EPA/600/R-14/386 | February 2015

www.epa.gov/ord

Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision 

Support Workshop 

April 27-29, 2010

Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, 

La Parguera, Puerto Rico

Prepared by:

Patricia Bradley

US EPA

Atlantic Ecology Division

NHEERL, ORD

33 East Quay Road

Key West, FL 33040

William Fisher

US EPA

Gulf Ecology Division

NHEERL, ORD

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

Brian Dyson

US EPA

NRMRL, ORD

26 W. Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Amanda Rehr

Piraeus Consulting

1408 4th Ave Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98101

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
ii | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Notice and Disclaimer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development 

sponsored the workshop described in this document. This document has been subjected to the 

Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA 

document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use.

This is a contribution to the EPA Office of Research and Development’s Ecosystem Services 

Research and Safe and Healthy Communities Research Programs. 

The appropriate citation for this report is:

Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B and Rehr A. 2014. Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision 

Support Workshop, April 27-29, 2010, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, La Parguera, Puerto Rico. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI. 

EPA/600/R-14/386. 

This document can be downloaded from: http://www.epa.gov/GED/

Cover photos taken by: Tom Moore (NOAA), Alan Humphrey (EPA ERT), Scott Grossman and 

Jon McBurney (Lockheed Martin), Buddy LoBue (EPA Region 2), and Mike Morel (USF&WS).
Table of Contents | iii

Table of Contents

Notice and Disclaimer.................................................................................................................... ii

List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and the Guánica Bay Watershed Initiative..................... 1 

1.2 Workshop Goals............................................................................................................... 4 

1.3 The Structured Design Process......................................................................................... 5 

Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions, and Management of 

Coral Reef Resources.............................................................................................................. 9 

2.1 Status of Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal Resources............................ 9 

2.2 Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal Resources........................13

 2.2.1 The Problems...................................................................................................14

 2.2.2 Responding to the Problems...........................................................................17

2.3 USDA’s Detailed Plans for the Guánica Watershed .......................................................20

Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge about Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Using a

Systems Framework (DPSIR) ................................................................................................23

3.1 Systems Thinking and Example DPSIR............................................................................23

3.2 DPSIR Breakout Groups..................................................................................................31

 3.2.1 Agricultural Practices.......................................................................................33

 3.2.2 Lagoon Restoration .........................................................................................39

 3.2.3 Low Impact Development ...............................................................................46

3.3 Guánica Bay Watersheds DPSIR .....................................................................................54

Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds..........................................57

4.1 Homework Assignment..................................................................................................57

4.2 Social Network Analysis..................................................................................................58

4.3 Uncertainty and the Value of Information (VOI) in Multi-stakeholder

 Environmental Decision Making .....................................................................................61

4.4 Adaptive Management (AM)..........................................................................................68

4.5 DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy and Society .......70

4.6 Decision Breakout Session..............................................................................................72

Chapter 5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................81

5.1 Lessons Learned .............................................................................................................81

5.2 Next Steps.......................................................................................................................83

5.3 Summary .........................................................................................................................97
iv | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Appendices

A. Puerto Rico Overview ............................................................................................................99

B. Guánica Bay Watershed.......................................................................................................107

C. Socioeconomics of the Guánica Bay Watershed ................................................................. 115

D. Workshop Agenda................................................................................................................119

E. Workshop Participants.........................................................................................................125

F. Glossary................................................................................................................................129

G. References ...........................................................................................................................131
List of Figures | v 

List of Figures

1-1. Guánica Bay Watershed ...................................................................................................... 2 

1-2. Map of the flow of water between watersheds that contribute water to Guánica Bay .... 3 

1-3. Multiple factors influence steps in any decision-making process ...................................... 6 

1-4. The DPSIR framework.......................................................................................................... 7 

2-1. Coral reefs at Guánica .......................................................................................................10

2-2. Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program–site locations.............................................10

2-3. Thermal stress in the Caribbean .......................................................................................11

2-4. Percent coral cover (by species) at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guánica ................................. 12

2-5. Percent cover for 5 substrate categories at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guánica....................12

2-6. Debris that had been captured by former railroad structures.........................................15

2-7. Impervious surfaces in the Guánica Bay watershed .........................................................16

2-8. Proposed constructed treatment wetlands......................................................................18

2-9. FWS and farmers surveying a farm, the Envirosurvey nursery, and plants delivered 

to the farmer.....................................................................................................................19

2-10. Illustration showing a buffer strip design for an agricultural landscape ..........................20

3-1. Driving Force–tourism and recreation economic sector...................................................26

3-2. Pressures associated with recreational fishing and boating.............................................26

3-3. An initial coral reef DPSIR conceptual map showing one example Driving Force

creating a Pressure that affects the State of harvested organisms..................................27

3-4. Changes in environmental and ecological state associated with recreational 

fishing and boating............................................................................................................27

3-5. Ecosystem services affected by recreational fishing and boating ....................................28

3-6. Additional tourism and recreation subsectors generate additional Pressures and 

changes in environmental and ecological State................................................................29

3-7 Responses that could be implemented to mitigate the impact of the tourism

and recreation sector........................................................................................................30

3-8. Responses aligned with Drivers and Pressures................................................................. 31

3-9. Template used by Cmap note-takers to develop the DPSIRs............................................32

3-10. DPSIR template for the Agricultural Practices breakout group ........................................34

3-11. Pressures associated with Agricultural Practices..............................................................35

3-12. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Agriculture...................................................36

3-13. Ecosystem services associated with changes in Ecosystem State ....................................37

3-14. Final Agricultural Practices DPSIR......................................................................................38

3-15. DPSIR template for the Lagoon Restoration breakout group...........................................40

3-16. Pressures associated with the loss of the Guánica Lagoon ..............................................41

3-17. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Pressures generated by restoration 

of the Guánica Lagoon.......................................................................................................42

3-18. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State ......................................................43

3-19. Socio-economic sectors that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted

by management actions relating to restoration of the historic Guánica Lagoon.............44
vi | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

3-20. Final Guánica Lagoon restoration DPSIR...........................................................................45

3-21. DPSIR template for the LID breakout group......................................................................47

3-22. Pressures that can be mitigated with LID .........................................................................48

3-23. Changes in environmental and Ecosystem State possible from LID................................. 49

3-24. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State ......................................................50

3-25. Socio-economic sectors that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted by LID..51

3-26. Additional decision points and management actions not identified 

in the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan that related to LID.............................52

3-27. Final DPSIR ........................................................................................................................53

3-28a. Guánica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information 

from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for Drivers, Pressures, 

and Responses to each......................................................................................................55

3-28b.Guánica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information 

from the Decision-support Workshop, showing details for State, Impact, 

and benefits to Drivers......................................................................................................56

4-1. Social network analysis views social relationships and interactions in terms

of network theory about nodes and links.........................................................................59

4-2. Preliminary social network based on responses from workshop participants 

who are identified by institution or role...........................................................................60

4-3. Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) developed at the workshop for a participant.................66

4-4. CMP Adaptive Management Cycle....................................................................................69

4-5. DASEES Webpage design...................................................................................................71

5-1. Map showing the location of the historic Guánica Lagoon ..............................................84

5-2. Aerial photos from 1950 showing the Guánica Lagoon, and 2007 showing the area

that was drained with the lagoon footprint superimposed..............................................84

5-3. Parcels inventoried in the historic Guánica Lagoon region...............................................85

5-4. The surveyed parcels of the Lajas Valley below 5M elevation and an overlay

of the historic lagoon area ................................................................................................86

5-5. Land ownership in the historic Guánica Lagoon footprint................................................86

5-6. Sub areas in the study site ................................................................................................87

5-7. Model output for the 2-hr flood event under various lagoon height scenarios...............89

5-8. The majority of flooding increases takes place on existing forested land........................ 89 

5-9. The 50-yr flood event projection with no lagoon vs. the flood projections

shows almost no additional flooding ................................................................................90

5-10. Soil salinity study, Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve.........................................................91

5-11. The surface salinity layer, Lajas Valley ..............................................................................92

5-12. Protectores de Cuencas and Ridge to Reefs, Inc., hydro-seeding a steep slope along

the side of a mountain road in the Guánica Bay Watershed............................................ 93 

5-13. Shade-grown coffee roundtable and proposed certification label................................... 94 

5-14. Location of coral nursery operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

during 2013 ....................................................................................................................... 96 
List of Tables | vii

A-1. Map of Puerto Rico showing municipality boundaries and forested areas.......................... 99

A-2. Map of municipality boundaries and watershed basins in the Guánica Bay Watershed... 101

B-1. The monument on the waterfront in Guánica, commemorating the U.S. invasion

in September 1898 .............................................................................................................. 107

B-2. Former Guánica Lagoon area and the adjacent community of Fuig................................... 108

B-3. Photos of the Guánica State Forest..................................................................................... 109

B-4. The Puerto Rican nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus) and the Puerto Rican 

emerald-breasted hummingbird (Chlorstilbon maugeaus) in the Guánica State Forest.... 109

B-5. The Punta Ballenas Reserve and Cayo Aurora (Gilligan’s Island)........................................ 110

B-6. Colorful houses in Yauco and the Yauco town square........................................................ 111

B-7. The Rico Loco runs through the Susúa State Forest ........................................................... 112

B-8. The Gumbo Limbo (Bursera simaruba) and the Blue-Tailed Ground Lizard 

(Ameiva wetmorei) are found in Susúa State Forest .......................................................... 112

B-9. The plaza in La Parguera and stilt homes on the bay.......................................................... 113

B-10. Offshore cays and islets and mangroves............................................................................. 114

B-11. The wall off La Parguera is a world-class dive destination.................................................. 114

C-1. View of the Central Guánica circa 1910 .............................................................................. 116

List of Tables

1-1. Contrasting features of science and management cultures...................................................... 5 

2-1. Priority pollutants in the Guánica Bay/Rio Loco Watershed ................................................... 14 

2-2. Agricultural practices that potentially affect water quality..................................................... 21

3-1. Topics captured on the flipchart but not included in the basic Agriculture 

Practices DPSIR......................................................................................................................... 39

3-2. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic Lagoon 

Restoration DPSIR..................................................................................................................... 46

3-3. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic LID DPSIR ............ 54

4-1. Important resources and outcomes in the Guánica Bay Watershed....................................... 62

4-2. Workshop participants’ best estimates and associated confidence regarding the

strengths of the cause-effect relationships that impact important resources

 and outcomes in the Guánica bay Watershed (N-25).............................................................. 63

4-3. Workshop participants’ best estimates and associated confidence regarding the 

effects of management actions for reducing threats to resource outcomes 

in the Guánica Bay Watershed................................................................................................. 64

4-4. Critical uncertainties and suggested research studies............................................................. 65

4-5. Management options developed during the workshop .......................................................... 80

A-1. Puerto Rico public corporations............................................................................................. 102

C-1. Demographic information for GB/Rio Loco municipalities and Puerto Rico ......................... 115
viii | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Acknowledgements

This workshop was convened through the collaborative efforts of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Region 2, and through the 

University of Puerto Rico. The technical content of the workshop was developed by Patricia 

Bradley, William Fisher, Ann Vega, Leah Oliver, Walt Galloway, and Joe Williams of ORD; 

Charles LoBue and Evelyn Huertas of Region 2; Richard Appeldoorn and Francisco Pagan of the 

University of Puerto Rico, Caribbean Coral Reef Institute, (UPR CCRI); Kelly Black and Tom Stockton 

of Neptune & Company; and Paul Sturm of Center for Watershed Protection. 

We would like to recognize Richard Appeldoorn and Francisco Pagan, UPR CCRI, for dedicating staff 

and resources to deal with the planning, logistics, and communications of this effort. 

This document was peer reviewed by Marilyn ten Brink and Leah Oliver, ORD; Evelyn Huertas, 

Region 2; and Paul Sturm, Ridge to Reefs, Inc.
Executive Summary | ix

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Caribbean Coral Reef Institute (CCRI) hosted a 

Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop on April 27-28, 2010, at the 

Caribbean Coral Reef Institute in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Forty-three participants, including 

representatives from federal and territorial government agencies, non-governmental organizations 

and academic institutions, and Guánica Bay watershed citizens participated in the workshop. The 

purpose of the workshop was to facilitate development of a decision analysis framework with 

stakeholder and decision-maker input to help address problems related to ecologically damaging 

human activities (e.g., agriculture, urbanization, sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off, 

and wetland loss) in the Guánica Bay Watershed in southwest Puerto Rico. 

During the workshop, participants reviewed the characteristics and threats to the Guánica Bay 

watershed, coral reefs and coastal ecosystems and overviewed ongoing NOAA and USDA activities 

in the watershed. EPA introduced an organizational framework (DPSIR), which can be used to link 

ecological and socioeconomic factors and to scope the important causal elements of environmental 

decision-making. The group incorporated knowledge and issues relevant to the Guánica Bay 

watershed and southwestern Puerto Rico into the framework. Using the Guánica Bay Management 

Plan as a foundation, EPA applied a structured decision analysis process to the decision-making 

processes in the watershed. 

This report serves two purposes: 1) to document the workshop and 2) to provide a process and 

tools for implementing some of the approaches used at the workshop. The report provides detailed 

step-by-step examples, accompanied with graphics, guidance, templates, and discussion of 

potential software. 

Chapter 1. Introduction | 1 

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and the Guánica Bay Watershed 

Initiative

The United States Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) was established in 1998 by Presidential Executive 

Order to lead U.S. efforts to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. The USCRTF includes 

leaders of 12 Federal agencies and seven U.S. States, Territories, and Commonwealths (Florida, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Marianas) and three Freely Associated States (Federated States of Micronesia, Republic 

of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau). 

In 2000 the USCRTF adopted the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, the first U.S. plan to 

comprehensively address the most pressing threats to coral reefs. The National Action Plan is the 

Nation's roadmap to more effectively understand coral reef ecosystems and reduce the adverse 

impact of human activities. In 2002 the USCRTF collaborated to produce a complementary 

document, A National Coral Reef Action Strategy, to address priorities and strategies in the short 

term.

Recognizing that the threat of land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) to coral reef ecosystems 

occurs in all U.S. coral reef jurisdictions, and both authority and responsibility to address LBSP 

involve a multitude of governmental and jurisdictional levels, the USCRTF initiated a Watershed 

Partnership Initiative in 2009. The initiative is intended to facilitate and enhance coordination, 

partnerships, and contribution of Agency resources and expertise to implement geographically 

specific and integrated activities to reduce pollutant loads to coral reef ecosystems, while also 

promoting consistent and strengthened application and enforcement of laws and authorities 

intended to address LBSP. The USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative includes two distinct 

components: 

a. Individual federal and state/territory agency contributions through direct application 

of resources, authorities, technical assistance, and/or program expertise; and 

b. A competitive funding opportunity that awards Federal funds to local organizations and 

individuals to implement projects in support of clean water. This fund is administered for 

the USCRTF through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). 

The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) and the USCRTF 

chose Guánica Bay Watershed as the first Watershed Initiative. Partners in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed Initiative include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US 

Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS), US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), Puerto Rico DNER, Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture (PRDA), Puerto 

Rico Lands Authority (PRLA), Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), US Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), US Geological Survey (USGS), University of Puerto Rico (UPR), Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (PREPA), and Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA).
2 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

The Guánica Bay Watershed

The Guánica Bay Watershed is located in the southwestern corner of Puerto Rico (Fig. 1-1), 

approximately 32 kilometers west of Ponce and 160 kilometers southwest of San Juan (CWP 2008). 

It includes portions of Guánica, Yauco, Lajas and Cabo Rojo municipalities. Rainfall in the watershed 

ranges from less than 20 inches/year in the arid southwest to over 100 inches/year in the 

mountains, and includes Spanish Colonial cultural resources. More detailed information about 

Puerto Rico is included in Appendix A.

Figure 1-1. Guánica Bay Watershed. The Guánica Bay drainage area (purple) includes portions of eight 

12-digit HUC watersheds. 

Guánica Bay receives fresh water primarily from a single location, the mouth of the Rio Loco at the 

northern end of the bay. Human alterations have significantly altered the volume and flow of water 

in the Guánica Bay watershed. The water originates in several different watersheds and travels 

several different paths to reach the bay. In the 1950’s, as part of the Southwest Puerto Rico Project 

(or the Southwest Project, SWP) five reservoirs and two hydroelectric plants (Yauco 1 and 2) were 

built in the ridges north of Guánica Bay to increase and regulate potable water from the high 

elevation watersheds of the central cordillera (mountain region) for use by the local populations in 

Yauco and Guánica. 

At about the same time, as part of the Lajas Valley Irrigation Project, canals and channels were 

constructed to divert water from just below the southernmost reservoir (Lago Loco) along the 

foothills to the west primarily to provide water for agriculture in the broad Lajas Valley. A long 

drainage channel along the southern edge of the valley returns the water eastward to rejoin the 

Rio Loco near its mouth. 

Water entering Guánica Bay therefore receives flow from the five smaller basins and associated 

reservoirs: Lago Yahuecas, Lago Guayo, Lago Prieto, Lago Lucchetti, and Lago Loco (Fig. 1-2). The 

altered watershed is approximately 391 square kilometers in size.
Chapter 1. Introduction | 3 

Figure 1-2. Map of the flow of water between watersheds that contribute water to Guánica Bay

The watershed includes an array of ecosystems including forests, mangroves, coral reefs, and a 

bioluminescent bay. Historically there was also a large natural freshwater wetland and lagoon 

system, which was drained in 1955 as part of an agricultural development project in the Lajas 

Valley. Shallow, open water, occupying most of the lagoon, provided foraging habitat for resident 

and migrant waterfowl, and the surrounding emergent vegetation was used for nesting by resident 

aquatic birds. The gradual decline in water levels associated with the dry season extended foraging 

opportunities for wading species. The lagoon also served as a sink for sediments and nutrients. 

There is a proposed plan to restore Guánica Lagoon to reclaim its value as a wildlife refuge and 

ecological resource (CWP 2008). Restoration of the Lagoon would reduce sediment, nitrogen, and 

total phosphorus from moving into Guánica Bay and the coastal coral reef system. 

More detailed information about the Guánica Bay watershed is included in Appendix B.

The population in the Guánica watershed is of relatively low density—there is only one small city 

(Yauco) and several small towns and communities. Unemployment is high in Guánica (13.8%) and 

Yauco (12.6%), and approximately 60% of the population lives below the poverty level. 

Agriculture and tourism are two of the key economic sectors in the Guánica Bay watershed. 

Current agriculture in the watershed is primarily coffee on the northern slopes and various fruit 

and vegetable crops and pastureland in the Lajas Valley. Additional information on economics is 

included in Appendix C. 

The upper watershed (Yauco) is heavily farmed for coffee, however, the coffee yield has dropped in 

the watershed from 21,527,000 pounds in 1998 to 14,476,000 pounds in 2002 (CWP 2008). This 

was approximately 7% of the annual coffee grown in Puerto Rico and has a value of $2M. 
4 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Lajas Valley was established as an agricultural reserve in 1999, by enabling legislation, Law 277. 

Agricultural production in Lajas Valley is economically important. On the lands owned by the 

Puerto Rico Land Authority (2818 acres), farm income totaled $4,300,158 annually (2009-2010). 

Crops include: coffee, citrus, plantains, bananas, tomatoes, peppers, papaya, pumpkins, 

cantaloupes, and other vegetables. Area farmers also produce beef, pork, sheep, goats, and eggs. 

Because this region has an extended dry season, agriculture in the Lajas Valley is only possible 

because of the Lajas Valley irrigation system. 

Tourism, an important component of Puerto Rican economy, supplies approximately $1.8 billion 

annually. Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 3,407,483 visitors per year (excluding same-day 

visitors) visited Puerto Rico. Three quarters of the visitors were from the Americas. Coral reefs 

provide substantial benefits to communities throughout Puerto Rico. EPA and NOAA will be 

conducting an economic valuation study of Puerto Rico’s coral reef tourism and recreation to 

better understand the economics associated with this sector. The study results will be provided for 

all of Puerto Rico and for five regions in Puerto Rico (Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, Northwest, 

and the islands of Culebra and Vieques).

Growth in the Guánica Bay watershed (urban and agricultural) has provided social and economic 

benefits for residents. However, this same growth has led to reduced forest cover, draining of the 

historic Guánica Lagoon and increased sediment and nutrient runoff. Coastal communities, such as 

the city of Guánica, partially rely on fishing and tourism, both of which have been adversely 

affected by diminishing coastal water quality, e.g., decline of fish habitats such as coral reefs, 

seagrasses and mangroves, as well as pathogens and contaminants in the coastal waters (Whitall 

et al. 2013). The Center for Watershed Protection developed a Watershed Management Plan 

(WMP) that proposed management actions to reduce sediment runoff and effects in the coastal 

zone (CWP 2008).

1.2 Workshop Goals 

EPA invited decision makers, scientists and other coral reef stakeholders in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed to a workshop held at the University of Puerto Rico’s Caribbean Coral Reef Institute in 

La Parguera, Puerto Rico, on April 27-28, 2010. The workshop agenda is shown in Appendix D, 

workshop participants in Appendix E, and a glossary in Appendix F.

Through a facilitated process, the workshop participants began to:

• Look at the watershed as a system

• Share a collaborative vision for sustainable coral reefs

• Initiate a systematic, deliberative process to analyze coastal and watershed decisions that 

impact coral reefs and other ecosystems that provide services to humans

• Advance an integrative framework to incorporate the ecological, social, economic and legal 

consequences of alternative decisions

There was also an optional working meeting on April 29, 2010. The purpose of the meeting on 

April 29 was to (1) refine and detail the organizational framework and decision analysis process; 

(2) consolidate findings from the workshop into workshop and research products that will support 

the Guánica managers in their decision-making; and (3) discuss future potential interactions.
Chapter 1. Introduction | 5 

1.3 The Structured Decision Process

The USCRTF chose the Guánica Bay Watershed as a pilot watershed for their interagency efforts to 

protect coastal and stream water quality, improve wildlife habitat and enhance near-shore coastal 

and coral reef health through land-based management. Effective protection of coral reefs begins 

with the recognition and appreciation of services they provide. Land-use and water management 

decisions in the watershed are improved with full understanding of resulting economic and social 

losses to downstream resources such as coral reefs. One of the greatest challenges of resource 

management is melding scientific information and approaches with management needs and 

objectives. Part of this challenge is simply a consequence of different cultures; scientists and 

managers perceive aspects of any issue differently (Table 1-1). Nonetheless, management without 

relevant facts and understanding of ecological concepts may result in unexpected adverse 

outcomes; likewise research on issues over which managers have no authority may not be very 

useful to the managers. 

Table 1-1. Contrasting features of science and management cultures (adapted from Bernstein et al. 1993)

Aspect Science Management

Valued Action Research Decisions, plans

Timeframe That needed to gather evidence Immediate, short-term

Goals Increase understanding Manage problems, set policy

Basis for Decisions Scientific evidence Science, values, opinions, economics

Expectations Understanding never complete Expect clear answers from science that 

form the basis of decisions

Granularity Focus on details, contradictions Focus on broad outline

World View Primacy of biological, physical, chemical 

mechanisms; factors (including human 

activities) heavily parameterized

Primacy of political, social, 

interpersonal, economic considerations; 

factors often dealt with qualitatively

One way to approach this challenge is to apply a structured-deliberative process, which is simply 

the give and take between scientists and managers to reach an appropriate course of action. 

Analytic products—theories, results and scientific insights—inform the deliberative process to 

determine a course of action, and the deliberative process concurrently frames scientific analysis 

(Judd et al. 2005). The iterative process is intended to assist communication among decisionmakers and scientists and to reach a ‘good’ decision – “one that is consistent with what we know 

(information), what we want (value and preferences), and what we can do (options)” (North and 

Renn 2005; Dietz 1994). It is emphasized that scientific information is only one factor that 

influences a decision (Fig. 1-3).

Given the recognized risks of over-reliance on scientific information for environmental 

management (Gregory et al. 2006), the need for a structured decision process to effectively include 

facts and values for better environmental decision-making is increasingly apparent (Gregory and 

Keeney 2002). The general process is well documented (Failing et al. 2007; Gregory et al. 2012; 

Carriger and Benson 2012), and is a key component of EPA’s Decision Support Framework for 

better inclusion of ecosystem services and stakeholder values into the decision-making process 

(EPA 2009). 
6 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 1-3. Multiple factors influence steps in any decision-making process (EPA 2014a) 

The Structured Decision Process entails five steps 1) Understand the Decision Context; 2) Define 

Objectives; 3) Develop Decision Alternatives; 4) Evaluate Alternatives; and 5) Take Action. 

According to Gregory et al. (2011), the first three steps are more qualitative and seek to establish 

scope, goals, and value preferences, while the latter steps are more quantitative and serve to 

assess and evaluate proposed actions developed in Steps 1-3. It should be noted that while the 

process description is linear, its application is typically iterative with re-visiting of previous steps as 

analysis of information and on-going deliberation improves understanding of the decision context 

and subsequent management options. Each step is discussed in more detail below.

Step 1 - Understand the decision context 

The first step in the structured-deliberative process is to establish the context for the management 

problem. Environmental decisions will commonly have multiple stakeholder perspectives and 

require a variety of data and information from environmental, economic, and social sciences. 

Gathering and organizing information relevant to the decision is defining the decision landscape

(Rehr et al. 2012). 

The first step in describing the decision landscape is to frame the decision context (i.e., the 

problem, issue, or reason for making a decision) that defines the scope of the information that will 

be needed (Gregory et al. 2012). The decision context includes identifying all the stakeholders 

(e.g., who is involved in a decision and their role in the decision process) as well as legal issues 

(e.g., applicable laws and who is responsible for enforcing them) and historical issues and current 

conditions. 

Stakeholders generally fall into two broad categories: direct users and beneficiaries of the 

ecosystem (e.g., commercial and recreational fishers), and information gatherers (e.g., scientists in 

government agencies and academia). Communication among these groups is vital but not always 

direct or sufficient. A Social Network Analysis (SNA) at this step provides a visual insight into who is, 

and more importantly, who is not sharing in the information flow. 
Chapter 1. Introduction | 7 

A systems-based conceptual model of the issue(s) to be resolved and the likely effects of different 

decisions on the things that people care about can prove very useful for decision-makers. The 

Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) conceptual model (Fig. 1-4) can be developed to 

demonstrate relationships among the many issues in a decision context and provide a sense of 

causes and effects and the likely tradeoffs (Bradley et al. 2013; EPA 1999). 

Figure 1-4. The DPSIR framework

DPSIR is an inherently human-centric framework, and terminology can often confound discussion. 

In DPSIR, the driving forces are the socio-economic sectors that support human needs. This 

definition allows us to directly map the driving forces with the North American Industry 

Classification Standards (NAICS) that economists use to derive socio-economic indicators, including 

the gross domestic product. However, ecologists and other environmental scientists use the term 

“driver” more generally – defining a driver as anything that drives a change in ecological condition. 

This would include things like global climate change. This looser use of terminology presents a 

problem when trying to develop the conceptual model, since climate is in truth a part of the natural 

environmental state. The changes to climate can be anthropogenic (from human use of fossil fuels) 

or part of a natural cycle. The EPA DPSIR definitions provide more precision and resolve this 

conundrum. The definitions allow us to tease out the impact of human activities from natural 

environmental processes. 

Step 2 - Define objectives

Once the decision landscape is well formulated and bounded, and communication pathways are 

clarified, the context and structure for inclusion of stakeholder values is established. Values can be 

ecological, economic, social, or human health related. 

Objectives reflect the values of stakeholders. Objectives are described with a direction of 

preference (maximize or minimize) and an item of value (availability of quality habitat or costs) 

(Mollaghasemi and Pet-Edwards 1997, Dunning et al. 2000, McDaniels 2000, Keeney 2007). 

Formal decision analysis includes tools to properly elicit values and structure objectives from 

stakeholders and decision-makers in a way that is practical and useful for evaluating decisions and 

identifying new alternatives (Merrick et al. 2005).

Once elicited, the objectives are organized into an objectives hierarchy, which arranges objectives 

from broad, or inclusive values to lower-level, specific accomplishments or actions. Evaluation 

measures (i.e., attributes that can be used to evaluate performance toward higher-level objectives) 

are at the bottom of the objectives hierarchy (Keeney 1992). When possible, objectives can be 

prioritized in anticipation of tradeoffs to be made (not all objectives can be fulfilled) (Gregory and 

Keeney 1994).
8 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Step 3 - Develop decision alternatives 

In the third step, alternatives for achieving the objectives are identified. Decision alternatives 

should be considered only after objectives are understood. By fully considering the various options, 

decision-makers can be more certain they will achieve the objectives (Payne et al. 1999). Eliciting 

stakeholder input on decision alternatives is extremely important because stakeholders have 

innovative ideas and a strong local sense of what is threatened, what is creating the threat, what 

responses are feasible in their community and who or what might be affected by different 

decisions. 

Step 4 - Evaluate alternatives and select management option 

The next step is to assess the options and assemble or provide scientific information to address 

critical unknowns. Most decision situations can be characterized as a set of alternative options, 

each with a set of consequences and varying degrees of uncertainty. Decision alternatives can be 

rated for complexity (which affects the amount of time or cost to implement), effectiveness for the 

proposed objective, and potential consequences to other objectives. Sensitivity and uncertainty 

analysis will be a crucial element of all studies, as it assists in understanding the confidence that 

can be placed in predictions and helps to identify critical needs for further research and data 

collection. The level of confidence that decision-makers require in order to make a decision also 

needs to be taken into account. Sometimes, if not often, new information will generate new 

concerns, objectives, decision options or evaluation criteria.

Although not generated in the workshop, a consequence table is extremely helpful for evaluating 

options and typically contains a matrix of potential effects of alternatives on performance 

measures for objectives in each cell (Gregory et al. 2012). The consequence table provides a 

feedback loop to earlier stages in the decision making process, including generating new 

alternatives, identifying missing or insufficient objectives and performance measures, eliminating 

dominated alternatives, identifying information sources for the impact of alternatives on 

objectives, trade-off analysis, and appraising the impact of objectives on alternatives from the best 

available information.

Once a consequence table is populated, the next step is to explore tradeoffs that stakeholders are 

willing to make among the objectives (e.g., how much of one objective are they willing to sacrifice 

to have more of another) (Keeney 1992). A variety of methods are available for considering 

tradeoffs (e.g., direct ranking and swing weighting). 

Step 5 - Take action

After deciding on a management that best meets objectives in Step 4, decision-makers must begin 

implementation. This step often involves monitoring and adaptive management within a structured 

decision-making process. 
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 9 

Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder 

Perceptions, and Management 

of Coral Reef Resources

Three presentations were given during the first workshop session, each designed to help frame the 

decision context. These included an overview of coral reef and coastal resources in southwestern 

Puerto Rico, an overview of USDA-NRCS plans to reduce soil erosion in the watershed, and a 

summary of the alternatives proposed in the WMP to protect coral reefs from further degradation 

(CWP 2008). These presentations provided a common understanding of the Guánica Bay 

Watershed Management Plan for the participants. 

2.1 Status of Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal Resources

Summary of a Presentation given by Jorge (Reni) Garcia-Sais, Department of Marine Sciences, 

UPRM

This presentation was intended to provide the workshop participants with a summary of the 

extent, distribution, composition and condition of Puerto Rico’s coral reef and coastal ecosystems.

Puerto Rico has fringing coral reefs with a total area of 3,370 km2 off the east, south and west 

coasts (Wilkinson 2004, Burke and Maidens 2004). Puerto Rico’s coral reef ecosystem is a complex 

mosaic of interrelated habitats, including mangrove forests, seagrass beds and coral reefs (GarciaSais 2008). Reefs in Puerto Rico were historically dominated by the reef-building coral taxa, 

Montastraea annularis (complex), Agaricia agaricites, Montastraea cavernosa, Porites astreoides

and Colpophyllia natans. Dense thickets of Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis provided 

high relief in fore and back reef habitats (Morelock et al. 2001).

On Puerto Rico’s southern coast, coral reefs fringe many small islands (such as those off La 

Parguera and Guánica), and are found as extensive coral formations associated with the shoreline 

at the mouths of coastal bays (such as Guánica Bay) (Garcia-Sais and Sabater 2004) (Fig. 2-1). 

The Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program (PRCRMP), which is sponsored by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and administered by the Puerto Rico Department 

of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER), was implemented in 1999-2002 to provide a 

baseline characterization of Puerto Rico’s coral reefs and to monitor water quality. Monitoring was 

conducted in 27 areas within nine reserves. DNER identified the natural reserves of Mayagüez Bay, 

Desecheo Island, Mona Island, Rincón, Guánica, Caja de Muerto Island, Ponce Bay, La Parguera, 

Cordillera de Fajardo, and the islands of Culebra and Vieques as high-priority monitoring sites. 

Baseline characterizations for these reef systems were prepared by García-Sais et al. (2001a, 

2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2004, 2005, 2006). The baseline characterization and monitoring for the 

Culebra Marine Reserve was prepared by Hernández-Delgado (2003). 
10 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 2-1. Coral reefs at Guánica (source: CWP 2010, Morelock et al. 2001)

The monitoring program follows the CARICOMP protocols (CARICOMP 2001). At each reef, 

quantitative measurements of the percent substrate cover by sessile-benthic categories and visual 

surveys of species richness and abundance of fishes and motile megabenthic invertebrates were 

performed along five permanent transects per station. Four stations are located on the south coast, 

including sites off Guánica and La Parguera (Fig. 2-2).

Figure 2-2. Puerto Rico Coral Reef Monitoring Program – site locations
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 11

In the fall of 2005, record-breaking sea surface temperatures (SST) resulted in 14.3 degree heating 

weeks. Corals start to feel stressed when the sea surface temperature is more than 1°C above the 

average we expect to see in the hottest month. NOAA maps cumulative stress, or Degree Heating 

Weeks (DHWs), by adding up the HotSpots over a 3-month period. DHWs pinpoint areas where 

corals are at risk for bleaching. When DHW reaches 4°C-weeks (7.2°F-weeks), significant coral 

bleaching is likely, especially in more sensitive species. When DHW is 8°C-weeks (14.4°F-weeks) or 

higher, widespread bleaching and mortality from thermal stress may occur. 

Comparison of satellite data from the previous 20 years confirmed that thermal stress from the 

2005 Caribbean event was greater than the previous 20 years combined (Fig. 2-3). 

Figure 2-3. Thermal stress in the Caribbean (source: NOAA Coral Reef Watch, Mark Eakin)

A major bleaching event in the fall of 2005 was associated with high sea surface temperature (SST) 

and was followed in 2006 by post-bleaching coral mass mortality. This caused drastic shifts in the 

community structure of Puerto Rican coral reefs. Boulder Star Coral, Montastraea annularis, was 

the most severely affected species, presenting large-scale mortalities throughout Puerto Rico. Reef 

systems dominated by M. annularis suffered significant degradation (Figs. 2-4 and 2-5). Affected 

corals were subsequently hit by outbreaks of white plague and yellow band disease, causing even 

more colony and tissue loss. During the 2009 monitoring survey, live coral cover presented a 

pattern of mild improvement in most reefs surveyed, particularly associated with what appears to 

be an indication of partial recuperation of Montastraea annularis colonies previously affected by 

bleaching. 
12 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Agaricia agaricites

Siderastrea siderea

Eusmilia fastigiata

Porites astreoides

Montastraea cavernosa

Colpophyllia natans

Montastraea annularis

1999

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Monitoring Years:

% Cover

Coral Species Cayo Coral - Guanica

Figure 2-4. Percent coral cover (by species) at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guánica (García-Sais et al. 2014)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Live Coral Sponges Benthic Algae Abiotic Gorgonians

Substrate Categories

% Cover

1999

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Monitoring Years:

Cayo Coral

Figure 2-5. Percent cover for 5 substrate categories at Cayo Coral Reef off of Guánica 

(García-Sais et al. 2014)
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 13

2.2 Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal Resources 

Summary of a presentation given by Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection

This presentation was intended to provide the workshop participants with an overview of the type, 

duration and intensity of threats to Southwest Puerto Rico’s coral reef and coastal ecosystems from 

the agricultural watershed, and to describe the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan, 

development process, participants and stakeholders, and planned actions.

NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program funded the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) to 

create a model sub-watershed plan for a portion of the Guánica watershed. After meeting with 

Federal government staff from NOAA, USGS, DNER, USDA/NRCS, academicians from the University 

of Puerto Rico (UPR) and local farmers and residents, to better understand the historic and current 

land use, farming practices, water usage, waste water treatment, local political constraints, and 

condition of the Rio Loco and its contributing drainage area, it was determined that focusing on 

only one sub-watershed may be a mistake as there were important challenges facing multiple areas 

of the watershed. As a result, rapid assessment techniques were chosen to assess the watershed 

including stream assessments evaluating general measures of stream stability and other visual 

indicators (Kitchell and Schueler 2004) and visiting representative upland areas to evaluate 

potential pollution sources and determining restoration and conservation opportunities throughout 

the watershed (Wright et al. 2004). 

After conducting the field study, CWP, DNER and NOAA worked together to identify priority 

management recommendations and implementation strategies for the Guánica Watershed based 

on a review of existing studies, input from local experts, observations from on-the-ground 

assessments, GIS analysis of exposed soils and cropland, and customization of the Watershed 

Treatment Model (WTM) to construct a rough nutrient and sediment budget for the watershed 

and to estimate water quality benefits of identified implementation measures (Caraco 2001). 

The priority management recommendations and implementation strategies were documented in 

the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008). The field study and existing literature 

helped identify potential pollutants that were impacting the Guánica Bay and the offshore coral 

reefs, as well as the sources of those pollutants. These include increased loading of nitrogen, 

sediment, bacteria, PAHs, PCBs and pesticides (Table 2-1).
14 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Table 2-1. Priority pollutants in the Guánica Bay/Rio Loco Watershed (source: CWP 2010)

Pollutant Impact Sources

Nitrogen Eutrophication, algae growth, enrichment 

beyond tolerance of coral reefs 

Wastewater, fertilizers, stormwater 

runoff, atmospheric deposition

Sediment Deposition on reefs, effects on sediment 

intolerant reef organisms, sediment particles 

leading to water temperature warming, 

pollutants attached to sediment particles 

Soil erosion, channel erosion, poor 

erosion and sediment control 

practices, African dust 

Bacteria Health related illnesses due to water contact, 

swimming, beach closures, source of 

pathogens that effect coral reefs 

Untreated wastewater, sewage 

overflows, stormwater runoff, pet 

waste, animal waste, wildlife

PAHs Toxicity to coral reefs Stormwater runoff of automobile 

related contaminants, boat engine 

discharge particularly 2-stroke engines 

DDT, PCBs Toxicity to coral reefs Legacy contaminants, erosion of legacy 

sediments 

2.2.1 The Problems

CWP found that five land-based activities were the source of most of the pollutants: 1) agriculture 

on steep slopes, 2) historic irrigation infrastructure in stream channels, 3) cleared riparian areas, 

4) increased impervious surfaces, and 5) sewage treatment. A brief discussion of each was 

provided.

Agriculture on steep slopes 

Puerto Rico is largely composed of mountainous and hilly terrain, with nearly one-fourth of the 

island covered by steep slopes. The mountains are the easternmost extension of a tightly folded 

and faulted ridge that extends from the Central American mainland across the northern Caribbean 

to the Lesser Antilles. High amounts of agriculture on steep slopes can increase the amount of soil 

erosion leading to increased sediment in streams, lakes and estuaries. Farms also export nutrients 

to water bodies from inorganic fertilizers and non-stable organic residues. 

Factors contributing to potential soil loss include the steepness and length of slope, surface cover, 

rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, and management practices (Hillel 1998). These factors are all 

present in the Guánica Bay Watershed. Coffee and other crops are being grown on high elevation 

steep slopes with very little evidence of conservation practices. Sun-grown coffee without any 

cover crop predominates, leaving soils more exposed to the elements, particularly drenching rains 

typical during the rainy season. Hartemink (2006) estimated that sun-grown coffee results in 

3.5 times more erosion than shade-grown coffee over the first several years after establishment.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 15

Historic irrigation infrastructure in stream channels

The Rio Loco contains head dams, concrete footers, and other structures that were previously used 

for irrigation purposes. This relict infrastructure continues to act as strainers and constrictions in 

the channel causing debris to become lodged and changes in erosive forces to destabilize banks, 

which increases channel erosion, bed scour and sediment transport (Fig. 2-6).

Figure 2-6. Debris that had been captured by former railroad structures (photo provided by Paul Sturm)

Cleared riparian areas

Throughout the Guánica Bay Watershed, riparian zones have been completely eliminated as 

humans have cleared land for agriculture or commercial and residential development. Removing 

riparian vegetation increases the erodibility of stream banks and can also speed the rate of channel 

migration. Severe erosion is associated with areas that lack mature riparian trees, particularly those 

areas that contain non-native species that seem to exacerbate erosion (CWP 2008). 

Increased impervious surfaces

Impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, driveways and parking lots eliminate rainwater 

infiltration and increase stormwater runoff. While only approximately 2.3% of the Guánica Bay 

watershed is currently impervious (Fig. 2-7), the urban areas of Yauco and Guánica have significant 

amounts of impervious surfaces that convey untreated stormwater to the Rio Loco and Guánica 

Bay respectively. Storm water picks up pollutants and carries them into storm sewer systems 

during storm events. Common pollutants include oil and grease from roadways and parking lots, 

pesticides and fertilizers from lawn treatment and maintenance, sediment from construction sites, 

and carelessly discarded trash, such as cigarette butts, paper wrappers, and plastic bottles. 
16 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 2-7. Impervious surfaces in the Guánica Bay watershed (shown in red) (source: EPA 2014b) 

NOAA’s Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Marine Sediments of Southwestern Puerto 

Rico, National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality (Pait et al. 2007) found 

relatively high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the sediment samples 

in Guánica Bay. A fingerprinting analysis linked the PAHs primarily to automobile related sources. 

During rain events, the PAHs are carried in stormwater runoff. These pollutants have very little 

chance for attenuation or remediation due to the flashy nature of the Rio Loco and the loss of 

Guánica Lagoon. EPA has classified seven PAH compounds as probable human carcinogens: 

benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, 

dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene. 

Sewage 

Sewage contains a variety of harmful pollutants, including disease-causing organisms, metals and 

nutrients (EPA 2014c). Humans exposed to sewage-polluted water can develop waterborne 

infections including hepatitis, gastroenteritis, as well as skin, wound, respiratory and ear infections. 

Humans develop waterborne diseases after ingesting contaminated water, inhaling water vapors, 

eating contaminated fish and shellfish, and swimming. The most common symptoms are diarrhea 

and nausea (EPA 2011).

Scientific evidence also supports significant impact of sewage pollution on water quality and health 

of seagrasses and corals. The most common response to sewage loading include an increase in 

benthic algae and filter feeding invertebrates such as bryozoans, sponges, and tunicates, with a 

corresponding decrease in the diversity and abundance of hermatypic corals (Pastorak and Bilyard 

1985). Lapointe (1997) suggests that a critical nitrogen threshold for coral reefs may be 14 parts 

per billion (ppb). Primary and secondary treated sewage is between 40,000 and 30,000 ppb. 
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 17

Pristine ocean waters are typically around 1 ppb. Recently, scientists found that a gut bacterium 

found in human feces called Serratia marcescens causes white pox disease that affects Elkhorn

coral (Sutherland et al. 2011).

Puerto Rico’s Water Quality Standards classify Guanica Bay’s designated use to be SB: “Coastal 

waters and estuarine waters intended for use in primary and secondary contact recreation, and for 

propagation and preservation of desirable species, including threatened or endangered species”.

The Water Quality Standards permit a limit of 5,000 ppb daily maximum allowable daily 

concentration for total nitrogen (PR EQB 2010). 

Two wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are located in tidal areas in the Guánica Bay Watershed. 

Guánica WWTP has been recently upgraded with one additional module, increasing its capacity to 

2 million gallons per day for secondary-advanced treatment. The Caña Gorda Beach WWTP handles 

about 3000 gallons per day but has a treatment regime dictated by seasonal use of the public 

beach and associated facilities. Also in the watershed, but not in the tidal areas, are two additional 

WWTPs − Yauco and Lajas. Yauco has an NPDES permit to provide secondary treatment for an 

average daily flow of 4.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater, and Lajas has an NPDES to 

provide advanced secondary treatment with nutrient removal to a monthly average flow of 

1.2 MGD, and to remove 85% of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and total suspended solids

(TSS).

However, many homes and businesses in the Guánica Bay Watershed are not connected to central 

sewer systems; instead they utilize septic systems and cesspools or discharge directly into the Bay. 

These sewage treatment methods or lack of treatment provide a nearly direct input of nutrients 

into coastal waters due to discharging to groundwater that is likely hydrologically connected to 

adjacent tidal water. Additionally, coastal resorts and beaches are often served by onsite sewage 

treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS). These systems are akin to secondary treatment and 

therefore provide very little reduction of nutrients. 

2.2.2 Responding to the Problems

The Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) lays out a series of management

actions proposed to address these problems. Several key actions became the focus of the 

workshop discussions and exercises:

Restoration of the historic Guánica Lagoon (top priority project)

There is a proposed plan to restore historic Guánica Lagoon in Barrio Arenas of Guánica. DNER and 

EPA originally commissioned a study to evaluate the feasibility of restoring the Lagoon to reclaim 

its value as a wildlife refuge and ecological resource. Gregory Morris Engineering (GME) was 

contracted by DNER to conduct a hydrologic and hydraulic study of the lagoon. The resulting 

reports: “Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Guánica Lagoon Restoration Impacts on Regulatory 

Flood Levels” and “Guánica Lagoon Hydrology & Restoration Alternatives” were both prepared in 

1999 (GME 1999a and 1999b). These reports have been updated, an extensive farm inventory has 

been performed, and a salinity and ground water survey has been completed. The objective is to 

look at the feasibility of partially or completely restoring the lagoon to maximize economic and 

ecological benefits of the area while minimizing any impact on important agricultural lands in the 

Lajas Valley. The lagoon served as a sink for sediments and nutrients–restoration of the Lagoon 

would reduce an estimated 8,760 tons of sediment, 108 tons of total nitrogen, and over 8 tons of 

total phosphorus annually from moving closer to Guánica Bay and the coastal coral reef system.
18 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., sewage, erosion and stormwater)

The second highest priority project in the WMP is a demonstration project to construct a series of 

treatment wetland cells at the 850,000 GPD Guánica wastewater treatment plant to reduce 

nutrient concentrations from secondary effluent before being discharged into Guánica Bay 

(Fig. 2-8). This is important because secondary treatment only provides for minimal nutrient 

reduction and tropical coastal systems, particularly coral reefs, are more sensitive to nutrient 

enrichment than other coastal systems because of the extremely low natural [N] in these locations. 

e

Figure 2-8. Proposed constructed treatment wetlands (photo provided by Paul Sturm)

NOAA and CWP are planning to convene a roundtable of experts and practitioners to develop 

regional amendments to hydro seed mixtures and erosion control practices, stabilize up to 19 acres 

of highly erodible bare soils in the Guánica Watershed, provide on-site demonstrations and erosion 

control design and implementation training, and monitor the impact of the erosion control 

techniques. 

Several other projects are proposed, including pet waste cleanup and education and ordinance in 

coastal cities such as Guánica to reduce transport of nutrients and pathogens in stormwater runoff, 

rainwater collection systems in Guánica and Yauco, exploring the possibility of slower releases for a 

longer duration from Rio Loco, and dredging of reservoirs that are filled beyond their capacity.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 19

Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Agricultural BMPs are practical, cost-effective actions that farmers can take to reduce the amount 

of pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and other pollutants entering waterbodies, and to conserve 

water supply. BMPs are designed to benefit water quality and water conservation while 

maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production. Several BMPs were proposed in the WMP.

Through their Coastal and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Caribbean Ecological 

Services Field Office of the FWS, has begun working in close cooperation with USDA/NRCS to 

promote sun-to-shade coffee and riparian reforestation initiatives in the extended upper 

watershed of the Río Loco in Yauco as part of the Guánica Bay Watershed Restoration Plan. 

The FWS is providing plant material and technical assistance, in conjunction with NRCS and 

Envirosurvey, to contact farmers and orient them on the initiative, evaluate the farm for 

treatments, assist the farmer with the layout for planting shade trees, and certifying the practice 

once tree seedlings are planted (Fig. 2-9). NRCS provides technical assistance and incentives to the 

farmers for planting the trees and other practices.

Figure 2-9. FWS and farmers surveying a farm (A), the Envirosurvey nursery (B), and plants delivered to 

the farmer (C) (photos provided by USF&WS)

Upland erosion in the coffee growing regions was identified as a land-based source of pollution 

where steep slopes, high tropical rainfall patterns, and highly erodible lands exist. Converting from 

sun-grown coffee to shade-grown coffee keeps the sediment on the farms and out of waterbodies. 

Early successes in the Guánica Bay to convert to shade-grown are ongoing but several obstacles still 

exist to ensure shade-grown coffee growers are economically successful. The CWP planned to hold 

a Shade-Grown Coffee Roundtable to: 1) assist farmers in Puerto Rico growing shade-grown coffee 

to improve marketing and receive a higher premium and return for shade-grown products; 2) bring 

together a group of experts and farmers to convene a discussion about how to the achieve the 

above; and 3) identify domestic/Puerto Rico coffee markets as well as international and Caribbean 

markets. 

NRCS is also planning demonstration projects on several farms in the relatively unstable area of the 

Rio Loco between Yauco and the La Laguna community to remove old irrigation infrastructure and 

plant native species of trees to promote bank stability. Conservation buffers, which are 

permanently vegetated areas or strips of land designed to intercept pollutants and manage other 

environmental concerns, are being promoted (Fig. 2-10). Strategically placed buffer strips in the 

agricultural landscape can effectively mitigate the movement and export of sediment, nutrients, 

and pesticides. It is anticipated that these demonstration projects will showcase the benefits of 

these best management practices and lead to a more comprehensive program to improve stream 

stability and buffers in the watershed.
20 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 2-10. Illustration showing a buffer strip design for an agricultural landscape. Zone 1 shows native 

trees, Zone 2 shows native woody vegetation (shrubs), and Zone 3 would be the agricultural zone.

Education and Outreach

Finally, the watershed management plan (CWP 2008) proposed development of programs that 

would introduce children and their parents to the coral reefs, fisheries, and the importance of both 

to ecological health and the economy. The programs would include conservation-based activities 

that enable participants to learn as a group and to learn from experience. Experiential learning 

experiences have been shown to have a strong positive impact on changing environmental 

conservation attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.

2.3 USDA’s Detailed Plans for the Guánica Watershed

Summary of a presentation given by José Castro, USDA NRCS

This presentation was intended to provide the workshop participants with an overview of USDA’s 

plans for the Guánica Bay watershed. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) works with 

private landowners to help them conserve, maintain and improve their natural resources. NRCS 

emphasizes voluntary, science-based conservation, technical assistance, partnerships, incentivebased programs, and cooperative problem solving at the community level.

NRCS and its conservation partners have started a project to reduce land-based sources of 

pollutants in the Guánica Bay Watershed through soil conservation practices on agricultural land 

and water (Table 2-2). NRCS will provide technical and financial assistance to eligible land stewards 

on eligible lands to improve soil conditions and water qualities impaired by nonpoint source 

pollutants, as well as increase the efficiency of water management for agricultural purposes. These 

practices will help improve the fertile valley lands, restore infrastructure and agricultural irrigation, 

and protect adjacent coral reefs.
Chapter 2. Condition, Use, Stakeholder Perceptions | 21

Table 2-2. Agricultural practices that potentially affect water quality (source: UNEP 1998).

Agricultural

Activity Potential Impact on Surface Waters

Tillage/ploughing Sediment/turbidity: sediments carry nutrients and pesticides adsorbed to 

sediment particles; siltation and loss of habitat, spawning ground, etc.

Fertilizing Nonpoint source pollution, especially nutrients, leads to eutrophication, excess 

algae growth leading to deoxygenation of water and fish kills

Manure spreading Nonpoint source pollution containing pathogens, metals and nutrients leads to 

eutrophication and potential contamination.

Pesticides Nonpoint source pollution leads to contamination of surface water and biota; 

dysfunction of ecological system in surface waters by loss of top predators due to 

growth inhibition and reproductive failure; public health impact from eating 

contaminated fish.

Irrigation Runoff of fertilizers and pesticides to surface waters leads to ecological damage, 

bioaccumulation in edible fish species, etc.

Clear-cutting Erosion of land leads to high levels of turbidity, siltation of bottom habitat, etc. 

Hydrologic regime is disrupted and changed.

The Upper Río Loco watershed has very steep slopes and humid subtropical forest vegetation. 

Conservation goals are to reduce erosion, improve water quality and quantity, improve forest 

habitat for wildlife, and apply conservation practices like tree and shrub planting, nutrient and pest 

management and riparian forest buffers. NRCS and the USFWS Caribbean Field Office are 

partnering to provide technical assistance to area stakeholders to convert sun coffee plantations 

to shade to improve wildlife habitat. 

The Lower Río Loco watershed has flat slopes and dry subtropical forest vegetation. Conservation 

objectives are to reduce erosion and sediment deposition from the upper watershed, improve 

water quality and quantity for irrigation, manage flooding and stabilize riverbanks. Conservation 

practices include: water management, sediment basins, nutrient and pest management, tillage 

systems using residues and cover crops, and runoff control. NRCS, the PR Department of 

Agriculture and the PR Land Authority are partnering to assist stakeholders. 

The conservation objectives of the Guánica Watershed Project will be addressed though the 

execution of 2008 Farm Bill conservation programs in partnership with federal, state and local 

agencies and the support of local NGOs. Over $2 million in assistance will be devoted to 

implementation of projects on private lands through Conservation Technical Assistance Program 

(CTA), the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), and the Wetlands Reserve Program 

(WRP).

The Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA) is a voluntary conservation network that 

fosters partnership between NRCS, conservation districts, state conservation agencies, and private 

landowners. This assistance may be in the form of resource assessment, practice design, resource 

monitoring, or follow-up of installed practices. Although the CTA program does not include 

financial or cost-share assistance, clients may develop conservation plans, which can serve as a 
22 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

springboard for those interested in participating in USDA financial assistance programs. CTA 

planning can also serve as a door to financial assistance and easement conservation programs 

provided by other Federal, State, and local programs.

The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) provides financial assistance to implement 

conservation practices. Owners of land in agricultural production or persons who are engaged in 

livestock or agricultural production on eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. Program 

practices and activities are carried out according to an EQIP program plan of operations developed 

in conjunction with the owner/producer that identifies the appropriate conservation practice or 

measures needed to address the resource concerns. Contracts are offered with a minimum term 

that ends one year after the implementation of the last scheduled practices and a maximum term 

of ten years.

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program that provides technical and financial 

assistance to private landowners and Tribes to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange 

for retiring eligible land from agriculture. The program offers three enrollment options: 

1. Permanent Easement is a conservation easement in perpetuity. USDA pays 100 percent 

of the easement value and up to 100 percent of the restoration costs. 

2. 30-Year Easement is an easement that expires after 30 years. USDA pays up to 

75 percent of the easement value and up to 75 percent of the restoration costs. 

3. Restoration Cost-Share Agreement is an agreement to restore or enhance the wetland 

functions and values without placing an easement on the enrolled acres. USDA pays 

up to 75 percent of the restoration costs. 

Stage 1: In 2010, NRCS allocated $1 million in federal and state funds for the project’s first stage 

sediment control and restoration of irrigation systems on Santa Rita and Maria Antonia farms in 

Guánica Valley. Practices to be installed during this first stage include three 3-acre water reservoirs, 

two 3-acre sediment basins, 5,500 linear feet of open channels, 6,000 linear feet of pipeline, 4,500 

feet of grassed waterways, and pump houses with irrigation system upgrades to serve 

approximately 900 acres.

Stage 2: In 2011, NRCS plans to allocate $1 million for the second stage to connect the Puerto Rico 

Electric Power Authority (PREPA) irrigation channel with a 6,000 foot, 18” pipeline to the first stage, 

and at the same time restore irrigation systems and runoff control on Fraternidad farms in Guánica. 

Conservation practices to be installed in this second stage include 6,000 linear feet of water 

conveyance, pump houses, two water reservoirs, one sediment basin, and irrigation water system 

upgrades to serve approximately 350 acres.

Both stages 1 and 2 include stabilization projects along the riverbanks of Rio Loco. Three initial 

riverbank segments (Las Lajas sector, the former irrigation channel crossing, and the old bridge 

pilasters of the Sugar Cane train) will be reconstructed using bioengineering. 

Stage 3: Planning will be initiated in Fiscal Year 2012 to restore the existing runoff control channel 

system and restore agricultural irrigation and sediment control systems in the Caño section of 

Guánica. As part of this project, NRCS helped local landowners and community leaders form the 

new Southwestern Soil and Water Conservation District (SWSCD). The Southwest District will 

administer construction of the NRCS Guánica Bay Watershed projects. 
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 23

Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge about 

Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems 

Using a Systems Framework (DPSIR)

The second workshop session began with a presentation on systems thinking and the DPSIR

framework. This presentation set the stage for three breakout groups to discuss and characterize 

specific decision scenarios that had been outlined in the management plan (CWP 2008). These 

were: 

1. Change Agricultural Practices

Removal of historic irrigation system

Stream bank riparian plantings near farms

Cover crops at high elevation farms

Switch from sun to shade-grown coffee [through subsidies]

2. Restore Guánica Lagoon

Re-flooding of the lagoon

Restoration of wetland vegetation

Monitoring of discharge into the lagoon

3. Low Impact Development

Rainwater collection systems

Stormwater runoff treatment centers

Hydro seeding of bare soil associated with roads and homes

Enhanced wetlands for sewage treatment

Pet waste cleanup ordinances in coastal cities

3.1 Systems Thinking and Example DPSIR 

Systems thinking focuses on understanding how a system's constituent parts interrelate and how 

the system works over time and within the context of larger systems. Systems thinking is extremely 

effective at resolving difficult problems. Examples of types of problems where systems thinking can 

result in improved decision-making include:

• Complex problems that involve helping many actors see the “big picture” and not just 

their part of it; 

• Recurring problems or those that have been made worse by past attempts to fix them; 

• Issues where an action affects (or is affected by) the environment surrounding the issue, 

either the natural environment or the competitive environment; and

• Problems whose solutions are not obvious (Aronson 1996).

Use of systems thinking when approaching a problem may result in strikingly different conclusions 

than those generated by traditional forms of analysis, especially when what is being studied is 

dynamically complex or has a great deal of feedback.

EPA’s Coral Reefs Ecosystem Services Research Program (ESRP) adopted the European 

Environmental Agency’s DPSIR (Driving Forces, Pressure, State, Impact, and Response) framework 

to show the broad array of human interactions with coral reefs, and for examining consequences 
24 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

(e.g., changes in benefits, costs and sustainable delivery of ecosystem services) across multiple 

socioeconomic sectors (EEA 1999). DPSIR has been used by the United Nations to organize 

information about the state of the environment in relation to human activities (UNEP 2007). 

The utility of a DPSIR framework lies in its transparency to stakeholders and its ability to organize 

components and relationships among components are clearly obvious. It also brings a capacity to 

isolate particular linkages and interactions while retaining conceptual relevance to the larger 

system. The framework does not capture every situation perfectly but is a reasonable means to 

depict the many social, economic and ecological interactions of any resource decision. 

The framework assumes cause-effect relationships between interacting components of social, 

economic, and environmental systems (Pierce 1998; Smeets and Weterings 1999), which are:

• Driving Forces: The factors that motivate human activities. Driving Forces can be divided into 

economic and social categories. Ultimately, Social and Economic Driving Forces arise within a 

society as the means to fulfill basic human needs, which have been consistently identified as 

the necessary conditions and materials for good life, good health, good social relations, 

security, and freedom. Hence, Economic Driving Forces fulfill core human needs for food and 

raw materials, water, culture, security, health, shelter, and infrastructure; and Social Driving 

Forces fulfill human needs for social relations, equity, governance, value fulfillment (e.g., 

environmentalism) and cultural identity. The spatial distribution and intensity of Driving Forces

varies−they can originate and act globally, regionally or locally. 

• Pressures: Human activities, derived from the functioning of Social and Economic Driving Forces

that induce changes in the environment. Pressures are not stressors. Stressors are the naturally 

occurring components of state that are changed by pressures (e.g., land development [the 

pressure] - increases sediment [the stressor] in the coastal zone, which then may stress the 

ecological components of the reef). 

• State: Natural systems (e.g., the quantity and quality of physical, chemical, and biological 

components). Chemical, physical and biological processes interact to affect different ecosystem 

components (e.g. chemicals, biological species) that can be measured by their attributes 

(metrics of quantity or quality). Abiotic State includes the non-living chemical and physical 

factors in the environment, which affect the survival, growth, and distribution of living 

organisms in the Biological State. Abiotic phenomena underlie all of biology. The Abiotic State

reflects the magnitude, frequency, and concentration of abiotic components of the

environment including:

 Physical environment (e.g., climate, air and sea temperature, precipitation, storms and 

hurricanes, drought, hydrology, ocean circulation patterns, fire)

 Chemical environment (e.g., nutrients, pH, atmospheric CO2 levels, salinity, 

contaminants)

Biotic State includes the biological components of the ecosystem and their interactions, 

including humans. In general, this includes sessile plants or animals that provide the living 

habitat and base of the food web that supports higher trophic levels. Biological condition 

may be measured by individual- or community-level attributes, including:

 Living habitat (e.g., deserts, wetlands, forests, grasslands, coral reefs, agricultural lands)

 Inhabitants (e.g., birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates)

 Invasive/non-native species (e.g., plants, animals, insects)

 Microorganisms and pathogens (e.g., decomposers, mycorrhizae, bacteria, fungi, viruses)
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 25

• Impact: delivery of ecosystem goods and services as a consequence of changes in ecological 

state. Ecosystem services, in particular, are the benefits that ecosystems can provide. Other 

factors, such as human health, habitat, and behavior also contribute to human well-being. 

Human well-being is an abstract concept that captures a mixture of people’s life circumstances 

and quantifies the degree of fulfillment of basic human needs for food, water, health, security, 

culture, and shelter. 

• Response: A key benefit in using the DPSIR framework is that it explicitly includes an Action or 

Response component that can be taken at any level of the causal network. In the DPSIR 

framework, Responses are actions taken by groups or individuals in society and government to 

prevent, compensate, ameliorate or adapt to changes in the state of the environment.

Generation of a comprehensive framework to link ecological and socioeconomic factors, even an 

introductory version, is significant because it has never been attempted for coral reefs. For 

decades, scientists have conducted research to assess and understand the ecological phenomena 

of coral reefs around the world. While the body of information is extensive, it is unevenly 

distributed across disciplines, times and places. Consequently, the information has not been 

effectively used to identify gaps and prioritize research; nor has it been easily synthesized into 

concepts and tools for conservation that resonate with stakeholders and influence management. 

This situation is not unique to coral reefs, a recent commentary (Curran 2009) suggests that there 

are currently no single programs capable of delivering overall support (including social and 

economic perspectives) to environmental decision-making, and emphasizes the need for further 

research on viable decision-support frameworks. Application of the DPSIR framework will better 

ensure that we do not overlook critical relationships and that we recognize the full consequence of 

a decision to related parts of the larger system (O’Connor and McDermott 1997). 

During the Guánica workshop, Dr. William Fisher, EPA, walked through an example DPSIR, 

demonstrating how it might be used to display knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems 

and linkages between human-ecosystem interactions. The facilitator used CmapTools software 

(Cañas et al. 2004) to construct a concept map of a coral reef and some associated human 

influences. Concept maps are graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge, which

include concepts, usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type, and relationships between 

concepts indicated by a connecting line linking two concepts. Words on the line, referred to as 

linking words or linking phrases, specify the relationship between the two concepts.

In this example, Dr. Fisher began with one Driving Force–the tourism and recreation economic 

sector. Coral reef-based tourism and recreation used to be an important industry in the Guánica 

Bay Watershed. The tourism and recreation industry includes facilities and services for various 

cultural, entertainment, and recreational interests of residents and tourists, such as swimming, 

diving and snorkeling; cruise ships; recreational fishing and boating; and the infrastructure needed 

to support the industry, including hotels, restaurants, and transportation. In the concept map, 

these were introduced as Driver sub-sectors, and recreational fishing was chosen as an example for 

demonstration purposes (Fig. 3-1). Participants added harvesting, by-catch and waste; anchor, gear 

and boat groundings; and oil, metals and sewage discharge as Pressures generated by recreational 

fishing, and identified changes in State from these pressures included effects on the harvested 

species, namely invertebrates, fish and sponges (Fig. 3-2). 
26 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-1. Driving Force–tourism and recreation economic sector

Next, Dr. Fisher asked which pressures resulted from the economic sub-sectors. In this example he 

focused on recreational fishing and recreational boating. The pressures included harvesting, bycatch and waste; anchor, gear and boat groundings; and oil, metals and sewage discharge (Fig. 3-2).

Figure 3-2. Pressures associated with recreational fishing and boating

Focusing down again, Dr. Fisher asked what organisms were being harvested, and identified 

invertebrates, fish and sponges (Fig. 3-3).

Further construction of the map illustrated how more complex relationships could be captured. 

Recreational fishing and boating were additionally linked to oil, metals and sewage discharge 

pressures (Fig. 3-4). To account for physical and chemical changes (rather than biological and 

ecological) a separate State category was introduced. Changes in environmental state were shown 

to have an effect on ecological state, including invertebrates, fish, sponges, stony corals, 

octocorals, seagrasses, mangroves and macro-algae, in the DPSIR map (Fig. 3-4).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 27

Figure 3-3. An initial coral reef DPSIR conceptual map showing one example Driving Force (recreational 

fishing) creating a Pressure (harvesting, by-catch and waste) that affects the State of harvested organisms 

(invertebrates, fish and sponges)

Figure 3-4. Changes in environmental and ecological State associated with recreational fishing and boating
28 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Participants then identified a wide range of ecosystem services that would be impacted by an 

altered ecological state, and these were added to the model in the Impact category (Fig. 3-5). The 

list included services that directly benefit humans (food, erosion control, pharmaceuticals, tourism 

and recreation), as well as supporting services–the processes and functions that underlie many 

ecosystem services (e.g., biodiversity, primary production, and nutrient cycling). 

Figure 3-5. Ecosystem services affected by recreational fishing and boating

Most of the services provided by coral reefs are affected by Driver sub-sectors other than tourism 

and recreation, such as swimming, diving and snorkeling; cruise ships; and infrastructure, so these 

were added back into the conceptual map with appropriate links to Pressures. Additional Pressures 

generated by these Drivers were introduced, including beach re-nourishment, sunscreen, trampling, 

dredging, greenhouse gas emissions, point and non-point source discharges, hydrology, and 

shoreline alterations (Fig. 3-6).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 29

Figure 3-6. Additional tourism and recreation subsectors generate additional Pressures and changes in 

environmental and ecological State. Services provided by coral reefs (Impact) remain unchanged

In developing the DSPIR framework, an important next step was to incorporate potential responses 

that could mitigate adverse changes in Impact. The participants suggested several management 

and policy options including recreational fishing regulations and enforcement, market incentives, 

tourism policies, damage assessment and mitigation, coastal zone management and marine 

protected areas (Fig. 3-7). Many other policies that were related to tourism and recreation 

infrastructure were identified, such as land use zoning, building permits, point and nonpoint 

pollution control, Clean Water Act enforcement, agricultural best management practices and CO2

emission regulations. These policies regulate or define responses.
30 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-7. Responses that could be implemented to mitigate the impact of the tourism and recreation 

sector

The last step in the example of building a DPSIR was to demonstrate how different potential 

responses could be applied in different parts of the framework. Most of the suggested Responses 

were related to curbing a Pressure (Fig. 3-8) but Responses could be applied to any section of the 

DPSIR framework. For example, changes in market forces (such as tax incentives and subsidies) 

would act at the level of Impact and land use zoning would act at the Driver level. The importance 

of this last step was to illustrate that responses can be leveraged at several levels and that no single 

response may be sufficient to alter adverse impact. 
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 31

Figure 3-8. Responses aligned with Drivers and Pressures

3.2 DPSIR Breakout Groups

Following the DPSIR presentation, workshop participants broke into small groups to develop three 

DPSIRs around topics based upon management actions proposed in the Guánica Bay Watershed 

Management Plan (CWP 2008). The goals of the DPSIR breakout groups were to 1) use the DPSIR 

framework to characterize information related to a management response (agricultural practices, 

lagoon restoration, low impact development) and the effects on persistence of reefs and the 

delivery of ecosystem services; 2) identify the current state-of-knowledge on human-environmental relationships affecting coral reef and coastal ecosystems management in southwest Puerto 

Rico; and 3) summarize this knowledge in a framework that links the various components of the 

human-environmental system in southwest Puerto Rico.

Each breakout group had a facilitator and a note-taker who captured the discussion into DPSIR 

using the CmapTools software. The management actions were grouped into three categories:

• Change Agricultural Practices

 Remove historic irrigation system

 Re-vegetate riparian zones near farms

 Plant cover crops on farms with steep slopes

 Switch from sun to shade-grown coffee [through subsidies]
32 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

• Restore Guánica Lagoon

 Re-flood the Lagoon

 Restore wetland vegetation

 Monitor water discharge into Guánica Lagoon

• Low Impact Development

 Construct rainwater collection systems

 Construct stormwater runoff treatment centers 

 Hydro seeding of bare soil associated with roads and homes

 Construct wetlands for sewage treatment

 Enact pet waste cleanup ordinances in coastal communities

The facilitators guided the participants through the process of building the DPSIR, beginning with 

the management action (Response) and tracking vertically through Pressure, State, Impact, and 

Drivers. Note-takers began with a template that showed the DPSIR running from top to bottom, 

and the Responses running along the top (Fig. 3-9). The template was projected on a screen and 

the DPSIR was completed in real-time during the breakout discussions. 

Figure 3-9. Template used by Cmap note-takers to develop the DPSIRs
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 33

The facilitators asked a series of questions: 

 Why is this management action proposed? What Pressures or human activities is it 

intended to reduce? 

 What effect do these Pressures or human activities have on the State of the ecosystem, 

abiotic and biotic (environmental and ecological)?

 What are the Impact on benefits to humans provided by the ecosystem? 

Why should we care about the State of coral reefs?

 What social or economic sectors (Drivers) benefit from ecosystem services? 

What other sectors could be affected by any decisions (Drivers)?

As the participants responded to the questions, a basic DPSIR concept map was completed. The 

facilitator then guided the participants to further complete the DPSIR map by brainstorming 

additional decision points where something else could change a Driver, Pressure, State or Impact 

and then identifying the corresponding decisions (Reponses), pointing them to the decision point in 

the framework. Most Reponses point to Pressures or Drivers, but some pointed to State or Impact. 

The note-taker continued to add more DPSIR boxes as participants continued to brainstorm.

Throughout the process, the facilitator captured discussions on a flip chart. For each decision, the 

facilitator elicited information about the decision (Who makes the decision? Who is impacted? 

What tools and information are needed? How do you value benefits and costs?). Finally, the 

facilitator asked the participants to prioritize the decisions and to identify what would determine 

the priority of decisions (e.g., money, politics, scientific knowledge, confidence in result). The 

facilitators also emphasized that decisions at one level may have repercussions at another level 

(i.e., a decision to limit Pressures will have a consequence for Drivers). 

3.2.1 Agricultural Practices

A set of Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) were proposed in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008), some of which were being implemented throughout 

the watershed (Chapter 2). The breakout group began to develop an Agricultural Practices DPSIR 

around those management actions (cover crops, riparian plantings, shade-grown coffee, and 

removal of historic irrigation systems). Dr. Fisher (EPA) facilitated the Agricultural Practices DPSIR 

breakout group and Dr. Amanda Rehr (Carnegie Mellon) was the Cmap note-taker. 

The group began with the DPSIR template for the Agricultural Practices Management Actions that 

were proposed in the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan. These included converting sungrown coffee to shade-grown coffee, removing historic irrigation infrastructure, planting cover 

crops and planting riparian areas near farms (Fig. 3-10).
34 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-10. DPSIR template for the Agricultural Practices breakout group

The facilitator asked a series of questions to facilitate the development of the DPSIR Cmap. The first 

questions focused on the Pressures. 

• Why is this management action proposed? 

• What Pressures or human activities is it intended to reduce? 

The group identified a suite of stressors, including: scouring, sediment transport, erosion, fertilizer, 

nitrogen loadings, phosphorus, and legacy contaminants (Fig. 3-11).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 35

Figure 3-11. Pressures associated with Agricultural Practices (developed during the DPSIR breakout session)

As the discussion turned to changes in State from the identified Pressures, the concept map 

became much more complex (Fig. 3-12). Suggestions for changes in environmental 

(physical/chemical) State included effects on water quality, air quality, soil quantity and quality, 

natural hydrology, stream bank stability, habitat for birds and wildlife, groundwater recharge and 

evapotranspiration rates among others. Potential changes in ecological State included effects on 

biodiversity and species richness, population abundance and reproduction, algal growth, coral reef 

condition, other aquatic species condition (freshwater and marine), native and invasive species and 

agricultural production.
36 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-12. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Agriculture (developed during the workshop 

breakout group session) 

Several topics were raised to address the question of Impact, or changes in services provided by 

the affected ecosystems. These included agriculture and fisheries (food provision); provision of 

drinking water and future pharmaceuticals; shoreline protection, flood protection and coastal 

property values; and tourism, recreation and the aesthetic value of the environment. Some 

ecosystem services were aggregated into broader concepts during the discussion, such as human 

wellbeing (cultural identity and mental health [peace of mind] created by aesthetic values of nature 

and sense of stewardship from ecological integrity) and economics (increased production efficiency 

created by higher productivity and lower costs in a shorter period of time). 

A consequence of the discussion was not only a more complex map (Fig. 3-13) but also a better 

understanding of how ecosystems benefit humans socially, economically and spiritually. 

Unfortunately, there was insufficient time in the breakout session to discuss Drivers and additional 

Response topics, but additional information from later discussions (Table 3-1) were included in the 

final Agricultural Practices conceptual map (Fig. 3-14).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 37

Figure 3-13. Ecosystem services (Impact) associated with changes in Ecosystem State (identified during the 

Agricultural Practices breakout group session)

The group did not have time to discuss the Drivers, or to brainstorm additional Responses. 

By the end of the breakout group session, the group had produced a basic DPSIR for Agricultural 

Practices in the Guánica Bay Watershed. 
38 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-14. Final Agricultural Practices DPSIR (developed during the breakout group session)

Additional discussions not reflected in the DPSIR were captured on a flipchart (Table 3-1), and were 

incorporated into the final consolidated DPSIR for the Guánica Bay Watershed (Figs. 3-28a and b, 

see pages 55 and 56). 
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 39

Table 3-1. Topics captured on the flipchart but not included in the basic Agricultural Practices DPSIR

Coral Reef State Terrestrial State

Shoreline 

Protection

Other 

Ecosystem 

Services Shade-Grown Coffee

Migration of 

species

Habitat for birds/wildlife Property values Spiritual Less disease

Deep hydrology Soil quality Flood protection Cultural Less pesticides

Reproduction Invasive species Aesthetic Less nutrients

Biodiversity Improve air 

quality

Base flows

Algal growth Groundwater discharge

Coral abundance Better coffee

Coral mortality Increased vegetation

CO2N2 fixation Species richness/native 

species

Drinking water

Stewardship

Less coffee/higher value

3.2.2 Lagoon Restoration

The restoration of the historic Guánica Lagoon is identified as the top priority management action 

in the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan. Ms. Kelly Black (Neptune and Company, Inc.) 

facilitated the Agricultural Practices DPSIR breakout group, and Ms. Leah Oliver (EPA) was the 

Cmap note-taker. 

Restoration of the lagoon includes three major actions: reconnecting the historical Rio Loco 

watershed and floodplain with the Guánica Lagoon; restoring the wetland vegetation in the lagoon; 

and establishing long-term monitoring of the water discharge rates from Lago Loco to ensure 

sustainable flow rates for the Guánica Lagoon and the and Rio Loco. The group began with the 

DPSIR template for the Lagoon Restoration Management Actions that were proposed in the 

Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (Fig. 3-15).
40 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-15. DPSIR template for the Lagoon Restoration breakout group

The facilitator asked a series of questions to facilitate the development of the DPSIR Cmap. The first 

two questions focused on the Pressures. 

• Why is this management action proposed? 

• What Pressures or human activities is it intended to reduce? 

The group identified two main categories of pressures (non-point source pollution and 

development/construction) (Fig. 3-16). 
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 41

Figure 3-16. Pressures associated with the loss of the Guánica Lagoon (developed during the DPSIR 

breakout session)

The next question focused on the Abiotic and Biotic State.

• What affect do these Pressures or human activities have on the State of the ecosystem, 

Abiotic and Biotic?

The group identified some changes in environmental State, such as clean water, sediment, water 

quality, and spatial distribution of water (Fig. 3-17), and several changes in ecological State, 

including effects on biota (birds, mangroves, oysters, coral reefs, sea grass, fish, food crops and 

wetland vegetation). One participant identified a change in mosquito populations related to 

reflooding of the Lagoon. This is important because the community of Fuig has grown closer to the 

Lagoon footprint since it was drained, and mosquito-borne dengue fever is a human health threat 

in Puerto Rico. 
42 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-17. Changes in Ecosystem State resulting from Pressures generated by restoration of the Guánica 

Lagoon (developed during the workshop breakout group session)

The facilitator next asked about the Impact or ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem.

• What are the Impact on benefits to humans provided by the ecosystem? 

• Why should we care about the State of reefs?

The group identified Impact as changes in food, jobs and income (from changes in food crops and 

fish production); changes in biodiversity and marine fisheries (from changes in water quality), and 

changes in tourism (from changes in bird populations). The group also identified some of the 

Drivers (economic sectors) that would be affected, including agriculture, land ownership (real 

estate) and potential housing development (Fig. 3-18). One suggestion was that the aquaculture 

sector would benefit from a restored lagoon. 
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 43

Figure 3-18. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State (developed during the Lagoon Restoration 

breakout group session)

The group then discussed the Drivers, or socio-economic sectors, and how the Drivers either 

benefit from the ecosystem services or are affected by any decisions.

• What social or economic sectors (Drivers) benefit from ecosystem services? 

• What sectors could be affected by any decisions (Drivers)?

Socio-economic sectors that could be affected include agriculture, aquaculture, housing, land 

ownership, and tourism and recreation (Fig. 3-19). 
44 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-19. Socio-economic sectors (Drivers) that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted by 

management actions relating to restoration of the historic Guánica Lagoon (developed during the breakout 

group session)

By the end of the breakout group session, the group had produced a basic DPSIR for the restoration 

of the historic Guánica Lagoon (Fig. 3-20). 
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 45

Figure 3-20. Final Guánica Lagoon restoration DPSIR (developed during the breakout group session)

The breakout group discussion focused mainly on how the lagoon restoration would impact the 

coral reef ecosystem (corals, fishes and seagrasses). However, there was also some discussion 

about the costs and benefits of a restored wetland. These were not reflected in the DPSIR concept 

map constructed during the workshop but were captured on a flipchart (Table 3-2) for incorporation into the final consolidated DPSIR for the Guánica Bay Watershed (Figs. 3-28a and b, see pages 

55 and 56). 
46 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Table 3-2. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic Lagoon Restoration 

DPSIR 

Wetland (Lagoon) 

Ecology

Wetland (Lagoon) 

Ecosystem Services

Other Management 

Actions (Responses)

Local Community 

Issues

Pulse events (tropical storms 

& water releases)

Recreational Fishing Lagoon as an ecological 

reserve

Housing

Wetland plants (Cattail) Recreation – Bird watching Management plan for the 

lagoon

Mosquitoes

Retention time Recreational boating Manage wetland vegetation Flooding (FEMA)

Birds Hunting Permits

Non-native species 

(caimans, tilapia)

Research (WQ, pulse event)

Invertebrates 

(shrimp, crabs)

Diversion of Rio Loco

3.2.3 Low Impact Development

Low Impact Development (LID) is an approach for land development that attempts to work with 

nature to manage stormwater runoff as close to its source as possible (EPA 2012). LID principles 

include preserving and recreating natural landscape features and minimizing impervious surfaces. 

LID can maintain or restore a watershed's hydrologic and ecological functions and has been 

adapted to a range of land uses from high-density ultra-urban settings to low-density development.

The Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008) recommended several approaches to 

more effectively manage wastewater. A high priority action was a demonstration project to 

construct a series of treatment wetlands at the Guánica wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to 

reduce nutrients from secondary effluent before being discharged into Guánica Bay. Other related 

actions included rainwater collection systems, stormwater runoff treatment centers, hydro-seeding 

of erodible land, and enactment and enforcement of pet waste ordinances.

Ms. Deb Caraco (CWP) facilitated the Low Impact Development DPSIR breakout group and Dr. Tom 

Stockton (Neptune and Company, Inc.) was the note-taker. 

The group began with the DPSIR template for the LID Management Actions that were proposed in 

the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (Fig. 3-21).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 47

Figure 3-21. DPSIR template for the LID breakout group

The facilitator asked a series of questions to facilitate the development of the DPSIR Cmap. The first 

questions focused on the Pressures. 

• Why is this management action proposed? 

• What Pressures or human activities is it intended to reduce? 

The group identified several Pressures related to rainwater collection systems and stormwater 

runoff treatment centers, including changes in irrigation needs and practices, bank erosion, land 

erosion and flooding (Fig. 3-22).
48 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-22. Pressures that can be mitigated with LID (developed during the DPSIR breakout session)

The next question focused on the Abiotic and Biotic State.

• What affect do these Pressures or human activities have on the State of the ecosystem, 

Abiotic and Biotic?

From these Pressures the group recognized several changes in environmental State, including 

changes to sediment runoff and filling of reservoirs, contaminants and nutrients, water turbidity, 

groundwater volume and recharge, and sedimentation in the Bay and reef zone. These changes 

were expected to lead to changes in Ecosystem State, such as effects on phytoplankton, 

mangroves, coral reefs and reef fish (Fig. 3-23).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 49

Figure 3-23. Changes in environmental and Ecosystem State possible from LID (developed during the 

workshop breakout group session)

The facilitator next asked about the Impact, or ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem.

• What are the Impact on benefits to humans provided by the ecosystem? 

• Why should we care about the State of reefs?

The ecosystem services (Impact) that could be affected from rainwater collection programs and 

stormwater treatment centers were flood control, shoreline protection, water supply and 

recreation (Fig. 3-24).
50 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-24. Ecosystem services associated with Ecosystem State (developed during the LID breakout group 

session) 

The group then discussed the Drivers, or socio-economic sectors, and how the Drivers either 

benefit from the ecosystem services or are affected by any decisions.

• What social or economic sectors (Drivers) benefit from ecosystem services? 

• What sectors could be affected by any decisions (Drivers)?

The group identified the following Drivers: land development, agriculture, human safety, tourism 

and water supply (Fig. 3-25).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 51

Figure 3-25. Socio-economic sectors (Drivers) that benefit from ecosystem services or are impacted by LID 

(developed during the breakout group session)

The facilitator guided the group to complete the DPSIR concept map by brainstorming additional 

decision points where something else could change a Driver, Pressure, State or Impact. These 

responses were then placed into the map at the appropriate decision point (Fig. 3-26). 
52 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-26. Additional decision points and management actions not identified in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed Management Plan that relate to LID

By the end of the breakout group session, the group had produced a basic DPSIR for LID in the 

Guánica Bay Watershed (Fig. 3-27).
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 53

Figure 3-27. Final DPSIR (developed during the LID breakout group session)

The group focused largely on stormwater and those discussions were captured fairly well in the 

DPSIR concept map. Wastewater was also discussed but not reflected in the concept map that was 

developed during the breakout session. However, this discussion was captured on a flipchart 

(Table 3-3), and was incorporated into the final consolidated DPSIR for the Guánica Bay Watershed 

(Figs. 3-28a and b, see pages 55 and 56). 
54 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Table 3-3. Topics captured on the flipchart but not necessarily included in the basic LID DPSIR

LID Wastewater

Ecosystems Reservoirs

Human health 

Issues & well-being

Management 

Actions Issues

Management 

Actions

Landfills Pervious parking lots Septic and 

unsewered 

wastes

Education and 

outreach

Sediment in 

rivers

Sediment from 

development

Flooding (mold, 

contaminants, 

safety)

Less stress 

on water 

supply

Revise codes to allow 

rooftop capture

Can have 

non-PRASA 

outside of 

network

Enforce regulations 

(inspectors)

Turbidity Reduced water 

supply

Chemical spill in 

Bay in 1979

Centralize 

infrastructure when 

possible

Watershed board 

or mgmt. group

Reef 

sedimentation

Education & 

outreach

Mangroves 

(services & 

restoration)

Smart growth 

policies

Sea grass beds

Enforce regulations 

(inspectors)

Research

3.3 Guánica Bay Watersheds DPSIR

Each breakout group presented their DPSIR concept map when the participants regrouped. There 

was additional discussion about the lagoon restoration, particularly about how the flooding of the 

lagoon might impact existing farms (e.g., salinity and production). There was also discussion about 

the fact that once a decision has been made and implemented, like the decision in the 1950s to 

drain the lagoon, it becomes politically difficult to reverse the decision.

Participants overall appreciated the DPSIR breakout session. 

• They articulated the need for a holistic, integrated decision-making framework, like the DPSIR 

systems approach, for the entire watershed. 

• There have been numerous studies that provide data and information, but these are not 

organized in a coordinated system. The studies could, however, have been organized around 

the DPSIR framework to provide more transparency and utility. 

• The Guánica Bay watershed is a complex system for which any decision will have trade-offs. 

The DPSIR systems approach can help to identify potential trade-offs.

• There is a need to focus on benefits and not just costs of environmental protection. The DPSIR 

framework can help with this.

• Construction of a DPSIR can begin at any point by asking a series of simple questions. 

Subsequent to the workshop, EPA developed the ReefLink Database, which is now available on the 

web at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=242306. This database is 

built around a generic coral reef DPSIR. The ReefLink Database provides a navigable hierarchy of 

related topics and information for each topic including concept maps, scientific citations, 

management options, and laws related to coral reefs. DPSIR definitions are provided in a glossary 

that will resolve terminology issues.
Chapter 3. Framing Knowledge About Coral Reef...Using DPSIR | 55

The three DPSIRs and the information from the discussions were used to develop a DPSIR for 

Guánica (Figs. 3-28a and b). 

Figure 3-28a. Guánica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the 

Decision-support Workshop, showing details for Drivers, Pressures, and Responses to each (source Bradley 

et al. 2013). Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Figure 3-9 (e.g., light green=Driving forces; 

dark green=Pressures; orange=State; pink=Impacts; and purple=Responses)

The nodes presented here link with those in Fig. 3-28b. 
56 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 3-28b. Guánica-specific DPSIR concept map developed by EPA based upon information from the 

Decision-support Workshop, showing details for State, Impact, and benefits to Drivers (source Bradley et 

al. 2013). Boxes are color-coded to follow the scheme used in Figure 3-9 (e.g., light green=Driving forces; 

dark green=Pressures; orange=State; pink=Impacts; and purple=Responses)
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 57

Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework 

for Coastal Watersheds

The second day of the workshop was designed to introduce the concepts of decision analysis and 

walk through the first three steps of the decision support framework for science-based ecosystem 

services assessment and multi-stakeholder deliberation. To initiate the topic, ‘homework’ from the 

first day was presented and discussed by participants (Section 4.1, below). This was followed by 

small group discussions throughout the day, interspersed with presentations on related topics. 

These included presentations on social network analysis, uncertainty and the value of information, 

adaptive management and a decision support tool that uses a structured decision analysis 

framework. In the afternoon, there were three breakout groups focused on different types of 

decisions−permitting and enforcement decisions, natural resource decisions, and scientific support. 

A summary of the homework results, presentations and breakout group deliberations is provided 

below.

4.1 Homework Assignment 

At the end of the first day, participants had been asked to write down the top 2-3 objectives for 

coastal ecosystem health of their organization or constituents and possible measurable endpoints. 

A summary of these follows: 

Objectives

 Land-use planning

 Environmentally sensitive development 

 Soil conservation and farm land quality

 Water quality

 Bay (H2O and sediment)

 Inland

 Drinking

 Marine

 Law and regulation enforcement

 Community awareness/education

 Quality of life

 Recreation 

 Aesthetics 

 Economic well-being

 Fisheries

 Tourism

 Response to oil spills/boat groundings
58 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Measurable Attributes: 

• Coral ecosystem health

• Oyster egg count

• 3-dimensional coral cover

• Leaf area index

• Density of corals/seagrass/etc.

• Disease

 Presence or absence 

 Extent 

• Epibiont cover (seagrass)

• Sediment type and cover

• Reproduction (presence or absence)

 Coral recruits (number of)

• Tissue Nitrogen levels

• Species (richness and abundance and size/age structure)

 Coral (soft and hard)

 Fish

 Invertebrates

 Algae

 Seagrass

• Extent (spatial coverage); 7 acres = WAG at current status; (could research historical size of 

seagrass coverage–using sediment cores)

Participants also identified some possible goals for some of the measurable attributes:

• Percent increase in coverage

• Return to historical levels

• Sustainable queen conch habitat

• New/shifting species

4.2 Social Network Analysis 

Ms. Patricia Bradley, Dr. Marilyn ten Brink & Dr. Tom Stockton (presenter)

Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a method to map and measure the relationships and interactions 

among people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and other connected information/

knowledge entities in order to identify knowledge flows (Krebs 2002). SNA has been used in 

business since the 1930s to improve production and organizational structure. It is a tool that can be 

used to support strategic collaboration, facilitate knowledge creation and transfer, and increase 

our capacity to manage ecosystems and resources. 

SNA is: (1) guided by formal theory organized in mathematical terms, and (2) grounded in the 

systematic analysis of empirical data. SNA views social relationships and interactions in terms of 

network theory about nodes and links. The nodes in the network are the people and groups while 

the links show relationships or flows between the nodes (Fig. 4-1). SNA provides both a visual and a 

mathematical analysis of human relationships (Krebs 2008). 
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 59

Figure 4-1. Social network analysis views social relationships and interactions in terms of network theory 

about nodes and links

To understand networks and their participants, SNA identities the location of actors in the 

network−who are the leaders, bridges, isolates, where are the clusters of actors and who is in 

them, who is in the core of the network, and who is on the periphery? SNA also identifies the 

direction of information flow in the network−who generates information, who receives 

information?

For this workshop, EPA demonstrated how SNA could help:

• Identify and support leadership functions and identify gaps 

• Increase participation by reconnecting isolated teams or individuals

• Detect information bottlenecks

• Identify opportunities for improving the flow of knowledge

• Accelerate the flow of knowledge and information across functional and organizational 

boundaries

• Improve the effectiveness of formal communication channels

• Target opportunities through which increased knowledge flow will have the most impact

• Raise awareness of existing informal networks

• Identify types of information that are communicated or not 

In a workshop exercise, participants were asked: 

• With whom they communicated most frequently and second most frequently

• The topic of communication

• The importance of the communication (very, average, minor)

• The frequency with which they communicated (scale of 0-8, once a year to many times per day) 

• The types of information they received from each person 
60 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

An SNA software program (NodeXL) was used to provide mathematical and statistical routines for 

exploratory analysis and visualization of the network. NodeXL is a free and open network overview, 

discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 2007/2010 (Smith et al. 2010). The data were compiled 

into an Excel spreadsheet, and a clustering algorithm was run on the network. Individuals in the 

network were identified by their institution or role (Fig. 4-2). The thickness in arrows represents 

how often communication occurred (the thicker the arrow, the more often the communication).

Figure 4-2. Preliminary social network based on responses from workshop participants who are identified 

by institution or role. Line width is proportional to importance. (Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.)
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 61

The preliminary SNA was based only on the input of the workshop participants and did not 

represent the many other people who are involved in decision-making in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed. Results from the analysis allow exploration of patterns:

• Does the communication network serve needs well? 

• Are any individuals or clusters of individuals poorly connected? 

• Is critical information held outside the information network? 

• Does the network support learning?

There are several clusters that are not connected to each other. There is a large cluster, where 

individuals from NOAA are playing central roles. The NOAA employees appear to be communicating 

well with each other and are receiving information from other groups but have limited outgoing 

communications to other groups. There is a smaller network of mostly EPA employees that work 

interactively but have connection with only one external participant (NOAA). The lack of 

connection to a larger network is a concern, because EPA has both a mission and regulatory 

responsibility for managing and regulating land-based sources of pollution. Similarly there is a 

smaller, unconnected network of individuals representing Puerto Rico departments that are 

interactive with FWS and NRCS but not with the broader NOAA network. 

From the preliminary SNA, EPA hoped to identify strengths and weaknesses in communication 

within the Guánica Bay Watershed management and stakeholder community that can be modified 

to better support sharing of information and values. A more inclusive and comprehensive SNA 

would be extremely value in this respect. Increased understanding by participants of information 

flow in the GBW aided in planning of future workshops.

4.3 Uncertainty and the Value of Information (VOI) in Multi-stakeholder 

Environmental Decision Making 

Dr. Amanda Rehr (presenter) and Dr. Mitchell Small, Carnegie Mellon University/US EPA Special 

Government Employees 

In decision analysis, each alternative must be evaluated by appraising it against criteria. This step is 

challenging for two reasons because: 1) each stakeholder has their own set of values and would 

apply their own weights to the criteria and 2) there is almost always some uncertainty about the 

consequences of a proposed management action. Ideally, this uncertainty can be reduced by 

additional scientific study. In practice, scientific studies and their interpretation are sometimes as 

much a point of contention as the decisions they are designed to inform. Arguments over the 

objectivity, validity, and relevance of scientific findings are now common in debates regarding 

climate change, energy exploration, nuclear power, chemical regulation, food safety, and other 

domains with high stakes and high uncertainty. Nonetheless there is value in information and the 

credibility it brings to valuing outcomes (i.e., applying weighting criteria).

In the section of the workshop described here, participants were guided through a process for 

designing a system model that could be used to predict the outcomes of alternative management 

options aimed at protecting important resources. The process concluded with a method for 

identifying where additional information could add the most value to decisions and resolve 

possible conflicts over preferred management actions. 
62 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Step 1 - Identifying important resources and outcomes

During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion about which resources and outcomes 

should be considered in decision-making for environmental quality and coral reef management in 

the Guánica Bay Watershed in terms of their importance and value. Responses are grouped into 

categories of Higher and Lower Priority roughly based on how often they were mentioned by 

participants (Table 4-1). This first step acts as a preliminary brainstorming exercise. The eventual 

system model included a further-reduced set of important resources and participants were asked 

in a later step to rate each one relative to others. 

Table 4-1. Important resources and outcomes in the Guánica Bay Watershed

Higher Priority Resources and Outcomes Lower Priority Resources and Outcomes

 Coral reef health

 Guánica Bay water quality

 Fisheries (Commercial)

 Drinking water quality

 Agriculture

 Tourism

 Construction and development

 Offshore water quality

 Soil conservation and farmland quality

 Quality of life

 Rapid response to oil spills

 Other community awareness

 Aids to navigation

 Law and regulation enforcement

 Planning–before construction

 Aesthetics and public resources

 Seagrass and other benthic communities other 

than coral reefs

 Fisheries (Recreational and Artisanal)

 Vegetative communities in watershed

 Community surrounding areas

 Home sewers connected to rivers, lakes, sea

 Bay sediment quality

Step 2 - Identifying cause-effect relationships that impact resources and outcomes

During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion of cause-effect relationships believed to 

impact resources and outcomes of importance in the Guánica Bay Watershed. A consensus-based 

assignment of relationship strength was employed. 

Table 4-2 includes a summary of participants’ best estimates (min, mean and max) on a scale of 0-

100 and associated confidence (slightly, somewhat or very) regarding the strengths of these 

relationships. It was discussed how the reported distributions would later be translated into 

probabilistic assessments of the causal relationships between variables in the eventual system 

model.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 63

Table 4-2. Workshop participants’ best estimates (on a scale of 0-100) and associated confidence (slightly, 

somewhat or very) regarding the strengths of the cause-effect relationships that impact important 

resources and outcomes in the Guánica Bay Watershed (N=25)

Environmental Threat 

(Driver/Pressure)

Affected 

Resource/Outcome 

(States/Impact)

Strength of Relationship Confidence 

(slightly, 

Min Mean Max somewhat, very)

1. Sewage and wastewater 

treatment plant loadings

Reservoir and drinking 

water quality

10 40 85 somewhat/very

2. Sewage and wastewater 

treatment plant loadings Bay water quality 40 60 85 very/somewhat

3. Agrochemical discharges Reservoir and drinking 

water quality

35 50 85 somewhat

4. Agrochemical discharges Bay water quality 40 55 85 somewhat/very

5. Sediment loadings Reservoir and drinking 

water quality

15 50 85 somewhat/very

6. Sediment loadings due 

to clear-cutting Bay water quality 20 55 85 very/somewhat

7. Sediment loadings due 

to building construction Bay water quality 20 50 85 somewhat/very

8. Bay water quality 

(nutrient level) Coral reef health 35 60 85 somewhat/very

9. Bay water quality 

(sediment level) Coral reef health 45 70 85 very

10. Bay water quality 

 (toxics and pathogens) Coral reef health 10 60 85 somewhat/very

11. Ocean acidification Coral reef health 10 50 85 somewhat

12. Ocean temperature rise Coral reef health 35 60 85 very

13. Coral reef health Fisheries 30 65 85 very

14. Coral reef health Tourism 10 50 85 somewhat/very

Step 3 - Identifying management actions considered effective for reducing threats

During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion about which management actions were 

considered to be viable and effective for reducing threats or ensuring important resource 

outcomes in the Guánica Bay Watershed. Table 4-3 shows participants’ best estimates and 

associated confidence regarding the effects of these management actions on important outcomes. 

Participants were asked to indicate the amount of improvement that resource outcomes (drinking 

water quality, bay water quality, and coral reef health) would benefit from by implementing 

specified management actions. The amount of improvement was defined qualitatively (“A Little”, 

“Moderately”, and “A Lot”). A consensus-based assignment of the effects was employed with the 

average of the responses being recorded here. 
64 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Table 4-3. Workshop participants’ best estimates and associated confidence regarding the effects of 

management actions for reducing threats to resource outcomes in the Guánica Bay Watershed

This Affected 

Resource Outcome

Will be improved by this management action:

A Little Moderately A Lot

Reservoir and 

Drinking Water 

Quality

 Restrictions on agrochemicals (somewhat)

Bay Water Quality  Wastewater treatment wetlands (somewhat)

 Rio Loco stream bank riparian plantings 

(somewhat)

 Hydro-seeding of areas with bare soil in high 

elevation erodible soil areas (somewhat)

 Cover crop outreach and cost share to high 

elevation coffee farms

 Restoration of Guánica Lagoon

 Reef education for youth and their parents

 Subsidy for shade grown coffee

 Advanced 

wastewater 

treatment (very)

Coral Reef Health Marine protection areas 

(somewhat)

Step 4 - Identifying scientific uncertainties and studies to reduce uncertainties

During the workshop, participants were led in a discussion about the key data gaps or scientific 

uncertainties they believed limited the ability to understand and manage the coral reefs and 

related ecosystems in the Guánica Bay Watershed. For each, they also suggested additional 

monitoring or scientific studies that would likely reduce these uncertainties. 

A summary of the critical uncertainties and suggested research studies is shown in Table 4-4, 

roughly in order of a combination of how often they were mentioned (most often to least often) 

and their strength in reducing the associated uncertainty (a lot to a little). This ranking provides an 

initial prioritization of the perceived needed studies to reduce uncertainty for decision-making. As 

data and quantified results are generated, more formal VOI methods can be used. 
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 65

Table 4-4. Critical uncertainties and suggested research studies

Addressing Research Tasks

Pollutant Sources  Land use–hydrology studies

 Wet vs. dry weather sampling of streams

 Lake/Rio Loco/other surface water flow path studies

Pollutant Loadings  Model scenarios for watershed mgmt. options

 Stream gauging in Rio Loco

 Calibration & use of SPARROW

 Monitoring sediment & nitrogen in Rio Loco

Pollutant Fate  Stream sediment studies

 Marine stable isotope studies

Coral Reef Impact  Coral reef toxicological studies

 Coral reef ecological studies

Stakeholder Participation/Deliberation  Stakeholder engagement in effect mgmt. options

 Survey residents and visitors for their values

 Survey of decision makers (interviews)

 Decision flow charting

Human Activity Studies  Mapping current uses and impact

 Tracking temporal trends in uses and impact

Demonstrating a new method: Value of Information for Conflict Resolution

During the workshop, Drs. Rehr and Small presented and demonstrated a new decision support 

method called Value of Information for Conflict Resolution (VOICR) for identifying where additional 

scientific research may be needed to support better-informed decisions and resolve possible 

conflicts over preferred management actions. The method combines and builds on aspects of 

multiple stakeholder deliberation, multiple criteria analysis, Bayesian Belief Networks, and value of 

information (VOI) analysis. In the simplest context, a value of information analysis can show 

whether a decision is likely to be the same regardless of the effort to acquire additional

information. In more complex analysis, it can help to focus where to focus the effort on acquisition 

of information that will influence the decision.

A subset of the workshop participants (seven) participated in the VOICR demonstration. The 

demonstration centered on the important subject reducing loadings from three sources: sewage, 

agriculture, and development. The scenario assumed that loadings would be reduced incrementally 

from each source through a series of management steps, which would be ranked in order of 

maximizing benefits. Importantly, the loading rates from each source were not known and research 

to determine those rates had not been conducted. 

The exercise combined the DPSIR conceptual model of the Guánica Bay Watershed developed 

earlier in the workshop, with participant preferences for outcomes (coral reef health, tourism and 

fisheries) and beliefs about science drawn from workshop discussions (% loadings from sources, 

effectiveness of a lagoon at filtering out pollutants, and the probabilities that stressors will produce 

different outcomes) into a probabilistic Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). The final outcome, 

“Benefits”, was computed as x*Tourism + y*Fisheries + z*Coral Health*Ecosystem Services, where 

x, y, and z were the weightings assigned by participants to these different resource outcomes. 

Drs. Rehr and Small used a set of additional face-to-face elicitation questions to inform the BBN (as 

follows). Figure 4-3 shows a BBN for one of the seven participants who participated in the exercise. 
66 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 4-3. Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) developed at the workshop for a participant. (The BBN is a 

system model of the Guánica Bay Watershed, in this case focusing on loadings, with five possible 

management levers (in light blue), five research effects nodes, and an end node, Benefits, which is 

computed by: x*Tourism + y*Fisheries + z*Coral Health*Ecosystem Services, where x, y, and z were the 

weightings assigned by participants to these different resource outcomes. The BBN was designed to be used 

for computing the preferred management option based on maximizing benefits and then comparing results 

between without- and with-information conditions.

A BBN consists of a graphical structure and a probabilistic description of the relationships among 

variables in a system, and presents an effective way to represent uncertainty in environmental 

decision problems. Variables, in this case coral reef health, tourism, and fisheries, and their 

associated stressors, are represented as nodes. Causal relationships, the stressor-outcome 

relationships in this instance, are represented as directed links between the nodes and are 

specified by conditional probability distributions.

BBNs can be used to estimate the probability of a decision option having a particular outcome, and 

the corresponding stakeholder valuation of that outcome. A BBN is especially useful when 

individual nodes of the network will be updated with evidence or new information to see how 

these change the preferred management strategy. The expected increase in value of the optimal 

decision informed by the knowledge, compared to the choice made under the pre-information 

state is the VOI. 

The participants responded to the following four face-to-face elicitation questions to inform the 

conditional probability tables of nodes in the BBN:
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 67

1) How would you rate the following outcomes in relation to one another? (A score of 1 for tourism 

and a score of 2 for fish indicate that fish health is twice as important as tourism health).

a) Tourism – 

b) Fish – 

c) Coral – 

2) What percentage of the total loadings (nutrient and sediment) to the Guánica inland water 

system comes from development, agriculture, and sewage, respectively? (percentages must sum 

to 100%)

a) Development – 

b) Agriculture – 

c) Sewage – 

3) How sure are you that the lagoon will work (i.e., be effective in reducing loadings that enter 

the Bay)?

a) I am ___% sure that the lagoon will work.

4) Are the probabilities that the following sets of environmental stressors would produce: 

a) good/bad coral reef health; and b) good/bad fisheries health, respectively? 

(percentages should sum to 100%)

a) Stressors for coral reef health:

i) Water quality (WQ),

ii) Ocean warming/acidification (OW)

iii)Marine Protected Areas (MPA)

b) Stressors for fisheries health:

i) Coral reef health (CR)

ii) Ocean warming/acidification (OW) 

iii) Marine Protected Areas (MPA)

Example 1 - If water quality is considered to be most responsible, followed by ocean 

acidification/warming, and then marine protection areas (considered useless in this 

example), and no synergism is assumed, the following probabilities could apply:

 25% WQ/OW/MPA

 20% WQ/MPA

 25% WQ/OW

 5% MPA/OW

 20% WQ

 0% MPA

 5% OW

Example 2 - If water quality combined with ocean warming/acidification and MPAs is 

thought to be the most important set of stressors contributing to coral health, followed by 

water quality and ocean warming/acidification, and then followed by water quality and 

MPAs, and assuming synergism among the various factors, the following probabilities 

could apply:

 50% WQ/OW/MPA

 30% WQ/OW

 10% WQ/MPA

 4% MPA/OW 
68 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

 3% WQ

 2% MPA

 1% OW

c) Probabilities that these sets of stressors lead to good/bad coral reef health:

 % that it's all 3 (WQ/OW/MPA) - 

 % that it's these 2 (WQ/MPA) - 

 % that it's these 2 (WQ/OW) - 

 % that it's these 2 (MPA/OW) - 

 % that it's only 1 factor (WQ) - 

 % that it's only 1 factor (MPA) - 

 % that it's only 1 factor (OW) – 

d) Probabilities that these sets of stressors lead to good/bad fisheries health:

 % that it's all 3 (CR/OW/MPA) - 

 % that it's these 2 (CR/MPA) - 

 % that it's these 2 (CR/OW) - 

 % that it's these 2 (MPA/OW) - 

 % that it's only 1 factor (CR) - 

 % that it's only 1 factor (MPA) - 

 % that it's only 1 factor (OW) - 

The facilitators used the BBN to determine how the participants’ beliefs regarding current resource 

conditions and responses to alternative management options may change given different possible 

outcomes of new research (Fig. 4-3). The goal of the analysis was to identify where additional 

scientific research would support better-informed decisions and resolve possible conflicts over 

preferred management actions. The exercise can be summarized as follows:

Assuming that two stakeholders have different prior beliefs: 

1. Identify their initial preferences for options aimed at reducing loadings.

2. Assess agreement without and with new research result that clarifies the levels 

of loadings from sources.

3. Identify the capacity of research projects to promote agreement. 

In the VOI exercise, for this set of participants and assumptions, it was shown that in terms of 

prioritizing a research agenda to reduce uncertainty and resolve conflicts, stakeholders would 

pursue determining loadings from agriculture and sewage, and would likely forego research to 

determine loadings from development, since the latter was not predicted to make a difference. 

The detailed results of this exercise have since been published in a journal article (Rehr et al. 2014). 

4.4 Adaptive Management (AM)

Kelly Black, Neptune and Company, Inc.

Ms. Black gave a brief presentation on AM to provide a general background for workshop 

participants. The Guánica Bay Watershed is a complex decision landscape with many stakeholders, 

different interests and different value sets that result in complex issues that are responsive to 

management interventions but subject to uncertainties about the impact. The challenges 

presented by these complexities and uncertainties require an AM approach. 
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 69

AM is a structured, iterative decision-making process where decision-makers learn from experience 

and modify subsequent behavior (improve on decisions) in light of that experience. AM relies on 

partnerships of managers, scientists, and other stakeholders working together on how to create 

and maintain sustainable ecosystems by applying the following principles:

• Use of a scientific-based approach to address the objectives; 

• Use of feedback loops that iteratively feed new information into the decision-making process; 

• Use of an open, inclusive, and integrative process; and 

• Emphasis on collaboration and conflict resolution in order to reconcile competing objectives. 

AM has been successfully applied in natural resource management since the 1950s (Beverton and 

Holt 1957; Holling 1978; Walters and Hilborn 1978; Walters 1986; Lee 1993; Failing et al. 2004; 

Gregory et al. 2006; Goffredo and Lasker 2008). The Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) 

developed the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP 2013), a compilation and 

adaptation of best practices and guidelines across several fields and across several organizations 

within the conservation community. The Open Standards lay out 5 main steps to an AM project 

cycle (Fig. 4-4). 

Figure 4-4. CMP Adaptive Management Cycle (CMP 2013)

“Adaptive Management: 

• Helps science managers maintain FLEXIBILTY in their decisions, knowing that uncertainties exist 

and provides managers the latitude to change direction 

• Will improve UNDERSTANDING of ecological systems to achieve management objectives 

• Is about taking ACTION to improve progress towards desired outcomes” (DOI 2010). 

AM can be applied throughout the structured decision process. 
70 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

4.5 DASEES: Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, Economy 

and Society 

Dr. Tom Stockton, Neptune and Company, Inc.

To better enable environmental decision-making, EPA has developed an open-sourced web-based 

structured decision making tool - DASEES (Decision Analysis for a Sustainable Environment, 

Economy, and Society). An integrated trans-disciplinary research team of EPA, university, and 

private company researchers is developing DASEES. DASEES will support any Web 2.0 compliant 

web browser that also supports Adobe FLASH technology (Stockton et al. 2011). The framework 

outlined in this chapter serves the process for working through complex, multi-dimensional 

decision problems. Tracking progress through this decision process can be greatly facilitated with 

these framework tools accessible to stakeholders via the Web.

DASEES is organized around the five steps of the Structured Decision Process (see Chapter 1). 

DASEES consists of a set of guidance and software tools designed both to educate decision-makers 

in using the structured decision process and to allow them to create their own decision-specific 

conceptual model using interactive tools to input data and generate graphs, charts, and statistical 

analyses. By using these tools, different decision options can be quantified and evaluated in the 

larger context of the conceptual model. In addition, DASEES houses case studies that demonstrate 

how the tools and guidance can be applied to specific real-world decisions. The case studies can be 

used as the building blocks for the upper levels of DASEES.

In terms of site navigation, the structure described above has been implemented as a series of tabs 

(Fig. 4-5). Each top-level tab contains sub-tabs housing tools useful in the decision process. The 

“DASEES steps” contains an overview tab, which provides an introduction to the individual steps. 

Each of the sub-tabs contains its own sub-tabs, housing guidance or tools. Requirements for each 

tab and sub-tab depend on whether they contain guidance or house a software tool, or both. 

Step 1 - Understand the decision context 

DASEES provides a suite of tools to assist users to establish the context within which the 

management problem is contained. 

• A Decision Landscape Section allows users to summarize the political, regulatory, social, 

institutional and scientific context of the decision.

• A Social Network Analysis (SNA) tool provides a visual insight into who is, and more 

importantly, who is not sharing in the information flow for the decision at hand. 

• Complementary to these approaches are systems-based cognitive maps. DASEES allows users to 

characterize the activity with the Drivers-Pressures-States-Impacts-Response (DPSIR) model 

that enables causal understanding in the decision context. Other selected aids in this step 

include GIS-based visualization tools and a Sandbox area for exploring and recording thoughts 

and ideas that arise during deliberation.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 71

Figure 4-5. DASEES Webpage design

Step 2 - Define objectives

DASEES provides several tools for documenting and organizing stakeholder values and organizing 

the values into an objectives hierarchy. 

• A tool to create a list of Objectives. The tool allows the user to add or re-arrange objectives 

by dragging and dropping. 

• The Objectives Tool supports development of Measures for an objective. Each of the final 

objectives should have measures for assessing whether the objective is attained. A good 

measure should be 1) interpretable, 2) meaningful, 3) operational and 4) measurable. 

• An Objectives Preference Tool supports ranking objectives by selecting and applying a suite 

of criteria. 

• A Scratch Pad where users can collect their thoughts about objectives.

• An Objectives Import Tool that allows the user to import a list of objectives from Microsoft 

Word. Once imported, the user can insert the objectives into the Objectives Hierarchy for 

the project.

Step 3 - Develop options 

In the third step, alternatives to achieve the objectives are identified. 

• The Means Objectives Tool supports development of a suite of means objectives for each 

of the final objectives identified in Step 2. Means objectives help to identify how to achieve 
72 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

fundamental objectives. The Means Objectives Tool also supports the identification of 

management options or alternatives.

• A Management Scenario Tool that assists users in creating competing collections of 

management options reflecting identified means objectives and aimed at achieving final 

objectives in Step 2. 

Step 4 - Evaluate alternatives (management options)

The next step is to assess the options and assemble or provide scientific information to address 

critical unknowns. 

• A Bayesian Network Tool for causal assessments of management scenario alternatives. 

A Bayesian approach supports explicit consideration of uncertainty, and provides a normative 

framework for integrating science-based information and user defined option preference 

valuation. 

• A Decision Map that allows the user to move through the Objectives Hierarchy and MeansEnd Networks.

Step 5 - Take action

Finally–the decision-makers begin implementation. Monitoring and adaptive management should 

accompany implementation. 

• DASEES provides some guidance for implementing Adaptive Management. 

4.6 Decision Breakout Session 

On the morning of the second day, there were two breakout sessions. The first breakout session, 

Decision-making in Practice, was designed to gain an understanding of how the workshop 

participants currently make decisions regarding issues that impact coastal ecosystem health.

The discussions focused on six questions regarding decisions:

1) What decisions need to be made? 

2) Who makes those decisions? 

3) What information is needed to make the decisions? 

4) What level of accuracy or confidence is needed for the decisions? 

5) What tools are needed to assist in making these decisions? 

6) What would help them make better decisions? 

The second breakout session, Develop Options, was designed to identify alternative management 

strategies or policy options that can be implemented to address threats to coastal ecosystems. 

Group 1. Permitting and Enforcement Decisions

Facilitator: Ms. Kelly Black; Note-taker: Dr. William Fisher

Background 

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and 

biological integrity of water resources, including the biological inhabitants of coral reefs. The CWA 

requires that states have water quality standards, monitor conditions regularly, and submit reports 

summarizing water quality assessments (usually every two years). 

Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are 
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 73

waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by the 

state. The law requires that the state establish priority rankings for waters on the list and develop 

TMDLs for these waters. A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum 

amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. 

Puerto Rico’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is the commonwealth agency with responsibility 

under the CWA. EQB issued the most recent Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards Regulation on 

March 31, 2010. The goal of this regulation is to “preserve, maintain and enhance the quality of the 

waters of Puerto Rico in such manner that they be compatible with the social and economic needs 

of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The purposes of this regulation are: (1) designate the uses 

for which the quality of the water bodies of Puerto Rico shall be maintained and protected; (2) 

prescribe the water quality standards required to sustain the designated uses; (3) identify other 

rules and regulations applicable to sources of pollution that may affect the quality of the waters 

subject to this regulation; and (4) prescribe other measures necessary for achieving and 

maintaining the quality of the waters of Puerto Rico” (PR 2010). 

Under the CWA, EPA works in partnership with EPA Regions, states, local governments, Tribes, the 

private sector, and non-governmental organizations to regulate discharges into surface waters. EPA 

controls storm water and wastewater discharge and treatment through the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). While EPA has delegated primary NPDES program 

responsibility in most states and territories, EPA retains lead responsibility for developing and 

enforcing NPDES permits in Puerto Rico.

Decision-making in practice

The PR EQB prepares the bi-annual water quality report. 

• The Rio Loco is listed as impaired on the 303(d) list. Sources of pollution include urban 

runoff/storm sewers, land disposal, onsite wastewater systems, hydro-modification, and 

upstream impoundment. Causes of pollution include: pathogens (fecal coliforms), metals, 

arsenic, low dissolved oxygen, other inorganics, and manganese. Workshop participants felt 

that more effective enforcement of wastewater treatment systems and residential septic 

systems was a key management action. 

• Guánica Bay (an estuary) and the adjacent marine waters are not listed as impaired on the 

303(d) list. They are not monitored as part of EQB’s water quality monitoring program.

The PR Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) is the agency representing 

Puerto Rico on the USCRTF. In this capacity, DNER formed a multi-agency group to help develop the 

Local Action Strategies (LAS) in 2003 and 2011. Two primary focus areas in the 2003 LAS were 

1) land-based sources of pollution and 2) overfishing. The LAS focused on improved enforcement of 

existing laws and regulations and non-regulatory best management practices (BMPs). The multiagency group has been instrumental in non-regulatory activities, such as building partnerships, 

securing project funding, and community outreach and education. The group also identified 

decisions/issues that were not regulatory/permitting, including the numerous scientific studies 

that have been conducted in the Guánica Bay Watershed (baseline characterization, 1979 

inventory, coral reef extent), the lack of water quality information for the watershed, and a 

pervasive lack of personnel to get the work done.
74 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Alternative management strategies or policy options 

Several alternative management strategies were proposed by the group: development of a TMDL 

for the Rio Loco, forest management plans, the Forest Legacy Program, the Community Forest and 

Open Space Conservation Program, and the addition of water quality monitoring stations on the 

Rio Loco. These proposals are summarized below.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). The CWA requires states to establish a priority 

ranking for waters on the 303(d) list of impaired waters and establish Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) for such waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of 

a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. A 

TMDL will identify clear targets for guiding pollutant cleanup activities. A TMDL for the 

Rio Loco would address some or all of the pollutants of concern: pathogens (fecal 

coliforms), metals, arsenic, low dissolved oxygen, other inorganics, and manganese. Since 

the Guánica Bay and marine waters are not in the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies, a 

TMDL is not required.

Establish Non-Point Source Monitoring Stations in the Rio Loco. EQB is the Commonwealth 

government agency with the legal responsibility to implement federal and state laws and 

regulations concerning pollution in Puerto Rico. EQB collects surface and ground water quality 

data both from its own water quality monitoring network and from monitoring stations 

operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). There are currently no USGS water 

quality monitoring stations and no EQB stations in the Rio Loco, Guánica Bay, or marine waters 

off Guánica Bay. A more comprehensive monitoring program, similar to that established in the 

Río Grande de Loíza, Río De La Plata and Río Grande de Arecibo basins and the San Juan Bay 

Estuary, should be established in the Guánica Bay Watershed, including the Rio Loco. This is an 

important management action, since these waterbodies are not in the 303(d) list of impaired 

waterbodies, even though they may actually be impaired.

Forest Management Plans. Forest landowners value their land for many reasons: from realizing 

an economic return (from timber or other sources) to providing ecological values (wildlife 

habitat, water and soil protection, carbon storage) and personal enjoyment (for recreation, 

solitude or other purposes). A comprehensive forest management plan should provide the 

information necessary and a flexible framework for achieving the landowner’s goals including: 

statements of goals and objectives, current condition of the forest and potential for future 

benefits, possible actions to achieve objectives, and environmental laws that might apply. Some 

landowners develop their own plans but most hire a licensed forester. DNER foresters can help 

landowners with resource inventories and management planning and also can help landowners 

apply for cost-share or conservation easement programs such as the Forest Legacy Program. 

Forest Legacy Program (FLP). The FLP was established in the 1990 Farm Bill to protect 

environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses 

and to promote forestland protection through the use of conservation easements and feesimple purchase. The FLP provides an incentive-based mechanism to protect critical important 

fish and wildlife habitat, conserve watershed functions, and maintain recreation opportunities. 

PR DNER, as the custodian of the Commonwealth’s forest resources, could apply for FLP grant 

funds to acquire land, or interests in land, and hold title.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 75

Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP). The CFP, established in the 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, is a grant program that authorizes the U.S. Forest 

Service to provide financial assistance to local governments, Tribal governments, and qualified 

nonprofit entities to establish community forests that provide continuing and accessible 

community benefits. Community forests provide many benefits, including: economic benefits 

from sustainable forest management and tourism; environmental benefits from natural 

resource conservation, such as storm water management, clean air and water, and wildlife 

habitat; forest-based educational programs; model forest stewardship activities; and 

recreational opportunities. The community is involved in the establishment of the community 

forest and long-term management decisions. Public access to the community forests is required 

and intended to enhance public health and wellbeing. The program pays up to 50% of the 

project costs and requires a 50% non-federal match. In addition, the program authorizes funds 

to state/territorial foresters for technical assistance to implement community forest projects. 

Development Planning. A Land Use Management Plan was created for the town of Guánica 

that reflected the ongoing economic activities at the time (fishing, tourism, recreation). It was 

agreed that the Land Use Management Plan was going to be integrated into future decisionmaking, but that has not occurred. Subsequently, the Commonwealth made the decision to 

allow a fertilizer plant (i.e., Ochoa Fertilizer Plant, which was not in the plan). Workshop 

participants felt that this fertilizer plant possibly contributed to the deterioration of Guánica 

Bay and the town’s economy. Workshop participants felt that use of the Land Use Management 

Plan to guide future development was important.

Education and Outreach. Workshop participants emphasized the need to inform, engage, and 

motivate water quality managers, elected officials, stakeholders, regulated industries, and the 

public to take positive personal actions and work together to improve and preserve water 

quality and natural resources in the Guánica Bay Watershed.

Group 2. Natural Resource Decisions

Facilitator: Ms. Leah Oliver; Note-taker: Dr. Tom Stockton

Background

The Department of Natural and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico (DNER) is the executive 

department of the territorial government tasked with protecting, conserving, developing, and 

managing the natural and environmental resources of Puerto Rico. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service, and Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico are also land managers (Gould et al. 

2012), and the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council is responsible for fisheries management in 

federal waters extending from 16.7 km to 370.4 km (the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ). 

Decision-making in practice

It is U.S. policy that regulatory decisions must be based on the best available science (EO 13563 

2011). Workshop participants felt that comprehensive monitoring (including baseline and 

effectiveness monitoring) and laboratory studies would provide the scientifically credible 

information needed for decision-making. They also felt that resource users (commercial fishers, 

famers, etc.) should be involved in decision-making. The group gave several examples of typical 

decisions: 
76 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

• Beach Cleaning. Beach cleaning involves removing broken glass, cigarette filters, syringes, 

stones, weeds, wood, pop-tops, hardened tar balls, animal droppings, etc., from beaches. There 

are limited resources to accomplish beach cleaning, and decisions must be made about which 

beaches, when and how to clean.

• Beach Closure. When water quality standards (fecal coliform and enterococcus) are exceeded 

at a particular beach, Puerto Rico requires beach managers to post an advisory or closure. An 

advisory warns people that there is an increased health risk associated with entering the water, 

and a closure warns people to completely avoid contact with the water. Once a beach is 

deemed "unsafe", it remains on that list until further testing shows that the bacterial levels 

have dropped into the "safe" zone. Only two beaches are monitored in the Guánica 

municipality: Playa Santa and Balneario Caña Gorda. The workshop participants felt that 

additional beaches should be monitored. 

• Manage Stakeholder Conflicts. Resource carrying capacity is an issue, along with the decision 

of how many and which types of users can use the resource. There needs to be more and better 

communication with stakeholders to manage/minimize/restrict resource use. 

• Regulation/Law Enforcement. More resources are needed to enforce existing regulations and 

laws. The enforcement personnel also need additional physical tools (boats, cars, etc.). 

Collaboration between the various managing agencies (Puerto Rico DNER, NOAA, etc.) could 

help to address some of the resource deficiencies. Information on regulations can be hard to 

find – better outreach and education are needed to ensure that the users are informed. Some 

significant data gaps exist, including the lack of a license system for fishing, diving or snorkeling. 

• Research and Monitoring Support. The decisions about which research will be conducted and 

by whom is another decision area. There has been a long history of environmental research in 

Puerto Rico, and multiple government agencies, academic institutions, and NGOs are currently 

conducting research in the Guánica Bay Watershed. A research planning process needs to be 

established, including prioritizing the research, determining who should conduct the research, 

securing adequate funding and resources, and releasing research results to the public, including 

some sort of report card on how the natural resources are doing. Tools such as GIS, network 

analysis, and models can contribute to the research planning.

• Vessel Groundings. The coral reefs and seagrass meadows offshore of Guánica are productive 

habitats that support the fishing, diving, and tourism industries. A boat hitting the reef can 

topple coral heads or grind coral colonies into tiny fragments, damaging and killing coral that 

may have taken centuries to build. Vessels that run aground on seagrass cut scars or large 

swaths through the meadows, creating injuries that may never heal, depriving marine life of 

important habitat. A program should be developed and implemented to respond to vessel 

groundings, including those of small recreational vessels. To support this effort, better maps of 

the marine resources are needed. There also needs to be some way to tease out the stress 

caused by the physical damage from the more chronic land-based sources of pollution.

Alternative management strategies or policy options

This breakout group developed a list of management strategies, some of which had been discussed 

earlier in the workshop and some which had not. A brief discussion of each strategy not previously 

mentioned in this report is provided below.
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 77

• Restoration of the Historic Guánica Lagoon. This was the highest priority management option 

in the WMP. The lagoon served as a refuge for native and migratory birds, and filtered 

sediment and pollutants generated from upstream headwaters. The group felt, however, that 

there was uncertainty about how the restoration of the lagoon would improve the condition of 

coral reef ecosystems. There was a lack of scientific study and data gaps. 

• Enforcement of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Participants felt that there was inadequate 

enforcement of the CWA, and this lack of enforcement was endangering human health and the 

environment. Areas that were emphasized included erosion control, septic tanks, permit 

compliance and point source discharges (NPDES). The group was concerned that water quality 

standards were not being met and that lack of water quality criteria or water quality monitoring 

allowed continued degradation of water bodies. 

• Enforcement of Fishing Regulations. Puerto Rico has enacted fishing regulations, including the 

requirement for recreational fishing licenses, prohibition on recreational spear fishing with 

scuba, prohibition of beach seine nets, size limits and daily quotas on several species, and the 

requirement for species-specific permits for high-value and sensitive species. The breakout 

group felt that Puerto Rico needs to strengthen enforcement of its existing fishing regulations 

by improving public awareness, providing further training and support for rangers, and 

addressing other critical constraints to enforcement. 

• Mooring Buoys. The Marine Resources Division of the DNER has installed over 270 mooring 

buoys, which are permanently anchored buoys that allow boaters to moor without damaging 

the seafloor. In some cases, boaters are not properly using the mooring buoys. Participants felt 

that additional mooring buoys should be installed and the DNER Rangers should enforce use of 

the buoys.

• Aids to Navigation. The participants felt that additional channel markers were needed. The 

group also felt that Puerto Rico needed to improve their navigational charts to reflect water 

depth, coral reefs and other sensitive resources.

• Scientific Studies. The group felt that additional scientific studies were needed to provide 

information for decision-making. They wanted to expand the baseline characterization of the 

Guánica Bay Watershed, including additional long-term monitoring of water quality and biotic 

condition of the coral reefs and Guánica Bay. They also felt it important to measure or model 

base flow, ground water, water replacement times, and currents. 

• Riparian Restoration. The diverse vegetation that grows along streams, rivers or reservoirs is 

known as the “riparian zone”. Riparian areas act as protective buffers between the land and the 

water, slowing runoff that is accelerated by paving of urban areas, filtering chemicals and 

excess nutrients coming of agricultural lands, and to some extent ameliorating the effects of 

increased sediment delivery from eroding hill slopes. Riparian restoration can often be the most 

cost-effective means for restoring water quality in streams impacted by non-point source 

pollution (EPA 1996). Riparian restoration involves restoring hydrologic processes and 

geomorphic features, and/or reestablishing native riparian vegetation. The WMP (CWP 2008) 

recommended riparian restoration along the Rio Loco. Workshop participants supported this 

action, and felt riparian restoration should be undertaken throughout the Guánica Bay 

Watershed.
78 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

• Runoff Controls. Construction activities can produce massive, short-term increases in erosion 

and sediment, because (1) the stabilizing effect of vegetation is lost, (2) soil surfaces are 

exposed to direct raindrop impact, and (3) additional precipitation is converted into runoff by 

impermeable surfaces (UNEP 1994). Runoff control measures and other BMPs (i.e., native 

vegetation) can be implemented at the time of construction to reduce runoff pollution both 

during and after construction. The Center for Watershed Protection developed a fact sheet that 

summarizes the Puerto Rico regulations (CWP 2006). Workshop participants felt that EQB 

should enforce the requirement for runoff controls and other BMPs at construction sites. 

• Mosquito Control. Dengue is a prevalent disease in Puerto Rico, where frequent rains allows 

standing water, which is where mosquitoes breed. Aedes aegypti, the principal mosquito 

carrier of dengue viruses in Puerto Rico, lives in urban areas. An outreach and education 

program needs to be expanded. 

This group also highlighted some of the actions proposed by the first focus group, including 

development planning and education and outreach. They felt that an outreach plan should be 

developed for marketing Guánica agricultural products such as shade-grown coffee. They also felt 

that an educational program should be developed to address the cultural component of some 

practices, such as the idea of “cleaning the land”, which was contributing to sedimentation. 

Group 3. Scientific Support

Facilitator: Dr. Amanda Rehr; Note-taker: Mr. Joe Williams

Background

EPA has articulated four core principles of watershed management (EPA 2013b): 

 Watersheds are natural systems that we can work with. 

 Watershed management is continuous and needs a multi-disciplinary approach. 

 A watershed management framework supports partnering, using sound science, taking 

well-planned actions and achieving results. 

 A flexible approach is always needed. 

A strong scientific foundation is essential to the formulation of sound decisions. In order to 

understand how a watershed functions, decision makers need information on watershed dynamics, 

processes and interactions. 

Decision-making in practice 

Multiple agencies are partnering in the Guánica Bay Watershed to provide the science and 

information needed to formulate more sustainable decisions. These include Puerto Rico (DNER and 

EQB), NOAA, USDA-NRCS, USEPA, and US F&WS. The University of Puerto Rico and several nonprofits are also involved, including Ridge to Reefs, Inc., and Protectores de Cuencas. Additionally, 

NFWF administers grant funding provided by the federal agencies to implement small- to mid-scale 

projects. 

There is not a formal body to make decisions for the Guánica Bay Watershed. Decisions are being 

made by multiple organizations (DNER, NOA Fisheries, the PR Land Authority, the municipalities). 

At the time of the workshop, the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) was coordinating the 

process, with primary funding through the Coral Restoration Program (NOAA). The coordination 

responsibility has now moved to Ridge to Reefs, Inc., and Protectores de Cuencas. 
Chapter 4. A Decision-Analysis Framework for Coastal Watersheds | 79

The strength of the Guánica Bay Watershed approach is the established partnership that links 

together organizations providing science and information with those making the decisions. 

Workshop participants provided some examples:

• Stressor identification procedures will help to identify the different sources within a watershed 

that may be contributing to biological impairment. It is important to identify stressors and 

potential sources of stressors so that water quality programs can target limited resources to 

address these issues. Useful data may come from chemical analysis of effluents, organisms, 

ambient waters, and sediments; toxicity tests of effluents, waters, and sediments; necropsies; 

biotic surveys; habitat analyses; hydrologic records; and biomarker analyses. These data do not 

in themselves, however, constitute evidence of causation. Researchers will have the insight for 

the usefulness of the information. Decision-makers can then take the appropriate regulatory or 

non-regulatory approach based upon the source and type of stressor (e.g., sewage could be 

regulatory–WWTP permit compliance, or a BMP such as composting toilets at state parks 

and reserves). 

• NOAA has mapped the ocean floor, surveyed the fish and other seafloor creatures, and 

measured contaminants in sediments and corals, nutrient levels in surface waters, and 

sedimentation rates at coral reef sites. The University of Puerto Rico (Dr. Clark Sherman) has 

deployed an array of sediment traps at nine reef sites adjacent to Guánica Bay and at two sites 

within the bay itself to determine both the amount of sediment accumulation and its 

composition. During the workshop it was identified that watershed modeling was a research 

gap, and EPA has begun to employ several different models (SWAT, GSSHA, BBNs) to model 

watershed hydrological and sediment and nutrient transport throughput in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed. The combined information that will result from these efforts will support decisionmakers in making land management decisions.

• Many decisions have a strong social component. For example, the NOAA Caribbean Fisheries 

Management Council makes regulatory decisions about fishing. They are engaging fishing 

communities to understand the impact of regulations on those communities. Additionally, 

University of Puerto Rico (Dr. Manolo Pizzini) is developing a report on the social system for the 

Guánica Bay Watershed. 

Alternative management strategies or policy options 

This breakout group developed a list of management strategies, some of which had been discussed 

earlier in the workshop and some which had not. A brief discussion of each strategy not previously 

mentioned is provided.

• Constructed Wetlands. Constructed wetlands are treatment systems that use natural processes 

involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to improve 

water quality (EPA 2004). The workshop participants strongly support WMP recommendation 

#2: a demonstration project where sewage effluent would be treated in a series of treatment 

wetlands or living machine to reduce nitrogen export. 

• Reforestation. Reforestation is the natural or intentional restocking of existing forests and 

woodlands that have been depleted. In the Guánica Bay Watershed, NRCS and USFWS have 

been supporting farmers in shifting from sun-grown to shade-grown coffee, where a canopy of 

assorted types of shade trees is created to cultivate shade-grown coffee. 
80 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

• Restoration of Guánica Bay Estuary. Guánica Bay was the focal point around which Guánica 

and its communities grew. The workshop participants would like a program specifically targeted 

at restoring Guánica Bay so it can once again provide diverse habitats for wildlife and aquatic 

life and support local economy through fishing and recreational activities. Participation in a 

program such as the National Estuary Program would be one way of moving towards a restored 

Guánica Bay.

A summary of the management options developed by this breakout group is shown in Table 4-5. 

The management options are organized into broad, general categories. 

Table 4-5. Management options developed during the workshop

Aquatic Resource 

Management

Terrestrial 

Management

Waste 

Management Social/Political

Restoration of Guánica Bay 

Estuary

Reforestation Constructed WW 

treatment wetlands 

Education and outreach

Develop a TMDL for the Rio Loco Forest management plans Enforcement of wastewater treatment systems Process to manage 

stakeholder conflicts

Establish non-point source 

monitoring stations in the GBWS

Forest Legacy Program (FLP) Enforcement of 

residential septic 

systems

Education program to address 

the cultural component of 

some practices

Monitor additional beaches for 

WQ

Community Forest and Open 

Space Conservation Program 

(CFP)

Education and outreach 

on mosquito control

Vessel grounding program Land use management plan to 

guide future development

Enforce existing regulations 

and laws

Additional mooring buoys Beach cleaning program More resources for law 

enforcement

Enforce use of mooring buoys Riparian restoration throughout 

the Guánica Bay Watershed

Research planning process

Additional channel markers Enforce the requirement for 

runoff controls and other BMPs 

at construction sites

Improved navigational charts to 

reflect water depth, coral reefs 

and other sensitive resources

Enforcement of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA)

Enforcement of fishing 

regulations

Long-term monitoring of water 

quality and biotic condition of 

the coral reefs and Guánica Bay

Scientific studies to measure or 

model base flow, ground water, 

water replacement times, and 

currents

Implement stressor 

identification procedures

Restoration of the historic 

Guánica Lagoon
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 81

Chapter 5. Conclusions

5.1 Lessons Learned 

In April 2010, a Coral Reefs workshop was held in La Parguera, Puerto Rico, at the Magüeyes Island 

Facilities, Department of Marine Sciences, and University of Puerto Rico. 

The primary goal of the workshop was: To deliver quality information concerning the humanecosystem relationship so that decision-makers can serve human interests while sustaining 

ecosystem services. 

The purpose of the workshop was: To facilitate development of a decision support framework 

with stakeholder/decision-maker input to help address problems related to ecologicallydamaging human activities (e.g., agriculture on steep slopes, unbridled development, excess 

sediment and nutrient loads, stormwater run-off due to impervious surfaces, wetland 

consumption, etc.). Ecological damage includes damage to coral reefs and other ecosystems 

that provide services to humans.

The three-day workshop was organized as follows (see Appendix D for full agenda):

Day 1: Framing Knowledge about Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems using a Systems 

Framework (DPSIR)

Day 2: Decision–Making for Coastal Issues

Day 3: Optional: Elicitation of Decision Inputs for Coral Reef and Coastal Issues

Based on a compilation of notes during large- and small-group discussions, the following key points 

can be summarized.

Watershed management should be more inclusive of the stakeholders

There was a strong feeling that more time was needed to bring stakeholders up to speed on the 

watershed issues. Stakeholders need to understand both science and management concerns, and 

scientists and managers need to understand the stakeholders’ values and concerns. Scientists, 

managers, and stakeholders must work together continuously. The Guánica Bay Watershed 

Management Plan is a good starting point for further discussions; however, when beginning new 

watershed studies it would be preferable to convene stakeholders prior to issuing a watershed 

management plan. 

Participants felt that a comprehensive and inclusive Social Network Analysis (SNA) for the Guánica 

Bay Watershed could identify strengths and weaknesses in communication among these groups, 

although they did not feel that it was a priority. 

The Guánica Bay watershed is a complex system and a holistic, integrated decisionmaking framework is needed

Workshop participants felt that, on the whole, opening-day presentations provided a good 

overview of the watershed and issues. They felt, however, that the presentations did not address 

some areas of concern, such as coastal and other development, wastewater, and recreational and 

commercial uses on land and in the water. Use of the DPSIR decision framework to consider tradeoffs could prevent unintended consequences.
82 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

An understanding of ecosystem services could enhance the ability for various stakeholders to 

communicate their concerns on a common level. The decision framework should incorporate 

ecosystem services into the way people think about their environment. Decision science/analysis is 

needed to help pull all of the relevant research and valid concerns into a coherent system from 

which decisions that are protective of ecosystem services can be identified and implemented. The 

DPSIR framework can help with this and was well received as a potentially beneficial tool by the 

workshop participants. They appreciated that the DPSIR process allowed folks to consider other 

points of view. They did feel, however, that the DPSIR session was not long enough. Not all 

discussion points were incorporated into the DPSIR, and they would have liked more time to focus 

on additional responses that were not identified in the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan.

Feedback about DASEES recognized the value of the tool for decision-making and encouraged 

continued development of DASEES. Specific suggestions included: a user-friendly interface, clear 

concise instructions, and case studies. To date, the user-interface has been improved, and 

instructions and case studies are in development.

We need to move beyond plans into active management of the watershed 

Watershed management must be proactive in addition to reactive. It would be preferable to 

prevent problems from happening in the first place (e.g., the workshop participants felt the 

Guánica Lagoon should not have been drained). 

Stakeholders expressed a desire for a central figure to coordinate all efforts in the watershed. The 

central figure should also have the support of decision-making agencies, to ensure that the 

watershed management plan is efficiently and effectively completed. 

The participants felt that it was important to identify up front the costs of various alternative 

management actions and adequate funding needs to be secured. There are currently plans to deal 

with some problems, but the resources have not been provided. In some cases this is due to lack of 

political will or deeply rooted social paradigms.

Much is known, but much remains to be learned

The dynamics of the reef ecosystem are not fully understood. More research is needed to 

understand the system, particularly the impact of land-based activities on the reef ecosystem. 

Confidence in data for management decisions needs to be considered. In some cases, a high level 

of accuracy is needed, in other cases, not. It is necessary to balance resources and additional 

research with the level of accuracy needed. Value of Information (VOI) elicitation may have some 

utility, but participants felt the presentation was too theoretical. Participants felt the exercise was 

too complicated.

Once documented, research and resources need to be coordinated to focus on addressing 

problems within the holistic plan. In other words, we need to determine needs first, and then 

collect the right data.

Additionally, there are numerous studies that provide data and information, but these are not 

organized in a coordinated system. Some of the data needed for good decision-making has already 

been, or is currently being, collected, but many stakeholders were unaware of past or ongoing 

efforts by other stakeholders. Currently, a few very knowledgeable individuals largely hold the 

information. A centralized web site for storing relevant information and tools that is accessible to 

multiple groups would help address this issue.
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 83

5.2 Next Steps

While workshop participants seemed comfortable with most proposed actions in the Guánica Bay 

Watershed Management Plan, several were more controversial (restoration of the historic Guánica 

Bay Lagoon and creation of wetlands at the waste water treatment plant). Since the workshop, 

many of the management actions proposed in the WMP have begun. Additionally, some of the 

additional options suggested during the workshop have also been implemented. A short discussion 

of these is provided below. 

Guánica Bay Watershed coordinators 

As part of its commitment to strengthening local management capacity, NOAA funded the CWP to 

staff an on-site person in the Guánica Bay Watershed to interact with stakeholders. Mr. Roberto 

Viquiera was hired to serve in that role. Mr. Louis Meyer-Comas was hired to work with Mr. 

Viquiera. Mr. Viquiera has formed a non-profit organization (Protectores de Cuencas) and has 

applied for 501(c) status, which is a tax-exempt non-profit that can receive unlimited contributions 

from individuals, corporations, and unions.

Funding and grants to support restoration efforts in the Guánica Bay Watershed

NOAA and FWS have utilized a public-private partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation (NFWF) to provide funding through the Coral Reef Conservation Fund and the U.S. 

Coral Reef Task Force Partnership Initiative for a series of projects in the Guánica Bay Watershed. 

The Coral Reef Conservation Fund, which is administered by NFWF, awards matching grants for 

projects that are solicited through a competitive process each year; proposals are selected based 

on merit and relevance to the priorities of the partnership that are listed in the annual request for 

proposals. Funding to date has advanced conservation throughout the Guánica Bay/Rio Loco 

watershed—with more than $1.1 million put on the ground since its initial efforts in 2009. Grants 

have included projects to reduce sediment erosion through stream bank stabilization, provide 

incentives or best management practices on agricultural lands, and supported capacity building of 

management and conservation organizations to sustain conservation outcomes. Information about 

grants opportunities can be found at: http://www.nfwf.org/Pages/coralreef/home.aspx#

Guánica Lagoon restoration progress 

The agricultural establishment (e.g., University Of Puerto Rico professors) has historically not been 

in agreement with restoring the Guánica Lagoon. Workshop participants felt that the agencies need 

to better understand how the farmers feel about the Lagoon restoration. Fig. 5-1 shows the 

location of the Guánica Lagoon, and Fig. 5-2 shows aerial photos of the region from 1950 and 2007. 
84 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 5-1. Map showing the location of the historic Guánica Lagoon (Greg Morris Engineering)

Figure 5-2. Aerial photos from 1950 (left) showing the Guánica Lagoon, and 2007 showing the area that 

was drained with the lagoon footprint superimposed (right) 

Following the workshop, USDA-NRCS and the Center for Watershed Protection held a series of 

meetings and workshops with farmers in the Lagoon area to share information and better 

understand their concerns. The major concerns of the farmers are: 1) loss of agricultural 

production in areas that will be flooded; 2) that restoring the Guánica Lagoon will increase the 

drainage problems that already exist in the Valley, particularly where the drainage channels have 

not been properly maintained for the past decades; and 3) that the water table will rise, bringing 

underground salts to the surface, damaging productive agricultural lands, and causing loss of 

agricultural production.

To address the farmers’ uncertainties, a series of studies were conducted: 1) an inventory of farms, 

2) a hydrologic and hydraulic study, and 3) a groundwater and soil salinity study. These studies 

1950 2007
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 85

show more precisely the impact that restoring the Guánica Lagoon may have on the agriculture of 

the surrounding area. 

Inventory of farms 

Two open meetings where conducted with farmers to discuss the study and to get the farmer’s 

support for the survey process. Three other meetings where held with the Guánica Office of the 

Puerto Rico Land Authority (PRLA) to identify lands owned by PRLA and information about the 

farmers that are renting the public lands for farming. 

Protectores de Cuencas inventoried a total of 179 parcels with an average of 80 acres per parcel. 

Mr. Viquiera and Mr. Meyer-Comas (Protectores de Cuencas) visited thirty-eight farms between 

May 12, 2011, and October 18, 2011 (a total 15,678 acres) (Fig. 5-3). 

Figure 5-3. Parcels inventoried in the historic Guánica Lagoon region (Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L. 

2012)

After the inventory was conducted, two additional meetings were held with PRLA personnel to 

review the information gathered at the farms and farmers’ meetings. Another meeting with 

farmers was conducted after completion of the study to present the results to the farmers. 

The data collected on the farm parcels included crops, yields, fertilizer and pesticides, drainage and 

salinity problems. From that data, summary maps (Figs. 5-4 and 5-5) and economic estimates were 

prepared. Subareas of the Lajas Valley were created to help summarize the information on 

different areas of the valley–these are shown in Fig. 5-6. 
86 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 5-4. The surveyed parcels of the Lajas Valley below 5M elevation and an overlay of the 

historic lagoon area (Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L. 2012)

Figure 5-5. Land ownership in the historic Guánica Lagoon footprint (Viqueira-Rios R and 

Meyer-Comas L. 2012) 
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 87

Figure 5-6. Sub areas in the study site (Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L. 2012)

A total of 14,932 acres were surveyed. Of these, 5,545 acres are dedicated to forage (hay) 

production, 4,127 acres are used for grazing meat cattle, 1,288 acres are used for rice seed 

production, and 123 acres for horse production. Of the total area surveyed, 10,882 acres are 

privately owned (69%), and 4,050 acres are publicly owned (31%). The area of study generates a 

total of approximately $8,163,152 of gross income per year, including $259,887 for the lagoon 

area, $433,244 for south of the lagoon area, $819,522 for north of the lagoon area, $2,778,549 

for the El Anegado area, and $3,871,449 for west of the El Anegado area. 

Fertilizer and pesticide usage in the study area is relatively low as the inventory shows only 49 of 

187 parcels apply fertilizer and generally at relatively low application rates. Fertilizer and pesticide 

usage is most commonly associated with rice production (100% of farms applying) and to a much 

smaller degree, hay production.

Based on the inventory, approximately 28 of 179 farms employ conservation practices. This not 

only indicates the potential for additional conservation measures that could be employed on farms, 

but also the nature of some of the farm operations, particularly the lack of fertilizer and the 

preponderance of hay operations and grazing operations in the Lajas Valley. Parcels that are 

applying conservation practices are in actual contracts with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). These include a number of dairy operations where conservation practices are 

important to manage nutrients in particular.
88 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Summary 

• There is very limited annual production in the lagoon area–approximately $259,000 annually 

compared to the total contribution of over $8.1 million annually of the entire evaluated Lajas 

Valley area below 5 meters. The lagoon area (parcels adjacent or connected to the historic 

lagoon) is mostly cattle and hay production on land rented from the Puerto Rico Land 

Authority, and only a portion of this would be lost with the proposed restoration of the 

Guánica lagoon. 

• Existing water drainage, salinity and water uprising problems are common yet relatively 

predictable based on soils and landscape position–these are reflected in the soil salinity and 

hydrologic modeling reports. 

• Improved drainage, particularly the ability to more rapidly drawdown large storm events 

from the Lajas Valley, may help to increase agricultural production–one of the major 

limitations is that the drawdown happens from only one confined channel. Adding an 

additional channel that could also be used by migrating fish would help to limit inundation 

times of the valley. 

Hydrologic and hydraulic study 

Greg Morris and Associates COOP (GMA COOP) conducted a modeling study to incorporate recent 

data (1999-present) and to model events of higher frequency (2 to 50 years). GMA modeled 4 

different water levels–current, 2.4m, 2.7m, and 3.1m. They also considered an additional 

secondary scenario, no water in the Rio Loco, to represent localized rain events over the Lajas 

Valley without the Rio Loco controlling the water levels within the lagoon. The numerical model 

summarized below demonstrated very little changes in the volume of various flooding events (2yr, 

50yr and 100yr) due in part to the small volume of the lagoon compared to the volume associated 

with larger flow events.

• Numerical Model: ICPR/FLOW-2D

• Rainfall Frequency Data: NOAA Atlas 14

• Recent detailed topographic survey of the Lajas Valley completed for this study 

• Models Calibration: Eloisa event from1975 (ICPR) and an isolated event on August 3, 1963 

(FLOW-2D) 

• Based on input from farmers, a model simulation was also run to determine the duration of 

inundation to insure the duration of inundation would not be sufficiently changed over 

existing conditions 

A series of outputs from the model runs are shown in Figs. 5-7 through 5-9. 
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 89

Figure 5-7. Model output for the 2-yr flood event under various lagoon height scenarios 

(Greg Morris Engineering)

Figure 5-8. The majority of flooding increases takes place on forested land, except for a small portion on 

the left side of the figure, which is hay land. In total, increased flooding is projected to impact less than 

25 acres. (Greg Morris Engineering)
90 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure 5-9. The 50-yr flood event projection with no lagoon (current condition in red) vs. the flood 

projections (thin lines – yellow, green, blue) shows almost no additional flooding. (This is due in part 

to the small volume of the lagoon compared to the large volume associated with a 50-year event ~8.6%)

(Greg Morris Engineering)

Restoration of a 950-acre lagoon versus the historic 1200 acres is estimated to minimize impact to 

agricultural land and maximize both ecological and economic benefits. Evaluated lagoon water 

level will not increase regulatory flood levels by more than 0.15 m in compliance with Planning 

Board regulations. Flood extent will not be significantly changed by the increase in flood water 

levels resulted from the Guánica Lagoon restoration.

Groundwater and soil salinity study 

A study was undertaken to better understand the existing impact of salinity and hydrology on the 

agricultural lands in the valley (Fig. 5-10). The study consisted of analyzing the soils and mapping 

electrical conductivity. Soil analysis included measuring the clay content, mineralogy, salts and 

moisture content that can influence the electrical conductivity of the soil. Soil salinity was 

measured using inductive electromagnetic techniques to determine the conductivity of soils. 

Electrical conductivity devices produce an electric field, which in a salty soil produce a second 

electric field. In addition, over 90 samples were analyzed using the extracted paste method for soil 

salinity to provide calibration points for the duel electromagnetic device. The National Soil Salinity 

Expert at the USDA Central National Technology Service Center (CNTSC) in Texas supervised this 

work. 
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 91

 

Figure 5-10. Soil salinity study, Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve (source: Weber 2012)

The soils data for Guánica Clay in Web Soil Survey, the electrical conductivity mapping with the 

Dual EM, and the soils laboratory analysis mutually support the following conclusions. 

1. The Guánica Lagoon existed as a recharge depressional wetland prior to drainage. This 

wetland received surface runoff from the Lajas Valley and ponded water above a deeper 

groundwater table, from which it was hydraulically disconnected. 

2. Minerals, including salt, which are dissolved with surface runoff water, move slowly 

downward through very low permeability soils. Vegetation removes water from this 

unsaturated profile, leaving behind salts. 

3. The presence of salts in the soil profile is associated only with areas where surface 

ponding exists. 

4. Since there is no shallow water table capable of moving salt-laden water into or out of the 

lagoon, there is no potential for groundwater effects to increase salinity levels in land areas 

outside of ponded areas. 

5. The areas subject to increases in salinity from an increase in depth will be limited largely to 

the areas actually subject to increased inundation only. 

6. The restoration of the original hydrology of Guánica lagoon has the potential to provide 

nutrient cycling for surface runoff originating in the Lajas Valley. 
92 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

If the lagoon were supplied with groundwater, the groundwater surface profile would be driven 

upward at the margins of the lagoon because of the planned increase in lagoon depth and duration 

of ponding. If this groundwater carried concentrations of salts, salinity effects would be felt in areas 

subject to this groundwater rise. However, evidence provided by soils, electrical conductivity, and 

soil laboratory analysis mutually support the conclusion that this is not a system supplied by 

groundwater. 

The findings are consistent with a plot of the USDA national soil survey dataset, which 

demonstrates lower levels of salinity concentration in the historic lagoon area and the presence of 

groundwater seeps with high salinity levels at some of the historic wetland fringe areas and 

adjacent to geomorphic features including hillsides which create groundwater artesian pressure 

(Fig. 5-11). High salinity and saline soils are an issue in portions of the Lajas Valley for these 

reasons, and restoration of the lagoon will not impact or worsen those existing conditions. The soil 

salinity values were saturated paste data samples reported as Electrical Conductivity (EC) in the 

USDA/NRCS SSURGO database. The use of this data was coordinated directly with the National Soils 

Laboratory in Lincoln, NE. Higher concentrations of soil salinity are presumably due to areas of 

vertical movement due to artesian pressure from the surrounding hillsides and historical wetlands 

when they fringed the historic sea in the Lajas Valley.

Figure 5-11. The surface salinity layer, Lajas Valley. The areas of highest soil salinity (3.0 - 6.0 mm/cm) in 

magenta, the areas of medium salinity (0.5-3.0 mm/cm) in yellow/tan, and areas of lowest salinity (<0.5 

mm/cm) in blue; in addition 1 meter contour lines based on Lidar data are shown (source: Weber 2012). 

Socioeconomic study of the Guánica Lagoon

A socioeconomic study of Guánica lagoon has been funded by PRDNER and is currently underway. 

It is being led by economist Alfredo Izzarry Mora of the University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez (UPRM) 

and Protectores de Cuencas. The financial costs and benefits of lagoon restoration are being 

evaluated and will be summarized in a report. In addition, public meetings of stakeholders are 

occurring to provide input into the study. 
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 93

Hydro-seeding (source: Sturm et al. 2012)

Ridge to Reefs, Inc. and Protectores de Cuencas held an Exposed Soil Roundtable in the upper 

Guánica Bay Watershed with experts in plants, soils, restoration, agronomy and erosion and 

sediment control from NRCS, FWS, NOAA and NC State University. The roundtable proposed 

several mulch/seed mixtures consisting of local materials that were tailored to high-mountain and 

dry coastal sites in Puerto Rico. 

Ridge to Reefs, Inc., and Protectores de Cuencas purchased a hydro-seeder and established ten 

plots to test various hydro-seeding mixtures in an effort to determine their effectiveness and cost 

effectiveness (Fig. 5-12). The initial plots were tested at a 70-75% slope with unconsolidated soil 

and an 85-90% slope with a mix of consolidated (more rock and compacted soil) and 

unconsolidated (less compacted soil). Together these represent some of the more extreme 

conditions encountered in the high mountain areas, and if effective, stabilization can occur on 

these plots−similar methods should be applicable to less severe slopes.

Based on the test results, the methods were used on a larger and broader scale and to diversify the 

types of sites, which included two farm sites and one commercial site: 1) Finca Santa Rita−a 3-acre 

site composed of a conveyance channel and a sediment basin; 2) Finca La Paz−a farm site 

composed of 2 acres of hydro-seeding steep slopes in the Lajas Valley; and 3) Hardware Store (ACE) 

Ferreteria Solar El Almacigo, where 1 acre of highly erodible bare soil was stabilized very close to a 

direct tributary of the Rio Loco in Yauco. Each of the sites resulted in very high levels of stabilization 

and vegetative cover.

These methods are applicable to other sites across the Caribbean and likely also in tropical areas 

of the Pacific. 

Figure 5-12. Protectores de Cuencas and Ridge to Reefs Inc., hydro-seeding a steep slope along the side of 

a mountain road in the Guánica Bay Watershed (photo provided by Paul Sturm)
94 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Shade-grown coffee initiative

Significant sources of sediment are being addressed by the conversion of sun-grown coffee to 

shade-grown coffee from the upper Guánica Bay Watershed near the ridges, which receive over 

100 inches of rainfall annually. To date, 28 farms have contracts to convert over 1500 acres back to 

shade coffee as part of NRCS and USFWS Partners in Wildlife efforts. A set of standards has been 

adopted including best management practices for managing the shade canopy, erosion reduction, 

and minimizing energy and water use in processing.

Protectores de Cuencas has led a roundtable of coffee farmers, agencies, NGOs and other 

stakeholders to develop a set of criteria for shade-grown coffee farms (Fig. 5-13). Certification 

labeling and logos have been created and adopted by the roundtable group (Fig. 5-13). Next steps 

include certifying farms, training farmers to manage the transition from sun-grown to shade-grown 

coffee, training coffee pickers to maximize the coffee’s value, and assisting farmers in helping to 

develop coffee markets both domestically and internationally for the shade-grown coffee market. 

Figure 5-13. Shade-grown coffee roundtable and proposed certification label (photos provided by 

Paul Sturm)

Shade-grown coffee has the potential to improve the economics, habitat and ecological value of 

the area and increase resilience to drought and temperature fluctuation associated with climate 

change. It also represents a way for the historic coffee-based communities in Puerto Rico to help 

address food and economic security while restoring natural functions of the forest, soils, the health 

of rivers and streams, and ultimately improve nearshore coastal habitat. The effort is in the process 

of becoming national policy in Puerto Rico, which will benefit other watersheds and coral reef 

areas.

Together with hydro-seeding of bare soils by Protectores de Cuencas and Ridge to Reefs, the 

criteria is also being incorporated into the “Bosque Modelo” (Model Forest) criteria for Puerto Rico, 

which is part of a larger international movement of forest protection. These efforts recognize the 

need for systemic, institutional changes to achieve long-term sustainability and resilience of 

forests, adjacent coastal resources, including coral reefs, and local economies.
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 95

Baseline assessment

In 2013, NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), in partnership with NOAA’s 

Restoration Center and the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, released the results of an 

interdisciplinary assessment to help establish baseline conditions in and around Guánica Bay. 

Scientists assessed habitat types, coral cover, fish and chemical contaminant status in sediment and 

coral tissues (Whitall et al. 2013). Results from the assessment include:

• The Guánica study region is more degraded than the La Parguera region to the west. Percentcover of hard corals, gorgonians and seagrass was lower in Guánica than in La Parguera. 

• The pollutants measured in the sediments of Guánica Bay were among the highest 

concentrations of PCBs, chlordane, chromium and nickel ever measured in the history of 

NOAA’s National Status & Trends, a nationwide contaminant-monitoring program that began 

in 1986. 

• Because contaminant threshold values do not exist for coral, it is unclear what effect the 

observed contaminant levels might have on coral health. Future studies should consider fish 

tissue contaminants to assess whether there is an ecological or seafood safety issue related 

to contaminants in the Bay.

 Accumulated sediment composition (i.e., land-based versus marine) is relatively uniform. 

Sediments on the reefs are coming from both land-based sources and re-suspension 

from Guánica Bay.

 Nutrient concentrations track precipitation patterns, with higher phosphorus, ammonium 

and urea concentrations during the rainy season. In offshore waters, phosphorus rarely 

exceeded proposed coral health thresholds, however, nitrogen exceeded thresholds 10% 

of the time.

The preponderance of evidence presented in Whitall et al. 2013 suggests that this system is 

experiencing anthropogenic stress, which may be resulting in coral decline. Further monitoring and 

assessments are needed in order to detect changes in the ecosystem over a variety of time scales 

ranging from relatively short-term responses in sediment loading, to potentially decadal-long 

recovery processes for reef systems.

Coastal managers will be able to use the assessment to measure changes resulting from 

management actions in the Guánica Bay Watershed. 

Grounding response program 

US reefs are impacted by 3-4 large groundings and hundreds of small incidents annually. In the 

aftermath of groundings, impacted corals are often broken, dislodged, or flipped over. These 

fragments are subject to abrasion, scour, and sedimentation, which ultimately result in death. 

Unchecked, these damages can result in reef loss and instability. However, if dislodged fragments 

can be collected and stabilized shortly after physical impact then the probability of survival 

increases substantially (Rinkevich 2005; Edwards and Gomez 2007).

Response to physical impact is a jurisdictional priority in both Puerto Rico and USVI, an identified 

capacity gap in both jurisdictions, and a priority element of the draft Acropora recovery plan 

(NOAA 2014). As the primary federal natural resource trustee for coastal resources, NOAA has 

responsibility for ensuring the restoration of coastal resources injured by releases of hazardous 
96 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

materials and of damage caused by larger ship groundings. The territories are responsible for 

dealing with smaller groundings and damage caused by anchors and fishing gear. However, Puerto 

Rico and the USVI have limited funding and staff to deal with the groundings and requested that 

NOAA provide assistance to help stem the unchecked and unnecessary coral losses that were 

occurring after physical impact. 

In 2009, NOAA established an emergency response support contract with a local firm to respond to 

physical impact and also provide additional restoration, research and monitoring activities in the 

region. Funding for this work was provided from NOAA’s Restoration Center, the Coral Reef 

Conservation Program, Protected Resources Division, Assessment and Restoration Division and 

the South East Regional Office. 

Additionally, NOAA and partner organizations have established coral nurseries in Puerto Rico 

and USVI (Fig. 5-14) to grow coral colonies in a relatively protected environment (ideally free of 

predators, disease, sedimentation, algae, etc.) and provide a source of corals that can subsequently 

be transplanted back out onto the reef or re-fragmented to expand the nursery (NOAA 2013 and 

Griffin 2014). In 2012, Acropora palmata nurseries were set up in Guánica after A. palmata thickets 

in the area were damaged by tropical storms. In 2014, NOAA began transplanting Acropora 

cervicornis from the nursery in Guayanilla to the reefs in Guánica. 

Figure 5-14. Location of coral nursery operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S Virgin Islands during 2013. 

1) La Parguera, 2) Guánica, 3) Guayanilla, 4) Culebra, 5) West Cay, 6) Flat Cay, 7) Coki Point, 8) Lindquist Bay, 

9) Cane Bay, and 10) Teague Bay (Griffin 2014)
Chapter 5. Conclusions | 97

DPSIR coral reef website and decision support 

Based on the information gathered from this workshop (and from the previous workshop in the 

Florida Keys in June of 2009), EPA developed the on-line ReefLink Database 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=242306) utilizing a systems 

approach to integrate ecosystem services into the decision process, including elucidating the 

linkages between decisions, human activities, and provisioning of reef ecosystem goods and 

services. The database employs the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework as a 

systems framework to ensure that critical concepts are not overlooked. This scientific and 

management information database utilizes systems thinking to describe the linkages between 

decisions, human activities, and provisioning of reef ecosystem goods and services. This database 

provides a navigable hierarchy of related topics and information for each topic including concept 

maps, scientific citations, management options, and laws. 

The ReefLink Database can be used by: 1) the public to learn how their community may affect or 

benefit from coral reefs, 2) scientists to identify decision scenarios for which their research may be 

relevant, and 3) reef managers to understand how systems thinking can aid in identifying 

alternative management options. Although specifically designed for coral reefs, the database 

provides an example of using a systems thinking framework to integrate scientific research with 

decision-making, and in concert with the systems thinking tutorial 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=235356), presents approaches 

that are broadly applicable to any environmental management problem. Usage statistics for 

ReefLink average about 200 hits per month. 

EPA also established a project on the EPA’s Web-based Environmental Science Connector (ESC). 

The Coral Reefs Puerto Rico ESC Project is now being used to share information. Documents, 

presentations, and web-links are all available on the Coral Reefs Puerto Rico ESC Project.

EPA took the workshop participants’ ideas and concerns and developed an objectives hierarchy for 

the Guánica Bay Watershed. An objectives hierarchy arranges objectives from broad, overarching 

goals to lower-level, specific accomplishments or actions. Objectives in the uppermost levels of the 

hierarchy reflect broad or inclusive values. Progress towards these objectives is achieved by 

meeting lower-level, subordinate objectives. This is presented in Carriger et al. 2013.

The participants’ response to the proposed decision support framework (DASEES) was very mixed. 

EPA has overhauled DASEES in response to their comments to try to make the system more 

responsive to decision-maker and stakeholders needs. 

5.3 Summary 

Since 2009, when the USCRTF designated the Guánica Bay Watershed as its first priority watershed 

partnership, a multi-agency and stakeholder partnership has worked together to address landbased sources of pollution. Watershed restoration is challenging and requires a commitment of 

resources and a willingness to work collaboratively. Watershed restorations are characterized by:

• Complexity and uncertainty

• Difficult judgments 

• High stakes 

• Limited resources 

• Growing expectations 
98 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

The 2010 Guánica Bay Decision-Making Workshop brought together representatives from federal 

and territorial government agencies, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions, 

and Guánica Bay Watershed citizens to develop a decision-analysis framework built upon the 

Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan (CWP 2008). The workshop provided a forum for 

participants to 1) review characteristics of, and threats to the Guánica Bay watershed, coral reefs 

and coastal ecosystems, and 2) discuss ongoing and future restoration activities in the watershed. 

The structured decision-making (SDM) approach demonstrated throughout the workshop helps 

watershed managers to define the problem(s) under consideration, develop a set of management 

options, determine who should be involved, create a shared understanding of how people with 

different interests and perspectives view different options, and compare the trade-offs created by 

each option. This process can be used in other watersheds to achieve similar objectives.

The Guánica Bay Watershed project has shown that the watershed approach, which includes 

stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound science and appropriate 

technology, can be used to protect coral reefs from land-based sources of pollution. Based upon 

the success of the Guánica Bay Watershed project, the USCRTF has designated two additional 

priority watersheds−Faga’alu, American Samoa in 2010, and West Maui, Hawai’i in 2011.
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 99

Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview

Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States of America. Puerto Rico is part of 

the Antillean archipelago located between the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean and consists 

of the main island of Puerto Rico and a variety of keys and islands, such as the municipalities of 

Culebra and Vieques to the east, and the uninhabited islands of Mona, Monito and Desecheo to the 

west. The main and largest island is about one hundred eleven miles (160 km) long, thirty-six miles 

(60 km) wide, and approximately three thousand five hundred square miles (9,000 km2) of land 

area (Fig. A-1). The population of Puerto Rico is estimated at 3.7 million people. The capital and 

largest city, San Juan, is home to over 400,000 people.

Figure A-1. Map of Puerto Rico showing municipality boundaries and forested areas

History

The earliest known settlers were the Ortoiroid people from the Orinoco region in South America 

who arrived 4000-5000 years ago. Between the 7th and 11th centuries, the Taíno culture 

developed on the island. By 1000 AD the Taíno culture was dominant (Rouse 1992). The Taíno 

called the island Borikén, “the land of the brave lord.”

Christopher Columbus landed in Borikén during his second voyage to the New World on November 

19, 1493, and renamed the island San Juan Bautista in honor of Saint John the Baptist. In 1508, Juan 

Ponce de León founded the first European settlement, Caparra, not far from the modern city of San 

Juan. The Taíno Chief Agüeybaná welcomed Ponce de León. However, within a year, the Spanish 

had subjugated a majority of the Taínos and gained control over most of the island. Ponce de León 

was named Governor in 1509. He abandoned Caparra and relocated the settlement to a nearby 

coastal islet, named Puerto Rico (Rich Port). In the 1520s, the Spanish renamed the island Puerto 

Rico, and the port (Puerto Rico) became San Juan. After a Taíno uprising in 1511, a second 

settlement, San Germán, was founded on the southwestern part of the island.
100 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

As early as 1511, Dominican Friars preached against slavery and the inhumane treatment of the 

Taíno in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. They were eventually successful in influencing the Spanish 

crown, however the high death rate among the Taíno due to enslavement and European diseases 

(smallpox, influenza, measles, and typhus) persisted. King Ferdinand II issued a royal decree that 

emancipated the Taínos in 1520. However, the harsh working conditions and epidemics of 

infectious disease had taken their toll on the Taínos–the 1530 census reported the existence 

of only 1148 Taíno remaining in Puerto Rico (Schimmer 2010).

The Spanish brought African slaves to Puerto Rico in 1513. By 1540 the gold reserves on the island 

were nearly exhausted. The farms originally established to supply cattle, grain, fruits, and 

vegetables to the mining camps continued to use slave labor to sustain cash cultivation of cassava, 

corn, tobacco, plantains, rice, ginger, cocoa, cereals, vegetables, tropical fruits, and medicinal 

plants (Schimmer 2010). Sugar was introduced in the early 1500s and coffee in 1736. 

In 1873 slavery was abolished. In that same year, the first “Centrales” or factories with equipment 

operated by steam were established, greatly increasing the potential of sugarcane production, and 

by 1898, sugar was the most important cash crop. 

Spain possessed Puerto Rico for over 400 years, despite invasion attempts by the French, Dutch, 

and British. In 1898, Spain was defeated in the Spanish-American War and ceded Puerto Rico to the 

United States under the terms of the Treaty of Paris. Since then Puerto Rico has remained under 

United States rule.

Puerto Ricans were granted U.S. citizenship in 1917 and having become a Commonwealth in 1947, 

have elected their own governor since 1948. In 1952 the Constitution of Puerto Rico was adopted 

with a democratically elected bicameral legislature. In November 2012, sixty-one percent of 

respondents voted in a non-binding referendum for statehood as the preferred alternative to the 

current territorial status. 

Puerto Rico is divided into 78 municipalities, which are comparable to counties in the continental 

United States. Seven of these municipalities are at least partly in basins that contribute water to 

Guánica Bay (Fig. A-2). An eighth, St. Germán, overlaps only marginally with the Lajas basin, but 

water from the Lajas irrigation canal is filtered to supply public drinking water used in the city 

of San German.
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 101

Figure A-2. Map of municipality boundaries (see legend) and watershed basins (red outline) in the 

Guánica Bay Watershed

Governance

A complex and multi-layered system of laws, organizations, and strategies exists to manage and 

govern uses of natural resources. Resource management authority is fragmented among a variety 

of federal, state, and local agencies, often resulting in redundant efforts, inefficiency, and lack of 

coordination among agencies. The current management framework has evolved through the 

collection of single-issue management laws and authorities, without regard for the 

interconnectedness of human activities and biological and physical systems. 

U.S. environmental laws and regulations are applicable in Puerto Rico (i.e., Clean Air Act [CAA], 

Clean Water Act [CWA], Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA], Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments of 1990 [CZARA], Coral Reef Conservation Act [CRCA], Endangered Species Act [ESA], 

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [FWCA], Lacey Act, MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 [MSA], and National 

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]).

The U.S. Code also includes a section (48 USC Chapter 4) specially addressing the relationship with 

Puerto Rico and the authorities of Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory and commonwealth. 

Federal organizations with natural resource missions and regulatory authority that operate in 

Puerto Rico include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS).

At the Commonwealth level, the executive branch of Puerto Rico’s government operates through 

two distinct administrative structures that operate independently: the agencies and departments, 

which constitute the “central government” of the Commonwealth, and the state-owned “public 
102 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

corporations”. The public corporations are usually located outside government departments; a 

group (as opposed to the governor alone) appoints their boards of directors; and the boards of 

directors appoint their managers. Currently there are 51 public corporations in operation which 

generate annual revenues of $8.9 billion, equivalent to approximately 13 percent of Puerto Rico’s 

GNP (Table A-1).

Table A-1. Puerto Rico public corporations 

Name in English

English 

Abbreviation Name in Spanish

Spanish 

Abbreviation Industry

Automobile Accident 

Compensation 

Administration

PRAACA Administración de 

Compensación por 

Accidentes de Automóviles

ACAA Insurance

Agricultural Insurance 

Corporation

PRAIC Corporación de 

Agrícolas

Seguros CSA Agriculture

Aqueducts and Sewers

Authority

PRASA Autoridad de Acueductos y 

Alcantarillados

AAA Public utility

Authority for the Financing 

of Industrial, Touristic,

Educative, Medical and 

Environmental Control 

Facilities

AFITEMECF Autoridad para el 

Financiamiento de 

Facilidades Industriales, 

Turísticas, Educativas, 

Médicas y de Control 

Ambiental

AFICA Banking

Authority for the Financing 

of Housing

PRAFH Autoridad para el 

Financiamiento de la 

Vivienda

AFV Banking

Authority for the Financing 

of the Infrastructure of 

Puerto Rico

AFI Autoridad para el 

Financiamiento de la 

Infraestructura de Puerto 

Rico

AFI Banking

Caño Martín Peña ENLACE 

Corporation

ENLACE Corporación del Proyecto 

ENLACE del Caño Martín 

Peña

ENLACE Real estate

Cardiovascular Center of 

Puerto Rico and the 

Caribbean Corporation

CCPRCC Corporación del Centro 

Cardiovascular de Puerto 

Rico y el Caribe

CCCPRC Healthcare

Commission on 

Safety

Traffic PRCTS Comisión para la Seguridad 

en el Tránsito

CST Insurance

Comprehensive 

Center

Cancer PRCCC Centro Comprensivo de 

Cáncer

CCCPR Healthcare

Conservatory of Music 

Corporation

PRCMC Corporación del 

Conservatorio de Música

CCM Education

Convention Center District 

Authority

PRCCDA Autoridad del Distrito del 

Centro de Convenciones

ADCCPR Travel and 

leisure
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 103

Table A-1 (continued)

Name in English

English 

Abbreviation Name in Spanish

Spanish 

Abbreviation Industry

Corporation for the 

Development of Arts, 

Sciences and 

Cinematographic Industry

PRCDASC Corporación para el 

Desarrollo de las Artes, 

Ciencias e Industria 

Cinematográfica

CDACIC Entertainment

Corporation of Industries 

for the Blind, Mentally 

Retarded People, and 

Other Handicapped People

PRCIBMRPOHP Corporación de Industrias de 

Ciegos, Personas 

Mentalmente Retardadas y 

Otras Personas Incapacitadas

CIRIO Industrial 

development

Credit Unions Supervision 

and Insurance Corporation

PRCUSIC Corporación para la 

Supervisión y Seguros de 

Cooperativas de Puerto Rico

COSSEC Insurance

Economic Development 

Bank

EDB Banco de Desarrollo 

Económico

BDE Banking

Electric Power Authority PREPA Autoridad de Energía 

Eléctrica

AEE Public utility

Government Development 

Bank

GDB Banco Gubernamental de 

Fomento

BGF Banking

Health Insurance 

Administration

PRHIA Administración de Seguros 

de Salud

ASES Healthcare

Highways and 

Transportation Authority

PRHTA Autoridad de Carreteras y 

Transportación

ACT Transportation

Industrial Development 

Company

PRIDCO Compañía de Fomento 

Industrial

FOMENTO Industrial 

development

Integral Development for 

the Cantera Peninsula 

Company

PRIDCPC Compañía para el Desarrollo 

Integral de la Península de 

Cantera

CDIPC Industrial 

development

Institute of Puerto Rican 

Culture

IPRC Instituto de Cultura 

Puertorriqueña

ICP Entertainment

Lands Administration PRLA Administración de Terrenos AT Real estate

Lands Authority PRLA Autoridad de Tierras ATPR Agriculture

Maritime Transport 

Authority

PRMTA Autoridad de Transporte 

Marítimo

ATM Transportation

Medical Services 

Administration

PRMSA Administración de Servicios 

Médicos de Puerto Rico

ASEM Healthcare

Metropolitan Bus Authority MBA Autoridad Metropolitana de 

Autobuses

AMA Transportation

Municipal Financing Agency MFA Agencia de Financiamiento 

Municipal

AFM Banking
104 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Table A-1 (continued)

Name in English

English 

Abbreviation Name in Spanish

Spanish 

Abbreviation Industry

Musical Arts Corporation PRMAC Corporación para las Artes 

Musicales

CAM Entertainment

National Guard 

Institutional Trust

PRNGIT Fideicomiso Institucional 

de la Guardia Nacional de 

Puerto Rico

FIGNA Banking

National Parks Company PRNPC Compañía de Parques 

Nacionales

CPNPR Real estate

Performing Arts Center 

Corporation

PRPACC Corporación del Centro de 

Bellas Artes

CBA Entertainment

Ponce Port Authority1 PPA Autoridad del Puerto de 

Ponce

APP Transportation

Ports Authority PRPA Autoridad de los Puertos APPR Transportation

Public Broadcasting 

Corporation

PRPBC Corporación para la 

Difusión Pública

WIPR Entertainment

Public Buildings Authority PBA Autoridad de Edificios 

Públicos

AEP Real estate

Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation

COFINA Corporación del Fondo de 

Interés Apremiante

COFINA Banking

School of Plastic Arts SPAPR Escuela de Artes Plásticas EAP Education

Solid Waste Authority SWA Autoridad de Desperdicios 

Sólidos

ADS Public utility

State Insurance Fund 

Corporation

PRSIFC Corporación del Fondo del 

Seguro del Estado

CFSE Insurance

Symphony Orchestra 

Corporation

PRSOC Corporación de la Orquesta 

Sinfónica

COSPR Entertainment

Trade and Export Company PRTEC Compañía de Comercio y 

Exportación

CCE Industrial

development

Tourism Company Tourism Compañía de Turismo Turismo Travel and 

leisure

Training and Work 

Enterprises Corporation

PRTWEC Corporación de Empresas 

de Adiestramiento y 

Trabajo

CEAT Education

University of Puerto Rico UPR Universidad de Puerto Rico UPR Education

Environmental protection in Puerto Rico is founded on the Public Policy Environmental Act (Law 

No. 9 of 18 Jun 1970, as amended). The Puerto Rico’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) sets out 

regulations and guidelines for the environmental protection of the island, reports to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and must comply with federal requirements.

 

1 Owned by the PR Executive Branch, but legally transferred to the municipality of Ponce.
Appendix A. Puerto Rico Overview | 105

Land-use planning, overseen by the Puerto Rico Planning Board, is an especially difficult problem, 

since residential, industrial, and recreational developers are all competing for about 30% of the 

total land area on an island that is already more densely populated than any state of the U.S., 

except New Jersey. 

Puerto Rico has codified their laws, and these are available 

at: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lawsofpuertorico/. The Code is divided into 34 titles 

(listed below), which deal with broad, logically organized areas of legislation. Titles most applicable 

to natural resource management and protection have been shown in bold.

Title 1. The Commonwealth

Title 2. Legislature

Title 3. Executive

Title 4. Judiciary

Title 5. Agriculture

Title 6. Nonprofit Associations

Title 7. Banking

Title 8. Public Welfare & Charitable Institutions

Title 9. Highways and Traffic

Title 10. Commerce

Title 11. Workmen's Compensation

Title 12. Conservation

Title 13. Taxation and Finance

Title 14. Private Corporations

Title 15. Sports and Parks

Title 16. Election & Registration

Title 17. Housing

Title 18. Education

Title 19. Negotiable Instruments

Title 20. Examining Boards & Professional Colleges

Title 21. Municipalities

Title 22. Public Works

Title 23. Public Planning & Development

Title 24. Health & Sanitation

Title 25. Internal Security

Title 26. Insurance

Title 27. Public Service

Title 28. Public Lands

Title 29. Labor

Title 30. Mortgage Law & Regulations

Title 31. Civil Code

Title 32. Code of Civil Procedure

Title 33: Penal Code

Title 34: Code of Criminal Procedure

Appendix B. Guánica Bay Watershed | 107

Appendix B. Guánica Bay Watershed

Both Columbus and Ponce de Léon landed in Guánica, and Ponce de Léon founded a town called 

Guaynía on August 12, 1508. The word was derived from the Taíno indigenous culture that is 

believed to have meant, "Here is a place with water". Guaynía was destroyed during the indigenous 

uprising of 1511, and throughout the 16th century, was the object of constant threats and attacks 

from the indigenous Taínos, as well as from pirates and corsairs. The Spanish abandoned the area 

for some years, during which time San Juan became the capital of the island (Wikipedia 2014). 

On July 25, 1898, American forces landed in Guánica during the Spanish-American War. American 

troops fought a series of battles with the Spanish and Puerto Rican troops, but the war was 

militarily inconclusive. Instead, it ended when Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the United States in 

accordance with the Treaty of Paris of 1898. A monument on the waterfront (Fig. B-1), a large coral 

boulder marked by the carved words, "3rd Battalion, 1st U.S.V. Engineers, September 16, 1898" 

commemorates the invasion. Today, July 25 is a Puerto Rican holiday, commemorating the day of 

the establishment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1952. On March 12, 1914, the Legislative 

Assembly of Puerto Rico designated Guánica an independent municipality.

Figure B-1. The monument on the waterfront in Guánica, commemorating the U.S. invasion in 

September 1898 (photo provided by Debbie Santavy)
108 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

The Historic Guánica Lagoon

The Guánica Lagoon was a natural freshwater wetland and lagoon system that served as a sink for

nutrients sediment and other contaminants (Warne et. al., 2005). The lagoon consisted of Laguna 

Guánica (a shallow coastal lagoon, Fig. B-2) and Ciénaga El Anegado (a freshwater herbaceous 

marsh dominated by Southern cattail [Typha dominguensis]). Ciénaga El Anegado was located 

about 2.7 km west of the western shoreline of Laguna Guánica (Ortiz-Zayas and Terrasa-Soler 

2001). The Guánica Lagoon was drained in 1955 as part of an agricultural development project in 

the Lajas Valley. There is a proposed plan to restore Guánica Lagoon to reclaim its value as a 

wildlife refuge and ecological resource (CWP 2010; GME 1999a & 1999b).

Figure B-2. Former Guánica Lagoon area and the adjacent community of Fuig (photo provided 

by Tom Moore)

Guánica State Forest

Bordering Guánica Bay to the east and west is the Guánica State Forest (Fig. B-3), which is a 

subtropical dry forest. Subtropical dry forests occur in regions where there are several months of 

severe drought, with most rain falling during a (usually) brief wet season. The absence of 

precipitation during a prolonged portion of the year is what produces the dry forest, an ecosystem 

type characterized by plants and animals possessing specific adaptations to survive the dry season.

Guánica Dry Forest is one of fifteen (15) state forests maintained by the Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources (DNER). It is the largest tract of tropical dry coastal forest still intact in the 

world (almost 9,500 acres) and is considered the best example of dry forest in the Caribbean (Ewel 

and Whitmore 1973). Due to its ecological importance, it has been designated as a United Nations 

International Biosphere Reserve in 1981 (Miller and Lugo 2009). 
Appendix B. Guánica Bay Watershed | 109

The forest offers 36 miles (58km) of trails through four forest types (deciduous trees, a coastal 

region with tree-size milkweed and nine-foot-tall prickly pear cactus, a mahogany forest, and 

twisted gumbo limbo trees). More than 700 plant species occur within the forest, 48 of which are 

endangered and 16 which are endemic to the forest.

Figure B-3. Photos of the Guánica State Forest

Guánica State Forest is home to about half of Puerto Rico‘s terrestrial bird species, including the 

Puerto Rican nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus) and the Puerto Rican emerald-breasted 

hummingbird (Chlorostilbon maugeaus), making it a bird-watcher‘s paradise (Fig. B-4).

Figure B-4. The Puerto Rican nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus) and the Puerto Rican emerald-breasted 

hummingbird (Chlorostilbon maugeaus) are both found in the Guánica State Forest (photos taken by 

Mike Morel and Jose Angel Torres)

The Punta Ballenas Reserve (Fig. B-5) is along the coast of the Guánica Forest and is managed as 

part of the forest. It contains a mangrove forest, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and coral 

reefs (Miller and Lugo, 2009), which provide habitat for many aquatic species including manatees 

and crested toads, and nesting sites for Hawksbill turtles. 
110 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Just a mile off the coast is a tiny, uninhabited island, Cayo Aurora, commonly known as Gilligan’s 

Island (Fig. B-5), also managed as part of the Guánica State Forest. 

Figure B-5. The Punta Ballenas Reserve (left photo) and Cayo Aurora (Gilligan’s Island) (right photo)

Ensenada, La Pieza and Fuig

Ensenada is a borough (or unincorporated community) located in the municipality of Guánica. In 

the 2010 census it had a population of 1705 inhabitants and a population density of 628.75 persons 

per km2. 

La Pieza is located on the west side of Guánica Bay at relatively low elevation. All of the homes in 

La Pieza (approximately 30) have septic systems. In Puerto Rico a septic system is a concrete box 

with holes. Water quality measurements taken around La Pieza have high levels of bacteria and 

ammonia, suggesting that many of the septic systems may be failing (Paul Sturm, personal 

communication). 

Fuig is a town located in the municipality of Guánica on the south side of the historic Guánica 

Lagoon where the existing Lajas drainage channel enters the Rio Loco. 

Yauco

The largest city within the Guánica Bay Watershed is Yauco (Fig. B-6), named after the Yauco River. 

Other rivers in the municipality are the Río Chiquito, Río Loco and Río Naranjo. On July 26, 1898, 

Spanish forces and Puerto Rican volunteers fought against the U.S. invasion forces in what became 

known as the Battle of Yauco of the Puerto Rico Campaign. The municipality has 20 wards and the 

main city, or Yauco Urban Zone. The population of Yauco was 42,043 persons in 2010. Yauco's main 

crops are coffee, plantains, oranges and tobacco. Yauco is known as "El Pueblo del Café" 

(coffee city).

Prior to the arrival of Spanish conquistadors, Yauco was the capital of Puerto Rico and was 

governed by Agüeybaná, who ruled over all other island chiefs. Agüeybaná received the Spanish 

conquistador Juan Ponce de Leon upon his arrival to Puerto Rico in 1508. Upon Agüeybaná's death 

in 1510, his nephew, Agüeybaná II, succeeded him. Agüeybaná II mounted an unsuccessful 

insurrection against the Spanish in 1511. 
Appendix B. Guánica Bay Watershed | 111

Yauco was the location of the first major land battle between Spanish/Puerto Rican and U.S. armed 

forces in Puerto Rico during the Spanish-American War. 

In 1755, the Spanish settlers of the region built a small chapel and requested that the Spanish 

government allow the establishment of a municipality. In 1756, the King of Spain granted the 

settlers their request, and the town of Yauco was established. 

In the 19th century, Spain issued the Royal Decree of Graces, by which non-Hispanic Catholics were 

encouraged to move to Puerto Rico for work. This brought an influx of Corsican families who 

selected coffee as their main crop, and by the 1860s the Corsican settlers were the leaders of the 

coffee industry in Puerto Rico. This industry was centered in Yauco.

The second and last major revolt against Spanish colonial rule in Puerto Rico, by Puerto Rico's proindependence movement, known as the "Attempted Coup of Yauco", was staged in Yauco on 

March 26, 1897. It was during this uprising that the current flag of Puerto Rico was unfurled on 

Puerto Rican soil for the first time. The local Spanish authorities acted swiftly and put an end to the 

uprising.

Figure B-6. Colorful houses in Yauco and the Yauco town square

Susúa State Forest 

The Susúa State Forest is located between Yauco and Sabana Grande in the foothills of the Central 

Range (La Cordillera). Elevations range from 262-1551 feet above the sea level. Mean annual 

precipitation is 56 inches, and mean annual temperature is 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Most rainfall 

falls as brief showers. Rainfall is generally heaviest in August, September and October and is 

lightest during February and March. Within the Susúa State Forest boundaries are born four rivers 

or their tributaries: Coco Rio, Rio Cañas, Rio Loco and Quebrada Grande.

The Susúa State Forest is influenced by a climatic transition zone (dry to moist) and a combination 

of volcanic and serpentine soils. Two vegetation associations (dry slope forest and gallery forest) 

have been delineated in the sub-tropical moist life zone. Forest native vegetation is represented by 

157 tree species of which 18 species are rare or endangered. The trees are slender, open crowned, 

and usually less than 39 feet tall. The forest soil supports little herbaceous growth, leaving an open 

forest floor. The Rio Loco runs through the Susúa State Forest (Fig. B-7). Common species found in 

the Susúa forest include: Gumbo Limbo (Bursera simaruba) and Limpleaf spikemoss (Selaginella 

laxifolia). The forest does not support significant agriculture or forestry.
112 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure B-7. The Rio Loco runs through the Susúa State Forest

Forty-four bird species have been found in the Susúa State Forest, including the Puerto Rican 

nightjar (Caprimulgus noctitherus). The forest also supports at least seven species of amphibians 

and seven species of reptiles, including the Blue-Tailed Ground Lizard (Ameiva wetmorei) (Fig. B-8).

Figure B-8. The Gumbo Limbo (Bursera simaruba) and the Blue-Tailed Ground Lizard (Ameiva wetmorei) 

are found in Susúa State Forest
Appendix B. Guánica Bay Watershed | 113

Lajas

The Lajas Municipality borders the Caribbean Sea, south of San Germán and Sabana Grande; east of 

Cabo Rojo; and west of Guánica. Lajas is spread over 11 wards plus Lajas Pueblo (the downtown 

area and the administrative center of the city). Lajas was officially established in 1883. In 2010 it 

had a population of 25,753. 

The Lajas Valley is located in four municipalities: Lajas, Cabo Rojo, Guánica, and Sabana Grande. 

It is a large plain, ranging from 1.6 to 4.8 km in width, formed by a ridge of hills to the north (max 

altitude 300 m) and a secondary ridge of hills to the south separating it from the Caribbean Sea 

(max altitude 285 m) (Sotomayor-Ramírez & Pérez-Alegría, 2011). Lajas Valley lacks rivers, but has 

areas of very fertile soils. The Lajas Valley Irrigation Project, established in the 1950s, consists of 

a main canal that starts at a dam regulating the Rio Loco until the entrance to the Valle de Lajas, 

along the northern border of the valley, next to the base of the hills in Boquerón. The land south of 

the main canal is served from several lateral branches.

La Parguera, Lajas

South of semi-arid farmland in the Lajas Valley, the fishing village of La Parguera has developed into 

a popular resort center while maintaining much of its small town atmosphere. Guesthouses and 

inns, seafood restaurants, water sports and boating centers and small shops fan out from the small 

plaza (Fig. B-9). Although not part of the Guánica Bay Watershed, the coastal waters off La 

Parguera are impacted by activities within the Guánica Bay Watershed.

Figure B-9. The plaza in La Parguera (left) and stilt homes (casetas) on the bay

La Parguera Nature Reserve includes all the coastline of the municipality of Lajas extending 1 km 

towards land from the shore and 9 nautical miles offshore. The Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources administers La Parguera Nature Reserve. The mangrove forests and 

estuaries within the reserve make it an ideal location for kayaking through its canals or simply 

observing local wildlife in its natural habitat. There are about 30 cays and islets, accessible only 

by boat (Fig. B-10).
114 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Figure B-10. Offshore cays and islets (left) and mangroves (right)

In the evening, boats regularly leave La Parguera for the nearby Phosphorescent Bay ("Bahía 

Fosforescente"), where millions of microscopic organisms known as dinoflagellates sparkle when 

disturbed. This phenomenon occurs only in the tropics, typically in mangrove-protected bays. La 

Parguera, is one of three areas in Puerto Rico that has this remarkable year-round nighttime 

attraction. The others are in Vieques and Fajardo. 

Paralleling the coast from the seaside village of La Parguera to the city of Ponce, the continental 

shelf drops off precipitously, producing a dramatic wall 20 miles long where visibility can exceed 

100 feet. The wall descends in slopes and sheer drops from 60 to 120 feet before disappearing into 

1,500 feet of sea. Scored with valleys and deep trenches, it is cloaked in deep-water gorgonians and 

other coral formations (Fig. B-11) (Morelock et al. 1977). 

Figure B-11. The wall off La Parguera is a world-class dive destination
Appendix C. Socioeconomics of the Guánica Bay Watershed | 115

Appendix C. Socioeconomics of the 

Guánica Bay Watershed

The population of the Guánica Bay Watershed in 2010 was 19,427, decreasing from 21,888 in 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Communities in the Guánica Bay watershed are relatively rural, with 

low population densities compared to the rest of Puerto Rico (Table C-1). There are, however, 

some population centers: Yauco is the 17th largest city in Puerto Rico with a population of 20,295, 

San German 12,055 (#25), Guánica 9,224 (#36), and Sabana Grande 8,961 (#38).

Table C-1. Demographic information for GB/Rio Loco municipalities and Puerto Rico

Municipality Pop. 1990 Pop. 2000 Pop. 2010 Area (Km2) Density 2010

Adjuntas 19,451 19,143 19,483 172 113.3

Guánica 19,984 21,888 19,427 138.35 (96) 140.4

Lajas 23,271 26,261 25,753 199.04 (158) 129.4

Lares 33,016 34,415 30,753 161.18 190.8

Maricao 6,206 6,449 6,276 96.0 65.4

Sabana Grande 22,843 25,935 25,265 96 263.2

San Germán 34,962 37,105 35,527 141.18 251.6

Yauco 42,058 46,384 42,043 178.1 (176.5) 236.1

Puerto Rico 3,522,037 3,808,610 3,725,789 9,104 409.2

Economic Status

Unemployment in Puerto Rico is around 14% but ranges as high as 20% in Guánica and Yauco 

municipalities. Median income for Puerto Rico is around $22,000, but is much lower ($11,000-

15,000) in the Guánica Bay Watershed. Those living below poverty level are higher (~60%) in the 

region than for Puerto Rico as a whole (45%). By comparison Mississippi (the poorest state) had 

median household income of $38,014 in 2010, and the U.S. median income for 2010 was $51,625. 

Economy

Gold was the first economy of Puerto Rico and the gold was sent to Spain. Puerto Rico's gold mines 

were declared depleted in 1570. 

Initially, Spanish colonists had small subsistence farms. Export markets developed over time with 

export of three main crops to Europe: tobacco, sugar and coffee. Tobacco dominated early Puerto 

Rican exports, making up more than half of the export tonnage until the late 1600s. Sugar was first 

introduced in the early 1500s, and many small landowners relied on its export as a source of 

income. Coffee plants came to Puerto Rico with immigrants in 1736, but it was grown mostly for 

personal and domestic use. This changed in the mid 1800s, when French immigrants from the 

Mediterranean island of Corsica settled around Yauco and became well known as premium 

exporters to Europe.

The role of the three cash crops changed drastically in 1898 when Puerto Rico was ceded to the 

U.S. as a result of the Spanish-American War. This opened up U.S. markets for tariff-free trade and 

made trade with Europe more difficult due to embargoes. In the same year, two devastating 
116 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

hurricanes hit Puerto Rico, which largely destroyed the coffee industry. Sugar became the biggest 

crop.

Huge sugar mills such as the Central Guánica, located in the town of Ensenada, were established 

(Fig. C-1). It was one of the largest sugar mills in the Caribbean, and prior to World War II, it was 

one of the largest mills in the world. It ceased operations in 1982.

Figure C-1. View of the Central Guánica circa 1910

During the first decades of the 20th century, the sugar industry continued to develop, and by 1930, 

there were 44 mills in operation. In the 1940s, however, the mills began to weaken, due to the 

falling price of sugar, mismanagement by some administrators, the restriction of credit to 

independent farmers, and strikes by workers. 

The first sugar factory closed in 1942, but this didn’t mark the decline of the industry, as the record 

harvest came in 1952. However, it did mark declining support from the government, which had 

now shifted its focus to industrializing Puerto Rico’s economy. Between 1951 and 1968, 17 mills 

ceased operations, and in 2000 the last mills closed.

In 1948 the United States government began Operation Bootstrap, which enticed U.S. companies 

to Puerto Rico by providing labor at costs below those on the mainland, access to U.S. markets 

without import duties, and profits that could enter the country free from federal taxation. As a 

result, Puerto Rico's economy shifted from agriculture to manufacturing and tourism. 

Since that time, the manufacturing sector has shifted from labor-intensive industries (e.g., 

manufacturing of food, tobacco, leather, and apparel products) to more capital-intensive industries 

(e.g., pharmaceuticals, chemicals, machinery, and electronics). 

However, being an island nation prone to severe floods and droughts, food security is also 

important. Consequently, Lajas Valley was established as an Agricultural Reserve in 1999, by 

enabling legislation, Law 277. However, 90% of the food currently consumed in Puerto Rico is 

imported.

Agricultural production in Lajas Valley is important economically as well. On the lands of the Puerto 

Rico Land Authority (2818 acres), farm income totaled $4,300,158 annually (2009-2010). Crops 

include: coffee, citrus, plantains, bananas, tomatoes, peppers, papaya, pumpkins, cantaloupes, and 

other vegetables. Area farmers also produce beef, pork, sheep, goats, and eggs. 
Appendix C. Socioeconomics of the Guánica Bay Watershed | 117

Tourism is an important component of Puerto Rican economy supplying an approximate $1.8 

billion annually. Between 2000 and 2005, an average of 3,407,483 overnight visitors per year 

visited Puerto Rico. Three quarters of the visitors were from the Americas. Coral reefs provide 

substantial benefits to communities throughout Puerto Rico. Coral reef habitats are attractive to 

tourists and provide essential habitat to a wide range of recreational and commercially important 

species of fish and invertebrates. The permanent reef structures protect coastlines from ocean 

storms and floods and have served as a source for many pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. 

Appendix D. Workshop Agenda | 119

Appendix D. 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 ecologicallydamaging 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 Guánica 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) García Sais, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez

9:45 Presentation #2: Threats to Southwest Puerto Rico’s Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems 

from the Agricultural/Urbanizing Watershed and the Guánica Watershed Management Plan 

Presenter: Mr. Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection

10:15 BREAK

10:45 Presentation #3: USDA’s Detailed Plans for the Guánica Watershed 

Presenter: Mr. José 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. 
120 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop 

11:30 LUNCH 

1:00 Example DPSIR and Charge to Break-Out Groups

Purpose: Walk through an example DPSIR, demonstrating how it might be used to display 

knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems and linkages between humanecosystem interactions. For the demonstration and break-out groups, we will focus on 

coral reef ecosystems.

Desired Outcomes: Understanding of the DPSIR framework and how it might be used 

to display knowledge about coral reef and coastal ecosystems and linkages between 

human-reef interactions.

1:30 Break-Out Groups

Decisions that influence human-reef interactions. We will break into 3 focus groups to look 

at topics that are addressed in the Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan−agricultural 

practices, lagoon restoration, and low impact development. 

These groups will be charged with:

1) Brainstorming what fits in all sections of the DPSIR framework related to their topic, 

including linkages. Generate a DPSIR graphic for 2−3 issues of importance and identify 

the linkages. (Target 60 min.) 

2) Identify decision points in the framework. (Target 10 min) 

3) Briefly characterize the decision that might be made at these decision points. 

(Target 10 min)

4) Prioritize the decisions/decision points based on their importance for overall health 

and maintenance of the coral reef and coastal ecosystems. (Target 10 min.)

Purpose: To characterize, using the DPSIR framework, information related to a 

management response (agricultural practices, lagoon restoration, low impact development) 

and the effects on persistence of reefs and the delivery of ecosystem services. Identify the 

current state-of-knowledge on human-environmental relationships affecting coral reef and 

coastal ecosystems management in Southwest Puerto Rico. Summarize this knowledge in 

a framework that links the various components of the human-environmental system in 

Southwest Puerto Rico.

Desired Outcomes: For EPA–to fill in the DPSIR with the participants understanding of the 

aspect of the system on which they are focused, and to understand where they see decision 

points. For the participants–to learn how the DPSIR framework can be a convenient way 

to organize information.

3:00 BREAK

3:30 Decisions that Influence Human-Reef Interactions: Reports from Break-out Groups 

Purpose: Relate findings of breakout groups to all participants for corroboration and 

to explore missing linkages, concepts, decision alternatives, and decision characteristics.

Desired Outcomes: Shared understanding of the linkages, decision alternatives, and 

decision characteristics. 
Appendix D. Workshop Agenda | 121

5:00 Wrap-up with Overview of Day 2. Each participant will be given their original VOI exercise 

back in light print so that they can see their original responses. They will revise that exercise 

to show if they have had any changes based on Day 1 of the workshop. 

Purpose: Orient the participants to how what they did today will dovetail into Day 2. 

Identify values, preferences, and objectives for coastal ecosystems outcomes.

Desired Outcomes: Warm fuzzies that Day 1 was beneficial, anticipation of Day 2, and 

revised ücompleted by morning to assist in the Day 2 sessions.

CCRI Reception hosted by the Department of Marine Science, University of Puerto Rico, 

Mayagüez

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 decisionmaking 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
122 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop 

10:45 Develop Options–Small Group Discussion

Purpose: Identify alternative management strategies to address threats to coastal 

ecosystems. 

Desired Outcomes: A list of management or policy options for each break-out group.

11:15 Certainty/Uncertainty and Value of Information (VOI) for Conflict Resolution

Presenter: Dr. Amanda Rehr, Carnegie Mellon University/U.S. EPA Special Government 

Employee

Purpose: Explain how uncertainty plays a role in decision-making. Identify the value of 

further information (e.g., monitoring, surveys, and scientific studies) for clarifying 

environmental conditions and the likely effects of management options on these 

conditions.

Desired Outcomes: Understanding of how what we don’t know can be as important as what 

we do know.

12:00 LUNCH 

1:30 Applying the Objectives as Criteria for Decision Making–Small Group Discussion

Purpose: Use all of the previously gathered info (the DPSIR framework, the management or 

policy options, the objectives, and DASEES) to evaluate options and recommend 

appropriate actions.

Desired Outcomes: A set of recommended actions (recognizing that this is based on just a 

day and a half of discussion and these aren’t meant to be the best possible 

recommendations because on the limited input).

2:30 BREAK

2:50 Recommended Actions: Reports from Small Group Discussions

Purpose: Learn from each group how they applied the objectives as criteria and what 

recommended action(s) they reached.

Desired Outcomes: Proposed actions. (Note that these are not to run out and implement 

the next day, but to demonstrate the process of reaching them. They may be very valid, but 

further assessment and thought would definitely be needed before moving forward with 

them.)

4:00 Adaptive Management

Presenter: Ms. Kelly Black, Neptune and Company, Inc.

Purpose: To discuss what triggers or timeframe should cause decisions to be reconsidered.

Desired Outcomes: Revision of recommended action based on uncertainties. 
Appendix D. Workshop Agenda | 123

4:30 Recap of Decision Process, Overview of Day 3 activities, and many thanks for participating! 

Complete evaluations.

Presentation: Dr. William Fisher, U.S. EPA 

Purpose: To briefly review the DPSIR as a framework for organizing information, DASEES as 

a method for making decisions (including the importance of stakeholder interactions in 

defining objectives), and to thank the participants for applying both to Southwest Puerto 

Rico coastal ecosystems issues over the past two days.

Desired Outcomes: A feeling of accomplishment and understanding of how what we’ve 

discussed might be useful as the participants return to their ongoing projects.

PM Phosphorescent Bay Trip (prior registration required) 

DAY 3: Synthesizing the Input into DASEES

The third day of the Workshop will involve summarizing the information and stakeholder inputs 

compiled during the first two days of the meeting, in the context of decision analysis and decision 

support tools and assessments. Core Decision Support and Coral Reef researchers will participate in 

this effort. Other Workshop attendees may also participate at their option, but this will not be 

expected. Decision makers and other stakeholders who do participate will provide useful input for 

interpretations (e.g., “No, I don’t think that is what she meant to imply when she said XYZ”), and 

will benefit from seeing how their input is being analyzed using decision support tools and 

methods.

The objective of the working session will be to formulate and code:

1. An updated version of the Social Network Analysis diagram for participants in Southwest 

Puerto Rico coastal ecosystems management.

2. A decision analysis framework (DASEES) for coastal ecosystems management in Guánica. 

Information from the workshop will be incorporated into DASEES and next steps will be

discussed.

AGENDA: 

9:00 Facilitated Discussion about the Workshop

9:15 Social Network Analysis–Gaps

9:30 Complete Objectives and Identify How to Measure Success

10:15 BREAK

10:30 DPSIR, Bayesian Belief Net, and Measures Consistency 

11:45 Close workshop. Thanks to participants! Complete evaluations.

12:00 Adjourn
 
Appendix E. Workshop Participants | 125

Appendix E. Workshop Participants

Richard Appeldoorn (organizer)

Department of Marine Sciences

University of Puerto Rico

Mayagüez, PR 00681-9013

787-899-2048, ext. 251

Richard.appeldoorn@upr.edu

Kelly Black (organizer)

Neptune and Company, Inc.

8550 W. 14th Ave., Suite 100 

Lakewood, CO 80215

720-746-1803, ext. 5

kblack@neptuneinc.org

Patricia Bradley (organizer)

U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL

Atlantic Ecology Division

c/o FKNMS

33 East Quay Road

Key West, FL 33040

305-809-4690

Bradley.patricia@epa.gov

Lia Brune

NOAA NCCOSN/SCI 1 SSMC4, 9th Floor

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

850-261-8212 

lia.brune@noaa.gov

Chris Caldow 

NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CCMA

1305 East-West Highway

9th Floor, N/SCI-1 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301-713-3028

chris.caldow@noaa.gov

Miguel Canals 

Department of Engineering Science 

and Materials

University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez

Stefani Building, Office 601, 

P.O. Box 9044

Mayagüez, PR 00681-9044

787-832-4040, ext. 3065

mcanals@uprm.edu

Miguel Canals Sr.

Guánica State Forest 

P.O. Box 1185

Guánica, PR 00653

menqi@hotmail.com

*Madeleine Cancel

Caribbean Maritime Educational Center, Inc.

787-821-4164

Deb Caraco

Center for Watershed Protection

606 N. Aurora St. 

Ithaca, NY 14850 

607-277-6337

dsc@cwp.org

LisaMarie Carrubba

NOAA NMFS

Caribbean Field Office

P.O. Box 1310

Boquerón, PR 00622

787-851-3700

Lisamarie.Carrubba@noaa.gov

Jose Castro

USDA NRCS 

654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 604

Hato Rey, PR 00918

809-766-5206, ext. 226

Jose.Castro@pr.usda.gov

*deceased
126 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

John Czapiga

Southwest Coast of Puerto Rico

28 Velero

Ensenada,PR 00647-9545

czapiga@verizon.net

Damaris Delgado-López

Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources (DNER)

Urb. El Cerezal 1642 Calle Nieper 

San Juan, PR 00926

787-999-2200, ext. 2615

ddelgado@drna.gobierno.pr

Raimundo Espinoza

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

2256 Calle Cacique, Apt. C 

San Juan, PR 00913

202-486-4359

respinoza@drna.gobierno.pr

Annette Feliberty-Ruiz

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board

P.O. Box 11488

San Juan, PR 00910

787-767-8181, ext. 3453

annettefeliberty@jca.gobierno.pr

Angel Figueroa

USDA NRCS

P.O. Box 364868

San Juan, PR 00936-4868

787-766-5206

angel.figueroa@wdc.usda.gov

Magaly Figueroa

USDA Forest Service

International Institute of Tropical Forestry

Jardin Botanico Sur

1201 Calle Ceiba

San Juan, PR 00926-1115

787-766-5335, ext. 118

mafigueroa@fs.fed.us

William Fisher (organizer)

U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL

Gulf Ecology Division

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

850-934-9394

Fisher.william@epa.gov

Walt Galloway (facilitator)

U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL

Atlantic Ecology Division

27 Tarzwell Drive

Narragansett, RI 02882

401-782-3096

galloway.walt@epa.gov

Jorge (Reni) Garcia-Sais 

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez

Department of Marine Sciences

P.O. Box 3424

Lajas, PR 00667

787-899-2048, ext. 247

renigar@caribe.net

Miguel A. Garcia

Bureau of Fisheries and Wildlife

Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources (DNER)

P.O. Box 366147

San Juan, PR 00936

787-999-2200, ext. 2607 

magarcia@drna.gobierno.pr

Evelyn Huertas (organizer)

U.S. EPA Region 2

Centro Europa Building

1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 417

San Juan, PR 00907-4127

787-977-5852

Huertas.evelyn@epa.gov
Appendix E. Workshop Participants | 127

Aaron Hutchins

The Nature Conservancy

3052 Estate Little Princess 

Christiansted

St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00820

340-718-5575 

ahutchins@tnc.org

Nilda M. Jiménez-Marrero

Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources (DNER)

P.O. Box 366147

San Juan, PR 00936

787-999-2200, ext. 2710

njimenez@drna.gobierno.pr

Craig Lilyestrom 

Marine Resources Division

Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources (DNER)

San Juan, PR 00906-6600

787-999-2200, ext. 2615

craig.lilyestrom@drna.gobierno.pr

Luis Meyer-Comas 

Center for Watershed Protection

P.O. Box 1140

Guánica, PR 00653-1140

787-246-2870

frescuragmeyerpr@yahoo.com 

Leah Oliver (organizer)

U.S. EPA/ORD/NHEERL

Gulf Ecology Division

1 Sabine Island Drive

Gulf Breeze, FL 32561

850-934-2470

Oliver.leah@epa.gov

Francisco Pagan (organizer)

Caribbean Coral Reef Institute 

University of Puerto Rico

Mayagüez, PR 00681-9013

787-899-2048, ext. 265

Franciscoe.pagan@upr.edu

Manuel Valdès Pizzini

University of Puerto Rico

Apartado 9266, 

Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez

Mayagüez, PR 00681-9266 

787-751-8879

mvpizzini@uprm.edu

Lillian Ramirez

University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez

Sea Grant Program

P.O. Box 9011 

Mayagüez, PR 00681-9011

787-832-8045

lillian.ramirez@upr.edu 

Carlos E. Ramos Scharrón

Department of Geography and 

the Environment

University of Texas at Austin

210 W 24th Street 334

Austin, TX 78712-1098

787-587-0416

cramos@irf.org

Amanda Rehr

Department of Engineering and Public Policy

Baker Hall 129

Carnegie Mellon University

5000 Forbes Ave.

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

412-708-1780

pearlgrl@gmail.com

Aida Rosario 

Puerto Rico Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources (DNER)

P.O. Box 3665 

Mayagüez, PR 00681 

787-833-2025 

arosario@drna.gobierno.pr
128 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Mitchell J. Small

Civil & Environmental Engineering

Carnegie Mellon University 

Porter Hall 119, Frew Street

Pittsburgh PA 15213 

412-268-8782

ms35@andrew.cmu.edu

Luis Soler-López

Caribbean Water Science Center

GSA Center

651 Federal Drive, Suite 400-15

Guaynabo, PR 00965-5703

787-749-4346, ext. 278

lssoler@usgs.gov

Tom Stockton (organizer)

Neptune and Company, Inc.

1505 15th Street, Suite B

Los Alamos, NM 87544

505-662-0707, ext. 17

stockton@neptuneinc.org

Paul Sturm (organizer)

Center for Watershed Protection

8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor 

Ellicott City, MD 21043

410-461-8323

pes@cwp.org

Skip Van Bloem

USDA Forest Service

Guánica Dry Forest NEON Site 

P.O. Box 9030

Mayagüez, PR 00681

svanbloem@uprm.edu

Lisa Vandiver

NOAA Restoration Center

1315 East West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-0174, ext. 182

lisa.vandiver@noaa.gov

Roberto Viqueira

Center for Watershed Protection

Guánica Coordinator

P.O. Box 673

Yauco, PR 00698

rviqueira@hotmail.com

 

Ernesto Weil 

Department of Marine Sciences 

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus 

P.O. Box 908

Lajas, PR 00667-0908

787-899-2048, exts. 241, 272

eweil@caribe.net

Dave Whitall 

NOAA NCCOSN/SCI 1 SSMC4, 9th Floor

1305 East West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301-713-3028, ext. 138 

Dave.Whitall@noaa.gov
Appendix F. Glossary | 129

Appendix F. Glossary

Bayesian belief network (BBN) or Bayesian network – a graphical network in which the nodes 

represent random variables, and the connections describe relationships between them. 

Brainstorming – a group problem-solving technique in which members spontaneously share ideas 

and solutions.

Coral reef – a complex tropical marine ecosystem dominated by soft and hard (stony) corals, 

anemones and sea fans. Stony corals are small animals with an outer skeleton of calcium carbonate 

that form colonies and are responsible for reef building.

Decision landscape – a decision support framework for capturing the physical, legal, and 

institutional environment in which a particular management choice is made; it includes 

identification of management and policy options, outcomes of interest, and stakeholder valuation 

of outcomes, as well as the key participants involved in making the decision (decision makers, 

information collectors, and stakeholders), the information they use to inform the decision and its 

associated uncertainty, and the methods of assessment they use to evaluate outcomes. 

Decision maker – a person(s) entrusted with the responsibility to make a decision. Decision 

makers include federal, territorial and governmental managers, corporations, non-governmental 

organizations and the general public. 

Decision-making – an outcome of mental processes leading to the selection of a course of action 

among several management options.

Decision point – a key step in the decision making process.

Decision support framework (DSF) – an organizing structure to support decision making. 

Decision support tools – software, models, data sets, maps, etc., to support decision-making.

DPSIR – a decision support framework for capturing the physical and human processes in a decision 

process; it includes the identification of the Drivers (socioeconomic sectors that drive human 

activities), Pressures (human activities that stress the environment), resulting environmental and 

ecological States (reflect condition of the natural and living phenomena), Impact on services and 

values (effects of environmental degradation of ecological attributes and ecosystem services), and 

Responses to those impact (policies and responses).

Drivers – socioeconomic sectors that drive human activities (waste disposal, agriculture, 

construction, fisheries, and tourism).

Ecosystem – includes the plant and animal communities in an area together with the non-living 

physical environment that supports them. Ecosystems have physically defined boundaries, but 

they are also dynamic: their boundaries and constituents can change over time. They can import 

and export materials and energy and thus can interact with and influence other ecosystems. They 

can also vary widely in size.

Ecosystem services – the products of ecological functions or processes that directly or indirectly 

contribute to human wellbeing (clean air and water, food and fiber, erosion and flood control, 

habitat and biodiversity, climate stability, and aesthetic enjoyment). 
130 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Granularity – the extent to which a system is broken down into small parts, either the system itself 

or its description or observation. It is the extent to which a larger entity is subdivided. Coarsegrained systems consist of fewer, larger components than fine-grained systems; a coarse-grained

description of a system regards large subcomponents while a fine-grained description regards 

smaller components of which the larger ones are composed.

Hydro-seeding – a planting process which utilizes a slurry of seed and mulch, which is transported 

in a tank, either truck- or trailer-mounted, and sprayed over prepared ground in a uniform layer.

Impact – effects of environmental degradation on ecosystem functioning, affecting the quality and 

value of ecosystem services.

Lagoon – a body of comparatively shallow salt or brackish water separated from the deeper sea by 

a shallow or exposed barrier beach, sandbank of marine origin, coral reef, or similar feature.

Management and policy options – a number of alternatives that are under the control of decision 

makers and from which one or a combination of several of them (to be implemented as a strategy) 

can be chosen.

Model – a physical, mathematical, or logical representation of a system of entities, phenomena, or 

processes, i.e., a simplified abstract view of the complex reality.

Outcomes – the results, impact or consequences of making a decision.

Pathogen – microorganisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or parasites) that can cause disease in humans, 

animals and plants.

Pressures – human activities that stress the environment (discharge, boating activities, climate 

change, land use/land cover change, and coastal erosion).

Riparian – of or relating to or located on the banks of a river or stream.

Social network – a decision support framework for capturing the people involved in a decisionmaking process and the relationships between them, such as who has authority to make decisions 

and who they work or interact with. Social relationships are typically depicted in terms of nodes 

(individuals within networks) and ties (relationships between the individuals).

Stakeholders – individuals, groups, or organizations impacted by a management choice.

States – reflect condition of the natural and living phenomena (such as air, water and soil 

parameters and growth, survival and reproductive parameters).

Strength or magnitude of the relationship (between variables) – the degree to which one variable 

is associated with or can cause a change in a second variable (i.e., between decisions and 

outcomes).

Toxics – poisonous chemicals.

Uncertainty – inability to predict outcomes due to random variability (for example, stream flow is 

sometimes high and sometimes low) or incomplete scientific knowledge regarding causal 

relationships (for example, how a given concentration of sediments in the harbor affects coral reef 

growth rates). 
Appendix G. References | 131

Appendix G. References Aronson D. 1996. Overview of Systems Thinking. 

URL: http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf

Bernstein BB, Thompson BE and Smith RW. 1993. A combined science and management framework 

for developing regional monitoring objectives. Coastal Management 21(3):185−195.

Beverton RJH and Holt SJ. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Fishery 

Investigations Series II Volume XIX. Chapman and Hall, Blackburn Press, 2004. 

Bradley P, Fisher W, Dyson B, Yee S, Carriger J, Gambirazzio G, Bousquin, J and Huertas E. 2013. 

Application of a Structured Decision Process for Informing Watershed Management Options in 

Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 

Development, Narragansett, RI. Internal Report. 158 pp.

Burke L and Maidens J. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute, 

Washington, DC. 81 pp.

Cañas AJ, Hill G, Carff R, Suri N, Lott J, Gómez G, Eskridge TC, Arroyo M and Carvajal R. 2004. 

CmapTools: A Knowledge Modeling and Sharing Environment. In Concept Maps: Theory, 

Methodology, Technology, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Concept 

Mapping, ed. A.J. Cañas, J.D. Novak, and F.M. González, 125−133. Pamplona: Universidad 

Pública de Navarra. 

Caraco D. 2001. The Watershed Treatment Model. Center for Watershed Protection. 

Ellicott City, MD.

Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP). 2001. CARICOMP Methods Manual 

Levels 1 and 2: Manual of Methods for Mapping and Monitoring of Physical and Biological 

Parameters in the Coastal Zone of the Caribbean. CARICOMP Data Management Center, 

Centre for Marine Sciences, University of the West Indies Mona, Kingston, Jamaica.

Carriger J and Benson WH. 2012. Restoring and Managing Gulf of Mexico Fisheries: A Path 

toward Creative Decision-Making. In: Estuaries, Classification, Ecology, and Human Impacts. 

Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppage, NY. pp. 291−334.

Carriger JF, Fisher WS, Stockton TB and Sturm PE. 2013. Advancing the Guánica Bay (Puerto Rico) 

Watershed Management Plan. Coastal Management 41:19−38. 

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2006. Erosion Control 101 for Puerto Rico-Factsheet. 

Ellicott City, MD.

Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2008. Guánica Bay Watershed Management Plan: A Pilot 

Project for Watershed Planning in Puerto Rico. Ellicott City, MD. 

Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, 

Version 3.0. The Conservation Measures Partnership. 51 pp. 

Curran MA. 2009. Wrapping our brains around sustainability. Sustainability 1:5−13.
132 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Dietz T. 1994. What should we do? Human ecology and collective decision-making. Human Ecology 

Review 1:301−309.

Dunning DJ, Ross QE and Merkhofer MW. 2000. Multiattribute utility analysis for addressing 

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Environmental Science and Policy 3:S7−S14. 

Edwards A and Gomez E. 2007. Reef Restoration Concepts and Guidelines: Making Sensible 

Management Choices in the Face of Uncertainty. Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity 

Building for Management Programmes: St. Lucia, Australia. 38 pp.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. 

Technical report No 25. URL: http://reports.eea.eu.int/TEC25/en/tab_content_RLR. 

Ewel JJ and Whitmore JL. 1973. The Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

USDA Forest Service, Institute of Tropical Forestry, Research Paper ITF-018.

Executive Order (EO) 1356. 2011. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Federal Register

76(14):3821−3823. 

Failing L, Horn G and Higgins P. 2004. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate 

adaptive management options. Ecology and Society 9:13. 

URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art13. 

García-Sais J, Appeldoorn R, Battista T, Bauer L, Bruckner A, Caldow C, Carrubba L, Corredor J, Diaz E, 

Lilyestrom C, García-Moliner G, Hernández-Delgado E, Menza C, Morell J, Pait A, Sabater J, Weil 

E, Williams E and Williams S. 2008. The state of coral reef ecosystems of Puerto Rico. In: The 

State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2008, 

ed. J.E. Waddell and A.M. Clarke, 75-116. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. 

NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography Team. Silver 

Spring, MD.

García-Sais J, Esteves R, Williams S, Sabater-Clavell J and Carlo M. 2014. Monitoring of Coral Reef 

Communities from Natural Reserves in Puerto Rico. Final Report–NOAA Grant NA07NOS4260055, 

307 pp.

García-Sais JR and Sabater J. 2004. Distribution and Biological Characterization of Major Marine 

Habitats in the Nature Reserve of La Parguera, Lajas, PR. Final report to DRNA, San Juan, 

Puerto Rico. 140 pp. 

García-Sais JR, Castro R and Sabater J. 2001a. Coral Reef Communities from Natural Reserves in 

Puerto Rico: A Baseline Quantitative Assessment for Prospective Monitoring Programs. Vol. 1-

Cordillera de Fajardo, Guánica, Bahía de Mayagüez, Caja de Muertos. US Coral Reef Initiative 

Program, NOAA-DNER. 232 pp.

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2001b. Coral Reef Communities from Natural 

Reserves in Puerto Rico: A Baseline Quantitative Assessment for Prospective Monitoring 

Programs. Vol. 2-La Parguera, Boquerón, Isla de Mona, Isla Desecheo. US Coral Reef Initiative 

Program, NOAA-DNER. 193 pp.

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2001c. Coral Reef Communities from Natural 

Reserves in Puerto Rico: A Baseline Quantitative Assessment for Prospective Monitoring 
Appendix G. References | 133

Programs. Volume 3-Guayanilla, Ponce, Guayama, Arroyo. US Coral Reef Initiative Program, 

NOAA-DNER. 147 pp.

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2001d. Baseline Characterization of Coral Reef and 

Seagrass Communities from Isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico. US Coral Reef National Monitoring 

Program, NOAA, DNER. 108 pp.

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater J and Carlo M. 2004. Inventory and Atlas of Corals and Coral Reefs, 

with Emphasis on Deep-water Coral Reefs from the U. S. Caribbean EEZ. Caribbean Fisheries 

Management Council. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 36 pp.

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater-Clavell J, Esteves R and Carlo M. 2005. Monitoring of Coral Reef 

Communities at Isla Desecheo, Rincon, Mayagüez Bay, Guánica, Ponce, and Isla Caja de Muertos, 

Puerto Rico. Final Report. Lajas, PR. 

García-Sais JR, Castro R, Sabater-Clavell J, Esteves R and Carlo M. 2006. Monitoring of Coral Reef 

Communities from Natural Reserves in Puerto Rico, 2006: Isla Desecheo, Rincon, Mayagüez Bay, 

Guánica, Ponce and Isla Caja de Muerto. Final Report submitted to the Department of Natural 

and Environmental Resources of Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR. 151 pp.

Goffredo S and Lasker HR. 2008. An adaptive management approach to an octocoral fishery based 

on the Beverton-Holt model. Coral Reefs 27:751−761.

Gould WA, Martinuzzi S and Páres-Ramos IK. 2012. Land use, population dynamics, and land-cover 

change in Eastern Puerto Rico. Pages 24−42 in: Murphy SF and Stallard RF (eds.) 2012. Water 

Quality and Landscape Processes of Four Watersheds in Eastern Puerto Rico. Professional Paper 

1789-B. Reston, VA. US Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Gregory Morris Engineering (GME). 1999a. Guánica Lagoon Hydrology & Restoration Alternatives. 

Prepared for Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.

Gregory Morris Engineering (GME). 1999b. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Guánica Lagoon 

Restoration Impacts on Regulatory [Controlled] Flood Levels. Prepared for Puerto Rico 

Department of Natural Resources. San Juan, PR.

Gregory R, Failing L and Higgins P. 2006. Adaptive management and environmental decision 

making: A case study application to water use planning. Ecological Economics 58:434−447. 

Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T and Ohlson D. 2012. Structured Decision 

Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. West Sussex, UK: WileyBlackwell. 

Gregory RS and Keeney RL. 1994. Making smarter environmental management decisions. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association 38(6):1601−1612. 

Gregory RS and Keeney RL. 2002. Making smarter environmental management decisions. Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association 38:1601−1612. 

Griffin S, Spathias H, Moore TD, Baums I, Griffin BA. 2012. Scaling Up Acropora Nurseries in the 

Caribbean and Improving Techniques. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef 

Symposium 5 pp.
134 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Griffin S. 2014. Acropora Nursery Operations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 2013 Annual 

Report. 8 pp.

Hartemink, A.E. 2006. Assessing soil fertility decline in the tropics using soil chemical data. 

Advances in Agronomy 89:179−225.

Hillel D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, San Diego. CA. 771 pp.

Holling CS (Ed). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: 

Wiley, Walters and Hilborn 1978. 

Judd NL, Drew CH, Acharya C, Mitchell TA, Donatuto JL, Burns GW, Burbacher TM and Faustman 

EM. 2005. Framing scientific analyses for risk management of environmental hazards by 

communities: Case studies with seafood safety issues. Environmental Health Perspectives

113(11):1502−1508.

Keeney RL. 1992. Value-focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-making. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press. 

Keeney RL. 2007. Developing objectives and attributes. In Advances in Decision Analysis: From 

Foundations to Applications, ed. W. Edwards, R. F. Miles Jr., D. von Winterfeldt, 104−128. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kitchell A and Schueler T. 2004. Unified Stream Assessment: A User’s Manual. Manual 10 in the 

Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Center for Watershed Protection. 

Ellicott City, MD.

Krebs V. 2004. How to do Social Network Analysis. Orgnet.com. URL: 

http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html. 

Krebs V. 2008. Social capital: The key to success for the 21st Century organization. IHRIM Journal

2(5):38−42.

Lapointe BE. 1997. Nutrient thresholds for bottom-up control of macroalgal blooms on coral reefs 

in Jamaica and southeast Florida. Limnology and Oceanography 42:119−1131.

Lee KN. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. 

Washington, D.C. Island Press. 

McDaniels TL. 2000. Creating and using objectives for ecological risk assessment and management. 

Environmental Science and Policy 3:299−304. 

Merrick J, Parnell G, Barnett J and Garcia M. 2005. A multiple-objective decision analysis of 

stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Analysis 2:44−57.

Miller GL and Lugo AE. 2009. Guide to the Ecological Systems of Puerto Rico. IITF-GTR-35. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry, San Juan, 

PR. 444 pp.

Mollaghasemi M and Pet-Edwards J. 1997. IEEE Computer Society Technical Briefing: Making 

Multiple-Objective Decisions. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 
Appendix G. References | 135

Morelock J, Ramirez W, Bruckner A and Carlo M. 2001. Status of coral reefs, southwest Puerto Rico. 

Caribbean Journal of Science, Online Special Publication 4:57. 

URL: www.uprm.edu/biology/cjs/reefstatus.htm. 

Morelock J, Schneidermann N and Bryant WR. 1977. Shelf reefs, southwestern Puerto Rico. Studies 

in Geology 4:17-25.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013. Coral Nurseries Replant Damaged 

Caribbean Reefs. NOAA in the Caribbean 2(2):1. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. Draft Recovery Plan for Elkhorn 

coral (Acropora palmata) and Staghorn coral (A. cervicornis). Southeast Regional Office, 

Protected Resources Division, Saint Petersburg, Florida. 162 pp.

North DW and Renn O. 2005. Decision Analytic Tools and Participatory Decision Process. 

Background Paper Prepared for the Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment 

and Decision Making. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 

O’Connor J and McDermott I. 1997. The Art of Systems Thinking: Essential Skills for Creativity and 

Problem Solving. San Francisco: Thorsons Publishing.

Ortiz-Zayas JR and Terrasa-Soler JJ. 2001. Allocating Water Resources for Public Supply within a 

Complex Hydroelectrical System: The Case Study of Yauco, Puerto Rico. In Latin America Puerto 

Rico 2001. 2nd Latin American Technical Conference and Exhibition, November 11−14, 2001, 

San Juan, PR. 

Pait AS, Whitall DR, Jeffrey CFG, Caldow C, Mason AL, Christensen JD, Monaco ME and Ramirez J. 

2007. An Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Marine Sediments of Southwest Puerto 

Rico. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 52. Silver Spring, MD. 112 pp.

Pastorak RA and Bilyard GR. 1985. Effects of sewage pollution on coral reef communities. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 21:175−189.

Payne JW, Bettman JR and Schkade DA. 1999. Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a 

building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19:243−270.

Peirce M. 1998. Computer-Based Models in Integrated Environmental Assessment. European 

Environment Agency (EEA). Copenhagen, Denmark.

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PR EQB). 2010. Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards 

Regulation. 90 pp.

Rehr AP, Small MJ, Bradley P, Fisher WS, Vega A, Black K and Stockton T. 2012. A decision support 

framework for science-based, multi-stakeholder deliberation: A coral reef example. 

Environmental Management 50(6):1204−18.

Rehr AP, Small MJ, Fischbeck P, Bradley P, Fisher B and Vega A. 2014. The role of scientific studies 

in building consensus in environmental decision making: A coral reef example. Environment, 

Systems and Decisions 34(1):60−87.

Rinkevich B. 2005. Conservation of coral reefs through active restoration measures: Recent 

approaches and last decade progress. Environmental Science Technology 39:4333−4342.
136 | Coral Reef and Coastal Ecosystems Decision Support Workshop

Rouse I. 1992. The Taínos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University 

Press. 232 pp.

Schimmer R. 2010. Puerto Rico. Genocide Studies Program, Yale University. 

URL: http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/puerto-rico/index.html. 

Smeets E and Weterings R., 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. European 

Environment Agency, Copenhagen. Report No. 25, 19 pp. 

Smith M, Milic-Frayling N, Shneiderman B, Mendes Rodrigues E, Leskovec J and Dunne C. 2010. 

NodeXL: A free and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 

2007/2010. Social Media Research Foundation. URL: http://nodexl.codeplex.com/. 

Smith M, Shneiderman B, Milic-Frayling N, Rodrigues E, Barash V, Dunne C, Capone T, Perer A and 

Gleave E. 2009. Analyzing (Social Media) Networks with NodeXL. Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Conference on Communities and Technologies, pp. 255−264.

Sotomayor-Ramírez D and Pérez-Alegría L. 2011. An Assessment of Agricultural Activities in the 

Eastern Portion of the Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve, within Lajas and Guánica Municipalities. 

University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, Agricultural Experiment Station, Unpublished Manuscript. 

Stockton T, Dyson B, Houghteling W, Black K, Buchholtz ten Brink M, Canfield T, Vega A, Small M 

and Rehr A. 2011. Decision Support Framework Implementation of DASEES: Decision Analysis for 

a Sustainable Environment, Economy, and Society. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-12/008.

Sturm P, Viqueira R, Ferguson R and Moore T. 2012. Addressing Land Based Sources of Pollution in 

Guánica, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, 5 pp.

Sutherland KP, Shaban S, Joyner JL, Porter JW and Lipp EK. 2011. Human pathogen shown to cause 

disease in the threatened eklhorn coral Acropora palmata. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23468.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1994. Guidelines for Sediment Control Practices in 

the Insular Caribbean. Caribbean Environment Programme, CEP Technical Report No. 32. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1998. Best Management Practices for Agricultural 

Non-Point Sources of Pollution. Caribbean Environment Programme, CEP Technical Report No. 

41. 141 pp. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2007. Global Environment Outlook GEO4, Nairobi 

and Valletta. URL: www.unep.org/geo/geo4/. 

US Census Bureau. 2012. America Community Survey. URL: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/#. 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Constructed Treatment Wetlands. EPA/843-F-03-

013, Washington, DC.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream 

Quality. Washington, DC. EPA/841-F-95-007.
Appendix G. References | 137

US 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. 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Keeping Raw Sewage & Contaminated 

Stormwater out of the Public’s Water. Region 2. New York, NY. 23 pp.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Benefits of Low Impact Development: How LID 

Can Protect Your Community’s Resources. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. EPA 841-

N-12-003A. Washington, DC.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Tutorial on Systems Thinking using the DPSIR 

Framework. URL:

http://http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=235356. 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Puerto Rico–US Virgin Islands Change Detection 

Viewer. URL: http://gispub4.epa.gov/PR-USVI/. 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014c. National Enforcement Initiative: Keeping Raw 

Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation's Waters. 

URL: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-keeping-raw-sewageand-contaminated-stormwater-out-our. 

Viqueira-Rios R and Meyer-Comas L. 2012. Farm Inventory of the Lajas Valley Agricultural Reserve 

Guánica Lagoon and El Anegado Areas Guánica, Puerto Rico. Protectores de Cuencas. 33 pp.

Walters CJ and Hilborn R. 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive management. Annual Review

of Ecology and Systematics 9:157−188.

Walters CJ. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Warne AG, Webb RMT and Larsen MC. 2005. Water, Sediment, and Nutrient Discharge 

Characteristics in Rivers of PR and Their Potential Influence on Coral Reefs. USGS Science 

Investigative Report 2005−5206.

Weber RA. 2012. Guánica Lagoon Area Salinity Study Final Report. National Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), Central National Technology Support Center, Fort Worth, TX. 37 pp. 

Whitall D, Bauer LJ, Sherman C, Edwards K, Mason A, Pait T and Caldow C. 2013. Baseline 

Assessment of Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico in Support of Watershed Restoration. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 176. 

Wikipedia. 2014. Guánica, Puerto Rico. URL: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%A1nica,_Puerto_Rico. 

Wilkinson C (Ed.). 2004. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004. Vol.1. Townsville, Queensland, 

Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science. 316 pp.

Wright T, Swann C, Cappiella K and Schueler T. 2004. Unified Subwatershed and Site 

Reconnaissance: A User’s Manual. Manual 11 in the Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual 

Series. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.