Draft environmental impact statement and management plan for the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and
Management Plan

TD
194.58 0so-r OF CO
T9
D73
U.S. Department of Commerce
1983
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
January 1983
?AYES OV

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
PROPOSED LA PARGUERA NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

JANUARY 1983

Prepared by:

Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

Department of Natural Resources
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
US Department of Commerce Box 5887, Puerta de Tierra
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906
2294 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Designation: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan

Title: Proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary

Abstract: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
proposes to designate 68.27 square nautical miles of waters
off an area of southwest Puerto Rico as a national marine
sanctuary. The designation would result in implementation
of a plan which will establish a framework for comprehensive
management; including surveillance and enforcement, resource
studies, and interpretive programs.

Specific regulations are proposed that control the taking
of coral, wastewater discharges, cutting of mangroves, and
prohibit gear used for the illegal taking of turtles. The
Interpretive Program proposes the development of visitor
centers at La Parguera and Cabo Rojo; a mangrove boardwalk and
trails, and a program of exhibits and educational material for
the public. The Resource Studies Plan proposes to assess and
monitor water quality and circulation, endangered species and
fishery populations. Data from the resource studies would be
used by sanctuary managers to make decisions on sanctuary
operations. Alternatives to the proposed action include the
no action alternative, low and high cost options, and a
non-regulatory alternative.

Lead Agency: U. S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Contact: Mr. Edward Lindelof
Sanctuary Programs Division
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Ocean Service/NOAA
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

202/634-4236

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
PROPOSED LA PARGUERA NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction and Summary ........................................ I

A. National Marine Sanctuary Program .......................... I
B. History of the Proposal .................................... 3
C. General Context for Planning ............................... 5
D. Purpose and Need for Designation ........................... 5
E. The Draft Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement ... 7

II. Management Context ............................................. 9

A. Introduction ............................................... 9
B. Location and Boundaries .................................... 9
C. Natural Resources .......................................... 11

1. Introduction .......................................... 11
2. Physical/Natural Characteristics ...................... 16

a. Geology .......................................... 16
b. Climate .......................................... 16
c. Hydrology ........................................ 17
d. Sand Fields ...................................... 18

3. Habitats and Biological Characteristics ............... 19

a. Coral Reefs ...................................... 19
b. Mangroves ........................................ 25
c. Salt Water Flats and Lagoons ..................... 28
d. Seagrass Beds .................................... 28
e. Beaches .......................................... 29
f. Rocky Shores ..................................... 29
g. Bioluminescent Bays .............................. 30

4. Rare and Endangered Species ........................... 30

a. Manatees ......................................... 31
b. Hawksbill Sea Turtle ............................. 31
c. Brown Pelicans ................................... 31

Page

II. Management Context (Continued)

D. Social and Economic Factors ................................ 32

1. Regional Characteristics .............................. 32
2. Local Characteristics ................................. 32
3. Users ................................................. 33

a. Visitors ......................................... 33
b. Education and Research ........................... 33
c. Commercial Fishing ............................... 35
d. Sportfishing ..................................... 38

E. Legal/Institutional Background ............................. 39

1. Introduction .......................................... 39
2. Commonwealth and Federal Laws ........................ 39

a. Commonwealth Laws ................................ 39
b. Federal Statutes ................................. 45

3. Enforcement Capabilities of Relevant Commonwealth
and Federal Agencies .................................. 48

F. Issues and Problems Associated with the Resources of
the Proposed LPNMS ......................................... 52

1. Enforcement ........................................... 52
2. Public Awareness and Information ...................... 53
3. Coral Reefs ........................................... 53
4. Mangroves and Seagrass Bed Areas ...................... 53
5. Bioluminescent Bays ................................... 54
6. Endangered Species .................................... 56
7. Water Quality and Population Growth ................... 57
8. Implications for Management ........................... 59

III. Management Measures ............................................. 63

A. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives ............................. 64
B. Sanctuary Administration and Operation..; ................... 66

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ....... 66
2. Department of Natural Resources ....................... 67
3. DNR Office of Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries ........ 69

a. Sanctuary Administrator .......................... 69
b. Sanctuary Manager ................................ 70
c. Staffing Levels .................................. 70
d. Sanctuary Advisory Committee ..................... 71

Page

III. Management Measures (Continued)

4. Intrarelationships Between Sanctuary Administration
and Other DNR Components .............................. 72
5. Sanctuary Headquarters/Visitor Center ................. 76
6. Surveillance and Enforcement Program .................. 78

a. General Enforcement Responsibilities ............. 78
b. Stage I .......................................... 79
c. Stage II ......................................... 79
d. Sanctuary Regulations ............................ 79

C. Interpretive Program ....................................... 87

1. Introduction .......................................... 87
2. Methods and Approach .................................. 88

D. Resource Studies Plan ...................................... 97

IV. Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative ................ 125

A. Boundary Alternatives ...................................... 125
B. Alternative Visitor Center Sites ........................... 125

1. Alternatives Considered But Rejected .................. 125
2. Selected Sites for Further Discussion ................. 130

C. Alternative Management Measures ............................ 133

1. Alternative I - Status Quo ............................ 133
2. Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative ................. 134
3. Alternative 3 - Low Cost, Low Profile ................. 135
4. Alternative 4 - High Cost, High Profile ............... 136
5. Alternative 5 - Non-Regulatory ........................ 137

V. Environmental Consequences--Impacts on Resources ................ 139

A. 139

1. Preferred Alternative ................................. 139
2. The Status Quo ........................................ 140
3. Alternative 3 - Low Cost, Low Profile ................. 140
4. Alternative 4 - High Cost, High Profile ............... 140

B. Environmental Consequences--Boundary Alternatives .......... 141
C. Environmental Consequences of the Main Visitor Center ...... 141

1. Village Waterfront Site ............................... 141
2. Village Land Site ..................................... 141
3. Overlook Site ......................................... 141

iii

Page

III. Management Measures (Continued)

D. Environmental Consequences--Alternative Management Methods.. 143

1. Impacts of Regulations ................................. 143
2. Impacts of Enforcement ................................. 144
3. Impacts of Interpretive Program ........................ 146
4. Impacts of Resource Studies Plan ....................... 149

VI. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Socioeconomic Effects ............ 151

VII. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ............ 151

VIII. List of Preparers ................................................ 153

IX. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copies.... 155

X. Bibliography ..................................................... 159

XI. Appendices ....................................................... 169

A. Coral Reef Descriptions ...................................... A-1
B. Commercial Fishermen Survey Technique ........................ B-1
C. Economic Profile of Commercial Fishing ....................... C-1
D. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .............. D-1
E. Draft Designation Document for the Proposed LPNMS ............ E-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 National Marine Sanctuary System .................................... 2

2 DNR Proposed Puerto Rican Sites ..................................... 4

3 Proposed Boundary Alternatives ..................................... 10

4 Regional Context ................................................... 12

5 Regional Access .................................................... 13

6 Natural Factors .................................................... 14

7 Natural Factors Profile ............................................ 15

8 Area I - Montalva/Fosforescente .................................... 21

9 Area II Poblado .................................................. 22

10 Area III Sucia/Salinas ........................................... 23

11 Typical Mangrove Profile ........................................... 26
12 Existing Recreational Use ........ *........... *......... * ............ 34

13 Department of Natural Resources Organizational Chart ............... 73

14 Proposed Recreational Use .......................................... 92

15 Proposed Water Quality Sampling Stations for the LPNMS ............ 110

16 Site Selection Matrix ............................................. 126

17 Site Alternatives ................................................. 127

18 Proposed Cabo Rojo Visitor Center Site ............................ 129

19 Proposed DNR Visitor Center Location Map .......................... 131

20 Selected Alternative Sites ........................................ 132

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Coral Reefs Within the Proposed La Parguera National
Marine Sanctuary .................................................... 20

2 Annual Income of Local Fishermen .................................... 36

3 Wholesaler's Price Per Pound to Fishermen ........................... 38

4 Physical and Chemical Parameters and Suggested Frequency
of Measurement for Water Quality Monitoring ....... ................ III

Note to Reader:

This document is both a draft management plan and a draft environmental
impact statement for the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary.
Some of the section headings and their order are arranged differently than
frequently found in other environmental impact statements. To assist NEPA
reviewers, the following table has been developed. Under the heading "NEPA
Requirement" are listed those topics normally discussed in an EIS. The
corresponding section of this document and the page number are provided in
the other two columns.

NEPA Requirement Management Plan Page

Purpose and Need for Action ............................... Part 1, Introduction and Summary,
and Section 0--Purpose and Need ............... I

Alternatives

Preferred Alternative ................................... Part 111, Management Measures .................. 63

Preferred Boundary Alternative .......................... Part 11, Management Context,
Section 9, Location and Boundaries ............ 9

Other Alternatives ...................................... Part IV, Alternatives ......................... 125

Affected Environment ...................................... Part 11, Management Context ..................... 9
Appendix A, Coral Reef Descriptions ........... A-]
Environmental Consequences

A. General and Specific Impacts ........................ Part V, Environmental Consequences ............ 139

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental ................... Part VI, Unavoidable Adverse
or Socioeconomic Effects Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects ...... 151

C. Relationship between Short-term Uses of the ......... Part VII, Relationship between Short-term Uses
Environment and the Maintenance and of the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ....... 151

0. Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action ...... Part 11, Management Context Section F,
Action and the Objectives of Federal, State Issues and Problems Associated
Regional and Local Land Use Plans, Policies with the Resources ........................... 52
and Contacts for the Area Concerned

List of Preparers ....................................................................................... 153

List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons Receiving Copies of the
DEIS ...................................................... o...................................... o .... 155

vi i

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

A. National Marine Sanctuary Program

As development accelerates in coastal and marine areas, Federal,
State and local governments, and private groups are working with management
tools to achieve balanced development of marine resources. As part of the
response to this challenge, the National Marine Sanctuary Program provides
special protection to valuable marine habitats and associated species with
long-term programs of comprehensive management.

Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (amended in 1980), authorizes the Secretary of Commerce with Presidential
approval to designate ocean waters as national marine sanctuaries for the
purpose of preserving or restoring their conservation, recreational, ecological,
or esthetic values. Where State waters are included, gubernatorial approval
is also required. The Act is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) through the National Ocean Service's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), Sanctuary Programs Division.

The Program's mission is the establishment of a system of national marine
sanctuaries geared towards long-term benefit and enjoyment of the public.
The goals of the national program are to:

� Enhance resource protection through the implementation of
a comprehensive, long-term management plan tailored to
the specific resources;

� Promote and coordinate research to expand scientific knowledge
of significant marine resources and improve management
deci sionmaki ng;

� Enhance public awareness, understanding, and wise use of the marine
environment through public interpretive and recreational programs;
and

� Provide for optimum compatible public and private use of special
marine areas.

Sanctuary designation provides for the comprehensive management of
special marine resources and offers a measure of protection not found under
existing authorities. Management plans are developed for each marine sanctuary
to guide implementation of the sanctuary's goals and objectives and the
research and interpretive/education programs.

The proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary would be the seventh
designated site since passage of the Act in 1972 (Figure 1). The other
sanctuaries are:

0 The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary located off the coast
of southern California. The sanctuary protects valuable habitats for
marine mammals and seabirds and extensive kelp bed communities.

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY SYSTEM

Point Reyes/
Farallon Islands A
A U.S.S. Monitor

Channel Islands
A Gray's Reef

Key Largo Coral Reef
A Looe Key

0 The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, a live bottom ecosystem,
supports a diverse array of temperate and tropical species. The
sanctuary, which is located east of Sapelo Island, Georgia, insures
that the resources of the site are maintained in their natural state.

0 The Key Largo Coral Reef National Marine Sanctuary provides protective
management for a highly-utilized coral reef ecosystem south of Miami,
Florida and assures the area's continued recreational appeal.

� The Point Reyes - Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctua consists
of marine waters off the California coast north of San Francisco that
contain especially noteworthy populations of marine mammals and
seabirds.

� The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary consists of a portion of
The Florida reef tract off Big Pine Key. It contains a well-
developed coral reef and a diverse marine community that support
high recreational use.

� The U.S.S. MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary protects the
wreck of the well-known Civil War ironclad, which is located
in the waters southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

B. History of the Proposal

In May 1979, six sites were nominated for consideration as a National
Marine Sanctuary by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. The sites were Cordillera/Culebra/Vieques, Salinas/Jobos,
Cayo Berberia/Caja de Muertos, La Parguera, Mona/Monito Islands and
Desecheo Island (Figure 2). Information was distributed to the public
for comment on the feasibility of these sites as marine sanctuaries. As a
result of public review, three sites were selected for further analysis:
Cordillera/Culebra/Vieques, La Parguera, and Mona/Monita Islands.

In May 1981, an Issue Paper was distributed and workshops held on the
final three sites. Following the workshops a decision was made by NOAA and
DNR to develop draft management plans and environmental impact statements on
the proposed La Parguera and Mona/Monita sites. A DEIS scoping meeting was
held in Washington, D.C. on July 22, 1981. This document contains the draft
management plan and environmental impact statement for the proposed
La Parguera site.

0 C E A N 0 A T L A N T I C 0

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera San Juan
National
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 2
M
Lugares de AOL.
Puerto Rico
Propuestos Mona/Monito Cordillera/CulebraNieques
Por el DRN
La Parguera C:yo Beftrial Salinas/Jobos
DNR Proposed Cal do Muertos
Puerto Rican
Sites

ilugar propuesto
proposed site El

lugar escogido
chosen site Ej M A R c A R B E

kilomiros
WADmeters
2o 30 40 50 60
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 0 10 20 30 -40
, =wwR-M-M%w=M-=Mi
McLean, Virginia millas
miles @N

C. General Context for Planning

The island of Puerto Rico is part of the 70U island tropical chain
called the West Indies. Volcanic in origin, it is bordered by a shallow,
jagged insular shelf, which reaches seaward two to seven miles. Its location,
climate, hydrological conditions, and geographic features have created a
unique marine environment which supports one of the world's extensive
pristine coral reef systems, mangrove forests, and unusual bioluminescent
bays. The island also shelters many rare and endangered plant and animal
species as well as a variety of marine mammals and species of fish. Thousands
of tourists visit Puerto Rico annually to enjoy its spectacular beaches,
coral reefs, wildlife, and fishing.

Tourism, primarily from other U.S. territories and states, ranks high
among the growth sectors of the Puerto Rican economy. The number of non-Puerto
Rican tourists ranged from somewhat more than 900,OUO in 1968 to approximately
1.7 million in 1980, with some annual changes reflecting recession and recovery
of economic activity in the mainland. Tourist expenditures were at the level
of $200 million at the beginning of this period, and $615 million in 1980.
It is estimated that about half of the tourists are Puerto Ricans returning
to the Island for family visits.

Situated in the semi-arid southwestern sector between two major population
centers, La Parguera is a popular weekend recreational area for tourists--both
Puerto Ricans and non-resident visitors. It is also a "port-of-entry" for
commercial fishermen in southwestern Puerto Rico. The offshore waters
boast one of the most extensive coral reef systems in the islands with 23
separate reefs hosting a wide variety of fish and coral species. Extensive
mangrove forests line the coast and huge meadows of seagrass cover the bay
floors. Sightings of endangered manatees and endangered and threatened sea
turtles are frequent in this area and mangrove cays in Bahia Montalva support
the largest nesting population of brown pelicans in Puerto Rico.

La Parguera's bioluminescent bays continue to draw scientific researchers
from all over the world. Bioluminescence in coastal bays is rare throughout
the world. However, light-emitting plankton are found in very high concentrations
in Bahia Fosforescente and to a lesser degree in Bahia Monsio Jose located
to the east and west of the La Parguera village, respectively. Within these
shallow bays, a brilliant display of bioluminescence is created nightly by
the churning of the bay waters by boats and/or by schools of fish. Such
activity stimulates the dinoflagellates (Pyrodinium bahamense) which actually
produce the light.

D. Purpose and Need for Designation

The impacts of human activities in La Parguera have been minimal in the
past and as a result, the area is still a living laboratory where visitors
can see, study, and enjoy a relatively pristine tropical ecosystem. Each
year more and more visitors come to La Parguera to enjoy boating, swimming,
scuba diving, snorkeling, fishing and vacationing. While the expected increase
in tourism in these areas will boost regional economies, recreational development
may also become a cause of concern (for more details on issues and problems,
see Part II, Issues and Problems Associated with the Natural Resources of
the Proposed LPNMS).

For example, a non-functioning sewage treatment plant at La Parguera and
increased vacation homes are creating water pollution problems. The 23
coral reefs which skirt its coastline are facing damage by divers who are
unaware of the fragile ecology of these living communities and existing
protective regulations. Poaching of threatened and endangered sea turtles for
eggs and meat stil.1 continues. The phenomena of bioluminescence depends on
delicately balanced rates of seawater exchange and may be jeopardized by
pollution. Fears that unrestricted development in upland drainage areas
causing erosion, sedimentation and pollution, and constant boat tours will
upset the unique conditions that make Bahia Fosforescente possible may be
legitimate.
Although Commonwealth and Federal laws and regulations extend protection
to some La Parguera marine resources, important marine communities such as
some mangroves and seagrasses lack legal protection. Onsite surveillance and
enforcement actions by DNR Rangers and Federal agents are presently limited
by lack of personnel. Only two rangers patrol an area exceeding 68.27 square
nautical miles of coastal water and open sea. None of the Federal agencies
with law enforcement authority in the area maintain a sufficient onsite
presence to adequately protect the resources.

Although the University of Puerto Rico Marine Science Laboratory,
located directly offshore of La Parguera village, hosts student and other
academic groups, there is no program in La Parguera aimed at resource
interpretation and orientation of the visitors who come to La Parguera regarding
the resources and the need for conservation.

There are numerous scientific papers on the La Parguera region prepared
largely under the auspices of the University of Puerto Rico graduate marine
science program by its professors and students. However, there is no clearing
house to assess and evaluate research needs or coordinate overlapping studies
for the purposes of environmental management.
The concept of increased protection for the La Parguera area is not new.
There has been a history of concern and action regarding the resources of
La Parguera. In 1960 the National Park Service, in cooperation with the
Commonwealth government, completed an investigative report for Bahia
Fosforescente. The report concluded that the bay was an extraordinary feature
seriously threatened by deterioration from man's use of the area and that
measures should be taken to protect it. In 1968 plans were developed and
proposed in a report titled "Bioluminescent Bays of Puerto Rico" also
advocating the bay's long-range preservation. Although protection has been
considered since 1960 a clear management plan has not as yet been adopted.

In 1972, a report to the Governor of Puerto Rico entitled, Puerto Rico
and the Sea, proposed the creation of a system of Marine Environmental
Sanctuaries. This report was simply another example of the long perceived
need for protection and management of this unique environment. A National
Marine Sanctuary would finally address this need and ensure the future
conservation of the La Parguera marine resources.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through actions over the past years,
has recognized the value of La Parguera as a recreational and prime natural
resource area. The area has been designated a natural reserve by the Planning
Board and a management plan is being developed as part of the plan to manage

coastal land use and related activities in the Southwest Special Planning Area.
In light of the emphasis on protection of the area's resources on one hand
and the issues and problems on the other, the concept of a marine sanctuary
for the area is compatible with past and present management efforts for the
La Parguera region.

E. The Draft Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

A draft management plan has been prepared for the proposed La Parguera
National Marine Sanctuary. The plan describes the proposed management scheme
which seeks to preserve and maintain the tropical marine communities while
allowing compatible uses.

Part II, Management Context, provides a general background of the area.
It discusses the natural resources, social and economic factors, and issues and
problems associated with resource use and protection.

Part III, Management Measures, seeks to meet the concerns and needs for
long-term resource protection. Three major programs based upon management
goals and objectives for the LPNMS have been developed--an Administration
and Operations Program that strengthens onsite surveillance and enforcement
measures; an Interpretive Program to expand the user's knowledge of the
natural environment and the impacts of human actions; and a Resource Studies
Plan focused on identifying priority management related marine research,
resource assessment and monitoring at La Parguera.

The Administration and Operations Program will provide a management and
enforcement focus for the proposed sanctuary. Implementation will rely upon
existing DNR staff in San Juan and the Mayaguez region and will result in
additional staff for onsite management. At a minimum, new staff would include
a sanctuary manager, a part-time naturalist/ranger, a full-time ranger, and
one clerical person. A Headquarters/Visitor Center would be constructed to
house interpretive programs and provide office space.

As part of operations, regulations are being prepared to protect and
control certain activities affecting resource quality. The regulations
include controls on the taking of coral and bottom formations, cutting of
red mangroves, certain discharges, removing or damaging submerged cultural
resources and a prohibition on the use of nets designed for the illegal
taking of sea turtles. The regulations set fines for commission of prohibited
activities and establish a permit system under which certain prohibited
activities may be allowed.

The Interpretive Program seeks to inform the public about resource
issues and concerns by focusing on selected areas and features. It will
enhance public understanding of the natural environment and the consequences
of human actions. Audiovisual materials, publications, exhibits, activities,
and interpreters are examples of the mechanisms to be utilized in accomplishing
this goal. In addition to the visitor center, information and exhibits
would be provided at Mata de la Gata and Playita Rosada.

Under the proposed Interpretive Program several "hands on" learning exper-
iences will also be provided. Self-guiding trails at Bahia Sucia/Salinas
and a mangrove boardwalk tour at La Parguera are proposed. Discrete underwater
sites in certain reef/mangrove areas will be evaluated for possible designation
as snorkeling and dive trails.

Another component of the proposal is a Resource Studies Plan. Implemen-
tation would provide multidisciplinary studies on living marine resources
(species composition, abundance, diversity, etc.); community structure and
function; and physical, chemical, geological and meteorological conditions
within the proposed sanctuary. Information generated from these investigations
would be used to further understanding of the importance of marine resources
and to develop sound marine ecosystem management practices.

One of the priority resource studies would result in a compilation of
literature of past and present research within the proposed sanctuary, and
would tie this information into a retrievable data resource information
system. Other studies would focus on circulation and water quality assessments,
impacts of recreational use and monitoring of underwater trails. Research is
also proposed that would analyze use impacts on the bioluminescent bays and
grassbeds while another would result in recommendations to enhance the conch
fishery. In addition, the resource studies plan includes a proposal to
inventory and monitor endangered and threatened species.

Parts IV and V discuss alternatives and the environmental consequences
of the proposed sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary would promote resource
protection in three ways. First, it would bolster the existing regulatory/
enforcement regime. Second, the alternative provides a program of resource
interpretation directed at enhancing understanding of the basis for wise resource
management and use. Third, the proposal would develop a data/information
base from which sound management decisions are made.

The proposal could also have economic impacts beneficial to residents.
La Parguera is a "weekend" resort with most visitors arriving for short
stays from Friday to Sunday. During the week and at certain times of the
year, the several guest houses are not filled to capacity. An emphasis on
resource oriented programs may increase the number of visitors to La Parguera.

Economic benefits would also accrue to the fishermen. The information
on water quality, circulation, habitat, and particularly the conch assessment
study, would provide information on how and where fishery development projects
could best be undertaken. In addition, protection of the various fishery
habitats (mangroves, reefs, and grassbeds) should help maintain and enhance the
long-term ability of the resources to sustain the local fishing industry.
Overall, the environmental consequences of sanctuary designation would be
positive, with both short and long-term benefits to residents, visitors and
the natural environment.

PART II: MANAGEMENT CONTEXT

A. Introduction

This part of the management plan provides the background information on
the area of the proposed sanctuary. Section B, Location and Boundaries,
discusses the location and extent of the proposal, providing longitude and
latitude coordinates. Section C, Natural Resources, presents those significant
resource systems that contribute to making the La Parguera area important and
valuable. Discussed are the general physical and biological characteristics
of the area; habitats, such as coral reefs, mangroves, grassbeds; and endangered
species. Section D looks at the social and economic aspects of La Parguera and
discusses the local market economy, profiles visitors and users and presents
information on commercial fishing activities. Section E, Legal/Institutional
Background, provides information on the Commonwealth and Federal statutes
and regulations that are relevant to management of the marine and nearshore
resources.

Finally, Section F discusses the issues and problems associated with the
resources of the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary. This
section focuses on issues that affect the quality and use of the marine
resources, the problems of which are addressed in Part III, Management
Measures.

B. Location and Boundaries

The proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary lies off the
southwest coast of Puerto Rico and extends east to west from the eastern
boundary of the La Parguera Natural Reserve at Punta Sombrero to Punta Aguila
on the southwest coast and seaward to the edge of the shelf at the 100 fathom
mark. It extends landward to the area subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide (Figure 3). Within the proposed boundary, the following major natural
resources are found: coral reefs, mangroves, biuluminescent bays, and seagrass
beds. The proposed boundary coordinates are:

Pt. No. Latitude Longitude Pt. No. Latitude Longitude

1-1 N17o57'15.00" W67o12'50.00" 1-12 N17o52'08.29" W67-04'38.59"
1-2 N17o56'20.36" W67o11'52.00" 1-13 N17o52'33.66" W67-04'05.56"
1-3 N17o52'58.51" W67o11'52.00" 1-14 N17o52'41.86" W67-03'14.66"
1-4 N17o52'54.79" W67o11'09.16" 1-15 N17o52'25.95" W67-02'46.07"
1-5 N17o52'56.19" W67o10'10.18" 1-16 N17o52'32.05" W67-02'28.82"
1-6 N17o52'32.19" W67o09'30.74" 1-17 N17o52'53.65" W67-02'03.24"
1-7 N17o51'53.88" W67o08'38.85" 1-18 N17o53'10.06" W67-01'16.09"
1-8 N17o51'39.22" W67o07'55.81" 1-19 N17o53'08.68" W67-00'42.29"
1-9 N17o51'39.21" W67o07'00.57" 1-20 N17o53'19.81" W66-59'33.56"
1-10 N17o51'51.82" W67o05'57.46" 1-21 N17o53'51.37" W66-58'00.00"
1-11 N17o52'05.29" W67o05'27.63" 1-22 N17o56'43.00" W66-58'00.00"

UO!EjAajj PUZ &HvfljloNvs RNPIVN rlvNoljVN (Pa.A.A@JRAd) 8 HAIJVNHHI'IV AIMINDOU dO INIOd DNINWU T-S 0
000'001:T H'IVOS HNEWIN HONSH21da1l HEM VZlanDHVd VrI dO ARSH GRIAUNH(ll -x
VHHfl'DZIVd Vrl CIHSOdOUd wfllv(l ODIH OlHaficl
v1daf1D'dvd vri i amoz - wais7,s HUIRSH11 riyzlfljlvm do AZIVGNfloEl
ODIH OJZlafld dO HHOHS MMOS ajlv@UCRIOOD lqxvlid RIVIS ME Olusfid 9 HAIIVNIIHIrIV 7,11WINnOR dO INIOJ 9NINUML T-9 0
SaICINI ISHM OOR1 0,LHHfld MOIJ19afouci U01VOURN I SAMNNUSEIV AHWINDOU AO INIOd ONINIMI T-1 0

Z9.99 @j ooo'wz_x m,olz-x m,wu-x '81.Z9
I

Wdp p- E&qp-S ny.&.N - gi -.79 o2j.q.0 - I I
v 3101V olod 1,7 - 39 pooyV ojpq@a -or
vT-1 -7 - t- (@uvx - 6
N P.-7v - 01 - 8
j M-9 V7 61 -n7 mpm - z
_jV_ A= 4= -MI-19 91 -7-0-7-9
Iqo?Euo .-S ZI s-1-0 - 9
-mad -7 - 91 1 a?om@nL - @
-juaw6ve@s pedwi le@uawuo.@mua aq@ tq -ba!A - gi (mpmuy) 7@0 - 9
papmo@d 51@qsg aqj ol jaja@ ',riepunoq PaSodoid .7 - tr
aq@ jo wwod 5u.jujn@ aqj uo uqqewjqju.1 aoj .7 - gT J1
31 ON
m, K, E61 zIc (6-0 61e sE (8-0 V.Ygi]021vd V7 JO sJ9179
ces o,S 8-1 @'(L-S)
LL9 16, 91c 'P-Z)OT-T L-T aS1JLLNYaI JO SVNVN
9n 6e, los (6-9) (PT-9)(9-MT-T LEE (9-8) 1% 94,
es, z;c (91-g)(OT-Z) 91-1 (8`z 8) (g-z*) I T- 1 9-1 zec
(11-Z)LT-T ) ol 162
(2,1-8) ) @31_11 @@
9o, We (81-9) 61-1 Q -9)
@41 M WE
91-1 -ol
GEE 9sc (PT-Z) oz- ol D, ol- oo,
M-3 Z-1
Ise ME 81-T -C-

WE
SLE

69Z
M
R_
"OS? 0,11 1- . , f
RAZIMM 'lVllfllVN V)IaflDHVd VI

o SN
ujund o"q-of
o")
b.. SaO.f
snu! I us viund
vploD vEmo u!lLs
svauvj sv7 Ij om*ol=l
YGVNNSNS
p Gos@j o *oOr @Avqvlld
+11 1-Z
R4 __1 mund (T-0
-7 Q.. @"@ob 61 o.toli T-1
0 *6 ....... vjjnBV Inund
[email protected]
muna
i-.a Ims @!uvnq gr '1*
9 of
.-sall
up-guasua ......
Mew
jq .0
@no vjsj uaro aiod*

vatuLnD v.1 n .113,1 vrj
17
4-11 -*
ajuqujoo lHe

souolaw irjund -gw's
(.2-j-H mE-ju--n5.M ol
VDINWID HG OldiDiNfIN .1-H jwnwN w.nb.ff

svfvri H(i OidiDiNfIN HU OiciloiNfliq
orou o9vo

No 21LVD 6 o U
fi cl
uozenboEl ujgnbjuvnD@jund
oa 'S u
X uwanboll

Ij ooo'o@A

OXIVA
H(INVIID vxvavs
HG OldIDINflN RG OIJIDINfIN luau
apirvio uuuqtS NVPZUSD NVS 30 OldlOlNflW oliand olaualva vju d
truwaaq trus Of.011 OUVO
"-2;)
LEE E
7z IT

Ah
'ZG.99 1@ wo,mz-x Ij ooc'ovE_x Ij ""@81.19

The site is accessible to visitors using combinations of water, land,
and/or air transportation (Figures 4 and 5). Regular flights from San Juan
connect Puerto Rico to the major U.S. cities (New York 1,399 m., 2,251 km. -
Miami 932 m., 1,500 km.). From San Juan, sanctuary access is available by car
along one of Puerto Rico's major highways (Route 52) or by plane to Mayaguez
or Ponce. The proposed sanctuary is within easy driving distance from these
population centers, (Mayaguez 22 miles away, Ponce 30 miles away) as well as
the closer villages of Puerto Real, Boqueron, and El Combate in Cabo Rojo and
Ensenada, Guanica, and Playa Santa in Guanica.

C. Natural Resources

1. Introduction

The proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary (LPNMS) is a repre-
sentative cross-section of the tropical marine and coastal ecosystem. Most
of the area is situated on a shelf of limestone lying beneath 15 to 18 m of
warm water. This shelf juts out into the Caribbean from the coast some 8 to
10 km (6 miles) and ends suddenly as a spectacular submerged barrier reef
along much of its edge. From this shelf rise two elongated major reef
systems running from east to west, dividing the shelf into inner, middle,
and outer regions. Highly favorable climatic and hydrographic conditions and
rich dissolved organics from fringing mangroves have promoted the prolific
growth of more than 23 individual coral reef systems (Figures 6 and 7).
Numerous offshore mangrove cays are scattered throughout the shelf,
primarily within the inner and middle areas. Some are associated with coral
reefs in the outer region of the shelf. These cays, reefs, and mangrove lagoons
are also associated with extensive seagrass beds, (Thalassia) distributed
almost continuously from Punta Jorobado to Cabo Rojo, where they represent one
of the largest turtle grass areas in Puerto Rico (Gonzalez-Liboy, 1979).
Thick mangrove forests line the shore of the proposed sanctuary at Bahia
Montalva and Bahia Fosforescente; they extend from the La Parguera village
area westward almost continuously to Punta Pitahaya. Between Punta Pitahaya
and Punta Molino there is a break in the mangrove development. The mangrove
forest then continues along Bahia Sucia except where it is broken by a barrier
beach. Parts of eastern Bahia Salinas are also fringed with mangroves.
There are a few beaches interspersed with rocky outcroppings along the
shore, but access to the water is generally limited by the great stretches of
mangroves along the coast. Beaches of sand or gravel characterize much of the
shoreline of Bahia Sucia and Bahia Salinas.

La Parguera's bioluminescent bays continue to draw scientific researchers
and tourists from all over the world. Bioluminescence in coastal bays is rare
throughout the world. However, light-emitting plankton are found in very high
concentrations in Bahia Fosforescente and to a lesser degree in Bahia Monsio
Jose located to the east and west of the La Parguera village, respectively.
Within these shallow bays, a brilliant display of bioluminescence is created
nightly by the churning of the bay waters by boats or by schools of fish.
Such activity stimulates the dinoflagellates (Pyrodinium bahamense) which
actually produce the light.

0 C E A N 0
A T L A N T I C 0

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National BAHAMAS
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 4
Contexto
CUBA DOMINICAN
Regional A EP UBLIC
Regional
context PUE14TO RICO ST. JOHN
ST. THOMAS
N) HAITI ISLA E VIRGIN ISLANDS
JAMAICA mo 0. V
3 Acceso Regional ST. CROIX %0 0

M A R C A R I B E

"wmetios
ZIADMWO
0 50 100 200 300 400 500

0 50 100 200

mi0as
miles N

Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates
McLean, Virginia

0 -C E A N 0 A T L A N T I C 0

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera 0
National
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
t4arine
Sanctuary
Figure 5 mwaimonite,
. ...........
Acceso
Regional
Regional
Access
a.
aprox. 2 hr.
w at aero puerto preferred driving route,
airport approx. 2 he

colindancias propuestas
proposed boundary
M A R C A R I B E

.Puerto Real
Munlclp I munmplo
to J.. . .
bo ROJO.' do Sabana 1,
municipio 2-
us
Fpn) de'Lalas I
imunICIP
Ed@ Guan
IEI Combats :. . I
.30.4.

La Parguera

kikxnelros
MADMOIM
0 5 10 20 30

0 5 10 20
Evelyn S. Wilcox miles N
and Associates
McLean, Virginia

. . . . . . . . . .

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 6 $&a
Iva
14
Factores 10,
1130 6
Naturales JIAP'9@991'12
a Bahla Sucla 0
18 a
-2
Natural 1punts 20
Pitahaya
Factors 2 4
S 22 021'
abo Iunta
arrecifes de coral Rojo 'Jorobado
23

playa
beach

manglares
mangroves 10
...................................
costa rocosa
rocky coast
......... .......
............... .............
lie Mar Itorial
..............
bahla bloluminescente Terr
bialuminescentbay .... ry
-5o of Territorial Sea 70 :. ........... . . .
laguna hypersalina Reserva Natural Boqueron 0 'Reserva Natural La Parguera
saltwater lagoon Nei
depositos de arena
sand deposits L-j colindanclas propuestas
praderas submarines proposed boundary A E
.'eagrass beds- M

jarrecifes do coral
indicacion do contornos on brazas reels
contours shown in fathoms
I Turrumote 11 9 Mario 17 San Crisl6bal
lilometros 2 Romero 10 Cabal'. 'hoQ.d6 8 Collado
kilometers 3 Corral (Enmedio) I I Cabello Blanco 19 La Ray&
0 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 Turrumot 1 12 Laurel 20 Atravesado
Evelyn S. Wilcox 5 Caracole: 13 La Palma :21 La India
and Associates 0 1 1 1 2 3 4 8 La Gat& 14 La Conserva 22 El Palo
McLean, Virginia 7 Media Luna 15 Vieques Margarita
miflas naulicas 8 Cayo Enrique 16 Las Polotas
nautical miles

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National
Marine
Sanctuary platatonna Insular aprox. 6 miles nauticas, 11 k1lornetros
Figure 7 1 insular shelf approx. 6 nautical miles, I I kilometers
Perf! I de Natural
Factores Factors laguna: productividad alta productividad Intermedia productividad bala
Naturales Profile lagoon: high productivity Intermediate productivity low produCtIvity

.. .... ....
............ .........
. .............
;. .... I - ..........
....... ....... ..
AWN
.. ........ .........
. . .......... ........ .......
4:

... .. .......

collnas I!Iagunahypersalinal zonademanglares Pradera do thaiassla arrecite do coral y manglares arrecife hundido borde del veril
hills Isailwatefflat I fringe mangroves seagrass beds coral real with mangroves submerged reef shelf edge
Evelyn S. Wilcox comunidades bentonicas
del fondo arenoso comunldades bentonicas del
and Associates o fangoso tondo arenoso o fangoso,
McLean, Virginia benthIc communities benthic communities

These resources collectively represent some of the most diverse and
ecologically valuable marine habitats in Puerto Rico. The information in the
following section on sanctuary resources and the potential impacts from visitor
and resident uses provides the basis for resource management measures presented
in Part III.

2. Physical Characteristics

a. Geology

Low-lying hills consisting of southward dipping limestones from the
Cretaceous period line the coastal area of southwestern Puerto Rico (Almy,
1965). Northwest of these hills is an area underlined by serpentinized
periodotite of early to early late Cretaceous age (Saunders, 1973). The coastal
lowland of and near La Parguera is covered by Quaternary alluv,ial sand and silt
and by tidal swamp deposits of silt and clay (Kaye, 1959). From Punta Pitahaya
to Bahia Sucia the coastline features cliffs with developed limestone outcrops
composed of tertiary rocks, mostly limestone. Some are volcanic in origin.

Located at the very southwest tip of Puerto Rico is Cabo Rojo. Consisting
of two separate limestone knobs tied to the mainland by a forked double
tombolo, Cabo Rojo has a beach which encircles a small, triangular lagoon.
The general marine geology of La Parguera and adjacent areas is discussed
in the coral reef section of this chapter.

b. Climate

The proposed LPNMS falls within the Subtropical Dry Life Zone (Ewel and
Whitmore, 1973) receiving 500-1,200 mm (20-48 inches) of rain annually. Wet
and dry seasons are not clearly defined. The period of maximum precipitation
is usually from May through November, with periods of torrential rainfall
during September through October. Most of this rain falls during a period of
several weeks and only for short durations (Guinones, 1953). During this period
dense flows of mud washed from the soil cover are seen diffusing offshore and
are densest adjacent to tidal flats (Saunders, 1973). Runoff is the only local
source of terrigenous sediments within the proposed sanctuary since no rivers
are present. As a result of low rainfall, salinity fluctuations in coastal
areas are slight. This condition is particularly favorable to the development
of tropical marine communities, especially coral reefs, which are built mainly
by fairly stenohaline organisms restricted by salinity levels. Good water
clarity also contributes to the success of these marine communities.

Although Puerto Rico is influenced by a maritime climate and is exposed
to the easterly trade winds throughout the year, regular seasonal variations
in temperature are clearly evident. The greatest seasonal difference observed
by Glynn (1973), during a seven year period was 420F. The average annual
temperature is 770F. The driest time of the year extends from about December
through April with occasional, infrequent, substantial precipitation as cold
fronts move in from the north (Smedley, 1961). Potential evaportranspiration
is in the order of 1,900 - 2,200 mm annually, giving the region a yearly water
deficit.

Extreme maximum temperatures normally occur in the late summer (August-
September) and extreme minimums in the winter (December-March). This thermal
regime is consistent for regions exposed to the easterly trades of the Atlantic
Ocean which interact to produce "oceanic" type temperature curves with late
summer maxima and later winter minima (Riehl, 1954 as cited by Glynn, 1973).
Estimated diurnal range is in excess of 20'F (Calvesbert, 1970).

The location of Puerto Rico relative to the high pressure belt ("subtropical
highs") over the eastern Atlantic Ocean places it well within the influence of
the steady trade winds throughout the year, with a fairly regular annual
pattern (Glynn, 1973). In La Parguera, winds from the southeast and east
prevail 81.1% of the time, with combined velocities from 1U to 25 km/hr (6-15
miles/hr). Weaker winds from the north or northeast with velocities not
exceeding 10 km/hr (6 miles/hr) prevail only 12.1% of the time. Winds from
the south, southwest, west and northwest are relatively unimportant (Glynn,
1973). Periods of calm occur most often in October and November. There is an
important land-sea breeze effect with winds shifting from the east or southeast
after 7:00 or 8:00 a.m.

During cyclonic disturbances in the summer or fall, exceptionally low
temperatures (61.7'F), torrential rains (about 203 mm in a 12-hour period (i.e.,
Hurricane Edith, 1963), and very strong winds (close to 80 km/hr--5U knots) can
be experienced. These tropical storms and hurricanes are perhaps the most
obvious physical factors affecting the survival and geomorphology of shallow
marine communities, particularly emergent coral reefs.

Documentation of more recent hurricane damage to marine communities within
the proposed LPNMS have been made by Glynn et al. (1964), Glynn (1973), Cintron
(personal communication), Goenaga (1981), Armstrong (personal communication)
and Matta (1981).

c. Hydrography

Seasonal variation in mean sea water temperature follows closely that of
the atmosphere, ranging between 770 and 860F, and reaching a maximum in August-
October and a minimum in February. Annual variations in surface water temperature
are generally less than 4.50F (Coker and Gonzalez, 1980). Increased winds in
the spring appear to be related to a slight decline in the surface thermal
structure (Glynn, 1973).
Salinity values normally vary less than 2.3 parts per thousand (ppt) in
this region. Salinity data collected by Jorge Rivera on the western side of
Magueyes Island (La Parguera) indicate a maximum of 36.9 ppt and a minimum of
34.6 ppt between June 1971 and November 1972. These salinity values are similar
to offshore values indicating that circulation of the inner shelf region is
adequate to maintain open sea salinity conditions (Saunders, 1973). Tropical
storms in the region usually lower salinities considerably, thereby temporarily
stressing marine communities.

Runoff from heavy rainfall, resuspension of bottom sediments by wave action
and plankton blooms occasionally create turbid conditions. Water clarity within
the proposed sanctuary, however, is generally good and varies only from about one
meter (3.3 feet) near the shore to about 30 meters (100 feet) at the edge of
the shelf.

Tides can be characterized, as summarized by Coker and Gonzalez (1980),
and confirmed by Glynn (1973):

1) slight vertical range (daily maximum of 40 cm or 16 inches and yearly
maximum of 55 cm or 22 inches);

2) largely diurnal and irregular;

3) relatively abrupt seasonal shift in timing; and

4) higher mean elevation of sea level in late summer and fall.

Since tides have a reduced vertical range, their influence on the flushing
rate is also small (Cintron, 1969). This slow and reduced water transport
probably contributes to the high water transparency of coastal waters, promoting
the development of marine communities. On the other hand, entrapment of
pollutants near the coast due to reduced tidal action can cause pollution of
coastal waters.

The general water circulation pattern is westward, parallel to the coast
and appears to be mainly wind-driven. Preliminary measurements of surface
current velocities by Glynn (1973) near Laurel Reef (see coral reef section below)
indicated that water movement over the shelf is considerably less than in the
open sea (4.5 meters/min. vs. 25 meters/min. or 14.8 ft./min. vs. 82 ft./min.).

d. Sand Fields

The southwestern Puerto Rico shelf, including the offshore areas of the
proposed LPNMS, may be an important site for offshore commercial quality sand
resources (USGS, 1978). Seaward of Bahia Sucia and occupying most of the
middle shelf is a Halimeda-mollusk gravelly sand with no observed terrigenous
components. Much of the area of this sediment type is covered by a field of
large sand waves, with an average wave length of 350 m and heights ranging
from 2-3 m. The length of the waves is on the order of 2,500 m. The crests
of some of the waves have been partially colonized by Thalassia and other
organisms.

The presence of this sand wave field suggests that large volumes
of sand with mining potential are locally present in the area considered for
sanctuary designation (Figure 6).

As a result of the apparent developing need for offshore sand for construction
aggregate for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department
of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth (DNR) began investigations of potential
offshore sand deposits on the Puerto Rican insular shelf in 1974. Three major
sand bodies were located on the insular shelf. As might be expected in an area
of westward-directed winds and water currents, all three sand areas are located
at the western end of the islands. The Isabela area is found at the western
end of the northern coast of Puerto Rico; the southwestern area is located near
the west end of the south coast of Puerto Rico in the vicinity of Bahia Sucia
and Cabo Rojo (but outside the area of the proposed sanctuary); and the Escollo
de Arenas area is located north of the western end of Vieques Island. The
area of greatest commercial potential in the southwest lies directly south of
Cabo Rojo point.

3. Habitats and Biological Characteristics

a. Coral Reefs

Two hypotheses have been postulated to explain the origin of La Parguera
reefs. The first one states that the major geological features of La Parguera
have resulted from the deformation of upper Cretaceous limestones (with
interbedded mudstones and volcanic rocks), forming a west-northwest/east-southeast
trending syncline whose axis passes through Magueyes Island (Almy, 1969). The
northern limb of the syncline is represented by the La Parguera hills and,
possibly, the southern limb by the coral reefs on the shelf. The second
hypothesis (Kaye, 1959) claims that these reefs have developed on drowned,
limestone cuestas formed as eolianite structures parallel to the shore during
the Wisconsin Glacial period.

The following sections describe zonation patterns of representative reefs
within the inner, middle, and outer shelves. Although these patterns are often
the same, these zonation schemes can sometimes be highly variable within a reef
(Goenaga, 1981, Morelock, 1977, 1979). The twenty-three identified reefs of
La Parguera are listed in Table I and Figures 9 and 10 show the location of
the reefs.1

(1) Inner Shelf Area

The inner shelf, bordered on the south by La Gata Reef, Enrique Reef,
and others, is characterized by fine grained, poorly sorted sediments. This
material comes mainly from in situ bioerosion (Morelock et al., 1977) in the
back reef aprons. Scatter6d-throughout this protected area are cays in various
stages of successional development.

These cays, with the staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) dominating
their shallower zones, pass through a series of stages eventuilly becoming
mangrove cays (Welch, 1962). Formation of these cays is dependent on the
upward growth of Porites hillocks (the Porites biotope). The windward crest

1 The area shown in (Figure 6), Natural Factors of La Parguera, has
been subdivided into three area maps to provide more detail on each area.
The easternmost area, Area I, (Figure 8) features the ecological system of
Bahia Montalva and Bahia Fosforescente. The central portion, Area II,
(Figure 9) contains the recreational center of La Parguera village, the two
DNR parks of Playita Rosada and Mata de La Gata, the mangrove forest of the
Boqueron State Forest and the majority of the coral reefs. Area III,
(Figure 10), the westernmost portion of the proposed LPNMS, features Bahia
Sucia and Bahia Salinas with the Cabo Rojo tombolo separating the two.

TABLE I

CURAL REEFS WITHIN THE PROPOSED LA PARGUERA NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

REEFS LATITUDE LONGITUDE

1. Turrumote 11 17055.8' N 66058.4' W
2. Romero 17057.1 66059.7'
3. Corral (Enmedio) 17056.8 67000.5'
4. Turrumote 1 17056.3 67001.2'
5. Caracoles 17057.9 67002.1'
6. La Gata 17057.9 67002.4'
7. Media Luna 17056.4 67002.8'
8. Enrique 17057.4 67002.8'
9. Mario 17057.2 67003.3'
IU. Caballa Ahogado 17057.9 67002.9'
11. Caballo Blanco 17058.1 67003.0'
12. Laurel 17056.6 67003.8'
13. La Palma 17057.6 67004.4'
14. La Conserva 17057.7 67004.9'
15. Vieques 17058.0 67004.3'
16. Las Pelotas 17057.6 67004.4'
17. San Cristobal 17056.7 67004.2'
18. Collado 17057.4 67004.7'
19. La Raya 17057.1 67005.1'
20. Atravesado 17056.6 67005.2'
21. La India 17056.3 67005.1'
22. El Palo 17056.0 670U5.5'
23. Margarita 17055.2 67006.7'

Coordinates of all named identified reefs of La Parguera presented from east
to west. Carlos Goenaga, 1981.

Santuano . .....
.:villa posquera
Marino
Nacional
00 d
La Parguera Sah
Fostorescente .4yrl
National Ca 13-hia montat".
103
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 8 -1-3
Area I - Cayo Enrique Punta
Montalva
Montalva/
Fosforescente

arrecJfes do Corral (En
coral
coralreels
E3

playa
beach Punta
manglares Sombrero
-0-e 70-R
media Lun
mangroves
costarocosa Turrurnote i
rocky co@,sf 10
bahla bioluminescente GU
bioluminescent be
Praderas submarines Punta Jolobado
seagrass beds

casetas
10
EsPecles on Pellgro
do ExIIncl6n
Endangered Specie, C D 10
a)calraz
b'.. Pelican

manati
manatee
cndicac'r cl@.. to
las fortugas marinas ,. . %,= brazes
sea lufnes kilomeltos
kilometers J
0 .5 1
Evelyn S. Wilcox 2- 2 3
and Associates 0
McLean, Virginia - 2 -------------------
milw naul@cas --------
nautka indes
N

La Pa, u,.,
Santuario

0
Marino
Nacional Isla
Magueyes
La Parguera Isla
OCaballoBlaco
National 17. 0 Vieques
5
Marine CaWlIo Ahogad6
OP go raracoles
Sanctuary ap ALS Conserve
Baltda
Monslo J Palma La Ga a'
Figure 9 Las Pabolas
Cayo Ent"
Collado
Area Isla
Guayacan
Poblado M-01
WOL. Rays
arrecifes do coral
coral reels

playa
beach 11
Alravesado, Laurel
manglare Media Luna
mangrove: El I
40
N) La India
I".) costa rocosa 11 11
rocky coast El Pajo
bahla bioluminescente
bioluminescent bay

praderas submarines
seagrass beds

%
caselas

Margarita
0
W
1
Especles en Pellgp t= ---
de Extinclon
Endangered Species

alcalraz
brown pelican
tomos en brazas
@a-n-tou-rss'h-o-w-n in fathoms
las tonugas marinas
sea turtles kilomelios
kilometers
0 .5 2
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 1 0 .5 1 2
McLean, Virginia
-illas naut cas
nautical miles N
"'at
C

Municipio do Cabo Rojo

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National Punta 0
Agulla
Marine Bahia Sucla
Sanctuary
Figure 10 Bahia Salinas ft to
Area III Pltahaya
Sucia/Salinas

arrecifes de coral
coral reels

playa
beach
manglares 5 abo Rojo
MangrovesEl

W costa rocosa
rocky coast

laguna hypersalina
saltwater lagoon

depositos de arena
sand depositsEl

praderas submarinas
seagrass beds

Especle n P
so t8"?6ro
d, E Inc
X
Endangered Species

manali
manatee
ridicacion do conl(xrios an bra
contours shown in faltooms
las tortugas marinas
sea turtles kilornetros zas
k0orneters
0 .5 1 2 3 delalleAdetaill
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 0 .5 1 2
McLean, Virginia miRas naulicas
nautical mdes I

grows more rapidly than the leeward one, eventually interfering with current
movement across the central portion of the reef. Reduced circulation impedes
leeward coral growth, leading to conditions favorable for the proliferation of
seagrasses and calcareous algae. Later, the sediment builds up due to the
sediment-accumulating property of seagrasses and encourages the colonization
of the red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Finally, the subtidal flora adjacent
to the mangrove dies because of overshading by tree cover.

The Porites biotope (referred to in the previous paragraph) is a major,
although probably transient community of these as well as of the outer shelf
reefs. On these reefs extensive beds of Porites colonies are formed leeward
from the reef crest. Occasionally, they occur on other protected parts of the
reef. These beds sometimes cover several square meters (Glynn, 1973; Goenaga,
personal communication) containing a high diversity, biomass and population
density of associated biota. This biota includes a wide variety of benthic
algae, foraminifers, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, sipunculids, anthozoans,
and sponges.

The inner shelf reefs are also generally characterized by a restricted
coral fauna, a poorly developed elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) zone, and the
absence of a Millepora dominated reef crest. Zonation patterns are, generally,
not very conspicuous and the reef base is usually about ten meters deep.

These reefs, because of their protected location, are less affected by
hurricahe-generated waves and may play an important role in providing coral
larvae supply to outer reefs, where shallow coral zones are left devoid
of coral damaged by tropical storms. (See Appendix A for a detailed description
of some of the coral reefs found in this area.)

(2) Middle and Outer Shelf Areas

The fore reef of Enrique Reef as well as that of Mario, La Gata and
Caracoles Reefs belong to the middle shelf area with moderate exposure to the
incoming waves. The outer area is limited to the north by Laurel, Media Luna,
and others. These reefs receive high wave energy and generally present a
marked zonation in the fore reef. The palmata zone is usually-very extensive.
During storms of moderate to high intensity, however, this zone is wiped out
completely, depositing broken colonies on the reef crest and forming flat
promontories close to three meters in relief (Glynn et al., Goenaga, 1981).

It should be noted that even though storm damage is quite extensive, the
areas principally affected are those which contain the fastest growing corals.
Thus, the regeneration period is, in the absence of additional stresses (natural
or man-made), fairly short (15-25 years).

Apparently, due to the high energy to which these reefs are exposed,
deposition of fine sediments is not sufficient to support the establishment of
the red mangrove, (Cintron et al., 1978). The white mangrove, Laguncularia
racemosa, however, has settled on these substrates. (See Appendix A for a
-je-tailed description of some of the coral reefs found in this area.)

b. Mangroves

Mangrove forest development and structure within the proposed sanctuary
appear to be related to exposure to wave energy (Cintron et al., 1978).
Conditions affecting exposure include: (a) orientation in relation to incoming
waves, (b) protection afforded by outer reefs, (c) distance from the border of
the insular shelf, and (d) as in the case of Bahia Salinas, protection from the
prevailing winds and currents by the Cabo Rojo sand tombolo.

Conditions of minimum exposure to wave energy (as in the near shore
areas of Punta Pitahaya and in the core of large mangrove inlets) are
apparently associated with a high accumulation of salts and toxic compounds
(e.g., ammonia) derived from the anaerobic metabolism of soil biota due to
low water flushing rates. Conditions of maximum exposure are associated
either with the absence of mangroves due to the impossibility of seed
implanting (as west of Punta Molino and northern Bahia Sucia) or with the
formation of berms on the outer fringes which reduces circulation of the
water to the interior, eventually killing the trees (as in the lagoon area of
eastern Bahia Sucia). Intermediate exposure appears to be optimum for mangrove
development (as in Caballo Blanco and Enrique Cay).

Of the five mangrove forest types described by Lugo and Snedaker (1974),
all but the river type are found within the region. These are (a) the fringe
forest which predominates, (b) the overwash forest., (c) the basin forest, and
(d) the dwarf forest. Location of the major stands of mangroves is found
on (Figures 8, 9 and 10). Figure 11, Mangrove Profile, provides an illustration
of a cross-section of a typical mangrove area.

(1) Fringing

As in most of the southwest coast, fringing mangroves grow at the edge
of the water and exhibit low structural complexity, low leaf fall, and low rate
of growth. They are dominated by the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle, (Cintron
et al., 1978). These mangroves are in continuous contact with'sea water.

Associated with the submerged prop roots characteristic of the red
mangrove is a rich community containing a wide assortment of organisms.
Competition for space on these roots is high. Invertebrates present include
crustaceans, molluscs, bryozoans, sponges, echinoderms, polychaetes, and
coelenterates. Vertebrates include fish and a wide variety of tunicates.
Algae from different taxonomic groups are also very abundant.

Emergent segments of the prop roots, as well as the stems of other
mangrove species, are also used as substrate for invertebrates, especially
crustaceans and molluscs. Associated with these diverse root and stem
communities is a rich variety of abundant wildlife, especially birds.

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
-.J
La Parguera
National
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 11
Perfil
Tfpico de mangle rolo
red mangrove
Manglar mangle negro
black mangrove
Typical mangle blanco
Mangrove white mangrove
Profile Tipos de Mangle Canal del Manglar
N) Types of Mangrove Mangrove Channel

-h
If ......... . .......
....... ...........
......... ....
... . ...
v,
.. . ... . ... .
... . ...; . . .
............. . .....
...........

010-1. @Owrll ..:.

mar mangle rojo mangle negro mangle blanco mangle negro mangle rolo, canal del manglar mangle rojo
sea red mangrove black mangrove white mangrove black mangrove red mangrove mangrove channel red mangrove

Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates
McLean, Virginia

Fringing, as well as other types of mangroves, also serve as nurseries for
many species of fish which migrate to adjacent coral reefs or seagrass beds during
their life cycle. Dissolved and particulate organic material and other nutrients
are also exported to these adjacent subtidal communities.

Because of their location and the land-sea interface, red mangroves play
an important role in protecting coastal land. Mangrove stands act as buffers
absorbing the force of wave energy, therefore attenuating and preventing coastal
erosion.

(2) Overwash

Offshore, overwash mangrove forests develop over shallow platforms or
islets (cays) within the inner shelf. These are overtopped daily or less
frequently by high tides and extend laterally. With extensive prop root
development, water circulation eventually is reduced within the inner
zones. The inner red mangrove trees die due to salt accumulations from reduced
water circulation (this species is not very tolerant to high salinities) and
are replaced by stunted black mangroves (Avicennia germinous), a species
more tolerant of high salinities. Finally, sa inity increases beyond the
threshold tolerance of the black mangroves which die at the core of the
islet. A hypersaline lagoon is then formed. This process may be set back
by natural or human induced forces such as hurricanes or mangrove cutting,
respectively (Cintron et al., 1978). All stages of this process are represented
within the proposed sanctuary.

These overwash mangroves also have associated prop root communities and
commonly serve as bird rookeries within the area. In La Parguera these islets
are critical to large numbers of herons, the endangered brown pelicans, and
terns. The only nests of the endangered yellow-shouldered blackbird safe
from parasitization by cowbirds are found on these small cays.

(3) Basin

Even though basin mangrove forests are much better developed off the north
coast of Puerto Rico, they do appear in La Parguera in close association with
the fringing forests (i.e.,*Pitahaya). These forests are normally separated
from direct contact with sea water except during very high tides or during
stormy weather.

The dominant species is the more tolerant black mangrove and to a lesser
degree, the white mangrove, Laguncularia racemosa. Sometimes the buttonwood,
Conocarpus erectus, is found ithin the innermost reaches of the forest.
Various species of decapod crabs are usually associated with either the soils
or the tree stems of these forests, for example, the fiddler crabs of the genus
Uca, the colorful Gomiopsis cruenata, and others. Many birds also use these
habitats.

(4) Dwarf

Even though dwarf mangrove forests within the proposed sanctuary have
not been reported in the literature, low stature trees have been observed.
Although it is not known whether these are true, nutrient-limited dwarf trees
or trees stunted due to high soil salinities, favorable conditions exist for
the development of these dwarf types (Cintron, 1982, personal communication).

c. Salt Water Flats and Lagoons

Hypersaline lagoons and salt flats occur inland from the mangrove forests.
They are formed as a result of reduced inland runoff, higher evaporation
rates, and reduced rainfall (Martinez et al., 1979). Dead black mangrove
trees are often seen within these lagoons.

d. Seagrass Beds

The general climatic and oceanographic characteristics of the region as
well as the low incident of waves and the protection afforded by the above
mentioned cays and reefs, all tend to promote high seagrass development
(Gonzalez-Liboy, 1979), (Figures 6, 8, 9, and 10).

Depth, irradiance, atmospheric exposure and wave action appear to be the
most important factors affecting the distribution of these beds within the
region. Just west of Punta Pitahaya, the protection afforded by outer reefs
especially Margarita, ends more or less abruptly, thus exposing the inshore
grass beds. As a consequence, grass-free depressions or blowouts are formed
probably due to storm generated waves (Gonzalez-Liboy, 1979). Coincidentally,
mangroves are not present within the shoreline segment (from Pitahaya to Punta
Molino). Their development is also apparently precluded by this condition.

Thalassia testudinum is the dominant seagrass in La Parguera followed
by Sy-ringodium filiforme, Halo hilla sp. and Halodule wrightii. Turtle grass
(Thalassia testudinum) beds in southwestern Puerto Rico are structurally well
developed. Their net production is higher than in other beds in Puerto Rico,
having high turnover values and being capable of producing 18 crops a year
(Gonzalez-Liboy, 1979). Standing crop, biomass and Teaf length were found to
be higher in deeper beds as opposed to shallower ones (Delgado, 1978).

From the intertidal zone to depths of about 10 m, Thalassia beds are
present. Large, well-developed meadows have generally been observed at depths
of 2 m or less. These meadows occupy most of the shallow bottom just offshore
the mangrove fringe. Off Isla Guayacan, for example, Thalassia and Syringodium
grow close to the submerged mangrove roots.

Dense growth of Thalassia has also been observed in semi-enclosed areas
with good circulations and clear waters. Two examples are the meadows northeast
of Magueyes Island and around Cueva Island. These areas are protected by
mangrove islets and have an average depth of 2 m. The sea condition is
usually calm allowing for good transparency. Water transparency measured

horizontally near the Cueva and Magueyes sites was 6.5 m. These conditions
of clear waters appear to prevail throughout most of the year, except
during periods of very heavy rainfall and runoff (October and November).

The distribution of Thalassia near offshore reefs, islets, and mangrove
islands with the sector is generally restricted to the lee (north) side of
these formations. Exceptions to this are the meadows growing around mangrove
islands within the inner shelf province. Protection offered by the rather
large system of offshore reefs allows Thalassia to colonize both the leeward
and windward sides of these islands; it commonTy occurs in association with
coral species such as Millepora complanta and Octopora cervicornis.

Thalassia is absent from the exposed reef fronts which continuously
receives the impact of the incoming waves. However, on the innundated
central portion of the reef flats Thalassia develops among the coral rubble.
Thalassia is also present in the shallow lagoon side of the reefs where it
occurs in a rather variable band just behind the reef flat.

Seagrass beds within the area display a high diversity of inches which
allow for a wide variety of organisms, some of which, like the queen conch,
are of high local commercial importance. Other associated organisms include
other mollusks, coelenterates (including isolated corals), echinoderms,
sponges, fish, sea turtles, and manatees. Algae of different groups are
also abundant and diverse (Glynn, 1964; Matthews, 1967). Many species of
reef fish are entirely dependent on seagrass beds for nutrition and migrate
daily for feeding purposes. The endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata) have been sighted in the seagrass beds within the proposed sanctuary.

The seagrass beds between Bahia Sucia and Punta Pitahaya are exceptionally
well-developed and extend from the shoreline to depths of 10-11 m. They
become less dense as depth increases and occupy a great deal of the inner
shelf bottom. Thalassia is the dominant seagrass, although Syringodium is
also very common. Samples of dead seagrass leaves piled up at the beach at
Bahia Sucia after a tropical storm consisted of 52% (dry weight) Thalassia
and 45% Syringodium.

e. Beaches

Shoreline beaches are present from east to west, at Caleta Salina,
Salinas Salineta, Punta Montalva, east of the entrace to Bahia Fosforescente,
Papayo, Playita Rosada, west of Punta Pitahaya, Bahia Sucia, Los Morrillos
(Cabo Rojo Point), and northern and northeastern Bahia Salinas. It is
reported that sea turtles still nest on the beaches of Bahia Sucia and
Bahia Salinas (DNR Rangers, personal communication, 1982).

f. Rocky Shores

Rocky shores, usually found in exposed areas with strong wave action,
are located from east to west in southern Isla Matei, eastern Bahia
Fosforescente, Isla Guayacan, near Isla de Cuevas, Punta Molino and the
eastern, western and southern parts of the sand tombolo at Cabo Rojo.

-PaU9JPaJqJ. P89PUL SL
UOLIeLndod OOL@ oliand LPOOL aqq Inq 'a6UPJ aJLIUa S4@ qnoq6nojql paia6uepua lou
SL (OCOd oqP3 lp puno@) Mona aajl UPLPUI IsaM aql 'DLdwexa joA *OOLd o4jand
UL SLPWLUP ;0 snIpIs a4l kLUO SuJaOuOo quawnoOP LPOOL aql a:)ULS 'ISL[ SgLOads
paia6uPPUa LeJ@P8A a4l SaOP UPLIJ SLPWLuP LPDOL ajow kupw sapnLOUL saojnosa@
LejnIPN ;0 juaw-liedaa ODLN oliand a44 40 JSLL LPWLUP paia6uppua aql

-OOL@ oliand UL PUP PLJOm aql. UL aJPJ qIoq aiam sjaqqo !SOLoads
Paja6uppua sp .s*n aqi UL P84SLL PUP PLJOM a4l qnoq6nojq4 ejej @jam SaL:)ads
a44 40 aWOS -OOLd oliand 04 loadsai qq@m qpj@qpq ;0 UOL4P:)OL PUP 'IUawJa6UPPUa
4o asneo l4uawja6uepua lo aaj6ap Xq sLeWLUP Paq@iDsap JSLL aa4IMOD 94-L

-saoin0sad LPin4PN 4o quaw-4jedaa ODL@ o-liand aq4 J04 SUOLI2ZLUP6JO
a'4PALid PUP SaL:)ua6P LPJaPaA PUP WILPamuOMOO ;0 SGAL-IPIUaSaidai lo aallpWoo P Rq
CL6L UL Pajpdaid SPM ,SaL:)adS LPWLUV paia6uppu] Put? aJPd S,PUPLSI,, aqJ ;0 JSLL
V *sainssaid 4uawdOLaAap 6ULMOj6 lo ILnsai P sp lpaja6uppua 6ULaq ;o a6JaA aq4
uo jo lpaja6uppua aip sa6upJ UOLqnq@J4SLP Pa-J@WLL jo sq.PI@qpq PaZLLPL:)ads ql@m
S,3LOads jaqlo *6ULlunq jo llpq@qpq 4o a:)upqjnlSLP 'UOLI:)njlsap @o ILnsai
P SP UOL40ULIXa ql@M PaUalPaJql aJP OOLd 04Jand UL SaLOads LPWLUP RUPW

sapadS paia6uPPu3 PUP aJPd -V

*kLddns JUaLj4nu aqq ol ppP upaoo uado aqq. woj4 6ULJa'4Ua SlUaLJ-4nu SP Ham
SP sPuPLdn R@Jeau wOJJ umOP Pa4sPm SLPLJaJPW ',kLLPuOL4WPV *ja44ew oLue6jo
PUP SJUaLjqnu RJPssaDau RLddns saAOAUPW @ql q4@m P'aIPLOOSSP SaL:)ads' WOjJ
slonpoid a-4SPM qj@M 6UOLP SaAOj6upw aq4 wojj JallPw LPI@Jlaa *SLPWLUP PUP
sluPLd ;o Reiip aSJaALP PUP 40LJ p Iioddns skpq aq-4 6ULpunojjns saail
aAoj6upW *PaLJPA aJP SaIP[La6PL;Ou@p aSa44 J04 4UaWqSLjnou 4o saoinos aqi
*WaISRS03a ale:)LLaP Put? aJPJ P salpajo s4pq aq-4 ULqI@M JUaWaAOW JG4PM PE)-40LJJ.SaJ
aqq Isaoinos aSJaA@P WOJ@ 6ULJa4Ua S4UaLJlnu qDLJ 40 UOLIPULqwoo a44 44@m 6UOLV
'a:)Ua:)SaULwnLOLq jo; SUOLJ@PuOO LPaP@ aql aIpajo (6ULqsnL@ JO) a6ueqDxa jalempas
10 a4PJ mOL 044 PUP SaDuPJlu8 mOJJPu Osa4l 40 UOL4PULqwoo aqi -UOLSOJa PUP
6ULJE)q'4PaM Rq pE)wjo4 sq4now moijeu ql.@m SULSPq kl:)oj i a@H-qajood ILLPws aJP
skpq qlog *(896L '93LAJaS @JPd LPUOLIPN) sia4aw inol kLa4PWLxojdde SL SPaJe
qqoq UL q4dap jaIPM *sja,4aw ajenbs 000'69 SULPJUO3 aSOP OLSUOW PLqpR aLNm
sialaw ajpnbs 00010OZ lo Paip aopjjns LPIOI P SPq a4Ua3SaJO;SOA PLqPS

-asuawpqea wnLULPOJkd 'aIPLLa6PL40ULP aql. lia-4Nup[d 6ULJ.4@wa-Iq6LL
aq4 40 'SUOL4PJJUa3UOO q6L4 UL 'aOUaISLXa 641 Rq pasnpo SL SLqJ -JaJPM aql
q6nojq,4 6ULUUnj PUPq P JO 'qSL; ;0 LOOqOs P la@pm s,lpoq P Rq PaIPLnWLIS Uaqm
aL@Jpds aSOP OLSUOW PLqPq laaj6ap JassaL P 04 'PUP a4Ua:)SaJOJSOJ PLqPq 10 Sialpm
aq4 446LU IV -k pup q g sain6L@) uouawouaqd LelUaWUOJLAUa SLqJ 4ioddns
qDLqM skpq papnLOas OM4 RJP aJaql kl@ULOLA Pjan6jPd PI aq4 uI *skpq Lelseo:)
UL uaas kLaJ'?J Inq lupaoo uado aqJ UL uOwwO:) RLJLP@ SL E):)Ua:)SaULwnLOL9

skpq 4uaosauLwnLOLS -6

The following rare and endangered species selected from that list are
those known to occur in La Parguera. Three species endangered worldwide and
protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the West Indian Manatee
(Trichechus manatus), the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata),
and the bro.wn pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) f-r-equent the p-roposed LPNMS
(Figures 8, 9, and IU).

a. West Indian Manatee

The West Indian Manatee or sea cow, Trichechus manatus, is one of only
four living species belonging to the unique group of aquatic herbivores, the
mammalian Order Sirenia. It is a massive, fusiform, thick-skinned, nearly
hairless animal with paddle-like forelimbs, no hindlimbs, and a spatulate,
horizontally flattened tail. Most adult manatees are 9 to 11 1/2 feet (2.8 to
3.5 meters) in length. Manatees are usually slow moving, but are able to swim
swiftly for short distances (Brownell, 1980).

This species historically was found in shallow coastal waters, bays,
lagoons, estuaries, rivers, and inland lakes throughout much of the tropical
and subtropical regions of the New World Atlantic, including many of the
Caribbean islands. However, at the present time, manatees are now rare or
extinct in most parts of their former range (Brownell, 1980).

During the latter half of the 1800's manatees were fairly common around
Puerto Rico., although estimates of numbers are not available. They are now
less common. The decrease in numbers is attributed to silting of rivers and
hunting pressure. Recent surveys indicate a total Puerto Rico population of
less than 100 animals. Small groups are frequently sighted on the south coast,
and around the mouth of the Fajardo River on the east coast. Current population
trends are unclear. A small number of manatees are still taken each year in
fishing nets (Brownell, 1980).

b. Hawksbill Sea Turtle

Hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are known to frequent the
waters of the proposed sanctuary. This species is usually found in shallower
water, usually in depths of less than 50 feet. The hawksbills seem to prefer
cleaner beaches and more oceanic exposure. Even though the hawksbill wanders
a great deal, it seems more attached to one region than other sea turtles
(Rebel, 1974). The mangroves and adjacent seagrass beds provide ideal
foraging grounds for these animals. Rangers have seen signs of turtle nesting
on the beaches of Bahia Sucia and Bahia Salinas. Although the turtles
are endangered and protected under the Endangered Species Act, poaching still
occurs.

C. Brown Pelicans

The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) of the Caribbean is a sea bird
that does not venture far from re. It feeds on fish which it sights from
the air and then seizes in plunging dives (Welty, 1975). Historically, brown
pelicans nested on Enrique Cay and Turromote Cay in La Parguera. At the present
time, however, in the La Parguera area pelicans are nesting only on cays in
Montalva Bay, where they represent the largest breeding colony in Puerto Rico.

B. Social and Economic Factors

1. Regional Characteristics

The proposed LPNMS falls within the San German labor market area (Cabo
Rojo, Lajas, Subana Grande, and San German municipalities) of the southwest
economic sector. The La Parguera region is located between the major population
center of Mayaguez and Ponce on the west and south coasts,respectively.

Mayaguez, a seaport, is the sixth largest city in Puerto Rico, with a
1980 population of 96,193. The economy of the city centers largely on shipping,
commercial fishing, light industry, and the University of Puerto Rico. San
German is ten miles from Mayaguez and the site of the main campus of the
Interamerican University. Ponce, the third largest metropolitan area and
seaport in Puerto Rico, had a population of 189,046 in 1980.

The San German labor area municipalities in 1980 contained a population
of 108,410, or three percent of the population of Puerto Rico (3.2 million).
The unemployment level of San German is estimated at 12.6 percent of the work
force or 39,000, placing the area in the category of "persistent unemployment."
The island-wide rate of unemployment is substantially higher, estimated at 22
percent. Agricultural activity is minor. Government and industry comprise
the principal fields of employment.

The municipality of Lajas, of which the barrio of La Parguera is a
part, is among the least populated areas of the San German market area. Its
economic activity is mostly influenced by its proximity to subregional
commercial, service, and governmental activities.

2. Local Characteristics

The population of the La Parguera region is primarily in the village of
La Parguera. It has evolved from a small fishing village to a popular
recreational area for Puerto Ricans. The barrio (ward) and village of La
Parguera, the population center of the region, are practically one and the
same. The most recent population count for the barrio was 1,678, of which
the village contained 1,278. Reliable social and economic data for the village
of La Parguera are limited. The permanent population of the village is reported
to have increased from about 1,000 in 1960 to 1,700 in 1980. Housing units
apparently increased more dramatically, from about 250 units in 1968 to a
reported 680 units in 1980.

It is possible that, based on the reportedly small residential
population and the range of labor market opportunities (i.e., recreational
infrastructure, commercial fishing, marine research), the work force in La
Parguera is presently being supplemented by workers living outside, but
within commuting distance of the village.

3. Users

a . Vi sitors

The fishing village of La Parguera is a center for recreational boating
and fishing, snorkeling, SCUBA diving, and sightseeing on the southwest coast
(Figure 12, Existing Recreational Use). During the day, charter boats
take visitors to Mata de la Gata, a small park with picnicking and swimming
facilities on an offshore islet owned and managed by the Commonwealth Department
of Natural Resources. Other boat trips take visitors to explore the many
reefs offshore. Day trips are available to some of the larger cays. A glass
bottom boat, averaging 22 passengers per trip, is also available at the town
docks to view submerged reefs and fish. Snorkeling, SCUBA equipment, and
boats may be rented at one facility along the waterfront.

Visitors coming to La Parguera from nearby population centers such as
Ponce, Mayaguez, Lajas, and San German, and international visitors are particularly
attracted to La Parguera's most distinctive feature, Bahia Fosforescente. At
night, the two boat companies in La Parguera take visitors to the bay, making
as many as four or five trips per night. There are apparently no boat charters
for sportfishing at the present time (Pepe, personal communication, 1981).

Although data on visitors to La Parguera are limited, tourism appears to
be increasing. There are, of course, the "permanent" visitors: owners and
guests occupying vacation or second homes, which presumably account for the
spurt in housing units between 1968 and 1980. The interest in recreational
fishing, boating, and diving throughout La Parguera waters, as well as the
attraction of Bahia Fosforescente to island-wide and overseas visitors is
demonstrated by the existence, in La Parguera, of two hotels and nine quest
houses (241 rooms), four cafeterias, and seven restaurants.
This variety of attractions, including the DNR recreational facilities at
Isla Mata de La Gata, and Playita Rosada (a public beach), the marine sciences
laboratory of the University of Puerto Rico situated on Isla Magueyes, directly
across the channel from the town, and the outstanding natural scenic beauty of
the coastal area is apparently resulting now in an annual tourist visitation
rate of more than 35,000 (DNR Mayaguez Office Statistics, 1981). The majority
of these visitors, according to residents, are Puerto Rican, who probably come
from the urban centers of Ponce, 57 km (30 miles) and Mayaguez, 35 km (22
miles) away. It appears that most "international" or mainland tourists, thus
far, prefer the gaming tables and crashing surf of the northern "Gold Coast"
to the more natural attractions offered by La Parguera.

b. Education and Research

Although the Marine Sciences Program of the University of Puerto Rico is
based in Mayaguez, most of the teaching pd research is carried out on an
18-acre island (Magueyes) directly offshore La Parguera village. The Department
of Marine Sciences offers both a Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy
degrees.

Santuarlo
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National
44,
Marine
Sanctuary

:'d-
Figur
e 12
. .... ..... p
USO:.
Recreativo.

Isla Wgueyea
Existente Cayo
Caw1o atanco
0 BMW Fos see t
we
Existing 0 tours nighuy to as
Cabello N"60 &YO
Gue" C
40LA CW*erva
Recreational
m 3 0 J036
PaIrms Ls Gate
Use Isla As. P610148 201
Quavacaft

pwque publico
public park GU Puma
ayacanp
Cayo "que
sw/, COL. Rays

e"u) scuallco
water sk)jjlg

"wind suMnW'
wind surfing Atraves Laurel
San CrIsIftal Media Luna
arreWles do coral
Go

TU'u"t,
La India
Sib
414 R @ 1. - I ,
EI Palo

0 .5 1 2 3 detabNOW
Evelyn S. Wilcox Ow6mmm"Oftwelmmummumemage-Owwwwommumme - -----
0
and Associates
McLean, Virginia --eee:
N

The Magueyes Island Field Station is operated for the purposes of
education and research in the marine sciences (biological, geological, physical,
and chemical oceanography). A wide variety of shal low water tropical marine
habitats are found within a short distance of the station and the facilities
and equipment needed for their study are largely available on the island.
There are various small boats available for use in protected inshore
waters. For offshore work including deep-ocean capabilities, the R/V
Medusae (60 feet), a converted shrimp trawler, the R/V Pezmar (50 feet), and
the R/V Crawford (125 feet) are available for students and for charter.

In addition to marine science graduate students, outside visitors, study
groups and scientists make use of the facilities for nominal fees. Guided
tours are provided, free of charge, for school groups and other interested
organizations. Snorkeling and SCUBA diving from university boats are permitted
for visitors.

A small three room dormitory with bunk beds is available on Magueyes Island
along with modest kitchen facilities. Individuals or small groups use this
dormitory, while larger groups usually stay at the Hotel Villa Parguera in the
village.

C. Commercial Fishing

The fishing population in the La Parguera area, organized in five
fishermens' associations from Guanica to Boqueron, were contacted by Evelyn S.
Wilcox and Associates in order to interview "key informants." The president
of each association and several of the most active members were interviewed in
order to:

� obtain their views on the possible impact of the marine sanctuary
program on their activities;
� obtain updated information on fishing activities in the area in
order to compare with available statistics; and

� determine fishermen's needs and concerns.

Data collected are presented throughout this section. For more detailed
information and a list of associations and persons contacted see Appendix B.

The National Marine Sanctuary Program was viewed positively by most of the
fishermen. They were concerned, however, that the sanctuary regulations may
limit their fishing activities. These concerns are particularly relevant since
the three areas visited, Parguera, Boqueron and Guanica, are experiencing
difficult economic situations reflected in current high unemployment rates.
Full-time fishermen interviewed reported working in other types of activities
to supplement their incomes.

(1) Income

The following fisheries data for these municipalities listed below in
Table 2 were taken from Ruiz, Blanca and Edmee Doble, Perfil de los Familias
Pobres de Puerto Rico por Area Geografica, 1980, (Serviclos Legales de Puerto
Rico, October 1981).

Table 2. Annual Income

Municipall Y- % Fishermen Below Poverty Level* Median Family Income
Lajas 59 $5,010
Cabo Rojo 60 4,889
Guanica 62 4,807

*Poverty level was estimated at $4,000 annual income for a family of five.

Recent factory closings in Guanica are not reflected in this data, so the
present situation could be significantly worse. Recently the sugar mill and
two other industries closed operations. Only Ochoa Fertilizers, an industry
with very few workers, is still operating. Fostering recreational uses in the
La Parguera area could become a means of revitalizing the local economy and
providing additional income to the fishermen.

(2) Productivity

In 1974, the waters of Puerto Rico were reported by Brody and Slocum in
1974 to be "very nearly overfished at present," and the shelf was "heavily
exploited" according to Kawaguchi (1974).

Observations made of fresh catch at La Parguera, Boqueron, and Guanica
during the interviews seemed to confirm the above statement. The size of most
specimens was small and weight per pot averaged from 5 to 8 pounds. A review
of statistics available at the associations visited was consistent with these
observations. Fishermen advised that the average catch per pot was around 8
pounds with 25 pounds as the upper limit when fishing conditions are ideal.

Based on the information obtained in more than 30 island fishing centers
over the past few years, fish pot commercial catch per unit of effort has been
very close to five pounds per lift per pot (Juhl, 1976).

The greatest concentration of fish pots was reported on the west coast
of the Island. The town of Cabo Rojo is the fishing center having the
largest number of fish pots and showing the highest production.

(3) Fishing Sites
La Parguera village fishermen go as far as 3 to 9 miles offshore to fish
at the shelf's edge. Each fisherman sets 20 to 30 pots and lifts them twice a
week. When they don't lift pots, they fish with a troll line or by diving.
Fishermen come from Guanica and Boqueron to fish almost everyday.

Boqueron fishermen go daily as far as 4 miles from shore. They also were
reported fishing in Mayaguez and occasionally in Guanica.

Guanica fishermen stated that they had from 4 to IOU pots per fisherman,
with the average in the 2U to 30 range. They fish mostly off Guanica, but
also off Lajas and Guayanilla.
Playa Santa (Guanica municipality) fishermen go out every day and sell
their catch daily at the fishermen's association facilities. This was the
only fishermen's association that is active and doing well out of the five
interviewed. They fish from the El Faro area in Guanica to Bahia Montalva and
Cana Gorda most frequently. They also fish in the Lajas area. They go 2 to
3 miles offshore in the eastern area and 1 to 1 1/2 miles in the western area
following the shelf edge.

All the fishermen interviewed considered the area from Guanica to Boqueron
as one unit. They all know each other and have no problems among themselves
with fishing in different areas.

(4) Product Marketing

Fishermen sell their catch through a variety of market channels, but
primarily through wholesalers or fishermens' marketing associations. No
published statistics are available on the number of dealers handling the catch.
It is estimated that 90 percent of the locally caught fish are currently sold
through these wholesale channels. A 1965 study (Arnion Torres, 1965) reported
that 80 percent of the fish landed in Puerto Rico were handled by wholesalers.

Fish sold are classified into three quality classes:

Class 1: groupers, snappers, kingfish, cero, mullet, and hogfish

Class 2: blue runners, wahoo, smaller groupers, and snappers

Class 3: parrot fishes, squirrel fishes, and trash fishes
Lobster, octopus, conch and large snappers are classified apart and get the
highest prices. Table 3 shows data collected from five fishermen's associations.

Table 3. Wholesaler's Price Per Pound to Fishermen
April 1982

Locality Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Lobster Snapper Octopus Conch
Parguera $0.85 $0.55 $0.25 $2.75 $1.15 $1.60 $1.60
Boqueron 1.00 0.60 0.40 3.00 1.50 2.00 2.00
Combate 1.20 0.60 0.35 3.00 1.50 1.8U 1.20
Play Santa 0.85 0.65 0.35 1.50 1.15 1.25 1.25
Guanica 1.00 0.8U 0.3U 3.00 1.50 1.50 1.50

Source: Ruiz, personal interviews with fishermen and fishermen's associations
(See Appendix B).

Lajas' role in the commercial fisheries industry of Puerto Rico is
important in the consideration of La Parguera as a proposed national marine
sanctuary. As noted in the Economic Profile of Commercial Fishing
(Appendix C), although Lajas contributed only 3.2 percent of the volume and
value of overall Puerto Rico landings, its contribution to the south coast
of Puerto Rico appears to be substantial in quantity and value; 21 and 12
percent, respectively, in 1978. The barrio of La'Parguera and the village,
as the important "port of entry," consequently play a significant part in the
subregional fisheries economy. "I

The proposed LPNMS is most frequently utilized by fishermen from Lajas
and Guanica municipalities. According to CODREMAR statistics, the
value of landings and number of fishermen and boats have increased since 1970.
However, if inflation is considered, there was no real increase in the fisherman's
income (Gonzalez-Liboy, personal communication, 1982). Gross earnings per
fisherman in Guanica increased from $1,405 in 1970 to $3,258 during the 1977-78
period. In 197U, Lajas fishermen's income averaged $2,027.which increased to
$3,044 during the 1977-78 period.

d. Sportfishing

There is no site-specific information available on recreational sportfishing
and boating in La Parguera or island-wide. Recreational sportfishing and
boating are significant economic activities in Puerto Rico. An estimated
average daily value of a day of recreational activity is $47.90 with a range
from $32.57 for cruising to $55.79 for line fishing. Approximately 8,200
boats island-wide are currently registered for recreational use. Approximately
15 percent (or 1,250) of the recreational boats leave from points likely to be
associated with the proposed sanctuary site (Cato, Prochaska, 1981). Club
Nautico of La Parguera, a private club, accommodates approximately 50 power
boats.

E. Legal/Institutional Background

1. Introduction

The proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary is almost entirely
situated in Commonwealth waters, and their waters are controlled by a
variety of Commonwealth and Federal statutes and regulations. Those
laws and regulations that control activities both in the water and on the
land which might impact the proposed sanctuary are identified and discussed
below. In addition, several entities are already charged with implementing
and enforcing these laws and regulations. This chapter provides an overview
of those relevant laws and enforcement agents.

2. Commonwealth and Federal Laws

Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States in which most, but
not all, of the Articles of the U.S. Constitution apply. In its consideration
of specific legislation, the Congress may include or exclude the territories.
Statutory laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, have the same
force and effect in Puerto Rico as in the United States (48 U.S.C. �734).
Laws that are locally inapplicable are determined by the courts (Cordova y
Simonpietri v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 649 F.2d 36 (1981)).

The Commonwealth, by Act of Congress, has jurisdiction and authority
over the natural resources underlying submerged lands and waters as well
as proprietary rights of ownership, management, and administration of
fisheries three marine leagues or 10.35 miles from the coast (48 U.S.C. �749).

Although there is no court decision interpreting 48 U.S.C. �749, it
may be concluded, under general principles of law, that Puerto Rico has
proprietary rights to both the submerged lands and navigable waters to
three marine leagues from its coastline and, under old common law
principle, Spanish law and modern statutes, to the fish and wildlife
within its territorial waters (3 miles). A recent decision by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) extends fisheries management
authority in Puerto Rican waters, from 3 to 10.35 miles without expressly
stating ownership or extent of territorial waters.

a. Commonwealth Laws

Puerto Rico has a strong public policy governing the protection of
its environment and the conservation and protection of its natural resources.
The Environmental Quality Board, the Planning Board, the Regulations and
Permits Administration, and the Department of Natural Resources are the four
agencies with primary responsibilities for planning and managing public actions
and for regulating private sector activity in coastal areas. This section
describes their organic laws, supplemental statues,@and regulations which affect
the LPNMS.

(1) Environmental Quality Board (Law No. 9, June 18, 1970, as amended)

The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has the following powers and
duties relevant to the proposed sanctuary:

0 permitting and licensing authority to regulate and control
the pollution of air and water, solid waste and noise;

0 determination, through studies and sampling, of the degree
of purity of the water and air and the establishment
of corresponding standards in coordination with concerned
agencies;

0 adoption of rules and regulations and prescribed orders,
establishing adequate policies for the handling and disposal
of solid waste; and

0 permitting and licensing for the installation and operation
of solid waste and treatment plants.

The EQB has initiated negotiations with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to assume responsibility for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program, but has not yet received
such authority. There are no NPDES permits operating at the present time
within the proposed marine sanctuary site.

EQB has promulgated the following regulations:

� Regulation for Water Quality Standards;

� Regulation for Control of Atmospheric Pollution; and

� Regulation for the Control of Solid Waste.

The Regulation for Water Quality Standards employs classifications
similar to those of EPA, including the following:

Cl.ass SA - "Coastal waters whose purity is necessary for the preservation
of the existing [phenomena]. Toward that end, these waters are not
intended to be used for any activity such as swimming, boating, skiing,
etc. that might be detrimental to the existing natural phenomena."

Class SB - "Coastal waters intended for uses where the human body
may c5'm--e in direct contact with the water ... and for use in
propagation and maintenance of species."

The waters of the bioluminescent bays in La Parguera are now
classified SA (see Section II.F., Issues Associated with Water Quality and
Population Growth, for more discussion).

(2) Planning Board (Law No. 75, June 24, 1975, as amended)

The Planning Board (Board), initially created pursuant to the Planning
and Budget Act (Law No. 213, May 12, 1942), was reorganized in accordance
with its new Organic Law on July 1, 1975. The Board coordinates all
government sector activity and guides private sector actions toward the
integrated, balanced development of the Island's resources. The Organic
Act provides for a variety of devices which, when adopted by tile Board and
approved by the Governor, have the force of law. Those that directly affect
the proposed LPNMS are the following:

0 Integral Development Plan, which sets forth policies and strategies
for development. On January 26, 1976, the Board adopted a document entitled,
"Integral Development Plan: Public Policies and Specific Objectives;" the
Governor gave his approval to the document on April 10, 1979.

0 Land Use Plan, which provides specific guidance for physical
development, including public infrastructure. On June 8, 1977, the Board
adopted a "Statement of Policies and Objectives for the Islandwide Land Use
Plan;" the Governor approved the document on June 22, 1977. Elements of
that statement are repeated in the Integral Development Plan described above.

0 Four Year Investment Program, which provides guidance to the
government budget process, establishing fiscal limits and indicating
priorities for operating expenditures and capital programs. This document
is revised periodically and guides the Bureau of Management and Budget in
the preparation of the annual executive budget which is submitted by the
Governor to the Legislative Assembly.

Pursuant to the Organic Law, the Board adopted the Puerto Rico Coastal
Management Program (PRCMP) as an element of the Land Use Plan on June 22,
1978. The Governor approved the PRCMP on July 12, 1978. The Secretary of
Commerce accepted the PRCMP on September 18, 1978, making Puerto Rico
eligible to receive continuing Federal assistance under the Coastal Zone
Management Program for implementation of the program. Elements of the
PRCMP that relate to the proposed sanctuary include the Southwest Special
Planning Area, the Parguera Natural Reserve, and the Boqueron Natural
Reserve. In addition, all mangrove wetlands are classified generically as
,a Special Planning Area.

The Planning Board exercises its authority over physical development
directly, through the initial review of all development proposals, and
through the adoption of major zoning district changes, and indirectly,
through the promulgation of Planning Regulations which are implemented by
the Regulations and Permits Administration, as described below. The Planning
Board is also responsible for assuring consistency of all activity in
coastal areas with the PRCMP.

(3) Regulations and Permits Administration (Law 76, June 24, 1975,
as amended@-

The Regulations and Permits Administration (ARPE) was created to
relieve the Planning Board of the administrative effort related to the
granting of permits and enforcement of the Planning Regulations. In

addition to the responsibilities assigned under its Organic Law, ARPE may
carry out other functions by delegation of the Board pursuant to formal
resolution and in accordance with specific regulations. ARPE issues permits
for construction and for use of land and structures. It has a small team
of building inspectors who work out of regional offices in major cities of
the island. ARPE is responsible for prosecuting violations reported to it
by other agencies, including the DNR rangers. Current Planning Regulations
that affect the proposed LPNMS include the following:

Number 3 - Subdivisions
Number 4 - Zoning
Number 6 - Signs
Number 7 - Construction Code
Number 9 - Neighborhood Facilities
Number 11 - Simple Subdivisions
Number 12 - Certification of Projects
Number 13 - Floodable Area

Other regulations are being developed to guide development related to
the following topics: rural areas, tourism, and coastal areas.

(4) Department of Natural Resources (Law No. 23, June 20, 1972,
as amended)

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was established in accordance
with its Organic Law on January 2, 1973. It represents the amalgamation
of various powers and duties previously vested in the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Public Works, the Public Service Commission, and
other agencies into a single jurisdiction with comprehensive responsibility
for the planning and management of all natural resources. The Organic Law
makes specific mention of the following: conservation and development of
water resources; control over the extraction of materials from the earth's
crust; regulation of hunting and fishing; propagation and management of
forests and wildlife; and coordination of several programs related to
watershed protection that were sponsored by various Federal agencies.

The following statutes supplement the authority of the DNR Organic Law
as it applies to the proposed LPNMS:

Law 70, May 30, 1976 (Hunting Law)
Law 83, May 13, 1936 (Fishing Law)
Law 133, July 1, 1975 (Forestry Law)
Law 144, June 3, 1976 (Extraction of Materials from the Earth's Crust)
Law 1, June 29, 1977 (Marine Resources Development Corporation)
Law 145, July 2, 1975 (Mineral Resources Development Company)

The Fishing Law, last amended in 1977, regulates all aspects of residential
and non-residential commercial and sport fishing in territorial waters.
It prohibits the use of explosives and requires licensing for fishing
activities within inland and coastal waters. A Fish Conservation Advisory
Committee with one representative each from DNR, Tourism, the University
of Puerto Rico, the commercial fishermen's associations and sport fishermen's
associations is provided for under this statute.

The 1977 amendment extended the law's jurisdiction to 12 nautical
miles from the main island and from all smaller Puerto Rican islands
including Mona and Monito. This 12-mile extension has not yet been
tested in court. Fisheries management authority, however, out to 10.35
miles, was granted to the Commonwealth by the U.S. Department of Commerce
in 1981.

The Forestry Law establishes public policy with regard to forestry
and states, among other things, that the Commonwealth will maintain,
conserve, protect, and manage the areas for the legacy of future generations.
To this end, Article 9 of the Act prohibits certain activities without
written authority of the Secretary of DNR. Prohibited activities include:

0 damages to property - cutting, killing, destroying, uprooting
or injuring any tree;

0 burning;

� pasturing cattle;

� unlawful tenancy;

� removing or damaging signs; and

� hunting (although the Secretary regularly establishes a limited season).

The Boqueron State Forest includes approximately 2/3 of the coastal
red mangroves within the area of the proposed sanctuary. Within the
forest are red mangrove areas extending from Cabo Rojo in the west to the
the village of La Parguera in the east (Figures 9 and 10). As a State Forest,
the area is subject to the provisions and restrictions of Law No. 133,
The Forest Act.

DNR was assigned the responsibility for developing the PRCMP and for
its continuing implementation under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act. The PRCMP, as adopted by the Planning Board and approved
by the Governor sets forth public policies to promote the conservation,
preservation, and wise use of Puerto Rico's natural environmental and
cultural resources. The following marine resources, specifically identified
as valuable to the Commonwealth, are found within the boundaries of
the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary: (a) La Parguera -
(1) coral reefs--Margarita and Media Noche; (2) mangrove wetlands--La
Garray, Bahia Sucia, La Parguera, Bahia Fosforescente, and Bahia Montalva;
(3) beaches--Playita Rosada and Montalva; (4) wildlife--the water
areas surrounding Cabo Rojo, Bahia Sucia, and the water area between
Punta Pitahaya and Punta Montalva were identified as critical areas
for endangered wildlife; (5) coastal forests--Boqueron Mangrove Forest;
and (6) cultural and historical sites--lighthouse (Faro) at Cabo Rojo.

Under the continuing implementation program, DNR is developing a
management plan for the La Parguera Sector of the Southwest Special
Planning Area. Pursuant to the PRCMP, DNR promulgated a regulation
related to the taking of coral in October 1979. That regulation controls
the extraction, possession, transportation and/or sale of coral in
Puerto Rican waters. Based on a recent fisheries management decision,
this regulation is in force out to 10.35 miles. Major provisions are:

0 a general prohibition of coral extraction except for
scientific and educational purposes and for the possession
(but not extraction) of small quantities of cured coral for
personal use;

� the preparation of a nNR Management Plan (not yet completed)
of coral resources, to determine among other things, the
feasibility of commercial extraction of black and horny
coral after a moratorium of three years;

� an exemption for recognized scientific and educational use;

0 an exemption for any construction, dredging, or other
activities conducted by permit granted by H.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, following endorsement by DNR. No coral
extraction under such a permit may be transferred to any
person for sale or out of Puerto Rico without a written permit
from nNR; and

0 all coral taken in waters outside the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico
and introduced in any manner into Puerto Rico is subject to
this regulation and all other applicahle laws and regulations.

Penalties for violations of these regulations and the Fishing Law
provide imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more
than $500 or both penalties at the discretion of the court. Enforcement
of these regulations is the responsiblity of the Marine Division of
the rangers assigned to the various offshore areas throughout Puerto
Rico. Any infractions of the law are reported to the DNR legal division
in San Juan where, in most instances, cases have been handled administratively.

DNR regulations are enforced by members of the Ranger Corps (Cuerpo
de Vigilantes) which functions through the regional office structure of
the Department. The Rangers operate three divisions: land, sea, and air,
and are equipped to support other enforcement agencies, such as the
police, Coast Guard, and Civil Defense.

The Marine Resources Development Corporation (CODREMAR) is responsihle
for the commercial development of all marine resources in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and is charged with administering the Fisheries Law. The
Mineral Resources Development Company (CODREMI) was created to develop
the mineral resources of Puerto Rico, including those found in the submerged
lands.

h Federal Statutes

In liqht of the recent amendments made to 48 U.S.C. �748 and 749,
the application of certain Federal laws within the three marine leagues
from the coastline of Puerto Rico and its adjacent islands is, at this
time, speculative. However, the following Federal laws and regulations
are known to be enforceable in the waters proposed for marine sanctuary
designation in Puerto Rico.

(1) Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seg.)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic scheme for restoring
and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters. The CWA contains two basic mechanisms for preventing
water pollution: (1) the regulation of discharges from known sources, and
(2) the regulation of oil and hazardous substances discharges. The Act
also regulates the disposal of vessel sewage and dredged material.

(a) Discharges

The C14A's chief mechanism for preventing and reducing water pollution
is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), adminstered
by EPA. Under the NPDES program, a permit is required for the discharge
of any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters (which
include State waters, the contiguous zone, and the ocean). EPA can
delegate NPDES permitting to the State for state waters.

(h) nil Pollution

Discharges of oil and hazardous substances in harmful quantities
are prohibited by the CWA. When such discharges do occur, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous substance
discharges, will take effect. The Coast Guard, in cooperation with
EPA, administers the Plan, which applies to all discharges of oil in
the contiguous zone and to activities under the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act. The NCP establishes the organizational framework whereby
oil spills are to be cleaned up.

The CWA (33 U.S.C. �1322) requires recreational vessels with toilet
facilities to contain operable marine sanitation devices. The regulations
state that boats, 65 feet in length and under, may use either Type I,
IT, or III MSD's which must be certified by the Coast Guard. Types I
and IT are chemical treatment devices and Type III is a holding tank.
The CWA requires non-commercial crafts to comply with marine sanitation
device regulations issued by EPA and enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard.

(d) Dredging and Discharging Dredged Materials

Section 404 permits, from the Army Corps of Engineers (based on
EPA developed guidelines), are required prior to filling and/or discharging
dredged materials within three miles of shore including wetloads, or the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters.

(2) Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Title 1,
(33 U.S.C. 1401 et seg.)

The Ocean Dumping Act prohibits the dumping of certain toxic materials
into ocean waters and regulates the dumping of other materials into such
waters. Section 101 prohibits the transportation of any materials from
within or outside the U.S. for the purpose of dumping them into ocean
waters without a permit from EPA (or the Corps in the case of dredge
material disposal).

(3) Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seg.)

The MMPA applies to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals subject to
U.S. jurisdiction and is designed to protect all species of marine mammals.
The MMPA is jointly implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), which is responsible for whales, porpoises, and pinnipeds other
than the walrus, and the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), which is responsible for all other marine mammals, including
the only marine mammal present, the West Indian manatee. The Marine
Mammal Commission advises these implementing agencies and sponsors relevant
scientific research. The primary management features of the Act include:
(1) a moratorium on the "taking" of marine mammals; (2) the development
of a management approach designed to achieve an "optimum sustainable
population" for all species of population stocks of marine mammals; and
(3) protection of populations determined to be "depleted."

(4) The Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seg..)

Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) prohibits the unauthorized obstruction of
navigable waters of the United States. The construction of any structure
-in the territorial sea or on the outer continental shelf is prohibited
without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE). As a rule,
the COE will not issue a Section 10 permit unless construction or obstruction
has been found to be in accordance with the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management
Program as determined by DNR.

Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. �407, the Refuse
Act) prohibits the discharge of refuse and other substances into navigable
waters, but has been largely superseded by the CWA. In effect, such
discharges are regulated under this section only insofar as they affect
navigation or anchoring.

(5) Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA)
(16U.S.C. 1801 et stq.)
The FCMA authorizes regional fishery management councils to provide
for the conservation and mangement of all fishery resources in the zone
generally extending 3 to 2on nmi offshore (the zone beyond the territorial
sea). NMFS establishes guidelines and approves fishery management plans
for selected fisheries. These plans determine levels of commercial and sport
fishing for achieving and maintaining an optimum yield. Note, however,
that the territorial sea of Puerto Rico extends beyond 3 nmi. A legal
opinion, prepared by the Office of the Assistant General Counsel of Fisheries
(GCF), concluded that Congress intended that management jurisdiction over
fishery resources within three marine leagues be vested in the Commonwealth.
Therefore, the inner boundary of the Fisheries Conservation 7one, adjacent
to Puerto Rico, lies three marine leagues or 10.35 miles from the Puerto
Rican coastline. The U.S. Department of Justice reviewed the GCF legal
opinion and supported its conclusion. As a result fishery management
authority within the proposed marine sanctuary belongs to the Commonwealth
and all draft fisheries management plans, prepared to manage such resources,
are no longer applicable within 10.35 miles of the Puerto Rican coastline.
CODREMAR now has the responsibility for fisheries management within the
insulAr shelf. There are no species management plans or other fisheries
projects planned for the proposed sanctuary area at the present time.
(6) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 et seg.)
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides protection for listed
species of marine mammals, birds, fish, invertebrates, and plants. The FWS
and NMFS determine which species need protection and maintain a list of
endangered and threatened species. The most significant protection provided
by the ESA is the prohibition on taking of listed species. The term "take"
is defined broadly to mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage such conduct" (16 U.S.C.
1532 (14)). The FWS regulations interpret the term "harm" to include
significant environmental modification or degradation and acts which annoy
listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt essential
behavior patterns (50 CFR 17.3).

The ESA also protects endangered species and their habitats. This
is accomplished through a consultation process designed to insure that
projects authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal agencies do
not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species
or "res0t in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species
which are determined by the Secretary (of the Interior or Commerce) to
be critical" (16 1J.S.C. 1536). Critical habitat for endangered species
is designated by the FWS or NMFS depending on the spectes.

(7) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seg.)
In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in
response to public concern about balancing needs for preservation and
development in coastal areas. The Act authorizes a Federal grant-in-
aid program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in
turn delegated this responsibility to NOAA's Assistant Administrator
for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management.

The CZMA was substantively amended on July 16, 1976 (P.L. 94-370)
and on October 1, 1980 (P.L. 96-464). The Act and its amendments affirm
a national interest in the effective protection and careful development
of the coastal zone, by providing assistance and encouragement to
coastal states (and U.S. territorites) to voluntarily develop and
implement management programs for their coastal areas. Financial
assistance grants under Sections 305 for program development and 306
for program implementation were authorized by the CZMA to provide
coastal states and territories with the means for achieving these
objectives.

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide
the necessary direction to states for developing their coastal management
programs. The program development and approval provisions are contained
in 15 CFR Part 923, revised and published March 28, 1979, in the Federal
Register.

The Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program was approved in two
stages. The approval of the plan for the Island of Culebra as a segment
was granted on April 1, 1977. The Culebra plan was then integrated
into a Commonwealth program upon the approval of the Puerto Rico Coastal
Management Program on September 18, 1978. The Program is based on the
island-wide land use plan established by the Puerto Rico Planning Board
and adopted by the Governor on June 22, 1977. The Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is the agency designated to administer the coastal program.
Other major agencies assisting in program implementation include the
Puerto Rico Planning Board, which has statutory planning, zoning, and
land use responsibilities; the Regulations and Permits Administration,
and the Environmental Quality Board.

3. Inforcement Capabilities of Relevant Commonwealth and Federal Agencies

The area of the proposed sanctuary is under the jurisdiction of several
Commonwealth and Federal agencies. The Commonwealth agencies are the
Marine Police, Puerto Rico Ports Authority, and the DNR Ranger Corps. The
Federal agencies with law enforcement authority are the: U.S. Coast Guard,
Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

a. The Marine Division of the Commonwealth Police Force

The Marine Division patrols coastal waters and enforces all regulations
of Law No. 19 which is similar to the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971. The
Puerto Rican marine police, the DNR Rangers, and the U.S. Coast Guard help each
other by petition or in specific instances of emergencies.

There is a marine police division with 14 personnel and four boats in
Boqueron next to the Ranger Station, and another division based at Ponce.
These divisions receive their orders from the Police Headquarters at Mayaguez
and Ponce. The central offices in '@an Juan handle administrative, not
operational, aspects of marine police enforcement. It appears that the Marine
Police seldom patrol La Pargupra; rather it concentrates its efforts in the
more densely populated areas.

b. Ranger Corps

The Ranger Corps, created as the enforcement arm of DNR in 1978,
performs the following:

� arrests for violation of the laws administered by the DNR,
when this takes place in their presence. The rangers may
trespass into property and waters tinder state authority.
Access to private properties requires previous permission
from the owner except when a crime is being committed in
the Rangers' presence or during apprehension of a person
who has violated the laws administered by DNR;

� demands presentation and inspects any permit, franchise,
resolution, license, or document granted by the Secretary of
DNR in which authorization is given for any activity or
operation under the jurisdiction and powers of the DNR
in public or private lands within the limits of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

0 verbally orders the cease and desist of any activity or
operation that is taking place without the authorization
of the Secretary of DNR and issues judicial notices for
violations of the laws administered by nNR;

0 executes subpoenas issued for the examination, investigation,
and processing of any violations to the laws administered by
DNR;

0 carries arms in accordance with the ordinances of the Police
Superintendent and conducts searches related to violations
of DNR laws in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure
of Puerto Rico that are in force, 34 L.P.R.A.;

0 obtains and executes search warrants in accordance with the
duties, responsibilities, and obligations established by the
law that created the Ranger Corps and confiscates and possesses
any wildlife, marine life or land or forest component in
possession or under the control of persons who intend to
transport them by way of land, air, or water in violation of
the laws administered by ONR; and

0 confiscates and possesses any arms, machines, equipment or
means of transportation that have been used in violation of
the laws administered by DNR. Any confiscation will take place
according to the dispositions of Law No. 39 of June 4, 1960,
as amended.

The Mayaguez Ranger Office is responsible for the land and air patrols
in the La Parguera area. The office has one captain, one first lieutenant,
one second lieutenant, three sergeants, and ten rangers assigned to the
Marine Division. The Boqueron Station on the west coast (within the Mayaquez
region) is closest to the area of the proposed sanctuary. The station has
a small staff, consisting of a captain, a lieutenant, a sergeant, and four
to five rangers. Two of these rangers are assigned to the La Parguera
area. Much of their time inside the proposed boundaries of the sanctuary
are spent at the two nNR parks--the heavily used offshore island park of
Mata de la Gata and the public beach at Playita Rosada, located about one
mile from the town of La Parguera. One 28' Bertram Roat patrols the west
coast from Guanica to Aquadilla. One 19' Boston Whaler is used to patrol
the Parguera area and one 21' Boston Whaler is used to patrol specific
areas where larger boats cannot enter.

The Ranger Corps has arrangements and agreements with the Immigration
Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Coast Guard, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Ports Authority of Puerto Rico, and
the Department of Police, and appear to he the only law enforcement authority
patrolling coastal and marine waters of the proposed sanctuary area on a
periodic basis.

Thirty-one DNR ranqers have been deputized by the NMFS to enforce NMFS
laws, but none of these rangers are presently serving in the area proposed for
sanctuary designation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlifp. Service has not as 'yet
deputized the Rangers, but works cooperatively with them in marine waters,
including La Parguera.

c. U.S. Coast Guard

The Greater Antilles Section (GANTSEC) of the U.S. Coast Guard with
jurisdiction for Puerto Rico covers 1.2 million square miles. The agency
is required to provide search and rescue, law enforcement, and marine
navigation and support to and for all Coast Guard units. Both the Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency rely on the Coast Guard
to enforce their laws in marine waters.

The total number of personnel in 1981 in GANTSEC, including civilian
personnel, totalled approximately 420. There were approximately ten surface
craft capable of performing certain specified duties. Of these, 30% were
non-operational in need of maintenance, repairs, or other such requirements.
There were also three helicopters for use in performing a myriad of operations
from daily routine patrols for law enforcement, to immediate search and
rescue, to emergency medical runs. However, one of these aircraft was
down for general maintenance or repairs at any given time according to the
Coast Guard.

With the limited number of units and the numerous responsibilities
of these units, the Coast Guard will not be able to perform routine daily
patrols for the proposed sanctuary. They will he able to perform a one
time patrol of these areas when and if they are in the area, on an as-needed
basis, or provide emergency patrol of the proposed sanctuary in the event of
confirmed poachers, an oil spill , or other such emergencies.

d. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

There is an NMFS enforcement agent stationed at Ramey on the northwest
corner of the Island. His primary responsibilities include the preparation
of legal cases to be tried under the ESA, the MMPA, and FCMA, and other
authorities out to ?nO miles. To assist NMFS law enforcement efforts,
three DNR rangers have been deputized to enforce all NMFS legal statutes,
following careful on-the-job training by the NMFS agent in Puerto Rico.

In early 1982, thirty-one rangers were deputized by NMFS after a NMFS
training session in San Juan, to enforce three of the laws under NMFS
jurisdiction--the ESA, the MMPA, and the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act.
This training consisted of a briefing on the laws, their accompanying
regulations, and enforcement procedures applicable to each law.

NMFS enforcement personnel have been instructed not to confiscate
turtle nets, as has recently been the practice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, because no gear regulation has as yet been promulgated by NMFS.
Thus, the arrest of sea turtle poachers is made more difficult because
there is no unified approach by NMFS and FWS concerning the enforcement
of the ESA in Puerto Rican waters.

e. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

At the present time, there is virtually no FWS law enforcement presence
in the La Parguera area. There is only one senior resident agent with
enforcement authority in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands responsible
for wildlife inspections and other duties associated with the Migratory
gird Treaty Act, ESA, and the MMPA. His primary responsibilities also
include the preparation of legal cases to he tried under the various applicable
Federal statutes.

Although the F14S has not yet deputized the Rangers to carry out FWS
laws and regulations, it would consider this action as a means of expanding
its surveillance and enforcement range, if a training program could he
developed (Cotte, personal communication, 1982).

F. Issues and Problems Associated with the Resources of the Proposed LPNMS
This section focuses on the issues and problems associated with the
resources that are important to the ecology of the proposed sanctuary; that
are valuable to man; and that are threatened or potentially threatened.
Discussed are the enforcement of resource protection statutes; public awareness
and information; the coral reef system; mangroves and grassbeds; bioluminescent
bays; endangered species; and water quality and population growth. Any
existing mitigation measures are discussed as well. How the management of
the sanctuary will address these roles is presented later in this chapter
(Implications for Management).

1. Issues and Problems Associated with Enforcement

Several Federal and Commonwealth agencies are responsible for enforcing
statutes and regulations protecting the significant natural resources in the
area of the proposed sanctuary: the DNR rangers, U.S. Coast Guard, National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
However, lack of sufficient personnel to carry out enforcement duties and
lack of coordination among enforcement entities are hampering effective protection
of the resources (see Section E, Legal/Institutional Background).

The Ranger Corps appears to be the only law enforcement authority patrolling
coastal and marine waters of the proposed sanctuary area on a regular or
periodic basis. However, only two rangers are assigned to the La Parguera area.
Neither has been deputized by NMFS to enforce the ESA or MMPA. Response
time for additional assistance from the Boqueron Station is well over one
hour in good weather; but, adverse weather conditions (high seas) can make
the boat trip impossible.

NMFS and FWS are not coordinated in their ESA enforcement efforts.
FWS has a practice of confiscating turtle nets (Cotte, personal communication,
1982). However, NMFS enforcement personnel have been instructed not to
confiscate turtle nets because no gear regulation has been promulgated by
NMFS.

Although the FWS has not yet deputized the rangers to carry out FWS laws
and regulations, they would consider this action as a means of expanding their
surveillance and enforcement range, if a training program could be developed
(Cotte, personal communication, 1982).

With its limited number of units and the numerous responsibilities to
these units, the Coast Guard is not able to perform routine daily patrols for
the proposed sanctuary. They will only be able to check for violations of
federal laws when and if they are in the area, or provide emergency patrol of
the proposed sanctuary in the event of confirmed poachers, an oil spill, or
other emergencies.

2. Issues and Problems Associated with Public Awareness and
Information

Relatively little educational information is provided to the general public
and visitors regarding the natural marine environment of the La Parguera area.
Residents and visitors alike can experience the area without understanding the
importance of the individual systems: coral reefs, mangroves, grassbeds, and
their interrelationships to other natural systems or their economic value to
man. Neither information nor a coordinated and comprehensive approach to
providing that information exists. Presently, there are no exhibits, brochures,
or other literature readily available either in the village or at the
recreational facilities of Playita Rosada or Mata de la Gata. Consequently,
users often do not fully appreciate the worth of the resources or the
consequences of their actions on the natural environment.

3. Issues and Problems Associated With The Coral Reefs

The extent of adverse impacts from human activity on coral reefs,
including water pollution, sedimentation, dredging, trampling, spearfishing,
and anchor damage have not as yet been fully documented in the La Parguera
area. However, with the magnitude of visitor use it is likely that these
activities are beginning to affect the reefs in the waters of the proposed
sanctuary. As an example, although the magnitude of anchor damage from boating
activities associated with the reefs is not known in La Parguera, anchor damage
from fishing, boating, and recreational activities among similar Florida reefs
has been documented (Davis, 1977).
The taking of coral regulation (adopted in Uctober 1979) provides a general
prohibition on extraction of coral, except for scientific and educational
purposes. Subsequently, local residents no longer collect or openly sell
coral to tourists and it appears that this small scale harvest has ceased
(Gonzalez-Libuy, 1982), but lack of personnel makes surveillance and enforcement
difficult. However, the area is used by recreational snorkelers and divers from
outside the area who may be unaware of the prohibition. Because coral is such
a beautiful specimen of underwater life, underwater swimmers often take it
indiscriminately, unaware that coral is a living, growing animal and that
coral colonies are essential to the life of the reef. In an area like La
Parguera, which experiences large numbers of visitors, the cumulative effect
of individuals taking or damaging even small amounts of coral, animals, and
plants associated with coral reefs can be a concern.

4. Issues and Problems Associated with Mangrove and Grassbed Areas

Mangroves have already been recognized in La Parguera as an important
natural resource for land and marine environments through the establishment,
by the Commonwealth, of the Boqueron State Forest and the Boqueron and
Parguera Natural Reserves. Approximately 2/3 of the area, containing extensive
stands of red mangroves, is within the State Forest. The Forest Act, Law
No. 133, makes it illegal to cut, damage, 'or injure any tree within the State
Forest, but lack of personnel makes surveillance and enforcement difficult.
The remaining red mangroves are within the "maritime terrestrial zone" over
which the Commonwealth has regulatory authority. However, the Commonwealth
does not prohibit cutting or damaging red mangroves outside State Forests.

The red mangrove areas are also under the jurisdiction of Section 404 permits
(issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), but the permits are required only
when the alteration will result in dredging and filling of wetlands. Simply
cutting and removing the trees does not require a permit.

This situation leaves substantial and important stands of red mangroves
outside the forest unprotected by law or regulation. Consequently, illegal
cutting of trees for fuel, construction of permanent and vacation homes, dumping
of cars and other trash, sand extraction, and the disposal of solid and liquid
wastes have damaged mangroves within the proposed LPNMS to varying degrees.
In particular, those activities which can substantially alter the flow of
nutrients to mangroves have severely affected the potential for ecological
recovery within certain stressed areas of La Parguera. This piecemeal
destruction from clearing for illegal piers and casetas is particularly a
problem in the area of the village of La Parguera and at Montalva Bay.

Fringing mangroves and their associated communities are especially
susceptible to oil and chemical spills. For example, the Bahia Sucia fringing
mangroves were adversely affected by a major oil spill in 1973 (Cintron
et al., 1978). The plant roots are also easily damaged by many activities
associated with coastal development such as sedimentation and run off resulting
from dredging, water pollution from chemicals spilled or dumped through coastal
construction, and actual cutting of the plant for use as fuel or building materials.

Basin mangroves are relatively safe from spills, but are particularly
susceptible to diking, damming, and channelization due to alteration of circulation
patterns (Lugo and Cintron, 1975).

Human activity most detrimental to seagrass beds is scour damage by boat
propellers. Permanent damage has occurred when the root and rhizome system are
severed or cut (Gonzalez-Liboy, 1979). The exact location and extent of drainage
to the grassbeds is not known. However., like damage to coral reefs, the magnitude
of visitors to the La Parguera area and the degree of recreational power boat
activity would indicate that this is a concern.

5. Issues And Problems Associated With Bioluminescent Bays

In the La Parguera vicinity, there are two secluded bays which support the
environmental phenomenon known as bioluminescence. High concentrations of the
light-emitting plankter, Pyrodinium bahamense, are present in Bahia Fosforescente
and to a lesser degree in Bahia Monsio Jose (Figures 8 and 9).

Because the shape of the bay's basins and the water's physical and chemical
makeup are crucial to these tiny microorgani sins' existence, any alteration of
the flushing rate or pollution of bay waters will diminish or eliminate
bioluminescence. Fire Lake, a bioluminescent bay in the Bahamas, lost its
luminescent capacity when one bay entrance was dredged to allow larger boats
to enter. It has been suggested that this alteration of the natural rate of
water circulation upset the nutrient balance necessary for large concentrations

of the bioluminescent dinoflagellate. Relatedly, in Bahia Monsio Jose,
west of La Parguera village, a canal built from the bay to the sea and a
channel and fence constructed to separate Isla de Cueva from the mainland
are believed to have diminished the bay's bioluminescence by altering the
circulation patterns (National Park Service, 1968).

Recognizing the unique ecological character of La Parguera and the
bioluminescent bays in particular, several land-use plans were drafted to
control development. The National Park Service prepared the first comprehensive
plan for preservation of the bioluminescent bays in 1968 (National Park
Service, 1968). In the same year, the Planning Board in the Office of the
Governor of Puerto Rico produced an interim development plan for the La
Parguera region (Puerto Rico Planning Board, 1968). In 1970, the Puerto
Rico Planning Board adopted special regulations to implement the plan.

In 1978, the Governor of Puerto Rico signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Corps of Engineers with regard to the many casetas situated in the
mangroves. The MOU was oriented toward converting the casetas into a public
vacation center by 1990, on the basis of completion of the Parguera sewage
treatment plant and acquisition of the casetas by the Commonwealth. The
treatment plan has been completed, but the problems of connecting the built-
up areas with the plant and of providing sewage service for the casetas has
not been resolved. The Corps has expressed a willingness to modify the MOU.

Under the Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program, the Parguera area was
designated as a Natural Reserve by the Planning Board. A management plan for
the Parguera Sector of the Southwest Special Planning Area is being developed
by DNR. An initial draft was prepared and circulated for comments. The
document is now being reviewed and will be modified to incorporate materials
related to the MOU and to the recently revised provisions of the National
Flood Insurance Program, which will impact on shorefront development.

Supplementing efforts of the Commonwealth to protect Bahia Fosforescente,
the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico has already purchased two tracts totalling
325 acres with a third under consideration. These involve the promontories at
the entrance to the Bahia Fosforescente, thus protecting the entrance to the
bay, which plays such an important role in the maintenance of its bioluminescence.

These efforts not withstanding, pollution of bay waters caused by runoff
from adjacent lands, solid waste, and untreated sewage from private and
commercial development along the coast are reported to be threatening Bahia
Fosforescente. Light from nearby sources is reflected from the clouds and
may diminish the viewing experience. Those responsible for future development
in the region will need to address the problem and possibly restrict night
time lighting in areas surrounding the bays. Salt evaporation ponds adjacent
to this bay have periodically upset the nutrient system 'When heavy rains
cause excessive runoff into the bay proving toxic to bay organisms. Boats
taking visitors to Bahia Fosforescente often leak fuel and oil into the
water which may be affecting the concentrations of Pyrodinium (Cintron et
al., 197U).

Several water quality studies have been undertaken since 1968 in an effort
to understand and document pollution in the bioluminescent bays and the adjacent
coastal areas near the village of La Parguera. These studies were to evaluate
public health risks from sewage pollution rather than uncover any fundamental
processes existing in the bays. In general the sampling measured coliform
bacteria either as total coliforms present or only those present originating
from animal intestines (feces). While the results are not quantitative, general
trends can be identified for management purposes. Total coliform concentrations
were high along the coastal sites and in the class SA waters of Bahia Fosforescente
in 1981 and often exceeded allowable EPA standards for class SB waters used
for swimming and fishing.

6. Issues And Problems Associated With Endangered Species

a. Manatees

The manatee (Trichechus.manatus) is an aquatic mammal sometimes
known as the sea cow. Once common off Puerto Rico., manatees have become
endangered as a result of past hunting and habitat destruction in mudflats,
mangroves, and mangrove lagoons. At present, this West Indian subspecies
is rare throughout its range, which covers the West Indies and northern
South America. In Puerto Rico, the manatee is found in the following
estuaries: Roosevelt Roads, Guanijibo in Mayaguez, Jobos Bay, La Parguera,
Guayanilla, and Guanica.

The exact number of manatees in Puerto Rico is unknown; however, there
have been sightings in Bahia Montalva and Bahia Sucia within the proposed
LPNMS. On two occasions four or five were sighted (June and August 1978) in
Montalva Bay when recreational boating was at its peak. Frequent sightings at
the eastern edge of the bay by Fish and Wildlife Service personnel indicate a
stable population (Cotte, 1982). Motor boats are the most severe threat both
to the seagrass habitat and to the animal itself (75% to 85% of Floridian
manatees have scars from crushing or cuts caused by large boats). Not enough
information exists about the numbers or locations of manatee population in
this area.

b. Sea Turtles

Hawksbill sea turtles, (Eretmochelys imbricata), green turtles (Chelonia
mydas), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and loggerheads (Caretta -La-r-et-t-aT
are known to frequent the waters of the proposed LPNMS area. The mangroves and
adjacent seagrass beds provide ideal foraging ground for these animals.
Rangers have also seen signs of turtle nesting on the beaches of Bahia Sucia
and Bahia Salinas (Figure 10). Although the turtles are endangered and
protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), poaching still occurs.
Turtles are frequently caught in certain "fishing nets" used for this purpose.
Federal personnel are insufficient to adequately patrol the area; Commonwealth
enforcement personnel are also insufficient and more rangers need to be
deputized to enforce the ESA (Cotte, personal communication, 1982).

c. Brown Pelicans

Historically, brown pelicans nested on Enrique Cay and Turrumote Cay
in La Parguera. At the present time, however, pelicans are nesting only
on cays in Montalva Bay, where they represent the largest breeding colony
in Puerto Rico. They roost primarily in the mangroves of six islets; Las
Pelotas, Caballo Blanco, Laurel, La Conserva, Cayo Vieques, and small cays
north of La Conserva.

There has been a rapid decline in population because DDT used on the
West and Gulf coasts of the United States severely weakened egg shells and
prevented many young from being born. In light of this fact, the policy of
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been to encourage brown pelican nesting
in this area.

d. Other Important Species

The yellow-shouldered blackbird, a species found nowhere in the world
outside Puerto Rico, is presently in danger of extinction. The U.S.
Government has declared La Parguera and surrounding areas as critical
habitat for this species. The threat of extinction is primarily due to
parasitizing of its nests by the glossy cowbird. The only yellow-shouldered
blackbird nests that appear to be safe from parasitism are located on the
mangrove cays off La Parguera. These cays are also critical to large
numbers of herons, pelicans, and terns. West of the village of La Parguera,
salt ponds abut the mangroves on the landward side. These areas are
outstanding habitat for thousands of shorebirds and waterbirds, including
the black tern (DNR Report, 1979).

7. Issues Associated With Water Quality And Population Growth

Water pollution from various sources throughout the La Parguera region
appears to be one of the most serious threats to the proposed sanctuary.
Coastal development, related to the increase in the growth of the community,
increases threats to nearshore water quality. Tourist-related development
is the most serious threat to water quality of the coastal waters and the most
significant threat to the resources of the proposed sanctuary is sewage discharge
from the the La Parguera community along the waterfront. The discharges come
primarily from vacation houses (casetas) built out over the water and on some
of the offshore cays. Most of the raw sewage from these sources goes into the
water immediately offshore (Figures 8 and 9).

At the present time, disposal of wastes from domestic sources and tourist
facilities is still being accomplished with individual septic tanks or cesspools
or by direct dumping of raw sewage along the shore. In addition to poorly
functioning village septic tanks, which cause coastal water pollution, more
than IN small houses (casetas) lining the shore are without any onsite
treatment of sewage. Sanitary discharge for these weekend houses is
accomplished primarily through pipes leading into the water through openings

at the floor level (EQB, 1972). These vacation homes, illegally built over
public land and waters belonging to the Commonwealth, and a hotel on the
waterfront, are considered the main source of sewage pollution in the La
Parguera waters. Other sources include 22 piers and numerous house boats
lacking sanitary treatment facilities.

Following signs of deterioration of La Parguera's natural resources,
including the bioluminescent bays, the Commonwealth took steps to alleviate
water quality problems. The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA)
proposed in 1973 the construction (with Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Section 201 funds) of a tertiary sewage treatment plant and irrigation system
along with the needed lateral and main interceptor sewers and pumping station.
Capacity was planned, at that time, to handle the area's wastewater up to
1990, with provisions for adding stages to the plant if such additions became
necessary. Supplementary funding was obtained from the Economic Development
Administration.

The plant's purpose was to correct the serious sanitary waste disposal
problem in the La Parguera area where most of the structures had poorly
functioning septic tanks, due to the high water table or no holding treatment
facility at all. The construction company as well as the bonding company
went bankrupt before the project was completed. Although the treatment
plant is completed and usable, the gravity main between the village and the
plant is defective and must be rebuilt.

The Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
have already taken steps to resolve the matter of illegal second homes.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the La Parguera Recreational Area
was signed on June 13, 1978 between the Governor of Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Appendix D). The MOU prohibits further construction
in the coastal zone and authorizes the issuance of use permits for three years
at a time to present homeowners with certain conditions. In 12 years, it is
anticipated that the structures will become State property. Although the
homes can be hooked up to the sewer system, there are no funds at the present
time to construct a new trunk line to connect them to the treatment plant.
Until they are hooked up, the agreement states that these homes will be
liable for onsite treatment during the 12-year period. To date, none of the
casetas have been hooked up, largely because there is no facility to receive
the untreated sewage. DNR, together with other concerned Federal and State
agencies, has explored various alternatives aimed at resolving the discharge
problem. However, all of the alternatives discussed so far have proven
unfeasible because of technical, legal or financial reasons. The Secretary of
DNR is asking the Governor to review the circumstance of the MOU and to summon
the heads of the agencies involved in implementing the MOU to a special
meeting to discuss the situation and assign priorities for funding the
necessary activities to repair the main trunkline (Gonzalez-Liboy, personal
communication, 1982).

In Bahia Montalva there is also a second-home community developing,
along with fishing docks and buildings, bordering the eastern shore. There
are now approximately 44 casetas built illegally in the mangroves or out over
the water in Bahia Montalva. Their existence in this area has resulted in
mangrove alteration and is contributing to the problem of water pollution.

A meeting of DNR, COE, Environmental Quality Board, Planning Board, EPA,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on November 13, 1981, resulted in an
agreement that was necessary to patrol Montalva Bay more closely to prevent
the construction of additional illegal structures in the Bay's coastal water.
It was further agreed that no new permits for construction would be issued
until the regulations for the development of the maritime zone were promulgated
(DNR and COE would prepare these regulations). In the meantime, the COE and
Regional Planning Director are evaluating the present situation and preparing
a plan with detailed information stating who legally owns the area around
Montalva Bay.

A further waste discharge pollution problem exists from recreational
boats. The U.S. Coast Guard, under authority of the U.S. Clean Water Act,
requires that all recreational boats with installed toilet facilities have
operable marine sanitation devices (MSD). The Refuse Act of 1899 prohibits
the throwing, discharging, or depositing of any refuse matter of any kind
(including trash, garbage, oil or liquid pollutants) into U.S. waters within
a distance of three miles from the coastline. However, due to lack of staff,
the Coast Guard seldom patrols La Parguera waters and therefore the laws go
unenforced.

8. Implications for Management

The management activities resulting from sanctuary status would address
some of the problems associated with the resources of La Parguera. Some will
be dealt with as part of the surveillance and enforcement program, and others
would be addressed by the Interpretive Program or the Resource Studies Plan.
The following highlights those management strategies as they apply to resources
and the set of issues and problems. More detail is found under the individual
sections of the management plan: Interpretive Program, Administration and
Operations and the Resource Studies Plan.

The Interpretive Program would:

� Provide a Visitor/Interpretive Center;

� Inform the public about reef ecology, stress the importance of
healthy coral reefs, and describe ways in which the coral reef
resource enhances the fisheries industry;

� Provide underwater trails that focus on the coral reef and
mangrove ecosystems;

� Provide interpreters for boat tours;

0 Emphasize the importance of the mangroves as part of the coastal
ecosystem and their value to man. The program would feature a
guided mangrove tour by boat through one or more of the more
spectacular channels, and would include a self-guided boardwalk tour;

� Inform the public on the value of Thalassia and other seagrasses
to the coastal ecology, emphasizing the necessity of reducing
motorboat speed while motoring among seagrass beds; and

� Inform the public on the phenomena of bioluminescence and human
actions that my reduce or eliminate the effect.

The Resource Studies Plan would:

� Provide information from monitoring studies when enforcement
of the DNR coral and other environmental regulations need to be
strengthened;

� Evaluate the long-term impacts of anchoring on coral and explore
the feasibility of alternatives to present anchoring methods;

� Provide information on the need for posting speed or boat restrictions
in certain sensitive grassbed areas;

0 Monitor and assess use impacts on general water quality in the LPNMS
and particularly impacts on the bioluminescent bays, and recommend
management actions;

0 Assess and monitor the manatee and sea turtle populations; and

0 Assess the conch fishery and provide recommendations for improvement.

The Administration and Operations Program would:

0 Provide administrative staff to manage the resources of the proposed
LPNMS;

� Provide a focus for coordination with FWS and NMFS concerning
deputization of DNR rangers and policies on ESA enforcement;

� Provide additional personnel for enforcement of Commonwealth
natural resource protection statutes, including regulations
which protect coral and mangroves; and

� Provide Federal regulations that can be enforced by the Ranger
Corps including:

1. prohibiting the cutting or destruction of red mangroves
(Rhizophora mangle) except for routine channel maintenance;

2. prohibiting the taking of coral or bottom formations except
by permit for scientific and educational purposes;

3. prohibiting littering, discharges from boats or houseboats
and discharges from casetas after the expiration of the MOU
between the U.S. Corp of Engineers and the Commonwealth; and

4. prohibiting nets used to poach sea turtles.

Some existing or potential land-use impacts such as light pollution and
development upland of Bahia Fosforescente, are beyond the scope of sanctuary
authority. However, the sanctuary onsite manager would work cooperatively
with the appropriate authorities to remedy or ameliorate potential impacts to
the proposed sanctuary.

PART III: MANAGEMENT MEASURES

One of the principal purposes for designating the proposed La Parguera
National Marine Sanctuary is to enhance resource protection through a
comprehensive management plan tailored to the specific goals of the
National Marine Sanctuary Program and the area's unusual and significant
resources. Implementation of such a management plan involves coordination
of a variety of activities that affect the proposed sanctuary.
This part of the plan presents the strategies for managing the
proposed site as a national marine sanctuary. These management measures
include the Goals and Objectives, Boundaries, Sanctuary Administration and
Operation, Interpretive Program and Resource Studies Plan for the proposed
sanctuary. These strategies have been developed following the national
goals for the program and emphasize maximum compatible public use with
long-term resource conservation. In addition, the program has been based
on the analysis and assessment of resources and attempts to address and
ameliorate some of the issues and problems presented in Part II, Management
Context.

The management plan for the proposed La Parguera National Marine
sanctuary spans five years. Implementation of operations, the Interpretive
Program and the Resource Studies Plan is divided into two phases: Stage I
and Stage II. Stage I will cover years 1, 2, and 3; Stage II will cover
years 4 and 5. The staging concept will allow for some activities, such
as the development of certain aspects of the Interpretive Program, hiring
of personnel, and the establishment of a headquarters/visitor center
to be phased according to anticipated funding and priorities for the
proposed sanctuary.
Section A, Goals and Objectives, provides the framework from which
the rest of the management strategies develop. The goals and objectives
are consistent with the intent of the national program and direct
activities to the dual purposes of public use and resource conservation.
Sanctuary Administration and Operation, Section B, discusses the various
actors involved in operating the proposed sanctuary and their roles.
The pruposed Sanctuary Headquarters/Visitor Center and staffing levels
are presented as well as proposed regulations, and a discussion on
how surveillance and enforcement will be undertaken.

The Interpretive Program, Section C, provides information on how the
proposed sanctuary will inform and educate the public about the resources
of La Parguera while providing an enjoyable recreational experience.
Section D, the Resource Studies Plan, is aimed at filling data and information
needs about the resources and human use impacts on the area of the proposed
sanctuary. Results from these studies will be used to provide information
to make decisions concerning management of the resources and activities.

A. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through its actions over the past years,
has recognized the value of La Parguera for its significant resources and as
a recreational center. The goals of the proposed La Parguera National Marine
Sanctuary are consistent with this recognition and will help to ensure
that local residents and visitors gain a better appreciation of the
natural resources, promote rich recreational experiences, and long-term
productivity by means of comprehensive management. Management strategies
and specific recommendations for programs within the management plan
which are found in later sections, have been designed to implement the
goals outlined below.

Goal I - To protect the natural resources of the proposed sanctuary such
as habitaf-for rare and endangered species, mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass
beds and bioluminescent bays.

Objectives:

1. Develop and implement an interpretive program that will educate
the public about the significance of these particular marine resources and
the need for their protection.

2. Develop and implement management strategies for the proposed
sanctuary that provide for surveillance and enforcement of existing natural
resource protection measures.

3. Adopt additional regulations designed to minimize adverse impacts
to important resources.

Goal II - Promote and coordinate research to expand scientific
knowledge Tf significant marine resources and improve management
deci sionmaki ng.

Objectives:

1. Develop and implement a data management system.

2. Provide an up-to-date compilation of resource information.

3. Expand scientific knowledge of the marine systems of the
proposed LPNMS.

4. Gather information on the physical, chemical , geologic and
meteorological processes in the proposed LPNMS.

5. Assess the range and possible impacts of the various human
activities on the proposed sanctuary resources.

Goal III - Enhance public awareness, understanding, and encourage
wise use of the proposed sanctuary's natural resources through public education
and interpretive programs.

Objectives:

1. Prepare a profile of present and potential sanctuary users which
identifies their interests and backgrounds.

2. Prepare a list of resources that can be used to implement the
interpretive program.

3. Design programs and exhibits which encourage conservation
practices and which are in tune with visitor profiles.

4. Inform the public about sanctuary programs and activities.

5. Inform visitors, users and participants in sanctuary activities
of rules, regulations, safety procedures, and conservation practices.

6. Establish and utilize a system for interaction with the Resource
Studies Plan in the interest of protecting the sanctuary's resources.

7. Prepare a year-round schedule for educational programs that
provides for special interest groups as well as the general public.

8. Offer workshops that will provide teachers, volunteers and staff
with information and techniques for interpreting the sanctuary to students,
tour groups and potential supporters.

Goal IV - Provide for maximum compatible public and private use of
the sanctuary.

Objectives:

1. Integrate DNR recreational facilities and activities at Isla
Mata de la Gata and Playita Rosada with the recreational plans for the
proposed marine sanctuary.

2. Develop sanctuary educational programs through coordination with
CODREMAR, the Marine Advisory Sea Grant Program, fisheries organizations
and individuals that will benefit fishermen and fishery resources.

B. Sanctuary Administration and Operation

This section of the management plan describes the roles of the three
entities that would be involved in sanctuary operations (i.e., NOAA, the
Department of Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee) and proposes strategies to coordinate their
activities and to provide for periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of
the management plan.

Aspects of the relationship between DNR and NOAA are embodied in the
Designation Document (Appendix E). The Designation Document acts as a
"constitution" for the proposed sanctuary and also functions as an interagency
agreement between DNR and NOAA specifically naming DNR as the entity responsible
for onsite implementation of the management plan. The Designation Document
can only be modified by going through the entire designation process again,
including a draft and final environmental impact statement and presidential
approval.

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The Administrator of NOAA has the primary responsibility for the National
Marine Sanctuary Program (Program) pursuant to the delegation of authority
from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Program is
administered by the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD) within the Office
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA. SPD's
responsibilities with regard to the proposed La Parguera National Marine
Sanctuary are to:

� Develop, and revise as necessary, policy statements, concerning
the Program and site-specific sanctuary management issues;
synthesize, analyze, and resolve sanctuary management problems
and issues over time;

� Coordinate national Program activities with those of the proposed
La Parguera sanctuary; ensure that the sanctuary is operated in a
manner consistent with established Program policies, and with
applicable national, international, state, and local laws, and
recommend changes if necessary; cooperate and provide guidance
to sanctuary managers including conveying information requests,
policy statements, and directives;

� Develop, and revise as necessary, guidelines for the development
of national marine sanctuary management plans;

� Develop in cooperation with the onsite manager comprehensive,
long-term management plans for designated sanctuaries; and revise
management plans as necessary; and

� Advise and assist the sanctuary administrator and manager in the
implementation of management plans as necessary.

- Advise and assist the sanctuary administrator and manager
or other contractors to conduct appropriate baseline studies
or other research, education/interpretive and recreation
programs;

- Prepare or assist the sanctuary administrator and manager in
preparing a cost/benefit analysis of proposed or existing
management and regulatory activities;

- Evaluate effectiveness of sanctuary management and regulatory
regimes; and

- Review recommendations by onsite managers and take
appropriate action.

0 Prepare Program budget for the sanctuary.

- Determine how the budget for new or existing resources
(such as capital and research) can be allocated;
- Advise and assist the onsite manager in the preparation and
administration of the sanctuary budget; and

- Monitor the sanctuary's financial performance, including transferred
funds, contracted studies, and management grants and contracts.

Review and grant jointly with the Secretary of DNR sanctuary
permit applications for activities to ensure consistency with
sanctuary regulations, and provide additional technical review
where necessary;
Establish a data management capability (i.e., storage and retrieval)
for information collected on nominated sanctuary sites and designated
sanctuaries, transfer relevant information and data from one
sanctuary to another and make information available to the public; and
Pursue in cooperation with the manager the establishment of a
Sanctuary Advisory Committee.
- Approve committee chairperson and vice chairperson;

- Approve or reappoint committee members;
- Assist sanctuary manager to convene Sanctuary Advisory
Committee meetings and review and approve agenda of topics
to be addressed; and

- Review recommendations of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
and take appropriate action.

0 Coordinate with Federal and local government agencies, as well
as public, private and international entities concerning protection
and management of marine resources.

2. Department of Natural Resources
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) shall act as onsite manager for
the proposed marine sanctuary and carry out local day-to-day responsibilities
for sanctuary management in accordance with the site-specific management plan.

Responsibilities of the management agency are reflected below:

Establish an Office of Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries (OMES);

Assist in the preparation, evaluation, and necessary revision of
the comprehensive, long-term management plan for the proposed
sanctuary;

0 Implement the management plan:

-Coordinate a monitoring program to obtain information on
natural resources and human activities in the sanctuary
over time;

-Make recommendations on environmental assessment, research,
user activities, interpretation and information programs,
and recreation;

-Coordinate and cooperate with interested parties in research,
monitoring, interpretation and recreational activities in
the sanctuary;

-Establish a data management capability for info-mation
collected on the sanctuary compatible with the national
Program data management system;

-Coordinate with NOAA/SPO to review research proposals and
permit requests; develop and coordinate an on-site process
for reviewing and evaluating research proposals and permit
requests, ensuring input fr(xn concerned individuals,
interest groups, and Commonwealth agencies;

-Publicize the sanctuary as appropriate and develop a local
constituency by means of brochures, presentations, structured
events, articles for publication, and other activities
consistent with the management plan;

-In cooperation with NOAA establish and operate a sanctuary
information center, where feasible, to increase public
awareness and appreciation for the resources of the sanctuary
and provide information and interpretive services; and

-Provide quarterly reports on (1) administrative activities-,
(2) advisory committee meetings; (3) environmental quality
of the sanctuary area; (4) research activities; (5) interpretive
program; (6) surveillance and enforcement; and (7) additional
or future management needs.

Establish a Sanctuary Advisory Committee in cooperation with
NOAA:

- Maintain contact with committee members and initiate periodic
mailings to committee members announcing sanctuary activities;

- Convene Sanctuary Advisory Committee meetings and prepare
agenda of topics to be addressed; and

- Review recommendations of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
and recommend appropriate action to NOAA/SPO.

� Ensure that onsite management activities are consistent with
applicable state and local laws, rules and regulations; and

� Coordinate with Commonwealth agencies, organizations and private
citizens concerning sanctuary management.

3. DNR Office of Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries (OMES)

DNR will establish an organizational entity to administer the proposed
marine sanctuary and the national estuarine sanctuary at Jobos Bay. (The Jobos
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary was established in September 1981.) Positions
for the office would be funded jointly by DNR and NOAA. Management emphasis
at this level would focus on coordinating with existing components of DNR to
insure utilization of existing DNR expertise. In addition to the San Juan
office, day-to-day operations for the sanctuaries would be handled out of the
proposed sanctuary headquarters in La Parguera. Field operations would be
managed under the direction of the sanctuary manager, who would report to the
administrator. The sanctuary manager would be selected by the Secretary of DNR
upon the recommendation of the sanctuary administrator and NOAA/SPO.

a. Sanctuary Administrator

The Sanctuary Administrator, whose office would be in the central
San Juan office of DNR, would report directly to the Secretary of DNR and
oversee the operations of the proposed sanctuary.

Duties would entail:

� Acting as direct liaison between the Commonwealth and NOAA on sanctuary
and sanctuary related issues;
� Coordinating among the various parties involved in sanctuary activities,
the Secretary of DNR, NOAA, other DNR offices, and the individual
sanctuary manager and the public;

Tracking plans for land and water development at the San Juan
level that may affect the proposed sanctuary;

0 Reviewing existing regulations and proposed rules, regulations,
and permit procedures and recommending modifications and revisions.

0 Disseminating information about the national marine sanctuary program
(for assessing public opinion and reaction to the sanctuary); and

Overseeing development of any facilities constructed for the proposed
sanctuary; including awarding contracts, and reviewing site analyses
and design specifications, securing leases, easements, etc.

In Stage I the Administrator's responsibilities would focus on the
following:

Developing a detailed operation plan for the proposed sanctuary. This
would include:

- Merging the administration of the proposed La Parguera National
Marine Sanctuary with existing DNR regional responsibilities
in Mayaguez and La Parguera, and the Boqueron State Forest
operations;

- Developing detailed surveillance and enforcement designs for
the sanctuary (including equipment and staffing needs
and patrol schedules); and

- Establishing an onsite presence at the sanctuary; including hiring a
sanctuary manager and staff and arranging for operations headquarters,
consistent with the management plan.

b. Sanctuary Manager

The sanctuary manager shall be hired within the first year of operations,
and would be the primary spokesperson for the sanctuary at the onsite level.
The manager would report to the Sanctuary Administrator in San Juan. Duties
would include:

0 Responsibility for day-to-day operations of the sanctuary, including
administrative functions such as bookkeeping, financial, personnel,
visitor record keeping, and purchasing;

' Supervision of sanctuary staff and other DNR staff assigned to the
sanctuary, including the activities of the rangers, maintenance workers, and
interpretive employees;

0 Representing the sanctuary viewpoint on local issues and at public
forums;

0 Working with local and Commonwealth authorities to prevent activities
outside the sanctuary which might adversely impact sanctuary waters. To
this end, the manager would work with the Commonwealth Planning Board and
the DNR Planning Division to minimize further degradation of the bays as well
as to encourage land use planning for the control of illumination which now is
diminishing the quality of night time bioluminescence; and

0 Commenting on any requests for permits to conduct prohibited activities
(such as coral collecting).

c. Staffing Levels

Management of the proposed sanctuary will rely heavily on the use
of the existing DNR personnel to the maximum extent possible. However, new
personnel will be hired as part of the proposed sanctuary management.
In the first year, four positions will be added. These will include the
sanctuary manager, a part-time secretary, a part-time ranger naturalist,

and a ranger. Additional positions would be phased through Stage II
(subject to funding constraints) and may include additional rangers, a
full-time secretary, and perhaps a seasonal naturalist, or recreation
specialist. The details of the proposed staffing levels shall be worked
out during the first year of operation.

d. Sanctuary Advisory Committee

In the interest of providing a mechanism for insuring public input
into sanctuary operations, an Advisory Committee would be established in
.Stage I of plan implementation. The Advisory Committee would be structured
to provide representation from a wide variety of interested groups. The
specific makeup and function of the committee would be determined during
the first year of sanctuary operations. However, representatives from the
following constitute likely members and would be considered for membership
on the Committee:

� Marine Resources Development Corporation of Puerto Rico
� Mayor of Cabo Rojo
I Mayor of Guanica
0 Mayor of Lajas
0 Tourism Company
0 Sea Grant Program
0 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
' U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
0 University of Puerto Rico
0 Department of Recreation and Sports
� A Representative of Puerto Rico conservation organization
� A Representative of Puerto Rico fisherman organizations

The Advisory Committee would operate under the following guidelines:

� The committee will meet at least 3 times a year;

� The committee will be limited to between 10 and 15 members to
assure a workable and productive body and will include the sanctuary
administrator as an ex-officio member;

0 Committee members will be asked to serve three-year terms with
the initial appointments being staggered to ensure continual
committee action and expertise. The committee chairperson and vice
chairperson will be selected to serve one-year terms;

0 Secretary of DNR will appoint the chairperson with the concurrence of
NOAA;

� Criteria for committee membership would require selection of
individuals who are experts in specific fields and/or represent
sanctuary user groups and whose judgment would be objective, not
subject to a conflict of interest due to a particular affiliation; and

� The onsite manager will maintain close contact with the committee.
Committee members should be advised of sanctuary activities through
periodic mailings or meetings with the onsite manager.

4. Intrarelationships between Sanctuary Administration and Other
DNR Components

Implementation of the management plan would necessitate cooperative
action by DNR components other than just the OMES. As an example, the
Office of Education and Publications would be responsible for the actual
printing of sanctuary brochures. The Forest Service would play an active
role because a portion of the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary
is within the Boqueron Forest Reserve which is under its management.
The Ranger Corps, another DNR component, would have surveillance and
enforcement responsibilities. Accordingly, coordination by the sanctuary
administrator with the rest of DNR is critical to the operation of the
sanctuary. To this end, it is relevant to discuss the major activity
areas in DNR and indicate their relationship to the OMES and their role in
sanctuary management.

To carry out its responsiblities, DNR is organized into six major
activity areas and six offices under the control of the Secretary of DNR
as listed below and shown in the Figure 13.

Major Activity Areas

(Headed by Assistant Secretary or Equivalent)

1. Flood Control Area 4. Operations Area

2. Forest Service 5. Resources Planning Area

3. Administration Area 6. Scientific Research Area

Of these six, the Forest Service, Administration Area, Operations Area,
Resources Planning Area, and Scientific Research Area are relevant to the
administration of the proposed sanctuary.

Offices

1. Programming and Budget 4. Education and Publications

2. Internal Auditor 5. Information System

3. Legal Affairs 6. Coastal Zone Management

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

r SECRETARY
CULSBR& COKSBRVATIOM MINERAL RESOURCES -S
AND DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 141=01RRIITION
AUTHORITY OF PUEM RICO OF PUERTO RICO
SUB-SECRETARY CODREMI COOREM&R

OFFICE OF OFFTCU OF OR'
turaNAL, PROGRAM AND]
AUDITOR AND BUDGET es"ARLm:

Aftativity Ar I

LOOD Scum
L SERVICES FTC
IUISIARM::@,

Resou=w

Invis
,of now

cam

Land
Division

11: Division,".

DNR offices with support
responsibility for sanctuaries
administration and management.
OFFICE OF OPPICH OF
INFORMATION COASTAL ZONE
SYSTEMS, MANAGEMENT

73 FIGURE 13

In addition, the Secretary of DNR (ex-officio) is the Chairperson of
the Board of Directors of the following public corporations that are
ascribed to DNR under their enabling acts:

1. Mineral Resources Development Corporation of Puerto Rico (CODREMI);

2. Marine Resources Development Corporation of Puerto Rico (CODREMAR); and

3. Culebra Conservation and Development Authority.

Of these six offices and three public corporations, Education and
Publications, and the Information Systems Office would be involved in
the proposed sanctuary program management.

a. Functions of Individual Areas

The Department operates from central offices in San Juan and seven
regional offices in major urban centers of the island: Aguadilla, Arecibo,
Guayama, Humacao, Mayaguez, Ponce, and San Juan. The Operations Area and
Forest Service are represented in all regional offices. The Ranger Corps
also covers the entire island and is represented in all of the regional
offices.

The following DNR areas, under a cooperative agreement, would serve as
staff support to the sanctuary administrator and onsite manager.

(1) Management Area (Central Office)

The Management Area will provide basic administrative services for
the sanctuary operations including: personnel (recruiting, compensation,
training, evaluation, and advancement); finance (payrolls, general accounting,
clearance of contracts); general services (purchasing of materials and
supplies, property records, transportation and communications services);
and records administration (mail room, central files, records disposal).

(2) Ranger Corps (Central Office and Regional Offices)

The DNR division of law enforcement, the Rangers (Vigilantes), provide
surveillance and enforcement of Commonwealth rules and regulations for the
Department. The rangers will have the surveillance and enforcement authority
for the proposed sanctuary. The Administrator, in cooperation with the Commander
of the Ranger Corps and the law enforcement agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, will be responsible for
selecting and assigning the rangers needed to implement the surveillance
and enforcement aspects of this program and any special training they may
require (see Part III.B.6., Surveillan . and Enforcement Program).

The Ranger Corps will patrol the beaches, marine waters, and mangrove
forests to enforce all regulations within the proposed sanctuary boundaries,
and will provide emergency assistance in case of disaster. The Ranger Corps
regional office in Mayaguez will be in charge of the land and air patrols of
the La Parguera area.

(3) Resources Planninq Area (Central Office)

The Resources Planning Area develops and maintains a computerized
inventory of the natural, cultural, and physical characteristics of the
island, and develops resource management plans for coastal resources, fish
and wildlife, forests and water as part of its responsibility The office
conducts field investigations, evaluates situations and recommends priorities
for flood hazard mitigation plans; reviews and evaluates environmental impact
statements, and project proposals. The Resources Planning Area also reviews
requests for permits to be issued by the Planning Board, Regulations and
Permits Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (and others); and
develops regulations related to ground and surface waters for DNR. The
Resources Planning Area will maintain close contact with the proposed sanctuary
office in San Juan, informing the administrator of proposed plans which might
significantly affect the proposed sanctuary.

(4) Scientific Research Area

This area conducts field studies and surveys; provides the Resources
Planning Area with the necessary information to develop plans for the proper
management of resources; operates laboratories for testing and experimentation;
maintains DNR's scientific library; evaluates the potential impact of development
on habitat, and on the survival of specific species, and vice versa; maintains
information on terrestrial and marine geology and conducts systematic research
to expand the quality and quantity of information available; performs periodic
testing of water, soil, and other samples to establish data series; and
cooperates with the Resources Planning Area and other agencies in the exchange
and evaluation of data and information.

A clearinghouse for resource studies prepared as part of the draft
management plan for the proposed sanctuary would be set up within this office
to assist the sanctuary administrator, interpretpr, and the onsite manager.

(5) Education and Publications Office/Information Systems Office

The ONR Offices of Education and Publications and Tnformation Systems
have in-house capability to prepare and print materials for publication
such as brochures, posters, booklets, maps and other informational and
educational materials, including slide shows and films for public
distribution. The sanctuary administrator and interpreter would work
closely with this office to provide brochures, audiovisual materials and
displays for the proposed sanctuary.

(6) Forest Service

The management of all forests is the responsibility of the Forest Service
(Central Office). The Regional Offices are part of the Operations Area. At
present, the Regional Offices cooperate and help in forest management, but
they are not responsible for the State Forests. The Forest Service (Central
Office and Regional Offices) produces and distributes plant materials for
reforestation programs; promotes reforestation on private lands, implements
reforestation projects on public lands; manages public forests in accordance
with plans prepared by thp Resources Planning Area and promotes development
of the timber and lumber companies. Although not technically a public forest,

Mata de la Gata and Playita Rosada are part of the DNR Forest Service lands.
The DNR Regional Office assists in managing the Boqueron State Forest at La
Parguera as a public forest.

Aside from cooperation at the proposed sanctuary level between the
proposed resident biologist for the Boqueron State Forest and the proposed
sanctuary onsite manager, there will be no staff support for the sanctuary
coming from the DNR Forest Service office.

5. Sanctuary Headquarters/Visitor Center Facilities

In order to ensure that local citizens and visitors to the LPNMS gain a
better understanding and appreciation of the rich natural resources of La
Parguera and to provide a center of operations for sanctuary management, a
Headquarters/Visitor Center is proposed for the area of the village of La
Parguera and a satellite center at Cabo Rojo. Three general sites are being
considered as possibilities: (1) Village Overlook Site, (2) Village Land
Site, and (3) the Village Waterfront Site. Figure 20 (Part IV, Alternatives)
shows the location of the three areas. The Village Overlook Site would be
composed of approximately one acre of land east of the town overlooking the
area of the proposed sanctuary. It is a 7-minute walk or 2-minute drive
from the center of La Parguera village. Located on a small elevated knoll,
the land overlooks much of the waters of the sanctuary as well as the village
providing a panoramic view and setting for a proposed National Marine Sanctuary
Visitor Center. The area has access--there are several unimproved roads
leading to the area, and at the base of the hill (1/10 mile) is a small
inlet where a dock could be built for ranger and staff needs.

The Village Land Site, located on Route 304, the only paved road leading
to La Parguera village, is approximately one mile inland from the waterfront
area, and a 2-minute walk from the heart of the village. The site is bounded
by the village community center on one side and the public school on the
other. The land is publicly owned by the Commonwealth's Department of Parks
and Recreation and a portion may be obtained for the center.

The proposed Village Waterfront Site is located along the waterfront
business area. The exact location has not yet been determined. The site
would be within the business/shopping/tourist area in the village.

The visitor center would be constructed during Stage I of operations,
house the regular and part-time staff including rangers now based in Boqueron,
and provide an orientation and information facility for visitors and village
residents. Negotiations between DNR, NOAA, and property owners in the village
area would identify the most cost effective and appropriate location for a
proposed sanctuary headquarters/visitor center. The exact location on the
waterfront/village area, however, would have to be determined following
sanctuary designation. It would be the focal point for the proposed LPNMS,
offering information and orientation programs to the constant stream of
visitors who use the tour boats or stroll about the waterfront area frequenting
the stores and food stands found near the docks. The center, by its nature,
would have a community-related, informal character where the merchants with
nearby businesses and the townspeople, as well as LPNMS visitors, could take
advantage of the proposed Information and Reading Room, and events that
would be scheduled for an Orientation Room within the building.

The following chart illustrates how the center would meet the needs of
staff supported cooperatively by DNR and NUAA:

Unsite Surveillance
Program Services Administration and Enforcement

Part time Sanctuary Rangers
naturalist Manager (1 in office
STAFF or botonist- 2 patrolling)
REQUIRED biologist

Secretary

� Tour personnel * Maintenance
Staff

� One office * One office * One office
FACILITIES with space
REQUIRED for a secretary

� Dock space * Dock

� Orientation * Outdoor * Outdoor
Room storage/ storage
maintenance
� Information space
Center

The proposed center would contain an orientation room large enough for
displays and film and slide shows which would prepare the visitor for
sanctuary experiences and stress the importance of protecting La Parguera
marine communities. It would also contain an information area with a
large wall map illustrating the resources within the sanctuary, pinpointing
recommended visitor use areas and feature a bulletin board with specific
literature about the sanctuary.

The building would be a traditional style, probably of concrete block
and wood construction and include a large veranda, either open or screened,
to provide comfortable shaded space. It is important that the building
have an open, breezy feeling, rather than an enclosed or separate space
from the outdoors. If a renovated building is used, the same plans will
be adhered to as much as possible. The proposed center would also contain
outdoor storage for the rangers and maintenance staff. In addition, a dock
is proposed for construction for use by the sanctuary staff.

A satellite visitor center would be constructed at El Faro (the
lighthouse) at Punta Cabo Rojo. DNR, in coordination with the Tourism
Company, the Office of Cultural Affairs of the Governor's Office, and the
Municipality of Cabo Rojo are in the process of developing the Cabo Rojo
lighthouse area at Cabo Rojo point as a recreation area. The site is
located in the Boqueron Forest, adjacent to the southwestern boundary of

the sanctuary. Puerto Rico State Road #301 serves as access. The lighthouse
structure and surrounding land will be transferred to DNR by the U.S. Coast
Guard to complete the project development, consisting of the restoration of
the lighthouse and an adjoining picnic area, with shelters, picnic tables,
grills, restrooms, and parking facilities. The Commonwealth plans to pave
P.R. State Road #301 up to the lighthouse site.

This facility is more appropriate as a site for a second visitor
center. This area is too far removed from the focus of sanctuary activity
at La Parguera to provide the onsite services required by a visitor
center/headquarters building. However, the area is important to the
sanctuary, and visitors will utilize the area. Accordingly, in Stage II
the lighthouse and the adjacent lands, could serve as an auxiliary interpretive
center. Sanctuary interpretive materials would be exhibited within the
lighthouse. Self-guiding trails at Bahia Salinas and Bahia Sucias could be
developed in the surrounding areas to enhance the sanctuary's interpretive
and educati-onal experience.

6. Surveillance and Enforcement Program

a. General Enforcement Responsibilities

The DNR rangers will be designated as the primary enforcement authority
for the LPNMS and enforce sanctuary regulations. The rangers will carry out
their duties as the primary enforcement authority in coordination with other
members of the LPNMS staff, the Marine Police, the Ports Authority, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Coast Guard. Details of the surveillance and enforcement plan,
such as patrol schedules and any necessary interagency agreements, will be
developed during the first and second years of operation. A high priority will
be placed on training that will result in NMFS and FWS deputization for ESA
enforcement.

The number of rangers assigned to the La Parguera area will be increased
from 2 to 3. These officers will receive special training and additional
equipment. One ranger will always be at the Headquarters, manning the radio
and coordinating the surveillance and enforcement efforts with the overall
operational needs of the proposed sanctuary. The other two rangers will be
on patrol wherever they are needed.

While patrolling the waters of the proposed LPNMS, the rangers will check
the condition of equipment such as buoys and other markers and report problems
to the sanctuary maintenance personnel in order to maintain facilities essential
to the safety of sanctuary visitors and users. They will perform search and
rescue operations and carry out hurricane and other emergency procedures
within the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary.

In line with their surveillance and enforcement duties, they will educate
the public to the rationale behind the various laws and regulations and will
serve from time to time as guides for visiting sanctuary groups, a manner
similar to the park rangers.

The sanctuary manager will train sanctuary staff and volunteers to
recognize situations within the proposed sanctuary which could potentially
threaten environmental quality and to identify their causes. The manager
will also train the staff to assist all law enforcement agents with missions
within the proposed sanctuary boundaries. This is probably the most effective
surveillance activity and will deserve the highest priority. Enlistment of
all staff volunteers to become part of this "early warning system" will be
essential to the program. All sanctuary staff and volunteers will be trained
to report problems and potential violations in an organized, effective manner
to the proper authorities.

b. Stage I

An immediate enforcement presence at La Parguera village will be
established during Stage I by conducting ranger operations from the proposed
sanctuary dock at the La Parguera village waterfront. The Rangers will
patrol from Punta Pitahaya to Bahia Montalva. Rangers operating out of the
Ranger Station at Boqueron will continue to patrol between Punta
Aguila and Punta Pitahaya on an as needed basis, since visitor use of those
waters is likely to be sparse.

c. Stage II

During Stage II, sanctuary ranger operations will be evaluated and
the necessary changes made.

d. Sanctuary Regulations

1. Introduction

These regulations were developed to address the resource issues and
problems discussed in Part II Management Context, and protect resource
values which make the propose@ LPNMS an important natural system.

The boundaries of the proposed sanctuary are delineated in Section 939.3
and Section 939.5 establishing DNR as the onsite manager with responsibility
for enforcement in the sanctuary (activities prohibited or controlled) of
Section 939.7. The regulations reaffirm the Commonwealth and provide federal
penalties for the prohibition on the taking of coral, prohibit destruction of
mangroves, provide vessel operation rules, prohibit certain discharges,
protect underwater trails, prevent removal or damage to cultural resources,
prohibit tampering with legal fish or gear, and prohibit nets used by turtle
poachers.

Section 939.9 establishes penalties for committing prohibited activities.
Section 939.10 provides for permits to undertake prohibited activities
for scientific and educational purposes, and Section 939.11 provides procedures
for administrative appeals if a permit is denied.

Activities that do not harm or deplete the resources, including commercial
and sportfishing, recreational diving, underwater photography, and non-
destructive research and interpretive activities, are not regulated and are
encouraged, consistent with sanctuary goals.

The following draft sanctuary regulations will be promulgated and
appear in the Federal Register.

Part 939 - LA PARGUERA NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY DRAFT REGULATIONS

Sec.
939.1 Authority
939.2 Purpose
939.3 Boundaries
939.4 Definitions
939.5 Management and Enforcement
939.6 Allowed Activities
939.7 Activities Prohibited or Controlled
939.8 Other Authorities
939.9 Penalties for Commission of Prohibited Acts
939.10 Permit Procedures and Criteria
939.11 Appeals of Administrative Action

Authority: Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972;
Pub. L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1061 and 1062 (16 U.S.C. 1432-1433).

939.1 Authority

The Sanctuary will be designated by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant
to the authority of Section 302(a) of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as amended (the Act). The following regulations are
issued pursuant to the authorities of Sections 302(f), 302(g) and 303 of the
Act.

939.2 Purpose

The purpose of designating the La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary is
to protect and preserve a representative cross-section of tropical habitat
and a coral reef ecosystem in its natural state and to regulate uses within
the Sanctuary to insure the health and well-being of the coral and associated
flora and fauna.

939.3 Boundaries

The sanctuary consists of a 68.27 square nautical mile area of the
Caribbean Sea off southwest Puerto Rico. The exact boundaries are:

Pt. No. Latitude Longitude Pt. No. Latitude Longitude

939.4 Definitions
(a) "Administrator" means-the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
(b) "Assistant Administrator" means the Assistant Administrator for
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or his/her successor, or
designee.
(c) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

(d) "Persons" means any private individual, partnership, corporation, or
other entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, agency or
instrumentality of the Federal government, or any State or local unit of the
government.
(e) "The Sanctuary" means the La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary.

939.5 Management and Enforcement
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has primary
responsibility for the management of the Sanctuary pursuant to the Act.
The Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will assist NOAA in
the administration of the Sanctuary, and act as the onsite manager, in
conformance with the draft Designation Document between DNR and NOAA. DNR
shall conduct surveillance and enforcement of these regulations pursuant to
16 U.S.C. 1432(f)(4), or other appropriate legal authority.

939.6 Allowed Activities

All activities except those specifically prohibited by Section 939.7
may be carried on within the Sanctuary subject to all prohibitions, restrictions,
and conditions imposed by other authorities.

939.7 Activities Prohibited or Controlled

(a) Unless permitted by the Assistant Administrator in accordance with
939.10, or as may be necessary for the national defense, or to respond to an
emergency threatening life, property or the environment, the following
activities are prohibited or controlled within the Sanctuary. All prohibitions
and controls must be applied consistently with international law. Refer to
939.9 for penalties for commission of prohibited acts.

(1) Taking and Damaging Natural Resources

(i) No person shall break, cut, or similarly damage or destroy
the coral, bottom formation, or any marine plant, except institutions conducting
scientific or educational activities that were exempted pursuant to Article 4
of the Regulations to Control the Extraction, Possession, Transportation,
and Sale of Coral Resources in Puerto Rico (under authority conferred by
Law No. 23 of June 20, 1972 and Law No. 83 of May 13, 1936, as amended).

These eligible institutions are the University of Puerto Rico, Administration of
Regional Colleges, Interamerican University, Catholic University, Center for
Energetic and Environmental Research, Environmental Quality Board, and the
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources.

(ii) No person shall cut, damage, or similarly destroy any red
mangrove (Rhizophora.mangle) except as part of a program of routine channel
maintenance.

(iii) No person shall use poisons, electrical charges, explosives,
or similar methods to take any marine animal or plant.

. (iv) There shall be a presumption that any items listed in this
paragraph found in the possession of a person within the Sanctuary have been
collected or removed from the Sanctuary.

(2) Operation of Vessels

(i) No vessel shall approach closer than 200 feet to a fishing
vessel or a vessel displaying a diving flag except at a maximum speed of
three knots.

(ii) No vessel or person shall interfere with any fishing activity.

(iii) All vessels from which diving operations are being conducted
shall fly in a conspicuous manner, the international code flag alpha "A."

(3) Discharging of Polluting Substances

No person shall litter, deposit, or discharge any materials or substances
of any ki nd except:

(i) Indigenous fish or fish parts.

(ii) Cooling water from vessels.

(iii) Effluents from marine sanitation devices allowable under
Coast Guard standards.

(iv) On a temporary basis, sewage from existing shoreline
houses known as casetas with recognized permits from COE. This exception
shall expire upon the completion and operation of an area wide sewage collection
and treatment system or until the expiration of the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Governor of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
the La Parguera area dated June 13, 1978, whichever is earlier.

(4) Underwater Trails

(i) No person shall fish within the underwater trails.

(ii) No person shall mark, deface, or injure in any way, or displace,
remove, or tamper with underwater trails, signs, markers, or buoys.

(5) Removing or Damaging Cultural Resources

No person shal I remove, damage, or tamper with any historical or cultural
feature, including archaeological sites, historic structures, shipwrecks,
and artifacts.

(6) Damage to Fish Traps

No person shall disturb, harm, or tamper with any legal fishing gear,
nets, traps, or pots.

(7) Taking of Sea Turtles

(i) No person shall ensnare, entrap, or fish any sea turtle
while it it is a threatened or endangered species as defined by the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.

(ii) No person shall possess or use any nets or similar fishing
gear with a mesh size in excess of eight inches.

(b) The prohibitions in this section will be applied to foreign persons
and vessels only in accordance with recognized principles of international
law, including treaties, conventions and other international agreements to
which the United States is signatory.

939.8 Other Authorities

No license, permit or other authorization issued pursuant to any other
authority may validly authorize any activity prohibited by Section 939.7
unless such activity meets the criteria stated in Section 939.10 (a), (c) and (d)
and is specifically authorized by the Assistant Administrator.

939.9 Penalties for Commission of Prohibited Acts

Section 303 of the Act authorizes the assessment of a civil penalty of
not more than $50,OUO for each violation of any regulation issued pursuant to
the Act, and further authorizes a proceeding in rem against any vessel used in
violation of any such regulation. Procedures are set out in Subpart D of
Chapter 15 CFR Part 922. Subpart D is applicable to any instance of a violation
of these regulations.

939.10 Permit Procedures and Criteria

Under special circumstances where the prohibited activity is research or
education needed to better understand the Sanctuary environment and improve
management decisionmaking and judged not to cause long-term or irreparable
harm to the resources, a permit may be granted by NOAA in cooperation with
the Secretary of DNR.

(a) Any person in possession of a valid permit issued by the Assistant
Administrator in cooperation with the Secretary of the Department of Natural
Resources, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in accordance with this section may
conduct the specific activity in the Sanctuary including any activity
specifically prohibited under Section 939.7, if such activity is (1) research
related to the resources of the Sanctuary, (2) to further the educational
value of the Sanctuary, or (3) for salvage or recovery operations.

(b) Permit applications shall be addressed to the Assistant Administrator
for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, ATTN: Sanctuary Programs
Division, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235. An application shall
include a description of all activities proposed, the equipment, methods, and
personnel (particularly describing relevant experience) involved, and a
timetable for completion of the proposed activity. Copies of all other
required licenses or permits shall be attached.

(c) In considering whether to grant a permit, the Assistant Administrator
shall evaluate such matters as (1) the general professional and financial
responsibility of the applicant; (2) the appropriateness of the methods being
proposed to the purpose(s) of the activity; (3) the extent to which the conduct
of any permitted activity may diminish or enhance the value of the Sanctuary
as a source of recreation, education, or scientific information; and (4) the
end value of the activity.

(d) Permits may be issued by the Assistant Administrator for activities
otherwise prohibited under Section 939.7. In addition to meeting the criteria
in Section 939.10 (a) and (c), the applicant must also satisfactorily demonstrate
to the Assistant Administrator that: (1) the activity shall be conducted
with adequate safeguards for the environment, and (2) the environment shall
be returned to the condition which existed before the activity occurred. A
permit issued according to the provisions for an otherwise prohibited activity
shall be appropriately conditioned, and the activity monitored to ensure
compliance.

(e) In considering an application submitted pursuant to this Section, the
Assistant Administrator shall seek and consider the view of the Secretary of
the Department of Natural Resources. The Assistant Administrator may also
seek and consider the views of any other person or entity, within or outside
of the Federal Government, and may hold a public hearing, as he/she deems
appropriate.

(f) The Assistant Administrator may, at his/her discretion, grant a
permit which has been applied for pursuant to this section, in whole or in
part, and subject to such condition(s) as deemed necessary, and shall attach
to any permit granted for research related to the Sanctuary stipulations to
the effect that: (1) the Assistant Administrator, Secretary of Department
of Natural Resources, or their designated representatives may observe any
activity permitted by this section; and (2) any information obtained in the
research site shall be made available to the public; and/or the submission of
one or more reports of the status of progress of such activity may be required.

(g) A permit granted pursuant to this section is nontransferrable.

(h) The Assistant Administrator may amend, suspend or revoke a permit
granted pursuant to this section, in whole or in part, temporarily or
indefinitely if, in his/her view, the permit holder (the Holder) had acted in
violation of the terms of the permit or of the applicable regulations; or the
Assistant Administrator may do so for other good cause shown. Any such
action shall be communicated in writing to the Holder, and shall set forth the
reason(s) for the action taken. The Holder in relation to whom such action
has been taken may appeal the action as provided for in Section 939.11.

939.11 Appeals of Administrative Action

(a) The applicant for a permit, the Holder, or any other interested
person (hereafter Appellant) may appeal the granting, denial, conditioning or
suspension of any permit under Section 939.10 to the Administrator of NOAA.
In order to be considered by the Administrator, such appeal shall be in
writing, shall state the action(s) appealed and the reason(s) therefor, and
shall be submitted within 30 days of the action(s) by the Assistant Administrator.
The Appellant may request an informal hearing on the appeal.

(b) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by this Section, the Administrator
may request the Appellant, and the permit applicant or Holder if other than
the Appellant, to submit such additional information and in such form as
will allow action upon the appeal. The Administrator shall decide the appeal
using the criteria set out in Section 939.10 (a), (c) and (d), any information
relative to the application on file, any information provided by the Appellant,
and such other consideration as is deemed appropriate. The Administrator
shall notify the Appellant of the final decision and the reason(s) therefor,
in writing normally within 30 days of the date of the receipt of adequate
information required to make the decision.

(c) If a hearing is requested or, if the Administrator determines that
one is appropriate, the Administrator may grant an informal hearing before a
Hearing Officer designated for that purpose, after first giving notice of the
hearing in the Federal Register. Such hearing shall normally be held no
later than 30 days following publication of the notice in the Federal Register
unless the Hearing Officer extends the time for reasons deemed equitable. The

Appellant, the applicant or permit holder, if different, and, other interested
persons may appear personally or by counsel at the hearing and submit such
material and present such arguments as determined appropriate by the Hearing
Officer. Within 30 days of the last day of the hearing, the Hearing Officer
shall recommend a decision in writing to the Administrator.

(d) The Administrator may adopt the Hearing Officer's recommended
decision, in whole or in part, or may reject or modify it. In any event, the
Administrator shall notify the interested persons of his/her decision, and
the reason(s) therefor in writing within 30 days of receipt of the recommended
decision of the Hearing Officer. The Administrator's decision shall constitute
final action for the Agency for the purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(e) Any time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by the
Administrator for good cause for a period not to exceed 3U days, either upon
his/her own motion or upon written request from the Appellant, permit applicant
or Holder, stating the reason(s) therefor.

D. Interpretive Program

1. Introduction

This section of the management plan establishes a framework for the
Interpretive Program for the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary.
As an island community, Puerto Rico's population would benefit from a
marine-oriented interpretive program. The program will be administered in
close cooperation with the local communities and users of the proposed
sanctuary to encourage a better appreciation of the island's marine resources.
Working in conjunction with the interpreter, DNR personnel responsible for
DNR operations in the proposed sanctuary area would plan and initiate
recreational and informational activities which would be compatible with
sanctuary goals and objectives.

The Interpretive Program would focus on selected areas and features and
seek to educate the public about resource issues and concerns by expanding
understanding of the natural environment and how human actions impact upon
it. Interpretation of this complex environment would enhance visitor appreciation
and enjoyment of the proposed sanctuary and generate concern for the protection
of its vital resources. Audiovisual materials, publications, exhibits,
activities, and interpreters would provide the information that leads to
increased knowledge and understanding of this relatively unspoiled and
significant ecosystem.

This awareness of the human and social value of natural systems would
enable visitors to better understand some of the issues and problems related
to the natural systems and how human actions impact on those systems. These
resource issues and problems are discussed in Part II.F., Management Context.
The exhibits and media presentations would serve to inform and educate the
public and visitors about the bioluminescent bays, and issues such as the
effect of light pollution and water quality on the phenomena of bioluminescence.
Similarly, the program would educate the public on the importance of grassbeds
and help them recognize problems associated with the careless use of motor boats
in the shallow nearshore areas. The mangrove boardwalk tour and the media
presentation would focus the public's attention on the value of the mangrove
system to fishing productivity, wildlife, and protection of coastal property.

Information on rules and regulations would inform the public that taking
coral and other bottom formations are illegal. The boat tour to the coral
reefs, exhibits, and the audiovisual program would focus on the importance
of the reef system and its fragility. In conjunction with the underwater
trails, the program would alert users to the value of the reef system and
its susceptibility to damage. The information on endangered species--manatees,
turtles, pelicans, and other important species--would be related to habitats
(grassbeds, mangroves, and reefs) and provide a holistic understanding of the
relationship of individual species and habitats to the ecosystem.

2. Methods and Approach

The following methods are planned to carry the message of the proposed
sanctuary to the general public island-wide, as well as to-visitors and
users. Specific programs would have to be developed by the interpreter in
the Sanctuary Administrator's Office and incorporated into the sanctuary
management plan after designation.

STAGE I

Prepare a Detailed Profile of Users

Step one in the development of the Interpretive Program would be
to prepare a detailed profile showing current numbers and patterns of usage,
age of users, their cultural and economic backgrounds, length and time of
visits, and any other information that would enable the interpreter to design
programs that are geared to participant needs and expectations.

Visitor statistics for La Parguera are sparse and difficult to analyze.
From the little information available, it appears that over 35,000 people
visit the proposed sanctuary area per year. There is a higher attendance
on the weekends (Sunday being more popular than Saturday) and Mata de la Gata
is a more popular area than Playita Rosada.

Resident and visitor interests include:

0 economic, among local fishermen, who derive food and/or income from the
proposed sanctuary area resources;

0 scientific, among scientists, particularly those professors and graduate
students associated with the University of Puerto Rico's research
laboratory at Magueyes Island;

0 recreational, among most of the visitors, who frequent the village of
Parguera, Mata de La Gata and Playita Rosada, and among boating enthusiasts;

� sightseeing, among those who come to see the bioluminescense at night at
Bahia Fosforescente; and

� protection, among those groups and individuals who wish to insure
long-term conservation of the area's natural resources.

Suggested completion time: 3 months
Gathering information about visitor use would be an ongoing activity
which would provide program personnel with the data they need to adjust
plans and activities. In order to begin the Interpretive Program as soon as
possible, the interpreter would utilize existing data and information as the
basis for developing the initial plan while recognizing that adjustments
should be made when additional data becomes available.

Prepare a List of Resources to Implement the Interpretive Program

The types of interpretive programs and exhibits that could be presented
initially in the proposed LPNMS would depend to some extent on the facilities
and other resources that could be obtained. For example, although visitor center
exhibits may not be possible immediately, portable touchtable type materials
could be used for onsite interpretive activities. A center of operation where
visitors could receive information about sanctuary activities, from which
programs can emanate and in which staff can prepare exhibits, store materials,
and administer the sanctuary are essential from the outset.

While some information was available for use in the development of this
prospectus from current DNR statistics, it probably would be necessary for the
interpreter to make detailed onsite observations and conduct continuing surveys
to establish a complete basis for program design.

Included among the factors to be considered in gathering future infor-
mation are:

1. the amount of knowledge about the sanctuary that visitors have prior
to coming to La Parguera;

2. what users expect from their visit;

3. what kinds of activities they engage in while in the sanctuary;

4. what activities they would like to explore that may or may not be
scheduled; and

5. what they did or did not enjoy about their visit.

In preparing the assessment of potential resources, the interpreter would
focus on facilities , materials, and equipment.

(1) Facilities

0 Tour boats, such as the glass bottom boat now privately operated at the
La Parguera public dock, would be inventoried, and arrangements would be made
for possible integration into the program.

* Agreements for use of the University of Puerto Rico's facility on
Magueyes Island by sanctuary visitors would be investigated with University
officials.

' The lighthouse at Cabo Rojo and the Cueva Island site would be
investigated as to their availability and potential for,adaptation as satellite
interpretive program centers.

(2) Materials and Equipment

0 An inventory of available exhibit materials and audiovisual equipment
would be prepared. Materials and equipment to be acquired and possible sources
for them would be listed.

0 Persons and groups who are known to have collections of pertinent
natural resources that might be loaned or given to the proposed sanctuary
would be contacted for assistance in developing program exhibits.

Inform the Public of Sanctuary Rules, Regulations, Programs, and Activities

During Stage I, specific information to be communicated to the user
public would be identified along with appropriate media forms to be used for
each message. In conjunction, the following tasks would be undertaken:

A map would be developed showing the location of the proposed sanctuary
and pointing out its major features. Directions for driving or going by boat
to program centers would be printed on the map.

' one or more different brochures would be published containing information
such as: hours of operation; location of trails and displays; tour boat
schedules, costs, and embarcation site locations; activity schedules, levels of
difficulty, and equipment needs and sources. A small map of La Parguera
village and the waterfront area would be included. Flyers would be used to
announce special events.

0 A bulletin board at visitor contact points would be used to post
schedules, special announcements, safety procedures, and rules and regulations.
Develop a System of Interaction with the Resource Studies Plan
The procedures for implementing this action would be developed during
Stage I. The principal investigator for each study would be responsible, in
addition to his technical work, for the drafting of layman's version of that
study suitable for use in the Interpretive Program. It would also be important
that the investigator continue to provide updated information for use in the
interpretive program for the duration of his study.

Design a Program of Exhibits and Activities

On the basis of an analysis of the user profiles and the resource
facilities inventory, the interpreter, during Stage I, would design a program
of exhibits and activities for:

(1) Mangrove Boardwalk/boat Tour
Onsite interpretation of natural features would take place via a guided
tour by boat and boardwalk trail in one of the mangrove areas. It is suggested
that the tour take place in the small mangrove channel near Cueva Island
(Figure 14). The mangrove boardwalk tour would focus on interpreting the ecology

of the mangrove system and provide information on its particular flora and
fauna. The boardwalk tour could be established primarily as a self-guided
tour or with regularly scheduled talks by a naturalist if staff time allows.

The boat tour has the advantage of controlling the movement of groups
of people as well as providing a captive audience. A possible scenario for
both the boardwalk and boat tour suggests boarding visitors at La Parguera
village dock. The boat, with an interpreter-naturalist aboard, would stop
at the beginning of the mangrove trail where the group could walk the trail
with the naturalist while the boat tour proceeds to the trail's end (unless
it is a loop trail). The group would board again and the boat would stop at
a selected coral reef or cay, where, depending on their interests and
abilities, participants could observe the mangrove roots and/or coral by
snorkeling or through viewing tubes. It is suggested that Collado would be
an ideal spot for viewing mangrove root life.

(2) Underwater Trails

Underwater trails would be selected and would include underwater markers
showing biota and other interesting features of the reef (Figure 14).
Where possible, lines would mark the trails, particularly those which are
some distance from shore (i.e., shelf edge, Turrumote I), in an effort to
reduce the chances of divers becoming disoriented.

For beginner and intermediate snorkelers, the westernmost section of
Enrique's back reef lagoon and San Cristobal's back reef lagoon is recommended.
Enrique Reef. The area at Enrique comprises about .44 km2 and contains a
highly diverse biota. Star and staghorn corals are very common and provide
shelter to a great variety of fish and invertebrates. Dense !large stands
of soft coral are common among the corals. Crustaceans of different species,
sea urchins, and anemones are often seen living together. Alternating
with the coral patches described are extensive seagrass meadows containing
conch and a large variety of algae. The depth of this site varies between 1
and slightly more than 2 meters. It is very close to the La Parguera village
(about 2.5 km) and is completely protected from the wave action.

San Cristobal Reef. The back reef lagoon of San Cristobal Reef, located
approximately 4km (2.4 miles) southwest of La Parguera village, pruvides an
interesting area of approximately Ikm2 for beginner and intermediate snorkelers.
Within the lagoon a variety of reef habitats exist. Predominant organisms
are: (1) large star and brain corals (about 2m in diameter), (2) soft corals,
(3) algal patches, and (4) seagrasses. Sandy plains with crustacean burrows
are also present. Fish and invertebrate diversities are relatively high.
Parrot fish, schools of doctorfish, juvenile snappers, blue head wrasses and
lizard fish are abundant. The christmas tree worm, sea cucumber, symbiotic
shrimps, anemones, fire, star, brain, staghorn, elkhorn, rose, and lettuce
corals, gorgonians, carpet-like colonial anemones, and sea slugs are found
throughout. The area also includes a well-protected "wall" dropping from
the surface to about 6m (20 ft.) and lined with numerous invertebrates.
Very interesting to the visitor are large, overturned head corals; evidence
of the passage of hurricanes in past years. The water depth ranges from
knee-deep water to about 6m. Underwater horizontal visibility is generally
very good.

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
LPNMS visitor infer
La Parguera
National
Marine
Sanctuary

Isla Magueyes
Figure 14 Cay@Vjsques 0 excu I as noctu as::::
% Cabello Blanco
: Bahia Fosfores nte
0
USO
tours nightly to Be
Isla Cabello AhWaft Fostorescente
111YO
cows
t
0 Carl.
Recreativo h1a
310 La Gate
Jq"
Patina
Propuesto
Sees Pelotas
Isla
buceo con esnorkel
Guayacan oviclos a Intermedlo
WE, mangrove bon
Proposed::::::: para n
WOO beginning and
boat tour
Pumae
M
Intermediate snorkeling
Guayac...
Recreational Cayo Enrique
Use OzOrLa ftya
buceo con esnorkel
avanzado
parque publico advanced
public park Ago snorkeling
n@tac!on Atravesado J San Crlswb@i LSLKOI Media Luna
swimming

esqui acuallco
water skiing buceo con esnorkel Turrumots I -
La India para noviclos at Intermedict
El Palo
"wind surfing" M ,.e, beginning and
wind surfing 0 - I..
Intermediate snorkeling buceci con tanque
arrecifes de coral 2 avanzado
coral reels E0 advariced
buceo con esnorkel scuba diving
M-e- avanzado
underwater trails [Wed advanced
snorkeling

...... ........ . ... ........

ka.m.t.'s
0 .5 1 2 3 2 it
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 0 .5 1 2
McLean, Virginia millas nauticas
nautical milles

Turrumote I. For more advanced swimmers and SCUBA divers, Turrumote I
is recommended. Turrumote Reef is located approximately 5 km south of Bahia
Fosforescente. Although this area is susceptible to coral damage by hurricane
force storms, it is also a prolific growth area and affords the opportunity
for more experienced divers to view many diverse species over a wide area.
The eastern end of the reef includes a very interesting and high relief area
(locally called the Pinnacles). These are coral structures which rise from
the bottom and climb to about 10 m from the surface.

Although Turrumote Reef is a good location for more experienced
snorkelers and divers, fishing is good in this area and divers may conflict
with fishing activities.

As the underwater trail program develops, tours would be organized
according to levels of ability. For example:

1. For experienced snorkelers and SCUBA divers, boats with or
without guides, would proceed to the reefs where swimmers could
swim underwater to observe marine communities, using waterproof
interpretive cards as an alternative to underwater trail exhibits.

2. For swimmers without previous snorkeling experience, the tour would
be guided and participants would be closely supervised.

3. For swimmers who need security, lines would be floated across an
inshore reef and snorkelers could hold onto the line while observing
the features.

4. For non-swimmers, a tour boat with pontoons that fold out, would
permit visitors to use viewing tubes to observe the underwater
environment.

(3) Outdoor Exhibits

An outdoor exhibit would display a map showing the proposed sanctuary
boundaries, locating the features along the route of the tour boat, and
marking danger areas. This exhibit would be placed at the tour boat dock or
visitor center.

(4) Promote Conservation of Fisheries Resources

The solutions to the problems of conserving fisheries resources are
ones that will require considerable thought and staff time. La Parguera
fishermen, as reported, are under great economic pressure and often lack the
technical and management background necessary for evaluating the long-term
effects of their present actions. Educational activities focused on the
fishery resources within the proposed sanctuary should include:

' interpretive personnel meeting informally with the fishermen to establish
mutual understanding and respect;

* an educational program which would be a two-way process for the
interpreters to learn the trade peculiarities in the area and use such
information to foster sound administration practices; and

0 educational materials developed for the sportsfishermen. (This is an
expanding population whose influence on fisheries resources will increase
over the next years.)

As an example, fishermen prefer "yolas" and use very little additional
mechanical gear for fishing. Fishing programs in the past that tried to
promote the use of larger boats with more sophisticated equipment encountered
strong resistence from the fishermen. In view of the present situation,
especially overfishing, the use of larger boats is not cost efficient or
good resource conservation. Fishermen's Associations that do have large,
fully equipped fishing boats hardly break even between expenses and sales.
This is largely due to high costs of fuel, maintenance of equipment, and low
catch.

STAGE II

During Stage II (Jears four and five) of sanctuary management, the
Interpretive Program would focus on expanding the awareness of the proposed
sanctuary beyond the immediate area and developing programs that explain
the cultural and historic aspect of the site.

Interpreting the Natural History of the Sanctuary
Probably the best mode of interpreting the natural history and culture
of the area is through visitor center exhibits complemented by audiovisual
materials. Using objects as much as possible, exhibits could provide glimpses
of the natural history of the proposed sanctuary area and its adjoining waters,
show the interrelationship of man and his marine environment, and introduce
visitors to those features of the proposed sanctuary that they would be able
to see on one of the tours. Emphasis would be placed on the fragility of
the reefs, the vulnerability of the mangroves, seagrass beds and bird
nesting sites and their importance to the ecological balance in the proposed
sanctuary and those conservation practices that man can adopt to protect
these resources. Color, patterns, objects, and motion would be integrated
to create the effect of natural scenes. In order to keep labor intensive
exhibits to a minimum, audio tapes would be used to educate the visitors.
The possibility of using videotapes would be explored in the future.
Topics to be considered for exhibit purposes would be selected in
consultation with the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture, the Fundacion
Arqueologica, Antropoligica e Historica de Puerto Rico, the Smithsonian
Institution, and informed individuals. These institutions may have artifacts
that could be used in the exhibits, as may the University of Puerto Rico
and other museum and educational organizations.

Visitors could arrange for transportation to the underwater trails
at the proposed visitor center and headquarters. Additional diving sites
where underwater trails could be developed would be explored. Literature
and guidelines about the usage of the trails, as well as general information
about the coral reefs in the proposed sanctuary, would be available at the
headquarters as well as in other selected locations.

There are many reef formations that, if managed correctly, could provide
excellent recreational /i nterpreti ve underwater sites for the proposed sanctuary
users with limited swimming abilities. The sites could be rotated periodically
to prevent any long-term damage caused by overuse. Areas within each reef
system could also be set aside if human use becomes a problem.

Interpreting On-Going Research Projects Within the Proposed Sanctuary

Should the University of Puerto Rico's research station on Magueyes
Island become the research clearinghouse for the proposed sanctuary, an
interpretive exhibit would be set up to inform the public about the Resource
Studies Plan. A series of mini exhibits such as backlighted transparencies
with photographs and labeled exhibits could tell about each particular
project. As projects are completed, results could be published and distributed
to the visitors and the exhibits replaced with information about current
research.

The results of research investigations of interest to the general public
should be published in local papers and in the proposed sanctuary newsletter.

Preparation of Year-Round Schedule for Educational Programs

Since most visitation occurs during the summer months and on holidays,
there is an opportunity for the interpreter and the naturalists to carry the
message of the proposed sanctuary to schools and groups throughout the island
during the visitor off-seasons.

(1) Audiovisual Presentations

A slide show with text would be assembled and copied for use by the
interpreter, naturalists, and volunteers who are familiar with and eager to
interpret the sanctuary's resources. Publications and small portable touchtable
type exhibits would be prepared for use in the educational programs.

A 15-30 minute film would be prepared early in the second stage of
operation. It would be used for off-site presentations, as well as orientation
for sanctuary visitors, to inform people about the proposed sanctuary, its
goals and significance in marine conservation. It could also be used for
pre-visit presentations to tour groups both on and off-site and in schools.
Perhaps a supporting group in Puerto Rico could raise funds for this
project. Content would be oriented to a general audience and would present
the significant features of the proposed sanctuary; the interrelationships
of the coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, bay environments and other
living elements; the fragility of the marine environment; the story of the
bioluminescent bays; important bird nesting sites; the rules and regulations
of the proposed sanctuary; and the necessity of conserving these ecological
resources.

(2) Programs for Particular User Groups

A program with slides and.printed materials would be prepared for
presentations to specific user groups to be selected by the interpreter.
Content would be oriented to the special needs and concerns of user groups
such as: snorkelers and SCUBA divers, recreational boaters, commercial and
recreational fishermen and DNR public park visitors. Programs would address
the potential conflicts between these interests and the proposed sanctuary
goals.

The interpreter in consultation with the sanctuary manager and the
Administrator would prepare these presentations and would schedule only those
persons skilled in leading discussions for these program sessions.

(3) Research and Educational Tours

Scientists and conservationists, who visit the proposed sanctuary,
would be interested in ongoing research projects as well as in touring the
proposed sanctuary.

For undergraduate and graduate students, 'who are science majors or who
have demonstrated a significant interest in the proposed sanctuary, an educational
research cruise of the proposed sanctuary area could be organized to introduce
these students to the field of marine research. A cooperative arrangement
with the research facility at Magueyes Island would help to ensure the success
of this project.

A reservation system for groups that want to tour the proposed sanctuary
would be established by the sanctuary manager and tours would be modified to
accommodate their particular needs to the greatest extent possible.

(4) Workshops for Volunteers, Teachers, and Staff

Marine sanctuary workshops would be held for teachers, volunteers, and
staff. The interpreter would seek the assistance of specialists in the DNR
Information Systems Office and Education and Public Affairs Office and others
in the field of communication and the natural sciences in the preparation and
conduct of these workshops. A workshop for volunteers and staff would provide
them with the background information and presentation techniques that they
would need when speaking to groups and guiding tours. Workshops for teachers
would be content-oriented to equip them with useful information and materials
for their classes, and in preparation for class site visits to the proposed
sanctuary.

E. Resource Studies Plan

1. Introduction

A primary purpose for establishing the proposed La Parguera National
Marine Sanctuary (LPNMS) is to promote and coordinate research to expand
scientific knowledge of significant marine resources and improve management
decisionmaking. Research is an essential part of long-term, comprehensive,
and effective sanctuary management. Designating the waters at La Parguera
as a national marine sanctuary would provide an excellent laboratory or
control site in which research needed for the understanding and interpreting
of ocean processes will be undertaken. Projects will include, but will
not be limited to, multidisciplinary studies on living marine resources
(species composition, abundance, diversity, etc.); community structure
and function; and physical, chemical, geological and meteorological
conditions within the proposed sanctuary. Information generated from
these investigations will be used to further understanding of the importance
of coastal resources and to develop sound coastal ecosystem management
practices. Management-related research will address practical, use-oriented
or "cause-and-effect" studies. Long-term monitoring and its resultant
data base will provide the foundation for interpreting or predicting
natural or man-induced events in the sanctuaries and related areas.
Management areas which could be explored might include: (1) carrying
capacity of a given system to withstand varying types and levels of
human contact or stresses; (2) the adequacy of protective buffer areas;
(3) the effects of different types of development or activities on particular
resources such as coral, seagrass beds, fisheries, marine mammals, and
seabirds; (4) fisheries research oriented toward solving operational and
management concerns; and perhaps (5) innovative ways of enhancing productivity.

2. The Plan

This section of the proposed LPNMS Draft Management Plan establishes a
long-term Resource Studies Plan for structuring marine research, resource
assessment, and monitoring at La Parguera. It describes needed projects and
sets out priorities according to sanctuary management needs. A wide range of
potential studies are listed, of which NOAA can only fund a limited number
each year. Other funding sources will be encouraged to fund priority projects.
A coordination of effort will be established with the following agencies to
conduct these studies: Department of Natural Resources, Department of Marine
Sciences (University of Puerto Rico), Center for Energy and Environmental Research,
Corporation for the Development of Marine, Lacustrive and Fluvial Resources,
and the Environmental Quality Board. The Resource Studies Plan spans five
years and will be updated annually. The Plan describes proposed studies under
four topics:

1. Data and Resource Information Management

2. Marine Ecology

3. Oceanography (physical, chemical and geological)

4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

The following studies are proposed for the La Parguera National Marine
Sanctuary:

TOPIC 1. Data/Resource Information Management

Study 1.1: LPNMS Data/Information Management Feasibility Study

Study 1.2: Compilation of Literature and Ongoing Research in the
Proposed LPNMS

TOPIC 2. Marine Ecology

Study 2.1: Distribution and Status of the West Indian Manatee Population

Study 2.2: Conch Fishery Stock Assessment in the Proposed LPNMS

TOPIC 3. Oceanography

Study 3.1: Circulation Patterns in the Proposed LPNMS

Study 3.2: Water Quality Monitoring in the Proposed LPNMS

TOPIC 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

Study 4.1: Anchor Damage to Coral Reefs in the Proposed LPNMS

Study 4.2: Coral Reef Underwater Nature Trail Feasibility Study
Study 4.3@ Boating Activity in the Proposed LPNMS (Bioluminescent Bay)
Study 4.4: Boating Activity in the Proposed LPNMS (Seagrass Bed Areas)

Study 4.5: Effects of Spearfishing in the Proposed LPNMS

Study 4.6: Effects of Human Activity on Selected Coral Reefs in the
Proposed LPNMS

These studies are described below in more detail.

TOPIC NO. 1. Data/Resource InformationManagement

1. Study 1.1: LPNMS Data/Resource Information Management Feasibility
Study

2. Information Needs and Study Objectives

Effective management relies to a great extent on an efficient data
classification, storage, and retrieval system. Such a system is essential for
day-to-day management as well as for future planning and future resource problem
solving. At present a considerable amount of information exists on La Parguera
and surrounding environs. It is anticipated that this information base will
expand significantly with the establishment of the proposed sanctuary. A data
management system therefore is needed to handle this information effectively
so that proper management of the proposed LPNMS could be achieved.

The Natural, Cultural and Environmental Resources Inventory (NCERI) of
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is a data management system which
has been in operation since f973. It has the capability to accept most of the
data base for the proposed LPNMS. With certain modifications the system could
be expanded to accept additional information.

The objectives of this study are:

� To incorporate the existing data banks and information on the proposed
LPNMS into the NCERI of DNR.

� To modify the NCERI so that additional data and information could be
incorporated into the system.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

A study is needed to evaluate the existing data management system within
DNR in terms of its compatibility with the proposed LPNMS data/information
management needs. Specifically, the study should describe how the data management
needs can be incorporated into the existing NCERI.

B. Methods

Available data on the proposed LPNMS would be analyzed to determine the
types and amounts of information that fall within the existing data management
system. A special computer program would be developed to accommodate those
data presently outside the system'.s capability. Parameters to be inventoried
would be selected based on the sanctuary's management needs. It is anticipated
that the following parameters would be included: bathymetry, coral reefs,
bottom types, seagrass beds, water quality, marine currents, and mangrove
forests.

C. Products

Narrative reports discussing the progress of adopting NCERI as the
proposed LPNMS data management system would be prepared. The final product
of this study would be an operational data management system for the proposed
LPNMS. It would provide for classifying, storing and retrieving data relevant
to the proposed sanctuary. A standardized data presentation format, including
lists and maps, would also be available.

D. Study Area

LPNMS and DNR in San Juan.

E. Related LPNMS Studies

1. DNR operates a data management system (NCERI) that could be
adapted by the LPNMS.

2. Study 1.2

F. Timing/Phasing

One year.

TOPIC NO. 1. Data/Resource Information Management

1. Study 1.2: Compilation of Literature and Ongoing Research
on the Proposed LPNMS

2. -Information Needs and Objectives

It is well known that the proposed LPNMS site and its surrounding marine
habitats represent a valuable asset to Puerto Rico in terms of its natural,
scientific, aesthetic and recreationalattributes. Located on the southwestern
sector of the island of Puerto Rico, La Parguera is also representative of a
fast growing rural community which in the past years has seen a considerable
increase in visitors.

A great amount of information about La Parguera has been produced through
the years, mainly about its marine environment. Most of this information
exists as scientific publications in a varied number of journals, periodicals,
and bulletins which to date, have almost exclusively served the scientific
community.

100

The need to compile and use this storehouse of information in an effort
to better understand the La Parguera system as a whole is essential for the
management of the proposed LPNMS.

The objective of this study is:

0 To prepare a document summarizing the existing information concerning
scientific research in La Parguera to aid in the formulation and
implementation of management policies.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

As a baseline for management decisionmaking and for assessing
present and future study needs within the LPNMS, it is necessary to identify
existing studies on the sanctuary's resources, synthesize applicable
information, and assess data gaps. Relevant findings would be placed in
the LPNMS data management system (NCERI).

B. Methods

A comprehensive summary document on the research history and
opportunities in La Parguera would be developed in order to put in one place
the state of understanding of the region. This document is unprecedented '
for the region and would consist of all known available information arranged
according to the following (tentative) outline:

I. General Description of the Research Area

II. Current Activities

A. Recreation
B. Research
C. Management

III. Proposed Activities

IV. Climate

A. Rainfall
B. Temperature
C. Relative Humidity
D. Wind Velocity and Direction
E. Solar Radiation

V. Hydrology

A. Water Temperature
B. Salinity
C. Dissolved Oxygen
D. pH
E. Turbidity and Transparency
F. Currents and Tides

101

Vi. Chemistry

A. Major Nutrients
B. Minor Constituents
C. Organic Compounds
D. Hydrocarbons

VII. Geology

A. Regional Geology
B. Shelf Topography and Coastal Features
C. Bottom Sediments Types
D. Reefs

VIII. Vegetation

A. Phytoplankton
B. Algae
C. Seagrasses
D. Mangroves

IX. Fauna
A. Zooplankton
B. Invertebrates (Higher)
C. Vertebrates

1. Fishes
2. Marine Mammals
3. Birds

X. Di sturbances

A. Natural Disturbances

1. Hurricanes
2. Extraordinary Tides
3. Plankton Blooms
4. Floods

B. Man Induced

1. Coastal Eutrophication
2. Chemical Pollution
3. Domestic Pollution

C. Response to Natural Stresses
D. Response to Man Induced Stresses
E. Energy Flow

XI. Conclusion

A. Forcing Function

102

C. Products

The main product of this study would be a comprehensive document describing
the state of knowledge of the proposed LPNMS. In addition, excerpts would be
prepared for publication in the scientific literature.

D. Study Area

LPNMS, Mayaguez, and San Juan

E. Related LPNMS Studies

The Draft Management Plan for the proposed La Parguera National Marine
Sanctuary contains a great amount of information on the environment and
resources. The Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Marine
Sciences of the University of Puerto Rico have conducted literature reviews of
specific resources which are available as bibliographies. Some of these have
been abstracted.

F. Timing/Phasing

One year.

TOPIC NO. 2. Marine Ecology

1. Study 2.1: Distribution of Status of the West Indian Manatee
Population

2. Information Needs and Objectives

Implementation of management strategies for the survival of any endangered
species depends heavily on a sound estimation of the population size. Reliable
estiamtes are essential for evaluation of population trends, habitat preferences,
seasonal movements, high risk mortality areas, and the effects of recovery
management efforts. In Puerto Rico, adequate evaluation of these factors has
not been undertaken for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), an
endangered species protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Similarly,
the need for robust inference procedures to fully accomplish the above in the
U.S. has been expressed in the West Indian Manatee Recovery Plan.

The objectives of this study are:

0 To produce estimates of the current population numbers of the West
Indian manatee in Puerto Rico with special emphasis on the proposed LPNMS.
0 To develop a suitable censusing technique for the manatee.

103

3. Study Description

A. Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide the sanctuary manager with
statistically valid data on the distribution and abundance of the West Indian
manatee so that management measures regarding this resource could be effectively
implemented.

B. Methods
The survey would be conducted by sampling a minimum of 10 randomly selected
5 kms transects in a known sample area. Adjacent transects, if any, would be
I km apart. Two observers would sit on the right side of the airplan and scan
with no specified boundaries. The I km between adjacent transects is believed
to be the maximum distance at which a manatee can be detected efficiently.
Data would be recorded in 50 meter intervals using wing markers placed on the
wing struct. A modified version of field data sheet suggested by Burnham et.
al (1980) would be used to record data. Transects would be selected by
superimposing a scaled 5 km-squared grid over the area sampled. Selection
would be done without replacement. These transect segments would be located
using landmarks and navigation equipment.
Detailed proceudres for this study are available from the Area of Scientific
Research, Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 5887, Puerta de Tierra
Station, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906.

C. Products
0 Narrative report describing the status of manatee populations in Puerto
Rico and the proposed LPNMS.
0 Maps identifying manatee population trends, habitat preferences and
seasonal movements.

� Recommendations

� Information for the LPNMS Data Management System.

D. Study Area
Coastline of Puerto Rico with emphasis on the LPNMS and Jobos Bay
National Estuarine Sanctuary.

E. Related Studies

None

F. Timing/Phasing

2 years.

104

TOPIC NO. 2. Marine Ecology

1. Study 2.2: Conch Fishery Stock Assessment in the Proposed LPNMS

2. Information Needs and Objectives

Queen conch (Strombus gigas) is used as food throughout its range
(Randall, 1964). Tt_ is one of the three molluscs of any importance in
Puerto Rico besides mangrove oysters and the common octopus. According to
the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC, 1976), a survey is needed to
determine areas of existing habitat and the effect of harvesting on the
population. In many areas, the conch has disappeared. Evidence from Randall
(1964) suggests overfishing of this resource in the proposed sanctuary area,
where actual islets have been formed from the heaps of discarded conch in La
Parguera. Information is needed to determine the status of conch fisheries in
the proposed LPNMS. An appraisal of this fishery should be carried out for
practical reasons, as a first step towards management.

The objectives of this study are:

� To determine the status of conch fishery in the proposed LPNMS.
� To determine the effect of harvesting on the conch population.

� To determine and describe areas of existing habitat for conch in
the proposed LPNMS.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

The main purpose of this study is to provide the sanctuary manager with
a statistical data base on which to support management decisions concerning
conch in the proposed LPNMS. This information should be helpful in providing
answers to the following management-related questions:

0 Should conch shell fishing be regulated or prohibited in the
proposed LPNMS?

0 Should certain areas of the proposed LPNMS be set aside for propagation
of this species?

0 Should more emphasis be placed in current aquaculture projects
related to conch?

B. Methods

1. Conduct a survey of conch shell distribution by size, sex and
habitat preference. Marking and tagging of specimens would be performed to
estimate their numbers and to follow the fate of labelled individuals. This

105

technique would also provide data on densities, mortality rates, rates of
exploitation and recruitment, as well as movements and migrations and
growth and age determinations.
2. Conduct a creel census among local fishermen to obtain basic
statistical data on landings, catch effort, and abundance of fish stock.
This data would be compared to statistical data currently being
collected by the Corporation for the Development of Marine, Lacustrive and
Fluvial Resources (CODREMAR). This survey would also yield information on
sex, size, weight and in some cases habitat preference of conch shells.
3. Conduct an assessment of the conch shell fishery. Based on the
information provided by the sampling survey and creel census described
above, the conch shell stock in the proposed LPNMS would be categorized in
one of the following: (a) unfished or lightly fished; (b) moderately fished;
or (c) overfished.
An appraisal quantitatively relating changes in abundance or composition
of the stock to changes in the fishing effort will then be made. Both the
production model (Shaefer, 1954, 1957) and the analytic approach (Ricker,
1958, 1975) will be used to make the actual evaluation of the state of the
stocks.

C. Products
A narrative report containing information on sex, size, distribution,
and habitat preference of the conch shell. The same should also contain
the results of creel census conducted in the proposed LPNMS and a complete
stock assessment of the conch shell resource. Appropriate graphs, tables,
analytical formulae and maps should also be included. The final report should
also contain specific management recommendations.

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related LPNMS Studies
1. Selected Marine Fish Population Dynamics (recommended but
not described).
2. Extensive studies on conch shell biology and natural history
were conducted by Randall (1964). Current research on conch shell culture in
artifically controlled conditions is being done by the University of Puerto
Rico, Department of Marine Sciences.

F. Time/Phasing

One year.

106

TOPIC NO. 3. Oceanography

1. Study 3.1: Circulation Patterns in the Proposed LPNMS

2. Information Needs and Objectives

The circulation patterns within the proposed LPNMS have not been thoroughly
described. Only some of the complex physical processes associated with
coastal circulation in the area have been studied. Coastal currents are the
main driving force that contribute to the transport and distribution of
sediments, pelagic larvae, and marine pollution. From the management stand-
point, it is essential to gather comprehensive field data for description
and quantitative analysis of the dynamic processes and water circulation
patterns in and surrounding the proposed LPNMS. This information could be
used by the sanctuary manager to make predictions regarding the movement of
sediments, larvae, and pollutants within the proposed LPNMS.

The objective of this study is:

0 To determine, characterize and describe the circulation patterns of
the proposed LPNMS.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide the sanctuary manager with
information concerning the frequency, direction and magnitude of inner
and outer shelf current patterns of the proposed LPNMS. This information would
aid the sanctuary manager in assessing the direction of travel and the probable
impacts of accidental spills of hazardous substances such as oil. It should
also assist in identifying vulnerable areas subject to sedimentation and/or
other types of pollution within the proposed sanctuary. Describing water
circulation patterns within the sanctuary is also essential for understanding
the relationship between water movements and the dispersal of pelagic larvae
and other planktonic forms.

B. Methods

Direction and magnitude of currents would be measured by in situ
current meters. Surface currents would be measured by means of surface
drifters or drogues containing fluorecin dye. Drift patterns would be
photographed from an airplane and tracked from shore by a theodolite
station. Data from an existing tide station in Magueyes Island would be
used to correlate tidal fluctuations with circulation patterns as measured
by meters and drogues.

Wind frequency and magnitude data would be obtained from a meteorological
station also located at Magueyes Island and correlated with water circulation.
A theoretical and statistical survey of the yearly frequency direction and
magnitude of winds would be done for wave hindcasting procedures and wave power
di stributi on.

107

In situ salinity, temperature, depth, and turbidity recorders would be
used. Density distribution would be calculated from the values of these
parameters and presented in distribution diagrams and statistical tables.

C. Products

A narrative report discussing the various types of analyses of recorded
measurements would be prepared. This report would include: (1) progressive
vector diagrams for approximately 38 hrs. (theoretical innertial period for
Puerto Rico's latitude); (2) North-South and East-West mean vector component
curves; (3) correlation graphs of mean current vectors vs. tidal variation
curves and directional mean vectors; (4) graphics illustrating mean
resultant mass transport during various intervals; (5) Lagrangian current
diagrams showing surface and mid-depth drifts; and (6) statistical tables.
In addition, efforts would be made to develop a conceptual or dynamic model
for making predictions about the system.

D. Study Area

LPNMS and UPR at Mayaguez

E. Related Studies

Information on tides and selected meteorological parameters are available
for La Parguera. Shanley (1974) reported on the circulation patterns in
the bioluminescent bay. Ongoing research includes a water current and wave
transformation study on the coral reefs of La Parguera (Lugo).

F. Timing/Phasing

one year -- (6 months - field work and 6 months - data
analyses and report writing).

TOPIC NO. 3. Oceanography

1. Study 3.2: Water Quality Monitoring in the Proposed LPNMS

2. -Information Needs and Objectives
man's activities in the proposed LPNMS and adjacent lands could
significantly alter or change the existing ecological conditions within the
proposed sanctuary. Unly with a measure of the relative ecological conditions
of the waters of the proposed sanctuary can managers relate past to present
practices and begin to formulate a management program to control adverse effects
in the future. It is essential, therefore, that a water quality monitoring
program be established in the proposed LPNMS to determine the presently existing
condition of its waters and to detect changes over time.

The objectives of this study are:
0 To develop and implement a water quality monitoring program for
the proposed LPNMS.

108

0 To maintain this program and define the current status of the
environment, identify values that should be protected, and suggest means
for the restoration of damaged elements.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

The main purpose of developing and implementing a water quality
monitoring program for the proposed LPNMS is to quantify and provide an early
warning system of the stresses imposed by man's activities.

Continuous monitoring will aid managers in identifying areas where
degradation of the environment is taking place; as background for pollution
indicators; and for identifying suitable areas for particular use or
multiple uses in the proposed LPNMS.

B. Methods

Sampling stations will be selected as representative of the aquatic area
and for determining any changes in water quality within the proposed
LPNMS. Recommended stations are shown in Figure 15. These are:

1. Luminescent Bay

2. Enrique Reef

3. Mata de ]a Gata Reef

4. Northeast of Magueyes Island

5. Interior waterway, south of La Parguera village

6. Bahia Monsio Jose

7. El Palo Reef

8. Punta Pitahaya

Station I is recommended to determine the water quality of a frequented
tropical bay of exceptional ecological value such as bioluminescence.
Stations 2 and 3 are typical inner shelf reefs also frequented by visitors
and where considerable "land" activity takes place (i.e., Mata de la Gata Reef).
Station 4 is recommended to determine the quality of water entering a semi-
enclosed system of mangrove channels which extends as far as Station 8
(Punta Pitahaya). Stations 5 and 6 are midpoints within this system.
Station 7 is representative of a middle shelf reef system relatively free
of significant intervention by man.

A total of 15 physical and chemical parameters would be monitored monthly
or bi-monthly to characterize the aquatic ecosystem of the proposed LPNMS.
These are summarized below in Table 4.

109

ruata

0
El Coulbate

0 Palo 0jo t 6 Ids ci, it a
Ids
If a Maluly mot
AGUR
11loquoros state foreW

%fail& &skis Sweis do MOW 3
SSW data
P

allas i'vols
2 or
pv-4y do
i - at Basins
CABO ROJO leagoorsa Biala Fuego

2-121
1-3 14 1,6 (2-7)
lob sit (2-11)
1-6 1-11(2-5) 1-16(2-10) a a
(2-8) 1- 16 lot
1-12(2-6) , ( 0)
did 1-7 a, 1-8 2-2 -9 (2-8) 40 430
-n 48 ago

Proposed water quality sampling stations for the LRMS.
rn

(-n
0

Table 4. Physical and Chemical Parameters and Suggested Frequency of
Measurement for Water Quality Monitoring.

Suggested Frequency
Parameter of Measurement

Physical

- Temperature monthly
- Turbidity (Secchi disc) monthly
- Salinity bi-monthly

Chemical

- Dissolved oxygen bi-monthly
- Total nitrogen monthly
- Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen monthly
- Ammonia nitrogen monthly
- Hydrocarbons monthly

Biological

- Total coliform bi-monthly
- Fecal coliform bi-monthly
- Fecal streptoccocus bi-monthly
- Total chlorophyll bi-monthly
- Caratenoids bi-monthly
- Phaeopigments bi-monthly
- Plankton (by displacement volume) bi-monthly

All analyses will be performed following appropriate methods given in:

-EPA manual, "Methods for the Chemical Analyses of Water and Wastes".

-"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water", U.S.P.H.A.

-"A Practical Handbook of Seawater Analysis".

The monitoring program would also identify the locations and strengths
of known sources of waste. In addition, the locations of areas of water use
and a list of legitimate water uses would be prepared. This would be
accomplished by field surveys.

Detailed planning and implementation of the monitoring program would
follow the procedures described in the "Water Operations Training Program -
Water Quality Surveys" (EPA, 1974).

C. Products

� Narrative reports describing the annual trend of chemical, physical
and biological water quality parameters in the proposed LPNMS.

� Maps, graphs, and tables to document data.

� Information for the proposed LPNMS Data Management System.

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related LPNMS Studies

Study 3.1

F. Timing/Phasing

Continuous with possible modifications after the first year.

112

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

1. Study 4.1: Anchor Damage to Coral Reefs in the Proposed LPNMS

2. Information Needs and Objectives

Human impacts on coral reefs are usually categorized in terms of
pollution, sedimentation, dredging, coral extraction, and trampling. Access
to coral reefs is mostly accomplished by the use of boats. A significant
amount of damage to reef structure can be expected from the use of
anchoring gear over the reefs. There is a lack of quantitative and
qualitative information on the impact(s) of boat anchoring on the coral reefs
within the proposed LPNMS. Information is needed to identify anchor-sensitive
areas within the proposed LPNMS and to assist the sanctuary manager in assessing
the magnitude of the problem and recommending solutions.

The objective of this study is:

0 To qualify and quantify the effects of boat anchoring on the coral
reefs within the proposed LPNMS.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide the sanctuary manager with informa-
tion that could be used in delineating effective management measures for the
protection of coral resources within the proposed LPNMS, especially in view of
the threat of anchor damage to these systems. This information would aid in
the identification and designation of safe anchoring areas with the possible
establishment of mooring buoys on sensitive areas.

B. Methods

This study will take into account the following:

1. A monitoring schedule to spotcheck visitors on coral reefs.
Data collection should include time of day and average length of visits. The
area(s) visited (fore reef, reef flat, or reef lagoon) should also be included.
A year of data gathering would provide seasonal variability to be matriced
with sea, wind, and other climatic conditions.

2. A monitoring schedule to spotcheck boating activities on most
frequented coral reefs. The length, type, draft, power and anchoring gear
of each visiting vessel would be recorded. The monitoring activity could
be done concomitantly with the visitors study or after the visitors study
yields results on the most used areas.

3. A transect survey of selected anchoring areas to determine
distribution, condition, recovery rates and mortality rates of corals.
Underwater photographic and fathometer tracings should be employed to
document damage to corals.

113

4. Mooring buoy feasibility study following the method of
Halas, 1982. Mooring buoys would be established at selected locations. Their
use and resultant effect on the coral reef would be monitored. Based on
results, management would make decisions regarding their full-time use.

C. Products

0 Descriptive maps of bottom communities on anchor sites.

0 Final report on boating activity and types of vessels/anchoring
gear used on coral reefs.

0 Maps of most used areas of the coral reefs within the
LPNMS showing extent of the area to be overlapped with bottom
communities maps.

� Report of coral reef anchoring areas (change through time).

� Possible establishment of mooring buoys.

D. Study Area

The proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary coral reef system
(Majimo, Enrique, La Conserva, La Gata, and Turrumote reefs).

E. Related Studies

1. Study 4.2.

2. Information on coral reef ecology and distribution in the
proposed LPNMS is available at UPR Department of Marine Sciences. Various
studies concerning geomorphological coral reef changes through time at the
proposed LPNMS are also available. Studies on anchor damage to coral reefs
have been undertaken in Florida--(Davis, 1977) and Key Largo Mooring Buoy
Study (Halas, 1982).

F. Timing/Phasing

One year.

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

1. Study 4.2: Coral Reef Underwater Nature Trail Feasibility Study

2. Information Needs and Objectives

The proposed LPNMS contains a wide variety of natural habitats of great
recreational value. Among these are over 23 coral reefs which support a
rich and varied flora and fauna. In order to provide the public with ways
and means to value these resources, improved educational aids must be
developed and implemented. One way of accomplishing this is by establishing
a system of underwater nature trails. Such a system would allow visitors to
get acquainted with coral reef ecology while experiencing the joys of snorkeling
or SCUBA diving.
114

The objectives of this study are:

0 To determine which specific areas within the proposed LPNMS are best
suited for underwater nature trails.

0 To design a system of underwater nature trails based on the above
i nformati on.

0 To develop mechanisms for monitoring reef conditions and maintaining a
system of underwater trails.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide the proposed LPNMS with a system
of underwater nature trails which could be used as a too] for interpreting
the ecological value of the sanctuary's coral reefs.

B. Methods

A survey of the most stable and representative coral reefs within the
proposed LPNMS would be conducted to determine exact stations that clearly
illustrate typical coral reef ecology. Potential candidates include the following
reefs: Margarita, San Cristobal, Media Luna, Laurel, Enrique, and Romero.

Selected areas would be analyzed for species composition, dominance,
and distribution. Since the purpose of this study leans toward recreation
and education, reconnaissance of potential sites would emphasize safety factors
such as absence of currents and large waves and accessibility. Biological
data should include descriptions of reef types and dominant coral assemblages.
Information of known concentrations of endangered, threatened or highly sought
after species should also be included.

Design of an underwater nature trail system should take into account
the data base obtained through the initial reconnaissance of the potential
sites. It should also consider orientation, length, depth, and bathymetry
of the trails. Consistent with the Interpretive Program for the proposed
LPNMS, trail designers would evaluate and make recommendations as to the various
types of interpretive aids that could be established in the trail system.

A monitoring program would be developed to assess the condition of the
trail system and its resources. This would consider natural vs. man-related
damage to corals and trail structures. Locally pertinent processes of
natural damage would be evaluated. Among these: storms, hurricanes, low
salinities, low tides, sedimentation and damage due to biological activity.
Visitor-related damage would be evaluated in terms of accidental breakage
of fragile species (of coral), unauthorized collections, the use by visitors
of certain species (of coral) for resting, and deliberate vandalism.

115

C. Products

Narrative reports with maps indicating feasible sites for establishing
a trail system; maps and drawings describing detailed trail design; narrative
report describing a monitoring program for maintenance; and recommendations for
operation.

Note: The Interpretive Program in the draft management plan already
proposes to take and/or direct visitors to Enrique, San Cristobal, and Collado
for snorkeling and to Turrumote I for scuba diving. The shelf edge has also
been recommended to highly experienced divers. This study would supplement
the Interpretive Program and add information. Simple markers could be placed
almost immediately (during Stage I) so that snorkelers visiting LPNMS could
take advantage of the Interpretive Program.

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related LPNMS Studies

1. Study 2.1

2. Study 3.1

3. Study 3.2

4. Extensive data on coral reef ecology are available from
University and Government libraries. Local fish and madreporian corals as
well as many other reef dwellers have been thoroughly identified. The
Department of Natural Resources has a small reference library on marine parks
including several reports on underwater nature trails in the Virgin Islands
National Park and Buck Island Reef National Monument.

F. Timing/Phasing

One year.

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

1. Study 4.3: Boating Activity in the Proposed LPNMS (Bioluminescent Bay)

2. Information Needs and Objectives

There are no reliable statistics as to the number of boats and people
that visit the bioluminescent bay each year. Virtually all visitors to the
bioluminescent bay arrive, move about, or stay in boats during their visits.
Boating activity constitutes one of the major sources of potential disturbance
to the Bay's delicate ecological balance through pollution from fuel, cargo,
and sewage. This potential danger is even greater if one considers that most
of the boating activity takes place at night. Information is needed to better
apportion personnel for visitor services and law enforcement, and to determine
levels of disturbance.

116

The objectives of this study are:

0 To determine the number, type, and frequency of boats in the
bioluminescent bay.

� To develop a system for monitoring boating activity.

� To develop contingency measures. for visitor safety and pollution
control.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

This study would provide information to help apportion visitor services
and law enforcement in the proposed sanctuary. It would identify the levels
and location of boating activities within the proposed sanctuary which is
essential for developing contingency measures for visitor safety and pollution
control.

B. Methods

1. Conduct aerial surveys of the proposed sanctuary during peak
visitor periods. For FY 1983, these periods will occur around the following
dates:

February 19-21, Washington's Birthday

April 1-3, Good Friday

May 27-3U, Memorial Day

July 2-4, Independence Day

July 23-25, Commonwealth's Constitution Day

September 2-5, Labor Day

October 7-10, Columbus Day

November 11-13, Veterans Day

December 23-26, Christmas

Weather and sea conditions would be recorded for each flight. The number
and location of boats would also be recorded. Vessels, observed would be
categorized as above. In addition, estimates of the number of visitor-
passengers would be recorded as well as the length of time spent inside the
bay. The most commonly used access routes to the bay would be evaluated in
order to make recommendations as to safety, boat traffic, and aids to
navigation.

2. Conduct periodic surveys of boating activity through routine
boat patrols in the sanctuary. For patrolled areas, the same data collected
on aerial surveys would be recorded.

117

3. Conduct an inventory of all resident boats in the LPNMS.
This inventory would include the following information:

0 Name of owner

� Type/class

�Make

0Length

0Ports Authority Registration Number

0Other relevant data

C. Products

0 Narrative report and maps

0 Boat and boating activity data for the LPNMS Data Management System

0 Management recommendations

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related Studies

1. Study 3.2

2. Study 4.1

3. Commercial boat operator licenses issued by,the Public
Commission.

4. Ports Authority listing by certificate of number for boats
and private crafts rented.

F. Timing/Phasing

One Year.

118

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

1. Study 4.4: Boating Activity in the Proposed LPNMS
(Seagrass Bed Areas)

2. -Information Needs and Objectives

Disturbance of seagrass beds in shallow areas from speeding motor
boats has been documented in areas near the village of La Parguera. Other
shallow seagrass bed areas within the proposed sanctuary may also be affected.

The objectives of this study are:

0 To determine the number, type, and frequency of boats within the
proposed sanctuary.

0 To develop a system for monitoring boating activity.

0 To identify shallow seagrass bed areas.

0 To determine measures for protecting these areas.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose

This study will identify the levels and location of boating activities
within the proposed sanctuary.

B. Methods

1. Conduct aerial surveys of the proposed sanctuary during peak
visitor periods (see Study 4.3).

2. Conduct periodic surveys of boating activity within the
proposed sanctuary through routine boat patrols. For patrolled areas, the same
data collected on aerial surveys will be recorded (see Study 4.3).

3. Conduct an inventory of all resident boats using the proposed
sanctuary (see Study 4.3).

C. Products

0 Narrative report and maps.

0 Boat data for the proposed LPNMS Data/Information Management System.

0 Management Recommendations.

D. Study Area

LPNMS

119

E. Related Studies

1. Study 3.2

2. Study 4.1

3. Study 4.3

4. Listing of commerical boat operator licenses listed by
the Public Commission.

5. Ports Authority listing by certificate of the number of
boats and private crafts rented.

F. Timing/Phasing

One year.

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

1. Study 4.5: Effects of Spearfishing in the Proposed LPNMS

2. Information Needs and Objectives

Spearfishing in coral reefs within the proposed sanctuary waters has been
practiced for several decades by visitors and local fishermen. The increased
knowledge of SCUBA has encouraged spearfishing as a sport and for commercial
use. Spearfishing statistics in the literature are often fragmentary and of a
very general scope for Puerto Rico. Little or no data is available for La
Parguera. In order to assess the impact of spearfishing on fish populations
within the proposed sanctuary boundaries, it is necessary to obtain statistical
data on landings, number of fishermen, and types of gear used. Coral reef
areas where spearfishing takes place need to be identified and assessed to
determine any damage to reef structure.

The objectives of this study are:

0 To obtain a statistical record of fish caught by spearfishing within
the LPNMS.

0 To identify those areas mostly used by sport and commercial
spearfishermen.
0 To assess the impact of spearfishing on fish populations and coral
reef structure.

3. Project Description

A. Purpose
The purpose of this study is to obtain basic information on spearfishing
in the proposed LPNMS to assist the sanctuary manager in developing strategies
for optimum management of this activity while protecting the resources.

120

B. Methods

1. Conduct a one-year census of operations including number of fishermen,
landings, areas fished, boats and gear units. This would be conducted through
interviews with fishermen and using records of fishing and boat licenses.
Sportsfishermen would be asked to provide information upon request from
sanctuary enforcement agents or other sanctuary personnel.

2. Monitor all landings obtained by spearfishing, including species,
length, weight, and location of catch.

3. Conduct fish population surveys in heavy spearfished areas. These
would be done according to the methods outlined by Brock (1954) and Jones and
Thompson (1978).

C. Products

� Narrative report describing the status of spearfishing in
the proposed LPNMS.

� Maps identifying spearfishing areas within the proposed LPNMS.

' Recommendations

0 Information for the LPNMS Data Management System

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related Studies

1. Study 4.1

2. Study 4.2

3. Study 4.3

4. Study 4.4

5. CODREMAR's Fishery Research Laboratory has published an
overview of Puerto Rico's small-scale fisheries statistics
where spearfishing is included.

F. Timing/Phasing

One year.

121

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS

1. Study 4.6: Effects of Human Activity on Selected Coral Reefs
within the Proposed LPNMS

2. Information Needs and Objectives

Two coral reefs, such as the ones recommended in Study 4.2, Enrique and
San Cristobal, would be set aside where no activity other than passive enjoyment
of the reefs would be permitted. Two other reefs of similar marine ecology,
would be selected for observation and monitoring where no restrictions would
be placed. Findings would stem from a comparison of the reef changes over a
period of several years.

The objectives of this study are:
� To identify which coral reefs would be best suited for (1) interpretation
and (2) monitoring.

� To determine number and type of visitors to coral reefs.

� To develop mechanisms for monitoring activities in the coral reefs.

3. Study Desc iption

A. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to provide for the visitors of the proposed
LPNMS selected coral reefs which could be used for interpretation and monitoring.

B. Methods

A survey of the coral reefs within the proposed sanctuary would be conducted
@to determine those most representative to illustrate typical coral reef ecology
(see Study 4.2).

C. Products

0 Narrative report with maps indicating feasible sites for
interpretation and monitoring.

0 Visitor use data for the Data/Information Management System.

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related LPNMS Studies

1. Study 2.1
2. Study 3.1
3. Study 3.2
4. Study 4.2
5. Study 4.3

F. Timing/Phasing

One year. 122

,A List of Priority Projects for the Proposed LPNMS Resource Studies Plan

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National
Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuary
Programs Division would fund the Resource Studies Plan for the proposed
LPNMS over time as funds are available. The proposed sanctuary's Administration
Office, with NOAA's approval, would encourage and seek other sources of funding
to support priority projects in the proposed sanctuary. While fiscal
constraints are a consideration in developing a yearly agenda, the recommended
priority reflects sound resource study needs rather than monetary reasons.

The following resource studies priority recommendations are made on
a scientific and management resource basis.

First Year Program (FY83)
Estimated
Topics Time
Project Involved Requirements

1.1 Data/Info Mgt. 6 mo.

1.2 Resource Information 6 mo.

3.1 Oceanography 1year

3.2 Oceanography 6mo.

Second Year Program (FY84)

4.1 Human Uses Iyear

4.3 Human Uses Iyear

4.4 Human Uses Iyear

2.1 Marine Ecology Iyear

Third Year Program (FY85)

2.2 Marine Ecology Iyear

4.2 Human Uses Iyear

Fourth Year Program (FY86)

4.2 Human Uses Iyear

Fifth Year Program (FY87)

4.5 Human uses I year

123

PART IV: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A. Boundary Alternatives

Alternative boundaries for the proposed sanctuary were developed based
upon estimates of the distribution of natural resources in the area, the
current and anticipated activities in the area and the logistics for management.
The following three alternatives represent reasonable and viable boundary
options (Figure 3).

1. Boundary Alternative I consists of a 72.95 sq nm (244.9U sq km)
area and extends from Punta Jor6'b-ado in the east to Punta Aguila in the
west and includes the marine areas seaward of Bahia Salinas.

2. Boundary Alternative 2 consists of 47.30 sq nm (166.25 sq km)
and extends from the La Parguera Natural Resrve boundary line in the east
(Punta Sombrero) and Punta Pitahaya in the west and seaward to the edge of
the shelf.

3. Boundary Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, consists
of a 68.27 sq nm_(_234.19 sq km) area and extends from the La Parguera
Natural Reserve boundary line in the east (Punta Sombrero) to Punta Aguila in
the west and seaward to the edge of the shelf. This alternative includes
Bahia Salinas, but not the area seaward of the bay.

B. Alternative Visitor Center Sites

For most visitors, access to the waters of the proposed sanctuary is
provided at the village of La Parguera. Almost the entire recreational
infrastructure along the coast--the rental boat facilities, docks, stores,
restaurants and guest hotels--are located within a two to five-mile radius
of the village waterfront centered at the foot of Route 304 (Figure 5,
Regional Access). In order to analyze alternative sites for a visitor
center and to assess the best location, a matrix was constructed. The
criteria used in the Site Selection Matrix (Figure 16) included physical
attributes of the site (proximity to marine resources, parking space, etc.)
and socio-economic concerns (land acquisition costs, building costs). Eight
sites were evaluated and rated by NOAA and DNR using the Site Evaluation
Matrix; Mata de la Gata, Playita Rosada, Cueva Island, Cabo Rojo, a wetlands
site proposed by the DNR Planning Office, the village land site, village
waterfront, and the village overlook (Figure 17). The first five were
dropped from further consideration for the reasons discussed below.

1. Alternatives Considered but Rejected

a. Mata de la Gata

Mata de la Gata, a recently developed DNR recreational park, is located
offshore on one of the larger islets between Enrique and Carocoles reefs. It
offers shelters, picnic tables, grills, restrooms, docking space for small
boats, and an enclosed swimming area. The island consists of about 2 acres,

125

0 0 0 0 & 0 0 .0 C0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 V
w cn C) t@ 0 I-h I-h 94 " Z gz 0 rt K K " K .4 o En :C I-h t@ ov =
OQ 0 C: 1-4 0 0) 0 " " 1-& ol m m 0 0 @4 " 10 0 0 co " . =r
El 0(IQ 009 0 so ti lb Pi m H P) Ct :3 0
U) F6 (a rt ca 0 " m Pt q<
m rt F@ rt m rt rL H* 19w El w CL pi m FA 0 m CL F4 M W
En (0) CL :j lb 0 0 m " 0 1-4
ct @A 0) M rt IC -4 F- '0 M'0 m 0 rt m m
0 1-6 MFu P) 1-4 (A Pi 0 H - rt Pt C"t H, ol I-h :> En F6
EO aq .0 En w rtW :j rm m m 9:m m C: m PV m co rt 0 F6 rt
0 C: CD H M@-4 M F@ t-h (1) t-h C) 0 F& 0 @16 " m m m 14
0 0 F4 :3 M HW 0 m mm 1-4 F4 En :3 En :3 0 m 0 w w
.4 03 0 Fl- H tl H 0 m to :j V rig 10 0 m " w 0 rt
(D F4 rt o m " lb" ct IQ CD 4) rt W U) 0
9 rt 1.4 Fu @-6 9b M H(D C: 0 n 0 Cl)
El m 1.4 rr rt rt m la. mCL 0 pi m (D 03
m 0 0 1-4 P) m 0 m
m rt :j rb " 0
03 Ea
U) 09
m rt m

rt
m
H
F6 m
93 H Lo H w NJ U.) L
m
Ea
rt p
w w w Li Fl R

F@ 11.)
rT

v
W
f
loo
I
U.) w W v
0

a BNuer6n

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Pargueral
National
Marine
Sanctuary q:EI Comblltq-:@ . ..... ..
2
Figure 17
AlternativEls
M
nt Lialva
de Lugares
late Cueva

.. .. .....
Punta
Agulla
de Ubicaci6n
. ... ..... ....
Punt
Pitahay: 0
00
Site
Altematives 4 Cabo Rojo

bica i6n de
p6blica
N) propiedad
publically owned
property site 8
ubicac!6n de Area III Area 11 Area I
propiedad privada
privately owned
property site

'0'

M A R C A R I B E

lugares sites

M lade to Gala 1. Male do to Gala
khometros I PI:yiIa Rosada 2. Playlla Rosada
kilometers
1 2 3 4 5 8 3'131a C va 3. Isla Cueva
4 Punl%abo Rojo 4. Punta Cabo Rojo
Evelyn S. Wilcox 5' DNR lenaga do Agua Salobre 5. ONR Welland
and Associates 0 1 2 3 4 6. Terrenos del Poblado 6. Village Land
7 Frente Marino del Poblado 7. Village Waterfront
McLean, Virginia millas nauticas 8, Mliadero del Poblado 8. Village Overlook
nautical miles N

all of which were developed by DNR. Access to the island is less than 10
minutes from shore by charter or private boat. Although an immensly popular
spot for visitors to La Parguera, Mata de la Gata was rejected because the
only access is by boat and all the area suitable for development is already
devoted to recreational facilities.

b. Playita Rosada

This coastal park, managed by DNR, is located two miles outside of the
town of La Parguera. Although located on the water, it is not centrally
located with regard to the proposed sanctuary resources and lacks a panoramic
view of the marine environment.

c. Cueva Island

Cueva Island, a 55-acre DNR managed island, located about 10-15 minutes
by boat from La Parguera village, has a jeep trail surrounding the island and
several abandoned buildings on site which could easily be adapted for
public use. The farthest part of the island from the coast is elevated
sufficiently to provide a beautiful panoramic view of La Parguera's mangrove
cays, coral reefs and wide expanse of marine waters. There was a leasing
agreement between DNR (which administers Cueva and Guayacan Islands), the
Caribbean Primate Center and the University of Puerto Rico, to permit the
Center to house monkeys (used in research) on the island. However, the
Center is closed and the island is now available for other purposes.

Although Cueva Island has many of the criteria needed for a visitor
center site, it was rejected as a potential site for the main headquarters
because access is only possible by boat.

d. Cabo Rojo

The site at Cabo Rojo is similar in character to Cueva Island, but much
grander in scale. Panoramic views from the cliffs of Cabo Rojo attract many
visitors to the lighthouse, located at Punta Cabo Rojo. The site is located
in the Boqueron Forest, at the edge of the southwestern boundary of the
proposed sanctuary (Figure 18). The lighthouse which is currently owned
by the U.S. Coast Guard, is being transferred to the Commonwealth.

The Department of Natural Resources, in coordination with the Tourism
Company, the Office of Cultural Affairs of the Governor's Office and the
Municipality of Cabo Rojo, is in the process of developing the Cabo Rojo
lighthouse area at Cabo Rojo point into a recreation area. The project
will consist of restoration of the lighthouse and an adjoining picnic
area, providing shelters, picnic tables, grills, restrooms and parking
facilities.

Although this site is accessible by car from Route 301 it is too far
removed from the village of La Parguera and the focus of the proposed sanctuary
and too inaccessible by boat to be suitable for the main headquarters for
administrative personnel and visitors.

128

I A H I A @a, a ut no a

301

SAMIA SUCIA

BAM IA SALINAS

PROPOSED CABO ROJO
VISITOR CENTER SITE

L_PLANO LOCALtZACION (HOAZSCALA) FIGURE 18

129

e. Proposed DNR Visitor Center/Wetlands Site

A plan for the restoration of the La Parguera waterfront, as part of the
proposal for the CZM Special Planning Area, was recently prepared by the
Planning Office of DNR. The plan proposed the construction of a combined
community/DNR visitor center at a site almost directly across the inner
channel from Magueyes Island (Figure 19). The DNR planning staff proposed
that the Community Center sponsor interpretive programs and exhibits relating
to the natural resources of the region and offer a more convenient operations
center for the rangers, who must now operate out of Boqueron and Mayaguez.
The proposal included the upgrading of one or two of the public docks,
removal of other smaller docks, and the construction of trails along the
shore (among the casetas) to give pedestrians greater access to the marine
environment. The site was also considered as the proposed Sanctuary
Headquarters/Visitor Center, but rejected because it is located in a former
wetland and now a flood-prone area.

2. Selected Sites for Further Discussion (Preferred Alternative)

The remaining three sites have all been selected as possible sites under
the preferred alternative (see Part III, Management Measures, Administration
and Operations). All are feasible options, but more information on each
is needed before a final selection is made (Figure 20). This decision will
be finalized during the first year of operations.

a. Alternative I - Village Overlook Site

This site would be composed of approximately one acre of land east of the
town overlooking the area of the proposed sanctuary. It is a 7-minute walk
or 2-minute drive from the center of La Parguera village. Located on a
small elevated knoll, the land overlooks much of the sanctuary area as well
as the village,- providing a panoramic view and setting for a proposed National
Marine Sanctuary Visitor Center. The area is accessible--there are several
unimproved roads leading to the site, and at the base of the hill
(1/10 mile) is a small inlet where a dock could be built for ranger and
staff needs.

b. Alternative 2 - Village Land Site

c. Alternative 3 - Village Waterfront Site

130

jai

Ej
0 ..... hit

LO
PROPOSED DNR-VIS1TORS
CENTER
(as shown on proposed
La Parguera land use
planning map)

-n

M
C)

-TO
%

@10
-35-
IC, ?0. Ai 'It
Santuario
Marino

%
%\
Nacional
Z@. A
La Parguera
20
d.
National A I
70@.
Marine 4-
J@ Lugare do Miradero
del Poblado
Sanctuary
Village Overlook Site
41W
A
. ... .. WO --w
V
Figure 20
1w,

1w
Lugares de
441D T
1-10
Ubicaci6n
7,
L le Terreno
d ido
Alternos
'w
i villa
0 Land Site
Escogidos
w
IWO
Selected
49
A Iterna tive
Arm,,
Sites del Poblado
N) Village Waterfront Site

manglares
AN
mangroves 2m.-wo"I'M @Iazi p6blica
town sq
uare
;' W.
paved road

r
Aw. .4

basado on fologralla a6fea do 1982
based on August, 1982 serial photograph
land contours on feet mom
rno (os 0
lers
met
Evelyn S. Wilcox 0. 100 200 300 400
and Associates 0 500 1000
McLean, Virginia
feet MAR CARIBE

C. Alternative Management Measures

1. Alternative I - Status Quo

Without designation of the La Parguera area as a national marine
sanctuary the southwestern coastal and marine resources would be managed
and protected by the existing regime of laws, regulations and plans for
the area. Part II, Section E, Legal/Institutional Background and Section
F, Issues and Problems discuss the status quo in detail.

Under the status quo, the applicable Commonwealth laws, regulations,
and programs are:

� Law No. 9, empowering the Environmental Quality Board to permit
and license most actions regarding air and water pollution,
solid waste and noise;

� Law No. 83, the Fishing Law, regulates all aspects of sport and
commercial fishing;

� Taking of Coral Regulation, which prohibits taking of coral
except for research purposes;

� Law No. 133, The Forest Act, prohibits damaging or cutting any
trees within a State Forest;

� Establishment of the Boqueron State Forest, which provides
protection for the red mangrove areas within the proposed
sanctuary; and

� Puerto Rico Coastal Management Program which links authority
and regulation of principle agencies responsible for guiding
coastal growth.

Applicable Federal statutes include:

� Clean Water Act which regulates discharges of wastewater and
hazardous substances and oil;

� Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act which regulates
dumping of toxic wastes into ocean waters;

� Marine Mammal Protection Act which protects all species of marine
mammals; and

� Endangered Species Act which provides protection for listed
species of animals and plants.

133

Enforcement of these statutes and regulations would be provided by
existing levels of Commonwealth rangers, National Marine Fisheries Service,
and U.S. Fish and.Wildlife Service enforcement officers.

Facilities such as a visitor center and docks would rely on implementation
of the DNR Special Plan for the La Parguera Southwest Sector. The Plan
calls for the eventual construction of a combined DNR visitor/community
center in the waterfront area of La Parguera. Under this alternative there
would be no NOAA funds for construction of any facility. The DNR proposal
includes provision of the upgrading of La Parguera docks and construction of
trails along the shore to give visitors greater access to the water.

Under the status quo alternative, Mata de La Gata and Playita Rosada
personnel would continue to be housed in Mayaguez, until the community
facility is finally approved and completed. There would also be no Interpretive
Program or Resource Studies Plan for the waters off La Parguera.

2. Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative

This alternative is the approach detailed in Part III, Management Measures.
It provides for an Administrative Program including surveillance and enforce-
ment, an Interpretive Program, and a Resource Studies Plan. This alternative
would cost approximately $800,000 over 5 years subject, of course, to available
funding.

Under the preferred alternative, an onsite presence is immediately
established for the proposed sanctuary in Stage I. As part of the Administrative
Program a main visitor center would be constructed during Stage I on a
site chosen in the Village area (one of the 3 sites under the preferred
alternative), and a satellite visitor center would be established at El
Faro on Caba Rojo in Stage II. Protective regulations would be issued
and a San Juan level office of Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries would be
established with a sanctuary administrator. At the field level four positions
would be added--a Sanctuary manager, ranger, part-time naturalist and part-time
secretary.

The proposed alternative contains a set of federal regulations that
prohibit the damage or taking of coral and red mangroves, prohibit certain
discharges, and possession or use of nets used for turtle poaching.

The Interpretive Program would develop a series of exhibits and activities.
These include a mangrove boardwalk/tour, underwater trails, kiosks, audio-visual
presentations, tours oriented toward students and other special groups, and
community interaction.

The Resource Studies Plan would provide a long-term approach to filling
priority data needs and gaps. The Resource Studies Plan proposes studies aimed
at gaining information on the general marine ecology, oceanography, and human
use impacts and distribution of endangered species.

134

3. Alternative 3 - Low Cost, Low Profile

This alternative would create a low cost, low profile National Marine
Sanctuary for La Parguera, integrating sanctuary operations with the existing
DNR public park administration at Mayaguez and would offer programs which
are low budget and easily implemented. It would rely heavily on the status
quo and cost approximately $250,000 over 5 years to implement. There would be
an abbreviated interpretive program, no funding for resource studies, and no
additional surveillance or enforcement.

Facilities such as a visitor center and docks would rely on implementation
of the DNR Special Plan for the La Parguera Southwest Sector. The Plan calls
for the eventual construction of a combined DNR visitor/community center in
the waterfront area of La Parguera. Under this alternative 'there would be
no NOAA funds for construction of the facility. The DNR proposal also includes
a provision for the upgrading of La Parguera docks and construction of trails
along the shore to give visitors greater access to the water. Under this
alternative there would be no satellite center at the Cabo Rojo lighthouse.

As in the status quo alternative, Mata de la Gata, Playita Rosadal and
new sanctuary personnel would continue to be housed in Mayaguez, until the
community facility is approved and completed. Staffing would be greatly
reduced compared to alternatives 2 and 4. There would be no Office of Marine
and Estuarine Sanctuaries at the Sari Juan level. The only field staff would
be the sanctuary manager/naturalist who would act in both administrative and
interpretive roles. The manager would be responsible for daily administration
functions as well as acting as tour guide or "park ranger."

There would be no additional enforcement personnel. The existing three
rangers assigned to the La Parguera area would remain, but there would be
essentially no enhancement at this status quo level. The Rangers assigned
to the sanctuary would continue to operate out of Boqueron with assistance
from the Ranger base at Mayaguez until the DNR Community Center is built.
The Rangers would be asked to counsel and educate the public as provided for
in the Surveillance and Enforcement Program. The same set of regulations
would be promulgated under this alternative as under alternatives 2 (preferred)
and 4.

Under this alternative a simple low cost Interpretive Program requiring
little or no staff would be developed. The emphasis would be on simple
poster exhibits and brochures. A sanctuary map and official brochure would
be developed and distributed during Stage I in selected locations in the
waterfront area. Information about the sanctuary Interpretive Program would
be displayed in the existing shelters at Playita Rosada and Mata de la Gata
and would feature a kiosk with photographs and simply written explanations
of the resources. Under this alternative there would be no interpreter to
provide narratives on boat tours to Bahia Fosforescente or mangroves, no
mangrove boardwalk, no underwater trails, and generally no "hands on" learning
experience. No research would be funded by sanctuary management.

135

Under this alternative, the same NOAA regulations proposed for the
preferred alternative would be promulgated. These regulations would
prohibit the damaging or taking of coral, cutting of mangroves, prohibit
certain discharges, and the possession and use of nets used for turtle poaching.

4. Alternative 4 - High Cost, High Profile

This alternative would provide a high profile, very visible effort for
the sanctuary. It would require more land for a visitor center, more staff,
sanctuary owned and operated tours and boats, and a satellite center at Cabo
Rojo developed in Stage I. The cost of this alte 'rnative would be approximately
$2 million over the five years of the management plan.

The visitor center would be located at the Village Overlook site (see
Selected Sites for Further Discussion) 1/2 mile east of the village. The
visitor center development would include parking and improvements to an
existing road leading to the knoll. A 6' by 30' dock would be constructed
along the waterfront and road at the base of the knoll. The visitor center
itself would be similar in size and structure to the preferred alternative
(alternative 2). The satellite visitor center at the Cabo Rojo lighthouse
would be similar to that proposed under the preferred alternative. However,
it would be constructed in Stage I rather than Stage II of the management
plan.

An additional visitor center would be developed by DNR and NOAA at Cueva
Island. This facility would be constructed in Stage II. NOAA would jointly
fund an effort to restore some of the buildings and construct a modest but
needed observation facility on top of the cliffs of the island nearest the
open sea. Several of the seven buildings would be renovated as open air
picnic shelters or as simple enclosed buildings for exhibits. A self-guiding
trail, using the jeep trail which encircles the island, would be built for
the benefit of visitors who would come by boat to picnic and sightsee.
The dock, although visible, would be rebuilt to accommodate more boats and
rangers could use the dock as a departure point for patrols.

Staffing requirements under this alternative would be greater than the
others. Staff would be increased over the preferred alternative. As in the
preferred alternative there would be a Sanctuary Administrator in San Juan.
At La Parguera there would be a manager, 1 full-time naturalist, 5 additional
rangers, an assistant sanctuary manager, an interpreter, 5 tour guides/recre-
ational specialists, and 3 secretaries.

The same NOAA regulations would be promulgated under this alternative
as in Alternatives 2 and 3. They would prohibit the damaging or taking of
coral, cutting of mangroves, prohibit certain discharges, and the possession
and use of nets for turtle poaching.

As under the preferred alternative, DNR Rangers would be given special
training similar to that offered to National Wildlife Refuge managers in the
U.S. National Parks beyond the training they now receive as part of the new
program of DNR. With this added training the Sanctuary Rangers could give
informal talks and instruction concerning the wise use and enjoyment of the
Sanctuary, not only to visitors, but to the participants of workshops
sponsored by the Sanctuary and to teachers in the public schools of Puerto
Rico.

136

The Interpretive Program and Resource Studies Plan would be similar to
those of the preferred alternative. However, the sanctuary would purchase
its own tour boats in the later stages of the 5 year plan for use in the
sanctuary Interpretive Program. These boats would provide service to the
underwater trails, Bahia Fosforescente, and the mangrove channel tour.

5. Alternative 5 - Non-Regulatory

This alternative provides for designation of the La Parguera area as a
National Marine Sanctuary and implementation of a management plan as provided
for by the preferred alternative but without promulgation of regulations by
NOAA. This alternative would provide a visitor center, increased staffing
and enforcement, an Interpretive Program, and Resource Studies Plan, but
would rely on the statu quo for regulatory protection of the resources. For a
detailed discussion of these laws, see Part II, Section E, Legal/Institutional
Background and Alternative 1, Status Quo in this Section.

The Commonwealth statutes, regulations, and programs upon which this
alternative would rely are: Law No. 9 (the Public Environmental Policy
Act), Law No. 23 (DNR Urganic Act), Law No. 83 (The Fishing Law),
Law No. 133 (The Forest Act), the Taking of Coral Regulation, and the Puerto
Rico Coastal Zone Management Program. The Federal laws and regulations
would be the Clean Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered
Species Act. The rest of the management plan for this alternative would be
the same as the preferred alternative (see Part III, Management Measures,
and Alternative 2 in this Section for more detail).

137

PART V: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES - IMPACTS ON RESOURCES

This section discusses the environmental consequences of the alternatives
including the preferred alternative. Section A is an introduction, Section B
focuses on the effect of the alternative boundaries, Section C discusses the
consequences of the alternative visitor center sites, and Section D discusses
consequences of alternative regulations, enforcement program, interpretive
program, and resource studies plan.

A. Introduction

1. Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative would promote resource protection in three
ways. First, it would bolster the existing regulatory/enforcement regime.
Second, the alternative provides a program of public education/awareness
directed at understanding the basis for wise resource management and use.
Third, the proposal would develop a data/information base from which sound
management decisions are made.

Enforcement staff would be increased through Stages I and II and the
focus of protection efforts would be in the area of greatest need. Sanctuary
administration would work with NMFS and FWS to achieve deputization of rangers
assigned to La Parguera for enforcement of the ESA and MMPA. Penalties for
taking coral would be increased. Gear used for illegally taking turtles
would be prohibited, all red mangroves would be protected from cutting and
damage, submerged cultural resources would be protected, and an additional
prohibition on wastewater discharges from casetas after 1990 would be guaranteed.

The Interpretive Program would provide uses with a wide variety of
experiences resulting in an enriched appreciation and awareness of the
fragility and importance of the natural environment. The program would
provide audiovisual material, exhibits, and provide valuable information for
individuals, schools and other groups. The proposed underwater trail and
boardwalk would provide vital "hands-on" learning experiences. The program
would focus not only on the individual resources but their interaction as an
ecological unit and in turn the relationship of the natural environment to
man and economic factors. The satellite center at El Faro would reach users
who might not venture to La Parguera.

The Resource Studies Plan would provide a coordinated approach to
obtaining badly needed information about the data base and uses of La Parguera.
As a result of the preferred alternative, information on water quality and
circulation, fishery habitat, the location and numbers of endangered species
would be provided. It would also result in an accurate assessment of the
health of important reef and seagrass bed areas, the bioluminescent bays, the
feasibility of underwater trails and recreational use of La Parguera.

The preferred alternative would provide a coordinated and comprehensive
management scheme that would result in the most effective resource maintenance
and protection for the costs involved.

139

2. The Status Quo

The status quo would not provide the degree of management or protection
warranted by the significance of the area's natural resources. Issues and
problems associated with the various resources (discussed in Part II, Section
F) would continue. Existing laws and regulations (1) provide a degree of
protection for coral, red mangroves within state forests, endangered species,
and (2) regulate wastewater, hazardous substances and recreational vessel
discharges. However, the protection is incomplete on two accounts. First,
some important resources are not covered by any protective regulation. Red
mangrove areas outside state forests are unprotected. Gear employed
specifically for the illegal taking of sea turtles is not outlawed and
underwater cultural and archaeological resources are not protected.
Secondly, present enforcement efforts are insufficient to adequately implement
existing regulations. Both Federal agencies and the Commonwealth lack the
necessary enforcement officers and have their focus of operations outside the
La Parguera area. Consequently, violators would continue to go undetected
and without prosecution.

The status quo would offer no Interpretive Program. Consequently, tile
public would not be made aware of the importance of the resources and need
for their protection and wise use.

No resource studies would be funded. Information gaps would not be
filled and managers would have to make decisions with inadequate and questionable
data. No monitoring or assessment means that many problems would not be
uncovered until irreversible damage had already occurred.

3. Alternative 3 - Low Cost, Low Profile

The low cost alternative would not provide any increased enforcement,
although it would provide the NOAA regulations discussed under the preferred
alternative. Reliance on completion of the DNR community center to provide a
focus for enforcement and information distribution would result in neither
action being implemented until Stage II at the earliest. It is also probable
that the center would never be constructed. In this case the consequences of
the low cost alternative would be more similar to the status quo.

Under this alternative only basic information on the environment would
be made available. Copies of the regulations would be provided and several
displays and exhibits set up at the waterfront, Playita Rosada and Mata de la
Gata. No facilities at El Faro would mean less presence and public awareness
in the Mayaguez/Cabo Rojo area. Like the status quo, no resource studies
would be funded by NOAA. This alternative would result in minimal public
contact, public education and surveillance and enforcement. In turn this
alternative would result in little increased resource protection.

4. Alternative 4 - High Cost, High Profile

The high cost alternative would implement the same set of NOAA regulations,
but increase the number of enforcement officers to five (raising total to
seven), with rangers also placed at El Faro on Cabo Rojo. This would result
in an earlier and significantly greater degree of enforcement than any of the
other alternatives, including the preferred alternative.

140

This alternative would provide the same Interpretive Progrtam as the
preferred alternative with these exceptions. Cueva Island would be added as
a second satellite center. This action would greatly increase costs, but add
little, if any advantages over the program recommended in the preferred
alternative. It would not reach a larger audience or provide a wider range
of experiences. Secondly, it advocates sanctuary owned and operated tours to
the bioluminescent bays, an action that is unnecessary and duplicative of
private tours currently being operated. Third, interpretive staff would be
substantially increased--5 additional guides/recreational specialists would
be added. This would provide more involvement with the public than any of
the other alternatives and consequently should result in the greater amount
of public awareness and understanding than any of the other alternatives,
including the preferred alternative. The high cost alternative would implement
the same Resource Studies Plan as the preferred alternative. Consequently,
the impact would be the same.

B. Environmental Consequences - Boundary Alternatives

All three of the boundary alternatives would include and protect the 23
identified major coral reefs of the La Parguera area and the two bioluminescent
bays.

Both the preferred alternative and alternative 2 exclude the area from
Punta Sombrero east to Punta Jorobado from the sanctuary. Punta Sombrero is
the terminus of the reef, seagrass beds and red mangrove. The area
between Punta Sombrero and Punta Jorobado is a sand and rubble bottom area
not significant in terms of resource value and not in need of protection.

Alternative 2 would not include the areas of red mangrove west of Punta
Pitahaya and the waters of Bahia Salinas and Bahia Sucia. The extensive
seagrass bed areas within these bays that serve as habitats for the endangered
sea turtles and manatee would not be protected or managed. Alternative 3. on
the other hand would include the larger area encompassing Bahia Salinas and
Bahia Sucia. Under this alternative the resources in these areas would be
protected and managed as part of the sanctuary.

Both alternatives 2 and 3 do not include the extensive sand field south
of Bahia Salinas, that may have commercial mining potential.

C. Environmental Consequences of the Main Visitor Center

The same visitor center plan would be adopted for either of the possible
preferred sites (see Part III, Management Measures, Section B for details).
Construction costs are difficult to predict, but would run approximately
$40-45 per square foot (Garcia, personal communication, 1982) therefore, a
one story 30' by 40' building would cost approximately $50,000. A visitor
center wherever its location would enhance awareness of the significance
of local marine resources and foster understanding of the need for their
conservation and wise use.

141

1. Village Waterfront Site
Adoption of the Village Waterfront site as the proposed Headquarters/
Visitor Center would offer maximum public visibility and access to the constant
stream of visitors who take tour boats in the evening to Bahia Fosforescente,
or who stroll about during the day, patronizing the stores, food stands and
the boat and tour boat rentals at the nearby docks. The waterfront areas
are both publicly and privately owned and most of the land has existing structures.
It is likely that this option would require demolition or renovation of an
existing structure. There would be no cost associated with parking for the
Village Waterfront site. Parking could be provided by the municipal facility
near the waterfront. The final costs would be determined by whether the
land would have to be purchased and whether a structure exists and its condition.
Because the area is already developed, there would be no disruption to the
natural environment and the most significant adverse impact would be in the
form of possible increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic and congestion.

2. Village Land Site

The location of the proposed Visitor Center at the Village Land Site,
adjacent to the school and community center, would allow for the best
integration of the Center with existing community facilities. The significant
drawback of this site is the lack of visual access to the waters of the
proposed sanctuary. Although it is physically close to the waterfront, the
water cannot be seen and there is a feeling of separation and distance from
the marine resources.

This site is already cleared and vacant. There would be no demolition
required and no unusual site disturbance during construction. Because the
land is owned by the Commonwealth, there is unlikely to be acquisition
costs. This option would incur the added expense of a parking lot for
about 20 cars estimated at approximately $10,000, raising the total cost for
a visitor center under this option to $60,000.

3. Overlook Site

The Overlook Site has the best marine orientation of the three and the
setting would greatly enhance the sanctuary programs and exhibits. This
site, however, is part of a parcel of land with approved subdivision
plans to develop a vacation complex: a small hotel, tennis courts, swimming
pool and several rows of vacation homes. At this time land costs for the
site are unknown. One drawback is the possible incompatibility of the
center with the proposed development. The Center would be open to the
public but located in an area developed primarily for private recreational
use.

This site would be further removed from the boat docking than either
of the other two. The tour boats are located in the village/waterfront
area and visitors would have to travel between the waterfront and the
center.

142

This alternative would be more expensive to develop than the others;
in addition to construction of parking facilities, the short driveway
leading up the hill to the knoll (approximately 2/10 of a mile) would need
repair or surfacing. A dock would have to be constructed to accommodate
the rangers in the inlet down the hill from the site. A 6' wide by 20-30'
long dock would be adequate, with an estimated cost of approximately
$10,UOU (Garcia, personal communication, 1982). The shore of the inlet has
already been altered--the mangroves have been removed and a small area of
less than 1UU square feet has been filled. A dock of this size would not
require dredging or filling and would have no significant environmental
impacts.

D. Environmental Consequences - Alternative Management Methods

1. Impacts of Regulations

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 provide for an identical set of new regulations
promulgated by NOAA to protect the resources of the proposed sanctuary.
Alternative I (status quo) and Alternative 5 (non-regulatory approach) rely
on existing Commonwealth and Federal regulations. Under the non-regulatory
approaches (Alternatives 1 and 5) some of the significant resources such as
coral, endangered species and water quality would be protected in varying degrees
by the existing statutes and regulations (see Part II, Section E, Legal/
Institutional Background for a detailed discussion of the laws and regulations
and Part II, Section F, Issues and Problems).

The Federal Endangered Species and Marine Mammal Protection Acts would
continue to provide statutory protection for the manatee, sea turtles and
brown pelican within the area of the proposed sanctuary. The Commonwealth
Taking of Coral Regulation would continue to prohibit the taking of coral
(except by permit for educational and scientific purposes). Commonwealth
Law No. 33 (Forest Law) would continue to prohibit the cutting of mangroves
within the area of the proposed sanctuary that is also within the Boqueron
State Forest. Commonwealth Law No. 9 (Public Policy Act), the Federal Clean
Water Act and the Ocean Dumping Act would continue to address wastewater
hazardous substance and recreational vessel discharges. Relatedly, the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Corps of Engineers and
the Governor of Puerto Rico (signed June 13, 1978) would provide a 12 year
discharge permit for existing casetas that expire in 1990. The MOU also
prohibits the building of additional new structures. Although these resources
are protected by statute under the non-regulatory alternatives, there remain
several gaps that are filled by the promulgation of NUAA regulations.

The penalty for illegal taking of coral would be increased and broadened.
The Commonwealth coral regulation carries a maximum penalty of 6 months, or
a fine of not more than $500 or both penalties at the discretion of the
court. Promulgation of the NOAA coral regulation provides for a more stringent
civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. The higher federal
penalty would be a stronger deterent to the illegal taking of coral. The NOAA
regulation also extends the prohibition on taking to other bottom formations
and marine plants such as sponges and encrusting organisms.

143

The regulatory alternative acknowledges the Commonwealth/Corps MOU and
takes it one step further. The discharge regulation provides an outright
prohibition on discharges from the casetas upon the availability of a hook-up
to the sewer line, or the expiration of the MOU. The regulations would result
in an additional guarantee that after 1990 there will be no sewage discharges
from the casetas into the waters of La Parguera.

Although the mangroves within the Boqueron Forest are protected by statute
from cutting or damage, those outside the forest are not. The unprotected area
includes much of the Bahia Montalva region. These red mangroves are vulnerable
to clearing or cutting for fuel. The NOAA regulations would make this cutting
or damage illegal. Protection and maintenance of the red mangroves will assure
the viability of this area as a habitat and nursery for locally harvested
fish species. It would also result in maintaining the capability of the
wetlands to prevent shoreline erosion and flooding by absorbing the energy of
wave action during coastal storms.

The regulations also protect cultural resources such as shipwreck or
sunken archaeological sites by prohibiting their removal or tampering. There
is no regulatory counterpart in Commonwealth or Federal law.

The regulations would further prevent illegal taking of turtles by
prohibiting nets with the mesh size used for turtle poaching. At present
neither the Commonwealth nor NMFS regulations prohibit this gear.
Turtle net confiscation, now being done by Fish and Wildlife enforcement
agents, although recognized as the most effective way of preventing the
poaching of sea turtles, has been challenged by the fishermen of the area
(Ricardo Cotte, personal communication, 1982). There is presently confusion
among the fishermen since NMFS agents are not authorized to confiscate turtle
nets as are the Fish and Wildlife agents. The regulation prohibiting turtle
nets would clarify this situation within the sanctuary.

2. Impacts of Enforcement

a. Alternatives I and 3

Alternatives 1 (status quo) and 3 (low cost) would rely on the existing
level of enforcement - 2 rangers assigned to La Parguera from Boqueron and
existing U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries
Service agents at the Federal level. Alternative 2 (preferred) and 5 (non-
regulatory) would add an additional ranger to increase the number to 3 in Stage I
with further assistance provided in Stage II if needed, and if funds are available.
Alternative 4 (high cost) would provide five additional rangers (total 7) to be
assigned to the the main visitor center in La Parguera and the satellite
centers at Cueva Island and El Faro.

The status quo and low cost alternative would not provide sufficient
enforcement to adequately protect the resources. The Federal agencies currently
have insufficient personnel to provide surveillance and enforcement for the
La Parguera area. The Coast Guard enforces the Clean Water Act and other EPA
responsibilities. With present staff levels, it would not be able to provide
routine patrols and can be available to provide emergency services in the
event of confirmed poachers, an oil spill, or other such emergencies. There

144

is only one NMFS enforcement agent, and he is stationed at Ramey on the
northwest corner of Puerto Rico. Similarly, there is only one senior resident
FWS agent with enforcement authority in Puerto Rico. Consequently, the
Ranger Corps is the only law enforcement authority patrolling the waters of
the proposed sanctuary.
The present level of Ranger enforcement is not adequate to enforce
Commonwealth statutes and the rangers currently assigned to La Parguera are
not deputized to enforce the MMPA or ESA. In addition to insufficient numbers,
the rangers assigned to La Parguera are deployed from the station at Boqueron.
Response time for additional assistance to La Parguera from Boqueron is well
over an hour in good weather, but adverse conditions (high seas) can make
the boat trip impossible.
Under the status quo and low cost alternative, the scenario is one where
violators of the Commonwealth coral regulation, the Forest Law, the MMPA,
ESA, and CWA can easily go undetected and without prosecution. Therefore,
under this alternative, the resources which are not adequately protected.
There would not be adequate surveillance and enforcement to prohibit the
taking of coral, cutting of red mangroves, illegal construction of casetas
or protection of endangered species. The increasing numbers of tourists to
the area will only exacerbate the situation. Without increased enforcement
and a central location for personnel the quality of the resources will deteriorate
and irreparable loss and damage will occur.

b. Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative (alternative 2) would do three things to enhance
the surveillance and enforcement efforts. First, it would increase the number
of rangers to 3 (one additional ranger), (2) it would deploy rangers from the
La Parguera village area, and (3) provide training and FWS and NMFS deputization
for the rangers assigned to the sanctuary. These actions would result in
more protection for the resources, notably coral, red mangroves and nearshore
water quality. However, under the preferred alternative the focus of enforcement
efforts would be at the eastern end of the proposed sanctuary (La Parguera
Village to Punta Pitahya) at the expense of patrolling the waters west of
Punta Pitahya. The net effect of this should be positive, since it would
put the enforcement emphasis on the area where the most fragile resources
are located, the area with the most use and greater likelihood of resource
loss. Deputization would also allow for enforcement of the ESA and MMPA
within the sanctuary--an action that would provide increased protection for
the endangered manatee, brown pelican and sea turtles.

Alternative 4, (high cost) would provide 5 additional rangers in Stage I
(raising the total to 7). Under this alternative the rangers would also
act as interpreters in La Parguera and at the satellite visitor centers of
El Faro at Cabo Rojo and Cueva Island. Placement of rangers at the satellite
centers as well as concentrating on the village area would result in fewer
undetected violations and damage to resources throughout the sanctuary.
Enhanced enforcement would increase the likelihood that the reefs, red mangrove

145

areas and endangered species would be protected. Additional enforcement placed
at El Faro in the Cabo Rojo/Bahia Salinas/Bahia Sucia area would increase
protection for the turtles and manatees that frequent the bays in the western
end of the proposed sanctuary; a consequence that would not result from any
of the other alternatives, including the preferred alternative.

3. Impacts of Interpretive Program

a. Status Quo Alternative

Under the status quo alternative there would be no Interpretive Program
for the La Parguera area. Issues and problems associated with the lack of
public awareness and information would continue (see Part II, Section F).
It is unlikely that the proposed DNR community center would be built. The
site for the proposed building is a wetland (see Visitor Center Alternatives
Considered but Rejected), and at a very preliminary stage. It is unlikely
that any public facility of this type would be constructed in the Village
area until Stage II of implementation at the earliest.

Relatively little resource information would be provided. There would
be no exhibits, brochures, or tours of the area. Visitors and residents alike
would continue to experience the area without understanding the importance
of individual natural systems: coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds; and
their interrelationship to other natural systems and their economic value to
man. As a result the public would not be particularly sensitive to conservation
of the resources.

b. Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would provide an Interpretive
Program that is more ambitious than Alternative 3. It would focus on selected
areas and features and seek to educate the public about resource issues and
concerns by expanding understanding of the natural environment and how human
actions may impact it. Interpretation of this complex environment would
enhance visitor appreciation and enjoyment of the proposed sanctuary and
generate concern for the protection of its vital resources. Audiovisual
materials, publications, exhibits, activities, and interpreters would provide
the information that leads to increased knowledge and understanding of this
relatively unspoiled and significant ecosystem. The program would employ a
series of exhibits and activities including a mangrove boardwalk/tour,
underwater trails, kiosks, audiovisual presentations and tours for student
and special groups. There may be minor disturbances to the site from construction
of the exhibits and signs.

The mangrove boardwalk would interpret the resources of the fringing
(red) mangrove ecosystem. The experience of walking within a stand of red
mangroves with self-guided exploration of the natural processes and a trained
interpreter will increase visitor awareness and knowledge about the reasons
and need for resource protection. As an example, visitors would gain an
appreciation for the role they play in storm protection and as a fishery and
wildlife habitat. However, certain adverse consequences may also result. Some
mangroves would have to be removed during boardwalk construction and bottom
disturbances would occur from setting pilings and supports.

146

The information on endangered species--manatees, turtles, pelicans, and
other important species--would be related to habitats (grassbeds, mangroves,
and reefs) and provide a holistic understanding of the relationship of individual
species and habitats to the ecosystem. The heightened consciousness and
understanding should make individuals more cautious and understanding and
decrease the damage to resources and the number of violations of protective
regulations. Similarly, the underwater trails will provide an educational
experience that increases appreciation of the beauty and ecological
importance of coral reefs. Visitors will acquire a better understanding of
their value to the total system and their economic worth to society. This
increased understanding will result in a significant contribution to long-term
conservation. Certain adverse consequences may also result. Concentration
of visitors along the underwater trails may lead to increased coral mortality
and diseases. The monitoring program proposed in the Resource Studies Plan
should alert managers to any problems as they arise.

The exhibits and media presentations would serve to inform and educate
the public and visitors about the bioluminescent bays, and issues such as the
effect of light pollution and water quality on the phenomena of bioluminescence.
Similarly, the program would educate the public on the importance of grassbeds
and help them recognize problems associated with the careless use of motor
boats in the shallow nearshore areas. Certain outdoor exhibits would be placed
to reach individuals whose only contact with information might be at the boat
docks.

Information on rules and regulations would inform the public that taking
coral and other bottom formations is illegal. In conjunction with the
educational information on the resources this effort should result in an
increased willingness to obey the regulations and maintain resource quality.

The satellite center at Cabo Rojo established in Stage II would provide
interpretation for a potential audience who might not travel to La Parguera.
Residents of Mayaguez and southeastern Puerto Rico would have the opportunity
.to learn about the resources and the importance of their protection and
management. Although there would be no full time sanctuary staff at El Faro,
interpretation would emphasize exhibits and self-guiding trails to Bahia
Sucia and Salinas. These will focus on understanding the manatee and sea
turtle habitats, and mangrove, bay, grassbed ecosystem.

c. Low Cost, Low Profile Alternative

Under Alternative 3, (low cost, low profile) very little would be done
in the way of interpreting the resources of the area over the status quo.
The limited funding for this alternative would result in a public awareness/
educational effort that was not very creative or exciting. Facilities
for a visitor center would rely on the implementation of the DNR proposal.
Interpretation for alternative 3 would be primarily from simple poster
exhibits and brochures placed at Mata de la Gata, the Village, and Playita
Rosada.

147

Under this alternative there would be no interpreter to provide narratives
on boat tours to Bahia Fosforescente (other than the talks presently provided
by the operators), no mangrove boardwalk, no underwater trails, and generally
no "hands-on-learning experience." It is unlikely that much interest would
be aroused or that the public would gain much from the limited presentations
and that in turn the alternative would not result in any enhanced resource
protection.

d. High Cost, High Profile Alternative

The High Cost, High Profile Alternative (No. 4) would implement essentially
the same management plan as the preferred alternative. The different
environmental consequences would result from the rate of implementation,
number of interpretive staff, the increased outreach provided,by an additional
satellite visitor center at Cueva Island and direct control over boats and
tours to Bahia Fosforescente.

The entire Interpretive Program would be implemented in Stage I. The
additional rangers and interpretive personnel (4 rangers and 5 more
guides/specialists than the preferred alternative) would result in more
information better distributed to visitors, users, and residents.

Caba Rojo would be established as a satellite visitor center in the
process. This would establish an onsite presence at Cabo Rojo several years
before the preferred alternative. There should be an increase in the
appreciation and understanding of the natural system and a Concomitant increase
in resource protection and decrease in violations. The presence of ranger
and interpretive staff at El Faro under this option will provide better
protection for both the seagrass bed habitat at Bahia Salinas and Bahia Sucia,
and the manatees and turtles that frequent the area.

The second satellite site at Cueva Island would increase the outreach
to the public. However, some of the facilities would duplicate those planned
as part of the main visitor center, or relate more to the terrestrial
environment, rather than marine. These media presentations would differ
little from those at the main center where most users will come into contact
with information before proceeding to Cueva Island.

The self-guiding tours would take visitors near the mangrove fringe and
around the island. However this activity would not provide visitors with
any greater awareness of the red mangrove than the mangrove boardwalk tour
included in the preferred alternative. It is unlikely that.the cost of
developing Cueva would return a significant increase in public education or
awareness and protection for the resources.

This alternative also advocates purchase and operation of tour boats by
the sanctuary to take visitors to Bahia Fosforescente. Protection for the
bays would be gained by educating the public about their fragility and
uniqueness. This objective can be achieved by placing an interpreter on
privately owned and operated tours like those presently existing. Sanctuary
owned and operated tours would add no degree of protection and would
unnecessarily compete with the private sector to provide this service.

148

4. Impact of Resources Studies Plan

a. Preferred, High Cost and Non-Regulatory Alternatives

The preferred, high cost, and non-regulatory alternatives would provide
multidisciplinary studies on living marine resources (species composition,
abundance, diveristy, etc.); community structure and function; and physical,
chemical, geological and meteorological conditions within the proposed sanctuary.
Information generated from these investigations would be used to further
understanding of the importance of marine resources and to develop sound
marine ecosystem management practices. This management-related research would
address practical, use-oriented or "cause-and-effect" studies. Long-term
monitoring and its resultant data base would provide the foundation for
interpreting or predicting natural or man-induced events in the sanctuary.
Other areas which could be explored might include: (1) carrying capacity
of a given system to understand varying types and levels of human contact or
stresses; (2) the adequacy of protective buffer areas; (3) the effects of
different types of development or activities on particular resources such as
coral, seagrass beds, fisheries, marine mammals, and seabirds; (4) fisheries
research oriented toward solving operational and management concerns; and
perhaps (5) innovative ways of enhancing productivity.

Implementation of the Resources Studies Plan would result in increased
long-term protection for resources. Data gathered from the scientific
investigations would provide the managers with needed information that would
be used to make decisions on day-to-day management and long-term modifications
in the interpretation program, administration, and regulations.

One of the first resource studies to be undertaken would result in a
compilation of literature of past and present research within the proposed
sanctuary, and would tie this information into a retrievable data resource
information system. It would efficiently utilize and capitalize upon
the existing DNR NCERI computer system, rather than develop a sanctuary
specific data bank. The immediate impact of the compilation and computerization
will be a document providing baseline data to aid in formulating management
policy and implementing the management plan.

Other studies would directly benefit the fishing community as well as
sanctuary managers. The proposed conch stock assessment, the circulation
pattern, and water quality monitoring assessment would provide badly needed
information for local fishermen. The conch study would provide specific
recummendat ions for enhancing the industry in the La Parguera area. The
circulation pattern and water quality studies would result in information on
coastal currents and the distribution of pelagic larvae and identify fishery
habitats vulnerable to pollution and ecological damage from degraded water
quality.

149

The circulation and water quality studies would also result in general
resource maintenance and protection throughout the proposed sanctuary. Under
the preferred alternative sampling stations would be set up at important or
vulnerable resource areas: the Bioluminescent Bay, Enrique reef, Mata de la
Gata reef, northeast of Magueyes Island, Bahia Monsio Jose, and El Palo reef.
This continuous monitoring would provide an immediate identification of
where degradation is taking place arid an identification of suitable areas
for multiple use.

Other studies would provide new information on recreational use and
feedback on management actions. One that would result in significant
information is the assessment of anchor damage on coral reefs. Little
information currently exists on the effects that anchoring gear is having
on the coral reefs at La Parguera. The lack of data is so significant
that policies could not be formulated for the draft management plan. This
assessment would result in identification of anchor sensitive areas, the
magnitude of the problem and recommended solutions. In turn, managers can
take appropriate actions that would result in protection of the coral reefs.

In a similar manner the underwater trail feasibility study would provide
managers with reefs and other underwater habitats that are suitable for
development of trails. It would result in the establishment of trails where
the resources are able to support such use with minimum degradation and
maximum public education and benefit. This study would also provide for
monitoring of those sites proposed for trails as part of the preferred
alternative and those established pursuant to the feasibility analysis.
The result of the monitoring program would provide managers with information
on the reef health and condition so that actions could be taken to prevent
resource degradation.

Other resource studies would directly result in management actions
protecting the bioluminescent bay and significant seagrass beds. An analysis
of boating would identify levels of activity, and provide information on
what if any ecological disturbance boating has on the bays and seagrass beds.
The studies would provide managers with recommendations for mitigating any
damaging effects.

As part of the preferred alternative the location of the endangered
manatees and endangered and threatened sea turtles would be identified and
monitored. The extent of their existence within the La Parguera area is not
currently and conclusively known, but their protection is one of the highest
priorities for sanctuary managers. A comprehensive assessement would result
in management policies and actions realistically geared toward maintaining
and enhancing their numbers. This information could directly result in
additional enforcement officers or a rearrangement in enforcement schedules
or deployment. Any adverse consequences of the assessment would come from
possible capture and tagging of animals. This could result in their being
frightened or disturbed. However, before any such action is taken, a relevant
permit would be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

150

b. The Status Quo and Low Cost Alternatives

The status quo and low cost alternative would provide no reliable data
base specifically geared to address management needs. Sanctuary managers
would not likely be able to identify resource problems and issues in
advance and/or develop sound solutions based on hard data. There would be
no regular data on water quality and managers would have to rely on anecdotal
information on the impacts from anchoring and distribution of manatees and
sea turtles. The health and viability of important resources such as seagrass
beds, mangroves and reefs would go unassessed. Without the monitoring and
assessments, indications of ecological disturbances would be evident in some
situations, only after the problem had reached a stage where resource damage
and loss would be irreversible; a situation that is likely with sensitive
systems such as coral reefs, some grassbeds and the bioluminescent bays.

PART VI: UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS

Implementation of the sanctuary could result in minor disturbances to
the environment through construction or improvement of a visitor center,
parking or trails. These were discussed under the impacts to resources.
Any environmental assessments necessary for proposed construction would be
undertaken at the time of construction. Except for the minor site
disturbances, there are no significant adverse environmental effects. The
different consequences resulting from the alternatives (except the status
quo) is a difference in the degree of benefit resulting from the designation
of a marine sanctuary.

PART VII: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Sanctuary designation would provide long-term assurance that the natural
resources and resulting benefits of the area would be available for future
use and enjoyment. Without implementation of the preferred alternative,
continuing increase in recreational use of the waters, illegal taking of
endangered species, and destruction of mangrove areas may result in the loss
of resource values.

The interpretive, surveillance and enforcement, and administrative
programs would provide information, management and protection that develops
a foundation for wise public use of the area and that would result in assuring
long-term productivity. Similarly, information collected from the Resource
Studies Plan would assist Federal and Commonwealth managers make better marine
management decisions. Better management would in turn help resolve use
conflict and mitigate advance impact of human activities.

151

PART VIII: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. Edward Lindelof - U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

Mr. Lindelof is the project manager for the Puerto Rico marine
sanctuary proposal. He is the project manager for NOAA's National Marine
and Estuarine Sanctuary Programs for the North Atlantic and the Caribbean.
His responsibilities in the preparation of the DEIS included overall direction
of the project development and organization. Mr. Lindelof had assistance
from Ms. Lois Mills and Ms. Leah Miller, Clerk/Typists, Sanctuary Programs
Division.

Ms. Gloria Thompson - U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

Ms. Thompson is a program specialist with the Sanctuary Programs Division.
She works as assistant project manager for estuarine and marine sanctuary
proposals in the North Atlantic and Caribbean. Her responsibilities included
editing the document and preparing it for publication.

Ms. Evelyn Wilcox - Evelyn Wilcox and Associates

Ms. Wilcox has a masters degree in environmental systems management and
is a principal with Evelyn S. Wilcox and Associates (ESWA), an environmental
management consulting firm. Ms. Wilcox's experience includes development of
a proposal for the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary for NOAA, and project
director for a comprehensive analysis of environmental impact on coastal and
marine resources in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. She was responsible for overall
data collection, development of management recommendations, and providing the
environmental impact assessment. Ms. Darcy Rosenblatt and Ms. Elizabeth Wilcox
assisted with the preparation and editing of the environmental impact assessment.
Mr. Jose Gonzalez-Liboy - Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Mr. Gonzalez-Liboy is a scientist with DNR and received B.S. and M.S.
Degrees from the University of Puerto Rico. He was responsible for the
preparation of the Resource Studies Plan and general review of the document.

Mr. Carlos Goenaga - ESWA

Mr. Goenaga is a marine scientist, an expert on oceanography and Caribbean
ecological systems and an associate with ESWA. Formerly, Professor of Ocean-
ography at the University of Puerto Rico at Humacao, Mr. Goenaga has served
as marine biologist for the Environmental Quality Board and the Department of
Natural Resources of Puerto Rico. Mr. Goenaga has participated extensively in
field research, including scientific trips to Mexico, the Dominican Republic,
Spain, the Virgin Islands and Brazil. Mr. Goenaga assisted in the preparation
of the coral reef section of the DEIS.

Mr. Joseph Brown - ESWA

Mr. Brown is the retired Regional Director, Southeast Region, for the
National Park Service, with a B.S. Degree in Forestry and Wildlife from the
University of Georgia and 33 year's experience in park management/administration.
Mr. Brown was involved in developing the administration and operation sections
of the management plan.

153

Ms. Ellamae S. Doyle - ESWA

Ms. Doyle holds B.A. and M.A. Degrees in education. Ms. Doyle has
experience in both developing proposals for parks and protected natural areas
and park operations. She was involved in preparation of the interpretive and
administrative section of the management plan.

Ms. Blanca I. Ruiz Dias - ESWA

Ms. Ruiz has graduate degrees in planning and social work. She was
responsible for the socio-economic background information.

Cynthia Barga - ESWA
Ms. Barga is an environmental planner and landscape architect completing
her degree in landscape architecture. She has worked on several landscape
assessments and urban design projects. She was responsible for recommendations
on design and location of the proposed visitor center.

Dr. James Cato and Dr. Fred Prochaska - ESWA

Dr. James Cato and Dr. Fred Prochaska, professors at the University of
Florida, are well known in the field of applied research in marine economics.
They are an associate firm to ESWA. Among their many accomplishments are
the economic analysis for Fisheries Management Plans for Reef Fish and Spiny
Lobsters for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and economic impact
statements for Fishery Management Plans and revisions of the Reef Fish Plan
for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Dr. Cato and Dr. Prochaska
were responsible for review of the economic data on fisheries.

Mr. Alfred Wolf - ESWA

Mr. Wolf has been actively involved in the direction, planning, and
implementation of socio-economic programs and projects in Latin America, the
Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. He has served in these
capacities with the Inter-American Development Bank, the Ford Foundation,
Harvard University, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Mr. Wolf was
responsible for review of the socio-economic data.

Mr. Ariel Mendez - ESWA

Mr. Mendez is the Director of the Legal Division for the Puerto Rico
Federal Affairs Administration. He provided the background information for
the Legal/Institutional Background section of the DEIS.

Ms. Mary Beath - ESWA
Ms. Beath is a freelance graphics artist located in New York City. She
designed and produced the graphics for the DEIS/Management Plan under contract
to ESWA.

154

PART IX: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
General Services Administration
Marine Mammal Commission
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Interest Groups

AMERICAN
AFL-CIO
American Association of Port Authorities
American Bureau of Shipping
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Fisheries Society
American Gas Association
American Industrial Development Council
American Institute of Architects
American Petroleum Institute
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc.
American Society of Planning Officials
American Waterways Operators
Amoco Production Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Atomic Industrial Forum
Boating Industry Association
Bultema Dock and Dredge Company
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center for Natural Areas
Center for Urban Affairs

155

Center fo r Urban and Regional Resources
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cities Service Company
Coast Alliance
Conservation Foundation
Continental Oil Company
Council of State Planning Agencies
The Cousteau Society
CZM Newsletter
Edison Electric Institute
El Paso Natural Gas Company
Environmental Policy Center
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Environmental Law Institute
Exxon Company, U.S.A.
Friends of the Earth
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S.A.
Gulf Oil Company
Gulf Refininq Company
Industrial 11nion of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America
Institute for the Human Environment
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
Lake Michigan Federation
Marathon Oil Company
Marine Technology Society
Mobil Oil Corporation
Mobil Exploration and Producing, Inc.
Murphy Oil Company
National Association of Conservation nistricts
National Association of Counties
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Realtors
National Audubon Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Farmers Union
National Federation of Fishermen
National Fisheries Institute
National Forest Products Association
National Ocean Industries Association
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Research Council
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natijral Resources Law Institute
Norfolk Dredgi ng Company

156

Outboard Marine Corporation
Resources for the Future
Rose, Schmidt and Dixon
Shell Oil Company
Sierra Club
Skelly Oil Company
Soil Conservation Society of America
Sport Fishing Institute
Standard Oil Company of Ohio
State University Law School
State University of New York
Sun Company, Inc.
Tenneco Oil Company
Texaco, Inc.
Texas A & M University
The Nature Conservancy
The Wildlife Society
Union Oil Company of California
University of Pittsburgh
Urban Research and Development Association, Inc.
Western Oil and Gas Association
Wildlife Management Institute
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Congressional

Baltasar Corrada

Commonwealth Government

Attorney General
Culebra Conservation and Development Authority
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Health
Department of Housing
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Recreation and Sports
Department of Transportation
Environmental Quality Board
Governor of Puerto Rico
Highway Administration
Land Administration
Marine Resources Development Corporation of Puerto Rico
Mayor of Cabo Rojo
Mayor of Guanica
Mayor of Lajas
Mineral Resources Development Corporation of Puerto Rico
Ports Authority
Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration
Water and Sewer Authority

157

Local Interest Groups

Asociacion pro Mej oramiento del Ambiente
Caribbean Business
Caribbean Fishery Management Council
Centro para Est. Energticos y Ambientales
Club Nautico of San Juan
Comite Pro Defensa de la Calidad Ambiental
Empresas Fournier
Hotel Villa Parguera
Junta de Calidad Ambiental
Junta de Planificacion
Ninos Escuchas de America
Posada Porlamar
San Juan Star
Sociedad de Historia Natural
Boqueron Fishermen's Association
Combate Fishermen's Association
Guanica Fishermen's Association
Playa Santa Fishermen's Association

Research and Education Groups

Catholic University, Biology Department
Center for Energy and Environmental Research, University of Puerto Rico
Department of Economics, University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico at Humacao
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico at Rio Piedras
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies

Individuals

Lincoln Bates
Jorge D. Lopez Belen
Luis E. Cintron
Pascasio Cordero
Kenneth George
Froilan Lopez
Antonio Garcia Martin
Domingo Luciano Motly
Radames Padilla
Tomas Padilla
Jose Pagan
Juan Rosado
Confesor Rosado Ruiz
Ernesto Pabon Sepulveda
Juan Toro
Guillermo Garcia Torres
Luis Vega

158

PART X: BIRLinGRAPHY

Almy, r. 1965. Parguera Limestone, Upper Cretaceous Mayaguez Group, South-
western Puerto Rico. Unpub. Phn Thesis, Rice University.

Almy, C. 1969. Sedimenation and Tectonism in the Upper Cretacious Puerto
Rican Portion of the Caribbean Island Arc. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc.
Trans. V. 19, p. 269-279.

Andreu, Rafael. lq8l. Personal communication. (Engineer, EPA)

Antonius, A. 1973. New Observations on Coral Destruction in Reefs. Paper
delivered at the 10th meeting of the Association of Island Marine
Laboratories of the Caribbean.

Barbot, 1981. Personal communication. (Engineer, DNR - Mayaguez.)

Blumenstock, D. and C. Thornwaite. 1941. Climate and the World Pattern.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Brownell, Robert L., Jr. 1980. West Tndian Manatee Recovery Plan. Dept. of
the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prepared in cooperation with
the Recovery Team composed of nherhean, Brownell, Jackson, Irvine, Rose,
Lee, Shelfer, and Stansell.

Burns, Col. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, @an Juan, Puerto Rico, personal
communication, 1981.

Caldwell, D. K. and 1). S. Erdman. 1969. Pacific Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepi-
dochelys olivacea) in Puerto Rico. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. @@2):
112.

.Calvesbprt, R. 1971. Climate of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands,
Climatography of the U.S., No. 60-52, ESSA. Environmental Data Service,
Silver Spring, Maryland.

Caribbean Conservation Corps. April 1980. "Survey and Preliminary Census of
Marine Turtle Populations in the Western Atlantic. Final report to NMFS
#03-78-008-0025. lJnptjhl i shed.

Caribbean Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service.
1981. Interim Short Draft of the FMP for Shallow-Water Reef Fish,
March 24-26.

Caribbean Fishery Management Council and National Marine.Fisheries Service.
May 1980. DEIS/FMP and Regulatory Analysis for the Spiny Lobster Fishery
of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Carr, Archie. Notes on the Behavioral Ecology of Sea Turtles. Unpublished paper.

Carr, Archie, Harold Hirth and Larry nqren. 1966. The Ecology and Miqration
of Sea Turtles, 6: The Hawksbill Turtle in the Caribbean Sea. American
Museum Novitates, American Museum Nat. Histo. No. 2?48, ?9 pp.

159

Carr, A. and S. Stancyk, 1975. Observations on the Ecology and Survival Outlook
of the Hawkshill Turtle. Biol. Conserv. 8:61-1,72.

Carr, Tom. 1976-77. The Marine Turtles and Terrestrial Reptiles of Culebra
Island. (Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Centaur Associates, Inc. Aug. 1980. Fishery Management Plan for the Migratory
Coastal Pelagic Resources. (Prepared for the Caribbean Fishery Management
Council).

Chaplin, Charles C.G. and Peter Scott. Fishwatcher's Gijide to West Atlantic
Coral Reefs. 1972.

Cintron, G. 1969. Seasonal Fluctuations in a Tropical Bay. Unpublished
Masters Thesis. University of Puerto Rico.

Cintron, G., 14. Maddux and P. Burkholder. 1970. Some Consequences of Brine
Pollution in the Bahia Fosforescente, Puerto Rico. Limnol. and Oceanogr.
15 (2): 77-247.

Cintron, G., C. Goenaga and J. Gonzalez. 1978. Ecologia Deal Manglar en una
Zona Arida: Exposicion al Oleaje y Estructura del Manglar. V Simposio
Latioamericano sobre Oceanografia Riologica. Brasil.

Cintron, G., A. Lugo, D. Pool and G. Morris. 1978. Mangroves of Arid Envi-
ronments in Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands. Biotropica 10 (2).

Cintron, G. 1981. Personal communication. Puerto Rico.

Coker, R. and J. Gonzalez. 1960. Limnetic Copepods Population of Bahia
Fosforescente and Adjacent Waters, P.R. Journal Elisha Mitchell Scient.
Socl, vol. 76.

Collazo, Jaime A. P, Tundi Agardy. 1981. Third Symposium of Puerto Rican Fauna,
University of P.R., Humacao.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Autoridad de Los Puertos de Puerto Rico, Regla-
mento Para Numeracion y Reqistro de Embarcaciones de Motor. San Juan,
Puerto Rico.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Capitulo 3. Pesca, Subcapitulo 45. Reglamenta
de Pesca San Juan, Puer Rico, Sept., 1957.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Natural Resources. Undated.
Natural, Cultural and Environmental Resources Inventory. San Juan, P.R.
(map).

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Law to Create
the Ranger Corps, June 27, 1977.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Ley de Minas
(Mining Law) Num. 10, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Octubre de 1975'.-

160

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Autoridad de Los Puertos de Puerto Rico, Ley Num.
19 (Boating Safety Law), San Juan, Puerto Rico, Junio de 1965.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Ley Num. 70
(Wildlife Law) San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 30, 1976.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, Ley Num. 133-
Ley de Bosques de Puerto Rico (Forest Law) San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 1945.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Ley de Aguas
(Water Law) Num. 136, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Junio de 1976.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Ley Num. 144
(Earth Crust Law) San Juan, Puerto Rico, Junio 1968.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Reglamento
del Cuerpo de Vigilantes de Recursos Naturales San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1978.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. 1973. Rare and Endangered Animals of
Puerto Rico. 68 pp.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. Sept. 1977. Critical Wildlife Areas of
Puerto Rico. Area of Planning and Resources Analysis.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Environmental Quality Board. 1972. A Water
Quality Study of La Parguera and Nearby Bahia Fosforescente. San Juan,
P.R.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 1968. Interim Development Plarl.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Aqueduct and Sewer Authority. 1973. La Parguera,
Lajas, Puerto Rico; Construction of a Trunk Sewer Pumping Station and
Sewage Treatment Plant (map).

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Office of the Governor, Environmental Quality
Board Amendments to Certain Sections of the Water Quality Standards
Regulations.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. 1979. Puerto Rico Marine Sanctuary Norni-
nation. (Submitted to Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA).

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 1979-1980. Economic Report to the Governor.
Area of Economic Research and Evaluation, Puerto Rico Planning Board.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR, Area de Servicio Forestal. Informe de
Visitantes a las Areas Recreativas de Janio 198U a Abril 1981.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 1980. Labor Market Newsletter, October.
San German Area. Department of Labor and Human Resources with U.S. Dept.
of Labor.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. 1981. Informe Recaudacuibes Areas Recre-
atuvus, Puerta de Tierra, P.R.

161

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. 1981. Land Use Planning Document for La
Parguera.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. Jan. 1981. Area de Planification Especial
del Suroeste - sector La Parguera (map).

Danforth, S.T. 1931. Puerto Rican ornithological records. Jour. Dept. Agric.
P.R. 15, No. 1:33-106.

Delgado, A. 1978. La Ecologia de las Comunidades de Thalassia testudinum en
La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Unpub. Masters Thesis. Univ. of P.R.

de Porto, Anselmo. 1981. Personal communication. DNR, Puerto Rico.

Erdman, Donald S. 1970. Marine Mammals from Puerto Rico to Antigua.
journal of Mammalogy, vol. 51, No. 3, August 1970, pp. 636-639.

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. 1972. Area de La Parguera Plans
Regulador. La Fortaleza, P.R. (map).

Fernandez, Luis 0., James V.A. Trumbull and Victor V. Cavaroc Sedimentation
Processes and Potential Sand Reserves of the Cabo Rojo Shelf: South-
western Puerto Rico N.C. State Univi_r@sity, Department of Geosciences,
ffa-leigh, N.C.

Figueroa, Jose. 1981. Statistician CODREMAR, Mayaguez Marine Laboratory,
personal communication.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. Grant Request-Key Largo Coral Reef
Marine Sanctuary. Recreation and Parks, 1982.

Fritz, S.J. and O.H. Pilkey. Chapter One, Shipwrecks.
Marine Atlas of Puerto Rico.,

Glynn, P. 1964. Common Marine Invertebrate Animals of the Shallow Waters of
Puerto Rico. Histo. Nat. de P.R., Inst. de Cultur. Puertoriguena,
San Juan, P.R.

Glynn, P., L. Almodovar and J. Gonzalez. 1964. Effects of Hurricane Edith on
Marine Life in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Carib. Journ. Sci: 4: 335-45.

Glynn, P. 1973. Aspects of the Ecology of the Coral Reefs in the Western
Atlantic Region in O.A. Jones and R. Endean, eds., Biology and Geology of
Coral Reefs, vol. 2. New York, Academic Press, p. 271-324.

Glynn, P. 1973. Ecology of Caribbean Coral Reef. The Porites Reef - Flat
Biotope: Part I. Meteorology and Hydrography. MariniT--Biology, vol. 20.

Goenaga, C. Coral Reef Inventory.

Goenaga, C. 1981. Efecto del Huracan David sobre los Arrecifes de La Parguera.
III Simposio de la Fauna Puertoriquena. Humacao, P.R.

162

Gonzalez-Liboy, Jose. An Examination of the Present Condition of
Seagrass Meadows in La Parguera, Puerto-RlFco, State Puerto Rico
Project No. F-4 Final Report, June 1979

Greenberg, Jerry, Idaz and Simba Field Guide to Marine Invertebrates.
T-
Miami, Florida: Seahawk Press, 9qO--

Guinones, M. 1953. High Intensity Rainfall and Major Floods in Puerto Rico.
Am. Soc. Civil Engineers.

Harrington, Fred, V. Soltero and Gabriel del Toro. 1979. Critical Wildlife
Areas of Puerto Rico, Sept. lq79. DNR, P.R.

Heimer, Rurt, Assistant Chief Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville,
Florida, Personal communication, April 14, 1982

Islands: Selected Resources of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Their
Relationship to Recreation, Tourism and Open Space, The.
By Ervin H. Zube, Head, Department of Landscape-g-rchitecture
University of Massachusetts. United States Department of the Interior,
January 1969.

Jiminez, graulio. "El Petroleo en El Amhiente de Puerto Rico. lq81

Kaye, C. 1959. Shoreline Features and Quaternary Shoreline Changes,
Puerto Rico. U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Pap. 317-9.

Law Number 9, amended May 31, 1973 and July 10, 1978 and amendments.

Law Numher 82. To create the Corporation for the Development and
Administration of Marine, Lacustrine and Fluvial Resoiirces of Puerto Rico
attached to the Department of Natural Resources to establish penalties
and appropriate funds. Approved July 7, 1979.

Ley Organica del Departmento de Recursos Naturales, Number 23 del Junio
de 1972 T3 L.P.R.A. 151, Et. Sec. Suplemento Acumulativo, 1975

Lugo, A. and S. Snedaker. 1974. The Ecology of Mangroves.
An. Rev. Ecol. And Systm. Vol. 5.

Lugo, A. and G. Cintron. lq75. The Mangroves of Puerto Rico and Their
Management. In G. Walsh, S. Snedaker and H. Teas (eds.) Proceed.
Int. Symp. on@-Riol. and Management of Mangroves. Inst. Food Aqr. Sci.,
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

MacIntire, 1. 1972. Submerged Reefs of Eastern raribhpan. Rull. Am. Assoc.
Petr. Geol., 56(4): 720-738.

Mathews, S. 1974. Sediment Reworking Rates and Effect of Three Burrowing
Organisms off La Parquera, P.R.. Master Thesis. 11niv. of P.R.

163

Matthews, B. 1967. An Ecological Guide to the Littoral Fauna and Flora
of Puerto Rico. Dept. of Education. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Morelock, J., N. Schneidermann and W. Bryant. 1977. Shelf Reefs of
Southwestern Puerto Rico. in Frost, S., M. Weiss and J. Saunders, eds.
Reefs and related carbonat@_s ecology and sedimentology. T111sa Oklahoma,
Am. Assoc. Petro. Geol. pp. 17-25.

Munk, W. and M. Sargent. 1948. Adjustment of Bikini Atoll to Ocean Waves.
Trans Amer. Geophys. Union, 29(6).

Munoz-Roure, Omar. Executive Director, Caribhean Fisheries Management Council,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Personal communication 1981.

Nesbitt, S.A., M.J. Fogorty, L.E. Williams, Jr. 1977. Status of Florida
Nesting Brown Pelican, 1971-1976. Bird-Banding 48(2) 138-144.

New South Wales Government. Proceedings of the Second South Pacific
Conference on National Parks and Reserves-Volumes I and II.
Sydney, Australia, 1979.

Pancorbo, Rafael. 1981. Manager of the Posada Porlamar in La Parguera.
Personal communication.

Parsons, J.J. 1972. The Hawksbill Turtle and the Tortoiseshell Trade.
Etudes de Geographie Tropicale Offertes a Perre Gouroij, Mouton and Co.,
Paris pp. 44-60.

Pepe. 1981. Owner and manager of Pepe Boats, La Parguera.
Personal communication.

Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. Washington, D.C., 11ndated.

Puerto Rico Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Environmental Quality Board. Fehruary 1981.

Puerto Rico Tourism Co. 1981. Due Pasa in Puerto Rico. Vol. 33, no. 3.
San Juan.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 197q. Encyclopedia of Turtles. TFH Publ. Inc.,
Neptune, N.J. 895 pages.

Quinn, A. 1972. Study of a Submerged Barrier Reef on the Southwest Coast
of Puerto Rico. Masters Thesis. University of Rhode Island.

Rainey, William E. 1978. Status of Sea Turtles at Vieques Island.
Unpub. paper.

Reglamento para Regir el Uso Manejo y Administracion de Areas Recreativas
beja la Jurisdiccion del Dppartamento de Recursos Naturales, Junio, 1980.

Reid, Leslie M., ed. "Interpretive Programs" Park Management @eries-Bulletin
7. Michigan State University and American Institute of Park Executives.

164

Reihl, H. 1954. Tropical Meteorology. New York. McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Saunders, C. 1973. Carbonate Sedimentation on the Inner Shelf, Isla
Magueyes, Puerto Rico. Masters Thesis, Univ. of P.R. Wat. Res. Inst.
(pub.) San Juan, P.R.

Schreiber, R.14. 1979. Reproductive Performance of the Eastern Brown
Pelican (P.O.). Contributions in Science Natur. Hist. Mus., Los Angeles
County.

Seliger, H.H. and J.H. Carpenter Pt al. 1970. Mechanisms for the
Accumulation of High Concentration of Dinoflagellates in a Bioluminescent
Bay. Limnology and fteanography 15: 234-245.

Smedley, D. 1981. Personal communication.

Soubier, L. Clifford. Interpretive Prospectus, Gulf Islands National
Seashore. Harpers Ferry, W. Va., February, 1979.

Sternberg, James. 1978. The Ecology and Management of the Loggerhead
Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Unpub. paper.

Sternberg, James. 1981. The Worldwide Distribution of Sea Turtle Nesting
Reaches. Sea Turtle Rescue Fund, Center for Environmental Education.

Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, Office of Statistics and Economic Studies.
1978-79. The Tourism Industry of Puerto Rico, Selected Statistics.

Towle, Dr. Edward. 1978. Report on Sea Turtle Nesting, Sighting, Eggs
and Hatchlings for 1978 in the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Submitted to Island
Resources Foundation.)

U.S. Department of Agrictilture, Soil Conservation Service and the Department
of Natural Resources of Puerto Rico. 1973. Rare and Endangered Species
of Puerto Rico, A Committee Report.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Laws and Treaties of the U.S. Relevant to
Marine Mammal Protection Policy Report # PR-281 024. Washington, D.C.

M. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Office of CZM. lc)78. Puerto Rico Coastal
Management Program and FEIS. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Feb. 1981. Census of
Population and Housing. Puerto Rico Preliminary Population and Housing
Unit Counts. (PHC 80, p. 53).

U.S. Coast Guard. lc18O. Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office. San Juan, P.R., Pollution Contingency
Plan

165

United States Department of the Interior. Biscayne: Draft General Management
Plan, National Park Service, September 1977.

United States Department of the Interior. Biscayne National Monument,
Interpretive Prospectus, National Park Service 1978.

United States Department of the Interior. Buck Island National Monument
Financial Plan, 1980.

United States Department of the Interior. Cape L okout: Draft General Management
Plan; Wilderness Study Development Concept Plan. National Park Service,
May 1980.

United States Department of the Interior. Cape Lookout National Seashore, N.C.;
DEIS, National Park Service, Atlanta, Ga., May 1980.

United States Department of the Interior. "Everglades, A Disarticulated Ecosystem,
Final Draft." National Park Service.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980.
Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Hawksbill Sea Turtle
in P.R. Federal Register, 45, No. 206, Wednesday, October 22, 1980.
Proposed rule 70198-70201.

United States Department of the Interior. Fort Jefferson National Monument-
General Management Concept Plan, Wilderness Study and Recommendations. 1981.

United States Department of the Interior. Fort Jefferson National Monument
Financial Plan. 1981.

United States Department of the Interior. Fort Jefferson National Monument-
Revised Management Objectives and Statement for Management.

United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1978. Miscellaneous
field studies map MF-1017. Kurt A. Grove and James V.A. Trumbull,
Surficial geologic maps and data on three potential offshore sand sources
on the insular shelf of Puerto Rico.

United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1980. Mi scel laneous
field studies map MF-1258. George L. Shideler, Composition of surficial
sediments on the insular shelf of Southwestern Puerto Rico.

United States Department of the Interior. Interim Interpretive Plan; Channel
Islands National Monument, California. Denver Service Center,
February 1979.
United States Department of the Interior. Martin Luther King Natlonal Historic
Site, Legislative Support Package, 1980.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1968.
Bioluminescent Bays of Puerto Rico.

University of Puerto Rico. 1979. Bulletin. Department of Marine Sciences.
Mayaguez, P.R.

166

University of Puerto Rico. 1981. Brochure, Department of Marine Sciences.
Mayaguez, P.R.

Welch, J. 1962. Aspects of Succession in Marine Communities.
PhD dissertation. University of Rhode Island.

Welty, Joel Carl, 1975. The Life of Birds. W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa., p. 428.

Whitfield, Lawrence M., Mount Rodgers National Recreation Area Final
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, United States
Department of Agriculture, March 1980.

Yamhure, A. 1972. A Study of the Marine Environment of the La Parguera Area.
Envirunmental Quality Board. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

167

PART XI: APPENDICES

Page

A - Coral Reef Descriptions ........................................... A-1

B - Commercial Fishermen Survey Technique ........................... B-1

C - Economic Profile of Commercial Fishing ........................... C-1

D - Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .............................. D-1

E - Draft Designation Document for the Proposed LPNMS ................ E-1

169

APPENDIX A

CORAL REEF DESCRIPTIONS

I. Inner Shelf Area

a. Las Pelotas Reef

Las Pelotas Reef, with mangrove cover, is an example of an inner most reef
of the inner shelf area. The back reef area, south of the mangrove trees, is
less than one meter deep and consists of Thalassia intermingled with the zoanthid,
Zoanthus sp. Isolated colonies of Porites astreoides and A. palmata are also
Tr-equent. The crest or shallowest _p@a_rtis dominated by sp-arce A. palmata
(less then 40% cover) alternating with P. porites. The zoanthi-d-, _Pa-Fy_t_F_oa
caribaeorum, is a very important compon@_ent-o-f-fhis zone. Farther seaward, the
palmata zone, with a moderate cover, slopes to about four meters giving way to
difTu-se mixed coral zones where gorgonians, head corals (i.e., Colpophyllia
natans, Montastrea annularis and A. cervicornis) dominate. The reef diss-1pates
at about 13 meters, where isolat6d_@a_tches of M. annularis occur.

Like other nearby reefs, Las Pelotas Reef lacks well-defined biotic
zones apparently as a result of an extremely reduced inshore wave energy regime.

b. Ahogado Reef

This reef, located north of Enrique Reef and south of Isla Magueyes, has no
mangrove trees and is broken along its length by several channels about 7-8
meters deep, that cross it in a north-south direction. It rises to within less
than a meter from the surface, breaking the surface of the water during very
low tides. Typical of most of the reefs in this area, its orientation is
roughly east to west.

The back reef consists of beds of Thalassia testudinum with patches of
Acropora Cervicornis. The urchin, DiacFema -antillarum, is common. The reef crest,
or tFe-shallowest section of the re-eT -asin-o-tTe-r-T-ow energy front reefs, is
dominated by A. palmata which merges with an undeveloped palmata zone. Seaward
from this zone, the reef begins to gradually slope into fhe -mixed coral zone
where head corals and, later, gorgonians predominate. At about eight meters
there is an abrupt slope to 15 meters at the reef base. Turbidity is very
high due to resuspension of fine sediments by wave created surge.

Other examples of these highly protected reefs are La Conserva and Collado
Reef where an "atypical" Thalassia bed occurs between the rudimentary palmata
and mixed coral zone.

c. Enrique Reef

This reef is representative of the line of reefs marking the southern
boundary of the inner area and contains a mangrove stand with Rhizophora
mangle as the dominant species. North of the reef crest is a well aeveloped
Fo7rites biotope with a large number of invertebrates. In several places the
Porites colonies are intermingled with Thalassia and/or zoanthids of the genus
7o-a-R-Fus. Isolated coral patches occur-in @this back reef apron especially on
tTe"H-ead" and "tail" (east and west) sections of the reef where wave energy
is felt due to refraction. Coral patches at the "tail" (west) end are specially

A-1

interesting due to high species diversity. Because of the calm, protected and
shallow waters, this makes a perfect site for beginner snorkelers. The reef
apron sands are extensively burrowed by the shrimp, Calianassa, and by
holothurians (Mathews, 1974). These form small mounds which cover large
sections of the barren sand areas.

The reef crest is dominated by the fire coral, Millepora complanta,
A. palmata, the zoanthid, Palythoa caribaeorum, and various types of coralline
algae. South of the crest is a very narrow palmata zone (probably due to the
steepness of the reef front) followed by a pTa__tTo_rm containing dead coral that
widens to the east and narrows to the west. Some A. cervicornis are also
present here. Slightly deeper is a zone clearly d-ominated by the star coral,
Montastrea- annularis. Diploria sp., Agaricia agaricites, and Gorgonians are
abundant in-51'szone. The lower par-t--of-t-FFe siope is of barren, gravelly
sand with occasional clumps of Oculina (Morelock et al., 1977).

2. Middle and Outer Areas

a. Turrumote Reef I

Turrumote Reef I is one of the most impressive of the emergent reefs of
La Parguera. The back reef apron contains numerous benthic algae and patches
of Thalassia. The Porites biotope is very extensive although partially dead.
The back reef separ-a-tedfrom the fore reef by a high relief (close to three
meters above mean sea level) promontory of storm-deposited coral, mainly
A. palmata, which extends from one side to the other side of the reef. The
reef crest is buttressed with colonies of M. complanata overlying them. Most
of these colonies are partially broken as a result o cent storm damage.
The sea urchin, Echinometra luncunter, occurs in very high densities; coralline
algae is a secondary component. Small colonies of Diploria sp. are very common.
The palmata zone, although formerly one of the most impressiWe in terms of
coral cover, is now 100% flattened as a result of recent hurricanes. Seaward
is the mixed coral zone with moderate coral cover and very high species diversity.
Further south is a spectacular very high relief buttress zone composed mainly
of very sizable (some more than three meters in diameter), fungi-like colonies
of M. annularis. These colonies are sometimes taller than four meters and are
separated by barren sand. They also form very intricate ledges and overhangs
which support many other species of corals (mainly Agaricia) and other
i nvertebrates. Icthyofauna is very dense and diverse. South of this zone,
the reef gradually dissipafes. To the east this reef extends into a very
interesting and high relief area locally called The Pinnacles. Here coral
structures rise from the bottom to several meters below the surface. Fishing
in this area is said to be very productive.

b. Margarita Reef
Margarita Reef (approximately three km from east to west) is the westernmost
emergent reef of the area proposed for sanctuary designation. The back reef apron
is very extensive and well protected. Patches of Thalassia alternate with coral
colonies or with bare sand. Algae are very abundant and diverse. There is an
extensive Porites biotope. The reef crest is dominated by broken or lacerated
colonies 'E. -complanata (as a consequence of recent storms). A. palmata is a
codominant species, in some parts. Seaward is a denuded, ve@y-wide pa-T-mata

A-2

zone, followed by a very long mixed coral zone where gorgonians and M. annularis
dominate. Gorgonians are especially dense. The reef continues sou or more
than .5 kilometers south from the crest until it slopes to about 15 meters and
terminates.

Other emergent reefs within the proposed boundaries of the sanctuary are
El Palo, Atravesado, Enmedio, and Turromote II.

c. Submerged Barrier Reef

A portion of one of the most spectacular reef systems in Puerto Rico lies
at the edge of the southern boundary of the sanctuary. It is a submerged
barrier reef bordering much of the shelf edge off the southern coast of Puerto
Rico. It has been more extensively studied in the southwest. The shallowest
section (15 meters from the surface) lies at the very edge of the shelf. South
at 17 to 25 meters, a sharp break in the nearly bottom level occurs, dropping
away at an angle of up to 45 degrees into the Caribbean. A buttressed spur and
groove formation has been observed for more than three km along the shelf edge
(Morelock et al., 1977). Sand channels, up to six meters deep, with vertical
walls generally less than two meters apart and 20-30 meters long are cut into
the upper insular slope. The walls of these channels are covered with encrusting
coral growth, algae and boring sponges. Between the channels is a coral buttress
dominated by massive corals and agaricids. These channels appear to be some
type of surge channels which allow movement of sand from the outer shelf to the
slope (Morelock et al., 1977). These sands form an obvious trail down the slope
below each channel which have been traced below 70 meters depth. Coral growth
is so intense on the walls that they sometimes form a roof over the grooves
providing an excellent habitat for a great variety and number of fish. These
grooves diminish in relief to the north, branch and meander occasionally,
terminating gradually in coral ridges which are aligned east to west parallel
to the shelf edge. Ridges rise slightly to shallower depths and are covered
with dense gorgonian stands. Living coral cover is reduced. Sand flats, also
parallel to the shelf edge, occur to the north of the ridges (Quinn, 1972).

The slope, south of the spur and groove system, consists of cemented or
dead coral pavement with little relief below approximately 30 meters. Zonation
is marked with stands of gorgonians and antipatharians increasing steadily
downwards in relation to a decrease in stony hermatypic corals.

Along the shelf edge, Morelock et al., (1977) observed areas where the
upper 30 to 40 meters of the slope are vertical. Where this occurs, there are
no grooves and the general nature of the submerged reef is similar to other
Caribbean submerged reefs (MacIntire, 1972).

It is postulated that reefs on the shelf edge built up as barrier reefs
during the Pleistocene low sea stand (Goreau and Burke, 1966). The shelf edge
was subjected to intermittent surface drainage of water; accumulated by wave
action or runoff. Subaerial erosion occurred thus forming drainage channels.
No growth occurred on the floor of these incisions as a result of continued
scourings. As the reefs were drowned by the waters melted from the glaciers
over the last 4,000 years, these erosional features were enhanced by coral
growth forming the buttresses.

A-3

APPENDIX B

COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN SURVEY TECHNIQUE

The use of key informants is an established technique for the development
of information relative to a "needs" which exist in a given community. The use
of this approach is predicated upon the assumption that there exists in any
jurisdiction, persons who have intimate first-hand information about the needs
and service utilization patterns of populations who are, or should be, clients
of human services organizations. These persons constitute a corps or group,
only to the extent that they share information about, and an interest in, the
needs of a target population within a jurisdiction. They develop this knowledge
and concern in a variety of ways:

- They may be elected or appointed officials who have a responsibility
to understand the needs of special populations and whose position
causes them to be the recipients of expressions or concerns of such
groups.

- They may be managers, administrators or staff members of agencies
whose direct contact with the population causes them to have an
awareness of the nature and volume of needs which exist in a given
community.

- They may be professionals who may or may not be members or leaders
of organized groups, but whose vocation causes them to have valid
insights into community needs.

- They may be representatives of the target groups who can be identi-
fied by their leadership and advocacy of the said group.

The use of key informants adds a human dimension to the needs assessment
effort. No amount of data, regardless of how valid and appropriate to its
intended purpose, can support an adequate understanding of an environment in
which the reactions and responses of the affected population to life circum-
stances are as important as the circumstances themselves. This technique
provides important clues to the people's way of viewing their environment.
Such understanding is essential if any effort to intervene is to be regarded
by the community as truly relevant and useful.

TECHNIQUE AND PROCEDURE

Information can be gathered from key informants in a variety of ways.
They range from quite unstructured approaches which seek to yield insights
which are useful for the analyst to keep in mind, to well-defined, multi-step
procedures in which information is gathered and processed in conformity with
a carefully prepared plan.

B-1

Unstructured approaches are common in many programs. Advice is sought
unfortunately from persons who may have information about clients or utiliza-
tion of services, but no attempt is made to collect, analyze, or share the
information on a broad scale. A structured approach attempts to assess a
broad section of the community's key informants through meetings or surveys.
An effort is made to collect, tabulate, and analyze data which can be -fed back
to those participating in meetings or surveys.
If meetings are established, this means of data collection brings key
informants together as a work group and charges them with the responsibility
of identifying the needs of the community as the participants see them. While
this format allows for a free exchange of ideas, the results can be more
difficult to collect and tabulate for analysis than the survey.
If a survey instrument is used, data will be limited by the constraints
on the questionnaire in terms of the items to be used and the format in which
they will be presented. There are three basic formats through which the key
informants can be surveyed: the personal interview, the telephone interview,
and the written/mail questionnaire.
The most frequently used technique is the personal interview which
permits a free exchange of ideas on a one-to-one basis. It is more difficult
to implement, in that it requires highly trained and careful interviewers who
will strive to maintain consistency in all questions. The personal interview
obtains more information per interview as points may be clarified and
information expanded.

PROCEDURES USED IN SANCTUARY AREA

A mailing list identifying the Fishermen's Associations in each of the
municipalities was obtained from CODREMAR and the Caribbean Fisheries Council.
A letter explaining the objectives and scope of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program was drafted and mailed to the presidents of each of the Associations.
The letter also set a date in which the researcher was going to visit the
area and asked for the presence of the president and as many members of the
Association as possible for group discussions and interviews.
Upon arrival of the researcher at the Fishermen's Association facilities,
the group met. An oral presentation of the Program's scope and purpose was
made and a group discussion followed to clarify any doubts and concerns. The
group session also provided an opportunity to further identify who should be
interviewed following a structured guide in order to assure consistency in the
data collected. The president of each one of the Associations was interviewed,
as well as at least two or three of the most active members identified in the
group session.

The interview outline was followed and the answers to the open ended
questions were recorded in a summarized fashion, in writing. The data thus
collected in each site was then compared and analyzed by topic.

B-2

INTERVIEW OUTLINE

1. Identification information

A. Association's official name and mailing address.

B. President's name and address.

C. Number and name of members.

D. Number and type of boats used.

E. Type of fishing gear used and number or average number
of gear/fishermen.

F. Average yield per type of gear.

II. Where they fish?

A. General area (from to

B. Distance from shoreline.

C. Preferred area.

III. Most common catch

A. Fishes

B. Crustaceans

C. Conch

IV. Association's organization

A. How they operate.

B. Price paid to fishermen by type of fish.

C. How and where they sell catch - (Assoc. facilities and other places).

D. Relationship with non-member fishermen in area.

V. Concerns and recommendations regarding National Marine Sanctuary Program

B-3

Brief Description of Community Groups Contacted

Parguera

There is no active fishermen's association here at present. Yet the
fishermen work and sell their catch together to mainly one dealer and a few
restaurant owners. They use the port and facilities of the former fishermen's
association. They reported that there are 23 full-time and 28 part-time or
occasional fishermen. Prices are standard for each class of fish.

Bogueron

This association is no longer active and most fishermen work arid sell
their catch individually to restaurants, wholesalers, and directly to the public.
Prices here fluctuate since each fisherman sets his own prices. There are 60
full-time fishermen.

Combate

The fishermen's association is no longer active, though they use the
existing facilities. There are 33 full-time fishermen in this area. They
have standard prices. Fish sold to wholesalers and to the public are mainly
from specific fishermen's houses and sometimes from the Association's facilities.

Guanica

Guanica reported 26 full-time fishermen. This association is partly
active. There is another group in Guanica which we were not able to interview.
They have standard prices, but not necessarily the same as the other group.

Playa Santa (Guanica)

This was the only fishermen's association in full operation. They have
two 42 ft., fully equipped vessels used at least twice weekly with permanent
crew members assigned. There are 30 full-time fishermen in the association.
They buy all catch from members at standard prices. Members pay weekly dues.
They have one full-time employee who is the Program director and accountant.
Playa Santa is a fast growing private recreational area where demand for fresh
fish may be increasing.

B-4

List of Associations and Persons Contacted

1. Parguera

Cesar Padilla - Wholesaler and owner of fish market.

Fishermen

1. Juan J. Irizarry
2. Rodrigo Irizarry
3. Jose Luis Lopez
4. Luis Mendoza
5. Tomas Padilla (group leader)
6. Anibel Rosado
7. Confessor Rosado
8. Juan Rosado
9. Pablo Rosado
10. Ricardo Rosado Ramos
11. Anibal Santiago

2. Playa Santa, Guanica

Asociacion de Pescodares Salinas Provindencia
Programa de Desanollo Pesquero de la Agencia de Accion Comunal

Fishermen

1. Eddie Carbonell
2. Eladio Garcia Cherena
3. Felix Garcia Cherena
4. Vicente Mattei
5. Juan Mattei
6. Juan Santos Mattei
7. Hilario Ramos
8. Israel Mattei Vega
9. Vicente Mattei Vega

3. Guanica

Pescadores Unidos
Bahia de Guanica

President - Luis Ouinones

Fishermen

1. Felita Aguilera
2. Felix Aguilera
3. Hector Aguilera
4. Humberto Artiz
5. Antonio Cruz
6. Santiago Feliciano
7. Santiago Flores
8. Luciano Garcia

B-5

3. Guanica (Cont'd)

9. Enrique Gilbert
10. Felix Gilbert
11. Julio Gilbert
12. Reynolds Gilbert
13. Manuel Gonzolez
14. Junior Luna
15. Juan Martinez
16. Jose Matos
17. Roul Mejia
18. Julio Mel endez
19. Andres Padilla
20. Carlos Quiros
21. Orlando Ramos
22. Carlos Rivera
23. Pedro Rivera
24. Jose Rosado
25. Jose Rosado, Jr.
26. Rafael Rosado
27. Rafael Rosado, Jr.
28. Antonio Santiago
29. William Vargas
30. Jose Vasquez
31. Caro Vila
32. Pedro Vila

4. Bogueron
Asociacion Pesquera de Boqueron (not active)

President - Juan M. Montalvo

Fishermen

1. Jose Maldonado
2. Arcadio Negron
3. Enrique Negron
4. Isael Negron
5. Carlos Pabon
6. Estebon Pabon
7. Delvis Ramos
8. Carmelo Vargas
9. Walter Vargas
10. Epifanio Velez

5. Combate

Asociacion de Pescadores del Combote (not active)

1. German Acosta
2. Jarge Acosta
3. Luis Acosta
4. Nelson Acosta
5. Marteniano Comacho

B-6

5. Combate (cont'd)

6. Luis Angel Cruz
7. Elay Hernandez
8. Guillermo Hernandez
9. Ivan Hernandez
10. Ramon Hernandez
11. Ruben Hernandez
12. Sadi Hernandez
13. Jose Angel Lopez
14. Luis Angel Lopez
15. Kenny Lund
16. Andres Maldonado
17. Miguel Maya
18. William Ojedo
19. Luis Padilla
20. Monserrate Padilla
21. Rickie Padilla
22. Roberto Padilla
23. Rodolfo Acosta Padilla
24. Julio Ramirez
25. Tomas Ramirez
26. Julio Ramos
27. Jose Rodriguez
28. Santos Rodriquez
29. Freddie Toro
30. Jaime Hernandez Vilez
31. Wilfred Vega

B-7

APPENDIX C

ECONOMIC PROFILE OF COMMERCIAL FISHING

Commercial fishing statistics for Puerto Rico are not published with
specific reference to the proposed marine sanctuary site. The approach taken
to describe the potentially effected commercial fishery was to identify muni-
cipalities associated with fishing activities on the proposed sanctuary site.
Specific fisheries likely to be affected were identified by type of gear and
by species. Fishery identification by species was made by examining west
coast and east coast Puerto Rican island landings of certain species and by
reviewing past research and exploratory fishing reports pertaining to the
proposed site or adjacent areas. Economic characteristics of fishing activi-
ties such as income and pots fished were also identified through similar
procedures.

La Parguera

The La Parguera site is located adjacent to the Lajas municipality and
is primarily fished by commercial fishermen from that municipality. The
majority of the fishermen using the site, due to the proximity, are most
likely to come from Lajas. However, some fishermen are reported to come from
the Guanica municipality (Jose Figuero, 1981). It also appears reasonable to
assume that some fishermen from the Cabo Rojo municipality may fish at least
on the western edge of the proposed site. Since most fisheries in the proposed
area is conducted out of the Lajas municipality, major emphasis is given
in the following discussion to fishing characteristics representative of it.
The Guanica municipality is given secondary emphasis.

1. Landings by Municipality

Total volume of landings in Lajas is not available for some years during
the 1970's. From available data there appears to be an overall increase in
landings with wide annual variations. A low of 80,322 pounds was landed in
1973 and a high of 207,008 pounds was recorded in 1978 (Table 1). Total
value of landings for both municipalities increased more significantly for
both municipalities due to price increases in addition to the increased
volume of landings. Value of landings reached record highs of $147,403 and
$280,327 in 1978 for Lajas and Guanica, respectively.

Lajas and Guanica are relatively important fishing centers with respect
to both the south coast and all Puerto Rico. Lajas accounted for a high of
over 22 percent of south coast landings and 19 percent of value in 1975
(Table 1). The same year Guanica accounted for nearly 34 percent of south
coast landings and 33 percent of the value of south coast landings. During
recent years these two municipalities combined accounted for at least one-
third of south coast landings and 9 percent of total Puerto Rico landings.
The relative importance is approximately the same with respect to value of
landings.

C-1

TABLE 1 LANDINGS BY MUNICIPALITY ON THE SOUTH COAST OF PUERTO RICO
1970-1980a

Muni ci pal ity/ Volume
Year South Fu-erto South Puerto
Pounds Coast Rico Dollars Coast Rico
Percent of Total Percent R-7-otal

Guanica
1970 181,799 20.5 4.0 63,630 20.5 4.0
1971 125,785 28.2 3.2 46,540 25.9 3.2
1972 137,201 31.8 3.7 63,586 29.7 4.0
1973 150,431 27.1 4.4 84,241 27.8 5.4
1974 239,446 34.8 6.8 124,394 31.9 6.9
1975 280,279 33.7 7.0 164,812 32.7 7.1
1976b
1977 342,050 29.6 6.7 234,484 30.5 6.8
1978 359,351 20.8 5.6 280,327 19.9 5.8
1979b
1980b

Lajas
1970 115,868 7.3 2.5 40,554 7.2 2.6
1971c
1972c
1973 80,322 14.4 2.3 28,946 9.5 1.9
1974 142,545 20.7 4.0 64,081 16.4 3.6
1975 185,194 22.2 4.6 95,506 19.0 4.1
1976b
1977 162,964 14.1 3.2 104,093 13.5 3.0
1978 207,008 12.0 3.2 147,403 10.5 3.1
1979b
1980b

Source: Dept. of Agric., Annual Issues and Weiler and Suarez-Caabro, 1980

aData for 1970 through 1977 at 80% of actual production
Data for 1978 at 91% of actual production.
bData requested but not available.

cData not reported for Lajas in original source.

C-2

2. Fishermen, Gear and goats

The number of fishermen in Lajas increased from 20 in 1970 to 50 in 1973,
but then declined the following years. However, the number currently is sig-
nificantly higher than in the early 1970's (Table 2). In nearly all years of
reported data there has been an average of one fisherman per boat in Lajas, and
therefore, the number of boats follows the same trend as the number of fishermen.
In 1980, a total of 51 boats fished from Lajas ports (Figueroa, 1981). This
implies a record number of fishermen in Lajas in 1980 at approximately 51.

The number of fishermen in Guanica also increased considerably during the
1970's, going from a low of 37 in 1971 to a high of 87 by 1974 and since then
remaining relatively stable (Table 2). The number of boats has also increased;
since 1971 there has been an apparent increase in number of fishermen per boat.
In 1978, there were 86 fishermen reported with 64 boats for an average of 1.3
fishermen per boat. In 1980, a total of 61 boats was reported (Figueroa, 1981)
which suggests 79 fishermen if 1.3 fishermen continue to fish per boat.

Puerto Rican fishermen are currently using two basic types of boats. In
addition to traditional wooden boats of local construction, a few stock design
fiberglass vessels have been financed at low interest rates by various govern-
ment agencies in their efforts to upgrade fishing efficiency.

The most prevalent type is the "yola" with an outboard motor. The name
is Spanish for yawl , hut it is, in fact, patterned after the long boats used
by sailing ships. It is of a rather graceful design, well-huilt of local woods,
and relatively seaworthy at the upper end of their size range (5-7 m). The
outboard motors are of various sizes, but the 25 h.p. is the average. Larger
versions, decked over at the how, have a mast step, and may carry an auxiliary
sail, but they are otherwise. open and without mechanical aids to fishing.
Yolas are principally used to haul fish pots. Under ideal conditions, yolas
can he found far offshore at the shelf break where they have been rigged for
deep-water fishing, but their range in this regard is obviously limited.

Pots (wirefish traps) are the predominant type of gear used in both
municipalities. The number of pots fished increased from the early 1970's to
the mid 197n's for both municipalities but then declined for several years
(Table 2). However, preliminary estimates for 1980 suggest the total number
of pots at record levels. In Lajas, a record of 814 pots were reported while
a near record of 711 were reported for Guanica in 1980. Handlines, troll
lines, beach seines and gill nets are also used. Most fishermen make their
nets or get them from local residents.

The size of fishing units appears to he getting smaller. The number of
pots fished per fisherman has declined for both municipalities. Other indi-
vidual types of gear are not reported by municipality. However, a comparison
of total value of landings (Table 1) with number of fishermen (Table 2) shows
value of landings per fisherman (gross income) to have increased. In 1970,
Lajas fishermen averaged $2,027 in annual value of landings while during the
1977-78 period an average of $3,044 was recorded. In Guanica, gross earnings
increased from $1,405 per fisherman in the 197n-71 period to $3,258 during the
1977-1978 period.

C-3

TABLE 2 FISHERMEN, BOATS, AND FISHING GEAR IN LAJAS AND GUANICA
MUNICIPALITIES9 1970-1980a

Municipality/ Fishermen Boats Gear Units
Year Pots Other Totall-

Guanica
1970 41 42 433 126 559
1971 37 38 260 120 380
1972 47 39 296 145 441
1973 76 68 713 365 1 078
1974 87 61 486 191 677
1975 82 60 751 18 769
1976b
1977 72 58 529 152 681
1978 86 64 559 136 695
1979b
1980b 61 711

Lajas
1970 20 20 376 60 436
1971 21 21 381 65 446
1972 21 21 406 65 471
1973 50 50 808 171 979
1974 44 44 557 183 740
1975 32 32 512 70 582
1976b
1977 37 34 460 98 558
1978 45 44 551 163 714
1979b
1980b 51 814

Source: Dept. of Agric., Annual Issues, Weiler and Suarez-Caabro, 1980 and
personal communications for 1980 data.

aData for 1970 through 1977 at 80% of actual production.
Data for 1978 at 91% of actual production.
bData requested but not available. Data shown for 1980 are preliminary
and based on personal communication from Jose Figueroa.

C-4

A cost-production study in Puerto Rico (Argrall, 1975) provides some
additional indication of fishing characteristics of fishermen fishing near the
La Parguera site. Average boat size of a sample of fishermen fishing in the
Guanica area was 16.3 feet in length with an average horse power of 10.4.
These fishermen however, were above average for the municipality considering
they owned an average of 25.4 pots each. They fished an average of 112 pot
days per year, earning a net revenue from trap fishing of $1,548 per year.

Major Fisheries

Published statistics by municipalities do not identify species or specific
fisheries. During exploratory fishing activities (Juhl, 1975) spiny lobster,
grey snapper, nassau grouper, red hind, queen triggerfish, parrotfish and grunt
were caught in the La Parguera area. Grunts and groupers were the primary
species landed in Lajas in 1980 (Figueroa, 1981). In Guanica, grunts and
snappers were reported to be the primary species.

A review of landings by species for the south coast of Puerto Rico for
1977 and 1978 shows species indicated for the La Parguera area are generally
the most important for the total coast (Table 3). Grunts and groupers and
all snappers, as a group, are the leading species landed in terms of volume.
Spiny lobster was the most important species on the south coast, in terms of
value, with an average annual value of $267,000 during the 1977-1978 period.

C-5

9-0

.UOLIonpoid Lenjop JO %L6q
'UOL4onpoid Lenpe jo %08e

'SJRLLOP JO spunod 009 Ueqj SS9L SaLqpuenb
JO SUOLsnLOUL jo 6ULpunoi o4 anp ppe 4ou Sew sa6piBAR PUP SLP401
-sieLLop jo spunod 009 upqq ssqjJL)
*086L loiquo-zaineS PUP ia;.aM :aojnoS

880'L ZVVIL 60V'L 8WL L9L 99L'L LeWi

ozz L6V v8z Z@il jjd 4SLJLL94S LP40i
L L L L L L J8440
ZL L L SL V L 8 8 sndo4oo
3 z t v W M sialsko
t9z LZ L OSE 8VL V8L E6 jaqsqol
E L 9 z L) L) qejo
98 L6 9 L L 9 L L LS L9 q:)U03

8LL S LZ L 8L6 tWL I Ls 986 4SLJ LP40i
9 L LZ 0z LE L L tz J9440
L9 t6 9L V L L st? CL LaJ91:)PW
0 0 L) 0 aU LPJ 2S

8E 0z 0 6L LZ 09 4SLj4P0q
9 OL 8 tL t L 100us
9 LL z OL 9 LL k6j0d
OL SL OL 9L 6 CL epn:)Rjjeg
9 L LE ZL 8z 8L K 4SLIJ966LJJ

L L M SL cz L ZL sja4qO
tz K LE Z9 OL 9L uo;4nW
LL 98 66 L6 vs EL lL@s
LZ ot 8c Es 9L LZ L@PWLLBA
98 LZ L CtL L6 L Oc st quel
:sjaddeuS
L z z z L L eiiecow
ZZL s0z 0 L LEZ 96 ELL jadnoig
(L) M L) L ULLJPW anL9

SL st L L Gt 6L tt 4SLJ40JJPd
t 9 c 9 t L lope
9 L LZ 8L CE L L LZ 4aLLnw
8 zz 6 6Z L tL 4S LI L8JJ LnbS
8 EL ZL 6L t 9 Ut4aLOG

0 L LL L L 8L 8 9 L 4SLjlunii
OL VL VL 6L 9 6 4SLJ60H
LCL LLZ ZSL 06Z 60L E9z 4uniq
9 L LE 9 L 8z 9 L CE 004kLLP9
E v E 9 z E Pun.L

S-JeLLOG spun0d SJeLLOO spun0d SJeLLOG spun0d
86RJaAV q8Z6L PLL6L S9L:)adS

SL6L-LL6L '03H Oid3nd 30 iSVO3 HinOS NO SM36 A9 HOM E 319Vi

APPENDIX E

Draft Designation Document for the
La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary

Under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, PL-92-532, (the Act) certain waters off Puerto Rico ', are hereby
designated a National Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of preserving and
protecting their unique and fragile ecological and recreational resources.

Article 1. Effect of Designation

The Designation of the La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary (the
Sanctuary described in Article 2, establishes the basis for cooperative
mana gement of the area by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Commonwealth)
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Within the area designated as the Sanctuary described in Article 2, the
Act authorizes the promulgation of such regulations as are reasonable and
necessary to protect the values of the Sanctuary.

NOAA has determined that certain existing Commonwealth natural resource
regulations are adequate to protect the values of the Sanctuary. Therefore,
this Designation authorizes NOAA to adopt these regulations as set forth in
Article 5 and to issue additional regulations only with the consent of the
Commonwealth or in the event that an activity is found not to be subject to
the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

Article 2. Description of the Area

The Sanctuary consists of 68.27 square nautical miles off the southwest
coast of Puerto Rico. The precise boundaries are defined by regulation.

Article 3. Characteristics of the Area Which Give it Particular Value

The Sanctuary contains hundreds of species of marine organisms, including
Caribbean corals, hawksbill and leatherback turtles, significant mangrove stands,
and diverse tropical fauna and floral communities. The area provides excep-
tional recreational experiences and unique scientific value as an ecological,
recreational, and esthetic resource.

Article 4. Scope of Regulation

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation. In order to protect distinc-
tive values of the Sanctuary, activities may be regulated within the Sanctuary
to the extent necessary to ensure the protection and preservation of the coral
and other marine values of the area.

Section 2. Consistency with International Law. The regulations governing
the activities listed in Section 1 of this Article will be applied to foreign
flag vessels and non-citizens of the United States only to the extent consistent
with recognized principles of International Law or as otherwise authorized by
international agreement.

E-1

Article 5. Relation to Other Regulatory Programs

Section 1. Puerto Rico Program. (a) The Commonwealth regulations des-
cribed in Article I effectively protect the resources of the Sanctuary and
shall constitute the primary regulatory regime for it. NOAA may adopt -the
Commonwealth regulations under the following conaitions:

(I ) No alteration or modification of any Sanctuary regulation shall become
effective without the written concurrence of both the Commonwealth and NOAA; and

(2) The Commonwealth shall be responsible for enforcing all the Sanctuary
regulations to ensure protection for the values of the Sanctuary. NOAA will
engage in enforcement activities only if requested by the Commonwealth if there
has been a significant failure to provide adequate enforcement as determined
under this Section.

(b) Where the Commonwealth shall propose any alteration or modification
of the regulations described in Article 1, such alteration or modification
shall be submitted to NOAA for agreement and simultaneous proposal in the
Federal Register. Such alteration or modification shall be finally adopted
unless, based on the comments received on the Federal Register proposal and
after consultation with the Commonwealth, NOAA determines that the regulations
with the proposed amendments do not provide reasonable and necessary protection
for the values of the Sanctuary.

(c) Should NOAA preliminarily determine that there has been significant
failure to provide adequate enforcement, it shall notify the Commonwealth of
this deficiency and suggest appropriate remedial action. If, after consultation,
NOAA and the Commonwealth are unable to agree either that a deficiency exists
or on an appropriate remedial action, NOAA may issue a final determination in
writing specifying the deficiency and the appropriate action together with the
reasons therefore. No less than 60 days prior to issuing a final determination
that calls for NOAA to take enforcement action, NOAA shall submit the proposed
determination to the Governor of Puerto Rico. If the Governor finds that NOAA
enforcement is unnecessary to protect the values of the Sanctuary, the Governor
shall inform NOAA of his objections within thirty (30) days after the receipt
of the proposed determinations and NOAA shall give such finding presumptive
weight in making its final determination.

Section 2. Defense Activities. The regulation of those activities listed
in Article 4 shall not prohibit any activity conducted by the Department of
Defense that is essential for national defense or because of emergency. Such
activities shall be conducted consistently with such regulations to the maximum
extent practicable. All other activities of the Department of Defense are
subject to Article 4.

Article 6. Alterations to this Designation

This Designation can be altered only in accordance with the same proce-
dures by which it has been made, including public hearings, consultation with
interested Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and approval by the Governor of
Puerto Rico and by the President of the United States.

E-2

Article 7. Fundi ng

In the event that a reduction in the funds available to administer the
Sanctuary necessitates a reduction in the level of enforcement provided by the
Commonwealth, the resulting reduced level of enforcement shall not, by itself,
constitute a basis for finding deficiency under Article 5, Section 1.

(End of Designation)

E-3

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14110008 3 k