainly until the period of Governor Munoz Marin, have been given little
influence over their own affairs. Predictably, imposed policies were more economically
beneficial to the external parties than to Puerto Rico. As a consequence, the motives of
any external entity making decisions for Puerto Rico are viewed with some suspicion.
3.6 Summary
Through the efforts of the USCRTF and the Guanica Bay WMP (CWP 2008), a narrow
emphasis for protecting coral reefs was expanded to incorporate a broader set of issues in
the watershed. This provided an opportunity to hold a Decision Workshop (2010) for
further characterizing and organizing the multiple issues under consideration. The
workshop provided preliminary guidance on concerns, values, management alternatives,
and potential performance measures (Carriger et al. 2013; Bradley et al. 2014b).
Additionally, archival research was conducted to better understand the social and
economic history of the Guanica region. This research brought to light the drive of Puerto
Ricans to achieve economic independence and the unintended consequences of that
effortan altered hydrology of the Guanica watershed and an infrastructure that is
increasingly difficult to maintain.
From the process, a better understanding of the broader decision context has emerged.
Decisions in the Guanica Bay watershed have been couched in tradeoffs among ridge
agriculture, valley agriculture, tourism and fisheries. Because of these different economic
interests, stakeholders from different sectors have different values to consider in making
decisions. While coral reef protection and watershed pollution are important issues, they
are now being considered more clearly in the context of other stakeholder values and
concerns.
48
-------
Chapter 4. Define Objectives and Develop
4.1 Introduction
While the entire SDM process is collaborative, two aspects of the processdefining
objectives and developing alternativesare developed through direct interactions with
stakeholders and decision-makers. Objectives reflect the values of stakeholders (what is
important) and alternatives are means to achieve them (Keeney 1992). In environmental
management, we are often interested in values at a societal level, which would include
the consideration of values related to individuals, organizations, and society as a whole.
Stakeholders are asked to think about values on each of those levels in a deliberative
process (Gregory et al. 2012).
4.1.1 Defining objectives
Objectives are statements of what is valued by stakeholders under a certain context
(Keeney 1992). When informally making decisions, people often do not have a clearly
defined or recognized set of objectives. While many decision-makers say they have clear
objectives, what they really have is a messy mix of means and ends, targets, policies and
vision statements, most of which are not useful for decision-making (Gregory et al. 2012).
When decision-makers are developing policies and implementing decisions for
a watershed, stakeholder objectives likewise may not have been fully considered or
understood (Gregory and Keeney 1994).
While many decision-makers say they have clear objectives, what they
really have is a messy mix of means and ends, targets, policies and vision
statements, most of which are not useful for decision-making
(Gregory etal. 2012).
Objectives in decision-making have a very specific purpose. They focus decision-makers on
what matters in terms of outcomes and become the evaluation criteria for identifying and
evaluating alternatives (Gregory et al. 2012). The process of thinking through and writing
down objectives helps decision-makers to make more informed decisions.
49
-------
Objectives are usually described as something that matters (e.g., availability of quality
habitat for important species, or quantity of sediment loads into Guanica Bay) and a verb
indicating the preferred direction of change (e.g., maximize or minimize) (Mollaghasemi
and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney 2007; Gregory et al.
2012). One example might be to "Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish
species". Another example might be to "Minimize the sediment loading into Guanica Bay".
The item of value is the key part of the usefulness of objectives in reflecting values.
The direction of preference further specifies whether the item of value should be
achieved or avoided. Objectives are context specific: they are defined for the decision
at hand, not for universal usage.
Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit 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). Together, the decision-
makers and stakeholders develop a set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used to
evaluate alternatives.
Objectives have a direction of preference and an item of value.
Maximize the availability of quality habitat for a fish species.
Minimize the sediment loading into Guanica Bay.
Elicitation of objectives from workshop attendees was through development of DPSIR
concept maps as described in Section 3.4 and covered in detail in Bradley et al. 2014b.
Once elicited, stakeholder objectives can be organized into an objectives hierarchy (OH),
which is a formalized method to identify, describe, and structure the key objectives
stemming from the decision context (Gregory and Keeney 2002). OH is a structured
representation of the values of stakeholders (Fig. 4-1) and is useful for understanding the
trade-offs in decision-making. This formal structure allows us to view any alternative in
context of a broader objective to which it contributes, and also to more the specific
objectives that contribute to it.
50
-------
Maximize
species
abundance
Population
size
Maximize
ecological integrity
Maximize
species
diversity
Maximize
food web
integrity
Species Species Trophic function
richness evenness metrics
Maximize
living habitat
condition
Habitat condition
metrics
Fundamental
objectives
Sub-
objectives
Performance
measures
Figure 4-1. Example objectives hierarchy (OH) for one of the proposed fundamental objectives for the
Guanica Bay Watershed (source: Carriger et al. 2013).
Objectives in the upper levels of the hierarchy reflect broad or inclusive values-the
fundamental objectives. A fundamental objective is usually determined when the answer
to "why is this important" is "...just because".... meaning that it is simply something that
humans need or want. "Maximize ecological integrity", "maximize human health", and
"minimize management costs" are good examples of broad, encompassing fundamental
objectives.
Evaluation measures, attributes that can be used to evaluate performance toward higher-
level objectives, are at the bottom of the OH (Keeney 1992). Effective attributes are
characterized by their measurability, understandability, and operability. The objectives
and their corresponding attributes form a common vision for what is valued (objectives)
and what will be assessed (attributes). The transparency of this approach helps to avoid
future confusion and disagreement. At first, the OH is normally very broad, and is further
refined overtime.
Good objectives are:
Fundamental
Complete
Concise
Sensitive
Understandable
Independent (Gregory et al. 2012)
51
-------
Progress towards these objectives is indicated by progress towards narrower, more
specific objectives (means objectives). Means objectives answer, "How do I achieve this?"
or "What are the means to achieve this?".
"Process objectives" are different than fundamental and means objectives because they
focus on improving the decision process. They don't describe what should be done,
but rather how it should be done (Keeney 1992). An example of a process objective might
be "utilize credible scientific data" when appraising decisions. The process objectives help
achieve both fundamental and means objectives.
Key types of objectives:
Fundamental objectives are the outcomes or ends you really care about,
no matter how they are achieved.
Means objectives refer to particular ways of achieving the fundamental objectives.
Process objectives describe how something should be done.
A "means-ends" network can more fully specify the relationship between fundamental,
means and process objectives and help elucidate which objectives are fundamental and
which are means (Fig. 4-2). The fundamental objectives are the end concerns while the
means objectives are important for achieving them. As noted, the ends objectives are the
fundamental objectives: They reflect concerns that are important for their own reasons
and not because they contribute to something that is more valuable (Keeney 1992). The
recognition of these types of means-ends relationships is very useful because it reinforces
linkages and establishes a path for the alternatives to achieve the objectives. The relative
positions for different objectives along the means-ends path can usually be guided by
asking, "Why is this important?" when moving towards the end objectives and "How do I
achieve this?" when moving away from the fundamental objectives. The means furthest
away from the fundamental objectives in this path will imply potential management
actions.
For example, the information gathered during the 2010 Decision-Makers Workshop was
examined, analyzed, and consolidated by EPA to generate a preliminary OH and further
refined into a means-end network for the watershed management plan (Fig. 4-2),
(Carriger et al. 2013). The approach for developing the objectives relied on existing
sources such as the 2010 workshop products (e.g., DPSIRs) created by the participants
with the existing watershed management plan and policy or management documents
relevant to the problem area. The fundamental objectives were organized with an
objectives hierarchy and means objectives for achieving these fundamental objectives
were identified for both the watershed and marine regions.
52
-------
Fundamental objectives
WMP means objectives
Maximize ecological integrity
Maximize economic benefits
Maximize social well-being
Minimize adverse human
health effects
Meet political and legislative
requirements
Reduce physical/chemical/
bacterial stressors
from municipal loadings
Reduce physical/chemical
stressors from agricultural
loadings
Preserve farmland/ topsoil
Conserve freshwater supplies
Figure 4-2. Means-end network for the Guanica Bay watershed based on expected effects of
recommended actions from the Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) on fundamental objectives
proposed in Carriger et al. 2013.
Key ideas:
A fundamental objective is an end that you are trying to achieve
A means objective is a way of achieving an end or fundamental objective
A process objective is a way of improving the decision process itself
Evaluation measures are attributes that can be used to evaluate performance
toward higher-level objectives
Focusing on objectives helps find creative solutions to problems
Objectives only need to state the thing that matters, and what direction you'd like
it to move in (i.e., increase or decrease)
53
-------
There are many valuable aspects to an objectives hierarchy (Keeney 1992, 2007); one is
that it represents a common visionmost stakeholders will agree on objectives high in
the hierarchy even if not specific approaches for reaching an objective. The OH can be
checked with stakeholders for consistency to ensure their values are being properly
represented. Another is that objectives low in the hierarchy usually present opportunities
for measuring performance. As with DPSIR, the transparency of an objectives hierarchy
also helps to avoid future confusion and miscommunication.
4.1.2 Developing decision alternatives
Decision alternatives describe the different avenues that might be taken to achieve a
particular objective. As emphasized in Chapter 2, decision alternatives should be
considered only after objectives are understood. Seeking stakeholder input to identify and
define decision alternatives can be valuable 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.
Decision alternatives can be examined for a variety of factors. Each decision alternative
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.
The scale (how big a project is or might become), the number and level of decision-makers
required, the funding, and the acceptability within the community all affect the
complexity of a decision. Effectiveness partially requires factual information; this may
require a best estimate of which alternative or combination of alternatives is more likely
to achieve the objective. If alternatives are not achieving the objectives, it could imply
that they should be reformulated.
Most decisions will affect more than one objective. For example, establishing a marine
protected area will serve to maximize the long-term health of fisheries, but depending on
the restrictions imposed, could maximize or minimize tourism, recreation and scientific
learning. It may also detract from economic opportunities because of interrupted shipping
lanes or reduced short-term fish catch.
Key points about decision alternatives:
Decision alternatives describe the different avenues that might be taken
to achieve a particular objective.
Each decision alternative should be evaluated for complexity, effectiveness
for the proposed objective, and potential consequences to other objectives.
Most alternatives will affect more than one objective.
54
-------
Objectives and decision alternatives were elicited at workshops in the Guanica Bay
watershed. One workshop reviewed decision-making processes used in the watershed to
characterize process objectives. The other was a Public Values Forum, which used the
WMP as a backdrop for discussion of what is important in the watershed and how can it
be achieved. Both workshops are described below.
4.2 Decision-making workshop
EPA convened a decision-making workshop in Guanica, Puerto Rico, on August 16 and 17,
2012. The purpose of the workshop was to examine and understand how decision-makers
and natural resource users engage in the management of non-market resources (land,
water quality, agriculture, fishing, urban redevelopment and tourism) in the Guanica Bay
watershed. A particular emphasis at the workshop was the interaction between decision-
makers and stakeholders during the decision-making process. Intrinsic to this approach is
a concept that stakeholders and decision-makers invest in preservation and conservation
of ecosystems because of the non-market benefits provided. This differs from market
values that lead to, for example, food and fuel products extracted from an ecosystem.
Market and non-market goods and services:
Some environmental goods and services, such as fish and seaweed, are
traded in markets, thus their market value can be directly observed.
Conversely, a non-market good or service is something that is not bought
or sold directly. Therefore, a non-market good does not have an observable
monetary value. Examples of this include beach visits, wildlife viewing, or
snorkeling at a coral reef.
Qualitative research methods are widely used in the social sciences to investigate human
behavior. In this study, EPA used participant observation research methods and open-
ended questions administered in a workshop setting. Participant observation is the
method in which the researcher participates with the research subjects. For example, in
this case, the researcher (Gerardo Gambirazzio) participated in the workshop sessions and
passively observed the dynamics among the participants. In addition, he spent two days
working with fishermen and two days with small-farm coffee growers.
55
-------
Observations of local fishermen included documenting their daily activities, noting their
expenses, work schedules, and use of equipment, and also included discussions
concerning their work, fishing methods, routes, and markets. Observations of small-farm
coffee growers included the location of farms, the type of coffee, their production,
capacity, and losses from an infestation of coffee bean borers ("Broca"). Also discussed
were management practices of small coffee growers, as well as the economic, social,
environmental and political pressures that are perceived by the farmers as threatening
the survival of coffee growing enterprises.
The purpose of the research design was threefold: 1) collect information across various
time periods and on different issues that have impacted the Guanica region; 2) better
understand the physical, environmental, political and geographical boundaries of the
region as they pertain to decision-making; and 3) better understand how users of natural
resources and managers of those resources work toward sustainability within these social,
political and economic boundaries. Data collected by these methods were used to
interpret the role of decision-makers over time and on different types of resource
management issues. Insight was also gained on how structures for decision-making are
formed (decision-making bodies) and how they result in management plans for the users
and stakeholders of natural resources in Guanica Bay.
The EPA researcher, Gerardo Gambirazzio, was also the facilitator for the workshop,
which was conducted in Spanish to facilitate discussions with and among the
stakeholders. The workshop was structured around two complementary parts:
a. Investigate how decision-makers were structured, or not, along a chain or
hierarchy, and identify who they were and what they did or did not do (Day 1)
b. Investigate how local users and managers used non-market natural resources
and the challenges they faced (Day 2; Appendix E).
Fifteen people attended the workshop (Fig. 4-3), including farmers, fishermen, and
representatives of local and Commonwealth government agencies and Non-
Governmental Organizations (Appendix F).
56
-------
. Academic
Federal
Commonwealth
. Municipal
NGO
Citizen
Corporate
Figure 4-3. Workshop participants included farmers, fishermen, and representatives of local and
Commonwealth government agencies and non-government organizations.
4.2.1 Decision issues in Guanica Bay watershed
Non-market resources are the environmental goods and services (e.g., clean air and
water, and healthy fish and wildlife populations) that are not traded in markets.
Workshop participants discussed the ways in which non-market natural resources, and
activities using non-market natural resources, are managed and regulated at various
levels of government. Partly because of who was present at the workshop, the discussions
tended to focus on agriculture and fishing.
Decision-making structure. Workshop participants agreed that there is a confusing
network of agency bodies at Federal, Commonwealth and local levels that are assigned to
regulate natural resources and promote conservation practices. It was argued that
agencies are stove-piped and rarely share data or collaborate on decisions with one
another. The fishermen, for example, raised the issue that federal agencies (e.g., NOAA)
and Commonwealth agencies (Puerto Rico DNER and Puerto Rico Department of
Agriculture) regulate fishing. Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture also regulates
agriculture, and participants felt the Department of Agriculture supports farming practices
without considering consequences to coastal resources that are critical to fishermen.
57
-------
Decisions concerning large projects have a disproportionate influence on environmental
resources and non-market values. According to participants, these are conceived and
planned at the Federal and Commonwealth levels, almost always excluding local
stakeholders. Examples noted were the Lajas Valley Project, the draining of Guanica
Lagoon, the wind project at Guanica Forest, and siting of polluting industrial plants along
Guanica Bay. This has resulted in a sense of disenfranchisement and lack of local control.
It was suggested that a strategic plan should be developed to determine which land
should be kept in a natural state and which land should be developed. Locally developed
plans however, are not integrated into the Federal/Commonwealth decision-making
process, which has traditionally exploited market-value resources and consequently
transformed the natural landscape. For example, the Land Use Management Plan for the
town of Guanica reflected viable ongoing economic activities in Guanica (fishing, tourism,
and recreation), emphasizing revitalization of the waterfront as a tourism destination. But
the Federal/Commonwealth government issued permits to allow construction and
operation of a fertilizer plant on the shores of Guanica Bay (i.e., Ochoa Fertilizer Plant, see
Fig. 3-6), which ultimately, according to some participants, contributed to degradation of
the Bay and destruction of the town's economy.
It was emphasized that local citizens must demand more accountability from their
leaders. For example, the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture promotes and
incentivizes the cultivation of coffee. However, Puerto Rico imports large quantities of
coffeea practice that is ruining small coffee farms. The companies that import coffee
are reaping benefits from imported coffee, and do not foster policies that support locally
grown coffee.
Training and outreach. A separate discussion during the workshop centered on training
for stakeholders on the use of natural resources. Managers stated that they provide
training on certain practices and on new regulations such as soil uses and other farming
techniques. However, fishermen said that they receive no training on best practices or on
new regulations. The fishermen, who were all commercial fishermen, felt that
recreational and subsistence fishermen were depleting the resource through
unsustainable fishing practices and adversely affecting the commercial industry. From this
discussion it was concluded training and education needs may be greatest for recreational
and subsistence fishermen.
There are many agencies providing training and outreach, ranging from Commonwealth
agencies such as DNER, to universities such as the University of Puerto Rico Extension
Program located in Yauco, and to Federal agencies such as EPA, NOAA, USDA/NRCS and
the US Army Corps of Engineers. According to the participants, these agencies do not
appear to work together to plan and coordinate training and outreach activities.
58
-------
Priorities for natural resource management. Participants were asked to discuss their
priorities for the Guanica watershed. They engaged in a lively and sometimes heated
exchange of ideas. From this discussion, a set of priorities and associated objectives was
developed (Table 4-1).
Table 4-1. Priorities for natural resource management and associated objectives
developed by participants at the 2012 Decision Workshop.
Priority
Provide economic and technical assistance to farmers,
Form coffee cooperatives
Establish a set of sustainability rules
Manage natural resources as a "common" (including
establishing a marine reserve) modeled after the
island's first ecotourism project at the Punta Santiago
Nature Reserve in Humacao, Puerto Rico
Develop cultural tourism (i.e., the sugar industry and
Sierra Bermeja mountains, south of Lajas Valley,
which has 95 million-year-old serpentine rocks,
considered the most ancient rocks of the Caribbean
plate, and 88 archeological sites)
Increase enforcement of environmental laws
Theft/destruction of lobster pots
Recreational fishing licenses and limits
Prohibited fishing practices (use of chlorine)
Education for the DNER Rangers
Associated Objective
A healthy coffee-growing region (economically
and ecologically) - the "Napa" of Puerto Rico
Guanica becomes a sustainable community
The Guanica Bay watershed area becomes an
ecotourism destination
The Guanica Bay watershed area becomes a
cultural destination
Sustainable marine resources
Environmental research. It is important to understand how and why government and
other researchers conduct research, and how they obtain and share information with the
community regarding the use of natural resources. An exercise was used to elicit
information on this topic.
Fishermen said that the researchers from the University of Puerto Rico are common in the
area of fisheries and fisheries management. A resource manager commented that
researchers from universities and agencies conduct research in the Guanica Dry Forest,
but the results are seldom shared with the community. Most of the participants agreed
that research projects conducted in Guanica watershed, whether on fishing, agriculture or
urban issues have been single-focus projects, isolated from other social, economic,
environmental, and political processes at work in the watershed.
59
-------
Transparency and access. Another exercise elicited opinions on access to decision-makers
and transparency in the decision-making process. One participant noted that the problem
wasn't so much transparency, but rather manipulation of information and issues by
decision-makers (agencies) toward a preconceived end. In general, participants were
unaware which issues decision-makers are addressing and why they chose those issues
over others. This led to a discussion on the lack of communication between natural
resource users and Federal and Commonwealth agency managers. This detachment leads
to adverse political and economic effects to the community, the environmental landscape
of the mountains, the town, the Bay, and the coral reefs.
Fishermen spoke at length about the lack of understanding by Federal and
Commonwealth decision-makers about the economics of their business. Commercial
fisheries in the Guanica Bay watershed are mainly artisanal, occurring mainly in coastal
habitats or on the insular shelf. The main fishing gears used are: hand lines, fish traps (for
reef fish), wooden cage lobster traps, gill nets and trammel nets, horizontal and vertical
long lines, trawling, gathering by hand (e.g., queen conch), and using scuba-diving
equipment with spear guns. Specific concerns were:
Competition among fishers is brutal. For example, lobsters are a very profitable
catch and some fishermen cut the lines to others' lobster pots. There is no
enforcement of laws that prohibit this. Also, fishermen have to retrieve their cut
pots by scuba diving, often in dangerous conditions.
The market for locally caught fish is very limited. There are six companies in Puerto
Rico that control the fishing industry. The artisanal fishermen catch fish to feed their
families but also sell part of their catch, which puts them in direct competition with
commercial fishermen.
Commercial fishermen must comply with fishery regulations. Regulations prohibit
catching certain fishes some months of the year and DNER Rangers are responsible
for enforcing the fisheries regulations. Recreational and artisanal fishermen must
also comply with fishery regulations, but there is no enforcement. According to
DNER they have established a permit system to regulate the recreational fishermen
but it is not yet implemented.
Lack of conscientious behavior. The recreational fishermen see less benefit in
conserving coral reefs relative to commercial fishermen. For example, some
recreational or artisanal fishermen use chlorine when they fish, which also kills reef
building corals and other biological habitat.
60
-------
Coffee growers, who indicated they are facing a desperate economic situation, voiced a
different set of concerns.
Patronage and favoritism. The term "apadrinamiento" (godfather) describes
government officials who select certain farmers to receive benefits and incentives.
Subsidization of large farms over small. Government farm incentive programs
commonly support large farms and neglect small farms. In some cases, the
government covers 100% of the farming costs for some large farms (i.e., provides
the coffee plants, guarantees the crop sales). This means that large farms have
minimal risks, don't have to expand and don't have to use farming practices (e.g.,
sun-grown coffee) that destroy the landscape and create erosion. This is similar to
when sugar was the dominant crop and the U.S. Government subsidized large
corporate farms.
Small family-owned and operated farms are disappearing. The small growers have to
take more risky actions to make a profit, including actions that are damaging to the
environment (e.g., clearing tree canopy and exposing the soil). Funding should be
made available and accessible to small family-owned farmers and small
entrepreneurs.
There is a severe shortage of coffee pickers.
The participants all agreed that local stakeholders feel disenfranchised. People making the
decisions do not include resource users in the decision-making process. Likewise, there is
little community engagement about decisions being made, and stakeholder objectives and
ideas are rarely considered. Participants highlighted certain aspects related to
disenfranchisement:
There is a need for a methodology or structure to manage the natural resources that
includes resource users. As an example, some participants felt that more
stakeholder involvement was needed in managing the Guanica Dry Forest Reserve.
Federal agencies are detached from the stakeholders, since they are too far away
from the Guanica Bay watershed. There is a feeling of lack of control on the part of
local managers since they do not make the actual decisions. There is often confusion
about who is in charge and who truly is making the decisions. Sometimes local
managers don't agree with the decisions that have been made by Federal managers.
61
-------
Local communities are sometimes not even aware of decisions that have been
made. According to workshop participants, a U.S. company had constructed a
platform (about 300' X 150') to receive natural gas at the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority (PREPA) facility. Once the platform was obsolete, the U.S. company was
required to dispose of it. They hired a fisherman to find a suitable location to dump
it offshore so it could not be found. According to participants, the U.S. company sank
it two miles offshore of the town of Salinas. No enforcement actions were taken
against the company or PREPA.
Puerto Rico agencies are highly politicized.
Decisions are not always consonant with the scientific studies.
When stakeholders are asked to participate in decisions, their opinions
and recommendations are subsequently not considered.
Concerns about transparency and access are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Transparency and access concerns raised by participants at the 2012 Decision
Workshop.
Fishermen
Competition among fishers is
brutal
The market for locally caught fish
is very limited
Commercial fishermen must
comply with fishery regulations
No enforcement for recreational
and artisanal fishers
Lack of conscientious behavior
Coffee Growers
Patronage and favoritism
Subsidization of large farms over
small
Small family-owned and
operated farms are disappearing
There is a severe shortage of
coffee pickers
Shared
Local stakeholders feel
disenfranchised
Lack of communication between
natural resource users and
Federal and Commonwealth
agency managers
Local communities are
sometimes not aware of
decisions that have been made
4.2.2 Non-market values of ecosystem resources
Natural resource goods and services, such as clean air and water, and healthy fish and
wildlife populations, are not traded in markets. Their economic value (e.g., what people
are willing to pay for them) is therefore not revealed in market prices. Non-market
valuation methods provide a way to assign dollar values to them. Without these
estimates, natural resource goods and services may be implicitly undervalued, and
decisions regarding their use and stewardship may not accurately reflect their true value
to society. The second day of the workshop was devoted to characterizing non-market
ecosystem values for the participants.
62
-------
Natural resource management and conservation. An exercise was completed that asked
participants to identify natural resources that are neglected or face challenges. The
discussions identified several potential investment opportunities:
Collection, storage and distribution of water and future availability (security) of
water. There are water shortages, especially during the summer, and these are
becoming more acute. One issue is the old irrigation system infrastructure.
Sedimentation and inadequate outlets has reduced the flow capacity of
conveyances.
Neighborhood blight. Parts of the town of Guanica look very run down. This creates
a negative impression of the town and potentially curbs tourism. The Guanica
municipal government does not invest in improvement projects that would maintain
quality housing or aesthetic attractions. Restoration of the town urban center would
benefit tourism.
Agricultural lands must be rescued. Some agricultural lands have been or are being
used for municipal development.
Economic development. As part of another exercise, participants identified and discussed
the economic sectors they would like to see developed in Guanica Bay and the actions
they recommend to achieve economic sustainability. Highlighted in the discussions were
agriculture, fishing, ecotourism, forests and recycling, as noted below and summarized in
Table 4-3 (pg. 66).
Agriculture. The participants felt strongly that agriculture must be viewed as long-term
investment in Puerto Rico. According to former P.R. Department of Agriculture Secretary
Javier Rivera, Puerto Rico imports 85% of its food. Puerto Rico should establish local food
production that is fully sustainable and diversified. Participants felt that there should be a
marriage between food security and conservation of the land.
Some of the challenges include:
The large supermarket chains import food from low-cost global exporters and from
the U.S. mainland. Local farmers cannot compete. Even the Department of
Education School Lunch Program buys their goods from importers3. Additionally,
there are farmers who grow for the export markets when they should supply the
local market first.
3 On July 24, 2013, the governor of Puerto Rico announced his commitment that for the upcoming school
year the food served in the school lunch program would be comprised of 50% locally grown food. Some
critics have argued that this commitment was not met. Reference: El Vocero de Puerto Rico 2013).
http://www.vocero.com/no-es-hecho-en-puerto-rico-menu-de-comedores-escolares/
63
-------
Many farms do not support independent livelihoods for their owners. Many farmers
receive more income from food stamps than from farming and this further reduces
the desire of small farmers to produce.
Multi-crops should be encouraged. Insurance companies will only insure sun-grown
coffee when it is grown with other crops. Farms must be insured in order to receive
government incentives.
Studies should be conducted to understand consumer preferences and to more
successfully market locally grown products to Puerto Ricans.
Farmers must develop an entrepreneurial mindset. For example, some farms could
establish residential programs for aspiring farmers to learn and practice the
technical and business skills needed to run a small-scale farm. This has worked in
other places, and could work in Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico should develop a branding strategy for shade-grown Puerto Rican
coffee. This would include a field inspection and certification process.
Fishing. Commercial fisheries in the Guanica Bay watershed are small-scale and occur
mainly in coastal habitats or on the insular shelf. Participants identified a wide range of
challenges where additional resources could benefit commercial fishing:
Small-scale fishermen have no information to develop their businesses.
In Salinas the fishermen created their own co-op to better manage the resource
as a group.
Fishermen are blamed for over-fishing, but they believe it is pollution from the
farms that has adversely impacted the fish populations.
Local fishermen sell their fish right away. They call people on the phone and then
drive around the city delivering the fish.
The small commercial fishermen want to stay small, but want to make a living wage.
If overfishing is really an issue, the small fishermen blame the six large companies.
The small fishermen feel that Puerto Rico should develop a fish industry in
international waters. Japanese are fishing near Puerto Rico in international waters.
The government should support the aquaculture industry.
There should be more fish stocks protected and managed by the government.
64
-------
Ecotourism. Workshop participants felt that ecotourism should be developed in the
Guanica Bay watershed. This would serve to educate visitors about natural resources,
would provide funds for ecological conservation, and would benefit the economic
development and political empowerment of the local communities with tourism dollars.
Discussion points related to ecotourism included:
The government should provide some subsidies to support development of
ecotourism.
A restored Guanica Lagoon could provide refugia and nursery areas for birds and
fishes, and support an ecotourism industry (kayaking, bird watching). It could
become a central part of the community. The participants were baffled by delays in
the restoration of the lagoon; they felt that it was either political or that a small
group of people who didn't live in the watershed were delaying the restoration.
Forests. Local wood carvers require wood but are limited by regulations restricting use of
wood from the Guanica Dry Forest. This restriction was used as an example that the
Commonwealth (DNER) does not include or consider stakeholder needs in Dry Forest
management.
Recycling. Participants had a short discussion on the lack of recycling in the Guanica Bay
watershed area. They felt that an emphasis should be placed on reducing, reusing and
recycling materials. It was pointed out that recycling was not currently economically
feasible and therefore the government should subsidize it. They also felt that an
education program was needed.
In 2010, EPA formed the Puerto Rico Recycling Partnership (PRRP) to promote
materials source reduction, clean composting, reuse, and recycling through a
working partnership including government (at all levels), non-profit organizations,
citizens, environmental groups, and the private sector.
Three communities (Guaynabo, Rincon and Vieques) were chosen as pilot
communities. Things learned from the pilot communities will be valuable
to other communities throughout Puerto Rico facing similar socio-economic-
environmental challenges.
65
-------
Table 4-3. Economic sectors and challenges to economic sustainability, as identified by
participants during the 2012 Decision Workshop.
Sector
Agriculture
Fishing
Ecotourism
Forest Crafts
Recycling
Challenges
The large supermarket chains import food from low-cost global exporters and the U.S.
mainland. Local farmers cannot compete.
Many farms do not support independent livelihoods for their owners.
Farms must be insured in order to receive government incentives and insurance
companies require farmers to grow multiple crops.
Farmers do not understand the Puerto Rican consumer's preferences.
Farmers must develop an entrepreneurial mindset.
Puerto Rico should develop a branding strategy for shade-grown Puerto Rican coffee.
Small-scale fishermen lack information to develop their businesses.
When fishermen form co-ops they can better manage the resource as a group.
Fishermen are blamed for over-fishing, but they believe it is pollution from the farms
that has adversely impacted the fish populations.
Puerto Rico should develop a fish industry in international waters.
Government should support aquaculture.
More fish stocks should be protected and managed by the government.
Government should provide subsidies to support development of ecotourism.
A restored Guanica Lagoon would provide refugia and nursery areas for birds and fishes,
and support an ecotourism industry.
Local wood carvers require wood but are limited by regulations restricting use of wood
from the Guanica Dry Forest.
Government should place an emphasis should on reducing, reusing and recycling
materials.
Recycling is not currently economically feasible and the government should subsidize it.
An education program is needed.
4.2.3 Summary
The Decision-Making Workshop led to a better understanding and characterization of
past decisions in the watershed and challenges for social, environmental and economic
balance. In particular, participants stressed the lack of local involvement and influence in
decisions being made (usually at the Federal and Commonwealth level), and felt that this
had led to a series of uninformed decisions that were often contradictory to local needs
and local vision.
The workshop also led to a better understanding of new and old challenges for important
economic sectors, particularly small-scale commercial fishing and coffee farming. These
challenges have been aggravated by policies and decisions within the watershed
(e.g., poor enforcement of fishery regulations) and outside the watershed (e.g., coffee
import tariffs).
66
-------
The workshop was also very informative concerning non-market values for natural
resources. It became clear through the discussions that non-market value was elusive for
most users of resources. Conservation of natural resources was a high priority because of
long-term needs for extraction economies, not for the non-market values. The fishermen,
who must sail miles further into the ocean to search for $50 worth of fish to break even at
market, are upset about degradation of the coral reef ecosystem, not because it is an
aesthetic loss or a loss of potential tourism dollars, but because it is essential habitat for
fish. For coffee-growers, the political and economic imperatives to farm sun-grown coffee
cause erosion of sediment that ends up in the rivers and on the Bay.
4.3 Public Values Forum
EPA convened a Public Values Forum in January of 2013 to engage Guanica Bay watershed
community members and decision-makers in a workshop setting to better understand
and define what is important for restoration of the Guanica Bay watershed and associated
coastal/marine regions. Drs. Robin Gregory and Julian Gonzalez (Value Scope Research,
Vancouver, Canada), two recognized and neutral facilitators experienced with working
with diverse groups in cross-cultural settings, facilitated the workshop in both English and
Spanish and summarized its results (Gregory and Gonzalez 2013).
EPA structured the workshop around activities and discussions that helped to characterize
valuable aspects of the watershed, to identify availability of and needs for science and
technical information to improve decision-making, and to demonstrate structured
decision-making tools that could benefit future watershed management planning and
implementation. The Public Values Forum was built on past work conducted by EPA in the
region with stakeholders and decision-makers, including information from prior
workshops (see Sections 3.4 and 4.2) and archival research on the socio-economic
development of the region (see Section 3.5).
A broad group of stakeholders participated in the Forum, representing many interests in
the watershed and coastal zone (Fig. 4-4; Appendix G). Prior to the Forum, EPA, Value
Scope Research, colleagues from other governmental agencies, and non-government
organizations (NGO) collaboratively generated a list of stakeholder categories to identify
potential participants (Table 4-4). The thirteen categories were drawn from existing
information about previous meetings, workshops and planning documents, and were
deemed sufficient to ensure broad stakeholder representation based on the available
knowledge about the region, and on information collected earlier on the context, and
agreement with outside decision-makers. An invitation list was developed so that 2-3
stakeholders were initially invited from each category.
67
-------
. Academic
. Federal
Commonwealth
. Municipal
.NGO
Citizen
Corporate
Figure 4-4. Public Values Forum participants included academics; representatives of government agencies,
non-government organizations and businesses, and citizens.
Several invited participants provided names for potential additions to further fill the
categories. Nonetheless, some categories (particularly fishing, recreation, and
government- municipality) were not completely filled. For example, municipality officials
were lacking because new local governments had just been installed after elections.
Table 4-4. Categories used for targeting stakeholders for the Guanica Bay watershed
Public Values Forum.
Community leaders/neighbors
Environment- coastal/marine
Environment- forest
Environment- watershed
Farming-upper watershed
Farming-Lajas Valley
Fishing
Government- municipality
Government- Puerto Rico
Government- US
Public health
Recreation (other than fishing)
Tourism
68
-------
The first morning of the workshop offered several opening presentations that established
an initial context and a common base of information for the Forum. These included two
presentations from EPA, one on research in the watershed (Dr. William Fisher) and one on
regulatory responsibilities and agency goals (Ms. Evelyn Huertas). Roberto Viqueira Rfos,
the Guanica Bay Watershed Coordinator and director of the NGO 'Protectores de
Cuencas', provided an overview and status update for the Guanica Bay Watershed
Management Plan (CWP 2008). Dr. Richard Appeldoorn, a University of Puerto Rico
marine scientist and Director of the Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, described the coastal
ecosystems and the human activities in the watershed that threaten their condition.
Dr. Manual Valdes-Pizzini, a sociologist and Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for
Coastal Studies Social Sciences Department at the University of Puerto Rico, gave a
presentation on the socioeconomic setting and history of the watershed and coastal zone.
The facilitators (Drs. Robin Gregory and Julian Gonzalez) then provided an overview of the
Forum goals and framework.
The workshop reconvened after lunch with a discussion of the topics and information
that were presented in the morning. Participants asked questions of presenters on several
topics including the watershed and coral reef restoration effort, varying contributions of
different stressors to coral reef degradation, uncertainty surrounding the sources and
effects of stressors (particularly sediment and nutrients), potential impacts of
resuspended sediments, and information sources.
One discussion topic revolved around sediment deposition in Guanica Bay and the coral
reefs. It was agreed that the highest sediment transport occurs after major rainfall events,
but the primary source of sediment was disputed. Some felt the sediment arose from the
Rio Loco watershed and others from the diversion of water from Lago Loco through Lajas
Valley for agriculture irrigation. There was insufficient scientific evidence to resolve the
issue, so Dr. Gregory explained that procedures were available to bring together scientists
who had contrasting factual evidence. Technical issues can be clarified and evaluated in
a formal process to clarify uncertainties and data gaps.
One participant felt that there had been too much emphasis on coral reefs, which
initiated a discussion of other valued resources, including beaches and fisheries.
This discussion led to identification of values beyond coral reef protection and highlighted
other social and economic issues. For example, one concern was the inability of PREPA to
remove sediment that continually collects in the irrigation canals and drainage ditches in
Lajas Valley. Also, the potential loss of farmland was discussed in response to a proposal
to restore the historic Guanica Lagoon for sediment and nutrient filtration.
69
-------
The facilitators then led a discussion on how workshops could be used to identify both the
values and some of the factual information needs for good decision-making. The focus of
a Public Values Forum was on understanding and incorporating stakeholder values into
the decision process. Emphasized during this discussion was the difference between
factual (knowledge-based) claims and value information. Values are what people care
about (Keeney 1992) whereas fact-based claims are descriptive characterizations of states
of the world (Failing et al. 2007). For decision-making purposes, the factual claims often
describe past, current, or future impacts from decisions, and their uncertainties, based on
scientific or local knowledge. Values represent what is important (to be achieved or
avoided) in a decision context and are the reason why decisions are made. For example,
"eco-tourism opportunities would bring more visitors to the watershed" is a factual claim
while "I hope the income level of residents increases" is a values-based statement.
Whatever the source, knowledge-based claims can be held to standards of veracity and
relevance while values held by individuals would not be tested for legitimacy (Failing et al.
2007). The need to identify values before proposing alternatives was stressed. Clarifying
data needs and gaps is essential for exploring alternatives, but the decisions should be
optimally designed to fulfill stakeholder values.
The workshop participants began to identify and organize the key values and factual
elements to support further management decisions in the Guanica Bay watershed. Based
on their interests and expertise, the participants self-selected into one of four breakout
groups: ecology land, aquatic ecology, economy, or social issues, to discuss what they felt
was important in the watershed (Fig. 4-5).
70
-------
Figure 4-5. Day 1 breakout groups for establishing an initial list of values in the social category
(foreground) and economics category (background) at the Public Values Forum held for the Guanica Bay
watershed in Puerto Rico (photo credit: John Carriger, ORISE Fellow).
Each breakout group developed and presented an initial list of objectives reflecting their
values for the watershed and coastal regions, which the facilitators reviewed and
compiled into a combined list of objectives that included all of the objectives identified in
each of the breakout groups. The combined list of objectives was reviewed the following
morning of day 2 (Table 4-5). 'Process' objectives were taken from each group and
compiled to highlight the objectives regarding improvements to the decision-making
process in the region. Many of these mirrored process concerns in the previous workshop.
Objectives with question marks indicate topics that were not fully defined or resolved as
to meaning during the workshop.
71
-------
Table 4-5. Initial objectives generated from four breakout groups in the first day of the
Public Values Forum (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013).
Ecology- land
Meet future water demands (Agriculture + Development)
Restore and conserve habitat for important species
Improve monitoring and feedback of current actions
Reduce contamination from agriculture effluent
Reduce stormwater runoff
o Ecological best-management practices
o Outreach and incentives
Reduce soil loss (maintain productivity of land)
o Through best management practices in agriculture
Reduce uncertainty about outcomes of management actions
Understand relative contribution of sediment origins (two watersheds)
Preserve forest habitats
Protect endangered and threatened wildlife species
Ecology- aquatic
Restore lagoon natural processes (filtration of nutrients and sediments)
Restore shallow water coral reefs
o Reduce nutrient loads flowing into the ocean
o Enhance fish biomass and abundance
Improve monitoring and feedback of current management actions
Reduce human contamination
o Endocrine mimics (cosmetics, birth control)
o Runoff from roads (Hydrocarbons)
o Sewage pathogens
Reduce uncertainty about outcomes of management actions
Protect endangered and threatened marine species
Protect mangrove habitats
Protect marine habitats for migratory birds
Economy
Demonstrate economic value of ecosystem services
Estimate net benefits of best management practices
Protect infrastructure of Southwest Puerto Rico Project
o Dredging reservoirs
o Maintaining tunnels
Promote community economic benefits
Improve employment opportunities
o Publish job opportunities
o Training and workshops for unemployed
o Undertake human capital analysis
Increase sustainable economic development
o Promote eco-tourism
o Maintain/increase swimming beaches
o Promote opportunities for value-added employment and revenue
72
-------
Table 4-5. (continued)
Increase the agricultural activities and agricultural productivity within Lajas Valley Agricultural
Reserve and upper Guanica Bay (Loco and Luchetti) watersheds
o Establish fair prices for products (increase revenue to local producers)
o Develop value-added products
o Preserve agricultural farmland
o Increase revenue for secondary industries supporting agriculture
Restore commercial and sport fisheries
o Increase fish catch
o Create marine protected areas
Increase renewable energy production
o Hydroelectric power generation
o Alternatives (solar, wind, geothermal)
Social
Promote quality of life for people in Guanica Bay watershed
Maintain small-scale farming opportunities and way of life
Reinforce cultural heritage and traditional livelihoods
o Lagoon fishing
o Artisans
Improve well-being and human health:
o Water quality
o Air quality (asthma - haze from Saharan winds)
o Food security
o Safety and health of agriculture workers
Improve recreation opportunities
Meet legal & political requirements
Promote education
o Formal and informal (visual)
o Promote pro-environmental attitudes
o Change behaviors
Maintain sufficient potable water for citizens (quantity + quality)
Expand spiritual and aesthetic opportunities
o Commune with nature
Process
Better program integration across different levels of government
Better communication across agencies
Better communication among agencies, citizens and Non-profit organizations
o Provide consistent information to citizens
o Improve access of information for citizens
Demonstrate respect for all citizens (environmental justice)
Enhance opportunities for meaningful public participation
o Land use planning and zoning
o Improve responsiveness of agencies to citizens' concerns.
o Provide a clear follow up to concerns
Improve fairness in resource management and decision processes
o Participation (Inclusivity?)
o Enforcement (appropriate level of government)
Establish clear criteria for zoning (land use planning)
73
-------
During the presentations of objectives, each breakout group was also asked to identify
individuals or interest groups that should be, but were not represented at the Forum.
Participants identified the Puerto Rico Department of Health, local community leaders,
teachers, employees from public works departments, Puerto Rico Planning Board,
Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Puerto Rico Land Use Plan developers,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, neighborhoods, fishers (commercial and recreational),
farmers, recreational groups like surfing and diving associations, environmental health
interests, US. Department of Agriculture including the NRCS, Puerto Rico Land Authority,
the municipalities (workers, mayors and local politicians), Puerto Rico Department of
Agriculture, land owners, and economic co-operatives.
It was explained by the facilitators that the objectives identified by the participants
(Table 4-5) were merely a starting point to be further explored in more detail on the next
day. There was discussion about how some of the objectives would take considerable
work and coordination to achieve, while others (e.g., the 'low-hanging fruit') were
relatively easy to implement and might be first considerations for action. Before closing,
the facilitators described the importance of attaining multiple values in a course of action
and finding optimal paths to achieve the values. Designing actions that achieve multiple
values will create greater positive benefits.
On the second day, the consolidated objectives list (Table 4-5) that the participants had
developed on the previous day was presented, and participants identified things that
were missing or misinterpreted. Participants also discussed how to specify (detail)
concerns reflected in the objectives. Facilitators asked questions that helped expand
some of the objectives to consider broader impacts (e.g., water needs) or help to define
the objectives (e.g., empowerment).
Initial performance measures were created for each objective (Table 4-6), which provided
additional focus for the objective and led to potentially useful metrics for evaluating
management actions. Participants introduced potential new management actions and
for each action they characterized the timing, costs, and level of confidence. Not shown in
Table 4-6 is the benefit timing (e.g., immediate [<1 year], short-term [1-3 years], medium-
term [3-10 years], and long-term [10+ years]), designated for each action by the workshop
groups. Confidence was also indicated (low, medium or high) for the likelihood that the
action could be implemented and the objective achieved. Possible regulatory or political
reasons the action might or might not be implemented were discussed. Participants were
told not to list actions already underway or recommended in the 2008 WMP.
74
-------
Table 4-6. Initial priority management actions from different breakout groups shown
with potential performance measures and the values served (adapted from Gregory and
Gonzalez 2013).
Area
Economic
Aquatic
ecology
Values
Protect
agricultural land
(fully utilize
potential?)
Ensure
availability of
good quality
water supply (for
agriculture?)
Create more job
opportunities
Improve water
quality (in rivers
and ocean?)
Foster healthy
native aquatic
community
Improve quality
of life related to
water resources
use
Performance Measures
Reduce % fallow land
Diversify crops
Promote BMP
$/Ha of production (by type
of crop)
Salinity of soil
$ Farm production loss due
to land underwater
Percentage of full capacity
for reservoir
$ Avoiding costs for building
new water infrastructure
Percentage of catchment area
with vegetated cover (?)
Number indirect and direct
jobs created
Average $ level of pay
$ Value added in local industry
Turbidity
Solids in suspension
Nutrients
Coliforms
Size
Diversity
Health
Aesthetics: reduce visible
waste
Reduce turbidity of water
Number of people involved in
ecological improvements of
the watershed
Ha (cuerdas) forested
Number of recreation activities
Number of recreationists
Actions
Implement development plans (?)
Ensure continuity of plans
Implement BMP incentives plan
Ensure no net loss of agricultural land
Avoid practices that increase soil
salinity
Improve mechanism for water
drainage (clean channels to increase
water flow)
Dredge sediment from water
reservoirs
Schedule maintenance of water
reservoirs
Reforest catchment areas
Prioritize hiring needs
Assess private business investment
opportunities
Develop re-training plans for workers
Restore lagoon
Monitor water quality before, during
and after lagoon restoration
Educate community about (?)
Convert Guanica WWTP to tertiary
Restore marshes ability to filter
sediments (?)
Consistent enforcement of
regulations
Create and improve habitat (where?)
Reforestation
Eliminate invasive aquatic species
Conserve soil
Program to educate citizens and
industry on reduction and recycling of
waste
Educate population about importance
of lagoon and marsh ecological
services
75
-------
Table 4-6 (continued)
Area
Land
ecology
Social
Values
Restore fauna
and habitat
Conserve soil
productivity
Reduce point and
non-point source
of contamination
in watershed
Promote
education
Improve health
Promote
sustainable
communities
Performance Measures
Index of species biodiversity
Kilometers of ecological
corridors
Ha habitat suitable for
trust species
Percentage reduction in
erosion
Crop production in tons per ha
Sediments and nutrient levels
mg/L/M2
Concentration of hydrocarbons
Environmental attitude survey
Number of community
members acting in projects
Percentage people connected
to PR Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (PRASA)
Census statistics
Number demonstration
projects
Number of community based
enterprises
Number of community
networks
Number of conferences and
seminars in communities
Actions
Convert sun grown to shade grown
coffee
Establish riparian buffers
Reforestation
Forest enhancement
Restore Guanica lagoon
Land acquisition for conservation
purposes
Promote enhanced habitat for trust
species
Consistent enforcement of
regulations
Continue implementation of 2008
GBWMP
Promote sustainable agricultural
practices
Promote best management practices
Continue hydro-seeding
Create state and private land
management plans
Identify point sources of pollution
Create green infrastructure to treat
runoff waters
Promote pro-environmental attitudes
via formal and informal education
Implement adopt a beach program
Promote capacity building in schools
and communities
Increase participation in PRASA
Conduct epidemiological studies on
key health issues
Survey of home owners to determine
status of septic tanks
Conduct capacity building workshops
Create community coalitions
Provide citizens access to information
Create opportunities for enhanced
public involvement
Promote efficiency through better
inter-agency communication
76
-------
Dr. Brian Dyson (EPA) introduced a decision analysis tool under development by EPA.
DASEES (Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy and Society) is a web-
based tool to organize the many values and diverse factual information that might be
needed for a complex environmental management decision. One component of DASEES is
a social network analysis (SNA) tool. Participants had been asked on the first day of the
Forum to identify the different people and groups that they worked with on watershed
environmental issue and this information was captured in an SNA. Dr. Tom Stockton
(Neptune, Inc.) demonstrated the tool and the results of the informal survey. Discussion
ensued on the utility of these types of tools to improve communication within and among
community organizations (Fig. 4-6). Participants asked about the availability of software
for SNA, and EPA subsequently forwarded an SNA freeware package to all the Forum
participants.
NOAA NOAA
NIAA
/ UPRM
PR DNER / upRM
X NOAA ,
EPA
NRCS
PR DNER
NRCS
PR DNER PR DNER
Citizen
NOAA
/ Citizen'
PRASA
CAP
PR DNER
Figure 4-6. Social Network Analysis (SNA) of workshop participants at the Public Values Forum (source:
Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.). Participants are identified by the organization they represent.
Lines represent communication between stakeholders. The workshop analysis showed a small group of
stakeholders had isolated communication. This type of analysis can help resolve such issues at the beginning
ofSDM.
The facilitators described additional tools, including the development of a consequence
table, to display the likely effects of different alternatives on multiple objectives.
A consequence table is extremely helpful for interpreting impact assessments and
typically contains a matrix of potential effects of alternatives on performance measures
for objectives in each cell (Gregory et al. 2012). Its use can augment different phases of a
decision-making process, including generating new alternatives, identifying missing or
77
-------
insufficient objectives and performance measures, eliminating dominated alternatives,
identifying information sources for the impacts of alternatives on objectives, trade-off
analysis, and appraising the impacts of objectives on alternatives from the best available
information. The consequence table demonstrated at the Forum was primarily used to
show how one might initially appraise the impacts of alternatives on objectives and
creatively derive new alternatives.
For demonstration purposes, an example consequence table was generated interactively
(Table 4-7). Although the matrix was not populated, participants could see how different
alternatives could be rated for effects on multiple objectives in the watershed.
Table 4-7. Illustrative consequence table developed interactively for Guanica Lagoon
restoration, showing objectives in rows and possible management alternatives in
columns (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013 to reflect correct acreage).
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Alt. 5
Values or
Concerns
Economics
Environment- land
Environment- water
Social & cultural
Information
uncertainty
Public participation
Governance and
process
Criterion
& desired
direction
Current
status
Full lagoon
restoration
(1200 acres)
Partial lagoon
restoration
(900 acres per
GME 2011)
Adaptive &
precautionary
plan
restoration
Other plan
(yet to be
developed)
On the final day of the workshop, new breakout groups were formed, and the list of
actions developed on the first two days was narrowed into a focused list of high priority
actions. The goal was to have a set of key, high-priority actions to pass along to decision-
makers, since it would be too costly to implement every action with the limited resources
that were available. Each breakout group selected ten management actions from the list
that they felt were the highest priority.
Participants used anonymous electronic voting to prioritize the management actions
selected by each group that would best achieve valued outcomes. The voting equipment
included hand-held transponders that recorded the responses of individuals. Prior to
voting on the decision alternatives, participants used the transponders to record certain
personal information, such as whether they had read the 2008 Guanica Bay WMP (CWP
2008) or whether they lived within the watershed. Reporting for the voting results could
then account for these relevant characteristics of the voting demographic.
78
-------
For example, the highest priority for participants with limited knowledge of current
watershed initiatives was educational programs to promote sustainability (from among
alternatives of the Economics work group), whereas those who claimed a lot of
knowledge preferred development and implementation of management plans for marine
areas (Fig. 4-7). As another example, participants preferred best management and
conservation practices (from among the alternatives of the Social work group) regardless
of whether they had read the 2008 WMP (Fig. 4-8).
Knowledge of current initiatives in
watershed
A lot Somewhat Limited
Encourage more shade grown coffee and
reforestation
Establish riparian buffers
Restoration of lagoon
Dredge reservoirs and dist channels
Restore drainage system
Promote citizens access to information
Education programs to promote
sustainability
Continue implementation of WMP 2008
Create and implement management plan
for marine areas of Guanica Reserve
Promote land management plans for
private landowners
Figure 4-7. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Economics workgroup for restoring the
Guanica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by knowledge of current initiatives in the
watershed (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013).
79
-------
ReadWMP(2008)
Parts BNo BYes
Reefs economic analysis
Human capital profile
Reduce sewage from septic tanks
Green infrastructure
Tertiary treatment of sewage plant
No agricultural land loss
Law enforcement
Identify sources of pollution
Measure effectiveness of BMPs
Best management and conservation
practices
Figure 4-8. Prioritization results for the actions identified by the Social workgroup for restoring the
Guanica Bay watershed and coastal zone, differentiated by knowledge of the 2008 watershed
management plan (CWP 2008) (adapted from Gregory and Gonzalez 2013).
Once the results were presented, additional discussions focused on which alternatives
would be less controversial and less costly to implement (low hanging fruit) and could
have high and immediate impact on objectives. Each group then identified priority actions
(Table 4-8).
The results (Table 4-8) are clearly informative for any decision-maker in the watershed.
Although there were stakeholder categories that were not represented, the list of
priorities illustrates a broad concern for many different issues interlaced throughout the
watershed and across various stakeholder groups. Most of the priority actions support not
only protection of coral reefs but also other watershed objectives such as agriculture,
fishing, human health, law enforcement, water availability and environmental education.
The broad concerns represented do not necessarily narrow the options for a decision
maker but provide ample evidence of issues to consider for any alternative. Further
discussion among stakeholders and development of consequence tables could strengthen
or eliminate some of the alternatives listed.
80
-------
Table 4-8. Priority actions identified by each of the four work groups in the Public Values
Forum (source: Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). These are not listed in priority order.
Land Ecology
Aquatic Ecology
Economics
Social
1. Research
opportunities
2. Improve river quality
3. Educate people near
the river
4. Monitor water quality
5. Diversify economic
opportunities
6. Improve infrastructure
7. Restore ecosystems
8. Recreation
opportunities in the
watershed
9. Agricultural incentives
10. Co-management of
protected areas in
watershed
1. Promote shade grown
coffee
2. Reforestation and
buffer zone
3. Promote BMPs (soil,
water, sea)
4. Monitor water quality
in the watershed
5. Education and
investigation about
drainage system in
Lajas Valley
6. Educate public and
industry in reduction
and recycling of waste
7. Education and
enforcement of water
laws
1.
2.
3.
4.
Encourage more
shade-grown coffee
and reforestation
Establish riparian
buffers
Restore the lagoon
Dredge reservoirs and
distribution channels
5. Restore drainage
system
6. Promote citizens access
to information
7. Education programs to
promote sustainability
8. Continue implementing
actions in the WMP
9. Create and implement a
management plan for
marine areas of the
Guanica Reserve
10. Promote land
management plans for
private landowners
1. Best management
and conservation
practices
2. Measure effective-
ness of BMPs
3. Identify sources of
pollution
4. Law enforcement
5. No agricultural land
loss
6. Tertiary treatment
of sewage (to reduce
nutrient loadings to
Guanica Bay)
7. Green infrastructure
8. Reduce sewage
from septic tanks
9. Human capital
profile
10. Reefs economic
analysis
4.3.1 Summary
Overall, the workshop approach was beneficial to the management process of the
Guanica Bay watershed and to the programmatic aspects of EPA's sustainability research.
Public Values Forum participants included key decision-makers, NGO leaders with strong
interest in restoring the watershed, academics, farmers and recognized business leaders.
The Forum introduced tools and frameworks that helped to generate greater insights
for decision-making and could be used by participants for their own decision-making
processes. Learning about SDM and working through examples inspired many of those
in attendance, some of whom have a significant role in the restoration and management
of the watershed. In addition, bringing together the different stakeholders provided
greater insight into the watershed and coastal/marine governance process and diverse
values that need to be considered in EPA initiatives in the Guanica Bay watershed region.
The Forum created within the participants a better understanding of value-focused
81
-------
thinking (Keeney 1992) and its potential for improving management of the Guanica Bay
watershed.
The importance of understanding stakeholder values is receiving greater recognition in
conservation and environmental management programs. Historically, many
environmental initiatives have not placed a priority on incorporating values into territorial
and federal government policies, often resulting in sub-optimal communication and
fragmented management (Aguilar-Perera et al. 2006). In this Public Values Forum, the
need for broader representation of stakeholders beyond those in attendance, including
greater representation from residential interests, was explicitly and iteratively
emphasized as a means to achieve a more complete understanding and clarification of
values in the watershed.
The Public Values Forum helped clarify some areas of disagreement regarding the WMP,
in particular the restoration of Guanica Lagoon, and provided additional ideas on how
they might be resolved. The facilitators stressed the importance of separating facts from
values when disagreements occurred and this was instrumental in creating positive
discussion and insight regarding the lagoon. Some disagreements are based on values
while others are based on facts, or the predicted outcomes from decisions. Depending on
the degree and type of factual- or values-based disagreements, different settings and
information would be required to lend greater insight into the problem. Since this was a
Public Values Forum, there was a greater focus on what is important (values), but a future
workshop focused on scientific issues was also discussed as a means to resolve some of
the scientific disagreements.
Guidance for developing a public values forum is provided in Appendix H.
4.4 Summary of the workshops
A robust participatory process of information sharing and stakeholder engagement should
be requisite for environmental management and sustainability strategies to inform
decision development and implementation, and to foster public engagement and support.
'Sustainability' necessitates a consideration of broad and multi-disciplinary issues (Valdes-
Pizzini 2001; Munda 2008). Environmental management ultimately benefits from
consideration of factors such as socioeconomic and cultural behaviors and perceptions,
communication between governments and local communities, and strong participation by
community members (Aguilar-Perera et al. 2006). The two EPA workshops described in
this Chapter (Decision-Making Workshop and Public Values Forum) engaged stakeholders
in structured discussions about their vision and concerns for the watershed and their
perception of how decisions are made.
82
-------
The Decision-Making Workshop elucidated many stakeholder concerns about how
decisions have been made in the past. Participants emphasized the lack of local
involvement or influence in decisions and the apparent lack of communication or
agreement among government agencies. They believed that these process issues
resulted in both contradictory policies and decisions that did not benefit local needs.
The outcomes have affected economic (e.g., fishing and coffee farming) as well as
social (e.g., lack of initiative) values.
The overall outcome of the Decision-Making Workshop was that the participants achieved
a better understanding of past decisions in the watershed and the challenges for social,
environmental and economic balance. In particular, participants stressed the lack of
local involvement and influence in decisions being made (usually at the Federal and
Commonwealth level), and felt that this had led to a series of uninformed decisions that
were often contradictory to local needs and local vision. The workshop also led to a better
understanding of new and old challenges for important economic sectors, particularly
small-scale commercial fishing and coffee farming. These challenges are aggravated by
policies and decisions within the watershed (e.g., poor enforcement of fishery regulations)
and outside the watershed (e.g., coffee import tariffs).
The Public Values Forum illustrated the broad range of objectives that stakeholders
have for the watershed, including coral reefs, agriculture, fishing, human health, law
enforcement, water availability, environmental education and more. Participants gained
an appreciation for the effects that any given decision might have on the multiple
objectives and a better understanding of the need for valuation and tradeoff analysis.
Groundwork was laid in the workshop for recognizing the difference between value-
focused thinking (why) and alternative-focused thinking (how).
Objectives identified during the Public Values Forum (Table 4-5) showed a lot of similarity
to concerns mentioned during the initial 2010 Decision Sketching Workshop (Table 3-1),
the 2012 Decision-Making workshop (Table 4-1), and in preliminary inferences from
management documents (Carriger et al. 2013). The platinum standard for determining
objectives is to elicit them directly from stakeholders and decision-makers (Parnell et al.
1998), but even preliminary assessments or inferences from written reports or during
decision sketching exercises can be valuable in identifying information needs and
developing creative alternatives. Development of objectives is an iterative process,
and early assessments can also be useful in identifying critical stakeholders who may
need to be invited to subsequent workshops where objectives are further refined.
83
-------
Stakeholders in both workshops identified several critical decision issues:
1) Local stakeholders have had little influence in decisions being made in the
watershed. Moreover they were too often not even informed of decisions and
initiatives (Gregory and Gonzalez 2013). This has led to distrust and apathy.
2) Economic independence is a goal. The lack of a self-supporting economy was evident
in discussions concerning fisheries, eco-tourism and agriculture in Lajas Valley.
3) Incentives to bolster the sugar industry resulted in an unbalanced, monolithic
economy that ultimately struggled without incentives. This left Puerto Rico with
few economic alternatives when sugar production collapsed.
4) Rather than viewing environmental conservation as a tradeoff with economic
purposes, most stakeholders recognized that stable ecosystems are necessary
for future economic viability.
5) Inadequate water availability is a liability for future economic and municipal growth.
The inability to prevent soil loss and sedimentation into reservoirs and irrigation
canals has adversely affected water quality and quantity. Existing agricultural and
municipal water needs may not be met in the near future.
6) Enforcement of regulations and provision of incentives is unfair to some economic
sectors. Lack of enforcement of environmental regulations for recreational and
subsistence fishers has hurt commercial fishers. Coffee growing incentives target
large farms over small, reducing the chance for small farms to prosper. Unequal
application of laws and opportunities generate resentment and stifle economic
success.
7) Environmental education is needed for farmers, fishers, and other citizens. Training
in best management practices for farmers and fishers was widely supported as was
better education opportunities for people living along the rivers and around Guanica
Bay. Knowledge is power.
8) Ecotourism is potentially a viable economic driving force. Development of the bay,
coral reefs and coastal zone, the Guanica State Forest, historic buildings and
monuments, mountain coffee farms, and forest biodiversity were all identified
as potential attractions for tourists.
9) Communication is lacking between stakeholders and government agencies and
among stakeholder groups. Communication with agencies could reinforce trust in
decision-making and improve decisions; communication among groups would
strengthen the community voice.
84
-------
Chapter 5. Estimate Consequences and Evaluate
5.1 Estimating consequences
Chapter 4 illustrated how structuring objectives and their corresponding performance
measurements help to concisely define "what matters" about a decision and drive the
search for creative alternatives (Gregory et al. 2012). The next step in the decision process
is to estimate the consequences of different alternatives on each of the multiple
objectives identified by stakeholders (see Table 4-5) using performance measures as
indicators. Information about consequences comes from three main sources:
1) Structural modeling: Consequences may be evaluated qualitatively through group
deliberations using influence diagrams or graphical models that link decisions to
objectives through changes in intermediate variables (Marcot et al. 2012).
For many decisions, a qualitative assessment of likely outcomes is sufficient.
2) Targeted studies and predictive modeling: Influence diagrams are often turned
into predictive quantitative models based on empirical data. Some tools for
conducting quantitative analysis of consequences include probabilistic networks
and simulation models.
3) Expert judgments: Where empirical data are unavailable, analysts may rely on
expert judgments to reduce uncertainties in predicting consequences.
The goal of each approach is ultimately the same: to estimate the consequences of
each alternative on the performance measures.
In the following sections, we describe how EPA has been using a combination of these
approaches to identify where information is needed to qualitatively link decisions to
objectives (Section 5.2), conduct scientific investigations and expert panels to reduce
uncertainties (Section 5.3), and develop tools to conduct quantitative analyses of
consequences (Section 5.4). In Section 5.5, we describe how the scientific information
in a consequence table (see Table 4-7) can be used to conduct a tradeoff analysis.
85
-------
5.2 Identifying information needs
Because each decision alternative will likely affect more than one of the objectives,
estimating consequences should incorporate systems thinking to guide information
collection and scientific investigation. Before the Guanica Bay workshops, EPA developed
graphical models to link decisions to stakeholder-valued outcomes, and identify key
linkages where scientific information may be needed (see Fig. 3-8). The scheme was based
on the results of expert focus groups formed to discuss each of the five DPSIR sectors (see
Section 3.3). The focus groups organized coral reef information into the five categories
(EPA 2014a) and provided EPA with insights to the types of science questions that should
be considered for each sector.
When applied to a decision context, such as protecting coral reefs, some questions seem
obvious. For example, it may seem quite obvious that sediment from farming is
contributing to the degradation of reefs and that reef degradation will affect fishing and
tourism opportunities. But the proposed decisions will refine the questions. For example,
how much difference will shifting coffee cultivation from sun-grown to shade grown
practices make on sediment loads, coral reef condition, and fishing and tourism
opportunities? Other questions arise from the additional objectives raised by
stakeholders. For example, sediment trapping in reservoirs has diminished the sediment
runoff to the coastal zone; how does the loss of water storage capacity affect the
availability of domestic water sources in an island with small watershed areas? When
examined in a systems framework, each decision alternative will generate a robust set of
potential consequences and knowledge gaps for science investigation (Table 5-1).
The principal importance of the Driving Force sector in a DPSIR framework is to
characterize how human activities are driven by socioeconomic needs as well as how
some socioeconomic needs are fulfilled by the goods and services provided by
environmental resources, such as coral reefs. The Driving Forces are highly
interdependent (e.g., coral reefs attract tourism and fishing, activities that can degrade
coral reefs). For research related to the Guanica Bay example, it was important to identify
the types, intensity and interactions of Driving Forces in the watershed and to identify the
types and levels of human activities (Pressures) generated by each Driving Force.
86
-------
Table 5-1. Issues in a DPSIR-based framework, sample research questions from
stakeholder discussions (see Table 3-3), and targeted EPA research activities.
Overarching Issues
Influence of socio-
economic Driving
Forces (D) on human
activities (P)
Sample Research Questions
What are the sources of nutrient
and sediment loading?
What are the sources of
contaminants?
EPA Research Activities
Hydrologic modeling (Yuan et al. 2013;
Hu et al. 2015)
Citizen-volunteer and professional
monitoring to identify fecal sources of
contamination in southwestern Puerto
Rico (Rodriguez et al. 2014)
Influence of human
activities (P) on the
state (S) of the
environment
What are the priority stressors
affecting reef health?
What are the effects of
watershed-derived stressors on
reefs?
How do we define reef condition
along a stressor gradient?
A coral reef example of science-based
multi-stakeholder deliberation (Rehr et
al. 2014)
Responses of coral reef fauna to
human influence (Oliver et al. 2014)
Biological integrity of coral reefs
(Bradley etal. 2014a)
State (S) of
ecosystems required
for sustainable
delivery of ecosystem
services (1)
What is the state of coral reefs?
What are the attributes of
ecosystems that contribute to
ecosystem services?
Reef assessments in 2010, 2011 based
on methods from a Field Manual for
Coral Reef Assessments (Santavy et al.
2012)
Quantifying coral reef ecosystem
services (Principe et al. 2012)
Effects of changes in
ecosystem state (S)
on what stakeholders
value (1), including
ecosystem services
How do we link changes in reef
condition to changes in ecosystem
services?
How do we link changes in land
cover to changes in ecosystem
services?
What is the economic value of
reef ecosystem services?
Comparison of methods for quantifying
reef ecosystem services (Yee et al.
2014b)
Linking ecosystem services supply to
stakeholder values in Guanica Bay
Watershed, Puerto Rico (Smith et al., In
Review)
Economic valuation of Puerto Rican
Reefs (ongoing)
Consequences of
decision alternatives
(R) on what
stakeholders value (1)
What are the potential effects of
pollutant loadings on reef
ecosystem services?
What are the effects of decision
options on water resources?
What are the effects of sediment
reduction on coral reef ecosystem
services?
A coral reef example of building
consensus in environmental decision-
making (Rehr etal. 2014)
Estimating effects of management
options on water storage capacity of
Lago Lucchetti (Bousquin et al. 2014)
Linking management of sediment
runoff to coral reef ecosystem services
using Envision (ongoing)
87
-------
Research under the Pressure sector should seek to determine the influence of human
activities on changing stressors in the ecosystem. This requires characterizing the types
and levels of human activity that generate sediment, contaminants, nutrients and other
pollutants, and how much they generate. For the Guanica Bay project, this included
measuring terrestrial sediment in the coastal zone and estimating changes in sediment
reaching the coastal zone as a consequence of various management alternatives,
including conversion of coffee farming to shade-grown cultivation and dredging reservoirs
in the watershed.
Research under the State sector should be directed at measuring the state (condition) and
persistence of the ecosystem, and linking changes in state with changes in delivery of
ecosystem goods and services. For the Guanica Bay project, this included reef
assessments using fish, stony coral, sponge and gorgonian indicators that characterized
the potential for delivery of ecosystem services. It also included expert deliberation to
characterize the levels of condition (or thresholds) necessary to support persistence and
sustainable delivery of ecosystem services. It is important to recall that water quality
stressors (e.g., sediment, nutrients, contaminants) are generated by human activities
(Pressures) but once generated become a condition of the reefand therefore the effects
of water quality are investigated under the State sector of DPSIR. To this end, laboratory
studies were conducted to characterize the effects of various sediment types and loads on
various coral reef species.
The Impact sector links ecological condition with potential delivery of ecosystem goods
and services. Research in this sector should generate defensible relationships between the
condition of the ecosystem and the potential delivery of ecosystem goods and services,
and how the delivery and value of goods and services changes as ecosystem condition
changes. In the Guanica Bay case, this included development of different approaches to
estimate goods and services from ecosystem condition and linking changes in condition to
changes in goods and services. It also included ongoing research into the market and
nonmarket value of coral reefs to the ecotourism economy.
The different research efforts that initiated from this system approach are summarized in
Table 5-1. In Section 5.3, we highlight some of these efforts.
88
-------
5.3 Scientific investigations to reduce uncertainties
EPA is using targeted studies, predictive modeling, and expert group deliberations to
gather the information needed to link management actions to consequences for
ecological, economic, and human health endpoints. Although EPA research was initially
focused on protection of coral reefs, efforts ultimately migrated to a more holistic
consideration of management consequences to objectives throughout the watershed.
This section provides examples of past and ongoing EPA research efforts focused on
reducing uncertainty across the DPSIR framework.
5.3.1 Coral reef condition
The Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) proposed several actions to
reduce anthropogenic stressors from the watershed in order to protect coral reef
habitats. Stakeholders at the Public Values Forum recognized a key uncertainty in this
approach was the state, or condition, of the reefs outside Guanica Bay. There are two
important components to this uncertaintymeasurement and interpretation of
measurements.
The measurement component had been a focus of previous EPA research, which included
development of indicators and field survey designs that were defensible for Clean Water
Act reporting (Fisher 2007; Fore et al. 2009; Bradley et al. 2010) A critical issue in indicator
selection is sensitivity to human disturbanceindicators that cannot distinguish human-
induced from natural change cannot be used for regulatory protection under the Clean
Water Act. EPA developed and tested several stony coral indicators (Fisher et al. 2008),
and has applied these validated, human-responsive indicators in probabilistic survey
designs in both the U.S. Virgin Islands (Fisher et al. 2014) (Fig. 5-1) and southern Puerto
Rico. The two Puerto Rico surveys, performed in 2010 and 2011, also included
measurements of reef fish, sponges, gorgonians and other macro-invertebrates (Santavy
et al. 2012), although indicators from these measurements have not yet been validated
for sensitivity to human disturbance.
89
-------
0 15
12
Stony Coral Density
(colonies per sq m)
3 Low (<11
O Medium (1-2)
High |>2(
0153 6 9 12
Stony Coral Density
(colonies per sq m>
Low KM
. Medium 11-21
High |>2)
Figure 5-1. Display of stony coral density results from reef assessment surveys completed at St. Thomas
and St. John (top) and St. Croix (bottom) in the U.S. Virgin Islands (source: Fisher et al. 2014).
The interpretation component of reef condition seeks to identify from the assessment
data what constitutes a good, fair, or poor reef. This is being addressed by EPA as a part of
a larger effort to develop a conceptual model describing how biological attributes of coral
reefs change along a gradient of increasing anthropogenic stress. This model, generically
called the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) (Fig. 5-2), is used to show how biological
attributes of aquatic ecosystems (i.e., biological condition) might change along a gradient
of increasing anthropogenic stress (e.g., physical, chemical and biological impacts) (Davies
and Jackson 2006). The y-axis of this conceptual model ranks biological condition and the
x-axis ranks levels of anthropogenic stress.
90
-------
Development of a Coral Reef BCG is a multistep process. EPA assembled a panel of US
Caribbean experts with expertise in coral reef ecology and management, including
knowledge of stony corals, reef fishes, sponges, gorgonians, algae, and seagrasses. In
August 2012, EPA held a coral reef expert workshop in La Parguera, Puerto Rico (Bradley
et al. 2014a). The goals of the workshop were to identify qualitative and quantitative reef
attributes that determine coral reef condition and recommend initial categorical condition
rankings for the y-axis of a coral reef BCG.
The Biological Condition Gradient:
Biological Response to Increasing Levels of Stress
Levels of Biological Condition
Level I.FMituial structural. Functional.
and taxonwrac integrity is preserved.
Level 2. Structure & function similji
to natural community with some
Additional i«j & biom.»s; ecosystem
level functions are fully maintained.
Level 3, Evident changes in structure-
due to loss of some rare native taxa;
shifts in relative abundance; ecosystem
level Functions fully maintained.
Level 4. Moderate changes in structure
due to replacement of some Sensitive
ubiquitous taxa by more tol«
-------
Figure 5-3. Photos from EPA coral reef stations reflect a range of coral reef conditions, from good (left), to
intermediate quality (middle), to severely degraded (right) (source: Bradley et al. 2014a).
A preliminary narrative BCG, using only the photos and videos, was assembled for
shallow-water linear reefs of southwestern Puerto Rico. The experts were able to identify
four distinct levels of condition: very good-excellent; good; fair; and poor (Table 5-2).
Table 5-2. Coral reef attributes of a very good to excellent site and a poor site
(Bradley etal. 2014).
Condition Level!
Corals!
Fish!
Condition Level!
Corals!
Fish!
VERY GOOD
to
EXCELLENT
(Approximate
BCG Level 2)
Hi species diversity
including rare, large
old colonies with high
tissue coverage
(Montastraea);
balanced population
structure (old and
middle-aged colonies,
recruits); Acropora
thickets present, Low
prevalence disease,
tumors, mostly live
tissue on coloniesl
Populations have
balanced species
abundance, sizes
and trophic
interactions!
POOR
(Approximate
BCG Level 6)
Absence of colonies, No large fish,
those present are few tolerant
small, only highly species, lack of
tolerant species, little or multiple trophic
no tissue. High levels
incidence disease on
small colonies of
corals, sponges, and
gorgonians, if present,
low or no tissue
coverage
A second workshop was held April 8-10, 2014, at the Forest Service headquarters in
El Yunque National Forest. Twenty-five experts attended the second workshop, including
19 who had attended the first workshop. The experts broke into two groups-sessile
assemblages (e.g. stony corals) and mobile assemblages (e.g., fish). During a facilitated
discussion the experts assigned each species to an attribute ranking (1-6) based on its
sensitivity or tolerance to different environmental stressors (Table 5-3). The species lists
provided to the experts included those species observed during the 2010 and 2011 EPA
surveys in Puerto Rico. The experts used the literature and their best professional
judgment to make these assignments.
92
-------
Table 5-3. Fish species assigned to attribute 2-highly sensitive or specialist taxa.
BCG Attribute
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
# Samples
87
1
4
12
2
1
2
8
1
4
1
2
4
1
1
6
5
1
2
18
Common Name
Blue Tang
Redspotted Hawkfish
Black Margate
Trumpet Fish
Orangespotted Filefish
Reef Butterflyfish
Blue Chromis
Brown Chromis
Creole Wrasse
Cleaner Goby
Neon Goby
Fairy Baselet
Smallmouth Grunt
Glasseye Snapper
Queen Angelfish
Saddled Blenny
Black Durgon
Rainbow Parrotfish
Cero
Harlequin Bass
Scientific Name
Acanthurus coeruleus
Amblycirrhitus pinos
Anisotremus suhnamensis
Aulostomus maculatus
Cantherhines pullus
Chaetodon sedentarius
Chromis cyanea
Chromis multilineata
Clepticus parrae
Elacatinus genie
Elacatinus oceanops
Gramma loreto
Haemulon chrysargyreum
Heteropriacanthus cruentatus
Holacanthus ciliaris
Malacoctenus triangulatus
Melichthys niger
Scarus guacamaia
Scomberomorus regalis
Serranus tigrinus
During a second facilitated discussion, each expert considered the biological condition,
species presence or absence and the species' attributes, and assigned a BCG level for
several sampling sites from the EPA Puerto Rico reef assessment surveys. The facilitator
documented critical information for the decision, any confounding or conflicting
information and how this was resolved. The experts' scores were tallied and averaged into
a final level assignment for each sampling station. Preliminary decision narrative rules
were developed for each level, and following the workshop, statistical analysis of the data
was applied to those rules to develop thresholds for each defined level. A web-based data
portal to organize and share all the available coral reef ecosystem data from Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, STORET (EPA 2015) facilitated the work of the experts. The
data portal has been initially populated with data from NOAA's Biogeography Branch and
EPA's Coral Reef Assessment Program.
93
-------
Ultimately, the attributes and thresholds will be organized into a conceptual, narrative
model that describes how biological attributes of coral reefs change along a gradient of
increasing anthropogenic (human-generated) stress. This requires, of course, that the
levels of stress are also ranked along the x-axis of the coral reef BCG and linked to the
human activities (pressures) that generate them. By providing an explicit characterization
of how biological attributes respond to human disturbances, decision-makers will be able
to determine current condition and the desired condition. Once a BCG is established,
managers can set easily communicated, quantitative goals for achieving those conditions
by linking the condition to stressor levels and stressor levels to human activity in the
watershed.
5.3.2 Ecosystem goods and services production
During both the Decision-Making Workshop and Public Values Forum (Chapter 4),
participants identified a concern for social and economic losses related to the decline of
coral reef and other natural ecosystems. Too often, environmental assessments focus only
on ecological endpoints and fail to consider the social and economic values of
stakeholders (Arvai and Gregory 2003). A key to bridging ecological and socio-economic
concerns is the concept of ecosystem goods and services (EGS) (Wainger and Boyd 2009).
Ecosystems provide goods and services to humans, including provisioning of food, fuel,
and fresh air and water, regulation of climate and flooding, and cultural value through
recreational and aesthetic opportunities (MEA 2005) (Table 5-4). Supporting services
describe the healthy functioning of ecosystems that is necessary for providing the other
services.
Table 5-4. Categories and examples of ecosystem goods and services (derived from
Layke 2009).
Regulatory Services
Benefits obtained from ecosystem's control
of natural processes
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation
Water regulation
Erosion regulation
Water purification and waste treatment
Disease & pest regulation
Soil quality regulation
Pollination
Natural hazard regulation
Provisioning Services
Goods or products obtained from ecosystems
Food resources - Crops, fisheries, wild food
Biological raw materials - Timber, fiber, sand,
animal skins
Biomassfuel
Freshwater
Genetic resources
Biochemicals & Pharmaceuticals
94
-------
Table 5-4. (continued)
Supporting Services
Natural processes that maintain other
ecosystem services
Nutrient cycling
Primary production
Water cycling
Cultural Services
Nonmaterial benefits obtained from
ecosystems
Recreation and ecotourism
Aesthetic and spiritual values
A list of stakeholder objectives developed at the Public Values Forum (Table 4-3)
identified several objectives that could use ecosystem services as means for achieving
the objective or performance measures (Table 5-5). Given the necessary data and
information, changes and tradeoffs across these ecosystem services could then be
evaluated under different decision scenarios.
Table 5-5. Identification of ecosystem goods and services that align with stakeholder
objectives identified in the Guanica Public Values Forum.
Workshop Objectives
Corresponding Ecosystem Services
Ecology land
Meet future water demands
Restore/conserve habitat for important species
Reduce contamination from agriculture effluent
Reduce stormwater runoff
Reduce soil loss (maintain productivity of land)
Preserve forest habitats
Protect endangered and threatened wildlife species
Water quality and quantity regulation
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of habitat
Contaminant regulation
Stormwater retention
Sediment and nutrient retention
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of forest habitat
Cultural/intrinsic value of threatened wildlife
Ecology aquatic
Restore lagoon natural processes
Restore shallow water coral reefs
Reduce nutrient loads flowing into the ocean
Enhance fish biomass and abundance
Protect endangered and threatened marine species
Protect mangrove habitats
Protect marine habitat for migratory bird
Water quality regulation
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of reefs
Nutrient retention
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of fish
Cultural/intrinsic value of threatened wildlife
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of mangroves
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of marine birds
Economy
Increase sustainable economic development
Promote eco-tourism
Maintain swimming/beaches opportunities
Lajas Valley and upper Guanica Bay
Preserve agricultural farmland
Restore commercial and sport fisheries
Increase fish catch
Creation marine protected areas
Increase renewable energy production
Hydroelectric power generation
Alternatives (solar, wind, geothermal)
Ecotourism opportunities (charismatic species)
Recreational opportunities (water quality)
Crop production, nutrient retention
Fisheries production
Aesthetic/cultural/intrinsic value of reefs
Hydropower production
Alternative energy production
95
-------
Table 5-5. (continued)
Workshop Objectives
Corresponding Ecosystem Services
Social
Maintain small scale farming opportunities
Reinforce cultural heritage/traditional livelihoods
Lagoon fishing and Artisans
Improve well-being and human health:
Water quality
Air quality (asthma)
Food security
Improve recreation opportunities
Maintain sufficient potable water for citizens
Expand spiritual and aesthetic opportunities
Commune with nature
Crop production, nutrient retention
Recreational and Artisanal fishing opportunities
Water quality regulation
Air quality regulation
Crop production, nutrient retention
Recreational opportunities
Water quality and quantity
Aesthetic and cultural value of nature
Two types of functional relationships are required to translate changes in ecosystem state
into human benefits: ecological production functions (EPF) and ecosystem services
valuation functions (EVF) (Wainger and Boyd 2009; Compton et al. 2011). EPFs quantify
the relationships between metrics of ecosystem condition and the supply of ecosystem
goods and services. The realized value of these goods and services will depend on human
demand for them. EVFs relate characteristics of society, such as demand, accessibility, or
substitutability, to derive value for ecosystem services (Compton et al. 2011). Together,
EPFs and EVFs can translate the value of ecosystems to human well-being (Fig. 5-4).
Management
Option
V J
Ecosystem
Change
c j
r ~N
Ecosystem
Service
^. j
f "\
Derived Value of
Ecosystem
^. J
EPF
EVF
Figure 5-4. Structure to trace changes in ecosystem services values based on a management option
(adapted from Wainger and Boyd 2009). EPF = ecological production functions; EVF=ecosystem services
valuation functions.
EPA recently reviewed methods for generating EPFs for coral reef ecosystem services, that
is, linking biophysical attributes of reef condition, such as coral cover, structural
complexity, or fish biomass, to provisioning of ecosystem goods and services (Table 5-6,
derived from Principe et al. 2012; Yee et al. 2014b). Many of the biological and ecological
attributes that are being used to characterize biological integrity for the Biological
Condition Gradient have relevance to ecosystem services, including habitat structure and
complexity, ecosystem function, and ecosystem connectivity. In fact, EPA methods to
assess coral reefs include measurements that contribute to calculation of both condition
indicators and ecosystem services indicators (Fisher 2007; Santavy et al. 2012).
96
-------
Coral reefs contribute to several different EGS, including shoreline protection, tourism and
recreation, commercial fishing, pharmaceutical discovery potential, and existence value
(ecological integrity). The contribution of reefs to shoreline protection has been modeled
in a number of ways, including indices of coastal protection across different types of
habitat (Burke et al. 2008; Mumby et al. 2008; Tallis et al. 2013) and biophysical process
models (Gourlay and Colleter 2005; Sheppard et al. 2005; Kunkel et al. 2006; Madin et al.
2006). Information on tourism and recreational opportunities has been derived from
surveys of recreational reef visitors conducted in valuation studies (Leeworthy and Wiley
1996, 1997, 2003; Wielgus et al. 2003; Leeworthy and Bowker 1997; Leeworthy and
Vanasse 1999; Johns et al. 2001; Bishop et al. 2011), and through field observations of
reef condition at popular dive sites (Pendleton 1994; Williams and Polunin 2002;
Leeworthy et al. 2004; Leujak and Ormond 2007; Uyarra et al. 2009).
Table 5-6. Quantitative methods for linking reef ecosystem attributes to production of
ecosystem services (adapted from Yee et al. 2014).
Ecosystem Service Metric
Reef Ecosystem Attributes
Method
Source
Ecosystem Integrity
Simplified Integrated Reef
Health Index
State of the Reef Index
Macroalgae cover, coral cover,
commercial fish biomass, herbivorous
fish biomass
Macroalgae cover, coral cover, fish
abundance, coral richness, fish richness
Index
Index
Healthy Reefs
Initiative 2010
van Beukering
and Cesar 2004
Shoreline Protection
Relative wave energy dissipation
Coral Reef Protection Index
Percent wave height
attenuation due to presence
of reef; Percent wave energy
attenuation due to presence
of reef
Decrease in beach erosion
Decrease in wave run-up
Relative cover of benthic habitat types
Reef type, reef continuity, reef distance
to shore
Offshore wave height and period, reef
depth, reef width, reef distance to
shore, reef surface friction (variability in
coral colony heights; relative cover of
benthic habitat types)
Wave height attenuation due to reef
Beach slope, shoreline porosity, wave
height attenuation due to reef
Index
Index
Differential
equations
Ratio
Ratio
Mumby et al.
2008
Burke et al.
2008
Sheppard et al.
2005; Lowe et al.
2005
Wielgus et al.
2010
FEMA 2007
Recreational Opportunities and Tourism
Relative ease of access, relative
sand generation, relative
opportunity for snorkeling,
opportunity for sighting of
charismatic species (£
striatus)
Relative value of a dive
Dive site favorability
Visitation to dive sites
Relative cover of benthic habitat types
Index
Coral abundance, fish abundance, coral
richness, fish richness, visibility
Sand cover, coral cover, coral richness,
fish richness, schools of fish, reef
structural complexity
Coral cover, reef distance to shore,
topographic complexity
Choice model
Preference
survey
Regression
model
Mumby et al.
2008
Wielgus et al.
2003
Uyarra et al.
2009
Pendleton 1994
97
-------
Table 5-6. (continued)
Ecosystem Service Metric
Fisheries Production
Relative value of finfish;
relative production of curios
and jewelry
Habitat value for fish production
Key commercial fish biomass
Commercial fish biomass
Natural Products Production
Potential for bio-prospecting
discovery
Pharmaceutical product potential
Reef Ecosystem Attributes
Relative cover of benthic habitat types
Connectivity between mangrove and coral
Snapper and grouper biomass
Benthic habitat cover
Macroalgae cover, coral Cover, fish
abundance, coral richness, fish richness
Relative cover of benthic habitat types;
sponge richness
Method
Index
Geospatial
algorithm
Metric
Differential
equations
Index
Index
Source
Mumby et al.
2008
Mumby 2006
Healthy Reefs
Initiative 2010
Aultetal. 2005
van Beukering
and Cesar 2004
Mumby et al.
2008
Methods for quantifying production of commercially important fish species have included
characterizing reef habitat (Mumby et al. 2008) and, in particular, connectivity between
reefs and mangroves (Mumby 2006). In lieu offish habitat assessments, fish production is
often assessed more directly through monitoring and modeling of commercially important
fish species populations over time (Ault et al. 2005; McField and Kramer 2007; Paddack et
al. 2009). Although there are no established protocols for estimating pharmaceutical
potential from reef attributes (Principe et al. 2012), natural product potential has been
linked to the presence of certain faunal groups, such as sponges, or high-density sessile
organisms and habitats (Mumby et al. 2008) as well as metrics of reef integrity (van
Beukering and Cesar 2004). Metrics of reef integrity combine indicators of reef health to
quantify healthy reef structure and function (McField and Kramer 2007).
In addition to coral reefs, stakeholders identified concern for other natural resources in
their watershed. Several methods are available for translating terrestrial ecosystem
condition into ecosystem service production (Table 5-7). In many cases, biophysical
indicators of ecosystem services production are used to represent final ecosystem goods
and services (e.g. rates of carbon sequestration to represent atmospheric regulation).
98
-------
Table 5-7. List of key terrestrial ecosystem services for the Guanica watershed and
production function methods for linking them to changes in environmental condition.
Ecosystem Service Metric
Atmospheric pollution
removal
Atmospheric regulation
Water regulation
Hydropower production
Nutrient retention
Sediment retention
Fisheries production
Ecotourism
Recreational opportunities
Crop production
Ecosystem Attributes
Tree canopy coverage;
landuse/landcover
Rates of carbon sequestration;
landuse/landcover
Rates of denitrification;
landuse/landcover
Soil depth; precipitation;
landuse/landcover
Soil depth; precipitation;
landuse/landcover
Soil erodibility; slope;
precipitation; landuse/landcover
Benthic habitat cover;
Commercial fish biomass
Charismatic species; habitat
suitability models;
landuse/landcover;
Location and length of beaches
Rates of crop production;
landuse/landcover
Method
Biophysical
model
Metric
Metric
Biophysical
model
Biophysical
model
Biophysical
model
Index
Habitat
suitability
models
Metric
Metric
Source
Russell etal.
2013
Russell etal.
2013; Smith
2007
Russell etal.
2013
Tallis etal. 2013
Tallis etal. 2013
Tallis etal. 2013
Mumby etal.
2008
Gould etal.
2008
Smith etal. in
review
USDA2009
EPA is applying the EPF methods to estimate existing or baseline ecosystem services
provisioning in the Guanica watershed (Smith et al. in review). The production functions
will also be applied to evaluate how changes in landuse and landcover and benthic habitat
under alternative management options affect stakeholder objectives related to
provisioning of ecosystem services (Table 5-4). Similar studies for St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands have resulted in maps that predict production of reef ecosystem services (Fig. 5-5;
Yeeetal.2014b).
99
-------
a) Ecological integrity
Simplified Reel
Hejltri Index
1,6-2.2
2.2-2.8
2.8 - 3.2
13.2-4.0
b) Shoreline protection
ve energy
attenuation IT.)
0.0%
32.0%
38.0%
90.0%
9S.S%
c) Recreational opportunity
Relative
opportunity
lor E. striatas
sighting
0.0-0.1
0.14.3
0.3-0.5
0.5-0.6
0.64.9
d) Fisharies production
Relative
Tinfish value
0.2-0.5
0.5-0.8
0.8-1.1
1.1-1.4
1.4-1.7
s) Natural producls potential >;'
Spun,
richness (m |
0.34
0.60
O.M
1.8
Figure 5-5. Maps of predicted reef ecosystem service production around St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
(source: Yee et al. 2014b). See Table 5-6 for details of each metric.
100
-------
5.3.3 Social and economic benefits of coral reefs
At the Public Values Forum, stakeholders explicitly identified the economic value of
environmental resources as an objective that might be useful for decision-making, and
specifically an economic analysis of coral reefs as a priority action (Chapter 4, Fig. 4-6).
Several derived ecosystem services benefits were identified that could be used as
performance measures of economic objectives (Table 5-8). While ecosystem services
production functions (EPF) estimate the potential production of ecosystem services, the
actual derived benefits depend on additional factors such as demand, accessibility, and
substitutability.
Table 5-8. Identification of performance measures related to valuation of ecosystem
goods and services that align with stakeholder objectives identified in the Public Values
Forum. Metrics on the right do not necessarily align directly with objectives on the left.
Workshop Objectives
Derived Ecosystem Services Benefits
Economy
Demonstrate economic value of ecosystem services
Promote community economic benefits
Increase sustainable economic development
Promote eco-tourism
Restore commercial and sport fisheries
Economic value of natural hazard protection
Economic impact of recreation by residents
and visitors
Resident and visitor use rates
Cultural value of ecosystems
Economic value of commercial fishing
Due to their open-access nature and benefits to the public good, coral reefs have often
been undervalued in decision-making (Brander et al. 2009). The economic values of some
services (e.g., commercial fishing) are established in markets, while others have
nonmarket values for local, state/regional and national/international segments of the
population (Table 5-9; Principe et al. 2012). Stakeholders in the Decision-Making
Workshop (Section 4.2) recognized the importance of ecosystem conservation as a means
for sustainable extraction of goods (market value and economic reasons) and less so for
non-market values; and participants at the Decision Workshop spent a day characterizing
non-market ecosystem values. Participants at both workshops expressed the desire for an
ecotourism economy, indicating an appreciation for nonmarket values if they are tied to
economic opportunity.
101
-------
Table 5-9. Economic benefits provided by coral reefs (sources: Principe et al. 2012;
Beaumont et al. 2008; Burke et al. 2008; Cesar 2002; Cesar and Chong 2005; David et al.
2007; Ghermandi et al. 2009; Moberg and Folke 1999; Naber et al. 2008; Nunes et al.
2009; Remoundou et al. 2009; Spurgeon 1992).
Direct extractive uses
1. Commercial fishing
2. Subsistence fishing
3. Aquarium fish
4. Sport fishing
5. Coral jewelry
6. Pharmaceutical
harvesting
7. Non-pharmaceutical
harvesting
Direct
Non-extractive uses
1. Scuba diving
2. Snorkeling
3. Boating
4. Pharmaceutical
chemicals
5. Non-pharmaceutical
natural products
6. Surfing
7. Underwater
photography
8. Viewing nature and
wildlife
9. Beach sunbathing
10. Collecting objects
Indirect uses
1. Fish habitat
2. Nutrients
3. Reduced flooding
4. Less storm damage
5. Fewer deaths from
storms and flooding
6. Reduced erosion from
storms and flooding
7. Mangrove & seagrass
protection
8. Sea life nursery
protection
9. Global life support
Non-Uses
1. Existence value
2. Cultural value
3. Option value
4. Quasi-option value
5. Bequest value
6. Instrumental value
7. Intrinsic value
8. Scientific value
9. Scarcity value
Most studies have focused on market benefits, which are relatively easy to incorporate in
trade-off analyses. But there are also methods to estimate nonmarket benefits of coral
reefs. EPA is applying several of these methods to estimate the market and nonmarket
value of coral reef ecosystem goods and services and, in the case of tourism and
recreation, is collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to conduct a market and nonmarket
valuation of coral reef-based tourism and recreation in Puerto Rico. The approach focuses
on three areas, commercial fisheries, shoreline protection and tourism as represented by
resident and visitor perceptions of coral reefs. The methods are outlined in greater detail
below.
Commercial fisheries. The Fisheries Research Laboratory (FRL) of the Puerto Rico
Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) disseminates monthly
commercial fisheries catch statistics based on fish landing data from commercial
fishermen, fish buyers and fishing associations. In addition to this commercial fisheries
monitoring effort, several studies have been conducted on the recreational fisheries of
Puerto Rico (Agar et al. 2005; Shivlani and Koeneke 2010).
102
-------
Using the FRL and DNER spatial data, EPA will apply the Economic Valuation Methodology
V3.0, developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) to calculate the economic
contribution of reef-associated fisheries for Puerto Rico (WRI 2009). To support the
validity of these results, the same methodologies will be used to calculate the economic
contribution based on fish productivity of reef area. Where data are available, the
economic contribution of fish processing and cleaning, as well as local, non-commercial
fishing will be calculated.
In addition to the direct economic impact of Puerto Rican Fisheries, EPA will also calculate
the indirect economic impact using an economic multiplier to account for other economic
activities that are enabled by the fishery (e.g. boat building, constructing fishing gear,
etc.). Multiple methods and data sources will be used where necessary to adequately
represent uncertainty around data and results.
Shoreline protection. Coral reefs form natural barriers along the coast, protecting
coastlines from erosion, flooding and storm damage (WRI 2009). EPA will value shoreline
protection based on an avoided cost approach for storm damage (Farber et al. 2002),
which is similar to the valuation method developed by WRI for Jamaica (Maxam et al.
2011). The methods involve using spatial elevation data to identify vulnerable areas based
on storm surge and wave heights associated with 25-year storm events. The level of
service provided for coastal areas protected by coral reefs is modeled, using a biophysical
process model, as a change in the area vulnerable to inundation (Sheppard et al. 2005).
Although this varies from the method used for Jamaica, the same protection
quantification method was used by WRI in the Dominican Republic (Wielgus et al. 2010).
The economic value of shoreline protection is then estimated by determining the property
values in areas identified as both vulnerable and protected by coral reefs to estimate the
reduction in potential damage attributable to the coral reefs. The damage avoided will be
the proportion of property value that is damaged based on the level of inundation, which
can be estimated using Federal Emergency Management Agency 'depth-to-damage'
curves for Puerto Rico (Davis and Skaggs 1992).
Coral reef-based tourism and recreation. EPA and NOAA, in partnership with the
University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Sea Grant, and local agencies and communities are
conducting a study to provide the economic valuation information for Puerto Rico's reef-
associated tourism and recreation. This project will estimate the use and associated
market and non-market economic value and how those values are altered with changes in
reef attributes (e.g. water clarity/visibility, coral abundance and diversity, fish and
invertebrate abundance and diversity). Illustrations of high, medium and low coral reef
conditions (Fig. 5-6) were developed using data from EPA's 2010 and 2011 coral reef
surveys, and information developed during the expert workshops.
103
-------
Figure 5-6. Illustrations depicting: High Condition, Medium Condition, and Low Condition, to be used
as visual aids during the economic valuation surveys. Note: in each illustration, all attributes are
represented at the same condition level (illustrations by Daniel Irizarri Oquendo, Puerto Rico SeaGrant),
104
-------
The project is addressing 25 issues of local importance related to natural resource
attributes (e.g. water clarity/visibility, coral cover, fish abundance, fish diversity), facilities
(e.g. boat ramps, marina facilities, mooring buoys, beach access, beach quality, availability
of public restrooms, cleanliness of streets and/or sidewalks) and services (friendliness of
people, value for the price, availability of tour guides, public transportation, parking,
maps). This list of issues has been customized to issues of importance in Puerto Rico.
Survey respondents are being asked how important they feel each issue is to them, and
how satisfied they were with their tourist or recreational experience.
The project is conducting separate surveys of visitors and residents. Visitors are being
asked a few short questions when departing Puerto Rico (e.g. airports) during two
different seasons-winter and summer, and based on demographic and use information,
recruited to internet-based surveys. Residents will be surveyed through a probabilistic
survey by short in-house face-to-face interviews, and then asked to mail back a longer
survey questionnaire.
Data will be analyzed and reported at the whole territory level, as well as for five (5)
sub-regions (northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest, and the islands of Vieques
and Culebra) (Fig. 5-7). Survey respondents' time and values will be attributed to region(s)
based upon their responses. This will provide economic information in support of Puerto
Rico's four (4) coral reef priority areas (Culebra, the Northeast Reserves, Cabo Rojo and
Guanica).
Legend
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
0 5 10 20 Miles
Figure 5-7. The economic valuation of Puerto Rico's coral reef-based tourism and recreation will be
analyzed and reported at the whole territory scale, as well as for five (5) sub-regions: northeast (green),
southeast (pink), northwest (blue), southwest (lavender), and the islands of Vieques and Culebra (yellow)
(credit for map layers: Regional boundaries from the PR Ministry of Tourism.)
105
-------
5.3.4 Effects of water quality and availability on human health
In addition to environmental objectives, such as restoring coral habitat and ecosystem
services, stakeholders at the three EPA workshops also identified a number of human
health objectives and identified a need for public education and citizen involvement
(Table 5-10).
Table 5-10. A subset of objectives that reflect the social concerns of stakeholders at the
three Guanica EPA Workshops.
Objectives | Measures | Actions
Environmental
Improve water quality Nutrients, Coliforms Educate community
Convert WWTP to tertiary
Social
Promote education Environmental attitude, Promote pro-environmental attitudes,
Community involvement Promote capacity building in communities
Improve health Connection to WWTP Increase participation in PRASA, Conduct
studies on key health issues, Survey home
owners
Promote sustainable Demonstration projects Create opportunities for public involvement
communities
Sanitation. EPA has initiated a project to increase public and community awareness of
sanitation issues in the lower Guanica watershed by initiating a Citizen Science project to
survey water quality and sewage infrastructure. As a part of the Region 2 Citizen Science
Program, the University of Puerto Rico has assembled groups of citizen volunteers (4-H
Club members) and trained them to collect water samples from targeted locations
throughout the Guanica Bay/Rio Loco area (Fig. 5-8). University of Puerto Rico obtained
georeferenced land use data from the Puerto Rico Governmental Portal for Geographic
data (PR 2015) and clipped the land use data in ArcGIS to the Lajas Valley and Rio Loco
watersheds so that linkage can be made among nutrients, fecal contamination and land-
use (Rodriguez et al 2014).
106
-------
Figure 5-8. Volunteer 4-H Club members take water samples for the Region 2 Citizen Science Program
testing for water quality in southwestern Puerto Rico (photo credit: Cristina Lopez, DPR).
Data are being analyzed to identify unsanitary conditions and any point or non-point
sources of contamination. Participating citizens will further characterize those high-risk
areas by documenting the type of treatment (i.e., septic, wastewater treatment plant) and
condition of sewer infrastructure. Mapping the results will help to identify risks associated
with potential contact and ingestion exposures. Public awareness is expected to increase
as citizens recognize the situations that lead to unsanitary conditions, where those
unsanitary conditions are and what is causing them. It is anticipated that an informed
citizenry will be better prepared to make decisions relating to bacterial and (by
extrapolation) nutrient pollution effectively and efficiently. It is believed that this could
serve as a model for additional projects to improve citizen awareness and action toward
reducing sanitation problems across Puerto Rico.
In Section 5.4, we discuss two useful tools for integrating expert opinions, empirical data,
and predictive models for evaluating the effects of different decision alternatives on
stakeholder objectives.
5.4 Decision-support tools for evaluating alternatives
Information, data, and models are being integrated into decision-support tools to predict
effects of alternative management scenarios on environmental, social, and economic
endpoints. Two possible modeling approaches are presented here, Bayesian Belief
(probability) Networks and spatially-explicit dynamic models.
107
-------
5.4.1 Bayesian networks
Environmental management decisions are characterized by high uncertainty (Gregory et
al. 2012; NAS 2013). Uncertainties can arise from a number of sources including lack of
data, data measurement error, model assumptions, or even from ineffective
communication. Workshops to clarify objectives and performance measures (Chapter 4)
can help to alleviate sources of uncertainty by helping to more rigorously define
stakeholder goals and eliminate ambiguity and vagueness. Identifying and quantifying
uncertainties can bring insight to a decision, can help prioritize information needs, can
help to explore the risk tolerance of decision-makers and can identify where additional
information may be needed (Rehr et al. 2014). Scientific research should reduce
uncertainties by providing information, data, and models (Section 5.3). The value of
information provided by scientific research can be evaluated by tracking probabilities
(measures of uncertainty) for outcomes of different decisions.
Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) are particularly helpful in problems characterized by high
levels of uncertainty among experts. BBNs begin with a simple conceptual model
representing cause and effect relationships between variables, and subsequently quantify
the relationships among the variables using probabilities (Fig. 5-9). BBNs allow the
conditional probabilities to be quantified independently, based on combinations of: (1)
empirical data, (2) statistical associations derived from historical data, (3) mathematical
representations of dominant mechanistic processes, and (4) probabilistic quantities
elicited from scientific experts (Woolridge et al. 2005).
Decision
Stressor
Figure 5-9. Nodes (typically displayed as circles or boxes) in a Bayesian belief
network (BBN) represent random variables, and arcs (displayed as arrows)
are used to indicate a conditional relationship between the parent and child
nodes (Kjaerulff and Madsen 2008). Arrows are described by conditional
probabilities, and may be derived from expert opinion, statistical models, or
mechanistic models.
Endpoint
A hypothetical example will demonstrate some of the inferences that might be made
using a BBN for management decisions.
108
-------
Reservoir sedimentation. An issue identified in the Public Values Forum was the
availability of fresh water for domestic purposes. Puerto Rico is an island with relatively
small watersheds and little natural water storage (e.g., lakes and ponds). Consequently,
numerous reservoirs have been built to supply water for irrigation and domestic
purposes. However, development and farming in the mountains has caused soil erosion
that is filling in many Puerto Rico reservoirs with sediment. This general phenomenon is
also seen in the Guanica region.
Figure 5-10. Lago Lucchetti in southwestern Puerto Rico receives water from its watershed as well as
through a tunnel from upstream reservoirs (photo courtesy of Autoridad de Energia Electrica de Puerto
Rico; URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pr/nwis/uv?site_no=50125780). The reservoir (20.35 Mm3 volume)
stores water for irrigation and domestic purposes.
In the 1950s, as part of the Southwestern Puerto Rico Project, five reservoirs and
interconnecting tunnels and canals were built for the multiple purposes of irrigation,
water supply, power generation and flood control. The fourth in this string of reservoirs,
and one of the largest, is Lago Lucchetti (Fig. 5-10). Sediment has filled in the reservoirs
such that, collectively, they can store only about half the water they originally held (Webb
and Soler-Lopez 1997; Soler-Lopez 2001, 2002; Soler-Lopez and Webb 1999). Although
erosion is a natural process, some of the sediment undoubtedly originates from coffee
farms and other human development. When the eroded soil is washed by rainfall into a
reservoir, it is either trapped in the reservoir or transported downstream. If it is
transported downstream it clogs irrigation canals, reshapes rivers, and degrades biological
habitats. In this sense, the reservoirs have not only provided agricultural and domestic
water storage, but protected downstream environmental and economic interests from
some sediment pollution. However, as the reservoirs fill in with sediment, their trapping
efficiency decreases (a smaller proportion of incoming sediment is trapped) and more
sediment is transported downstream.
109
-------
The Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) proposed two actions to
address sediment accumulation in the reservoirs: dredging the reservoirs and converting
coffee-farming areas from sun-grown to shade-grown cultivation. The latter was intended
to increase foliage and thereby reduce soil erosion from coffee farms. As part of its
information gathering effort to estimate consequences, EPA used a Bayesian Belief
Network (BBN) model to estimate the effects of these two options on sediment
accumulation in the reservoirs (Bousquin et al. 2014). This was conducted using reservoir
life expectancy (before the reservoir fills in completely) as the endpoint.
For the reservoir study, EPA first established a conceptual model (Fig. 5-11) that
characterized the annual sedimentation of Lago Lucchetti, which drains the sub-
watershed that has the greatest amount of coffee farming. The conceptual model
identified the major factors in sediment trapping: rainfall, land use, incoming water and
incoming sediment. This model is complicated by the fact that Lago Lucchetti has
incoming water and sediment from its watershed as well as through a tunnel from
upstream reservoirs.
Watershed Water
Inflow to LL
Precipitation in LL
Watershed
Watershe<
diment Input
to LL
Soil Type
It-
Sediment
Input from
Tunnel
Figure 5-11. Conceptual diagram of model to estimate the life expectancy of Lago Lucchetti (LL) under two
management options: coffee conversion and reservoir dredging (adapted from Bousquin et al 2014).
The conceptual model was recast quantitatively in a BBN using a variety of measures and
relationships between nodes (Fig. 5-12). The software package Netica (Norsys 2010;
Carriger et al. 2011) was used to develop the BBN, where arrows represent the
conditional relationships among variables. Each of the variable nodes contains
probabilities expressed as percentages and illustrated as 'belief bars' (horizontal
histograms). Empirical data and models can be used to define the initial probabilities of
variables such as precipitation and water flow (yellow boxes, Fig. 5-12). A user can define
their certainty that a certain scenario will be implemented, for example 100% certainty
that the conversion implementation will remain at status quo or that the starting water
110
-------
storage capacity was at a certain level (light blue boxes, Fig. 5-12). Netica then updates
the probabilities in the other nodes (tan boxes, Fig. 5-12), which contain equations to
calculate the probabilities of conditional relationships. The resulting model was a
probabilistic model that could account for effects of dredging and coffee conversion,
singly or together, on sediment accumulation in Lago Lucchetti.
Water Flow From Upper Reservoirs
Average
High
22 2
54.1
23.6
i
48.1 + 26
1
F
Total Inflow of Water (Mm3)
Oto20
20 to 40
40 to 60
60 to 80
80 to 100
100(0120
120to140
140to160
160to180
180 to 200
>=200
1 ?n
7.94
16.3
26.4
24.2
10.6
5.81
339
137
1.14
1.58
i
83.6 ± 38
/
Annual Precipitation (mm)
Oto1518 15.7
151 8 to 1897 34.2
1837 to 2276 34.2
>-2276 159
18104560
/
i i i
z
\
/ \
i/
Sediment (rapped in Lago Lutthetd (Mm*
0 to 0.025 0.17
0.025 to 0.05 0.17
0.05 to 0.075 0.17
0.075 to 0.1 0.17
0.11)0.11 .070
0.11 to 0.12
m
0.12to0.13 0.25
0.13to0.14 0.53
0.14to0.15 0.63
ri'KtrtniR n aq
Start Water Storage Capacity (TO) Mm3
Construction 1 952
Survey 1986
Survey 2000
Dredge 2000
1
0 Til
ON
o ^^^
oJTTj
r
End Water Storage Capacity (T1) (Mnili
0 to 11.4
11.4to11.5
11.5to11.6
11.6to11.65
11. 65 to 11. 7
11.7 (011.75
11. 75 to 11. 8
11.8to11.85
11.85 to 115
11.9to18.2
18.2to18.3
18.3 to 18,4
18.4to18.45
18.45 to 18.5
18.5to18.55
18.55 to 18.6
18.6to18.65
18.65 to 18.7
18.7 to 19,9
19.9 to20
20 to 20.1
20.1 to 20 .15
20.15to20.2
20.2 to 20.25
20.25 to 20.3
20.3 to 20.35
20.35 to 20.4
.036
1.61
20.0
41.2 ^^m I
29.4 i
6.59 1 |
0.55 I
0.34 i
0.21
0
0 I
0
0 I
0
0
0 !
0
0
0
0
0
0 I
0
0 i
0
0 !
0 I
11. 63*0.14
I/
Conversion Implementation
Status Quo
Partial Implementation
Full Implementation
\
«
i
0
0
0
i i i
Total Sediment Delivery (mf/yt)
Oto1.4e5
1.4e5to1.8e5
1.8e5to2e5
2e5to2.1e5
2.1e5to2.2e5
2.2e5to2.3e5
2.3e5to2.35e5
2.35e5to2.4e5
2.4e5to2.45e5
2.45e5to2.5e5
2.5e5to2.55e5
2.55e5to2.6e5
2.6e5to2.65e5
2.65e5to2.7e5
2.7e5to2.8e5
2.8e5to2.95e5
2.95e5to3.1e5
3.1e5to3.3e5
3.3e5to3.7e5
3.7e5to4.85e5
>=4.85e5
278000
0.88
2.39
4.81
3.64
3.11
2.23
2.06
3.06
3.74
4.18
4.41
4.54
4.28
3.45
4.14
10.6
13.0
9.53
11.9
4.06
.015
1
i 60000
«-
Sediment From Upper Reservoirs
0 to 2500
2500 to 5000
5000(07500
7500(010000
10000(012500
12500(015000
15000(017500
17500(020000
s= 20000
2.64
7.93
13.2
18.5
21.8
17.2
11.6
6.09
1.0
,
B i
^_ I
^^m i
^^^m i
^^m i
^m \
m i
10800 + 4500
Reservoir Life Expectancy (Yrs to 0)
<0
0(010
10(025
25(050
50 to 75
75(0 100
>=100
0
.013
0.10
60.4
36.6
2.12
0.83
if
48.3 + 16
Figure 5-12. Bayesian belief network (BBN) model derived from the conceptual model in Fig. 5-10
and showing distributions of probabilities for life expectancy (in years) of Lago Lucchetti under
two management options: conversion to shade-grown coffee (Conversion Implementation node)
and reservoir dredging (Start Water Storage Capacity node, reflecting potential dredging levels)
(source: Bousquin et al, 2014).
Ill
-------
The results from this model (Bousquin et al. 2014) can be summarized in a simple
consequence table, looking at the effects of different management options on a
performance measure, in this case the life expectancy of the reservoir (Table 5-11).
Results indicated that conversion of all the existing sun-grown coffee acreage in the
Lucchetti watershed to Shade-grown cultivation would create only a minor decline in
sedimentation of the reservoir. Dredging the reservoir would obviously re-set the clock on
sedimentation and would greatly extend the life expectancy.
Table 5-11. Life Expectancy of Lago Lucchetti reservoir under different management
scenarios.
Lago Lucchetti Life Expectancy
Management Option
Toffee conversion
No conversion
Partial Conversion
Full Conversion
**Dredging
No dredging
50% of sediment
100% of sediment
Combined
Partial Conversion/ 50% dredge
Partial Conversion/ 100% dredge
Full Conversion/ 50% dredge
Full Conversion/ 100% dredge
Years beyond 2000
48.3 ± 16
51.7 ± 17
56.1 ±18
48.3 ± 16
74.8 ± 18
80.5 ± 19
78.7 ± 19
84.6 ± 18
83.1 ±19
88.9 ± 18
*0ptions include no, partial (50%) or full conversion of sun-grown coffee acreage to
shade-grown coffee
**0ptions include dredging 50% and 100% of the sediment in the year 2000, when the last
sediment accumulation data were available
This example represents predictions regarding a single stakeholder objective - it is not
uncommon with multi-objective decisions to build predictive models separately for each
objective (Marcot et al. 2012). Consideration of the tradeoffs across multiple objectives
may require integrating a number of different predictive models into the analysis. BBNs
can accommodate both quantitative and qualitative data and can be built in a modular
fashion. This means that additional nodes can be added as greater detail is required or
new science gaps are uncovered. A BBN allows decision makers to start with a simple
model and allow it to get more complex as the need arises.
5.4.2 Spatially dynamic modeling with Envision
When estimating consequences of alternatives, variability in space and time can make
outcomes difficult to predict (Gregory et al. 2012). For some decisions, spatially-explicit
models may be important for better understanding consequences. For example, there is a
spatial element to agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as hydroseeding,
112
-------
reforestation, or riparian buffers. The location and spatial extent of these actions can have
consequences for the outcomes of decision alternatives on stakeholder objectives.
In the past several decades there has been a dramatic increase in the use of scientific,
quantitative methods for informing landscape change (e.g., Geographic Information
Systems, CIS) and decision-making in the presence of high uncertainty. 'Envision' is a
CIS-based tool for scenario-based community and regional planning and environmental
assessments (Fig. 5-13), created to allow examination of the nature and properties of
coupled human and natural environmental systems (Bolte 2009; Yee et al. 2012b).
Figure 5-13. Screenshot of Envision decision-support tool.
Central to Envision are three-way interactions of independent actors, the landscape that is
changed as these decisions are made, and the policies that guide and constrain decisions
(Fig. 5-14). Actors are entities that make decisions (decision-makers) about the
management of particular portions of the landscape for which they have management
authority. Policy sets describe a list of potential decision alternatives the actors may
choose to implement or be required to implement, and may reflect a given future
scenario being modeled, such as comparing the suite of alternatives in a management
plan vs. the status quo. The actors must balance a set of objectives reflecting their
particular values, mandates, and the policy sets in force on the parcels they manage.
113
-------
They do this within the scope of policy sets that are consistent with the assumptions
and intentions of a chosen future scenario. These policies are operative on particular
landscape elements over which they have decision-making control.
Landscape Production Models
Actors
Decision-makers managing the
landscape by selecting policies
responsive to their objectives
Generating Landscape Metrics
Reflecting "Stuff People Care About'
e.g. Water Scarcity, Habftat, Jobs
Multiagent
Decision-making
Landscape
Scenario
Definition
Select policies and
gene rate land
management
decision affecting
landscape pattern
Spatial Container in
which landscape
changes, ES
Metrics are
depicted
Fundamental Descriptors of
constraints and actions defining
land use management decision-
making
Landscape Dynamics Models
Models of Non-anthropogenic and anthropogenic Landscape
Change Processes (e.g. hydrology, veg dynamics...)
Figure 5-14. Envision's conceptual framework. Envision includes a powerful "multiagent modeling"
subsystem that allows for the representation of human decision-makers in landscape simulations. Envision
"actors" make management decisions in parallel with landscape change models using a variety of decision
models that can reflect actor values and incorporate landscape feedbacks.
Envision represents a landscape as a set of polygon-based CIS maps and associated
information containing spatially-explicit depictions of landscape attributes and patterns.
Taken as a modeling approach, Envision employs a spatially-explicit multi-agent construct
that models relationships of actor's values and behaviors, policy intentions, and landscape
metrics of production, as the actors attempt to achieve the outcomes they value.
For development of a tool to explore watershed management scenarios for the Guanica
watershed, models of projected human population change in southwestern Puerto Rico
must be integrated with projected changes in landuse and landcover (Fig. 5-14). Envision
spatially displays landscape data including landuse/landcover, human population density,
and benthic habitats (Fig. 5-15A). Model plug-ins describe how socio-economic changes in
human population density lead to changes in landcover (Fig. 5-15B). Changes in landcover
potentially have consequences for sediment and nutrient runoff into the coastal zone,
which can be modeled with water system models using the 'Flow' framework within
Envision, which uses hydrological models (Bergstrom 1992) to model sediment and
nutrient export into the coastal zone (Fig. 5-15C). Ecosystem models describe how
changes in landuse affect natural resources (Fig. 5-15D).
114
-------
The Corset model for coral reef dynamics is used to link stressors derived from coastal
development, marine stressors (e.g. overfishing), and climate stressors (e.g. hurricanes),
to coral condition (Melbourne-Thomas 2010). Ecosystem services production functions
(see Tables 5-6, 5-7) can then be used to project how changes in coastal condition or
landcover may affect the production of ecosystem goods and services such as fisheries or
recreational opportunities. Once the Guanica data layers and models are incorporated
into Envision, it can be used as a tool with stakeholders and decision-makers to help
visualize the consequences to key endpoints of alternative decision scenarios (Fig. 5-
15A/B/C/D).
Landscape Data
Land Use/Land Cover
Streams, DEMs, Roac
Soils
Population Density Pattern
Population Growth
MPA.Benthic Habitat,
Brooder/Spawner cover,
C Water System Models
Rainfall Runoff
Hydrology
Sediment Export
USLE
Nitrogen Export
(TBD)
Socio economic Models
Figure 5-15 A/B/C/D. Illustration of Envision input models for the Guanica Bay watershed.
5.5 Evaluating trade-offs, implementation and monitoring
Once a consequence table is populated with the best available information from models
and expert judgment and clear win-win alternatives cannot be found, the next step in the
decision process is to explore tradeoffs that stakeholders are willing to make among the
objectives; in other words, how much of one objective are they willing to sacrifice to have
more of another (Keeney 1992). In a decision analysis approach, a key goal is to
implement decisions that optimally combine value-based tradeoffs, which reflect the
opinions of stakeholders, with technical trade-offs derived from outcomes of expert-
based assessments, which can include science and local knowledge (Gregory et al. 2012).
Although facts (e.g. information, models, data, expert judgment) are used to populate the
consequence table, the ultimate decision is informed by the trade-offs from stakeholder
values.
115
-------
Methods such as direct ranking and swing weighting can be used to examine trade-offs
holistically and in a decomposed manner (Gregory et al. 2012). In swing weighting,
participants are asked to assign importance points to different performance measures to
reflect their relative importance by their preference for "swinging" from a worst-case to a
best-case condition (von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986; Failing et al. 2007). Importance
weights are then combined to provide a score S for each alternative (k) described in the
consequence table (Table 4-5), under simplifying assumptions as
where i/i// are the weights assigned to each objective and L// are the values of each
performance measure, scaled from 0 to 1, predicted for each alternative in the
consequence table. Though these methods are highly quantitative, the goal of these
methods is generally to provide greater insight to the deliberation process, not to
quantitatively define a solution (Gregory et al. 2012). An example is shown in Table 5-12.
Table 5-12. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the
worst-case scenario to best-case scenario (derived from Tables 4-5,4-6 and 4-7) might
be considered in a swing-weighting exercise. Individuals would assign ranks and weights
based on their own values and preferences, here for example, for someone who highly
values protecting economic opportunities.
Objectives
Protect and create
economic
opportunities
Restore and
conserve the land
environment
Restore and
conserve the
aquatic
environment
Promote social &
cultural
opportunities
Performance
Measure
$ '/hectare of crop
production
$ of jobs created
Cost of water
infrastructure
Index of species
biodiversity
% reduction in soil
erosion
Water turbidity
Diversity of aquatic life
ft of recreation
activities
Hectares forested
Environmental attitude
% people connected to
wastewater treatment
plants
Best-case
scenario
\
\ Fr
conse
ta
/
Worst-case
scenario
om/
quence
ble
\
Rank
1
4
3
2
Weight (%)
50
10
20
20
116
-------
Multi-attribute approaches are also generally more satisfying than strict cost-benefit
methods, which emphasize a comparison of options expressed in monetary terms (Failing
et al. 2007). Methods for exploring tradeoffs are particularly valuable in facilitating
discussion, identifying areas of agreement, identifying areas where further dialogue or
information may be needed, and improving the quality of value judgments by participants
by ensuring they were well informed of the facts and explicit about tradeoffs (Failing et al.
2007). As decisions are implemented, the performance measures that align with
stakeholder objectives (see Chapter 4) should be monitored to gauge the success of
implementation and the need for corrective actions or reassessment of the decision
context.
5.6 Summary
Consequence tables (Table 4-7, Table 5.11) provide a useful tool for examining how
different alternatives may affect the objectives. Because consequence tables focus on the
relative performance of alternatives, they can help to focus the conversation on obtaining
the information needed to estimate consequences (Gregory et al. 2012). Although the full
consequence table (Table 4-7) was not explicitly populated in support of an extensive
tradeoff analysis for the Guanica watershed, EPA research has been addressing a number
of key uncertainties toward a better understanding of potential consequences of
management actions both on coral reefs and throughout the watershed. In many cases,
there may be budget or time limitations toward fully populating consequence tables with
models and data. However the most important role of a consequence table often isn't an
extensive quantitative analysis of alternatives, but instead to identify uncertainties where
more information is needed, expose key trade-offs, and provide a communication tool for
stakeholders and decision-makers.
117
-------
-------
Chapter 6. Tools Supporting the Decision
The preceding chapters outline a structured decision process (SDM), and its use via
interaction with stakeholders and decision-makers to inform the key steps in the process,
such as decision context, objective hierarchies, valuation and tradeoffs. The events
described and information developed provides an example of a "requisite modeling
approach". Requisite modeling entails building a model that contains all the necessary
context and information essential for resolving a particular problem (French et al. 2009;
Philips 1984). The process of building the model creates new questions and insights that
add to the problem description. Through collaboration and iteration a common
understanding of the problem is achieved; this is a requisite model. From this model new
future alternatives for management can be evaluated.
Requisite modeling (Philips 1984):
Captures the multi-faceted nature of a decision problem
Uses consultation and collaboration to arrive at a shared understanding
of a decision context
Adapts to new insights until stakeholders agree
The requisite model can then be used to create and evaluate new
alternative futures
While SDM is highly beneficial to structuring environmental management problems,
integrating, analyzing, and displaying information generated from that process could be
greatly enhanced through computerized tools designed to support decision-makers.
Developing requisite models using tools that facilitate and track the SDM process are
described in this chapter.
6.1 Practical approaches to support decision-makers
A key component of SDM includes the concepts and practices of decision analysis
(Gregory et al. 2012), which are fundamental to a requisite model. Decision analysis has
three broad areas of study (French et al. 2009)-normative, descriptive, and prescriptive
(Fig. 6-1). Normative decision analysis is concerned with decision models subject to
mathematical rigor, and descriptive decision analysis captures the psychology of why and
how people make decisions. Prescriptive decision analysis seeks to provide decision
makers with the rationality of normative decision analysis tempered with the reality of
real decision-making.
119
-------
Three broad decision analysis study areas.
Normative decision theory studies what an ideal decision-maker
would choose.
Descriptive decision theory studies how decision-makers actually choose.
Prescriptive decision analysis studies how decision-makers can improve their
decision-making.
The merging of normative and descriptive approaches in a practical way (prescriptive)
enables the creation of requisite models that are rigorous and defensible, yet adaptable
to the way people really think and make decisions (Fig. 6-1). These ideas formalized in
computerized tools facilitate the effective application of analytical models like those
described in Chapter 5 in developing a decision model that is requisite for a particular
decision context. For large, complex decision contexts with multiple, widely dispersed
stakeholders (like the Guanica Bay watershed) it becomes necessary to organize and
communicate management deliberations and analysis effectively for timely decision-
making. Web-based decision-support tools consistent with SDM approaches are a
promising way to achieve this. The following gives a brief background on the technical
aspects and functional considerations in designing decision tools capable of supporting
environmental management issues like those faced by the stakeholders of Guanica Bay.
Normative
How we should
make decisons
Rational
'rescriptive
Seeks balance
between theory
and needs of
decision-maker
Practical
Descriptive
How we really do
make decisons
Behavioral
Figure 6-1. Decision analysis conceptual approach to requisite model development using decision-support
tools (adapted from French et al. 2009).
120
-------
6.2 Decision-support tool design: considerations and
characteristics
The development of computerized tools supporting SDM often includes integrated and
interacting functions geared towards aiding decision-makers. The general term used for
tools such as these is decision-support system (DSS). A DSS can incorporate several levels
of decision-making (Fig. 6-2). For Guanica Bay, a Level 3 DSS is most appropriate due to
the need to evaluate multiple alternatives under uncertainty. The decision analysis
method on the far right of Level 3 options is preferable for its flexibility in adapting to
specific and complex decision landscapes such as the one developed for Guanica Bay.
Levels of Decision Support
Level 3: Evaluation and ranking of
alternative strategies in the face of
uncertainty by balancing their
respective benefits and disadvantages.
Level 2: Simulation and analysis of
the consequences of potential
strategies; determination of their
feasibility and quantification of their
benefits and disadvantages.
Level 1: Analysis and forecasting
of the current and future
environment.
Level ft Acquisition, checking and
presentation of data, directly or with
minimal analysis, to nvis
^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
Relatively
Unstructured
Degree of Structure
Figure 6-2. Categorization of decision-support system (DSS) options based on degree of problem structure
and support delivered (source: Black and Stockton 2009). Decision Analysis (Level 3) is appropriate for
Guanica Bay issues because it allows more flexibility (relatively unstructured) in requisite model creation.
Other Level 3 approaches such as Operations Research (OR), Artificial Intelligence (Al), and Expert Systems,
also support evaluation of alternatives but are suited for more defined (structured) problems, e.g. disease
diagnosis, and industrial process efficiency.
Data Mining and
Statistical Analysis
Highly
Structured
Fig. 6-3 shows the basic set-up for a decision analysis DSS. Three components working
together provide decision support: the user interface, knowledge base, and inference
engine (Black and Stockton 2009). The user interface is what the user sees e.g. program
screen or webpage, of the DSS and should be designed to suit the operational needs and
preference of users. The knowledge base holds information necessary for informing the
decision problem, e.g. databases, and the means to access and manipulate it. This
knowledge is called upon and processed through models (inference engine) e.g. ENVISON,
BBNs. Together these components form a system supporting decision-making.
121
-------
Construction
Literature
Data Collection
txpert Judgment
Storage
Hat Hies
ROMS
->
<
s
Retrieval
Search Engine
Data Mining
->
Knowledge
Base
Probability
Uncertainty Ana lysis
Multi-criteria
Decision Analysis
Inference
Engine
-j User Interface
\
Decision Support
Figure 6-3. Generic architecture for a decision-support system (EPA 2012b; adapted from Black and
Stockton 2009).
As noted in Section 1, the Internet possesses inherent functionality that presents a
promising option for the development and application of decision-support tools.
Web-based architecture has the capacity to provide a knowledge base and user
interface inherent to a decision analysis DSS. Supplemented with open source
programming languages like R (CRAN 2013), the linkage of analytical tools and
inference models provide a framework for decision analysis (French et al. 2007;
Black and Stockton 2009, EPA 2012b).
6.3 Decision-support illustration: DASEES
EPA has initiated development of a Web-based application, Decision Analysis for a
Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) to facilitate the application of
structured decision-making (EPA 2012b). The following images (web page screen shots)
of the DASEES user interface illustrate its functionality in assisting the SDM process for
Guanica Bay. The images are for demonstration purposes and are not intended to convey
a full decision analysis using DASEES. The images contain much of the same information
presented in Section 2.5 of this report, but for clarity in a print format they are simplified
in content. The user works through the decision process in DASEES with a sidebar
navigation pane (Fig. 6-4). The steps in the sidebar pane are consistent with and support
the steps describes in this report, e.g., developing the decision landscape, objectives, etc.
122
-------
Decision Landscape information (Section 3.1) for Guanica Bay is entered directly into
the Decision Landscape page (Fig. 6-4) via typing or through the standard editing
(copy and paste) functions. This information can be in the form of text, figures,
videos, hyperlinks that are supported by the browser, i.e., Firefox, Chrome.
Guanica 2013
$) Understand Context
Overview
DOCUEKHI Uindftcapc
Current CondiDon
System Sketch
Social Netvvoik
Map
/fj Define Ob jectives
Overview
V Objectives
D
-1 Save o New a Octec Rename y Help
The Southwest Puerto Rico Project and the Lajas Valley Irrigation System
A component of Operation Bootstrap was to industrialize agriculture along the southern coast of
Puerto Rico by providing irrigation and cheap hydroelectric energy for pumping water onto fields. As
early as 1908, the South Coast Irrigation Service was formed to maximize farming potential, but
under its aegis only small irrigation projects were completed. In 1915 the first reservoir was built at
Carite (southeast Puerto Rico), which fostered sugar cane production and provided hydroelectric
power for water pumps. Similar plans had been prepared for the southwest by the Puerto Rico
"Utilization of the Water Resources" department, but these never matured, usually for lack of
funding.
In 1941, the department was changed to a public-private entity (Puerto Rico Water Resources
Authority) and with better funding planned and implemented the Southwest Puerto Rico Project
[SWP) and the Lajas Valley Irrigation System (LVIS), a series of five dams and an extensive irrigation
canal and drainage system (Fig. 2-7). The intent of these projects, at an anticipated cost of S32
million (1950 dollars), was to improve sugar cane production in the southwest coastal plain and
provide inexpensive hydroelectric power for farmers to pump irrigation water. The dams were
completed from 195 1-1956 and the irrigation system, including drainage of a large lagoon (Guanica
Lagoon, northwest of the Bay), was completed by 1961.
A' *' ' »
-^ \
w
Ridge
- V
GCSj
Guanica Bay
Rfcure 2-8. The Southwest Puerto Rico Project (blue arrows)
LOtisisted of five dams, three of which v. LTL- in watersheds that
wuuld otherwise flow to the north [see ndfjc line). The Ljjas
V'alley irrigation System (red arrows) consisted of a long canal
that diverted water from La^u l.oco across the Lajas Valley fur
irrigation, with .1 return dllth l> : ilramii^c mlo Guanica Uay.
The r.jUir J flow of KJO Loco jnd Ktu Uoquer6ri is shown (gotJ
arrows).
Figure 6-4. Contextual information for the Guanica Bay Decision Landscape in Decision Analysis for a
Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES).
SystemSketch is a tool embedded in DASEES that supports DPSIR-based systems thinking
(Section 3.3) about the decision context. It dynamically visualizes system connections
following the DPSIR framework to help stakeholders better understand system context.
The user begins by choosing a DPSIR category in the left-hand panel (Fig. 6-5) for which
they want to explore linkages shown in the right-hand panel. Linkages are pre-determined
based on existing scientific understanding and general in nature, i.e. not specific to a
user's context. The tool allows users to generate and follow linkages (akin to surfing
web-pages) to gain a new or better understanding of DPSIR systems connections.
123
-------
Guinka 3013
<$ Undentand Context
Overview
Dwison Landscape
Cuncnl Ccraiior
C0 System Sketch
Map
rf> Dct IX! ObjCCti.CS
Overview
I/ OOjearVCS
V Objective Preferences
^~ Devotee Optons
Overview
J Define Options
y Managcivenl Scenarios
,|| Evaluate Options
Overview
yf Conswuencc MottS
O TakeAcbon
DetUi«i landscape
Figure 6-5. SystemSketch tool in Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society
(DASEES) showing a linkage between the Pressure (P), Landscape Changes, and States (S) such as
Terrestrial Habitat, Built Environment, and Abiotic State. Clicking next on the Terrestrial Habitat node
would then open a new set of DPSIR categorized paths to follow. Linkages are further visually explored with
the intent to help identify unrecognized connections, missed objectives, possible performance measures,
and management actions.
Objective Hierarchies (Section 3.4) developed through workshops to elicit stakeholder
values (Section 5.3) are entered either directly in the Web interface or can developed in a
word processor document and imported into Define Objectives (Fig. 6-6). Large Objective
Hierarchies can be expanded and collapsed to view specific Objective Categories as
needed.
124
-------
DASEES ItehbnIniipUforaSKtdnaUtlmininment.honmj.aniSifrty *ion.brianeq>.
Guaniea 2013
$ Understand Context
Overview
Decision Landscape
Gjrrent Condtooo
System Sketch
Social Network
Map
fa Define Objectives
Overview
y Objectives
^ Develop Options
Overview
I* Define Options
Management Scenarios
,|| Evaluate Options
Overview
Consequence Tabte
Consequence Model
O TaioActon
Overview
Objective Results
Decision Landscape
\l". Objectives
jv) Save
. . fflS Project Data - & Logout ©1
. 0
Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy Objective Measure*
I fe New Ob)ective Delete Objecbve M H & New Measure Delete Measure
d t3 Sustainable Guanica Watershed - Measure Units
HUSKBl j CbWbms unknown
*LJ Process j 1^,1,,^ Urkw,n
jj Q Economy y Solids ! suspension unknown
4UEa*x,vU,xl ^ TurbidJty uiknown
* Reduce uncertamlv about outcomes o* management act.
Restore lagoon natural processes (absorption of nutrient- ..
it U Restore shallow water corai reefs Metuure Value Funct
« Improve mo^itorirrg ard fcedbdC^ of current actiors ,
f* Conttnix>us Wo
_ti 'U Reduce r>uman contamination
? Reduce jr,certaiPtv about outcomes o? management act } H,
Protect endangered and threatened marine speoes Q g _
* Protect mangrove habitats Q g
Protect marirx; habitat for migratory bifd « _
« Improve water quality
o Protect marine habitat for migratory bird
1 Improve water Quality fll
> 0,4 -
0.3-
0.2-
0.1 -
km N«tw
rat Case. 1 ' Best Case: 0
0,0e+0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0,6 0.7 1
Conforms (unknown)
Figure 6-6. Segment of the Guanica Bay Objective Hierarchy focusing on aquatic ecology. When the
objective Improve Water Quality is highlighted in the left-hand panel, specific measures to track
achievement the objective are listed in the right-hand panel.
An important feature in DASEES is the dependence of the three middle steps [Define
Objectives (fig. 6-6), Develop Options (fig. 6-7), and Evaluate Options (Fig. 6-8J] on input
from the prior step. This is to ensure that information and stakeholder deliberation from
each decision step is used in subsequent decision steps. For example, the measures
identified in Define Objectives are necessary in Evaluate Options to ensure that options
evaluation is linked directly to stakeholder driven objectives, which are ultimately a
reflection of their values.
125
-------
Guanica 2013
Q Understand Context
Overview
Deacon Landscape
Current Condition
System Sketch
Social Network
Map
g$l Def-ne Objectives
Overview
V Objectives
^ Objective Preferences
^ Develop Opbons
Overview
1+ Define Option*
Management Scenarios
,|| Evaluate Options
Overview
Consecuence
Consequence Mottel
O TakeAcbon
Overview
Objective Results
Decision Landscape
Adaotive H j.-iaaeriav.
(HP Define Option*
Means Ends Objectives Hierarcliy
Delete Means Objective
di Sustainable Guanica Wat&sbcd
i Social
±t Process
+j Economy
d Ecology Land
< Meet future water demands (Agriculture + Development)
Restore and conserve habitat few important species
£- Reduce contaminaboo from agfculture effluent
d Reduce storm water runoff
* Ecological practices
* Outreach and incentives
d Reduce soil toss [maintain productivity of land)
i Through best r^anageflneflt pfactice in agriculture
* Reduce uncertainty about outcomes o* management act..
< Understand relaUve contribution of sediments origins (t
* Preserve Forest r>abitats
* Protect cncfangcicd and threatened wiWIife species
d Improve water quality
O Minimize sedtment runoff
d Ecology Aquatic
* Reduce uncertainty about outcomes of management act.,
f Restore lagoon natural processes [absorption of nutrient..
* Reduce nutrient toads flowirtg into the ocean
» Enhance fish biomass and abundance
d Restore shallow water coral reefs
* Improve mooitonng and feedback of current actions
New Opt-on
Opton
Management Options
Oel«c Option
Figure 6-7. Means objectives Minimize sediment runoff associated with the fundamental objective
Improve Water Quality (left-hand panel) and management option Subsidize Shade-grown Coffee
(right-hand panel) developed by Guanica Bay stakeholders.
The measures (attached to fundamental objectives) and management options (attached
to means objectives) developed in these two steps as displayed in Fig. 6-8 as nodes in a
BBN (Section 5.3). The management option Subsidize Shade Grown Coffee (yellow) and
the four measures nutrients, coliforms, solids in suspension and turbidity (green) are pre-
loaded into the model from input in the previous two steps (Define Objectives and
Develop Options). Stakeholders create the causal connections (red) between decision
(means objective) and endpoint (fundamental objective). From this model, alternative
options are evaluated against multiple fundamental objectives, trade-offs assessed and
decisions made.
126
-------
Guanica ZD13
Oi Understand Context
Overview
Decision Landscape
Current Condition
System Sketch
Social Network
Map
jrfj Define Objectives
Overview
V Objectives
^ Objective Preferences
^ Develop Options
Overview
*/ Define Options
w Management Scenarios
,|| Evaluate Options
Overview
Consequence TaWe
V Consaqucnee Model
O Take Action
Overview
Objective Results
Decision Landscape
Adaptive: Management
E0 Concequenco M octet
Run /& Model Results Add Equation Add Distribution Q ^ ** 0 Arange Nodes
1
Subsidize Shape Grown Coffee
Figure 6-8. An influence diagram for a Bayesian Belief Network showing the management option
[Subsidize Shade-grown Coffee), the environmental state variables [nutrient runoff, precipitation, and
sediment runoff), and the corresponding measures [nutrients, conforms, solids in suspension and
turbidity).
A common desire voiced by groups faced with complex environmental management
decisions is to be able to bring their information together in one place (e.g., to have a
'thinking space' to see how everything fits together) (Boumans 2012). DASEES supports
this with the demonstrated tools and interfaces and as a common repository for data and
documents pertinent for the management problem (Fig. 6-9). The Sharing tab facilitates
transparency in decision-making by making available to all interested parties the
information used throughout the decision.
127
-------
DASEES Decision Analysis foraS-
Project Dsta T & Logout
Guanica 2013
L Rename
Help
Name
* Datasets
2011 Stony Coral Data test
Chlorophyll a
Chocorphyll a Nutrients (long)
Chororphyll a Nutrients (wide)
Stony Coral PR 2011
* _ Documents
A Sustainable Guamca Bay Watershed
Stony Coral PR 20 11
Ownw
Patricia Bradley
Tom Stockton
Tom Stockton
Tom Stockton
Tom Stockton
Tom Stockton
Tom Stockton
Label
O
0
o
o
o
o
Open
*
*
*
*
Down.
&
m
B
H
B
tc
Delete
0
-
e
e
o
:
Figure 6-9. The Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society (DASEES) sharing
interface provides a place for storing all the data and information needed to make a decision.
6.4 Benefits from decision-support tools
Generic model-based DSSs are suitable for a wide range of applications when choosing
among alternatives using multiple criteria is a prime need of decision-makers. In the
environmental field, this ranges from management of ecosystems to community
sustainability planning to high-level government agency policy analysis. A DSS supports
the structured decision-making process, providing a way to deal with "wicked" (Balint
et al. 2011) environmental problems previously considered intractable. Web-based DSSs
like DASEES foster greater participation of traditionally excluded stakeholders and
enhances collaboration for the creation of better solutions to complex problems.
Additionally, the graphical modeling approach used by Bayesian Belief Networks
(Fig. 6-9) is suitable for exploring competing hypotheses in relation to the causal
mechanism between proposed actions and expected results. This capability highlights the
potential for tools like DASEES to be useful for structuring and analyzing scientific research
as well as informing environmental management decisions.
128
-------
Chapter 7. Evaluating the Formal Decision
Process in Guanica Bay
In Chapter 1 of this report, the potential
benefits of 'value-focused' thinking (as
opposed to 'alternatives-focused'
thinking) were described as worthy of
the additional time and effort required to
identify and characterize stakeholder
values, particularly in those situations
with multiple stakeholder groups and the
potential for a variety of competing
objectives. Value-focused thinking in
environmental management requires
that the decision process be opened up
to stakeholders, allowing for a more
transparent and inclusive process that
does not restrict decisions to technical
experts or to authorities with a narrow
range of mission-oriented values. Keeney
(1992) prepared a list of potential
advantages to values-focused thinking
(text box). Although EPA did not
complete every step, Section 2.5 in this
report illustrated the steps taken to
incorporate values following a structured
decision process for a case study in
Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. Using Keeney's
(1992) list, it is possible here to assess
the process.
Possible Advantages of Value-Focused Thinking
(modified from Keeney 1992):
Guiding information collection - Values help
prioritize the spending of limited resources
on gathering information relevant to what is
important.
Improving communication - VFT keeps the
discussion on what is important to the whole
group and not on specific, technical aspects
of alternatives.
Stakeholder involvement-All parties,
regardless of education or socio-economic
status know what is important to them and
can communicate that.
Interconnecting decisions - Decision-makers
make decisions in different contexts. It is
important to be able to see if decisions in
one context affect how a decision will be
made in another. Values help to see how
decisions affect strategic level objectives.
Guiding strategic thinking - Inter-related
decisions show the necessity of clarity of
values for strategic level decision-making.
Creating alternatives - Creating new
alternatives that are directly responsive to
stakeholder values have a better chance of
acceptance and successful outcome.
Evaluating alternatives - Linking a value
model to a consequences model makes it
possible to analyze desirability of
alternatives.
129
-------
7.1 Guiding information collection
The decision landscape presented in Chapter 3 is a direct outcome of a structured
decision process. The initial decision context, protection of coral reefs, led to a proposal of
management alternatives that affected several facets of the watershed (CWP 2008).
Systems thinking (i.e., DPSIR) allowed EPA and stakeholders to begin to assemble
information in an organized manner, and to see what tradeoffs might occur under
different alternatives. In particular, systems thinking provided a means to quickly identify
consequences of management actions beyond protection of coral reefs and broadened
the decision context to recognize potential trade-offs with agriculture and potentially
positive effects on tourism, fisheries and human health. From this, an initial
characterization of key uncertainties was identified, including mapping human use and
activity in the watershed, the source and fate of pollutants within the complex Guanica
watershed hydrologic system, the impacts of stressors on coral reefs, and better
characterization of stakeholder values.
Information gained from discussions in the workshops revealed several science gaps,
some of which spurred studies by EPA and others. One of the greatest areas of
uncertainty concerned sediment efflux from Guanica Bay and its potential effects on coral
in the nearby coastal zone. Although all the management efforts proposed by the CRTF
were to protect coral reefs from sediment and associated nutrient and contaminant loads,
there is no existing evidence that the condition of reefs outside Guanica Bay is more
degraded than reefs occurring elsewhere along the southern coast, and if the condition is
degraded there is no evidence that terrestrial sediment is a primary contributor to the
decline. EPA initiated studies, most still in progress, to address these science gaps:
Measuring the distribution of terrestrial sediment vs. oceanic sediment in coastal
waters near Guanica Bay (are there high concentrations of terrestrial sediment?)
Surveying coral reefs in southwestern Puerto Rico to characterize the condition of
coral reef assemblages (is the condition of reefs near Guanica Bay degraded relative
to other reefs?) and comparing the biological condition of sites with high and low
terrestrial sediment influx (can terrestrial sediment be linked to degraded coral reef
condition?)
Testing the effects of sediment collected inside and outside of Guanica Bay on the
survival and growth of Caribbean coral species in laboratory dosing experiments
(what source and levels of sediment have adverse effects on corals?)
Developing a conceptual model (the BCG) of how coral reef condition changes as
human disturbance increases (can we link coral reef condition to human factors?)
130
-------
Another area of uncertainty was where terrestrial sediment entering Guanica Bay
originated and whether proposed management actions would significantly reduce soil
erosion and transport to the bay. EPA studies to address these science gaps included:
Modeling the hydrology and sediment loading of the watershed area to better
characterize sediment sources (where does the sediment originate?) (Yuan et al.
2013; Bousquin et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2015)
Modeling the water storage capacity of reservoirs in the SWP to project the future
ability to capture sediment from the mountainous areas and protect downstream
habitats (at what rate will sediment trapping by reservoirs decline?) (Bousquin et al.
2014)
Human health issues arose in the workshops, particularly related to flood protection,
sanitation and the quality and availability of drinking water. EPA initiated studies that
included:
Modeling the water storage capacity of reservoirs in the SWP to project useful
lifespan for flood protection and drinking water provision in light of increasing
sedimentation (at what rate will freshwater storage capacity decline?) (Bousquin et
al. 2014)
Initiating a Citizens Science Project in Guanica Bay to monitor water quality, fecal
coliforms and sewer infrastructure (what communities are at risk for sanitation and
waterbodies are safe for contact?) (Sotomayor 2015).
Consideration of different options raised in the workshops created questions about the
relative value of outcomes. EPA initiated several studies to identify ecosystem services
from coral reefs and the terrestrial watershed area as the related to stakeholder values:
Developing production functions to quantify and map coral reef ecosystem goods
and services, such as fishing potential, tourism potential, pharmaceutical potential,
shoreline protection, and supporting services) using data from coral reef condition
surveys (what quantity of services do coral reefs provide?) (Principe et al. 2012; Yee
etal.2011, 2014b).
Developing production functions to quantify and map provisioning of terrestrial
ecosystems services such as sediment and nutrient retention and air pollutant
removal (what quantity of services might be affected by decisions in the watershed?)
(Smith et al. In Review).
Conducting on-site and web-based surveys of residents and visitors to estimate the
use and associated market and non-market economic value of Puerto Rico's coral
reef-based tourism and recreation, and how those values change with changes in
reef attributes (how valuable are coral reefs for tourism and recreation and how
important is reef condition to that value?) (Bradley et al. 2014a).
131
-------
For updates on these and other projects related to Guanica Bay contact EPA's Gulf
Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
To characterize stakeholder values, EPA used the systems-thinking frameworks and
discussions from the 2010 workshop to identify key stakeholder groups within the
Guanica watershed for follow-up workshops. These included community leaders,
environmental groups, farmers, fishermen, tourism and recreation groups, and
government agencies. Stakeholders recognized the importance of protecting coral reef
habitats, but identified a number of other values, including forest biota, agricultural
productivity, cultural heritage, water availability and economic independence through
opportunities such as fisheries, eco-tourism, and agriculture. The ensuing workshops not
only initiated broad discussions on those values but also helped to identify perceived
threats to those values, such as pollution, loss of agricultural land, loss of habitat and
biodiversity, poverty, economic instability, lack of representation, and lack of education.
Restoration of the Guanica Lagoon was a topic that is a good example of how workshop
discussions guided information collection. Different stakeholder groups with different
objectives disputed the proposed restoration. One group cited protection of coral reefs
and habitat provision, the other cited loss of agricultural land in a farming-dependent
economy. Through the discussion, the absence of technical data for several facets of the
system became clear, in particular the origin of sediment and nutrient stressors (from
Lajas Valley irrigation ditches or from Rio Loco), the effects of the stressors on coral reefs,
and the actual value or contribution of a restored lagoon in reducing those stressors.
Using information gained in the workshops and developing the decision landscape, EPA
has initiated the following studies to address specific science gaps (for updates contact
EPA's Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida):
Measuring the contribution of terrestrial sediment in Guanica Bay coastal waters
Surveying coral reefs in southwestern Puerto Rico to characterize the condition of
coral reef assemblages and comparing sites with high and low sediment influx,
differences in condition related to sediment presence and the provision of coral reef
ecosystem services
Testing the effects of sediment collected inside and outside of Guanica Bay on the
survival and growth of Caribbean coral species in laboratory dosing experiments
Surveying coral reefs along the entire southern coast of Puerto Rico to characterize
the provision of ecosystem goods and services (fishing potential, tourism potential,
pharmaceutical potential, shoreline protection, and supporting services)
Modeling the hydrology and sediment loading of the watershed area to better
characterize the source of sediment
132
-------
Modeling the water storage capacity of reservoirs in the SWP to project the useful
lifespan remaining as sedimentation increases, and to project the utility of various
decision options (i.e., farming practices and dredging reservoirs)
Developing production functions to quantify and map coral reef ecosystem goods
and services
Developing production functions to quantify and map provisioning of terrestrial
ecosystems services such as sediment and nutrient retention and air pollutant
removal.
Developing a conceptual model (the BCG) of how coral reef condition changes as
human disturbance increases
Conducting on-site and web-based surveys of residents and visitors to estimate the
use and associated market and non-market economic value of Puerto Rico's coral
reef-based tourism and recreation, and how those values change with changes in
reef attributes
Initiating a Citizens Science Project in Guanica Bay Watershed to monitor water
quality (sanitation) and sewer infrastructure.
Additionally, Ridge to Reefs Inc., Protectores de Cuencas, and Puerto Rico DNER have
completed an economic valuation study of Guanica Lagoon. UPRM Mayaguez and
Protectores de Cuencas led the study. The financial costs and benefits of lagoon
restoration have been evaluated and are summarized in a report (Lozado and Mora 2014).
Public stakeholder meetings were held to provide input into the study. Key benefits
identified in the report are listed below:
The restored lagoon will provide ecological benefits. It will once again provide
habitat for native and migratory birds.
The restored lagoon will provide ecotourism opportunities. There will be a visitor
center with educational exhibits and information, a boardwalk for nature hiking with
interpretive displays along the walk, areas for camping, an observation tower for
bird watching, and local micro-businesses (e.g., kayak rental services and guided
tours, arts and crafts, food and sale of locally caught fish).
The restoration of Guanica Lagoon will provide socio-economic benefits to the
residents of adjacent communities. By 2020 they expect 23 new community
enterprises with total expected sales of $250,000 in 2015 and almost half a million
dollars in 2020. The restoration of Guanica Lagoon could generate between 45 and
60 jobs during the first year of operations and by 2020 the number of jobs would
reach a minimum of 69 and a maximum of 92. In addition to the employees of the
micro-enterprises, there will also be new jobs in guesthouses and restaurants,
interpretive guides, and suppliers.
133
-------
NOAA has completed a baseline assessment of Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico, and its
surrounding coral reef ecosystem (Whitall et al. 2013). The report details:
(1) A biogeographic assessment of the coral reef ecosystem outside the bay.
(2) Contaminant (e.g., PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, heavy metals) magnitudes and
distributions in surface sediments (inside the bay, outside the bay and in the
watershed streams) and in coral tissues (mustard hill coral, Porites astreoides).
(3) Spatial and temporal patterns in sedimentation rates and surface water nutrient
concentrations. Sediment samples from Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico, contained high
concentrations of PCBs, chlordane, chromium, and nickel as compared to other
sites sampled by the NOAA National Status & Trends Program, a nationwide
contaminant-monitoring program that began in 1986. These concentrations
represent toxic threats to corals, fish, and benthic infaunaorganisms that burrow
into and live in the seafloor.
EPA has conducted a source identification investigation, but did not find records of any
spills or releases that could explain the source(s) of the contaminants. There remains
uncertainty about the human health effects of the contaminated sediment. A human
health risk assessment has not been conducted for Guanica Bay (personal communication
with Mark Reiss, EPA Region 2).
A key point for a structured decision process is the distinction between scientific
information and values information, both of which are important. Information on
stakeholder values helps to prioritize collection of scientific data, focusing cost and effort
where it will be most relevant to decisions.
7.2 Improving communication
Limited communication was a major concern for stakeholders in the watershed. Many
expressed frustration with the apparent lack of communication with government agencies
and the resulting lack of local influence in decisions, both historically and currently. Many
also felt there was poor communication among government agencies (both Federal and
Commonwealth), leading to conflicting directions in management decisions and
skepticism by local stakeholders. Stakeholders also recognized that there was poor
communication among citizens and stakeholder groups in the watershed, limiting the
potential for shared effort and a stronger community voice.
The three EPA-sponsored workshops made steps toward resolving some of the
communication issues, not only by bringing stakeholders and decision-makers together,
but also by demonstrating the tools used to clarify and organize values and alternatives.
DPSIR conceptual maps that were employed in the 2010 Decision-support Workshop
provided the backbone for systems thinking that broadened decision context and
134
-------
ultimately generated discussion among groups that do not normally interact (like farmers
and fishers).
In both the 2010 Decision-making Workshop and the 2013 Public Values Forum,
participants provided information that was captured in SNAs (Fig. 4-2) (Bradley et al. 2015)
(Fig. 4-6). The SNA competed in 2013 had three unconnected clusters: a large cluster, with
NOAA playing a central role; a 2nd smaller cluster of mostly EPA employees that work
interactively but have connection with only one external participant (NOAA); and 3rd small
cluster of individuals representing Puerto Rico departments that are interactive with FWS
and NRCS but not with the broader NOAA network. The 2013 SNA showed that the 2nd
smaller cluster of EPA employees has been integrated into the large cluster, but the
3rd small cluster remains independent. While this is a significant improvement, given EPA's
EPA mission and regulatory responsibility for managing and regulating land-based sources
of pollution, effort must be made to better link FWS and NRCS into the larger network. It
should be noted that both SNAs were developed with only the participants at the
workshops, and a more comprehensive SNA might link the clusters.
Importantly, the focused discussions during the workshops allowed stakeholders to hear
similar and differing views on values and issues related to environmental decision-making.
Formal decision tools, such as objective hierarchies, means-ends networks, consequence
tables and electronic voting served to organize and prioritize values and options in a
transparent process. In this process, everyone in attendance had some idea of why
one alternative was supported over another. Beneficial to the success of this approach
was the constant reinforcement to distinguish science from values and objectives,
allowing that validity and accuracy of science could be argued but that values could not
be questioned.
During the 2012 Decision-Making Workshop, participants identified a lack of
communication between local stakeholders and decision-makers in government agencies
as a historical and continuing problem. They felt that Federal and Commonwealth
agencies, most of which are located in San Juan, were making the majority of
environmental decisions and that local citizens had little influence on the process.
Consequently, the decisions were not always in the best interests of local communities.
Documentation of this concern, here or elsewhere, could lead to greater efforts to bridge
this gap. A stronger determination by stakeholders to infuse themselves into the process
may also result.
Workshop stakeholders also emphasized that government agencies don't always consult
with other government agencies before making decisions; or if they do, the decisions
sometimes conflict with other programs. This is believed to lead to a patchwork of
individual decisions that do not support a long-term goal for the watershed. The USCRTF
135
-------
was established as a means to bring Federal Agencies together with a shared purpose, and
this was certainly true in Guanica Bay, where EPA worked with NOAA, USDA/NRCS,
USFWS and Puerto Rico environmental agencies to jointly confront the problem of coral
reef decline. Communication among agencies was, in this case, relatively high even
though the decision context was relatively narrow (coral reef protection). Yet, it was also
clear from the Public Values Forum that the USCRTF needs to expand its decision context
into broader watershed issues and engage a broader spectrum of stakeholders. This fact is
currently under discussion both in Puerto Rico and within the USCRTF Watershed Initiative
Program, largely as a consequence of the Guanica Bay experience.
7.3 Stakeholder involvement
One of the clearest messages from the Decision-Making Workshop and the Public Values
Forum was the desire of stakeholders to be informed, educated and engaged in local
environmental decisions. This was driven in part by sensitivity to decisions made outside
the community and in part by a desire for strong environmental stewardship within the
community. Decisions made outside the community have little transparency and were
perceived as not reflecting local values.
The three EPA decision science workshops provided local decision-makers and
stakeholders an opportunity to become better informed and more engaged in
environmental issues. Moreover, the workshops opened the decision process to a broader
conceptualization that considered wider benefits and tradeoffs across the watershed and
coastal zone. Although the original context for the 2010 Decision-support workshop was
coral reef protection, it was immediately clear that there were a variety of linked
environmental issues to consider. Particularly valuable in this process was the ability of
stakeholders to hear other viewpoints in a constructive environment and to recognize
that there are ways to move through disagreements. Separating values and objectives
from science facts and knowledge was extremely useful in this respect.
Also beneficial in the Public Values Forum was that it demonstrated to participants
how transparency increased the success of an informed decision process. Work groups
identified values and alternatives from different stakeholder perspectives and shared
them with all participants iteratively; and the groups considered and amended their ideas
publicly throughout the Forum, finally selecting those they thought were most worthy.
Then everyone was allowed to vote on the priorities anonymously. Important to this
transparency is that even the most avid supporter of a particular alternative, regardless of
the voting outcome, had to recognize the inclusive expression of community values.
136
-------
7.4 Interconnecting decisions
Archival research to characterize the decision landscape was very valuable for identifying
a variety of interconnecting decisions. At the earliest steps of EPA involvement, the
USCRTF had identified a single objective of their missionprotection of coral reefs in the
coastal zone. The WMP (CWP 2008) developed to support that objective proposed a suite
of management options, including coffee farming practices, restoring an historic coastal
lagoon, dredging reservoirs, planting riparian zones, removing hydrology infrastructure
and upgrading sewage treatment.
Following the 2010 Decision-support Workshop, EPA summarized the growing recognition
of interconnections, developed a Guanica Bay Watershed DPSIR (Bradley et al. 2014b),
and proposed a values-focused framework, which included development of objectives
hierarchies, means to achieve the objectives (means-ends networks), performance
measures and potential desired and undesired outcomes (Carriger et al. 2013). This
led to a broader recognition of values in the watershed and adjacent coastal and marine
systems, and set the stage for further stakeholder interaction on the broader range
of topics.
The primary environmental issue tackled by the USCRTF was runoff of sediment and
nutrients from watershed activities that was affecting coral reef ecosystems (CWP 2008).
The stressors, as illustrated in Carriger et al. (2013), were also affecting the environment,
economy and society further up in the watershed. At its source, sediment runoff
represents a loss of topsoil that is essential to farming. As the sediment travels
downstream, it collects in riverbeds, reservoirs, lagoons and embayments. In the
Guanica Bay watershed, sediment in the reservoirs, the Guanica Lagoon and in the
Bay itself is a concern for all inhabitants, human and otherwise.
In particular, sediment accumulation has reduced the water storage capacity of the five
reservoirs of the Southwest Puerto Rico Project (SWP) to roughly half of their original
(1950s) volumes, yet water demands for irrigation and domestic purposes have risen.
The lack of storage capacity also reduces the potential to protect coastal areas from
flooding during major storm events (endangering the humans and causing property
damage). The cost of dredging sediment from the reservoirs is so high that building new
reservoirs is becoming a reasonable option. These interconnecting issues have become
topics for EPA scientific investigation.
The fact that sediment is accumulating in reservoirs in the mountain ridges indicates that
erosion is occurring from upper watersheds, meaning that mountain roads, municipalities,
and farming, especially coffee farming, are potential sources of sediment. Interconnecting
management options include subsidies, education and incentives to influence coffee
137
-------
farming practices (e.g., shade-grown vs. sun-grown coffee) that require a full
consideration of trade-offs, particularly for farmers who must adopt new practices that
may affect their economic status (at least in the short-term).
Sediment in the irrigation canals and drainage ditches was another interconnecting issue
that arose during the Public Values Forum. As sediment passes through and out of the
reservoirs into the Lajas Valley Irrigation System, it settles in the canals and drainage
ditches, thereby reducing capacity for water flow needed for irrigation and drainage. The
only way to remove the sediment is through dredging, which is not only costly but creates
piles of sediment along canal levees that in turn creates upland flooding and eventually
washes back into the canals. Reducing sediment in the canals and drainage ditches is a
means objective in need of viable alternatives.
In general, agriculture was widely supported by stakeholders, whether coffee-growing
in mountain ridges, or cultivation of vegetables and rangeland for cattle in the valley.
Discussions of water availability for irrigation led to discussion of incentives for farming
and preservation of farmland. In 1999, this public value led to the Agricultural Reserve
Law, but farmers argue that the Law has done little to protect farmland. Participants
discussed a variety of options, which were largely focused on best management practices,
farmland protection, provision of incentives and pricing.
The Guanica Lagoon restoration was introduced by the USCRTF as a means to settle
sediment and filter nutrients from Lajas Valley water before it enters Guanica Bay. It had
been drained in the 1950s as part of the 'South West Puerto Rico Project' that consisted of
converting wetlands areas in the Valley to agricultural lands. The USCRTF
recommendation to restore the lagoon has instigated several related decisions, including
how much (depth, area), with what water flow (to prevent stagnation) and by whose
authority. This issue has a strong scientific component, and the USCRTF has funded
several studies to address stakeholder concerns. 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, cited in Bradley et al.
2014b, show more precisely the impacts that restoring the Guanica Lagoon may have on
the agriculture of the surrounding area.
The Guanica Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) generates an estimated wastewater
flow volume of about 1.2 millions of gallons per day (MGD), with an associated nutrient
(mostly nitrogen and phosphorus) load of approximately 54,000 Ibs/yr. The WWTP is the
largest discrete source of nitrogen in the Guanica Bay watershed. The WWTP provides
advanced secondary treatment, which minimally reduces nutrient discharges to the Bay
(CWP 2008). Nutrient standards in Puerto Rico, as well as background concentrations from
the watershed, suggest that the WWTP's effluent is currently 7-15 times higher than
138
-------
background levels in the area, and exceeds the current water quality standards for total
nitrogen in Puerto Rico.
The WMP proposed a constructed wetland system as means to reduce nutrients from
entering the bay and coastal zone. Constructed wetlands are treatment systems that use
wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to improve water
quality (EPA 2004). The proposed project is anticipated to help reduce the current annual
nutrient loading to the Guanica Bay by 50-80%, and thus improve water quality conditions
in the area. US Army Corps of Engineers issued public notice SAJ-2014-01994 on August
21, 2014, regarding the Ridge to Reefs, Inc. application fora Department of the Army
permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403). Ridge to Reefs, Inc. has developed a
mitigation plan, permitting is nearly complete and they hope to begin construction soon.
In addition to the nutrient loading, there is an associated concern over public health
and the absence of strong sanitary controls in communities near Guanica Bay and river
systems. This issue has been identified by EPA Region 2 as an issue throughout Puerto
Rico where roughly half of the households are not connected to municipal wastewater
treatment plants. A consequence is that water quality is unsafe for fishing and swimming
in Guanica Bay and the immediate coastal zone. Nonetheless, subsistence fishing persists
in the Bay creating a clear health threat for local citizens. EPA has initiated a Citizen
Science project to better educate local communities on water sanitation issues.
The coastal zone was the first concern of the USCRTF (effects of sediment and nutrients
on coral reefs). Most stakeholders generally agree with protecting coral reefs and reef
fisheries, but there is little information available on how much sediment and nutrient
reduction is needed to produce a positive result. Moreover, a variety of stressors has
affected reefs and reef fisheries, including high sea surface temperature events (resulting
from global climate change) and over-fishing. Decisions to protect coral reefs through
management of human activities in the watershed must be couched within the effects of
other global and local anthropogenic factors. Implicit in this discussion is deciding the
level of desired improvement for coral reefs ("how good is good?") and the sacrifices
necessary to achieve it. EPA is developing a generalized stressor gradient for coastal and
estuarine systems. The generalized stressor gradient will reflect cumulative stress from
multiple stressors and will be spatially explicit. Stressor categories will include (at a
minimum) land-based stressors (nutrients, sediments, toxics), fishing pressure, and
climate change related stressors (sea surface temperature and pH). The stressor gradient
will be used as the x-axis of the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG).
139
-------
A larger context -ecotourismemerged through the three workshops. Several different
stakeholders felt that ecotourism was a viable economic alternative for southwestern
Puerto Rico, and that protection of coral reefs, restoration of the lagoon, improved
fisheries and greater biodiversity were all means to achieve this objective. Ecotourism has
the potential to conserve environmental resources while providing economic benefits.
While communities of southwestern Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Ecotourism Board
share the goals for ecotourism, there has been little interaction between them. EPA
initiated an ongoing study to better characterize coral reef ecosystem services and a
valuation study for coral reef-based tourism and recreation in Puerto Rico. Ridge to Reefs
Inc., Protectores de Cuencas, and Puerto Rico DNER are initiating an economic valuation
study of a restored Guanica Lagoon.
In summary, the original focus to protect coral reefs, through the process of stakeholder
engagement, led to elucidation of several potential decisionsa broader portfolio-
reflecting stakeholder values in agriculture, water supply, fisheries regulations, habitat
restoration, public health, environmental stewardship and support for eco-tourism.
7.5 Guiding strategic thinking
Strategic thinking (Keeney 1992) is characterized by consideration of core values that are
not likely to change over the long term and that can influence a number and variety of
decisions. Higher-level values, such as equality, justice, quality of life, well-being and
respect and care for the land and sea, could be considered strategic objectives because
they influence many lower objectives with more specific alternatives. Archival research
outlined in Section 3 demonstrated a long history of decisions that had economic
independence and poverty reduction as strategic objectives.
Review of the results from the 2010 Decision-support Workshop and several associated
documents led Carriger et al. (2013) to propose maximizing ecological integrity as an
appropriate strategic objective for the Guanica Bay watershed and ecosystem-based
management (EBM) as the means to achieve that objective. EBM is widely recognized
as an approach that considers multiple values across diverse categories of costs and
benefits to society and the environment. Diagrams prepared during the workshop clearly
indicated diverse concerns of stakeholders, from property values to potential economic
impacts from watershed restoration. After the workshop, two figures were prepared to
demonstrate the change in perception from a set of management actions to achieve a
single objective (restoring coral reefs; Fig. 7-1) towards much broader objectives and
effects in other parts of the watershed (Fig. 7-2). This simple graphic reflects broader
strategies to support different economic sectors and human health.
140
-------
Management Actions
Hydroseedlng
Cover Crops
Shade-grown coffee
Lagoon restoration
Dredge reservoirs
Reservoir releases
Rainwater collection
Riparian plantings
Remove relic Irrigation
structures
Pet waste cleanup
Wetland treatment of
sewage effluent
-.
Rationale Objective
Reduce physical/
chemical stressors
in water
Maximize ecological integrity
^^_^-^^ Coral reefs
"""~-~^kReduce biological
stressors in water
Figure 7-1. The Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) graphically illustrating its primary objective of
restoring high ecological integrity to coral reefs.
Guanica Bay Watershed Management Plan
Management Actions
Rationale
Benefits
Figure 7-2. Elaboration of objectives and benefits of proposed management actions derived from
discussions during the 2010 Decision Support Workshop. The dotted line from lagoon restoration to
farmland represents a potential negative impact due to loss of farmland.
One of the key benefits of strategic thinking is the possibility of developing creative
solutions that meet multiple objectives, such as a sequential combination of decision
options (Gregory et al. 2012). During the Public Values Forum, participants were able to
outline such a sequence based on completion of 'low-hanging fruit' and progressing
through more challenging alternatives.
141
-------
An encompassing benefit of the structured decision process was the more inclusive
context of inter-related decisions and issues. Application of a systems approach (i.e.,
DPSIR) allowed EPA researchers and stakeholders alike the opportunity to explore
interconnectedness, alternatives and possible outcomes. Conceptual mapping (Yee et al.
2011), used in the DPSIR approach, was conducive to transparent community discussion
and organization of cause-effect relationships. During these discussions, stakeholders
were able to identify things they knew and things they didn't. Analysis of these values and
priorities can lead to documentation for supporting strategic objectives and even greater
clarity in decisions.
7.6 Creating alternatives
The structured decision process emphasizes a clear distinction between decision-making
focused on alternatives (means objectives) and decisions based on values (fundamental or
ends objectives). For example, it was quickly evident to workshop participants that
phrases such as 'reduce sediment load' were means not ends objectives. Alternatives are
made from means objectives and should aim to satisfy ends objectives. Alternatives
should be evaluated against ends objective measures. This helps clarifies how alternatives
should be created and assessed for decision-making.
Systems thinking and conceptual mapping, as stated earlier, provided a strong impetus for
creating alternative paths to achieve objectives. During the 2010 Decision Support
Workshop, participants created DPSIR conceptual maps linking coral reef condition to a
variety of pressures, driving forces and impacts (e.g., ecosystem services). Through this
process they identified alternatives and additions to the WMP (Bradley et al. 2014b).
Many of these have been captured in subsequent planning documents (see Carriger et al.
2013). For coral reef protection, some of these alternatives included, among others,
establishment of a marine reserve, stronger enforcement of fishing regulations,
eradication of marine invasive species (lionfish), and ecological threat responses,
installation of mooring buoys, increased volunteer opportunities, creation of green
certification programs, and increased learning opportunities.
An interesting outcome of the Public Values Forum accompanied a discussion of the easily
implemented decision alternatives (e.g., the "low-hanging fruit"). Representatives of
several different stakeholder groups began to realize that many of the alternatives were
well within their grasp at the local level and did not require outside authorization or
funding. These included alternatives to form partnerships, to inform and educate
community members, to interact with government representatives, and to lobby officials
in support of local positions.
142
-------
The consequence table that was framed during the Public Values Forum provides another
good example of alternative decisions evolving from the decision process. There was
ample recognition among Forum participants that restoration of the Guanica Lagoon
supported several objectives related to quality ecosystems, but had potential adverse
effects on agriculture. An alternative emerged that allowed for a gradual restoration and
monitoring followed by intermittent assessment and a capacity to change direction with
new information (adaptive management).
7.7 Additional benefits
There were additional benefits recognized through the application of SDM to Guanica Bay.
To be successful, decisions made in the Guanica Bay watershed should be as much a social
undertaking as an ecological and scientific undertaking. The engagement of stakeholders
in the SDM process helped to gain acceptance and understanding of the management
actions proposed to restore the watershed. This will benefit the communities by reducing
contention; the stakeholders perceived the SDM process as clear, consistent, and
adaptive. Moreover, involving stakeholders early in the process also gets them engaged
and excited about implementing the decisions.
The SDM process of engagement brought together stakeholders on a relatively narrow
issue at first, which broadened with continued interaction. The stakeholders did not at
first view themselves as counterparts in the management process, but the range of
discussions led many to begin to consider that a broader management plan with an
overarching vision was needed. The process fostered this interaction.
Additionally, the SDM process helped to identify both scientific uncertainty and the
stakeholder uncertainty regarding scientific information. This acknowledgement allows
the incorporation of these uncertainties into estimates of consequences. The ultimate
benefit is that stakeholders are more aware of the likely effectiveness of proposed
actions.
The Guanica Bay Watershed was an EPA pilot study to research, develop and test
transferable and scalable conceptual frameworks, mathematical models, assessment
methods, metrics and indicators that could be used by decision-makers. The approach and
lessons learned have provided a foundation for new case studies, including one in San
Juan, Puerto Rico. Some of the tools and approaches have already been applied in Culebra
(Sturm et al. 2014) and Cabo Rojo (Sturm et al. 2015), most notably workshops to elicit
stakeholders' values and develop potential management options.
143
-------
7.8 Challenges
Despite the success of a formal decision process (SDM) in the Guanica Bay application,
there were particular challenges that were not easily or convincingly met. They include:
Ensuring a broad representation of stakeholders from a complex landscape
Quantifying and accepting scientific uncertainty
Inclusion of nonmarket benefits
Framing tradeoffs in the watershed
With greater experience some of these challenges can be overcome. The SDM process
represents a departure from conventional practices and methods of regulatory and
environmental management. Most agencies have a defined mission with goals focused on
a relatively narrow contextbut with consequences ranging across commercial,
municipal, social and cultural issues. Engaging communities in systems thinking, value
deliberations, goal setting and tradeoff analysis will require a dedicated management
force with a thorough grasp of strategic thinking and structured decision-making. This can
only come with continued exposure to the process, appropriate resources for workshops
and public forums, and dedication to improving the manner and method of engaging
stakeholders in balanced resource protection.
The Guanica Bay interagency program highlighted communication and interactions among
agencies as another challenge. To improve this interaction, care must be taken to include
all potentially affected parties at the very beginning of the program. Any omission can
lead to confusion over project goals and can ultimately create unanticipated obstacles to
program completion. Parties that enter late into the program should take steps to
become fully familiar with the project goals and attempt to assimilate new work into
ongoing activities. As the approach becomes more familiar, a better process for agency
interaction will undoubtedly evolve.
Perhaps the most daunting challenge is transitioning the process from 'research' into a
standard approach for communities and environmental agencies. The decision approach
outlined here for Guanica Bay is very comprehensive and incorporates relatively unique
concepts that may be difficult for local governing bodies and citizens to embrace. Tools,
training and education are extremely important. The process holds great promise for the
future of environmental decision-making. Overcoming these challenges is within reach
and the benefits are well worth the effort.
144
-------
7.9 Future research
There are a variety of future research topics that will improve EPA's ability to empower
and engage communities in sustainable governance. At the top of this list is a usable
framework, described in this report, which will provide a path for supporting watershed
and coastal zone economies and provide equitable benefits and costs (market and
nonmarket) to present and future generations. The framework is widely applicable to
a broad suite of decision-makers and characterized by its flexibility and insight to complex,
'wicked' decision problems (see Section 1).
Within this framework, several issues still need to be resolved. Whereas the workshops
described in this report generated insightful products (e.g., objective hierarchies, table of
consequences), most decisions will require additional information. Of particular interest
are:
Means to ensure stakeholder inclusion and transparency
Information and models to evaluate uncertainties
Performance measures for social values (e.g., cultural heritage)
Evaluating tradeoffs for multiple stakeholder values
Costs of management actions
Defining a 'requisite model' (when are we finished?)
Adaptive Management that triggers points at which to evaluate decision results and
revisit the SDM process with new information
A means to transfer the successful processes to other communities
A means to transfer the successful processes to actions by individuals, communities
and local, PR and federal managers
A values-focused thinking framework applied to watershed protection and restoration
issues can bring opportunities to create a management framework that is inclusive and
widely supported for achieving objectives and benefits that have greater permanency.
Stakeholder support can increase the likelihood for action implementation and prevent
delays due to conflicts and ongoing debates. Putting values at the forefront of decision-
making brings less contention as the public has greater awareness that agencies are
working for the common good. Values facilitate communication, which helps bring
understanding and transparency to decision-making. Moreover, understanding the value
that can be achieved or lost from decisions can leverage resources in a fashion where
learning is explicit, easier to define, and more successfully addresses areas of uncertainty.
In order to be fully successful, the Guanica Bay Watershed Project should be as much
a social undertaking as an ecological one. The SDM process described in this report can
145
-------
help to gain acceptance and understanding of the management actions undertaken to
restore the watershed. This should result in less contention down the road, since the
stakeholders perceive the SDM process as clear, consistent, and adaptive.
Additionally, the ability of the SDM process can deal with uncertainty by identifying
uncertainty (both scientific and stakeholder perception) and incorporating that
uncertainty into estimates, helps to alleviate concerns about the efficacy of taking action,
and therefore increases the likelihood to leading to action.
Watershed restoration is challenging. Getting everyone involved at the early stages
of thinking about recommended strategies also gets people excited about helping to
implement them later on. The SDM process can be used to develop a resourcing strategy
by: 1) identifying the resources currently dedicated to watershed restoration; 2)
determining the gaps in funding; and 3) combining and leveraging resources.
Value-focused thinking can help broaden the discussion and set the framework for
a participatory process. Stakeholder workshops can provide important information
to decision-makers on how stakeholders characterize, define, and consider their wide-
ranging values. However, identifying the categories of stakeholders needed for a
particular decision context and getting them to the table are challenges. This is a
particularly critical issue for complex watershed and coastal zone management issues,
where the broader issues generate an almost unending potential for additional
stakeholders.
7.10 Afterwards
Conducting decision science research in a real-world decision context has inherent
challenges. In the Guanica Bay case study, EPA researchers had to maintain a balance
between independence and engagement with the decision-makers and stakeholders. The
decision-making environment was fluid: in responding to watershed problems the USCRTF
was itself a "learning organization" (Shiffman et al. 2008). The EPA workshops provided a
learning opportunity for the Guanica Bay watershed managers, who incorporated the new
knowledge into their planning and implementation for the watershed. But the Guanica
Bay watershed managers were also holding their own meetings, and they sometimes felt
the EPA workshops merely confirmed what they had already learned through their own
channels.
Regardless, the point of the EPA research was to provide a utility assessment of tools and
approaches that could be used for decision support at the watershed level. Information
elicited during the 2010 decision workshop was organized, examined and structured using
formal decision science concepts. This information (stakeholder identification, decision
context, etc.) provided the foundation for the future EPA research in the Guanica Bay
146
-------
watershed. The Guanica Bay watershed managers subsequently conducted several
activities raised during the 2010 workshop (e.g., grounding response program, studies to
reduce uncertainties about the lagoon restoration project, and coral nurseries).
All of the workshops showed the importance of fully engaging the stakeholders, and using
the stakeholders' values as the foundation for future work. As the USCRTF moves forward
into new watersheds, they are adopting principles of structured decision-making and
conducting workshops with stakeholders to better understand their goals and objectives
before developing watershed management plans (e.g., Cabo Rojo and Culebra). The SDM
process described in this report can help to gain acceptance and understanding of the
management actions undertaken to restore the watershed. This should result in less
contention down the road, since the stakeholders perceive the SDM process as clear,
consistent, and adaptive.
The Guanica Bay watershed managers will soon be updating the 2008 Watershed
Management Plan. Much of the information gleaned during the EPA research can
contribute to the revised plan. It is strongly recommended that the Guanica Bay
Watershed Managers also hold additional stakeholder workshops to elicit values, share
knowledge and increase stakeholder engagement.
Additionally, the Caribbean Landscape Conservation Cooperative (CLCC) is employing
SDM. The tools and approaches described in this report can help the CLCC to more
efficiently plan and organize conservation activities throughout the U.S. Caribbean.
Finally, EPA will be conducting a second decision science case study in the San Juan Bay
Watershed. Most of the approaches described in this report will be also applied in San
Juan to validate their efficacy.
147
-------
-------
Appendix A. The Guanica Bay Watershed-An
Historical Perspective
Spanish Colonization (1508-1897)
The narrow channel and calm waters of Guanica Bay have made it a natural refuge for
ships sailing the Caribbean Sea, including those of Juan Ponce de Leon, who landed
there when he came to settle Puerto Rico in 1508 (Kent 1992). The native Tamo Indians
called the island Boriken. Christopher Columbus, who came ashore in 1493, renamed
the island San Juan Bautista. Ponce de Leon's exploration and settlement of the island
began in Guanica Bay where the village of Guainfa (Guainfa = "a place with water") was
established (Fig. A-l). At the time, Guainfa was the Tamo political and socioeconomic
center (Silvestrini and Sanchez 1988). The settlement was destroyed in 1511 during an
uprising of indigenous Tafnos. Interest in Guainfa faded as the Europeans recognized
better fortifications could be established in the northeast at San Juan (then called Porto
Rico by the Spaniards). The island was renamed Puerto Rico in 1521 with San Juan the
capital, as it remains today. Guainfa would later become its own municipality with the
name Guanica (1914), from which the Bay inherited its name.
Figure A-l. Paintings of Christopher Columbus and Juan Ponce de Leon (photo credits: left - original
painting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Sebastiano del Piombo, 1519; right - anonymous sixteenth
century portrait).
149
-------
During the Spanish colonial period, the economy of Puerto Rico, and that of the Guanica
Bay area, was shaped by agriculture (e.g., tobacco, coffee and sugar cane farming).
Early agriculture was subsistence only. Spanish rule was restrictive of trade, requiring all
imports and exports to go between San Juan and Seville, Spain (Carrion 1983). Such
shipments from Seville could be sparse, at times with none for years at a time, so a
significant quantity of goods were smuggled and traded illegally with other nations and
their colonies. Sugar was introduced to Puerto Rico in the early 1500s and many small
landowners began to rely on its export as a source of income. By the middle of the 16th
century there were many sugar mills in operation and sugar was the colony's greatest
export (Dietz 1986). Further growth was limited because sugar mills were capital
intensive - relying heavily on slave labor or cheap labor (Fig. A-2).
Figure A-2. Workers cutting sugar cane in a field in Puerto Rico (photo credit: American Museum of
Natural History).
150
-------
By 1600 sugar had declined and less resource intensive crops such as ginger and tobacco
began to gain popularity. Tobacco was native to the Americas and initially grown mainly
for domestic use and later for illegal trade. Tobacco became the dominant product in
the mid-1600s, (Carrion 1983). Coffee grown in Puerto Rico was insignificant until 1736,
and even then it was grown mostly for personal and domestic use. This changed in the
late 1700s when Spain started opening Puerto Rico to foreign markets. With the Haitian
Revolution in 1791, Haiti, the largest exporter of sugar and coffee, was removed from
markets, increasing prices and encouraging development of both products in Puerto
Rico. In the mid-1800s, French immigrants from the Mediterranean island of Corsica
settled around Yauco and began exporting the premium coffee for which Puerto Rico is
known today (Fig. A-3).
Figure A-3. Cigars have been produced in Puerto Rico for centuries (photo credit: Breezy Baldwin).
There were many changes to Puerto Rican society during the Spanish colonial period,
including the adoption of Spanish as the native tongue and importation of African slaves
to support first gold mining and then labor-intensive sugar cane agriculture. By 1800,
Puerto Rico's population was approximately 150,000, about five times greater than in
1700, and most of the people were employed in coffee, sugar or tobacco agriculture
(Miller and Lugo 2009).
After nearly 400 years of Spanish rule, many Puerto Ricans desired autonomy. In 1812,
Puerto Rico was temporarily elevated by Spain to the status of 'province', which gave it
representation for the first time in the Spanish parliament. But this was quickly revoked
and replaced with the 'Royal Decree of Graces' (1815), which offered free land to
151
-------
European settlers. To improve exports of agricultural products, Spain also ruled that all
landless and nonprofessional Puerto Rican males must secure employment on coffee
farms. Despite this infusion of human capital, coffee farming was very susceptible to
hurricanes and other strong storms that battered crops.
Near the turn of the century (1897) Puerto Rico was granted constitutional autonomy
and representation in the Spanish parliament. By spring of 1898, under the leadership of
Luis Munoz Rivera, elections for a Puerto Rican legislature were held. But before the
new legislature could be seated, events took a dramatic turn.
U.S. Invasion ofGuanica Bay (1898)
In February of 1898, just prior to the Puerto Rico elections, the U.S.S. Maine exploded in
Havana Harbor where it had been sent to aid a Cuban revolt against Spain. Members of
the U.S. Congress believed the Maine had been sabotaged by Spain. Despite any
verification, this led to a decision in April to liberate Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto
Rico from Spanish domain through an act of war. On July 25th, over 16,000 U.S. soldiers
landed at Guanica Bay (Fig. A-4) and began a march to San Juan (Miller and Lugo 2009).
The Spanish-American War was resolved quickly in Puerto Rico and elsewhere, and by
August Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the U.S. Many Puerto Ricans were outraged that
Spain could 'cede' Puerto Rico when the island nation had only one year earlier been
granted autonomy. The Paris Peace Treaty between Spain and the United States was
signed in December; it abolished the Puerto Rican parliament and established U.S.
military rule for the island.
Figure A-4. A large coral boulder marked with the carved words, "3rd Battalion, 1st U.S.V. Engineers,
September 16,1898", commemorates the invasion (photo credit: Deborah Santavy, EPA ORD).
152
-------
To many U.S. citizens it seemed that the inhabitants of economically underdeveloped
Puerto Rico would be overjoyed at the prospect of association with its new political
ruler; the U.S. was an economic giant with a political structure that supported highly
successful trade and development. This was viewed as a great opportunity for Puerto
Ricans to improve their lot. The perception went beyond purely economic opportunity
and was linked to social and cultural progress for Puerto Ricans. As an U.S. observer
wrote shortly after the conquest (Wilson 1899): "Abundant and well distributed as are
the various crops, the island produces to but a fraction of its capacity. Thus far there has
been no incentive to grow such products as would have value for export, and no means
have been available and no forces at work to incite the ambition of the people, and thus
give them some inducement to gain a better living. They know nothing of the higher arts
of civilization, and if they had more wealth than they now possess they would not know
how to use it. With the higher aims which will come from association with the more
active, liberal, and highly civilized people of the United States, increased energy may be
exerted in the near future in wresting from nature more bountiful and useful crops than
are now cultivated."
Puerto Ricans, on the other hand, were ambivalent about the war's outcome. They had
existed under Spanish rule for 400 years and, despite the poverty, lived a simple but
reasonably self-sufficient existence. There was no abiding love for the Spanish who lived
in Puerto Rico; they had dominated Puerto Rican native populations and set up feudal
systems to reinforce Spanish wealth and political standing. But there was also a shared
language and a generally accepted way of life. The U.S. presence offered the potential
for democracy, economic progress, and possibly a future free of poverty. But Puerto
Ricans were still unsure about their autonomy and the likely changes to their existing
cultural and political structure with this new and powerful ruler.
The ForakerAct (1900)
Under U.S. influence, Puerto Rico quickly underwent many changes. In 1900 the
Foraker Act (formally known as the Organic Act of 1900, signed by President McKinley)
was imposed, replacing the military regime with a civil form of governance. It held that:
The U.S. President appoints a Governor and an 11-member Executive Council
A U.S. District Court is established and the U.S. selects justices
Puerto Rican citizenship is established (similar to, but not U.S. citizenship)
All federal U.S. laws go into effect
Puerto Rican laws are subject to veto by the U.S. Congress
Trade treaties with other countries are nullified
153
-------
Trade with the U.S. is tariff-free and Puerto Rico pays no taxes
The Puerto Rican peso is retired at 60C per U.S. dollar
Retiring the peso at such a poor exchange rate resulted in a 40% increase in cost of
living in Puerto Rico and opened the door for U.S. investors to make vast, inexpensive
land purchases for sugar cane production. This required skirting a provision of the
Foraker Act that limited land ownership to 500 acres. Initially, the new investment was
positive for the economy, but Puerto Ricans were engaged almost exclusively as manual
laborers and were largely excluded from profits and ownership.
Jones-Shafroth Act (1917)
In 1917, the U.S. Congress passed the Jones Act (Jones-Shafroth Act, signed by
President Wilson), which granted U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans born in the island
and provided unrestricted entry to the U.S. mainland. It also reformed the government,
providing a 2-house legislature based on the U.S. model and a Bill of Rights. The
Governor was still selected by the U.S. President but could now veto legislative actions.
As a consequence of the Jones Act and the Selective Service Act passed two months
later, 18,000-20,000 young Puerto Rican males were conscripted into the U.S. military
to serve in World War I.
The heavy U.S. investment in sugar cane began to pay off by the 1920's when sugar
became the main export crop. For Puerto Ricans, however, sugar cane provided a static
monoculture economy that employed roughly % of the islands population at extremely
low wages (about 63C a day). Moreover, the effort came at the expense of other
economic sectors that were not developed nor incentivized. Because of low wages,
other means of employment were needed for families to survive, but additional
employment was unavailable. The German blockade during World War I created a
demand for cloth and linen, so many Puerto Ricans took up sewing (needlework).
By 1933 over 40,000 families, mostly the women, were employed in low-wage garment
production (Fig. A-5). This sustained many Puerto Rican families, although at poverty
levels, for several years (Silvestrini and Sanchez 1988). As an illustrative economic
contrast, the Federal Labor Standards Act was passed in the U.S. in 1938, setting
minimum wage at $0.25 an hour. These wages were unsustainable for needlework
in Puerto Riconeedlework paid only 3-4C per hourso Puerto Rico requested and
received a temporary exemption from this federal law. Per capita income for Puerto
Ricans at this time was about $100 a year.
154
-------
Figure A-5. Women working in a garment factory in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1942
(photo credit: Jack Delano, Library of Congress).
The New Deal (1933)
President Roosevelt and his New Deal administration created the Puerto Rico
Emergency Relief Administration (1933) to establish rural resettlement communities
and demonstration farms hoping to make coffee and fruit farming more profitable.
At about the same time, the Jones-Costigan Act (1934) was enacted to limit the amount
of tariff-free sugar imported from Puerto Ricothis was an attempt to balance sugar
imports from foreign (mostly Cuba) and domestic producers like Puerto Rico. But like
the Foraker Act, large sugar companies were able to ignore the Act and by 1938, 50 U.S.
companies owned over 250,000 acres of Puerto Rican sugar farms and over 90% of the
sugar produced was sold in the U.S. market.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture eventually ceased sugar subsidies (lower taxes,
lower tariffs) to Puerto Rico and the industry began to wane. Because much of the land
that fell out of production was still in U.S. ownership, Puerto Rico was forced to import
most of its food from U.S. markets. Prices were held artificially high by U.S. tariffs, so
the island became more and more indebted and dependent. The land monopoly was
not broken until 1941, when the Land Reform Act limited (once again) ownership to
500 acres. By this time, however, there were few Puerto Ricans who could afford to
buy land.
155
-------
Appendix B. Guidance for Selecting the
Decision Context and Developing the Decision
Selecting the Decision Context
The decision context is the problem, issue, or reason for making a decision. The decision
context can be narrow (decrease nutrient loadings from a wastewater treatment plant)
or broad (achieve a sustainable watershed), but the context must be relevant to the
decision-making potential. For example, the narrow case above (nutrient loadings) must
have some potential for nutrient management within the available options; and the
broader case (sustainable watershed) must have some potential for influencing socio-
economic policy.
Those facing the decision and those with factual knowledge about the decision typically
set the decision context. For example, a government agency is deciding whether some
proposed activity should be approved. The agency, the proponent (often a private
resource-development company) and community or environmental groups outline the
decision context. The decision context may be adapted and refined throughout the
ensuing process, but a well-thought initial attempt will save later controversy and
challenge.
It is important to ensure that the decision context is sufficiently broad that all
stakeholders can agree on the context (Brown 1984). Disagreements tend to occur
when the initial statement of the decision context explicitly or implicitly excludes
objectives or alternatives that some stakeholders consider important (Gregory and
Keeneyl994).
Developing the Decision Landscape
The Decision Landscape documents the relevant legal, institutional, and social factors
affecting a decision. The decision landscape is drawn from the decision context. It
includes some knowledge of issues surrounding the context and should include:
a) Scale of the decisionhow big an area, how long a time, how many communities
will it affect?
b) Fact (science) knowledgewhat is known about relationships between pieces of the
decision puzzle, i.e., effects of stressors and potential benefits of reducing them?
c) Current conditionwhat is the status of the issue and why is a decision needed now
instead of later?
156
-------
d) Unintended consequenceswhat else, other than its intended purpose,
will the decision affect?
e) Decision-makerswho would be making the decision or components of the
decision? Who would be funding the actions if decisions were made?
Who authorizes the different steps of a potential action?
f) Stakeholderswho will be affected, both positively and negatively?
g) Legal statuswho owns or is responsible for property that might be altered by
decisions? What laws are applicable and who is responsible for enforcing them?
h) Historywhat have past decisions been and how did they lead to the existing
situation? Are there planning or visioning documents in place relevant to the issue?
The decision landscape can be characterized in a variety of ways. A graphic
representation or flow chart of the issue to be resolved and the likely effects of different
decisions could be very useful to organizers as well as workshop participants. One
organizing concept that is commonly used is the DPSIR (Driving Force, Pressure, State,
Impact, Response) framework, which promotes a comprehensive 'systems' approach.
Another possibility is an issue or 'white paper' that briefly characterizes the decision
landscape. The issue paper could include a DPSIR diagram. Any materials that will help
workshop participants understand the most relevant aspects of the decision context will
be useful.
Systems Thinking and the DPSIR Framework
The DPSIR Framework can help us inform decisions by organizing the decision context
from a systems viewpoint, that is, considering the effects of different decision options
beyond the immediate purpose. In its simplest form DPSIR relates:
Driving Forces: human needs (sometimes thought of as fulfilled by
economic sectors)
Pressures: human activities to fulfill needs that stress the environment
States: changes in the condition of the environment
Impacts: effects of a change in state on ecosystem services
Responses: reactions to losses of ecosystem services
A DPSIR tutorial http://www.epa.gov/ged/tutorial/index.htm provides a step-by-step
process for generating a DPSIR tool. (See Fig. B-l).
157
-------
DPSIR Framework
Driving Forces
Socioeconomic sectors and
cultural factors that drive
human activities (causes)
Pressure
Human activities that
place stress on the
environment (pollutants)
I
Response
Response of society to the
environmental situation
(policies, decisions)
State
Condition of the environment
(composition, distribution,
quality)
Impact
Effects of environmental
degradation (changes in
attributes, services)
Figure B-l. The DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework (source: Bradley
et al. 2014c).
The basic steps to building a DPSIR concept map are to:
Define the system, problem, or management concern
List key concepts or keywords related to the concern
Determine concepts or keywords that are linked uphill (causing the problem)
or downhill (result from the problem) to the central topic.
Continue building uphill/downhill until all five sections of DPSIR are filled with
relevant, linked concepts
The flexibility of the DPSIR framework allows the initial concept to be anywhere within
DPSIR, depending on the specific economic, ecological, or management concerns of the
decision maker. Although starting with a narrow set of concerns, framing the problem
within DPSIR encourages the decision-maker to adopt a systems approach, and think
about the uphill and downhill challenges to the problem within the larger system.
The process of creating a conceptual model allows decision-makers, stakeholders, or
scientists to characterize major stressors, interactions, and tradeoffs related to an issue,
or to brainstorm alternative decision options. The DPSIR Framework provides a scaffold
to help guide discussion, and ensure key concepts (e.g. economic driving forces, human
well-being, and decision options) are not overlooked. Questions can be used to guide
158
-------
discussion, stepping through each DPSIR category to elicit information toward building a
conceptual model for the given issue under consideration.
Discussion Questions:
Driving Forces: What are the key Economic Sectors (e.g. transportation,
construction, tourism, fisheries) in the community, watershed, or region that may
be creating pressures on the environment?
Pressures: What human activities (e.g. overfishing, automobile emissions,
wastewater discharges, landuse changes) may be creating pressure on the
environment?
State: How do human activities affect the Environmental State, including the
condition of the abiotic environment (e.g. contaminants, sediment, water
temperature) or living biota (e.g. forests, wetlands, birds, invasive species)?
Impact: What do humans gain from the environment in the form of Ecosystem
Services (e.g. fisheries production, shoreline protection, recreational
opportunities, drinkable water)?
Trade-off Driving Forces: What are the costs of loss or benefits of ecosystem
services to the economy or society? What Economic sectors may be most strongly
impacted by changes in ecosystem services?
Response: What actions or Responses can be taken to affect driving forces,
pressures, state, or impact?
An example DPSIR framework linking watershed and coastal activities to coastal
ecosystems is shown below (Fig. B-2) (source: Yee et al. 2014a).
Archival Research
Archival research is a type of primary research that involves seeking out and extracting
evidence from original archival records. Archival research is an approach that can
provide much of the information needed for the Decision Landscape.
Planning
Before starting the research, the researcher(s) should determine the decision context.
This includes:
The geographic area(s) of concern
Key historic decisions
Research questions or issues to be addressed with respect to each historic decision
Previous research known to have been done on such issues
The amount and kind of information expected to be needed to address the
decision context
159
-------
The types of sources to be used
The types of methods to be used
The types of personnel likely to be needed
Where possible, expectations about what will be learned, or hypothetical answers
to major research questions.
Agricultural BMPs
Boating Regulations
Fishing Regulations
Emissions Regulations
Water Quality Criteria
Restoration
Remediation
Manufacturing &
Driving Forces
Climate Change
Invasive Species
Physical Damage
Shoreline Protection
Sand Production
Dive & Snorkeling Opportunity
Fish & Shellfish Stock
Natural Products
Ecosystem Integrity
Figure B-2. Example DPSIR framework linking watershed and coastal ecosystems (source: Yee et al.
2014a).
Primary Sources
Primary, or original, sources include actual material that has been preserved from the
period of interest: written or published documents and graphic material, as well as the
artifacts themselves. Examples of archival records include:
Government files and records
Graphic material (plat maps and other historical maps, old photographs, bird's-eye
views, and historical prints)
Back issues of local newspapers and periodicals
Family papers and records, including keepsakes, letters, and personal diaries,
ledgers, canceled checks, and receipts
Accounts of travelers and early ethnographic accounts
Industry and business records
Census reports, deeds and wills, tax rolls
160
-------
Secondary Sources
Secondary sources are those written by individuals who have studied and interpreted
the available original sources. They generally provide a broad overview of the
community's history but represent a later interpretation rather than a contemporary
record of events or reflection of the spirit of the times. Secondary sources include:
Local, regional, or State histories: monographs, pamphlets, or other material
prepared by local or State historical societies or other groups concerned with
particular aspects of State or local history (genealogical societies, e.g., although
researchers should be aware that the concerns of genealogists may not be directly
related to the issue of establishing the significance of resources).
Anthropological and sociological works that provide theoretical models of
prehistoric and historic social systems, economic systems, and settlement systems,
on a regional, national, or worldwide context, that may be relevant to the
historical contexts of the community.
Dissertations, theses, and other research papers on the history and prehistory of
the area, available in college and university departments of history, anthropology,
and archeology.
Reports of oral history projects carried out by local universities, colleges,
secondary schools, and community organizations.
General works on the geology, geomorphology, ecology, environment, and land-
use history of the region, which may help researchers understand natural
constraints on, and results of, trends in the use of land and other resources in and
around the community.
Where to find primary and secondary information
Libraries
Archives or public records at the local county courthouse or town hall
Universities and colleges (libraries, faculty members, collections,
special research units)
Museums (artifacts, records)
State and local historical societies
Local historic preservation or landmark commissions
State, regional, and local archeological societies
State and National Parks (archives of historical information)
The National Archives
161
-------
The Library of Congress
The National Cartographic Information Center (U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, Reston, VA 22091)
Federal agencies, state and territorial agencies
Planning and development offices of local government or regional
intergovernmental organizations
Non institutional sources (local industries and businesses, newspapers,
Neighborhood organizations, residents)
Oral history
Much of a community or neighborhood's history may not be on record anywhere, but
may be richly represented in the memories of its people, and its cultural and aesthetic
values may be best represented in their thoughts, expressions, and ways of life. For this
reason, it is often important to include an oral historical or ethnographic component in
the survey.
Oral historical and ethnographic research must be planned and carried out with the full
knowledge and cooperation of community and neighborhood leaders and with
sensitivity to their cultural backgrounds, values, and modes of expression.
Typically, oral historical or ethnographic researchers meet at regular intervals with
members of the community, individually or in groups, to discuss the history and other
cultural aspects of those parts of the survey area currently being studied or soon to be
studied in the field. It is also often useful to drive or walk through the survey area with
knowledgeable residents of the community to obtain their comments on specific
properties and areas.
Unless informants object, sessions should usually be tape-recorded so that written
descriptions can be transcribed and correlated with other survey information. In order
to ensure accuracy of the transcripts, and to respect the confidentiality of informants,
those interviewed should be given the opportunity to edit tapes or transcripts. To
ensure maximum accuracy, verification of informants' accounts should be sought
through interviews with multiple individuals and members of different groups, and
through comparison with documentary and field survey data.
162
-------
Appendix C. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal
Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop
Participants
Name
Richard
Appeldoorn
Lia Brune
Chris Caldow
Miguel Canals
Miguel Canals Sr.
Madeleine
Cancel
Lisamarie
Carrubba
Jose Castro
John Czapiga
Damaris
Delgado- Lopez
Raimundo
Espinoza
Annette
Feliberty-Ruiz
Angel Figueroa
Magaly Figueroa
Jorge (Reni)
Garcia-Sais
Organization
University of Puerto Rico,
Caribbean Coral Reef
Institute
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
University of Puerto Rico,
Department of Engineering
Science and Materials
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
Caribbean Maritime
Educational Center, Inc.
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries
Service, Caribbean Field
Office
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation
Service
Citizen
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation
Service
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service,
International Institute of
Tropical Forestry
University of Puerto Rico
Department of Marine
Sciences
Phone Number
787-899-2048
ext. 251
850-261-8212
301-713-3028
787-832-4040
ext. 3065
787-821-5706
787-821-4164
787-851-3700
809-766-5206
ext. 226
787-999-2200
ext. 2615
202-486-4359
787-767-8181
ext. 3453
787-766-5206
787-766-5335
ext. 118
787-899-2048
ext. 247
Email Address
Richard.appeldoorn@upr.edu
lia.brune@noaa.gov
chris.caldow@noaa.gov
mcanals@uprm.edu
menqi@hotmail.com
camaredpr@live.com
Lisamarie.Carrubba@noaa.gov
Jose.Castro@pr.usda.gov
czapiga@verizon.net
ddelgado@drna.gobierno.pr
respinoza@drna.gobierno.pr
annettefeliberty@jca.gobierno.pr
angel.figueroa@wdc.usda.gov
mafigueroa@fs.fed. us
renigar@caribe.net
163
-------
Name
Miguel A. Garcia
Evelyn Huertas
Aaron Hutchins
NildaM.
Jimenez-Marrero
Craig Lilyestrom
Luis Meyer-
Comas
Francisco Pagan
Manuel Valdes
Pizzini
Lillian Ramirez
Carlos E. Ramos
Scharron
Aida Rosario
LuisSoler-Lopez
Paul Sturm
Skip Van Bloem
Lisa Vandiver
Roberto Viquiera
Ernesto Weil
DaveWhitall
Organization
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
EPA Region 2
The Nature Conservancy
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
Farmer
University of Puerto Rico,
Caribbean Coral Reef
Institute
University of Puerto Rico
University of Puerto Rico
The University of Texas at
Austin, Department of
Geography and the
Environment
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
U.S. Geologic Survey,
Caribbean Water Science
Center
Center for Watershed
Protection
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service,
Guanica Dry Forest NEON
Site
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric
Administration, Restoration
Center
Center for Watershed
Protection Guanica
Coordinator
University of Puerto Rico
Department of Marine
Sciences
National Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
Phone Number
787-999-2200
ext. 2607
787-977-5852
340-718-5575
787-999-2200
ext. 2710
787-999-2200
ext. 2615
787-246-2870
787-899-2048
ext. 265
787-751-8879
787-832-8045
787-587-0416
787-833-2025
787-749-4346
ext. 278
410-461-8323
787-832-4040
ext. 2218
301-713-0174
ext. 182
787-457-8803
787 899-2048
ext. 241, 272
301-713-3028
ext. 138
Email Address
magarcia@drna.gobierno.pr
Huertas.evelyn@epa.gov
ahutchins@tnc.org
njimenez@drna.gobierno.pr
craig.lilyestrom@drna.gobierno.pr
frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com
Franciscoe.pagan@upr.edu
mvpizzini@uprm.edu
lillian.ramirez@upr.edu
cramos@irf.org
arosario@drna.gobierno.pr
lssoler@usgs.gov
pes@cwp.org
svanbloem@uprm.edu
lisa.vandiver@noaa.gov
rviqueira@hotmail.com
eweil@caribe.net
Dave.Whitall@noaa.gov
164
-------
Appendix D. 2010 Coral Reef and Coastal
Ecosystems Decision-Support Workshop Agenda
Goal: 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
165
-------
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.
11:30 LUNCH
1:00 Example DPSIR and Charge to Break-Out Groups
Purpose: Walkthrough 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 breakout 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.)
166
-------
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.
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: Positive perception from group that Day 1 was beneficial,
anticipation of Day 2, and revised exercises completed by morning to assist in the
Day 2 sessions.
CCRI Reception hosted by the Department of Marine Science, University of Puerto Rico,
Mayaguez
167
-------
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
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 breakout
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
168
-------
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.
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)
169
-------
DAY 3 - the Into
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
170
-------
Appendix E. 2012 Decision-Making Workshop
Agenda
Goal: To evaluate how decisions are made on the use and management of natural
resources in the Guanica Bay watershed.
DAY 1 - Understand the Decision-making Process and the Use of
Information for Decision-making
9:00 Introduction
Process: Welcome participants; introduce the overall purpose of the workshop;
and get to know who is attending/who they represent/what their main
interests are.
Desired Outcomes: Relaxed, friendly atmosphere.
9:30 Decision-making structure
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the agency that regulates in some form
or manner resources and activities in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of resource management in the
Guanica Bay Watershed.
10:30 Education and outreach
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the education and outreach efforts
provided by the various agencies (federal, territorial, municipal, local).
Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of available education and outreach
available in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
11:30 Break
12:00 Priorities for Guanica Bay
Process: In a facilitated discussion, prioritize various topics. Reach consensus on
the most important priorities, and identify who is responsible.
Desired Outcomes: A prioritized list of top priority actions for the Guanica Bay
Watershed.
1:00 Lunch
171
-------
1:30 Research and Development
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify which types of research are being
conducted in the Guanica Bay Watershed, who is conducting the research, and
who is paying for it.
Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of ongoing research in Guanica Bay
Watershed.
2:30 Environmental decisions not made (missed opportunities)
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify historic decisions on environmental
concerns/problems that were not made. Determine reason(s) and who should
have made those decisions.
Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of missed opportunities, responsibilities
and rationale.
3:30 Transparency and Access in Guanica Bay
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the level of transparency (information
and outreach about the process of decision-making) on environmental
problems/urban infrastructure issues in Guanica Bay. Discuss the barriers and
problems with achieving transparency in decision-making in the Guanica Bay
Watershed.
Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of transparency in decision-making.
4:30 Questions and wrap-up
Process: Each participant completes the exercise individually, answering the
following questions:
What is the interaction between you and Decision-Makers?
What would you say works best in terms of the process of decision-making?
What are some of the problems in the process of decision-making you would
address if you were in charge?
Any comments on today's workshop?
Desired Outcomes: Participants reflect on the day's exercises and provide
feedback to EPA.
5:00 End of Day 1
172
-------
Day 2 - Understanding Preferences and Trade-offs in Decision-
making
9:00 Introduction
Process: Facilitator reviews the agenda and addresses any issues or topics that
workshop participants feel should be revisited.
Desired Outcomes: Participants are engaged and ready for day 2.
9:30 Agencies making Investments
Process: In a facilitated discussion, determine which sector of governance
(private/government or NGO) invests (commits financial or man-power efforts) on
the various activities and natural resources in Guanica Bay.
Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of investments currently being made
in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
10:30 Recommendations for Investments
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify and prioritize topics (activities, and
natural resource conservation issues) for investment (financial or man-power).
Desired Outcomes: A prioritized list of investment opportunities.
11:30 Break
12:00 Causes of degradation in Guanica Bay Watershed
Process: In a facilitated discussion, identify the various causes of environmental
degradation and who is responsible for the degradation.
Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of who is causing environmental
degradation in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
1:00 Lunch
1:30 Non-market valuation of Guanica Bay
Process: In a facilitated discussion, discuss the various environmental non-market
goods and services available in the watershed. Describe the benefits and
importance of each. Reach consensus on a relative ranking of the non-market
goods and services.
Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding and relative ranking of the
environmental non-market goods and services in the Guanica Bay Watershed.
173
-------
2:30 Cost-Benefits/trade-offs in Guanica Bay
Process: Working with a partner, use the worksheet to analyze a list of
management actions, and how the costs would compare to the benefits.
Desired Outcomes: A shared understanding of costs vs. benefits for various
management actions.
3:30 Economic Development
Process: In a facilitated discussion, discuss the economic sectors in the Guanica
Bay Watershed. Discuss why a given sector should be developed, how, and by
whom., Assign a priority for economic development (low, medium, high), as well
as a rationale.
Desired Outcomes: A prioritized list of potential areas for economic development
with documented rationale.
4:30 Questions and Wrap-up
Process: Each participant completes the exercise individually, answering the
following questions:
What is the interaction between you and natural resources?
What would be something you would change in the way decision-makers
manage the use of natural resources?
What are some of the problems you would address, and how?
Comments on today's workshop?
Desired Outcomes: Participants reflect on the day's exercises and provide
feedback to EPA.
5:00 End of Workshop
Process: Facilitator thanks participants and reviews how the workshop results
will be used.
174
-------
Appendix F. 2012 Decision-Making
Workshop Participants
Name
Miguel Canals
Ramon Catalan
Luis Conty
Oscar Diaz
Lisette Fas
Manuel FloresSoto
Ramon Garcia
Evelyn Huertas
Darien Lopez
Francisco Medina
Jose A Menendez
Luis Meyer Comas
Benjamin Negron
Joel Rodriguez
Miguel Sanchez
Edgar Torres Molini
Willie Vargas Garcia
Roberto Viqueira
Organization
DNER
DPR
PR Land Authority
US F&WS
Cafiesencia
Agriculture
Fisherman
EPA R-2
DNER
Sierra Club
Farmer
PREPA
Municipality of Guanica
Fisherman
Fisherman
Protectores de Cuenca
Phone Number
787-821-5706
787-856-1355
939-630-9549
787-504-5935
787-309-6017
787-821-6822
939-266-1785
781-977-5852
939-865-0401
787-617-2584
787-319-6629
787-246-2870
787-856-1316
787-297-9390
787-546-8709
787-689-4257
939-228-9204
787-457-8803
Email Address
menqui@hotmail.com
ramon.catalal@upr.edu
lconty@gmail.com
oscar_diaz@fws.gov
lisettefas@gmail.com
grabber@coqui.net
huertas.evelyn@epa.gov
dlopezocasio@drna.gobierno.pr
fjmedina95@yahoo.es
jmenen6666@aol.com
frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com
b-negron@prepa.gov
jrodriguez@guanicapr.net
miguelsanchezl950@yahoo.com
yeyoyd@gmail.com
rviqueira@hotmail.com
175
-------
Appendix G. 2013 Public Values Forum
Participants
Name
Genoveva Acosta
Richard
Appeldoorn
Nashaly Berrios
Miguel Canals Sr.
Hector Caraballo
Lisamarie
Carrubba
Joaquin Chong
John Czapiga
Lisette Fas-
Quinones
Rob Ferguson
Efra Figueroa
Magaly Figueroa
Javier Hernandez
Velez
Xiomara Labiosa
Colon
Craig Lilyestrom
Ivan Llerandi-
Roman
Glorimar Lorenzo
Glez
Michael McGee
Louis Meyer
Comas
Benjamin Negron
Jose Orengo
Gomez
Organization
PathStone Corporation
University of Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources, Ranger Corps
NOAA Fisheries Service
University of Puerto Rico,
Agricultural Experiment
Station
Citizen
Cafiesencia
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration
Puerto Rico Sea Grant
Program
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental
Resources
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
Caribe Fisheries Inc.
Protectores de Cuencas
Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority (PREPA)
Excursiones Ecoboriken,
Inc.
Phone Number
787-829-6024
787-899-2048
ext. 251
787-821-5706
787-851-3700
787 767 9705
ext. 2208
732-521-0580
787-309-6017
787-851-3700
787-380-9424
787-766-5335
ext. 118
787-851-7297
ext. 222
787-999-2200
ext. 2615
787-851-7297
ext. 224
787-643-5083
787-246-2870
787-951-0683
Email Address
rouraacosta@yahoo.com
richard.appeldoorn@upr.edu
nashaly.berrios@acueductospr.com
menqui@hotmail.com
Lisamarie.Carrubba@noaa.gov
jachong@gmail.com
czapiga@verizon.net
lisettefas@gmail.com
rob.ferguson@noaa.gov
efraphoto@gmail.com
mafigueroa@fs.fed. us
hervell803@yahoo.com
xiomara_labiosa@fws.gov
craig.lilyestrom@drna.gobierno.pr
ivanjlerandi-roman@fws.gov
glorimarlorenzo@jca.pr.gov
mvmcgee@caribefish.com
frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com
b-negron@aeepr.com
excursionesecoboriken@gmail.com
176
-------
Name
Rabin Ortiz
Zamira Pagan
Kenia Parga
Rivera
Luis Perez Alegria
Ariel Ramirez
Graciela
Ramirez-Toro
Lillian Ramirez-
Durand
Gabriel Roman
Miguel Sanchez
Aponte
David
Sotomayor-
Ramirez
Ada Torres-
Ramirez
Manuel Valdes-
Pizzini
Rosa Vazquez
Rivera
Javier Velez-
Arocho
Luis Villanueva-
Cubero
Roberto Viqueira
Organization
Copamarina Beach Resort
&Spa
Conservation Trust of
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority (PREPA)
University of Puerto Rico,
College of Agricultural
Sciences
United Front for the
Defense of the Lajas Valley
InterAmerican University
of Puerto Rico
University of Puerto Rico,
Sea Grant
Student, University of
Puerto Rico
Communities of Rancheras
and Frailes, Yauco, PR
University of Puerto Rico,
College of Agricultural
Sciences
BusinessWise
University of Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
Ecostahlia LLC.
Sierra Club
Protectores de Cuencas
Phone Number
787-821-0505
787-722-5834
787-832-4040
ext. 3337
787-832-8045
787-265-3851
787-751-8879
939-261-8580
787-431-6639
787-457-8803
Email Address
rortiz@copamarina.com
paganz@fideicomiso.org
kapr82@hotmail.com
kenia-parga@aeepr.com
luisr.perezl@upr.edu
ariel_yayo@yahoo.com
gramirez@inter.edu
lillian.ramirez@upr.edu
gabriel.romanl@upr.edu
miguelsanchezl950@yahoo.com
david.sotomayor@upr.edu
adatorres@getbusinesswise.com
mvpizzini@uprm.edu
rosavazquez@jca.pr.gov
jvarocho@ecostahlia.com
Ivilla2962@gmail.com
rviqueira@hotmail.com
177
-------
Appendix H. Guidance and Sample Agendas for
Public Values Forum and Objectives Workshops
A workshop or series of meetings is one way to engage the community but must be well
organized, with clear goals. The primary purpose of the workshop(s) is to identify and
understand the values (objectives) of the stakeholders. An iterative process to elicit and
organize objectives, generate decision alternatives, and summarize effects of decision
alternatives on multiple objectives will serve to identify, refine, characterize and reinforce
knowledge of stakeholder values.
Workshop Invitees
Potential workshop participants should be selected to represent those who are most likely
to be affected by the decision context. It is useful to develop a balanced list of stakeholder
categories (interested and affected parties) to vet with your key stakeholders. Having a
balanced list of categories and balanced representation avoids preferential selections,
intended or otherwise, and is critical to eliciting a variety of viewpoints and objectives.
Invitees should be trusted to speak for their peers. Balanced participation by multiple
stakeholder groups will lend defensibility and relevance to the outcome.
Although the specific categories of stakeholders for a given engagement process will be
largely dependent on its goals and objectives, a typical generic profile of stakeholders may
be categorized into the following types:
Government agencies
Industry or sector representatives
Research (e.g. scientific, technical specialists) or academic institutions
Special interest groups
Resource users (e.g., hunters, fishers, bird watchers)
Members of the general public or community at large who are impacted by the
decision or have an interest in the outcome of the decision
There are several things that can be done to engage participants and stakeholders before
the workshop. At the least, participants should be informed of the decision context and
provided some of the more relevant background material assembled to describe the
decision landscape. They could also be told why they were selected, i.e., which particular
occupation or interest group they are representing, and asked whether they are the best
representative for this group. They can also be informed about what is expected of them
and asked to begin thinking about, even writing down, some of their objectives regarding
the issue.
178
-------
Sample Workshop(s) Agenda
Workshop #1: Public Values Forum
Goal: to produce one common set of objectives that everyone agrees will be used
to evaluate alternatives.
9:00 Welcome and Introductions
9:15 The Decision Context (four invited presentations)
Purpose: To provide participants a common factual base relevant to the decision
context.
Process: The facilitator will introduce each speaker. Each talk will be 30 minutes.
An unbiased presentation of existing management plans or of a systems
framework (e.g., DPSIR) could be used to tie together different factors. A 30-
minute facilitated question and answer session will follow the talks.
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Stakeholder Values
Purpose: To provide participants an opportunity to individually generate a list
of values.
Process: Once the stakeholders have an understanding of the decision context,
participants are given time to independently write down what is important to
them relevant to the decision context (e.g., their values). Stakeholders can be
asked to generate objectives from their personal perspective, from the perspective
of the group they represent (institutional) and from a societal perspective.
This can be framed by open-ended questions or prompts, such as (Keeney 1992):
What are we trying to achieve?
What concerns are we trying to address?
What are the specific issues or concerns you'd like to see addressed?
What do you think should happen?
What criteria can we use to compare alternatives?
What would make a great (or terrible) alternative? Why?
179
-------
Objectives consist of a statement of the thing that matters and (sometimes)
a verb indicating the preferred direction of change.
1:30 Brainstorming Objectives (Breakout Groups)
Purpose: Each breakout group will develop a simple, concise list of objectives
that captures all of the ideas from the members of the group
Process: Participants are assigned to breakout groups (6-8 members). The breakout
groups can be organized based upon the stakeholders' expertise, around a
particular aspect of the decision context, or for comprehensive representation.
Each breakout group will have a facilitator/note-taker.
The stakeholders share their objectives with others in the group, and work on developing
a comprehensive list that includes everyone's objectives. There are no 'wrong' objectives
so all suggestions should be included. The group can merge objectives if everyone agrees
the result accounts for all the ideas. The facilitator can assist by ensuring all perspectives
are being heard, spurring new ideas, and helping to define the objectives being discussed.
Next the group will turn their brainstormed list into a set of simple, concise objectives.
Objectives should state the thing that matters and the direction you'd like it to move
(Mollaghasemi and Pet-Edwards 1997; Dunning et al. 2000; McDaniels 2000; Keeney
2007; Gregory et al. 2012). Use the terms 'maximize' and 'minimize' to clarify the
preferred direction of change (e.g., more or less is better).
For example, objectives for addressing threats to coral reef ecosystems from exposure to
pollution may be to:
Minimize point source pollution discharge in coastal waters
Minimize nonpoint source pollution discharged to coastal waters
Key Ideas:
Objectives only need to state the thing that matters, and what
direction you'd like it to move.
Make sure all objectives have a single, clear direction that can be
understood by everyone.
4:30 Master list of objectives
Purpose: Develop a master list of objectives.
Process: When the groups are brought back together, each group reports their list
of objectives and a summary of the group's discussion. When all groups have
reported, the workshop facilitator creates a master list. Redundant objectives from
different groups can be merged if the result accounts for all the ideas.
5:00 End of first workshop
180
-------
Between Workshops 1 and 2
Facilitators examine the list of objectives generated during the first workshop to
formulate questions for better understanding, edit objectives into a common format,
propose further merging of objectives as appropriate, and form preliminary groupings of
objectives by topic. The edited list will be presented to the participants at the next
meeting.
Workshop #2: Developing an Objectives Hierarchy
9:00 Welcome and Introductions
9:30 Review 1st Meeting
Purpose: Provide a review of the first meeting and present one common set of
objectives that everyone agrees will be used to evaluate alternatives
Process: The facilitator will present a review of the first meeting, including an
overview of the decision context, important aspects of the decision landscape, and
development of the master list of objectives. Participants should be given an
opportunity to review the master list, especially if facilitators have proposed
changes. Participants should also be given some time to consider additional
objectives.
10:30 Review and Organize Objectives
Purpose: Participants will separate objectives into fundamental objectives
(which reflect the ends we are trying to achieve) and means objectives
(which are important ways of achieving them).
Key concepts:
Fundamental objectives are the outcomes or ends you really care about, no matter
how they are achieved.
Means objectives refer to particular ways of achieving the fundamental objectives.
Process: The facilitator will present a preliminary breakdown of the master list into
major topics. This will vary with the decision context but the number of topics
should be aimed at the number of subgroups that can be formed. Breakout groups
can be selected as those most interested or with expertise in the topic or by equal
representation of stakeholder categories, as noted above.
181
-------
Prior to breaking into small groups, the facilitator will give a simple example of the
process, such as the one provided by Compass Resource Management (2015) on their
Structured Decision Making website:
Participant: "We should increase the reed coverage of the lake from 10% to 20%"
Facilitator: "Why is that important?"
Participant: "To provide habitat for dragonflies and other insects and to provide cover"
Facilitator: "Why is that important?"
Participant: "Because dragonflies are an important food source for fish, and the cover
reduces predation"
Facilitator: "Why is that important?"
Participant: "Because we want to protect native fish from extirpation"
Facilitator: "Why is it that important?"
Participant: "Because it just is!" (Fundamental objective reached)
Presentation of one or two examples of this type of organization should suffice.
Breakout groups should be given time to organize the objectives that fall within their topic
area. Organizing the objectives may lead to introduction of new objectives or refinement
of existing objectives. Good objectives are:
Fundamental Sensitive
Complete Understandable
Concise (Preferentially independent) (Gregory et al. 2012)
To clarify and structure objectives, the facilitator will ask three questions:
Why is this important?
What do you mean by that?
How do I achieve this?
The breakout groups should be asked to document by text or graphics the organizational
scheme. A good tool to document the organization is an influence diagram (or means-
ends diagram). The influence diagram visually shows the relationship between
fundamental objectives (ends) and management actions (means) (Fig. H-l); illustrates
where and how stakeholder values are addressed; and forms a starting point for
identifying evaluation criteria (Gregory et al. 2012).
182
-------
Fundamental objectives
Maximize ecological
integrity
Maximize economic
benefits
Enhance social well-
being
Minimize threats to
human health
Means objectives
Reduce physical/
chemical stressors
from agricultural loadings
Reduce physical/
chemical stressors
from municipal loadings
Encourage
hydroseeding
Enhance riparian
planting/cover
crops
Create incentives
for shade grown
coffee
Remove relic
irrigation
Dredge reservoirs/
sustain releases
Restore marshes
Treat stormwater
Treat sewage
effluent
Clear home sites
Enforce regulations
Minimize pet waste
Figure H-l. An influence diagram is a tool to separate means and ends. In this example, the ends are
shown to the far left, and the means are to the right.
The breakout groups should be asked to focus attention on decision alternatives for
objectives, particularly on lower-level objectives that are more likely to have clear
implementable options that can be measured. Achievement of higher-level objectives is
likely to occur from the aggregation of completed objectives at lower-levels.
The group should also identify process and strategic objectives. For example:
Fundamental - Maximize air quality
Means- Minimize industrial emissions
Process - Maximize public involvement in the process
Strategic - Be consistent with departmental vision
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Objectives Hierarchy
Purpose: Breakout groups each develop an objectives hierarchy to group similar
objectives.
Process: The facilitators will lead the breakout groups in developing an objectives
hierarchy (Fig. H-2).
183
-------
Maximize
species
abundance
Population
size
Maximize
ecological integrity
Maximize
species
diversity
Species
richness
Maximize
food web
integrity
1
Species Trophic function
evenness metrics
Maximize
living habitat
condition
Habitat condition
metrics
Fundamental
objectives
1 What do
we mean
by that?
Performance
measures
Figure H-2. Example objectives hierarchy for one of the proposed fundamental objectives from the
Guanica Bay Watershed (Carriger et al. 2013).
Any objective may have different interpretations depending on the decision context.
Through this hierarchy you have defined exactly what you mean by each fundamental
objective for this context. With the objectives hierarchy, you have defined all the
important elements that can be affected by this decision.
After completing the objectives hierarchy, the participants will next discuss performance
measures for each ends objective. Some performance measures may have already been
brought up during earlier brainstorming sessions (e.g., influence diagram exercises,
separating means and ends) and these should be revisited. The group will also brainstorm
additional performance measures. Regardless of how a performance measure is
identified, there are a few criteria that it should meet to qualify as a good measure. Good
Performance measures are (Keeney and Gregory 2005):
1. Unambiguous: the performance measures should not have uncertainty in
their portrayal of potential outcomes from the decision
2. Comprehensive: the performance measures should reflect the concerns specified
in the objectives
3. Direct: the range of the performance measures should cover the range of
potential outcomes from the decisions
4. Operational: the performance measures should have data or modeling
capabilities for assessing the impacts of the decisions and be usable in trade-
off analysis
5. Understandable: the performance measures should be understandable to
all parties
184
-------
4:30 Reconvene large group - breakout groups present their results
Purpose: A merged list of objectives organized by topic and hierarchy, with an
accompanying list of decision alternatives and performance measures. The list of
decision alternatives will likely include those originally defined in the decision
context as well as those generated through discussion of objectives.
Process: The large group will reconvene and each breakout group will present their
objectives hierarchies. This will be followed by a facilitated discussion to merge the
breakout group objective hierarchies into a single hierarchy.
5:00 End of second workshop
Between Workshops 2 and 3
Between workshops, the facilitators should examine the relationships generated by the
subgroups for objectives, edit and adapt as necessary and compile them in a common
format. The list of decision alternatives should also be coarsely organized and merged as
appropriate. All edits and organizational changes must be vetted with the participants at
the next meeting.
Workshop #3: Developing and Analyzing Alternatives
9:00 Welcome and Introductions
9:30 Review 1st and 2nd workshops
Purpose: Bring all participants to a shared understanding of progress to date.
Process: The facilitator presents a review of the first and second workshops,
including a brief overview of the decision context and decision landscape,
development and organization of objectives and decision alternatives. Participants
should be given an opportunity to review all materials, especially if facilitators
have proposed changes.
10:30 Facilitated discussion - Participants are given an opportunity to review all
materials, especially if facilitators have proposed changes.
11:00 Introduction to estimating consequences and evaluating tradeoffs
Purpose: To introduce various approaches for estimating consequences and
evaluating tradeoffs.
Process: The facilitator will provide a brief introduction and then the participants
will complete several exercises that each demonstrates a different approach.
Eliciting objectives and decision alternatives is informative, but simple tools can be used
to generate meaningful stakeholder comparisons of different decision options. A
consequence table and democratic voting are two of these tools. A decision-maker looking
at results from either tool can see what the stakeholders perceive as acceptable and less
acceptable. Acceptable decision alternatives may be low-hanging fruit that could be easily
implemented. Less-acceptable decision alternatives may still be worth implementing but
stakeholders perceived too many negative tradeoffs (that could be mitigated), too much
185
-------
uncertainty (that might be alleviated with focused research and education), too high a
cost (which could require a funding scheme), or confusion over what would be done
(which could require improved outreach). Decision-makers can benefit not only from
knowledge of those decisions that were supported but also from analysis of those that
were not.
Several workshop exercises are possible for evaluating decisions, a consequence table,
democratic vote, direct weighting and swing-weighting. All rely on previous discussions
and organization of objectives and decision alternatives. The consequence table should
precede the other exercises.
11:15 Exercise 1: The Consequence Table
Purpose: Complete a consequence table
Process: Through a facilitated discussion, a consequence table is filled out
collaboratively by all participants and is intended to summarize what they have
presented for objectives and decision alternatives. Facilitators can make this
process more efficient by filling in the top row and first column with objectives and
decision alternatives, respectively. This is best done with using a screen so that
participants can see and consider each matrix addition. Facilitators walk
participants through each cell of the matrix to elicit opinions on direction and
strength of a decision on each objective.
The consequence table is immediately useful to a decision-maker by summarizing how a
decision alternative will affect multiple objectives. It can identify whether decisions
benefit or detract from different objectives, and can be used to identify 'low-hanging fruit'
(low cost, low complexity, good scientific understanding, and no detraction from
objectives). The consequence table begins to prioritize actions and may also provide a
sequence, based on timeframes, for implementing decisions.
A consequence table is constructed with alternate decisions listed down the first column
and different objectives across the top row. The matrix is filled with coarse rankings that
signify strongly positive, weakly positive, neutral, weakly negative or strongly negative.
Up, down and horizontal arrows can be used to fill in the boxes. The outcome is a
summary of how each decision is expected to affect each objective.
Additional columns added to the consequence table can further characterize the
decisions; this could be a column for complexity, short-, medium- or long term action,
funding necessity, or more information needed. Similarly, additional rows for objectives
characteristics could be added, such as short-term or long-term objective, perceived
beneficiaries, or perceived 'weight' in the decision context.
186
-------
Table H-l. Hypothetical consequence table.
Decision 1
Decision 2
Decision 3
Decision 4
Goal
Importance
Objectives
A
tt
^
<->
t
Long-
term
High
B
4x
<->
t
tt
Short-
term
High
C
<->
tt
t
<->
Short-
term
Med
Complex?
Low
High
Low
High
Need
Science?
No
Some
Yes
No
Need
Funds?
None
Some
None
Many
Time-
frame
Short
Med
Short
Long
Best Practices for Developing Consequence tables (Gregory et al. 2012;
Compass Resource Management 2015)
Use the best available information
o Predictive models
o Expert judgment
o Local and traditional knowledge
Identify uncertainties
o Epistemic - incomplete knowledge (e.g., measurement error,
systemic error, model uncertainty, subjective judgments,
natural variation & randomness)
o Linguistic - ineffective communication e.g., vagueness, ambiguity,
context dependence, under-specificity, indeterminacy)
Report consequences in consistent terms across alternatives
Focus on relative performance
Provide context for interpreting consequences
Expose key trade-offs
Refine consequences iteratively
12:30 Lunch
187
-------
1:30 Exercise 2: The democratic vote
Purpose: To get a sense of how different potential actions are perceived by the
stakeholders. The endpoint of a vote is not to select the best decision but whether
decisions are viewed as highly supportable, somewhat supportable, or not
supportable.
Process: The participants will break into small groups. During a facilitated
discussion, each breakout group will identify 10 top action items. Participants will
then vote for the top three from that group of 10 actions.
A major concern with the democratic vote is freedom to choose through anonymity.
There are often very controversial sides to an issue and some participants might feel
pressure to vote one way or another by strong advocates. One way to provide anonymity
is through commercially purchased voting equipment. The equipment consists of hand-
held remote controls for each participant and a receiver with software package that can
compile and graph the results almost immediately. Otherwise, using secret ballots or
some other anonymous procedure is needed.
The results from voting are very useful to decision makers. Voting implies that individual
stakeholders, who represent themselves, their institutions and the "greater good" of
society, and who have been exposed to wide-ranging discussions on objectives, scientific
evidence, complexity, and unintended consequences, have formed opinions about
different decision alternatives. It is assumed, whether or not a consequence table was
generated, that they have taken into account the effects of a decision on all the
objectives.
2:30 Exercise 3: Direct ranking (source: Compass Resource Management 2014)
Purpose: Each participant will have a list of ordinal rankings that can be compared
with the subsequent swing-weighting exercise.
Process: Each participant individually completes this exercise.
1. Using the information in the consequence table, rank the options from #1 (best)
to # (worst). More than one option can have the same score.
2. Assign 100 points to any option ranked #1.
3. Score the remaining options based on how well they perform against the
option(s) rated #1. For example, if your feel #2 option is nearly as good as the
#1 option, assign it close to 100 points. If it is half as good, assign it 50 points.
Continue down the list in the ranked order, entering points either the same as
or lower than the one before. If an alternative has no value to you, you may
assign zero points. All entries must be a whole number between 0 and 100.
Each individual now has both ranks for each option and scores, which indicate the relative
value of each option.
188
-------
Individuals' scores will be normalized so that they can be compared against other scores.
The idea is to show how your initial assessment (Direct Ranking) can change after Swing-
weighting (next exercise). It is an evaluation of your consistency and a deeper probe of
your preferences. You record results from both scoring methods (described here) and
compare.
3:30 Exercise 4: Swing-weighting
Purpose: Each participant uses swing-weighting to develop a ranked order in list of
performance measures.
Process: Participants each individually complete the swing-weighting task, and
may end up with different rankings and weightings. Swing weighting is a useful
way to examine trade-offs and is described in more detail in Clemen and Reilly
(2014) but summarized below.
Worst and best-case scenarios are first identified using expertise such as knowledge and
modeling. Next participants are given Table H-2 and told to imagine a hypothetical
scenario where all of the performance measures are at their worst level. They can then
make a decision to "swing" one of the performance measures from the worst to the best
level. Their first choice performance measure to swing from worst to best is then
recorded and assigned a rank of 1. They can then swing another performance measure
from its worst to best level, which is then recorded and assigned a rank of 2. This process
continues until all performance measures are swung from their worst to best level and are
ranked in the order in which they are chosen from 1 to the number of performance
measures.
189
-------
Table H-2. Example of how the predicted change in performance measures from the
worst-case scenario to best-case scenario (derived from Tables 4-5,4-6 and 4-7) might
be considered in a swing-weighting exercise. Individuals would assign ranks and weights
based on their own values and preferences, here for example, for someone who highly
values protecting economic opportunities.
Objectives
Protect and create
economic
opportunities
Restore and
conserve the land
environment
Restore and
conserve the
aquatic
environment
Promote social &
cultural
opportunities
Performance
Measure
$ /hectare of crop
production
$ of jobs created
Cost of water
infrastructure
Index of species
biodiversity
% reduction in soil
erosion
Water turbidity
Diversity of aquatic life
# of recreation
activities
Hectares forested
Environmental attitude
% people connected to
wastewater treatment
plants
Best-case
scenario
\
Worst-case
scenario
\ , '
From/
consequence
ta
/
ble
\
Rank
1
4
3
2
Weight (%)
50
10
20
20
Next, the participants are given the opportunity to refine the weights on the performance
measures beyond a simple ranking. The rank ordered list is taken and the first measure
that was swung, with rank=l, is assigned a value of 100. Each of the other performance
measures is then given a number between 0 and 100 to indicate its preference level in
relation to the top performance measure. For example, participants might be asked how
less satisfying was it to improve cost from one million dollars to zero dollars vs. improving
bird species richness from 2 species to 20 species. If they are almost equally important,
the second value might receive a score of 80-100. If the second measure is absolutely not
as important, it might receive a score of 0-20. Tie values are allowed and a zero effectively
indicates no preference for that performance measure.
Next the weights are normalized to add to one. In Table K-2, The weight for $/hectare of
crop production is 100/(100+10+20+70)=0.5.
4:30 Summary of ranking exercises
Purpose: To show how the participants' initial assessment (Direct Ranking) can
change after swing-weighting.
Process: In a facilitated session, the facilitator will capture the individual
participants' results in a spreadsheet. The point of the swing-weighting and direct
ranking exercises is NOT to quantitatively obtain an "optimal" or a "majority wins"
190
-------
solution. Instead, it is to help guide discussions of how stakeholders feel about
tradeoffs using real ranges of possible outcomes (Carriger and Benson 2012). It can
help identify possible areas of consensus or identify the reasoning behind potential
conflicts, which may need to be explored further. When faced with realistic
tradeoffs, it may also expose potential uncertainties where the specified objectives
or performance measures are not adequately reflecting stakeholder concerns, or
the proposed decision options may need to be combined or refined, as part of an
overall iterative process.
In a facilitated discussion, participants will share the results of their rankings, and
compare the results of the different approaches. The facilitator will lead the group
towards a consensus on priorities or an understanding about the sources of
disagreements.
5:00 Discussion of additional information needs and next steps
Purpose: Wrap up any loose ends and develop a list of next steps.
Process: Facilitated discussion.
5:30 End of third workshop
191
-------
Appendix I. Glossary
Acropora cervicornis (aka Staghorn coral). This species of coral has cylindrical branches
ranging from a few centimeters to over two meters in length and height. It occurs in back
reef and fore reef environments from 0 to 30 m depth. Staghorn coral is found throughout
the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean islands. The northern limit is on the east
coast of Florida, near Boca Raton. Since 1980, populations have collapsed throughout
their range from disease outbreaks, with losses compounded locally by hurricanes,
increased predation, bleaching, and other factors. This species is also particularly
susceptible to damage from sedimentation and sensitive to temperature and salinity
variation. Populations have declined by up to 98% throughout the range, and localized
extirpations have occurred. On May 4, 2006, Staghorn coral was recognized as a
threatened species and placed on the Endangered Species List (71 CFR § 89).
Acropora palmata (aka Elkhorn coral). This species of coral is structurally complex with
many large branches. These branches create habitats for many other reef species such as
lobsters, parrotfish, snappers, and other reef fish. Elkhorn coral was once one of the most
abundant species of coral in the Caribbean and the Florida Keys. Since 1980 it has been
estimated that 90-95% of elkhorn coral has been lost. Threats to elkhorn coral include
disease, coral bleaching, predation, climate change, storm damage, and human activity.
All of these factors have created a synergistic affect that greatly diminishes the survival
and reproductive success of elkhorn coral. Natural recovery of coral is a slow process and
may never occur with this species because there are so many inhibitors to its survival. On
May 4, 2006, Elkhorn coral was recognized as a threatened species and placed on the
Endangered Species List (71 Federal Register 89 2006).
actors. In Envision, actors are entities that make decisions about the management of
particular portions of the landscape for which they have management authority, based on
balancing a set of objectives reflecting their particular values, mandates and the policy
sets in force on the parcels they manage.
agriculture. Also called farming or husbandry, is the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi,
and other life forms for food, fiber, biofuel, drugs, and other products used to sustain and
enhance human life (Wikipedia 2015a).
algae. Any of various primitive, chiefly aquatic, one- or multi-celled, nonflowering plants
that lack true stems, roots, and leaves, but usually contain chlorophyll. Algae convert
carbon dioxide and inorganic nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, into organic
matter through photosynthesis and form the basis of the marine food chain. Common
algae include dinoflagellates, diatoms, seaweeds, and kelp.
192
-------
Alternative-Focused Thinking (AFT). A form of decision-making where decision makers
choose from specified alternatives (Keeney 1992).
alternatives. Alternative solutions open to a decision-maker.
Analytic-Deliberative (A-D). A term coined in the risk field to describe characterization
processes able to reconcile "technocratic" and "citizen-centric" approaches (Stern and
Fineberg 1996). The analytic builds understanding by systematically applying specific
theories, methods and data that have been developed by technical experts. Deliberation
is an iterative communicative process where stakeholders confer, ponder, exchange
views, consider evidence, reflect on matters of mutual interest, and negotiate to move
towards a consensus decision.
anemone. A cnidarian of the class Anthozoa that possesses a flexible cylindrical body and
a central mouth surrounded by tentacles (NOAA 2015).
apex predator. An organism at the top of the food chain, relying on smaller organisms for
food (NOAA 2015).
archival research. A type of primary research that involves seeking out and extracting
evidence from original archival records (Wikipedia 2013).
artisanal fishing. Small-scale, low technology, low capital, fishing practices undertaken by
individual fishing households (as opposed to commercial companies) (Garcia 2009).
attenuation. The gradual loss in intensity of any kind of flux through a medium (NOAA
2015).
attribute. Any measurable component of a biological system (Karr and Chu 1999).
autotrophic. Relating to organisms that have a type of nutrition in which organic
compounds used in metabolism are obtained by synthesis from inorganic compounds
(NOAA 2015).
Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) or Bayesian Network. A graphical probability network in
which the nodes represent random variables and the connections describe dependencies
between them.
bedrock. Solid rock layers of the Earth's crust which underlie soil and other
unconsolidated material such as alluvial sediments.
benthic. Living in or on the bottom of a body of water.
bequest value. Willingness to pay to preserve environmental quality for future
generations.
193
-------
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Management practices (such as nutrient
management) or structural practices (such as terraces) designed to reduce the quantities
of pollutantssuch as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and animal wastesthat are
washed by rain from farms into nearby receiving waters, such as lakes, creeks, streams,
rivers, estuaries, and ground water.
biochemicals. Chemicals that result from biological and chemical processes in living
organisms.
Biological Condition Gradient (BCG). A scientific model that describes biological response
to increasing levels of anthropogenic stressors.
biomass. The mass of living tissues in either an individual or cumulatively across
organisms in a population or ecosystem (MEA 2009).
bio-prospecting. An umbrella term describing the process of discovery and
commercialization of new products based on biological resources.
biota. The animal and plant life of a given region.
biotic. A term applied to the living components of an area.
brainstorming. A group problem-solving technique in which members spontaneously
share ideas and solutions.
brooder. In this reproduction mode, only male gametes are released into the water
column. The male gametes are negatively buoyant and are transported by waves and
current before sinking to the ocean floor. If encountered, the male gametes are then
taken in by female coral polyps containing egg cells. Fertilization occurs inside the female
coral and produces a small planula. Planulae are released later through the mouth of the
female coral at an advanced stage of development so that it is capable of settling onto
hard substrate very soon after release. Thus, brooding species generally disperse their
larvae shorter distances from the mother colony than broadcasters (NOAA 2015).
carbon sequestration. The capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide
in forests, soils, lakes, and oceans; the net process of storing carbon in a carbon sink. Sinks
can include terrestrial (soil, trees), marine, atmospheric, and geological systems
(NOAA 2015).
clionid sponges. Any member of the sponge family Clionidae (class Demospongiae,
phylum Porifera), noted for its ability to dissolve and bore into calcium-containing
substances, such as limestone, coral, and mollusk shells (Encyclopedia Britannica 2015).
194
-------
coliform bacteria. A group of bacteria primarily found in human and animal intestines
and wastes. These bacteria are widely used as indicator organisms to show the presence
of such wastes in water and the possible presence of pathogenic (disease-producing)
bacteria. Escherichia coli (E. coli) is one of the fecal coliform bacteria widely used for
this purpose.
Commonwealth. An organized United States insular area, which has established with the
Federal Government a more highly developed relationship, usually embodied in a written
mutual agreement. Currently, two United States insular areas are commonwealths, the
Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. A United States insular area from April 11,
1899, the Philippine Islands achieved commonwealth status on March 24,1934 (Public
Law 73-127), and remained as such until the United States recognized the Philippine
Islands' independence and sovereignty as of July 4, 1946.
conceptual model. An abstract framework used to organize ideas and information into
a form that is more easily examined. These models are often helpful when searching
for commonalties between apparently unrelated phenomena, or when defining the scope
of inquiry when organizing and interpreting measurements of biological conditions.
connectivity. A topological property relating to how geographical features are attached
to one another functionally, spatially, or logically.
consequence. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.
A logical conclusion or inference.
consequence table. A summary matrix illustrating the performance of each alternative
on each objective.
contaminant. An undesirable substance not normally present, or an usually high
concentration of a naturally occurring substance in the environment; a substance in
water that might adversely affect the health and welfare of the biota (NOAA 2015).
coral. Species of the phylum Cnidaria, including- (A) all species of the orders Antipatharia
(black corals), Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), Stolonifera (organ
pipe corals and others), Alcyanacea (soft corals), and Coenothecalia (blue coral), of the
class Anthozoa; and (B) all species of the order Hydrocorallina (fire corals and hydrocorals)
of the class Hydrozoa (16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq. 2000).
coral reef. A wave-resistant structure resulting from cementation processes and the
skeletal construction of hermatypic corals, calcareous algae, and other calcium carbonate-
secreting organisms (NOAA 2015).
Coral Reef Scenario Evaluation Tool (CORSET). A generic, biophysical model for coral reef
systems that couples dynamics from local to regional scales.
195
-------
crustacean. Any of various predominantly aquatic arthropods of the class Crustacea,
including lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and barnacles, having segmented bodies, a chitinous
exoskeleton, and paired, jointed limbs (appendages).
crustose coralline algae. Crustose coralline algae are red algae of the division
Rhodophyta. They are very important members of a reef community in which they
cement and bind the reef together. They are particularly common in high wave energy
areas but can also be found throughout all reef zones. Crustose corallines resemble pink
or purple pavement. Morphology can range from smooth and flat, to rough and knobby,
or even leafy (NOAA 2015).
dam. A structure formed to hold water back, generally built near uncontaminated water
collection sources in order to provide a drinking water supply or irrigation to the
surrounding communities.
damselfish. A large family (Pomacentridae) of bony fishes that are abundant and common
inhabitants of coral reefs. They possess robust, deep, and laterally compressed bodies.
The majority of damselfishes do not have particularly brilliant markings or coloration.
Exceptions are the brilliantly colored anemone fishes, the banded Sargeant major, and the
bright orange garibaldi. Many species of damselfishes are highly territorial (NOAA 2015).
Decision Analysis (DA). The discipline comprising the philosophy, theory, methodology,
and professional practice necessary to address important decisions in a formal manner.
Decision analysis includes many procedures, methods, and tools for identifying, clearly
representing, and formally assessing important aspects of a decision, for prescribing a
recommended course of action by applying the maximum expected utility action axiom
to a well-formed representation of the decision, and for translating the formal
representation of a decision and its corresponding recommendation into insight for
the decision maker and other stakeholders (Wikipedia 2015a).
decision context. The environment in which the decision is made, and the environment
that will prevail when the effects of the decision are brought to bear, including the set of
values, preferences, constraints, policies and regulations that will affect both the deciders
and those identified as the ultimate beneficiaries.
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.
196
-------
decision maker. A person(s) entrusted with the responsibility to make a decision.
Decision makers include federal, territorial and government 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, when an alternative is selected
from a set of potential alternatives.
decision-support framework (DSF). An organizing structure to support decision-making.
decision-support tools. Software, models, data sets, maps, etc. to support decision-
making.
demographic information. A characteristic used to describe some aspect of a population
and that can be measured for that population, such as growth rate, age structure, birth
rate, and gross reproduction rate.
Diadema. A genus of sea urchins of the Family Diadematidae and is one of the most
abundant, widespread, and ecologically important shallow water genera of tropical
sea urchins.
Diadema antillarum. A species of sea urchins in the Family Diadematidae, characterized
by its exceptionally long black spines. It was the most abundant and important herbivore
on the coral reefs of the western Atlantic and Caribbean basin. When the population of
these sea urchins is at a healthy level, they are the main grazers that prevent algae
overgrowth of the reef. In 1983, throughout the Caribbean faunal zone as far south as
South America and north to the Bahamas, Diadema antillarum underwent mass mortality,
with more than 97% of the urchins dying.
Dictyota. A genus of algae with branches that fork near their ends. The tips may be
rounded or pointed. Generally they form mats of dense to loose packed flat leaves
that overgrow the substrate. Light to medium brown and/or green to blue-green,
occasionally with bright blue tints.
digital elevation model (DEM). The representation of continuous elevation values
over a topographic surface by a regular array of z-values, referenced to a common datum.
OEMs are typically used to represent terrain relief.
direct extractive use. Natural resource products of commercial value that are either
traded or have the potential for trade.
direct non-extractive. Natural resource services of commercial value provided biodiversity
or related to ecosystems or genetic material.
197
-------
DPSIR. A decision-support framework for capturing the physical and human processes
in a decision process; it includes the identification of the Driving Forces (socioeconomic
sectors that drive human activities), Pressures (Driving Force-generated emissions and
land use changes that affect the environment), resulting environmental and ecological
States (reflect condition of the natural and living phenomena), Impacts on services and
values (effects of environmental degradation of ecological attributes and ecosystem
services), and Responses to those impacts (policies and responses).
Driving Forces. In DPSIR, the socioeconomic sectors that drive human activities
(Waste disposal, agriculture, construction, fisheries, tourism).
ecological. Relating to the interrelationships of organisms and their environment.
ecological integrity. The condition of an unimpaired ecosystem as measured by combined
chemical, physical (including physical habitat), and biological attributes (Karr and Dudley
1981).
ecological production function (EPF). A description of the type, quantity and interactions
of natural features required to generate outputs of natural products and services. For a
simple example, the biophysical characteristics of a coastal wetland (flooding regimes,
salinity, nutrient concentrations, plant species abundance, prey and predator abundances,
etc.) can influence the abundance of a population of watchable wading shorebirds (the
ecological endpoint). The outputs of ecological production functions, when combined with
complementary goods and services and demand by humans, produce ecosystem goods
and services (adapted from Wainger and Boyd 2009 and Wainger and Mazzotta 2009).
ecosystem. A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and
their nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit (MEA 2009).
ecosystem functions. Physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur in
ecosystems.
ecosystem services. Benefits that human populations receive from ecosystems.
ecosystem services valuation functions (EVF). Relate characteristics of society, such as
demand, accessibility, or substitutability, to derive value for ecosystem services
(Compton et al. 2011).
elicitation. The process of extracting information from something or someone.
Envision. A CIS-based tool for scenario-based community and regional planning
and environmental assessments.
erosion. Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock fragments
by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical, chemical, or biological forces.
198
-------
existence or intrinsic value. The amount people are willing to pay to preserve the
existence of biodiversity for its own sake
expert opinion. The opinion of a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a field.
extrapolate. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.
fecal bacteria. Microscopic single-celled organisms (primarily fecal coliforms and fecal
streptococci) found in the wastes of warm-blooded animals. Their presence in water
is used to assess the sanitary quality of water for body-contact recreation or for
consumption. Their presence indicates contamination by the wastes of warm-blooded
animals and the possible presence of pathogenic (disease producing) organisms
(USGS2015).
Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A federal statute of the United States enacted in
1938. The FLSA introduced a 40-hour, seven-day workweek, established a national
minimum wage, guaranteed "time-and-a-half" for overtime in certain jobs, and
prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor", a term that is
defined in the statute.
fleshy algae. Large, soft algae (sometimes called "seaweed") on a reef, including
Lobophora (a type of brown algae) and Halimeda (green algae).
floes. A mass of particles that form into a clump as a result of a chemical reaction;
having a fluffy appearance; resembling bits of wool; flaky (NOAA 2015).
Foraker Act. Public Law 56-191, 31 Statute 77, enacted April 12, 1900, officially known as
the Organic Act of 1900, is a United States federal law that established civilian (albeit
limited popular) government on the island of Puerto Rico, which had recently become
a possession of the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War
(Wikipedia 2015c).
fundamental objectives. Reflect concerns that are important for their own reasons and
not because they contribute to something that is more valuable (Keeney 1992). They are
fundamental because most stakeholders will agree with them, even if varying in degree.
Geographic Information System (GIS). A collection of computer hardware, software,
and geographic data designed to capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display
geographically referenced data.
gorgonians. An anthozoan of the subclass Octocorallia, commonly called sea fans and
sea whips (NOAA 2015).
199
-------
grouper. Any species of bony fishes in the subfamily Epinephelinae of the sea bass family,
Serranidae. Groupers have a typical sea bass appearance with robust bodies, large mouths
and sharp teeth (NOAA 2015).
habitat. A place where the physical and biological elements of ecosystems provide a
suitable environment including the food, cover, and space resources needed for plant
and animal livelihood (EPA 2009).
habitat structure. The composition and arrangement of physical matter at a location.
A complex habitat structure is critical to many species.
herbivores. An animal that feeds on plants (EPA 2010).
heterotrophic. An organism that cannot manufacture its own food, and therefore
requires external sources of energy (NOAA 2015).
hydrology. The science of water relating to occurrence, properties, distribution,
circulation and transport of water.
hydropower. Power derived from the energy of falling water and running water, which
may be harnessed for useful purposes. Since ancient times, hydropower has been used
for irrigation, and the operation of various mechanical devices, such as watermills,
sawmills, textile mills, etc. Since the early 20th century, the term is used almost
exclusively in conjunction with the modern development of hydroelectric power,
which allowed use of distant energy sources.
hydroseeding. 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.
impacts. In DPSIR, quality and value of ecosystem services.
indirect use value. Ecological values including services provided by ecosystems,
which may not have direct commercial value.
infrastructure. The basic physical systems of a business or nation. Transportation,
communication, sewage, water and electric systems are all examples of infrastructure.
These systems tend to be high-cost investments, however, they are vital to a country's
economic development and prosperity.
instrumental value. The amount people are willing to pay to preserve the existence of
biodiversity because it provides a means for acquiring something else of value.
200
-------
intractable problems. Problems that are difficult to manage, deal with, or change to an
acceptable condition. Causes include: irreconcilable moral differences (e.g., conflicts
about right and wrong, good and evil), high stakes distributional issues (over who gets
what), and conflicts over power and status.
invertebrates. Animals that lack a spinal column or backbone, including molluscs (e.g.,
clams and oysters), crustaceans (e.g., crabs and shrimp), insects, starfish, jellyfish,
sponges, and many types of worms that live in the benthos.
Jones-Costigan Amendment, also known as the Sugar Act of 1934. An amendment to the
Agricultural Adjustment Act that reclassified sugar crop as basic commodity, subject to the
provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act enacted the previous year. Sponsored by
Senator Edward P. Costigan (Progressive, Colorado) and Representative John Marvin Jones
(Democrat, Texas), the act was a New Deal effort to salvage an ailing sugar industry by
imposing protective tariffs and quotas along with a direct subsidy to growers of sugar
cane and sugar beet.
Jones-Shafroth Act, also known as the Jones Act of Puerto Rico, or Jones Law of Puerto
Rico. Public Law 64-368, 39 Statute 951, enacted March 2, 1917, was an Act of the United
States Congress, signed by President Wood row Wilson. The act granted U.S. Citizenship to
the people of Puerto Rico. It also created the Senate of Puerto Rico, established a bill of
rights, and authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner (previously appointed by
the President) to a four-year term (Wikipedia 2015d).
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.
Lajas Valley Irrigation System (LVIS). A series of 5 dams and an extensive irrigation canal
and drainage system
land cover. Anything that exists on, and is visible from above the Earth's surface.
Examples include vegetation, exposed or barren land, water, snow, and ice.
land use. The way land is developed and used in terms of the kinds of anthropogenic
activities that occur (e.g., agriculture, residential areas, and industrial areas).
landscape. The spatial pattern or structure of a geographic area (including its biological
composition, its physical environment, and its anthropogenic or social patterns) and is
designed to identify repeating patterns associated with dominant land uses in an area.
The relative proportion of forest, agriculture, and urban land cover contained in the area
also defines a landscape as does the interrelationships between them.
201
-------
landscape dynamic model. Spatially explicit models aiming at projecting a landscape
(structure, function, composition) over time. They can include spatial interactions,
community dynamics or/and ecosystem processes. Landscape models are typically used
to simulate different management or global change scenarios. Two broad classes of
examples are gap/ landscape models (e.g. LANDIS, ForCLIM) and dynamic vegetation
models (e.g. IBIS, LPJ).
macroalgae. Non-rooted aquatic plants commonly referred to as seaweed.
macroinvertebrates. Animals without backbones of a size large enough to be seen by the
unaided eye. EPA's coral reef surveys document selected commercially and ecologically
important macroinvertebrates, including Queen Conch (Strombus gigas), spiny lobster
(Panilaurus argus), reef crabs larger than 20 cm, sea urchins and long-spined sea urchins
(Diadema antillarum).
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.
mangroves. Salt-tolerant woody plants that grow in muddy swamps inundated by tides.
Mangrove plants form communities that help stabilize banks and coastlines (Conservation
International 2009).
Marine Protected Area (MPA). Any area of the marine environment that has been
reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting
protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein (EO 13158).
market value. The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive auction setting;
this is the true underlying value" according to theoretical standards.
means objectives. Objectives that provide a means to fulfill the fundamental objectives
(Keeneyl992).
mechanistic model. A model that assumes that a complex system can be understood by
examining the workings of its individual parts and the manner in which they are coupled.
Mechanistic models typically have a tangible, physical aspect, in that system components
are real, solid and visible.
metric. An observable measure linked to a fundamental (ends) objective used to evaluate
an alternative's ability to achieve the objective. Metrics should be understandable,
measurable, and operational.
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. For
example, meteorologists use models to predict the weather.
202
-------
Montastraea. A genus of hard (stony) coral that includes the boulder coral and the great
star coral (NOAA 2015).
natural products. A chemical compound or substance produced by a living organism-
found in nature that usually has a pharmacological or biological activity for use in
pharmaceutical drug discovery and drug design. A natural product can be considered as
such even if it can be prepared by total synthesis.
natural resources. The natural wealth of a country, consisting of land, forests, mineral
deposits, water, etc.
Netica. A program for working with belief networks and influence diagrams. It has an
intuitive and smooth user interface for drawing the networks, and the relationships
between variables may be entered as individual probabilities, in the form of equations, or
learned from data files (which may be in ordinary tab-delimited form and have "missing
data").
nonmarket values. Most environmental goods and services, such as clean air and water,
and healthy fish and wildlife populations, are not traded in markets. Their economic value
-how much people would be willing to pay for them- is not revealed in market prices. The
only option for assigning monetary values to them is to rely on non-market valuation
methods.
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. Any source of water pollution that does not meet the
legal definition of "point source" in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. NPS pollution
is widespread because it can occur any time activities disturb the land or water.
Agriculture, forestry, grazing, septic systems, recreational boating, urban runoff,
construction, physical changes to stream channels, and habitat degradation are potential
sources of NPS pollution. NPS pollution includes adverse changes to the vegetation,
shape, and flow of streams and other aquatic systems. NPS pollution also results from
land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage or hydrologic
modification that can pick up pollutants, and deposit them into rivers, lakes and coastal
waters or introduces them into ground water. NPS sources are automobile emissions,
road dirt and grit, and runoff from parking lots; runoff and leachate from agricultural
fields, barnyards, feedlots, lawns, home gardens and failing on-site wastewater treatment
systems; and runoff and leachate from construction, mining and logging operations. Most
NPS pollutants fall into six major categories: sediment, nutrients, acid and salts, heavy
metals, toxic chemicals and pathogens. The cumulative impact of nonpoint source
pollution is significant.
203
-------
non-use value. Value prescribed to ecosystems not related to direct commercial or
indirect use, including the possibility for having the option to use the resource in the
future or willingness to pay to preserve the existence of biodiversity.
nutrients. Chemicals that are needed by plants and animals for growth (e.g., nitrogen,
phosphorus). In water resources, if other physical and chemical conditions are optimal,
excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to degradation of water quality by promoting
excessive growth, accumulation, and subsequent decay of plants, especially algae. Some
nutrients can be toxic to animals at high concentrations.
objectives. Statements of what is valuable to stakeholders under a certain context
(Keeney1992)
octocorals. Water-based organisms formed of colonial polyps with 8-fold symmetry.
Operation Bootstrap. The name given to the ambitious projects that industrialized Puerto
Rico in the mid-20th century. The program allowed "exemption from insular taxes for any
corporation that build a plant in a new industry, expanded approved existing industry or
constructed a new hotel."
option value. The desire for potentially using a resource in the future, rather than using it
in the present.
outcomes. The results, impacts or consequences of making a decision.
Palythoa caribaeorum. A white encrusting zooanthid. Colonies form thick, encrusting
mats on dead corals and other hard substrates. The skeleton is hard, somewhat cork-like
in consistency. The outer surface is covered with large, round calices surrounded by a low,
rounded ridge or lip.
pathogens. An agent of disease. A disease producer. The term pathogen most commonly
is used to refer to infectious organisms. These include bacteria (such as staphylococcus),
viruses (such as HIV), and fungi (such as yeast).
Pharmaceuticals. Man-made and natural drugs used to treat diseases, disorders, and
illnesses.
policy. A principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. Policy differs
from law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of
taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to
achieve a desired outcome.
polychaetes. A class of annelid worms, generally marine. Each body segment has a pair of
fleshy protrusions that bear many bristles made of chitin. Polychaetes are sometimes
referred to as bristle worms.
204
-------
polygon. A planar (2-D) figure that is bounded by a closed path or circuit, composed of a
finite sequence of straight-line segments (i.e., by a closed polygonal chain). These
segments are called its edges or sides, and the points where two edges meet are the
polygon's vertices or corners.
population structure. The patterns of demographic variation seen within and among
populations.
porosity. The degree to which the total volume of soil, gravel, sediment, or rock is
permeated with pores or cavities through which fluids (including air) can move.
pressures. In DPSIR, the human activities that stress the environment (Discharge, boating
activities, climate change, land use/land cover change, coastal erosion).
process objectives. Objectives that are designed to improve the decision process itself
and do not focus on what should be done, but rather how it should be done
(Keeneyl992).
qualitative. Descriptive of kind, type, or direction.
quantitative. Descriptive of size, magnitude, or degree.
quasi-option value. The potential value of a resource for future (direct or indirect use),
emphasizing the value of avoiding the risk of losing that resource.
recreation. Refreshment of strength or spirits after work; also: a means of refreshment or
diversion (Merriam Webster 2010). Both tourists and residents of a given geographic
location enjoy recreational activities. However, the common practice of economists is to
differentiate between tourism and recreation based upon the source of demand.
recruitment. The measure of the number of young individuals (e.g., fish and coral larvae,
algae propagules) entering the adult population, in other words, it is the supply of new
individuals to a population.
reductionist approach. The analysis of complex things (facts, entities, phenomena,
or structures) into less complex constituents.
reforestation. The natural or intentional restocking of existing forests and woodlands that
have been depleted.
reservoir. A man-made body of water (it is replenished by rain and river or stream flow),
which is formed after a dam is built on a river, and is used for the collection and storage of
water. In addition to providing municipal water supplies, reservoirs provide recreational
areas, are used for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and flood control.
205
-------
responses. The term "response" is used in two contexts in this report: 1) Human actions,
including policies, strategies, and interventions, to address specific issues, needs,
opportunities, or problems. In the context of ecosystem management, responses may be
of legal, technical, institutional, economic, and behavioral nature and may operate at local
or micro, regional, national, or international level and at various time scales (MEA 2009),
2) Ecosystem processes occurring due to the effect of some stressor or combination of
stressors.
riparian. Areas adjacent to rivers and streams with a high density, diversity, and
productivity of plant and animal species relative to nearby uplands.
root node. In a BBN, the topmost node in a tree. It has no parent nodes. Each node
represents a variable.
rugosity. Describes the amount of "wrinkling" or roughness of the physical reef profile.
It is an index of substrate complexity. Areas of high complexity are likely to provide more
cover for reef fishes and more places of attachment for algae, corals, and various sessile
invertebrates (NOAA 2015).
runoff. The flow of water, usually from precipitation, which is not absorbed into the
ground. It flows across the land and eventually runs to stream channels, lakes, oceans,
or depressions or low points in the Earth's surface. The characteristics that affect the rate
of runoff include rainfall duration and intensity as well as the ground's slope, soil type,
and ground cover. Runoff can pick up pollutants from the air and land, carrying them into
the streams, lakes, etc.
sanitary sewer system. An underground carriage system specifically for transporting
sewage from houses and commercial buildings to treatment or disposal. Sanitary sewers
are operated separately and independently of storm drains, which carry the runoff of rain
and other water, which wash into city streets. Sewers carrying both sewage and
stormwater together are called combined sewers (Wikipedia 2015e).
seagrasses. A flowering plant, complete with leaves, a rhizome (an underground, usually
horizontally-oriented stem), and a root system. They are found in marine or estuarine
waters. Most seagrass species are located in soft sediments. However, some species are
attached directly to rocks with root hair adhesion. Seagrasses tend to develop extensive
underwater meadows (NOAA 2015).
sediment. Particles and/or clumps of particles of sand, clay, silt, and plant or animal
matter that are suspended in, transported by, and eventually deposited by water or air.
sedimentation. The removal, transport, and deposition of detached soil particles by
flowing water or wind.
206
-------
sessile. Characteristic of an immobile organism because of its attachment to a substrate.
The term has also been applied to organisms, such as anemones, that move very slowly
(NOAA 2015).
shade-grown coffee. A form of the beverage produced from coffee plants grown under
a canopy of trees.
shoreline. The intersection of the land, including man-made waterfront structures,
with the water surface. The shoreline depicted on NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS)
maps and charts represents the line of contact between the land and a selected water
elevation. In areas affected by tidal fluctuations, the shoreline is the interpreted mean
high water line. In confined coastal water of diminished tidal influence, the mean water
level line may be used. In non-tidal waters, the line represents the land/water interface
at the time of survey. In areas where the land is obscured by marsh grass, cypress or
similar marine vegetation, the actual shoreline cannot be accurately represented.
Instead the outer limit line of the vegetation area is delineated (where it would appear
to the mariner as the shoreline); in this case, it is referred to as the apparent shoreline
(NOAA 2015).
shoreline protection. The ability of reefs to attenuate offshore wave energy, to provide
sheltered nearshore waters, and to protect coastlines from erosion, flooding, and
storm damage.
snapper. Any species of bony fishes in the family Lutjanidae. Snappers are found in the
tropical and subtropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. A few are
estuarine to entirely freshwater. Many species are popular food and game fishes
(NOAA 2015).
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)
sovereign. An independent or non-independent jurisdiction which itself possesses or
whose people possess in their own right the jurisdiction's supreme authority, regardless
of the jurisdiction's or people's current ability to exercise that authority (DOI 2009).
spatially-explicit model. A model is spatially explicit when the variables, inputs, or
processes have explicit spatial locations and, moreover, that location matters to the
process being modeled.
207
-------
spawn. To produce or deposit eggs; the eggs of aquatic animals; the mass of eggs
deposited by fishes, amphibians or mollusks; offspring in great numbers or masses;
to give forth young in large numbers (NOAA 2015).
species. A category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and
consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. Also refers to an organism
belonging to such a category.
species abundance. The number of individuals per species.
species diversity. The number of different species in an area and their relative abundance
(NOAA 2015).
species richness. The number of species in an area or biological collection (NOAA 2015).
sponge. A sessile (nonmoving), multi-cellular marine animal whose body consists of a
jelly-like endoskeleton sandwiched between two layers of cells. Sponges comprise the
phylum Porifera.
stakeholder. Someone having a stake or interest in a physical resource, ecosystem
service, institution, or social system, or someone who is or may be affected by a public
policy (MEA 2009). All citizens of the nation are stakeholders, including residents of local
communities adjacent to coral reefs, tourists and the tourism industry, fishermen and
other marine- based industries, land-based industries, conservation and environmental
groups, research organizations, and educational institutions.
state. In DPSIR, reflects the condition of the natural and living phenomena (such as air,
water and soil parameters and growth, survival and reproductive parameters).
stated choice surveys. A flexible approach to collecting preference data (generally,
choices and rankings, whether full or partial) from subjects in hypothetical situations. The
objective is to place the decision-maker in a realistic frame of mind to compare a number
of alternatives, each described in terms of some number of attributes.
stated preference surveys. An approach that asks people to directly state their values,
rather than inferring values from actual choices (e.g., much they would agree to pay for
avoiding a degradation of the environment or, alternatively, how much they would ask as
a compensation for the degradation).
statistical models. A formalization of relationships between variables in the form of
mathematical equations. A statistical model describes how one or more variables are
related to one or more other variables.
208
-------
stony corals. A group of coral species known as hard coral that form the hard, calcium
carbonate skeleton. Such types include the brain corals, fungus or mushroom corals,
staghorn, elkhorn, and table corals, flowerpot corals, bubble corals and lettuce corals.
stormwater. Water from rain that flows over the ground surface and is subsequently
collected by natural channels or artificial conveyance systems, and also includes water
that has infiltrated into the ground but nonetheless reaches a stream channel relatively
rapidly and that contributes to the increased stream discharge that commonly
accompanies almost any rainfall event in a human-disturbed watershed.
stratified random survey. The process of dividing members of the population into
homogeneous subgroups before sampling. The strata should be mutually exclusive: every
element in the population must be assigned to only one stratum. The strata should also
be collectively exhaustive: no population element can be excluded. Then simple random
sampling or systematic sampling is applied within each stratum. This often improves the
representativeness of the sample by reducing sampling error. It can produce a weighted
mean that has less variability than the arithmetic mean of a simple random sample of the
population.
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).
stressors. Physical, chemical and biological factors that adversely affect aquatic organisms
(EPA 2009).
structured decision-making (SDM). An organized approach to identifying and evaluating
alternatives that focuses on engaging stakeholders, experts and decision-makers in
productive decision-oriented analysis and dialogue and that deals proactively with
complexity and judgment in decision-making. It provides a framework that becomes a
decision-focused roadmap for integrating activities related to planning, analysis and
consultation.
sun-grown coffee. Product from coffee plants grown in full sun, with all other vegetation
having been cleared.
swing-weighting. One of the available methods for eliciting weights for the various
criteria defined for multi-criteria analysis. The swing weight method requires specifying
hypothetical changes (swings) in the level of performance against different objectives and
then obtaining judgments of the relative preferences for obtaining those swings, typically
using a O-to-100 scale. For example, if the most desirable swing is given a swing weight of
100 points, how many points would be assigned to obtaining the next most desirable
swing? Although the swing weight method is not necessarily the most accurate method
209
-------
for eliciting weights, for objectives it provides much more reliable results than assigning
weights based on abstract "importance" of each criterion.
systems thinking. The process of understanding how things, regarded as systems,
influence one another within a whole (Wikipedia 2015f).
Tainos. Seafaring indigenous peoples of the Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and the northern
Lesser Antilles (Wikipedia 2015g).
terrestrial. Things related to land or the planet Earth (Wikipedia 2015h).
territory. Under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, a territory is subject to and belongs to
the United States (but not necessarily within the national boundaries or any individual
state). This includes tracts of land or water not included within the limits of any State and
not admitted as a State into the Union. U.S. territories with coral reefs include American
Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI).
tertiary treatment. Advanced cleaning of wastewater during which nutrients (such as
phosphorous and nitrogen) and most suspended solids are removed (Business
Dictionary.com 2015).
topographic complexity. The three-dimensional arrangement of structural features over
the seafloor surface, spanning all spatial scales (Zawada 2011).
topography. The physical features of a surface area including relative elevations and the
position of natural and man-made (anthropogenic) features.
tourists. People who travel to and stay in places outside their usual environment for more
than twenty-four (24) hours and not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business
and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the
place visited (UNWTO 1995).
toxic pollutants. Pollutants that are poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly
harmful to plants and animals.
toxics. Any chemical listed in EPA rules as "Toxic Chemicals Subject to Section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986" (EPA 2010).
trade-off. A situation that involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for
gaining another quality or aspect. It often implies a decision to be made with full
comprehension of both the upside and downside of a particular choice (Wikipedia 2015).
trophic. Describing the relationships between the feeding habits of organisms in a
food chain.
210
-------
turbidity. The amount of solid particles that are suspended in water and that cause light
rays shining through the water to scatter. Thus, turbidity makes the water cloudy or even
opaque in extreme cases. High levels of turbidity are often harmful to aquatic life.
turf algae. Turf algae are a multi-specific assemblage of diminutive, often filamentous,
algae that attain a canopy height of only 1 to 10 mm. These microalgal species have
a high diversity (>100 species in western Atlantic), although only 30 to 50 species
commonly occur at one time. There is a high turnover of individual turf algal species
seasonally and only a few species are able to persist or remain abundant throughout the
year. But turf algae, when observed as a functional group, remain relatively stable year
round (Steneck and Dethier 1994). They are often able to recovery rapidly after being
partially consumed by herbivores. Turfs are capable of trapping ambient sediment and
kill corals by gradual encroachment (AGRRA 2015).
uncertainty. Inability to predict outcomes due to random variability (for example,
streamflow is sometimes high and sometimes low) or incomplete scientific knowledge
regarding causal relationships (for example, how does exposure to a given concentration
of sediments affect coral reef growth rates).
United Nations Biosphere Reserves. Sites established by countries and recognized under
UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program to promote sustainable development
based on local community efforts and sound science.
United States Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF). 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, seven U.S. States, Territories,
Commonwealths, and three Freely Associated States. The USCRTF helps build
partnerships, strategies, and support for on-the-ground action to conserve coral reefs.
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). A widely used mathematical model that describes
soil erosion processes.
valuation. The process of expressing a value for a particular good or service in a certain
context (e.g., of decision-making) usually in terms of something that can be counted,
often money, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (sociology,
ecology, and so on) (MEA 2009).
value-focused thinking (VFT). A philosophy to guide decision-makers. It has three major
ideas: start with values, use values to generate better alternatives, and use values to
evaluate those alternatives (Keeney 1992).
values. The things that people believe are important in the way they live and work.
211
-------
vertebrate. An animal that possesses a vertebral column (back bone), such as fishes,
amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (NOAA 2015).
visibility. The distance at which an object underwater can be readily identified.
Underwater visibility is measured two ways. There is horizontal visibility how far you
can see looking straight ahead and vertical visibility how far you can see looking up
or down.
water quality. A term for the combined biological, chemical, and physical characteristics
of water with respect to its suitability for a beneficial use.
watershed. The entire area of land whose runoff of water, sediments, and dissolved
materials (e.g., nutrients, contaminants) drain into a river, lake, estuary, or ocean.
wicked problem. "Wicked" problems are complex policy problems over natural resources
exemplified by intertwined and competing social, economic, and environmental values.
212
-------
References
16 USC § 6401, et seq. 2000. The Coral Reef Conservation Act.
17 C.F.R. §89. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for
Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral.
AgarJJ, Shivlani M, Waters JR, Pizzini MV, Murray TJ, KirkleyJEand Suman DO. 2005. U.S.
Caribbean Fish Trap Fishery Costs and Earnings Study. Volume 534 of NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Social Science
Research Group. 127pp.
Aguilar-Perera A, Scharer M and Valdes-Pizzini M. 2006. Marine protected areas in Puerto
Rico: Historical and current perspectives. Ocean & Coastal Management 49: 961-975.
Alvarez-Filip L, Kulvy N, Gill JA, Isabelle M and Watkinson AR. 2009. Flattening of
Caribbean coral reefs: Region wide declines in architectural complexity. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B 276: 3019-3025.
Anonymous. 1949. Operation Bootstrap. Government Documentmarked 'confidential'.
Applied Systems Thinking (AST). 2008. What is systems thinking?
URL: http://www.appliedsystemsth in king. com/whatis_st. html
Arvai J and Gregory R. 2003. Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying
cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environmental Science and Technology 37(9):
1469-1476.
Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA). 2015. Algae.
URL: http://www.agrra.org/background/algaeback.html.
Ault JS, Bohnsack JA, Smith SG and Luo J. 2005. Towards sustainable multispecies fisheries
in the Florida, USA, coral reef ecosystem. Bulletin of Marine Science 76: 595-622.
Balint PJ, Stewart RE, Desai A and Walters LC. 2011. Wicked Environmental Problems:
Managing Uncertainty and Conflict. Island Press. 256 pp.
Ballantine DL, Weil E and Ruiz H. 2005. Coralline white band syndrome, a coralline algal
affliction in the tropical Atlantic. Coral Reefs 24: 117
Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC and Townsend M. 2008. Economic valuation for the
conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(3): 386-396.
Bergstrom S. 1992. The HBVmodel-its structure and applications. SMHI Hydrology, RH
No.4, Norrkoping, 35 pp.
Bishop RS, Chapman DJ, Kanninen BJ, KrosnickJA, Leeworthy B and Neade NF. 2011.
Total Economic Value for Protecting and Restoring Hawaiian Coral Reef Ecosystems
Final Report. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Office
of Response and Restoration, and Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum CRCP 16, 405 pp.
213
-------
Black P and Stockton T. 2009. Basic Steps for the Development of Decision Support
Systems in: Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated
Sites, A. Marcomini, G.W. Suter II, A. Critto. Eds. Springer.
Bolte J. 2009. Envision: A Guide to Application Development. Biological and Ecological
Engineering Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Borkhataria R, Collazo JA, Groom MJ and Jordan-Garcia. 2011. Shade-grown coffee in
Puerto Rico: Opportunities to preserve biodiversity while reinvigorating a struggling
agricultural commodity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.023.
Boumans R. 2012. Personal Communication, U. S. EPA Special Government Employee,
University of Vermont.
Bousquin J, Fisher WS, Carriger J and Huertas E. 2014. A Bayesian belief network approach
to explore alternative decisions for sediment control and water storage capacity at
Logo Lucchetti, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL, EPA/600/R/14/296. 113 pp.
Bowman K. 2002. Slavery in Puerto Rico. URL:
www.maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/BLPR243_PIMENTAL7slavery.pdf. llpp.
Bradley P and Yee S. 2015. Using the DPS//? Framework to Develop a Conceptual Model:
Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, Rl, EPA/600/R-
15/154, 69 pp.
Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson Band RehrA. 2015. 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. 138 pp.
Bradley P, Fisher W and Fore L. 2014. Coral Reef Monitoring Needs Assessment Workshop,
U.S. Virgin Islands, September 11-13, 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-14/368. 132 pp.
Bradley P, Fore LS, Fisher WS and Davis WS. 2010. Coral Reef Biological Criteria: Using the
Clean Water Act to Protect a National Treasure. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-10/054, 141 pp.
Bradley P, Santavy DL and Gerritsen J. 2014. Workshop on Biological Integrity of Coral
Reefs, August 21-22, 2012, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, Isla Magueyes, La Parguera,
Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Narragansett, Rl. EPA/600/R-13/350.
Brander LM, Rehdanz K, Tol RSJ and van Beukering PJH. 2009. The Economic Impact of
Ocean Acidification on Coral Reefs. ESRI Working Paper No. 282.
214
-------
Brown CA. 1984. The Central Arizona water control study: A case for multiobjective
planning and public involvement. Water Resources Bulletin 20(3): 331-337.
Bruckner AW and Bruckner RJ. 1997. Outbreak of coral disease in Puerto Rico. Coral Reefs
16:260.
Bruckner AW and Bruckner RJ. 2006. Consequences of yellow band disease (YBD) on
Montastraea annularis (species complex) populations on remote reefs off Mona
Island, Puerto Rico. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 69: 67-73.
Burke L, Greenhalgh S, Prager D and Cooper E. 2008. Coastal Capital-Economic Valuation
of Coral Reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Business Dictionary.com. 2015. Tertiary treatment. URL:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tertiary-treatment.html
Carriger J and Benson WH. 2012. Restoring and Managing Gulf of Mexico Fisheries: A Path
toward Creative Decision-Making. Chapter 13 in: Estuaries, Classification, Ecology, and
Human Impacts. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppage, NY, 291-334.
Carriger J, Yee SH and Fisher WS. 2011. The potential for Bayesian Belief Networks to
quantify uncertainty between measures of coral reef condition and ecosystem services.
Chapter 5 in Yee, SH, P Bradley, DE Campbell, J Carriger, PP Principe, WS Fisher, JA
Dittmar, LM Oliver, R Boumans, and C Fonyo, (2011). Measures and Methods to
Quantify Production of Coral Reef Ecosystem Services. APM Report 111, APG 57, ESRP
Long-Term Goal 4.
Carriger JF, Fisher WS, Stockton TB and Sturm PE. 2013. Advancing the Guanica Bay
(Puerto Rico) Watershed Management Plan. Coastal Management 41: 19-38.
Carrion AM. 1983. Puerto Rico: A Political and Cultural History. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2008. Guanica Bay Watershed Management
Plan. Prepared for the NOAA Coral Reef Program. Center for Watershed Protection,
Ellicott City, MD.
Cesar H and Chong CK. 2005. Economic Valuation and Socioeconomics of Coral Reefs:
Methodological Issues and Three Case Studies. In, Mahfuzuddin Ahmed et a I.,
Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs,
Penang, Malaysia, World Fish Center, pp. 14-40.
Cesar HSJ. 2002. The biodiversity benefits of coral reef ecosystems: Values and markets.
Working Party on Global and Structural Policies Working Group on Economic Aspects of
Biodiversity, OECD, Paris. URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/oecd/oecd-coral-
reefs-2002-en.pdf
Chambal S, Shoviak M and Thai AE. 2003. Decision analysis methodology to evaluate
integrated solid waste management alternatives. Environmental Modeling and
Assessments: 25-34.
215
-------
Clemen RT and Reilly T. 2014. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools, 3 Edition.
Mason, OH: South-Western. First edition 2001, Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Compass Resource Management. 2014. Introduction to Structure Decision Making. Course
presented at US EPA, November 2014.
Compass Resource Management. 2015. Structured Decision Making.
URL: http://www.structureddecisionmaking.org/
Compton JE, Harrison JA, Dennis RL, Greaver TL, Hill BH, Jordan SJ, Walker H and Campbell
HV. 2011. Ecosystem services altered by human changes in the nitrogen cycle: A new
perspective for US decision-making. Ecology Letters 14: 804-815.
Conroy MJ, Barker RJ, Dillingham PW, Fletcher D, Gormley A and Westbrooke IM. 2008.
Application of decision theory to conservation management: Recovery of Hector's
dolphin. Wildlife Research 35: 93-102
Conservation International. 2009. Glossary. URL:
http://www.conservation.org/resources/glossary/Pages/rn.aspx.
Corner J, Buchanan and Henig M. 2001. Dynamic decision problem structuring. Journal of
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10(3): 129-141.
Corti L. 2004. Archival Research. In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research
Methods. Eds. Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A and Futing Liao T. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Croquer A and Weil E. 2009. Changes in Caribbean coral disease prevalence after the 2005
bleaching event. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 87: 33-43.
David G, Herrenschmidt J-B, Mirault E and Thomassin A. 2007. Social and Economic Values
of Pacific Cora I Reefs. Coral Reef Initiatives for the Pacific (CRISP) Component 1A,
Project 1A4 Integrated Coastal Management (GERSA). Noumea, New Caledonia. 44 pp.
Davies SP and Jackson SK. 2006. The Biological Condition Gradient: A descriptive model
for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications
16:1251-1266.
Davis K. 1948. Puerto Rico's population problem: Research and policy. The Milbank
Memorial Fund Quarterly 26(3): 300-308.
Davis SA and Skaggs LL. 1992. Catalog of Residential Depth-Damage Functions Used by the
Army Corps of Engineers in Flood Damage Estimation. Alexandria, VA: Army Corps of
Engineers Institute for Water Resources.
Dietz JL. 1986. Economic History of Puerto Rico: Institutional Change and Capitalist
Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
216
-------
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2015. ClionidSponge.
URL: http://www.britannica.com/animal/cl ion id.
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.
Executive Order (EO) 13158. 2000. Marine Protected Areas. May 26, 2000.
Executive Order (EO) 13514. 2009. Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance. October 5, 2009.
Failing L, Gregory R and Harstone M. 2007. Integrating science and local knowledge in
environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics
64: 47-60.
Farber S, Costanza R and Wilson M. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing
ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 41: 375-392
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2007. Guidelines and Specifications for
Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Appendix D. FEMA, Washington, D.C
Fisher WS. 2007. Stony Coral Rapid Bioassessment Protocol. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-06/167, Washington, D.C.
60 pp.
Fisher WS, Fore LS, Hutchins A, Quarles RL, Campbell JG, LoBue C and Davis WS. 2008.
Evaluation of stony coral indicators for coral reef management. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 56: 1737-1745.
Fisher WS, Fore LS, Oliver LM, LoBue C, Quarles RL, Campbell JG, Harris PS, Hemmer BL,
Vickery S, Parsons M, Hutchins A, Bernier K, Rodriguez D and Bradley P. 2014. Regional
status assessment of stony corals in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 186(11): 7165-7181.
Flynn K and Weil E. 2009. Variability of aspergillosis in Gorgonia ventalina in La Parguera,
Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science 45(2-3): 215-220.
Fore LS, Karr JR, Fisher WS, Bradley P and Davis WS. 2009. Heeding a call to action for U.S.
coral reefs: The untapped potential of the Clean Water Act. Marine Pollution Bulletin
58:1421-1423.
French S, Insua DR and Ruggeri F. 2007. e-participation and decision analysis. Decision
Analysis 4(4): 211-226.
French S, Maule J and Papamichail N. 2009. Decision Behavior, Analysis, and Support.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Camper D and Turcanu C. 2007. On the governmental use of multi-criteria analysis.
Ecological Economics 62: 298-307.
217
-------
Garcia SM. 2009. "Glossary". In: Cochrane Kand Garcia SM. A fishery managers'
handbook. FAO and Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 473-505.
Garcfa-Sais JR, Appeldoorn R, Bruckner A, Caldow C, Christensen JD, Lilyestrom C, Monaco
ME, Sabater J, Williams E and Diaz E. 2005. The state of coral reef ecosystems of
the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. pp. 91-134. In: J.E. Wadell (Ed.). The State of
Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States:
2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. Silver Spring, MD. 522 pp.
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: Is la 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.
Garcfa-Sais J, Appeldoorn R, Battista T, Bauer L, Bruckner A, Caldow C, Carrubba L,
CorredorJ, 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. Waddell JE and Clarke AM. (Eds).
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. 569 pp.
Gellis AC, Webb RMT, Wolfe WJ and Mclntyre SCI. 1999. Effects of Land Use on Upland
Erosion, Sediment Transport and Reservoir Sedimentation, Logo Loiza Basin, Puerto
Rico. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report
99-4010.
Ghermandi A, Nunes PAID, Porela R, Rao N and Teelucksingh SS. 2009. Recreational,
Cultural and Aesthetic Services from Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems. Nota
di Lavoro 121.
Gladfelter WB. 1982. White-Band Disease in Acropora palmata: Implications for the
structure and growth of shallow reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 639-643.
Goenaga C, Vicente VP and Armstrong RA. 1989. Bleaching induced mortalities in reef
corals from La Parguera, Puerto Rico: A precursor of change in the community
structure of coral reefs? Caribbean Journal of Science 25: 59-65.
Gould WA, Alarcon C, Fevold B, Jimenez ME, Martinuzzi S, Potts G, Quinones M, Solorzano
M and Ventosa E. 2008. The Puerto Rico Gap Analysis Project Volume 1: Land Cover,
Vertebrate Species Distributions, and Land Stewardship. Gen. Tech. Rep. IITF-39.
Gourlay MR and Colleter G. 2005. Wave-generated flow on coral reefs: An analysis for
two-dimensional horizontal reef-tops with steep faces. Coastal Engineering
52: 353-387.
Gregory L. Morris Engineering (GME). 1999a. Guanica Lagoon Hydrology & Restoration
Alternatives. Prepared for Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.
218
-------
Gregory L. 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 L. Morris Engineering (GME). 2011. Hydrologic-Hyrdraulic Study of Laguna
Guanica Restoration Impacts on Regulatory Flood Levels, Guanica, Puerto Rico. GL
Morris Engineering, Santurce, PR. 292 pp.
Gregory RS. 1999. Identifying Environmental Values. In: V.H. Dale & M.R. English (Eds.),
Tools to Aid Environmental Decision Making. Springer, New York, NY.
Gregory R and Gonzalez J. 2013. Protecting the Guanica Bay Watershed: A Public Values
Forum. Guanica Bay Public Values Forum, Final Workshop Report. Value Scope
Research, Vancouver Canada. March 2013.
Gregory R and Keeney RL. 2002. Making smarter environmental decisions. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 38(6): 1601-1612
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 R, Failing L, Ohlson D and McDaniels TL. 2006. Some pitfalls of an overemphasis
on science in environmental risk management decisions. Journal of Risk Research
9(7): 717-735.
Gregory R, Arvai J and Gerber LR. 2013. Structuring decisions for managing threatened
and endangered species in a changing climate. Conservation Biology 27(6): 1212-21.
Gregory RS and Keeney RL. 1994. Making Smarter Environmental Management Decisions.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(6): 1601-1612.
Grossarth S and Hecht A. 2007. Sustainability at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1970-2020. Ecological Engineering 30(1): 1-8.
Harvell CD, Altizer S, Cattadori IM, Harrington L and Weil E. 2009. Climate change and
wildlife diseases: when does the host matter the most? Ecology 90(4): 912-920.
Healthy Reefs Initiative. 2010. Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, and Coan M. 2004. Development of a 2001 national
land cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 70: 829-840.
Howard RA. 1966. Decision Analysis: Applied Decision Theory. In Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Operational Research. New York: John Wiley, pp. 55-71.
Hu W, Yuan Y and Li G. 2015. Evaluation of soil erosion and sediment yield for ridge
watersheds using the SWAT model. Hydrological Sciences Journal (submitted).
219
-------
Hughes TP. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean
coral reef. Science 265: 1547-1551.
Jackson J, Cramer K, Donovan M, Friedlander A, Hooten A and Lam V. 2012. Tropical
Americas Coral Reef Resilience Workshop. 29 April-5 May 2012, Tupper Center,
Smithsonian Tropical Research Center, Panama City, Republic of Panama.
Jackson JBC. 1997. Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 16: S23-S32.
Jackson JBC, Donovan MK, Cramer KL and Lam VV (editors). 2014. Status and Trends
of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH,
Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM,
Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ and Warner RR. 2001. Historical overfishing and
the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629-638.
Johns GM, Leeworthy VR, Bell FW and Bonn MA. 2001. Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in
Southeast Florida. Report (Hazen and Sawyer) to Broward County, Palm Beach County,
Miami-Dade County (Florida), Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 255 pp.
Karr JR and Chu EW. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring.
Island Press, Washington, DC, 206 pp.
Karr JR and Dudley DR. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals.
Environmental Managements: 55-68.
Keel S. 2005. Caribbean Ecoregional Assessment: Puerto Rico. The Nature Conservancy.
http://conserveonline.org/docs/2005/09/PuertoRicoTerrERAMay05.pdf
(accessed June 25, 2012).
Keeney RL. 1982. Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research 30(5): 803-838.
Keeney RL. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-making. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Keeney RL. 2007. Developing Objectives and Attributes. In Advances in Decision Analysis:
from Foundations to Applications, Eds. Edwards W, Miles Jr. RF and von Winterfeldt D.
pp. 104-128. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keeney RL and Gregory RS. 2005. Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of
objectives. Operations Research 53:1-11.
Kendall MS, Monaco ME, Buja KR, Christensen JD, Kruer CR, Finkbeiner M and Warner RA.
2001. Methods Used to Map the Benthic Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/products/biogeography/usvi pr
mapping/manual.pdf (accessed June 25, 2012).
Kent D. 1992. America the Beautiful. Puerto Rico: Childrens Press.
220
-------
Kjaerulff U and Madsen A. 2008. Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams: A Guide
to Construction and Analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
Knowlton N. 2001. The future of coral reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 98: 5419-5425.
Kunkel CM, Hallberg RW and Oppenheimer M. 2006. Coral reefs reduce tsunami impact
in model simulations. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L23612.
Layke C. 2009. Measuring Nature's Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmapfor Improving
Ecosystem Service Indicators. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute,
Washington DC.
Leeworthy VR and Bowker JM. 1997. Nonmarket Economic User Values of the Florida
Keys/Key West. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD.
Leeworthy VR and Vanasse P. 1999. Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the
Florida Keys/Key West: Updates for Years 1996-97 and 1997-98. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD.
Leeworthy VR and Wiley PC. 1996. Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by Recreating
Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West. Silver Spring, MD. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Strategic Environmental Assessments Division.
Leeworthy VR and Wiley PC. 1997. A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Recreation Activities
of Monroe County Residents in the Florida Keys/Key West. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD.
Leeworthy VR and Wiley PC. 2003. Profiles and Economic Contribution: General Visitors
to Monroe County, Florida 2001-2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Silver Spring MD.
Leeworthy VR, Wiley PC and Hospital JD. 2004. Importance-satisfaction Ratings Five-year
Comparison, SPA & ER Use, and Socioeconomic and Ecological Monitoring Comparison
of Results 1995-1996 to 2000-2001. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Silver Spring, MD.
Leujak W and Ormond RFC. 2007. Visitor perceptions and the shifting social carrying
capacity of South Sinai's coral reefs. Environmental Management 39: 472-489.
Lewis GK. 1963. The Present. In: Puerto Rico: Freedom and Power in the Caribbean.
Monthly Review Press.
Lowe RJ, Falter JL, Bandet MD, Pawlak G, Atkinson MJ, Monismith SG, and Koseff JR. 2005.
Spectral wave dissipation over a barrier reef. Journal of Geophysical Research
110:C04001.
Lozado JLA and Mora El. 2014. Economic Feasibility Study for the Restoration of the
Guanica Lagoon Final Report. University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR. 221 pp.
221
-------
Madin JS, Black KP and Connolly SR. 2006. Scaling water motion on coral reefs: From
regional to organismal scales. Coral Reefs 25: 635-644.
Marcot BG, Thompson MP, Runge MC, Thompson FR, McNulty S, Cleaves D, Tomosy M,
Fisher LA and Bliss A. 2012. Recent advance in applying decision science to managing
national forests. Forest Ecology and Management 285: 123-132
Maxam A, Lyew-Ayee P and Mclntyre K. 2011. A Classification of the Protection given
by Reef Systems in Jamaica-Utilizing GIS and Oceanographic Methods of Analysis.
Working Paper. Kingston, Jamaica: Mona Geoinformatics Institute (MGI).
McDaniels TL. 2000. Creating and using objectives for ecological risk assessment and
management. Environmental Science and Policy 3: 299-304.
McField M and Kramer PR. 2007. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People: A Guide to Indicators
of Reef Health and Social Wellbeing in the Mesoamerican Reef Region. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC.
Melbourne-Thomas, J. 2010. CORSET Documentation. Institute for Marine and Antarctic
Studies. University of Tasmania.
Merriam Webster. 2013. URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decide.
Accessed July 10, 2013.
Merriam Webster. 2010. Recreation. URL: http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/recreation.
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.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2009. Glossary. URL: http://www.
millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.59.aspx.pdf.
Miller G and Lugo A. 2009. Guide to the Ecological Systems of Puerto Rico. General
Technical Report. IITF-GTR-35. San Juan, PR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry. 437 p.
Moberg F and Folke C. 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems.
Ecological Economics 29: 215-233.
Mollaghasemi M and Pet-Edwards J. 1997. IEEE Computer Society Technical Briefing:
Making Multiple-Objective Decisions. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
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.
222
-------
Mumby PJ, Broad K, Brumbaugh DR, Dahlgren CP, Harborne AR, Hastings A, Holmes KE,
Kappel CV, Micheli F and J. N. Sanchirico JN. 2008. Coral reef habitats as surrogates
of species, ecological functions, and ecosystem services. Conservation Biology
22. 941-951.
Mumby PJ. 2006. Connectivity of reef fish between mangroves and coral reefs: Algorithms
for the design of marine reserves at seascape scales. Biological Conservation
128:215-222.
Munda G. 2008. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Naber H, Lange GM and Hatziolos ME. 2008. Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Services:
A Gap Analysis. World Bank.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 2013. Environmental Decisions in the Face of
Uncertainty. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Coral Reef Habitat
Assessment for U.S. Marine Protected Areas: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
NOAA National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. 54pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Puerto Rico Coastal Zone
Management Program Revision and Update. Silver Spring, MD. 362 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015. Glossary of Terminology.
Coral Reef Information Management System. URL:
http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/coris_glossary/index.aspx?letter=v.
National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC. 286 pp.
Norsys. 2010. NeticaTM 4.16. Vancouver, BC: Norsys Software Corp.
Nunes PAID, Ding H and Markandya A. 2009. The Economic Valuation of Marine
Ecosystems. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattel, Working Paper 329.
URL: http://www.bepress.com/feem/paper329/.
Ohlson DW and Serveiss VB. 2007. The integration of ecological risk assessment and
structured decision making into watershed management. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 3(1): 118-128.
Oliver LM, Fisher WS, Dittmar J, Hallock P, Campbell J, Quarles RL, Harris P and LoBue C.
2014. Contrasting responses of coral reef fauna and foraminiferal assemblages to
human influence in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Marine Environmental Research
99: 95-105.
223
-------
Paddack MJ, Reynolds JD, Aguilar C, Appeldoorn RS, Beets J, Burkett EW, Chittaro PM,
Clarke K, Esteves R, Fonseca AC, Forrester GE, Friedlander AM, Garcfa-Sais J, Gonzalez-
Sanson G, Jordan LK, McClellan DB, Miller MW, Molloy PP, Mumby PJ, Nagelkerken I,
Nemeth M, Navas-Camacho R, Pitt J, Polunin NV, Reyes-Nivia MC, Robertson DR,
Rodriguez-Ramirez A, Salas E, Smith SR, Spieler RE, Steele MA, Williams ID, Wormald
CL, Watkinson AR and Cote IM. 2009. Recent region-wide declines in Caribbean reef
fish abundance. Current Biology 19: 590-595.
Pandolfi J and Jackson JBC. 2006. Ecological persistence interrupted in Caribbean coral
reefs. Ecology Letters 9: 818-826.
Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, McArdle D,
McClenachan L, Newman MJH, Paredes G, Warner RR, Jackson JBC. 2003. Global
trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301: 955-958.
Parnell GS, Conley HW, Jackson JA, Lehmkuhl U and Andrew JM. 1998. Foundations 2025:
A value model for evaluating future air and space forces. Management Science
44:1336-1350.
Pendleton LH. 1994. Environmental quality and recreation demand on a Caribbean coral
reef. Coastal Management 22: 399-404.
Phillips LD. 1984. A theory of requisite decision models. Acta psychologica 56(1-3):
29-48.
Pierce M. 1998. Computer-Based Model in Integrated Environmental Assessment.
European Environmental Agency (EEA).
Prada C, Weil E and Yoshioka P. 2009. Octocoral bleaching under unusual thermal stress.
Cora//?ee/s29:41-45.
Principe P, Bradley P, Yee S, Fisher W, Johnson E, Allen P and Campbell D. 2012.
Quantifying Coral Reef Ecosystem Services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-11/206.
Puerto Rico (PR) Government. 2015. Puerto Rico Governmental Portal for Geographic
Data. URL: gis.pr.gov.
Reckhow K. 1994. A decision analytic framework for environmental analysis and
simulation modeling. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(12): 1901-1906.
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 PS, Bradley P, and Fisher WS. 2014. The role of scientific
studies in building consensus in environmental decision making: A coral reef example.
Environment Systems and Decisions 34: 60-87.
224
-------
Remoundou K, Koundouri P, Kontogianni A, Nunes PAID and Skourtos M. 2009. Valuation
of natural marine ecosystems: An economic perspective. Environmental Science &
Policy 12(7): 1040-1051.
Rittel HWJ and Webber M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences
4: 155-169.
Rodriguez P, Sotomayor-Ramirez D, Martinez G, Perez-Alegria L, Lopez C and Bachoon D.
2014. Citizen-volunteer and Professional Monitoring to Identify Fecal Sources of
Contamination in Southwestern Puerto Rico. Poster presented at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Caribbean Science/Citizen Science Workshop.
San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Russell M, league A, Alvarez F, Dantin D, Osland M, Harvey J, Nestlerode J, Rogers J,
Jackson L, Pilant D, Genthner F, Lewis M, Spivak A, Harwell M and Neale A. 2013.
Neighborhood Scale Quantification of Ecosystem Goods and Services. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze,
FL, EPA/600/R-13/295, 46 pp.
Santavy DL, Fisher WS, Campbell JG and Quarles RL. 2012. Field Manual for Coral Reef
Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Gulf Breeze FL, EPA/600/R-12/029, 80 pp.
Schmidt L. 2011. Using Archives: A Guide to Effective Research. The Society of American
Archivists.
Sheppard C, Dixon DJ, Gourlay M, Sheppard A and Payet R. 2005. Coral mortality increases
wave energy reaching shores protected by reef flats: examples from the Seychelles.
Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 64: 223-234.
Shivlani M and Koeneke R. 2010. Spatial characterization of artisanal fisheries in Puerto
Rico: Geographic Information Systems (CIS) approach for assessing the regional effort
and landings. Proceedings of the 63rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 63: 60-66.
Silvestrini BG and Sanchez MDL. 1988. Historia de Puerto Rico: trayectoria de un pueblo.
Ediciones Cultural Panamericana. San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Simley JD and Carswell WJ Jr. 2009. The National MapHydrography. U.S. Geological
Survey Fact Sheet 2009-3054. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3054/ (accessed
June 25, 2012).
Smeets E and Weterings R. 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview.
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Report No. 25, 19 pp.
Smith A, Yee SH, Russell M, Awkerman J and Fisher WS. (In review). Linking ecosystem
services supply to stakeholder values in Guanica Bay Watershed, Puerto Rico.
Ecosystem Services. (In Review).
225
-------
Smith MB. 2007. Potential Changes in Ecosystem Services from Land use Policy in
Puerto Rico. MS Thesis, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science,
Duke University.
Soler-Lopez LR, Webb RMT and Perez-Blair F. 1999. Sedimentation Survey of Logo
Yahuecas, Puerto Rico, March 1997. San Juan, P.R. U.S. Geological Survey.
Soler-Lopez LR. 2001. Sedimentation Survey Results of the Principal Water Supply
Reservoirs of Puerto Rico. In Sylva WF (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth Caribbean Islands
Water Resources Congress, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, February 22-23, 2001.
Soler-Lopez LR. 2002. Sedimentation Survey of Logo Loco, Puerto Rico, March 2000.
U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4187, 26 pp.
Soler-Lopez LR and Webb RMT. 1999. Sedimentation Survey of Logo Prieto, Puerto Rico,
October 1997. San Juan, Puerto Rico. US Geological Survey. Water-Resources
Investigations Report 99-4169.
Sotomayor-Ramfrez D. 2015. Summary Report for Project: Citizen Monitoring of Water
Sanitation in a Rural Puerto Rico Watershed. Submitted to the U.S. EPA. 17 pp.
Spurgeon JPG. 1992. The economic valuation of coral reefs. Marine Pollution Bulletin
24(11): 529-536.
Steneck RS and Dethier MN. 1994. A functional group approach to the structure of algal
dominated communities. Oikos 69: 476-498.
Stern PC and Fineberg HV (Editors). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in
a Democratic Society. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 264 pp.
Sturm P, Viqueira-Rios R, Medina J, Padilla G, Hernandez-Delgado EA, Gonzalez-Ramos C,
Montanez-Acuna A, Otano-Cruz A and Cabrera-Beauchamp G. 2015. Cabo Rojo
Community Watershed Action Plan for Water Quality and Coral Reefs. Prepared for
National Fish And Wildlife Foundation, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Puerto
Rico DRNA and the Municipality Of Cabo Rojo. 87 pp.
Sturm P, Viqueira-Rios R, Meyer-Comas L, Hernandez-Delgado EA, Gonzalez-Ramos C,
Montanez-Acuna A and Otano-Cruz A. 2014. Culebra Community Watershed Action
Plan for Water Quality and Coral Reefs. Prepared for NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
Program, Puerto Rico DRNA and the Culebra Office of the Mayor. 81pp.
Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S,
Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J,
Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus
M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J and Griffin R. 2013. InVEST2.5.3 User's Guide. The
Natural Capital Project, Stanford.
The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN) 2013. URL: www.cran.r-project.org.
226
-------
Toledo-Hernandez C, Sabat AM and Zuluaga-Montero A. 2007. Density, size structure
and aspergillosis prevalence in Gorgonia ventalina at six localities in Puerto Rico.
Marine Biology 152: 527-535.
Toledo-Hernandez C, Yoshioka P, Bayman P and Sabat AM. 2009. Impact of disease
and detachment on growth and survivorship of sea fans Gorgonia ventalina.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 393: 47-54.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. GE04: Global Environment
Outlook-Environment for Development. Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations World Tourism Office (UNWTO). 1995. Glossary of Tourism Terms.
URL: http://www2.unwto.org/.
U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (CC). 1978. Complaint. United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico.
U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (TR), 83-0105 (TR). 1985. Order Further Modifying
and Amending the Final Judgment. United States District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico.
U.S. v. PRASA, Civil Action 78-0038 (CC) and 83-0105 (CC). 1997. Joint Stipulation of the
Parties Concerning Achievement of Final NPDES Permit Limitations. United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. NSSH part 622: Ecological and Interpretative
Groups (Part 622). In: National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI.
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Constructed Treatment Wetlands.
Office of Water, EPA/843-F-03-013, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. EPA 841-B-08-002. URL:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. USEPA Office of Research and
Development Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP): Decision Support
Framework (DSF) Team Research Implementation Plan. EPA/600/R-09/104,
Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Terms of Environment: Glossary,
Abbreviations and Acronyms. URL: http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Sustainable and Healthy
Communities Research Fact Sheet. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Science in Action. 2pp.
227
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Decision Support Framework
Implementation of the Web-based Environmental Decision Analysis Application
DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society.
EPA/600/R-12/008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. ReefLink Database. URL:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=242306.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Tutorial on Systems Thinking
Using the DPS//? Framework. URL:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryld=225356.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. STORET/WQX. URL:
http://www.epa.gov/storet/.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Glossary. URL: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/glos.html.
Uyarra MC, Watkinson AR and Cote IM. 2009. Managing dive tourism for the sustainable
use of coral reefs: Validating diver perceptions of attractive site features.
Environmental Management 43: 1-16.
Valdes-Pizzini M. 2001. Historical Contentions and Future Trends in the Coastal Zone: The
Environmental Movement in Puerto Rico. University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College
Program, Mayaguez. Publication Number UPRSGCP-R-80.
van Beukering PJH and Cesar HSJ. 2004. Ecological economic modeling of coral reefs.
Pacific Science 58: 243-260.
Velazco-Domfnguez AT, Weil E and Bruckner A. 2003. Climate Change and Coral Bleaching
in Puerto Rico: Efforts and Challenges. Presentation given in Oahu, Hawaii.
Vicente-Chandler J, Abruna F, Bosque-Lugo R and Silva S. 1968. Intensive Coffee Culture in
Puerto Rico. Bulletin 211. University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus: Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Vincenty Heres & Lauria, Sociedad Ambiental, Malcom Pirnie and HydroQual, Inc. 1997.
Advance Wastewater Treatment Assessment- Phase I. Watershed Characterization
Assessment Reports, Executive Summary. PRASA, EQB, EPA. San Juan, PR. pp. 1-12.
von Bertalanffy L. 1972. The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy
of Management Journal 15(4): 407-426.
von Winterfeldt D and Edwards W. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 604 pages.
Wainger L and Mazzotta M. 2009. Proposed Framework for Quantifying Ecosystem
Services and Their Economic Benefits-Guidance for Creating Ecological Endpoints.
ESRP Working Paper Series #2.
228
-------
Wainger LA and Boyd JW. 2009. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Pages 92-111 in K. McLeod
and H. Leslie, editors. Ecosystem-based Management for the Oceans. Island Press,
Washington, D. C.
Warne AG, Webb RMT and Larsen MC. 2005. Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Discharge
Characteristics of Rivers in Puerto Rico and Their Potential Influence on Coral Reefs.
USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5206.
Webb RMT and Soler-Lopez LR. 1997. Sedimentation history of Logo Loiza, Puerto Rico,
1953-94: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4108,
18 pps.
Weil E. 2004. Coral Reef Diseases in the Wider Caribbean. In: Rosenberg E, and Loya Y
(eds). Coral Reef Health and Diseases. Springer, Berlin, pp. 35-68.
Weil E, Urrieztieta I and Garzon-Ferreira. 2002. Local and geographic variability in the
incidence of disease in western Atlantic coral reefs. Proceedings of the 9th
International Coral Reef Symposium 2: 1231-1238.
Weil E, Hernandez EA, Bruckner AW, Ortiz AL, Nemeth M and Ruiz H. 2003. Distribution
and Status ofAcroporid (scleractinia) Coral Populations in Puerto Rico. Proceedings
of the Caribbean Workshop: Potential Application of the US Endangered Species Act
(ESA) as a Conservation Strategy. NOAA-NMFS and NCORE-RSMAS. University of
Miami. April 16-18. Pp. 71-92.
Weil E, Smith GW and Agudelo DG. 2006. Status and progress in coral disease research.
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms Special Issue I 69: 1-7.
Weil E, Croquer A and Urreiztieta I. 2009. Temporal variability and consequences of coral
diseases and bleaching in La Parguera, Puerto Rico from 2003-2007. Caribbean Journal
of Science 45: 221-246.
Weil E and Rogers CS. 2011. Coral Reef Disease in the Atlantic-Caribbean. In Z Dubinski
and N Stambler. (Eds.). Coral Reefs: An Ecosystem in Transition. Chapter 27.
pp. 465-492. Springer-Verlag.
Wells H. 1969. The Modernization of Puerto Rico: A Political Study of changing Values
and Institutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 440 pp.
Whitall D, Bauer LJ, Sherman C, Edwards K, Mason A, Pait T and Caldow C. 2013. Baseline
Assessment ofGuanica Bay, Puerto Rico in Support of Watershed Restoration. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 176.
Whitewater River Alliance. 2015. Learn About Watersheds.
URL: http://thewhiteriveralliance.org/resources/what-is-a-watershed/.
Wielgus J, Chadwick-Furman NE, Zeitouni N and Shechter M. 2003. Effects of coral reef
attribute damage on recreational welfare. Marine Resource Economics 18: 225-237.
229
-------
Wielgus J, Cooper E, Torres R and Burke L. 2010. Coastal Capital: Dominican Republic.
Case Studies on Economic Value of Coastal Ecosystems in the Dominican Republic.
Working Paper, DC: World Resources Institute.
Wikipedia. 2013. Archival Research. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archival_research.
Wikipedia. 2014. Guanica, Puerto Rico. URL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%Alnica,_Puerto_Rico.
Wikipedia. 2015a. Agriculture. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture.
Wikipedia. 2015b. Decision Analysis. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_analysis.
Wikipedia. 2015c. ForakerAct. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foraker_Act.
Wikipedia. 20l5cd.Jones-Shafroth Act. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones%E2%80%93Shafroth_Act.
Wikipedia. 2015de. Sanitary Sewer. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_sewer.
Wikipedia. 2015f. Systems Thinking. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking.
Wikipedia. 2015g. Taino. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno.
Wikipedia. 2015h. Terrestrial. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial.
Wikipedia. 20151. Trade-off. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-off.
Williams EH Jr., Goenega C and Vicente V. 1987. Mass bleaching on Atlantic coral reefs.
Science 237: 877-878.
Williams EH Jr. and Bunkley-Williams L. 1989. Bleaching of Caribbean coral reef symbionts
in 1987-1988. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium 3: 313-318.
Williams EH Jr. and Bunkley-Williams L. 1990. The world-wide coral reef bleaching cycle
and related sources of coral mortality. Atoll Research Bulletin 335:1-71.
Williams ID and Polunin N. 2002. Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of
the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environmental
Conservation 27: 382-391.
Wilson HM. 1899. Water Resources of Puerto Rico, Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers of
the United States Geological Survey. No. 32 Washington D.C.: Department of the
Interior 48 pp.
Wooldridge S, Done T, Berkelmans R, Jones R and Marshall P. 2005. Precursors for
resilience in coral communities in a warming climate: A belief network approach.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 295: 157-169.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2009. Value of Coral Reefs and Mangroves in the
Caribbean. Economic Valuation Methodology 1/3.0. World Resources
Institute, Washington, DC.
230
-------
Yee SH, Bradley P, Fisher WS, Perreault SD, Quackenboss J, Johnson ED, Bousquin J and
Murphy PA. 2012a. Integrating human health and environmental health into the DPSIR
framework: A tool to identify research opportunities for sustainable and healthy
communities. Ecohealth 9(4): 411-426.
Yee SH, Carriger J, Fisher WS, Bradley P and Dyson B. 2014a. Developing scientific
information to support decisions for sustainable reef ecosystem services. Ecological
Economics 115: 39-50.
Yee SH, Dittmar J and Oliver LM. 2014b. Comparison of methods for quantifying reef
ecosystem services: A case study mapping services for St. Croix, USVI. Ecosystem
Services 8:1-15.
Yee SH, Rogers JE, Harvey J, Fisher W, Russell M and Bradley P. 2011. Concept Mapping
Ecosystem Goods and Services. Pages 193-214 In: Moon BM, Hoffman RR, Novak JD
and Canas AJ (Eds.) Applied Concept Mapping: Capturing, Analyzing, and Organizing
Knowledge. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Yee SH, Vache K, Oliver L and Fisher W. 2012b. Development of Envision, a Spatially-
explicit Framework for Modeling Future Scenarios: Assessing Sustainability of Reef
Ecosystem Services under Water Quality Criteria in St. Croix, USVI. EPA Internal Report.
Yuan Y, Mbonimpa G, Hu W, Fisher Wand Casper A. 2013. Quantifying Sediment
Contributions to Guanica Bay, Puerto Rico. American Water Resources Association
Meeting.
Zawada DG. 2011. Reef Topographic Complexity. In: Encyclopedia of Modern Coral Reefs,
Hopley D (Ed.). Springer, Netherlands, pp. 902-906.
231
------- |