Final 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
Final, Environmental Impact Statement
And
Management Plan

'6.

'I'D
194.5' 'o, S"-f OF FOAV
.119
F50 U.S. Departmentof Commerce
19S4 @1
.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration J

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

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

AUGUST 1984

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
Box 5887, Puerta de Tierra
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906
US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Note to Reader:

Traditional small scale fishing activities, as well as sportfishing
activities, are high priority concerns as they relate to the proposed La
Parguera National Marine Sanctuary. Although fishing activities have been
given thorough consideration throughout the DEIS process, they have been
more specifically highlighted in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
To this end, Goal V (Promote and enhance traditional small scale artisanal
and sportfishing activities through habitat protection, research and regulation)
is included in this version, showing the particular emphasis given to fishing
in the designation process.

Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan

Title: Proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary

Abstract: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
proposes to designate 66.16 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; incl'uding 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. Restrictions are
not placed on traditional fishing activities. 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
33UU Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20235

202/634-4236

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FORTHE
PROPOSED LA PARGUERA NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction and Summary ................... 1.

A. The Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact.St6tement ... 1
B. Impacts on Fishing Activities .................... 2
C. National Marine Sanctuary Program ............................ 6
D. History of the Proposal ................ 7
E. General Context for Planning ........................ ....... 9
F. Purpose and Need for 10

Il. Management Context ........... 13

A. Introduction ................... 13
B. Location and Boundaries .................................... 0
C. Natural Resources ...................... 15

1. Introduction ............ 15
2. Physical/Natural Characteristics ............

a. Geology ...................... 20
b. Climate .......................................... . 20
c. Hydrography ...................................... 21
d. Sand Fields ............. ......................... 22

3. Habitats and Biological Characteristics ..... 000001 00000 23

a. Coral Reefs .................. 23
b. Mangroves ........................................ 29
c. Salt Water Flats and Lagoons ..................... 32
d. Seagrass Beds .................................... 32
e. Beaches .......................................... 33
f. Rocky Shores ..................................... 33
g. Bioluminescent Bays .............................. 34

4. Rare and Endangered Species ........................... 34

a. West Indian Manatee .................... 35
b. Sea Turtles ...................................... 35
c. Brown 36

Page

II. Management Context (Continued)

D. Social and Economic Factors ...... 37

1. Regional Characteristics ........................... 37
2. Local Characteristics ................................. 37
3. Users ................................................. 38

E. Legal/Institutional Background 44

1. Introduction ... 44
2. Commonwealth and Federal 44
3. Enforcement Capabilities of Relevant Commonwealth
and Federal Agencies.. ....... 53

F. Issues and Problems Associated with the Resources of
the Proposed LPNMS ...... ..... ...... 57

1. Enforcement ... 57
2. Public Awareness and Information 58
3. Coral Reefs 58
4. Mangroves and Seagrass Bed Areas 58
5. Bioluminescent Bays ........ ....... ......... 59
6. Endangered Species ... 61
7. Water Quality and Population Growth 62
8. Implications for Management................................. 67

III. Management Measures .................. .............................. 67

A. Sanctuary Goals and Objectives 68
B. Sanctuary Administration and Operation...................... 71

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration....... 71
2. Department of Natural Resources........................ 72
3. Bureau of Sanctuaries and Natural Reserves ............ 74
4. Intrarelationships Between Sanctuary Administration
and Other DNR Components.............................. 77
5. Sanctuary Headquarters/Visitor Center................. 79
6. Surveillance and Enforcement Program 82

C. Interpretive Program....................................... 91
D. Resource Studies Plan.................................................. 101

IV. Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative................ 129

A. Boundary Alternatives ........ 129
B. Alternative Visitor Center Sites ......... 129

C. Alternative Management Measures ........................ 138

1. Alternative I - Status Quo ........ 138
2. Alternative 2 - Preferred Alternative ................. 139
3. Alternative 3 - Low Cost, Low Profile ...... 140
4. Alternative 4 - High Cost, High Profile .... 141
5. Alternative 5 - Non-Regulatory ....... 0000000*60*900000 142

V. Environmental Consequences--Impacts on Resources ................ 143

A. Introduction ................ 143

1. Preferred Alternative. . 143
2. The Status 144
3. Alternative 3 - Low Cost, Low Profile .... 144
4. Alternative 4 -.High Cost, High 144

B. Environmental Consequences--Boundary Alternatives....... 145
C. Environmental Consequences of the Main Visitor Center ...... 145
D., Environmental Consequences--Alternative Management Methods. 147

VI. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Socioeconomic Effects ........... 155

VII. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity........... 155

VIII. List of Preparers............. 157

.IX. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copi.es... '159

X. Bibliography ......................................... I ............. 163

XI. Summary of DEIS Comments and NOAA Responses .......... 173

XII. Appendices ................... 251

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure. Page

1 National Marine Sanctuary System,.,,,,, 6

2 DNR Proposed.Puerto Rican Sites ................................. 9

3 Proposed Boundary 14

4 Regional Context ................... I ............................. 16

5 Regional Access ............... 17

6 Natural Factors ................................................ 18

7 Natural Factors Profile ............................. 19

8 Area I Montalva/Fosforescente................................ 25

9 Area II Poblado..... 26

10 Area III Sucia/Salinas ....................................... 27

11 -Typical Mangrove Profile ....................................... 30

12 Existing Recreational Use ..................................... 39

13 Organization Chart of DNR's State Forests, Sanctuaries and
Natural Reserves Areas ......................................... 78

14 Proposed Recreational Use ...................................... 96

15 Proposed Water Quality Sampling Stations for the LPNMS......... 114

16 Site Selection Matrix .......................................... 130

17 Site 131

18 Proposed Cabo Rojo Visitor Center Site ......................... 133

19 Proposed DNR Visitor Center Location Map ....................... 135

2U Selected Alternative Sites ..................................... 136

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Coral Reefs Within the Proposed La Parguera National,
Marine -24

Annual Income of Local [email protected],.....@@...'@ .... 41

3 Wholesaler's Price Per Pound to Fishermen...-,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 43

Physical, Chemical and Biological Parameters and Suggested
Frequency of Measurement for Water Quality Monitoring ...... 115

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ARPE Puerto Rico Regulations and Permits Administration

BUSANAR Bureau of Sanctuaries and Natural Resources with the
Forest Service Area of the Puerto Rico Department of
Natural Resources

CODREMAR Puerto Rico Marine Resources Development Corporation

CODREMI Puerto Rico Mineral Resources Development Corporatio!@,

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DNR Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQB Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

LPNMS La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary

MUU Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NMFS U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSP National Marine Sanctuary Program

NUAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

PRASA Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority

SPO Sanctuary Programs Uivision

Note to Reader:

This document is both a final management plan and a final environmenta 1
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 D--Purpose and Need ............... I

Alternatives

Preferred Alternative ................................... Part III, Management Measures .................. 67

Preferred Boundary Alternative .......................... Part 11. Management Context,
Section B, Location and Boundaries ........... 13

Other Alternatives ...................................... Part IV. Alternatives ......................... 129

Affected Environment ...................................... Part 11, Management Context ... 13
Appendix A. Coral Reef Desc@ip*ii;@;:::::::::..A-1
Environmental Consequences

A. General and Specific Impacts ........................ Part V. Environmental Consequences ............ 143

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental ................... Part V1, Unavoidable Adverse
or Socioeconomic Effects Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects ...... 155

C. Relationship between Short-term Uses of the ......... Part V11, 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 ....... 155

U. Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action ...... Part 11. Management Context 5ection F,
Action and the Objectives of Federal. State Issues and Problems Associated
Regional and Local Land Use Plans. Policies with the Resources ........................... 57
and Contacts for the Area Concerned

List of Preparers ....................................................................................... 157

List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons Receiving Copies of the
FEIS .................................................................................................. 159

vi i

PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

A. The Final Management Plan/Environmental impact Statement

A final management-plan/environmental impact statement 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 I, Introduction and Summary, summarizes the proposal, provides
infoFm-atio7n on National rine Sanctuary Program.and the history of the
proposal.

Part II, Management Context, provides a general background of the area.
It discusses tWe -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. TTree 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 an'd
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. Over the long-term, new staff proposed
would include a sanctuary manager, a part-time natural ist/ranger, 3 full-time
rangers, 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
activities and establish a permit system under which certain prohibited
activities may be allowed. The regulations will not prohibit traditional
fishing activities.

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. Uiscrete 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.

Une 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 i,nformation into a retrievable data resource-information
system. Uther 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 sanEtuary. 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. Wring the week and at certain times of the
year, the several quest houses are not filled to capacity. An emphasis on
resource oriented programs may increase the number of visitors to La Parguera.

Uverall, the environmental consequences of sanctuary designation would be
positive, with both short and long-term benefits to residents, visitors and
the natural environment.

B. Impacts on Fishing Activities

Public review and comment reveal ed considerable misundertanding about
the effects proposed sanctuary on small scale commercial fishing activites
and the fishing community. NOAA believes that the proposed sanctuary at La
Par-guera will benefit the fishermen of Lajas. The effects of the regulations,
clarification of changes to the Designation Document, an additional goal and
objectives aimed at fishing enhancement, fishery projects, construction of a
boat dock or ramps and delineation of the sanctuary on NOAA charts will all
benefit the fishing community. These points are discussed in more detail.

Effect of Regulations

Contrary to the belief of these reviewers, NOAA does not intend to
restrict or prohibit commercial fishing as part of establishing the proposed
sanctuary. With the exception of small areas proposed for consideration as
underwater trails, the proposed regulations do not impose restrictions on
commercial fishing. No additional restrictions have been placed on gear or
boats and fishermen will be able to continue to use the same boats and gear.
The introduction to the regulations specifically list commercial and sportfishing
as activities that are not regulated. Furthermore, NOAA believes that the
proposed regulations directly benefit the fishermen in several ways. Three
regulations, 939.7(a) (2)(1) a nd (ii) and (a)(6), specifically prohibit
approaching closer to a fishing vessel than 2UO feet at a speed greater than
3 knots; prohibit interfering with any fishing activities and prohibit
disturbing or tampering with any legal fishing gear. These regulations
protect the right of the fishermen to conduct their traditional fishing
activities unhampered by other uses of the sanctuary.

In addition, regulations protecting the coral reefs and red mangroves
(939.7(l)(i) and (ii)) assure that these resources, which provide vital
spawning,nursery and adult habitat for commercially valuable fish species,
will be protected. Similarly, the regulation prohibiting the use of poisons,
electrical charges and explostves will protect the reefs and other habitats
important to the fisheries resources from damage.

Finally, the regulation prohibiting discharges (939.7(3)) will maintain
and improve the water quality necessary for the viability of commercially
important species. At the same time, this regulation does not burden fishermen
because it exempts the discharge of indigenous fish or fish parts from the
prohibition (939.7(3)(i)).

The reef areas where trails may be'established and where fishing would
be prohibited are small. The areas at Enrique would be a maximum of .44 km2,
and San Cristobal .1 km2. The area at Turrumote I would be of comparable
size. NOAA does not believe that out of a sanctuary containing approximately
66 square miles, that the areas set aside for underwater trails are either
unreasonable or unduly restrictive.

Changes to the Designation Document

The final management plan and HIS contains additional language reaffirming
the right of the fishermen to use tMe area. The Designation Document (Appendix
E) which serves as the "constitution" for the sanctuary and cannot be modified
without going.through the entire designation process, including public
hearings, gubernatorial and presidential approval, has been modified to this
effect. Article 3. Characteristics of the Area which Give It Particular
Value, has been expanded to recognize that the area contains signifi-cant
Trs-hery resources and is the location of traditional fishing activities.

Goals and Objectives

A new fifth goal has been added to the final Management Plan, Part I.
C.--National Marine Sanctuary Program and (Part III. A--Sanctuary Goals and
Objectives). This goal provides that one of the purposes of the sanctuary is
to promote and enhance traditional small scale artesianAl'and sportfishing
activities through habitat protection, research and regulation. Associated
with the goal are five objectives that benefit'the fishermen:

Goal V - Promote and enhance traditional small scale artesianal . and
sportfi-s-Ti-ing activities through habitat protection, research and regulation.

Objectives:

1. Develop regulations that protect habitat important to fishery
resources, such as reefs and mangroves.

2. Develop regulations that protect water quality.

3. Provide regulatory protection for legitimate fishing activities.

4. 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.

5. Design and implement a research and resource study project that
addresse.s commercially important fishery speci.es such as conch..

In addition to the new goal and objectives, a new objective has been
added to Goal IV (Provide for maximum compatible public and private use of
the sanctuary). This new objective,provides for community use of the visitor
center for public meetings and discussions. This will benefit the fishermen
by providing an additional meeting place.

Conch Assessment and Dock Construction

In the DEIS/Draft Management Plan NOAA proposed.a Conch Fishery Stock
Assessment (Part III, D, Resources Study Plan). This assessmet has been
expanded to include a possible conch seeding project similar to those,conducted
by the University of Puerto Rico.

The final management plan (Part III. C--Interpretive Program) also
provides for constructon of a dock or boat ramps. This dock would be used by
both general public and the fishermen and provide the fishermen and the public
with an additional point of access to the water.

Delineation on NOS Charts

Finally, once the sanctuary is designated, the location of boundaries
will be delineated on NOAA charts for the area. This will alert ships and
boats that the area contains important and -fragile resources and that extra

SISTEMA NACIONAL DE SANTUARIOS MARINOS

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY SYSTEM

c.n Point Reyes/
Farallon Islands

Channel Islands

-n

care should be taken in passage. As a result of reduced speeds and extra
caution, incidence of damaged fish pots, nets and.lines resulting from boat
traffic and propellers will be less likely.

In addition to these direct-benefits to fishermen, NUAA believes that
the protection and maintenance of a high quality environment and the sanctuary
facilities will benefit the fishermen as well as all the residents of the
area.

C. 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 198U), 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 (NUAA) through the National Ocean Service's Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (UCRM), 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.
In Puerto Rico the goals of the national program are to:

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

0 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

0 Provide for optimum compatible pubfic and private use of special
marine areas*

� Promote and enhance traditional smal I scale artesional and sport
fishing activities through habitat protection research and
regulation.

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.

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.

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 Sanctuary consists
Tf-marine waters off the California coast north of San Francisco that
contai.n 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 Pin -e Key. It contains a well@
developed coral reef and a diverse marine community that support
high recreational use.

0 The U.S.S. MUNITOR National Marine Sanctuary protects the
M@
wreck of the well-known vil War ironclad, which is located
in the waters southeast of Cap@e Hatteras, North Carolina.

U. 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 Parquera, 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
DNk to eliminate the Cordillera/Culebra site from further consideration and
to develop draft management plans and environmental impact statements on
the proposed La.Parquera and Mona/Monita sites. The decision, was made to
proceed first with La Parguera. A DEIS scoping meeting was held in Washington,
D.C..on July 22, 1981.

0 C E A N 0 A T L A N T I C O
Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
San Juan
National
Marine

Sanctuary Desecheo
MayagDez
Figure 2 Ponce
Lugares de
Puerto Rico PUERTO RICO
Propuestos
Por el DRN Mona/Monito Cordillera/Culebra/Vieques
DNR Proposed
Puerto Rican La Parguera Cayo Berberia/ Salinas/Jobos
Sites Caja de Muertos
lugar propuesto
proposed site M A R C A R I B E

lugar escogido
chosen site

kilometros
kilometers
Evelyn Wilcox 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
and Associates
McLean, Virginia 0 10 20 30 40
milles N
miles

In February 1983 a Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement for La Parguera was distributed for public review and comment. Un
April 12 and 13, 19'83, NUAA/DNR held public hearings on the document at La
Parguera (Lajas) and in San Juan. The period for public comment closed June
2, 1983. This document contains the final management plan and environmental
impact statement for the proposed La Parguera site.

E. General Context for Planning

The island of Puerto Rico is part of the NO 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 9UU,OOU in 1968 to approximately
1.7 million in 198U, with some annual changes reflecting recession and recovery
of economic activity in the mainland. Tourist expenditures were at the level
of $2UU million at the beginning of this period, and $61b million in 198U.
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 Parquera 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 di'noflagellates (Pyrodinium bahamense) which actually
produce the light.

F. 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 still 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 Parquera marine resources, important marine communities such as
some mangroves and seagrasses lack legal protection. Unsite surveillance and
enforcement actions by UNR Rangers and Federal agents are presently limited
by lack of personnel. Neither the Commonwealth nor 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 196U 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 "dioluminescent bays of Puerto Rico" also

advocating the bay's long-range preservation. Although protection has been
considered since 196U 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
-This report was simply another eiample 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 arecreational 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.

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 U 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.

13. . 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
@@oundary of the La Parguera Natural Reserve at Punta Sombrero to Cabo Rojo
to Punta Aguila on the southwest coast and seaward to the edge of the shelf at
the lUU 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, bioluminescent
bays, and seagrass beds. The proposed boundary coordinates are:

ft . 1ko . Latitude Lonattgde Pt. No. 1&titude Longitude
3-1 17-57-15.00 67-12-50.00 3-12 17-52-08.29 67-04-38.59
3-2 17-56-20.36 67-11-52.00 3-13 17-52-33.66 67-04-05 '.56
3-3 17-55--56,,25 67-11-09.16 3-14 17-52-41.86 67-03-14.66
3-4 17-52-54.79 67-11-09.16 3-15 17-52-25.95 67-02-46.07
3-5 17-52-56.19 67-10-10.13 3-16 17-52-32.05 67-02-28.82
3-6 17-52-32.19 67-09-30.74 3-17 17-52-53.65- 67-02-03.24
3-7 17-51-53.88 67-08-38.35 3-18 17-53-10.06 67-01-16.09
3-8 17-51-39.22 67-07-55.81 3-19 17-53-03.68 67-00-42.29
3-9 17-51-39.21 67-07-,10.57 3-21) 17-53-19.81 66-59-33.56
3-10 17-51-51.82 67-05-57.46 3-21 17-53-51.37 66-58-00.00
3-11 17-52-05.29 67-05-27.63 3-22 17-56-43.00 66-58-00.00

SCALE 1:100,000
Nautical Miles
0 3 4 5 6 7 a

67' 18.=,otI.ow FT. 15' X=240," FT. 10, 05' X-280.000 FT 67'00'
-T CA San German
`7 Puerto Sabana
Punta Carenero Real 17ROJO MUNICIPIO DE SAN GERMAN 0
M
S
Y=8o.CID0 M 4* Lajas

Boclueron Natural Reserve
Punta Guaniquilla (Boqueron State Forest)
oqueron.
.0 U
P R R
BA HIA DE
BOQUERON
MUNIC
IPIO DE MUNICIPIO DE LAJAS
CABO ROJO

IR .. rv,
BoquerQn Nato a
'fo'@e'
18-00, (Bogueron Bird R

Punta Melones

4PEI Combate
=1".'y1'-'a"'-"" La Parguera
. .........
13
*Pole Ojea Isla Cunva.. 17
V
Isla Magueyes
15, .--
M
Boqueron Natural Reser@ve .... . ........ _T@ate,
(Boqueron State Forest) I I G ca. Ide Fasthr e'ej
@14 Guanica State
u'y
Pu
Mon Iva
Pont. Aguila B,,hi. Bahia Su i unta 9. 2- 0
M.lin. 0 Punt
Punta 17 S..b
3-2 Pitahay.: 2-1 20, ai 3-22
Y-@D,000 FT,
Punta 2,* 4 % % (2-16)
Jaguey Bortueran Natural Reserve 22,
(Borlueron State Forest) : N C@@ dI
c- 4", e:@Ny' In 1-23
CABO (3-3)
ROJO
'Ir It'
23 ATURAL RESE
LA PARGUERA N RVE
55'

1-21 (2-15)
(3-21)
c' . . . . . . .
127 Sh@.' 1'@- 8" @ C2 -20)
1-2 . . . . . . (3
lou lo IQ- 1. 1-20 (2-1d)
200 159"' 121 (3-13)
129
1o5 (2-7) ___1 1 (2 13; 333
2si 1-3 -4 1-5( (3-11) @9_, Y-19) 398
-4) 1-11(2-5) 1-14 @@l 3,12
332 1-6 1-16 (2-10)(3-16)
364 329 (3-6) (3-12) (2-8) 1-15 307 43s
Q6 353 1-12 (2-6)(3-11) (2-9)
1-7 237 375 491 517
NAMES OF IDENTIFIED 518 1-9 (2-3) 1-10(2-4)
REEFS OF LA PARGUERA (3-7)3m 1-8 2-2 219 (3-9) @sa 439 490
(3_8) 2@ 5(Xi
NO
I T. snot- 11 1 13 - Lo Patina For Information on the t
2 - RITZ- 14 - La Conserva proposed boundary, refe
3 - Co-i (E-raodiQ) 15 - Vieques In the environmental I
4 - Tom "Ite 1 16 - L. Pelatas
50' 1 - 1-oles 17- Sun Cristobal
FT. 6 - La Gata 18 - Collado
7 - Media L no 19 - La Raya
8 - Eririqueu 20 - At ,,,ado B N
9 - Muria 21 - Laldia E A
10 - Cabollo A haganto 22 - El Pat. NOTE
11 - Coballo Blanco Margarita Soundngs and depth c-e C A
12 - Laurel alnes are In IafienroI
L _J
17-48' - I I , 1, 1 1
67-18' -200.000 FT. 15, X-2@0,000 FT. 10, 05' -80.uD() F@. 67*00'

LEGEND
TURNING POINT OF BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 1 MERCATOR PROJECTION
))P

Tta

1 21) 'a

('3_20)

(3
1-6 1 ll@ @2 @5) (2-8
(3 @6)@
's 217
1_ 10
(2

PUERTO RICO STATE PLANE COORDINATE
(D 2-1 TURNING POINT OF BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE 2 A.
SYSTEM -ZONE 1
BOUNDARY OF NATURAL RESERVE
PUERTO RICO DATUM
x 2 IDENTIFIED REEF OF LA PARGUERA WITH REFERENCE NUMBER SCALE 1:100,000 P
C) 3-1 TURNING POINT OF B01JNDARY ALTERNATIVE 3 (Preferred Alternative) NATI

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., 1,5UU 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, middlej
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 Ba.hia 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 Parquera's bioluminescent bays continue todraw, 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 0A. A T L A N

Sant uario
Marino I
Nacional '.k
La Parguera
National BAHAMAS
Marine
Sanctuary
Figuire 4
Contexto
CUBA REPUBLICA
Regional DOMIN ICANA
Regional
Context PUERTO RICO
ST.
cy,
HAITI ISLA E VI
JAMAICA MONA
ST. ROIX
3 A=eso FW9"sl
#1*&n&JAcc*sx

M A C A R I B E

koomfets
0 50 100 2W wo 4w 5w

0 50 100 2W
N

Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates
McLean, Virginia

0' C E A N 0 A T L A N

Santuario
Marino
-Nacional
WN-A
-.Af.
La Parguera 0

Marine
Saw
isW,
T@
W,
Mary -WI IA,.,
Figure 5 IAOa&NAOdb
Acceso
Regional
- - - - - - - - - -
Regional
Access
cuts Pro
aprox. 2
ad amopus" PMI*ffm
aipw * 40pprOX

CONrAbOdM; I II
M A A C A R I B

W
2

La PWOU"

6 a a 30 a

a so 0

Ev*n W&W
wW Assodates
McLeaj% Virawa

Santuario
Marino .
Nacional
La Parguera
National
Mafine
Sanctuary
Figure 6
Factores 11.5 114 .5
16 -113
Naturales
bama Owls 0
Natural 20 .11 6
Factors 22 021 2
bo
afteclies do coral
OD
ca 23
play. ---
beach

manglates
mangroves to

come locosa
lucky coast

babla b1olumini acento
b1oluminescent bay M
laguna h! persalina M-- Rasma Nafumi &)quafdn
saltwater lagoon LIL-j
dapdstios do arana. M . 6
P, alas
as
sand deposits colind U so
pladeras submaginas propos
seagiass bodr M A R C A

kwftwMa do cordomas on brazas coal,
conaft" sle" In 820101"
ITuffumow 11 9 Made I? Un Cftl&W
k0mouce 2111DOWD 1WCAbaftAhoq&d6 laconeft
I Cabello Slanto , 19 La Rays
0 1 1 il .3 4 a 4 112 Laurel 20 Atrave"do
Evelyn S. WilcoX a`06Jhmw%mm=P"wm6wwmf@ 6 colacoles 13 U Pakm :21 Lo kxft
and Associates a I I 1 2 3 1 4 a Le asta 14 L& CIMUWV8 U El Palo
McLean, Virginia I Mesa LUM ISVISOM 0 maroom
ME" rAuft" a cave Ewhpa is Lee Pow"
naLftalaws

Santuario,
Marino
Nacional
La. Parguera
National
marine
Sanctuary bm" apsm a WAN nhdka% 11 mmms"s
Figure
Perfil de, Natural
Factores Factors boum pO&"WMW dW W-UWMhw b*
lowpmamowly
Naturales. Profile

*.'.* . ........ .
..............
. ......... . ..
. ................

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

@A -T

17.

0.1

Courm 11agmshipmWInal zmadsmwWarn pradscadeMstaslis wrwJlo do COM Y nNUVIAM affedle tmXmNft bords del MN
hills Isalfwalarthil I Ilkwe manrms s"Oress beds Own$ met with manumvem submerpd mI ahelf sdaw
Evelyn S. Wilcox comwdded" bMdak" "dd
del formb woma unklefte bmIdaW
and Associates a Isnowo =mwermoolsomm I
McLean, Virginia bmthic "mmmm" bwok ammunifies;

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 111.

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 alluvial 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 5UU-1,2UU mm (2U-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 Uctober. Most of this rain falls during a period of
several weeks and only for short durations (Guinones, 19b3). 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,contrlbutes 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 77*F. 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 evaportranspi ration
Is In the order of 1,9UU - 2,20U 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 20OF (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 10 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 (61.70F), torrential rains (about 203 mm in a 12-hour period i.e.,
Hurricane Edith, 1963), and very strong winds (close to 80 km/hr--50 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 Ommunication)
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 surfac@ 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
a6d 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 (iOO feet) at the edge of
the shelf.

Tides can*be characterized, as summarized by Coker and Gonzalez (1960),
and confirmed.by Glynn (1.973); as follows:.
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 southwes tern 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 Tha"la-s's'ia 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 developi.ng need for offshore sand for construction
aggregate for Pue.rto 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 directlysouth 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 a*nd,
possibly, the southern limb by the coral reefs on t.he'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 re presentative 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 reeft.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 a]., 1977) in the
back reef aprons. Scattere@_TtTFo_ughout 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 eventually.becoming
mangrove cays (Welch, 1962). Formation of these cays is dependent on the
upward growth of Porites hillocks (the Porites biotope)*. The windward crest

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 111,
(Figure 10), the westernmost portion of the proposed LPNMS, features Bahia
Sucia and Bahia Salinas with the Cabo Rojo.tombolo separating the two.

TABLE 1

CORAL REEFS WITHIN THE PROPOSED LA PARGUERA NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

REEFS LATITUDE LONGITUDE

1. Turrumote 11 17055.81 N 66058.41 W
2. Romero 17057.1 66059.71
3. Corral (Enmedio) 17056.8 67000.51
4. Turrumote 1 17056.3 67001.21
5. Caracoles 17057.9 67002.11
6. La Gata 17057.9 670U2.4'
7. Media Luna 17056.4 67002.81
8. Enrique 17057.4 67002.8'
9. Mario 17057.2 67003.31
IU. Caballa Ahogado 17057.9 67002.91
11. Caballo Blanco 17058.1 67003.01
12. Laurel 17056.6 67003.81
13. La Palma 17057.6 67004.41
14. La Conserva 17057.7 67004.9'
15. Vieques 17058.U 670U4.31
16. Las Pelotas 17057.6 67004.4'
17. San Cristobal 1.7056.7 67004.21
18 Col lado* 67004.7'
19: La Raya 17057.1 67005.11
20. Atravesado 17056.6 670U5.2'
21. La India 17056.3 67005.11
22. El Palo 17056.0 670U5.51
23. Margarita 17'055.2 67006.71

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

Santuario 7
Marino Q 4
Nacional
rguera ---------
Sam Mon"ba
La Pa
Cb
National cmacoln V
JI
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 8
Area I -
Montalva/
Fosforeseente %

arredles de coral M-
"at'reels M3

pay.
beach
tIj IMMON"
afangraves TUBUMON I

costa mcosa
rocky coast
b" WhIlmi Scante "S -S-
bwaminescans bay Timm"

p,adwaS SubnWhl&S
'eagrass beft
casefts El

Especle
two
Endangered Spedes
alcallax
blown pefican

manatf

conakn shown in
manatee as COBANAM an bi-

t" todugas malum U&,W.
a" butte J
Evelyn S. Wilcox
.and Associates
McLean, Vifglnla

Santuario r4 10 Cp
Marino fly
Nacional ID a
La Parguera A Isis
National culkwa OVW%-
Cabaffio
Marine
Sanctuary Coca a La Consma

Posolas
Figure 9.
Area 11
Poblado M-01

"facifes do coal
car ),grols
Aleavesed1j,
manawas
Inanfroves
La
cast& f0co" Q= I
focky coast
El Paso
b" b1olumini scents
bwUmInescent bay

poadwas. subinninss
sesprass beds
63,
ca"I" L/

Especles on
do E,%U
Cr
n
7.7 ".97.
10
Endangered Specks

blown Poncen do coramnas an twalas
CMWWS SAOWn 0 2309WOS
too Indugas mminas
son funks !=U-l
a 6 2 3
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 1 0 .5 1
McLean. Virginia i =M= N
S. Cdg;:5

Munkivie oo Cma PAID

Santuario, 7-7 i ------- -
- - - --- - - - - -
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
--- --------
National Punfil 7,2
AQUila
Marine
sanctuary
Figure 10 Bah(4 sajkwa
Area III
Sucia/Salinas

arraclies do coral %
Corsi tests 1K.

playa

Cabo Roo
manglares I MI.
mangroves \X
cosla f6cosa
farAy coast
lagunatilpeisauns,
3a)IW8101 #8gW4
depdSilos do area& M
"ad deposits L
_j

piadetas submarinas.
seagrass beds z
X"

Especles an PaRgro
do ExUncl6n
Endangered Species

manatee

las lotlugaa marinas
sea tunias an twelas
0
Eve FYR S. -wilcox
and Associates
McLean, Virginia
naWcaf Rubs

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 oversFading by tree cover.

The Porites biotope (referred to in the previous paragraph) is a major,
7
although probab y transient community of these as well as of the outer shelf
reefs. Un 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
hurricane-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.
Uuring storms of moderate to high intensf-ty, 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
detail 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).

Uf 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 IU). 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
coel enterates. 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
La Parguera
National
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure 11
Perfil
mangle rolo
Tfpico de red mangrove r
Manglar mangle negro
black mangrove
Typical mangle blarm
Mangrove white mangrove
C=) Profile Tipos de Mangle Canal del Manglar
Types ot Mangrove Mangrove Channel

NONE rMEN.,
win
N
N
-N
4 - -a-111-11.
Uw .42
ROW.
iw
- --- --------
-40 0-
,ffA, I-I -, .1 -
X, - 14.
MIZ.
M

mar mangle rolo mangle negro mangle blanco mangle negro mangle rolo canal del manglar mangle rolo
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 in -ner 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
'), a species
are replaced by stunted black mangroves (Avic'e'n-nia g-er*minans
more tolerant of high salinities. Finally, sal nity 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) 96sin

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 fore@ts are'normafly 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, Laguncula*r'ia- rac"e'm-o"s-a. Sometimes the buttonwood,
Conocarpus erectus, is found within the innermosU reaches of the forest.
Va'rious species of decapod crabs are usually associated with either the soils
or the tree stems of these forests, for example, the fid.dler crabs of the genus
Uca, the colorful Goniopsis cruenata, and others. Many birds also use these
ha

(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 IU).

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 (Uonzalez-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.

Thalassla testudinum is the dominant seagrass in La Parguera followed
by U-M-odium filiforme, Halophilla �2. and Halodule wrightii. Turtle grass
Thalassia udinum) bed-s-75 southweste
teFt rn Puerto 1co are structurally Well
7Fie-Tr -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 leaf length were found to
be higher in deeper beds as opposed to shallower ones (Delgado, 1978).

From the intertidal zone to depths of about 1U m, Thalassia beds are
present. Large, well-developed meadows have generally B_e_en__oBs_erved 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 Thaliiiia' near offshore reefs, islets', and mangrove
islands with the sector i-s-g-en-er-aTly 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 Thada-s0a' to colonize both the leeward
and windward sides of these islands; i_t_c_o_mm_o_nTy occurs in association with
coral species such as Mil_16p6i@i 66rhol6hit6.and O6t6b6r'a_ 661rvic"o'h'is",

Thalassia is absent from the expos ed reef fronts which continuously
recei-ve-s-TFe-Tmpact of the incoming waves. However, on the innundated
central portion of the reef flats Thala'sisiii develops among the coral rubble.
Thailas'sia is also present in the sNa-TTo-wi-Figoon side of the reefs where it
occurs in a rather variable band just behind the reef flat..
t
Seagrass beds within the area display a high diversity.of niches 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 arid migrate
daily for feeding purposes. The endangered hawksbill sea turtle Ere'tmochelys
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. Thiliiiia' is the dominant seagrass, although SjHn'g'6diu'm-is
also very commo-n-77-am7pes of dead seagrass leaves plied up at the beach at
Bahia Sucia after a tropical storm consisted of 52% (dry weight) Thilaiiiia'
and 45% SyHhgodi6m.

e. ge'ache's'

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-Shor'es

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.

g. Bioluminescent Bays

Bioluminescence is fairly common in the open ocean, but rarely seen in
coastal bays. In the La Parguera vicinity there are two secluded bays which
support this environmental phenomenon (Figures 6, 8, and 9). At night the
waters of Bahia Fosforescente and, to a lesser degree, Bahia Monsio Jose-sparkle
when stimulated by a boat's wake, a school of fish, or a hand running through
the water. This is caused by the existence, in high concentrations, of the
light-emitting plankter, the dinoflagellate, Pyrodinium bahamense.

Bahia Fosforescente has a total surface area of 2UU,UUU square meters
while Bahia Monsio Jose contains 89,OUU square meters. - Water depth in' both
areas is approximately four meters (National Park Service, 1968). Both bays
are small, pocket-like, rocky basins with narrow mouths formed by weathering
and erosion. The.combination of these narrow entrances and the low rate of
seawater exchange (or flushing) create the ideal conditions for bioluminescence.
Along with the combination of rich nutrients entering from diverse'sources, the
restricted water movement within the bays creates a rare and delicate ecosystem.
The sources of nourishment for these dinofla:gellates are varied. Mangrove
trees surrounding the bays support a rich and diverse array of plants
and animals. Detrital matter from the mangroves along with waste products
from species associated with the mangroves supply necessary nutrients and
organic matter. Additionally, materials washed down from nearby uplands as
well as nutrients entering from the ope.n ocean add to the nutrient supply.

4. Rare and Endangered_Species

Many animal species in Puerto Rico are threatened with.extinction as a
result of destruction, disturbance of habitat, or hunting. Other species
with specialized habitats or limited distribution ranges are endangered, or on
the verge of being endangered', as a result of growing development pressures. A
list of the "Island's Rare and Endangered Animal Species" was prepared in 1973
by a committee of representatives of Commonwealth and Federal agencies and private
organizations for the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources.

The committee list described animals by degree of endangerment, cause of
endangerment, and location of habitat with respect to Puerto Rico. Some of the
species were rare throughout the world and listed in the U.S. as endangered
species; others were both rare in the world and in Puerto Rico.

The endangered animal list of the Puerto Rico Department of Natural
Resources includes many more local animals than does the Federa-l endangered
species list, since the local document concerns only the status of animals in
Puerto Rico. For example, the West Indian Tree Duck (found at Cabo Rojo,) is
not endangered throughout its entire range, but the local Puerto Rico population
is indeed threatened.

The following rare and endangered species selected from that list are
those known to occur in La Parguera. Four species endangered-worldwide and
protected under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the West Indian Manatee
(Trichechus manatus), the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmio-6helys im-bric'ata),
the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coHiceajand the pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis) frequent the proposed LPNMS (Figures 8, 9, and 10).
In addition the thr@atened loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green turtles
.(Chelonia mydas) have been sighted.

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 co6stalwatets, 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 a-re 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 c'ommon. 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 s.till taken each year in .
fishing n.ets.(Brownell, 1980).

b . Sea Turtles

The four species of threatened or endangered sea turtles are found within
the area of the proposed sanctuary: hawksbill,(Er-etmochelys imbHcita) green
(Cheloni6 mydas), leatherback (Dermochely-s- coriacea), and loggerhead_J@Caretta
.SarettaT.

The Hawksbill is found most frequently in 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 all 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.

ce Brown Pelicans

The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) of the Caribbean is a sea bird
that does not venture far from shore. 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 tolony.in Puerto Rico.

D. 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 munici'palities) 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 14,000, 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. Visitors

The fishing village of La Parguera is a center for recreational boating
and fishing, snorkeling, SCUBA diving, and sightseeing on the southwest coast
(Figure 1@, 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
Pon'ce, 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 an 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 guest
houses (241 'rooms), four cafeterias, and seven restaurants.

This variety of attractions, including t he 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 annua] tourist visitation
rate of more than 35,000 (DNR Mayaguez Office Statistics, 1981). The majority
of these visitors, according to resident-s, 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 and 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.

Santuaria, -o-
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National
..... .....
0:
P..
Marine
Sanctuary
Figure
USO
Recreativo
0-
Isla map"M 0
Existe'nte
CvO P.
Existing
Isla C'b'WNqda
Recreational Cuova commit
use Ibla
OL.P"as,
MOY&C"
a p6lifica
parqu
Puma
public park
Zip
Quayse
Cavo EVIFIQUII
ILO nalacidn M
swimming Eja CAOL Pay.
asilufacuillco f771
water skiing V-A
"Wrid staling" M
wli;i LA Alfavesads Laurd
arrociloo do coral
COIJ

a La k"A ram
a Pao

0
Evelyn S. Wilcox
------ 3
arld Associales a
McLean, Vifainla "Isoot

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 shallow 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 Guan1ca 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:

0 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.

According'to the survey, 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, (Servicios Legales de Puerto
Rico, October 1981).

Table 2. Annual Income

Municipality % Fishermen Below Poverty Level* Median Family InEome

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
ove.r 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 100 pots per fisherman,
with the average in the 20 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 fac'ilities. 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 ihe 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 fishermenss 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.

4?.

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

Locality Class I Class 2 C ass 3 Lobster Snapper Oct opus Conch

Parguera $0.85 $0.55 $0.25 $2.75 $1.15, -,$1.6'0 .$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 1.80 1.20
Playa Santa 0.85 0.65 0.35, 1.50 1.15 1,.25 1.25
Guanica 1.00 0.80 0.30 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 R.ico is
important in the consideration,.of La Parguer 'a as a proposed national marine
sanctuary. As noted in the Economic Profile of Commercial Fishing
(Appendix C),, although Lajas contributed,on ly 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 ent,ry,".consequently.play a significant part in the
subregional fisheries economy.

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, the .re 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.du.ring the 1977-78
period. In 1970,.Lajas fishermen's income averaged $2,027 which increased to
$3,044 during the 1977-78.period. However, data gathered as part of the'.
environmental assessment by Wilcox and Associates indicates that the annual
income of some full time fishermen.may be considerably.hi.gher and average
$15,000.

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 recreationa1 activity is $47.90 with a range
from $32.57 for cruising to $55.79 for linelfishi.ng.. Approximately 8,200
boats island-wide are currently registered forrecreational 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).

The Commonwealth, by Act of Congress, has control that includes all right,
title, and interest in and to and jurisdiction and authority over the submerged
lands underlying the harbor areas and navigable streams and bodies of water in
and around the island of Puerto Rico and the adjacent islands and waters, and
the natural resources underlying such submerged lands and waters, and includes
proprietary rights of ownership, and the rights of management, administration,
leasing, use and development of such natural resources and submerged lands
beneath such waters. Such control extends from the coastline of the island of
Puerto Rico and the adjacent islands as heretofore or hereafter modified by
accretion, erosion, or reliction, seaward to a distance of three marine
leagues (10.35 miles) (48 U.S.C. �749).

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 @oard (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;

0 Regulation for Control of Atmospheric Pollution' and

0 Regulation for the Control of Solid Waste.

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

Class SA - "Coastal waters whose existing characteristics should
not be altered in order to preserve the existing natural phenomena."

Class SB - "Coastal waters intended for uses where the human body
may come in direct contact with the water (such as complete body
submergence); and for use in propagation and preservation of desirable
species."

The waters of the bioluminescent bays in La Parguera are now
classified SA (see Section II.F.7, Issues Associated with Water Quality and
Population Growth, for more discussion).

(2) Planning Board (Law No..75,1 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 the 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, inclu-di-ng 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 revi.sed 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 PI-anning Board exercises its authority over physical development
directly, through the init.ial 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 fo *rmal
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 Subdi-visions
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 Dep artment 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 (DNR Rangers)
Law 82, July 7, 1979 (CODREMAR)
Law 145, July 2, 1975 (CODREMI)

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. (Also see page 43, supra).

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
a permit from DNR. These activities Include the cutting, killing, destroying,
uprooting or injuring any tree. In addition to the state forests any tree
within the maritime-terrestrial zone under Commonwealth jurisdiction is
subject to the provisions of the Forestry Law. This includes much of the
red mangrove areas outside state forests.

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;

0 the preparation of a DNR 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;*

0 an exemption for recognized scientific and educational use;

0 an exemption for any construction, dredging, or other .
activities conducted by permit granted by U.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 DNR; 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 applicable 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 efforced 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 responsible
for the commercial development of all marine resources in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. The Mineral Resources Development Company (CODREMI) was
created to develop the mineral resources of Puerto Rico, including those
found in the submerged lands.

b. Federal Statutes

In light of the recent amendments made to 48 U.S.C. �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-eit-sie"q-.)

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) bisch6r@6s

The CWA'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.

(b) Oil 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
stat6 that boats, 65 feet in length.and under, may use either Type I,
II, or III MSD's which must be certified by the Coast Guard. Types I
and II 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) Dredginjand-Dis6hargihg Dredjeid'Maiteriails'

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 wetlands, or the
transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into
ocean waters.,

f
(2) Marine Protection,' Research, and'Sanctu'aries Act o 1972 Title'!,
(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 seq.)

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 (COE). 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)
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

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 200 nmi offshore (the zone beyond the territorial sea). NMFS..
establishes guidelines and approves fishery management plans for selected . I
fisheries. These plans determine levels of commercial and sport fishing for
achieving and maintaining an optimum yield. Note, however, that although the
territorial sea of Puerto Rico extends to 3 nautical miles from the coastline,
Puerto Rico's jurisdiction over living and non-living resources has been. ..
by extended to 3 marine leagues, by Act of Congress. A legal opinion, prepared
by the Office of theAssistant 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 Zone, 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 ind 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,rno 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 1971 (BA)'(16-0A.C. MI-1541 e-t-s-eq
q.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (E@SA) provides protection for listed
species of marine mammals, birds,, fish, invertebrates, and plants. , TheFWS
and NMFS determine which species need'-protection and maintain a list of
endangered and threatened species. The most significant protection provided
by the ESA it 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 signi-
ficant environmental modification or degradation and acts which annoy listed
species to such an extent as to significantly'digr*upt 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 "result 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 U.S.C.,
1536). Critical habitat for.endangered species is designated by the FWS or
NMFS depending on the species.

(7) Coastal Zone Management Act of-1572 (16-O.-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 develop-
ment.in coastal areas. The Act authorizes a Federal grant-in-aid program to
be administered by the Secretary of Co 'mmerce, 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 require 'ments of the CZMA provide the
necessary direction to states for developing their coastal management programs.
The program development and approy 'al provisions are contained in 15 CFR Part
923, revised and published March 28, 1979, in the Federal Reqist6r.

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 agenci'es 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. Enforcement 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 Taw 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 UNR 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 San Juan handle administrative, not
operational, aspects of marine police enforcement. It appears that the Marine
Police seldom patrol La Parguera; 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 under state authori.ty.
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;
0 demands presentation and inspects any permit, fran"chise,
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;

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
violatiobs of the laws-administered by UNR;

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*Ao;

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 DNR; 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, 196U,
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. A staff of
five are assigned to the La Parguera area. This includes three rangers,
one sargent and a second lieutenant. Much of their time inside the
proposed boundaries of the sanctuary are spent at the two UNR 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 Boat 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 be the only law enforcement authority

patrolling coastal and marine waters of the proposed sanctuary area on a
periodic basis.

Thirty-one ONR rangers 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 Wildlife 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
jurisdicti.on'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 42U. There were approximately ten surface
craft @apable 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 eme'rgency 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 be 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 2UO 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
turt,le 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 duti-es associated with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, ESA, and the MMPA. His primary responsibilities also
include th'e preparation of legal cases to be tried under the various applicable
Federal statutes.

Altho.ugh the FWS 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 be
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; a..nd water quality and populat.ion growth. Any
existing mitigation.measures are discussed as well. How the management of
the sanctuary will address these roles i,s presented later inthis chapter,
(Implications for Management).

1. issues' and Problems Associated witli-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, Nat.ional
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 hamper'ing effectiv e protection
of the resources (see Section E, Legal/In'stitutional 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 a staff of five are currently assigned to the
area of the proposed sanctuary. Three of these are rangers and most of their
time must be spent at the DNR facilities in the village area. None have
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 FW S 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 AW"r ness 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 October 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-Liboy, 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 s'pecimen 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. issue-siand-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 without a permit, 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 where'any cutting,
damaging or injuring a tree without a permit is also illegal.

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.

Despite the Forest Act, 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 damage
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 Problem's''Asso'ciAe'd W1th*Bi6lu'min_esceht 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 plankton, Py-r*odihiu'm' ba-hame-n's'e', are present in Bahia Fosforescente
and to a lesser degree in Bahia MoFsio 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 microorganisms' 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 circul-ation 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 main,land

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
biolumi.nescent 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 notwithstanding, 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 addre.ss the problem and possibly restrict night
time lighting in areas surrounding the bays. Salt evaporation ponds adjacent
to this bay have periodic'ally 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.(Cfntron et
al., 1970).

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 ca Wmon Fff Puerto.Rico, manatees have become
endangered as a result of past hunting and habitat destruction in mudflats,
mangrovesi 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, personal communication 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 cd-rlaEea), and lo erheads (Caretta caretta
e--71(nown to freque t the waters of the proposed LPNMS area.-T-h
ar n e 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 communic.ation, 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 and Pr'o'blems*Associate*d 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.100 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.

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 the gravity main between the village and the plant is
defective and must be rebuilt. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Region II and the Puerto Rico Sewer and Aquaduct Authority (PRASA)
have entered into an agreement to correct the deficiencies in the sewage
collection and-treatment system at La Parguera as part of that agreement,
The system is scheduled to be operable by, July 31, 1985. Within 90 days of
that date the casetas must have either a self-contained treatment system or
hook up to the trunk line.

The Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers
have already taken steps to resolve the matter of the existence of the illegal
second homes. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the La P*arguera
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 Commonwealth
property.

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 preven ,t
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 Program 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;

� 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;

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

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

� Assess the conch fishery and provide recommendations for improvement.

The Administration and Operations Program would:

� 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

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

1. prohibiting the cutting or destruction of red mangroves
(khizophora 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; 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.
Sanctua@,Y Administration and Operation, Section B, discusses the various
actors involved in "operating the proposed sanctuary and their roles.
The proposed 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 InterpretiveProgram, 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 actio ns 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 a,ppreciation 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 habitat 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 of 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.

6 8

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 activit,ies.

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 1V - 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. Provide for community use of the visitor center for public
meetings and discussions.

Goal V - Promote and enhance traditional small scale artisanal and,
sportTT-sliTnTg activities through habitat protection, research and regulation.

Objectives:
1. Develop regulations that protect habitat important to fishery
resource,s, such as reefs, and mangroves.
2. Develop regulations that protect water quality.

3. Provide regulatory protection for legitimate fishing activi-ties
such as prohibitions on tampering with gear, and speed restriction's on
boats.

4. Deve lop sanctuary educational programs through coordination with
the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, CODREMAR, the Marine Advisory
Sea Grant Program, fisheries organizations and individuals that will
benefit fishermen and fishery resources.

5. Design and implement a research and resource study project that
addresses commercially important fishery species, such as conch.

B Sanctuary Administratton 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). T 'he Designation Document acts at a '
"constitution" for the proposed sanctuary and also functions as an interagency
agreement between DNR and NOAA specifically naming UNR as the entity responsible
for onsite implementation of the management plan. The Designation Document
can only be modified by goingthrough 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 Parquera National Marine
Sanctuary are to:

� Uevelop, 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 Parquera 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;

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

0 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;
71

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

- Eval'uate effectiveness of sanctuary management and regulatory
regimes; and

Review recommendations by onsite managers and take
appropriate action.

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.

0Review and grant jointly with the Secretary of UNR sanctuary
pe mit applications for activities to ensure consistency with
sanctuary regulations, and provide additional technical review
where necessary;

0Establish 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

0Pursue 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.

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 ma nagement agency are reflect ed below:

0 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 information
.collected on the sanctuary compatible with the national
Program data management system;

- Coordinate with NOAA to review research proposals and
pennit requests; develop and coordinate an on-site process
for reviewing and evaluating research proposals and permit
requests, ensuring input from 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 (l)-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.

0 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/SPD.

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

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

3. Bureau of Sanctuaries and Natural Reserves

A recent DNR reorganization has established a Bureau of Sanctuaries and
Natural Reserves (BUSANAR) within the Forest Service Area of the ONR. BUSANAR
will be responsible for administration of the proposed marine sanctuaries at
La Parguera and Mona. It is already responsible for the operation of the
Jobos Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary (Figure 13). 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 utili-
zation of existing DNR expertise. However, 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.

a. Bureau Chief

The Bureau Chief would have duties related directly to the operation
of the 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, NUAA, 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;

� Reviewing existing regulations and proposed rules, regulations,
and permit procedures and recommending modifications and revisions;

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

0 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 Bureau Chief's responsibilities would focus on the
following:

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

- Investigating the feasibility of merging the administration
of the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary with
existing ONR 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:

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

0 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 w4iich 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

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, five positions will be added. These will include the
sanctuary manager, a part-time secretary, a part-time ranger naturalist,
and two rangers. In the second year, an additional ranger would be added.
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:

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

The Advisory Committee would operate under the following guidelines:

0 The committee will meet at least 3 times a year;,

0 The committee will be limited to between N 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 BUSANAR*an'd Other DNA Components

Implementation of the management plan would necessitate cooperative
action by DNR components other than just BUSANAR. As an example, the
Office of Education and Publications would be responsible for the-actual
printing of sanctuary brochures. The Forest Service Bureau 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.
Accordingly, coordination by the sanctuary administrator with the rest of
DNR is critical to the operation of the sanctuary. This is particularly
the situation with the Ranger Corps, another DNR component who will have
surveillance and enforcement authority.

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 trainin they may
require (see Part III.B.6., Surveillance 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.

[SECRETARY

AREA CHIEF

.FOREST SERVICE FBUREAU OF SANCTUARIES1
BUREAU AND NATURAL RESERVES

DIV IS ION OF MARINE DIVISION OF,
AND ESTUAR I N E NATURAL RESERVES AND

SANCTUARIES WILDLIFE REFUGEES

ARINE SANCTUARIES ESTUARIAE SANCTUAR
SECTION SECTION
T
rJOBANES MANAG7ER]

[S ANCTUARY STAFF

FIGU@E 13 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF ONRIS STATE FORESTS
SANCTUARIES AND NATURAL :-RESERVES AREA

5. Sanctuary Headquarters/Visitor Center Facilities

In order to ensure that local citizens and visitors to the LPNMS gain a
better understanding and appreciation ofthe 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 3U4, 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 th e 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 UNR, NUAA, and property owners in the village
area would identify the most cost effective and appropriate location for a
proposed sanctuary headquarters /vi si tor 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 NOW

Onsite Surveillance
Program Services Administration and-thfor-c-e-me-n-t

Part time Sanctuary Rangers
naturalist Manager
STAFF or botanist-
REQUIRED biologist

* Secretary

Tour personnel * Maintenance
Staff

FACILITIES 0ne office * One office * One office
with space
REQUIRED for a secretay

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 boat
dock, or ramp is proposed for construction for use by the sanctuary staff
and the public.

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 sanctua.ry. 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 #3Ul 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 educational 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
by 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 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 Punta Sombrero. 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 11

-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 !I,''-Ma-n-a'g-e-ment-C-o-nteit, and protect resource
values which make.the_@_rop6_s_e_T LPNMS an importanT natural system.

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

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 reaffi rm 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.

The following sanctuary regulations will be proposed as final.
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 66.16 square nautical mile area of the
Caribbean Sea off southwest Puerto Rico. The exact boundaries are:

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

1-1 N17 57'15.00" W67 12'50.00" 1-12 N17 52'08.29" W67-04'38.59"
1-2 N17 56'20.36" W67 11'52.00" 1-13 N17 52'33.66" W67-04'05.56"
1-3 N17 52'58.51" W67 11'52.00" 1-14 N17 52'41.86" W67-03'14.66"
1-4 N17 52'54.79" W67 11'09.16" 1-15 N17 52'25.95" W67-02'46.07"
1-5 N17 52'56.19" W67 10'10.18" 1-16 N17 52'32.05" W67-02'28.82"
1-6 N17 52'32.19" W67 09'30.74" 1-17 N17 52'53.65" W67-02'03.24"
1-7 N17 51'53.88" W67 08'38.85" 1-18 N17 53'10.06" W67-01'16.09"
1-8 N17 51'39.22" W67 07'55.81" 1-19 N17 53'08.68" W67-00'42.29"
1-9 N17 51'39.21" W67 07'00.57" 1-20 N17 53'19.81" W66-59'33.56"
1-10 N17 51'51.82" W67 05'57.46" 1-21 N17 53'51.37" W66-58'00.00"
1-11 N17 52'05.29" W67 05'27.63" 1-22 N17 56'43.00" W66-58'00.00"

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.

(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) Kas 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).

8 5

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 (khiioohori.@Ah@le) 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) OperAi6n-of Ve's's*e"ls

(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) Diichi@gihj-6f'P6116tih�-Subitances

No person shall litter, deposit, or discharge any materials or substances
of any kind 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, untreated sewage from existing
shoreline stiuctures consistent with the agreement between Puerto Rico
Aqueduct and Sewer Authority and U.S. EPA Region II. This agreement specifies
that 90 days after operation of the sewage collection and treatment system
each structure must be tied to the system or have a self contained treatment
facility.

(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-Oamaging Cultural-Res-66rces

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

(6), bamage to*Fish Traps

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

(7) Taking of Sea Turt, es

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

(ii) No personshall 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 tojoreign 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,Se'ct.ion 9.3'9.10 (a), (c) and (d)
and is specifically authorized by the Assistant Administrator.

939.9 Penalties for'Commiss-ion-,-of Prohibited'Afts

Section 303 of the Act authorizes the assessment of a civil penalty of
not more than $50,000 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 iri 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 purposes and needed to better understand the Sanctuary environment
and improve management decisionmaking and judged not to cause long-term or
irreparable harm to the resources or for public health purposes, 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 therSanctuary, or (3) for salvage or recovery operations.@
(b) Permit appli,cations 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
re�ponsibility 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 Adm 'inistrator 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,

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,Adminittrator.
The Appellant may request an informal hearing on t-he appeal.

(b) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by thi's Section, the Admini .strator
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 forthat purpose, after first giving notice of the
hearing in the Federal Register. Such hearing shall normally be held no
later than 30 days foll'6wing publication of the notice in the Federal Register
unless the Hearing Officer extends the time for reasons deemed equitable. The

8 9

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 30 days, either upon
his/her own motion or upon written request from the Appellant, permit applicant
or Holder, stating the reason(s) therefor.

C 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 and cultural 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 naturalsystems 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., Management Context, F.
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 Uffice 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,OUO 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:

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

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

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

� sig@tseeing, 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 inte rpreter would
focus on facilities, materials, and equipment.

(1) Facilities

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.

0 Agreements for use of the University of Puerto Rico's facility on
Magueyes Island by sanctuary visitors wo4ld be investigated with University
officials.

0 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.

9 3

(2) Materials and Equipment

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

Uuring 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:

0 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.

0 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.

Designa Program of Exhibits and Activities

On the basis of an analysis of the user profiles and, the resource
facilities inventory, the interpreter, during Stage 1, would-design a program
of exhibits and activities for:

(1) Mangrove Boardwalk/Boat Tour

Onsite interpretation of natur@al 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 sr6all mangrove channel near Cueva Island
(Figure 14). The mangrove boardwalk tour would focus oh i,'nterpreting 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'andthe boat wou ld 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

Unde,rw6ter 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., shelfredge, Turrumote I), in.an effort to
reduce the chances of divers becoming disoriented.

For beginner and intermediate snorkelers, the westernmost secti*on 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, provides an
interesting area of approximately lkm2 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, stayhorn, 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 (2U ft.) and lined with numerous invertebrates.
Very interesting to,the visitor are large, overturned head 'corals; evidence'
of the passage of'fiurricanes in past years. The water dept -h ranges from
knee-deep water to about 6m. Underwater horizontal visibility is generally
very good.

9-5

Santuario
Marino
Centro de Visitantes
Nacional
del SMNLP
mous WhIsair "Bier
La Parguera
National
Marine
Sanctuary 0 0
Figure 14 1 a Sam&
0 040,6 16 tout"
Uso MARkm
Gmb&W Ahog�W car
calawl"
cub.. a . , Foxfore
"iffLaconmans
Recreativo or 41016LAGatil
Monsio Jqs6
44:& Pak"
Propuesto W Las Palwas buceo (sin tanque),
Guayacin a nivel de principiante
ruta por Los manglarer e intermedio
ouado
Proposed
excursidn en bote
Puma* beginning and
Quay"an manglovo b"idwalik Ito F1161*10
Recreational snoirikefing
hoat four
Use
buceo (sin tanque)
avanzado
palQue Pdbli "o
pu,,,, poi, advanced
orkefing
nalaci6n Auaasado San C11616bal Lauld S13
in
swimm 2
06qufacuslico fr7i 0 buceo (sin tanque), Tuffurriate I
water skiing La Iticlia a nivel de principiante
e intermedio
"wind suitino- beginnilrig and
wind suiting blifemadlate snorkeling
affecifes do Gofal
Corot tests
-veredas submarinas buceo (sin tanque)
underwater flails avanzado
advanced

kibinalsill
0 .5 1 3
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 2
McLean, Virginia maws fJL4iCa$
Inkis,
@N

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 W 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,jines 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
envi ronment .

(3) Uutdoor 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;

9 7

0 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 @esources 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 (years 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 and Cultural 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 and cultural 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. Attention will also be focused on the historic and
prehistoric occupations in the area. 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 purp *oses would be selected in
consultation with the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture, the Fundacion
Arqueologica, Antropologica 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 coul'd 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 /interpretive underwater sites for the prop'osed 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 Onvironment;,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.

9 9

(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.
'o the s ecial needs and concerns of user groups
Content would be oriented t
such as: snorkelers and SCUBA div@rs, 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 co nsu It ati n with the sanctuary manager and the
Administrator would prepare these resentations and would schedule only those
persons skilled in leading discuss ons for these program sessions.
(3) Research and Equcational Tours

Scientists and conservationis s, who visit the proposed sanctuary,
wouId be interested in ongoing res:arch projects as well as in touring the
proposed sanctuary.

For undergraduate and graduat students, who are science majors or who
have demonstrated a significant in erest in the proposed sanctuary, an educational
research cruise of the proposed sa ctuary area could be organized to introduce
these students to the field of mar nO research. A cooperative arrangement
with the research facility at Maqu yes 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 Yolunteers, 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 Edu ;ation and Public Affairs Office and others
in the field of communicati on and he 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.

100

D. 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"Pla"n'

This section of the proposed LPNMS Final 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, Lacustrine 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

101

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

TOPIC"I. 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 and Seed Project 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.

102

TOPIC NO. L Data/Resource Information Management

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 1973. 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:

0 To incorporate the existing data banks and information on the proposed
LPNMS into the NCERI of UNR.

0 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
D NR 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.

103

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. Infomation Needs@and Stu-d@-Object ives

It is well known that the proposed LPNMS site and its surrounding marine
habitats repr'esent a valuable asset to Puerto Rico in terms of its natural,
scientific, aesthetic and recreational attributes. 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.

104

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:

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 informatioin arranged
according to the following (tentative) outline:

I. General Uescription 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
U. Wind Velocity and Direction
E. Solar Radiation

V. Hydrology

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

105

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. Disturbances

A. Natural

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 Flowi

XI. Conclusion

A. Forcing Function

106

C. Yroducts

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-A-r-6a

LPNMS, Mayaguez, and San Juan

E. Related'LONMS'Studie-s'

The Final 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 and Status of the Wes t Indian Manatee
Population

2.- Information Needs and Study Objectives

Implementation of mana gement strategies for the.survival of any endangered
species depends heavily on a sound estimation of the population size. Reliable
estimates 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 (irichech u%I; mnatus), an
endangered species protected under the U.S. Endangered Spec_i_i_sAcf_. 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 objecti-ves 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.

107

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 conductedby sampling a minimum of 10 randomly selected
5 kms transects in a known sample area. Adjacent transects, if any, would be
1 km apart. Two observers would sit on the right side of the airplane 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 strut. 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 procedures 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.

Maps identifying manatee population trends, habitat preferences and
seasonal movements.

� Recommendations

� Information for the LPNMS Data Management System,

D. Study'Ar6a'

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

E. Related'LPNMS'Studie's'

None

F. Timing/Phasing

2 years.

108

TOPIC NO. 2. Marine Ecology

1. Study 2.2: Conch Fishery Stock Assessme'nt and Seed Project
in the Proposed LPNMS.

2. Information Needs and _St6dy*objective's

Queen conch (Str6m'bu's gi00 is used as food throughout its range
(Randall, 1964). It is one or 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.

� To determine feasibility and success of a pilot seeding project.

3. Study Description

A. Purpose
The main purpose of this stud@ is to provide the sanctuary manager with
a statistical data base onwhich to support management decisions concerning
conch in the proposed LPNMS including a possible pilot seeding project.
This information should be helpful in providing answers to the following
management-related questions:

Should conch shell fishing be regulated 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

109

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 sur,vey.and.creel census described
above, the conch shell stock in the proposed LPNMS would be categorized i,n
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 thestock 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.

4. Conduct an appraisal to determine whether a pilot conch seeding
project would be feasible. This would determine whether the seeding project
should be funded.

C4 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. If conch seeding is
feasible, that project will be made a high priority for implementation.

D. Study Area

ED. 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.

110

TOPIC NO. 3. Oceanography

1. Study 3.1: Circulation Patterns in the Proposed LPNMS

2. Information Needs-and Study 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 theAransport 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 oT-s7u-rface
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
distribution.

In situ salinity, temperature, depth, and turbidity recorders would be
used. Neinsity 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 carrent
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 LPNMS .. Studies

Information on tides and selected meteorolo gical 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'St6dy Obj6dive-s-

Man's activities in the proposed LPNMS and adjacent,lands could
significantly alter or change the existing ecological conditions within the
proposed sanctuary. Only 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.

112

0 To maintain this program and define the current status o'f 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:4.nd implementing a water quality
monitoring program for the proposed LPNMS is to quantify and provide an early
warning-system of the stresses imposed by,.manl@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 parti.cular use or
multiple uses in the proposed LPNMS.@

B. Methods

Sampling stations will be selected as representative -of the aquatic arear
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 la 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 1-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 areomidpoints within this system.
Station 7 is rep@esentative of a middle she-If reef system relatively free
of significant-intervention by man.

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

113

Estaciones.Propuestas para Muestreo de Calidad de Agua para e

oEl Combat@

C) Pais Disk 6 Ila ew 10. 4
16 A& (a
%
5 are
IOUs N.AG sell& jual

60
1116it"48*4 blail f6fast)
CABO ROJO

2-111

40
am (2-1

12-
an

oil
P71 2-2 1-10(" 4"
-n 1-1- as, Go in all
Q
cz proposed water quality sampling stations for the LPHNS.
ITS

Ln Ln

Table 4. Physical , Chemical and Biological 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-ni.trogen .,,..monthly
- Ammonia nitrogen monthly
- Hy drocarbons monthly-

Biological

Total coliform b.i -mo. nt hl y
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 man ual, "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.

116

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 Study Objectives

Human impacts on coral reefs are usually categorized In terms of pollution,
sediment 'ation, 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. Under-
water photographic and fathometer tracings should be employed to document
damage to corals.

117

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.

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

0 Possible establishment of mooring buoys.

D. Study Area

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

E. Related LPNMS 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 ree-f 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 Study 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.

118

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 tool for interpreting
the ecological value of the sanctuary's coral reefs.

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 typica.1 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. Bi-ological
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,conditi.on of the
trail system and its resources. This would consider natural vs. man-related
Aamage to corals'and trail structures. Locally pertinent processes of
natural damage would be evaluated. Among,these: storms, hurricanes, low
sali-nities, low ti,des, sedimentation and damage due.to biological activity,
-Visitor-related damage would be evaluated.in-terms of accidental breakage
of fragilespecies (,of coral), unauthorized coll,ections, the use by visitors
of certain species.(of coral) for resting, and delibe.rate, vandalism.

119

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 final 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 dwell-ers have been thoroughly identified. The
Department of Natural Resources has a s "mall 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 LP.NMS (Bioluminescent Bay)

2. Information Needs and Study Objectives

There are no reliable statistics as to the number of boats and people
that visit-the bioluminescent bay each year., Virtually al,l visitors to the
bioluminescent bay arrive, move about, or stay in boats du'ring 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.

120

The objectives of this study are:

0 To determine the number, type, and frequency of boats in the
bioluminescent bay.

.0 To develop a system. for monitoring boating activity.

0 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 t he proposed sanctuary during peak
visitor periods. These periods are related to the following holidays:

Washington's Birthday Labor Day

Good Friday Columbus Day

memorial Day Veterans Day

Independence Day Christmas

Commonwealth's Constitution Day

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 acti'vity through routine
boat patrols..in the sanctuary. For patrolled areas, the same data collected
on aerial surveys woul.d be recorded.

121

3. Conduct an inventory of all resident boats in the LPNMS.
This inventory would include the following information:

0 Name of owner

0 Type/class

0 Make

0 Length

0 Ports Authority Registration Number,

0 Other relevant data

C. Product's

� Narrative report and maps

� Boat and boating activity data for the LPNMS Data Management System

� Management recommendations

D. Study Area

LPNMS

E. Related LPNMS Studies

1. Study 3.2

2. Study 4.1

3. Commercial boat operator licenses issued by the Public
Service Commission.

4. Ports Authority listing by certificate of number for boats
and private crafts rented.

F. Timing/Phasing

One Year.

122

TOPIC NO. 4. Human Uses of the Proposed LPNMS
1. Study 4.4: Boating Activity i'n the Proposed L PNMS
(Seagrass Bed Areas)
2. Information- Needs -an''d'-St'udy-'Ob'j_e--cti'v'e's'

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 frequenty 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 Descrio ti6h

A. Purpose

This study will identify the levels and locationlof boating activities
within the proposed sanctuary.

B. Methods

1. Conduct aerial surveys of,the proposed san.ctuary 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' Con'duct an inventory of all:res'ident boats using the proposed
sanctuary (see itudy 4.3).

C. Products

0 Narrative report and maps.

� Boat data for the proposed LPNMS Data/InformatiQn Management System.

� Management Recommendations.

D. Study Area

LPNMS

123

E. Related LPNMS Studies

1. Study 3.2

2. Study 4.1

3. Study 4.3

4. Listing of commercial 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 Study 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. Study 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.

124

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

0 Narrative report describing the status of spearfishing in
the proposed LPNMS.

0-Maps identifying spearfishing areas within the proposed LPNMS.

0 Recommendations

0 Information for the LPNMS Data Management System

D. Study'0ea

LPNMS

E. Related LPNMS 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. Timin,g/Phasiho

One year.

125

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 abd Study 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 pl.aced. 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 Description

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.
126

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 (FY84)
Estimated
Topics Time
Project involved Requirements

1.1 Data/Info Mgt. 6 mo.

1.2 Resource Information 6 mo.

3.1 Oceanography I year.

3.2 Oceanography 6 mo.

Second Year Program (FY85)

4.1 Human Uses 1 year

4.3 Human Uses I yea r

4.4 Human Uses I year

2.1 Marine Ecology 1 year

Third Year Program (FY86)

2.2 Marine Ecology 1 year

4.2 Human Uses 1 year

Fourth Year Program (FY87)

4.2 Human Uses I year

Fifth Year Program (FY88)

4.5 Human uses .1 year

127

PART IV: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

A. Boundary Alternatives

Alternative boundaries for 'the proposed sanctuary were developed based
upon estimates of the distributi6n of natural resources in the area, the
current and anticipated activitil in the area and the logistics for management.
The following three alternatives%present reasonable and viable boundary
options (Figure 3).

1. Boundary Alternative .I consists of a 72.95 sq nm (244.90 sq km)
area and extenTs from Punta Jorobado- 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 Reserve 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 66.16 sq nm (226.97_-s`q-Tm_)_-aFiia_ and extends from the La Parguera
Natural Reserve boundary line in the east (Punta Sombrero) to Cabo Rojo
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
or Cabo Rojo.

The area of the final preferred alternative is slightly less
than as prepared in the DEIS. The boundary drawn in the DEIS intended to
exclude commercially exploitable sand deposits (Please see Part V B,
Environmental Consequences - Boundary Alternatives). Information provided
by the Department of the Interior as part of the DEIS review indicated
these deposits are slightly more extensive than previously determined
and consequently the boundary has been modified.

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, Punta Cabo Rojo, a
wetlands site proposed by the DNR Planning Office, the village land site,
village waterfront site, and the village overlook site (Figure 17). The
first five were dropped from further,consideration for the reasons discussed
below.

129

SITE SELECTION MATRIX
S I T.ES 'CONSIDERED
SITE Private
J?uhlic Owner r
0 ca ca V 0 0 0
V4j W cc V 0 W 40 W
SELECTION cc "10 cc Z ca 0 as Cd W, Q 0 @4
>%Q > cc " F-4 "410 'q 0 a "' "
01, 0-4 0.0 -1 ad -W -1 0 F-4" 0 r-4 a
ca 04 11 0 = co = a 0 = 0 44 co "4 0 W -A >
C [Tg@RIA lz 4 2 96 043 U 1-44 96 Q W. 5M 2C 6 > 4J7 > 3: 8 > a
Physical Site
Qriterla
Proximity to
Marine Resource 2 2 3 1 3 3 -3 3
Land Access 0 3 3
for Visitors 2 0 1 1 1
-Water.Access-Dock
Sgace for Rangers 1 1 3 1 2 2 .2 2
Marine
*:Orientation
3 2 3 3 2 0 3 3
View of
Marine Sanctuary 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 3
Adequate Space
for Parking 0 3 0 2 3 2 3 3
Adequate Space
gor Building. 0 3 3 3 0 3 2 3
Disturbance
to Resource 0 3 2 3 0 3 3 3

Socio Economic
'Qriterla
.Near preferred
marine use areas 2 2 0 1 2 2 3 2
#Near preferred
land use areas 3 1 0 1 3 2 3 2

High visibility.
from land 1 1 1 1 1 2, 3 3
High visibility
from water 2 1 3 3 0 0 3 3
Compatible with Natl
$Marine Sanct. Image 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3
,Land acquisition
costs 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1
,Site improvement 1
costs 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
,Building
costs 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2

22 30 29 30 @7
60tal Pgints f 31 41 40
Highest score meets criteria best 130 Figure 16

Santuario
Marino
Nacional
La Parguera
National
marine
Sanc(ua
ry
Figure 17
Alternativas
Isis 0
de Lugares
de Ubicaci6n ou
site
Alternatives cow Roo

ubicaci& do
ptopodad pabca 0

ubicwi6n do Area III Area 11 An
plopsedad piWaft

A C A R I

LUGARES SITES

U61"Guas 1. Mata de la Cata 1. Mata de la Gata
kmamews 2 3 4 a 6 2. Playita Rosada 2. Playita Rosada
Evelyn S. Wilcox 0 .3. Isla Cueva 3. Isla tueva
and Associates 3 4 4. Punta Cabo Rojo 4. Punta Cabo Rojo
McLean, Virginia 5. Terteno Anegado 5. DNR Wetland
nmas afidrAs Propuesto por DRN
nag#" ARVS @N 6 Terreno en el Poblado 6. Village Land
7: Terreno en el Poblado 7. Village Waterfront
a la Orilla del Hat
S. Terreno con Vista 8. Village Overlook
Panorimica del Poblado I I

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,
all of which were developed by DNR. Access to the island is 1-ess than W
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 5b-acre DNR managed island, located about W-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 head4uarters
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 loc 'ated
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 Uffice of Cultural Affairs of the Governor's Uffice 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

132

PA MIA Dir :800utoom

301

% IAXIA SUCIA

NAMIA SALSWAS
UBICACION DEL CENTRO
DE VISITANTES
'WA SITIG PROPUESTO EN CABO ROJ

PROPOSED CABO ROJO
VISITOR CENTER SITE

Figura 18
L PLANO LOCALiZACION-040 -- A ISCALA FIGURE IS'

133

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.

e. E@o@ed DNR Visitor Cehter/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, B., Sanctuary
Administration and Operation). 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 1 - 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

.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
Recreation and Sports and a portion could Pe obtained for the center.

134

VIP

.-A.

-.11" ',iz
'131

U4
Ln

PROPOSED DNR-VISITORS
CENTER
(as shown on.'proposed
La Parguera land use
planning map)

CENTRO DE VISITANTES PROPUESTO
POR EL DRN (seguln aparece en el niapa
de planific'acio'n y uso de terreno de
La Parguera propuesto)

.30
N.
Santuario
Marino
Nacional
%
40 .......
La Parguera '29
National
Marine Urre'no can Vista 23
Ar-
Sanctuary Tanorimica.del Poblddo@
V9149s Oresittok She

fN
Figure 20 N
Lugares de
Ubicac!6n
Alternos --:5, jTe
Escogidos
to 0
LA
Cr% Selected
Altemative Salk'!
Terreno en el Pob
Sites :8 Is Orilla del Ma
: VINsge Watedront Site

awnwares
5,0.
town squam
calls pavi-..ad.
Paved io&d

-M

bosmft sm kftpWb m6m do IM
asset! am A&Ipwa NWawW
contornos de tierra en pies
@w ofl" a oft
"woos
alaws
Evelyn S. Wilcox
and Associates 0 5w two
McLean. Virginia bet N -MAR CARIBE

c. Alternative 3 - Village Waterfront-Site

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.

137

C. Alternative Management Measures

1. Alternative 1 - 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 principal agencies responsible for guiding
coastal growth.

Applicable Federal statutes include:

0 Clean Water Act which regulates discharges of wastewater and
hazardous substances and oil;

0 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries,Act which regulates
dumping of toxic wastes into ocean waters;

0 Marine Mammal Protection Act which protects all species of marine
mammals; and

0 Endangered Species Act which provides protection for listed
species of animals and plants.

138

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 wat&.

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 -1. 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 Cabo Rojo in Stage II. Protective regulations would be issued
and at the field level five positions would be added--a Sanctuary manager,
.3 rangers, (one would be a part-time naturali.st) 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, bnderwater trails, small dock or
boat ramp, 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.

139

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 aria of La Parguera. Under this alternative there would be
no NOAA funds for construction of the facility. The ONR proposal also includes
a provision for the upgrading of La Parquera 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 Rosada, 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. 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 rangers already
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.

2 40

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 alternative 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. At La
Parguera there would be a manager, I 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.

141

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 iul the
sanctuary Interpretive Program. These boats would provide service to the
underwater trails, Bahia Fosforescente, and the mangrove channel tour.

5, Alter-n-ativ-e_-'5_' No-h-Rig6litory-

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
NOW This alternative would provide a visitor center, increased staffi.ng
and enforcement, an Interpretive Program, and Resource Studies Plan, but
would rely on the status 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 Organic 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).

142

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 theexisting 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 there would be
an additional prohibition on wastewater discharges from casetas and
enforcement 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.

14.3

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. 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. Enforcement of any prohibition on wastewater
discharges would be difficult.

The status quo would offer no Interpretive Program. Consequently, the
p.ublic 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 provi,de 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.

144

This alternative would provide the same Interpretive Program 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
substanti'ally-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
seag'rass bed areas within these bays that serve as habitats for the endangered
sea turtles and manatee would not be protected or managed. Alternative 1, on
the -other hand would include the larger area encompassing Bahia Salinas and
Bahia SUCi a. 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,

145

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 e)(isting 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 isalready 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.

146

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-5ite. A 6' wide by 20-30'
long dock would be adequate, with an estimated cost of approximately
$10,000 (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 100 square feet has been filled. A dock of this size would not
require dredging or filling and would have no significa nt 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 1 (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 B ackground 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 NOAA regulations.

The penalty for illegal taking of coral would be increased and broadened.
The Commonwealth coral regulationjcarries 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..

147

The prohibition on discharges would prohibit untreated sewage from the
casetas and would Improve nearshore-water quality.

The prohibition on cutting or damaging the red mangroves would complement
the Commonwealth Forestry Act. The red mangroves are vulnerable to clearing
or cutting for fuel. The NUAA 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 1 and 3

Alternatives I (status quo) and 3 (low cost) would rely on the existing
level of enforcement - 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 b (non-
regulatory) would add an additional ranger to increase the number by 3 In Stage I
with further assistance provided in Stage II if needed, and ff funds are available.
Alternative 4 (high cost) would provide five additional rangers 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 confi med poachers, an oil spill, or other such emergencies. There

148

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 by 3, (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 1.
Under this altern'ative the rangers would also act as Interpreters in La
Parguera and at the satellite visitor centers of El Faro at Cabo Rojo and
Cueve Island. Placement of rangers at the satellite cent6rs as well as
concentrating on the village &rea would result in fewer undetected violations,
and damage to resources throughout the sanctuary. Enhanced enforcement would
increase the likelihood that the reefs, red mangrove areas and endangered

149

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 UNR 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. Therevould
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 lead's 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.

1.50'

The information on endangered species--manatees, turtles, pelicans, and
other important species--would be related to habitats (grass.beds, 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 diseaseSr. 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 prov,ide
interpretation for a potential audience who might not travel to L,a 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 fundingfor 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.

151

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.

Cabo 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 tAose 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 Island 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@pladng 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.

152

4. Impact of Resources Studies Plani

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 @tudies 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 and seeding project
the circulation pattern,-and water quality monitoring assessment would provide
badly needed information for local fishermen. The conch,study would provide
specific recommendations 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.

153

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 and 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 current'ly 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 final 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 othe'r 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.

154

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 sensitiv e
systems such as coral reefs, some grassbeds and the bioluminescent bays.

PART VI: UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE-IMPACTS AND SUCIO-ECONUMIC EFFECTS

Implementation of the sanctuary could result in minor disturbances to
the environment through construction or improvement of a visitor center,
park,ing 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. Th 'e
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: RELATIUNSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM.PRODUCTI-v7iy-

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, wastewater discharges,
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 woul.d result in assuring
long-term productivity. Similarly, information collected from the Resource
Studies Plan would assist Federal and Commonwealth'manag-ers make better marine
management decisions. Better manageme nt would in turn help resolve use
conflict and mitigate adverse impact of human activities.

155

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 special.ist 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 fi rm. 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 Servi,ce, with a B.S. Degree In Forestry and Wildlife from the
University of Georgia and 33 year's experience in park managemen't/administration.
Mr. Brown was involved in developing the administration and operation sections
of the management-plan.

157

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 1. 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 and1landscape 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 fleld 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.

.15.8

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

1'5@9

Center for Urhan 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 Shiphuilding
Workers of America
Institute for the Human Environment
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
La'ke Michigan Federation
Marathon Oil Company
Marijie Technology Societv
Mohil Oil Corporation
Mobil Exploration and Producing, Inc.
Murphy Oil Company
National Association of Conservation Oistricts
National Association of Counties
National Association of Home Builders
National Association of Realtors
National Auduhon Society
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
National Parmers 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 Enqineers
National Waterways Conference
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Natijral- Resources Law Institute
Norfolk Dredging Company

160

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
Aqueduct and Sewer Authority
Planning Board

161

Local Interest Groups

Asociacion pro Mejoramiento del Ambiente
Caribbean Business
Caribbean Fishery Management Council
Centro para Est. Energeticos y Ambientales
Club Nautico of San Juan
Comite Pro Defensa de la Calidad Ambiental
Empresas Fournier
Hotel Villa Parguera
Ninos Escuchas de America
Posada Porlamar
San Juan Star
Sociedad de Historia Natural
Boqueron Fishermen's Assoctation
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

Individuals who commented on the DEIS will receive copies.

162

PART X: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almy, C. 1965. Parguera Limestone, Upper Cretaceous Mayaguez Group, South-
western Puerto Rico. Unpub. PhD Thesis, Rice University.

Almy, C. 1969. Sedimentation 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. 1981. 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 a-nd the World Pattern.
U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Brownell, Robert L., Jr. 1-980. West Indian Manatee Recovery Plan. Dept. of
the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prepared in cooperation with
the Recovery Team composed of Oberhean, Brownell, Jackson, Irvine, Rose,
Lee, Shelfer, and Stansell.

Burns, Col. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Juan, Puerto Rico, personal
communication, 1981.
Caldwell, D. K. and D. S. Erdman. 1969. Pacific Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepi-
dochelys olivacea) in Puerto Rico. Bull.' So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 68 (2):
TF2.

Calvesbert, 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. Unpublished.

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 Ogren. 1966. The Ecology and Migration
of Sea Turtles, 6: The Hawksbill Turtle in the Caribbean Sea. American
Museum Novitates, American Museum Nat. Histo. No. 2248, 29 pp.

163

Carr, A. and S. Stancyk, 1975. Observations on the Ecology and Survival Outlook'
of the Hawksbill Turtle. Biol. Conserv. 8:61-172.

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 Guide to West Atlantic
Coral Reefs. 1972.

Cintron, G. 1969. Seasonal Fluctuations in a Tropical Bay. Unpublished
Masters Thesis. University of Puerto Rico.

Cintron, G., W. Maddux and P. Burkholder. 1 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 Del Manglar en una
Zona Arida: Exposicion al Oleaje y Estructura del Manglar. V Simposio
Latinoamericano sobre Oceanografia Biologica. 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. & 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 Registro de Embarcaciones de Motor. San Juan,
Tu'erto Rico.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Capitulo 3. Pesca, Subcapitulo 45. Reglamento
__ I-
de Pesca San Juan, Puerto Rico, Sept., 957.

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) Number 9, Aug. 18, 1933, as amended by Law Num. 10, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, _0_ct_u_Fr_ede 1975.

164

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Autoridad de Los Puertos de Puerto Rico, Ley Num.
L9 (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 Plan.

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 Nomi-
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 Junio 1980 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. 19 81. Informe Recaudacione s Areas Recre-
ativas, Puerta de Tierra, P.R.

165

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. 1981. Land Use Planning Document for La
Parguera.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DNR. Jan. 1981. Area de Planificacion 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. U6_1Fv_.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 Plano
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: Sou
western Puerto Rico N.C. State University, Department of Geosciences,
Raleigh, 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. Puertorriguena,
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 a.nd Hydrography. Ma@r'ineBiology, 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 Puertorriquena. Humacao, P.R.

166

Gonzalez-,Liboy, Jose. An Examination of the Present Condition of
Seagrass Meadows in La Parguera, Puerto Rico, Sf-a@tePd'e-rto Rico
Project No. F-4 Final Report, June 1979

e ul e o, arine t b'*te
Greenberg, Jerry, Idaz and Simba Fi-ld-G id--ti@M- Inver e ra s.
Miami, Florida: Seahawk Press, 1980

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. 1979. DNR, P.R.

Heimer, Burt, Assistant Chief Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonvi*lle,
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 ot Landscape Architecture
University of Massachusetts. United States Department of the Interior,
January 1968.

Jiminez, Braulio. "El Petroleo en El Ambiente de Puerto Rico. 1981

Kaye, C. 1959. Shoreline Features and Quaternary Shoreline Changes,
Puerto Rico. U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Pap. 317-B.

Law Number 9, amended May 31, 1973 and July 10, 1978 and amendments.

Law Number 82. To create the Corporation for the Development and
Administration of Marine, Lacustrine and Fluvial Resources of Puerto Rico
attached to the Department of Natural Resources to establish penalties
and appropriate funds. Approved July 7, 1979. , I .

Ley Organica del Departmento de Recursos Naturales, Numero 23 del 20 de
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. 1975. The Mangroves of Puerto Rico and Their
Management. in G. Walsh, S. Snedaker and H. Teas (eds.) Proceed.
Int. Symp. ori--Biol. and Management of Mangroves. Inst. Food Agr. Sci.,
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

MacIntire, 1. 1972. Submerged Reefs of Eastern Caribbean. Bull. Am. Assoc.
. Petr. Geol., 56(4): 720-738.

Mathews, S. 1974. Sediment Reworking Rates and Effect of Three Burrowing
Organisms off La Parguera, P4R. Master Thesis. Univ. of P.R.

167

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. SchneiderTnann and W. Bryant. 1977. Shelf Reefs of
Southwestern Puerto Rico. in Frost, S., M. Weiss and J. Saunders, eds.
Reefs and related carbonafe-s ecology and sedimentology. Tulsa 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, Caribbean 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 Gourou, 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., Undated.

Puerto Rico Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Environmental Quality Board. February 1981.

Puerto Rico Tourism Co. 1981. Que Pasa in Puerto Rico. Vol. 33J. no. 3.
San Juan.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1979. 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
bajo la Jurisdiccion del Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Junio, 1980.

Reid, Leslie M., ed. "Interpretive Programs" Park Management Series-Bulletin
7. Michigan State University and American Institute of Park Executives

168

Re ihl , 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, 11niv. of P.R..Wat. Res. Tnst.
(pub.) San Juan, P.R.

Schreiber, R.14.. 197q. 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. 197n., Mpchanisms for the
Accumulation of High Concentration of ninoflagellates in a Bioluminescent
Bay. Limnology,and Oceanography 15: 234-245.

Smedley, D. 1981. Personal communication.

Soubier, L. Clifford. Tnterpretive Prospectus, Gulf Islands National
Seashore. Harpers Ferry, W. Va., February, 1979.

Sternherg, James. 1q78. The Ecology and Management of the Loggerhead.
Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Unpub. paper.

Sternberg, James. 1981. The Worldwide Distribiftion 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 Pijerto 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 Agric0ture, 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.

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, nffice of C7M. lq78. Puerto Rico Coastal
Management Program and FETS. Washington, n.r.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Feb. 1991. Census of
Population and Housing. Pue 'rtn Rico Preliminary Poptilation and Housing
Unit Counts. (PHC 80, p. 53).

U.S. Coast Guard. IcI80. Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office. San Juan, P.R., Pollution Contingency
Plan

169

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 Par vice 1978.

United States Department of the Interior. Buck Island National Monument
Financial Plan, 1980.

United States Department of the Interior. Cape Lookout: Draft General Management
Plan; Wilderness Study Development Concept Rlan. 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 70198-7U2Ul.

United Sta tes 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. Mi scel I a neou s
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. Miscellaneous
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 197T.-

United States Department of the Interior. Martin Luther King National 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.

170

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. Saunder's Co.,,
Philadelphia, Pa., p. 428.

Whitfield, Lawrence M., Mount Rodger 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.
Environmental Quality Board. San Juan, Puerto Rico.

.171

PART XI

SUNtMY OF DEIS COMMENTS

AND

NOAA RESPONSESi!.

173

Generic Response #1 - Effect of the p roposed Sanctuary on the fishing
community

A number of reviewers have expressed the belief that the designation
of the proposed national marine sanctuary will not benefit the fishermen
of La Parquera and that regulations that would be implemented as part
of sanctuary management would severely restrict or prohibit commercial
fishing.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the proposed sanctuary at La Parguera will
benefit the fishermen of Lajas. The effects of the regulations,
clarificat.ion of changes to*the Designation Document, an additional
goal and objectives, aimed at fishery enhancement and assessment of
a conch seeding project, construction of a boat dock or ramp and
delineation of the sanctuary on NOAA charts will all benefit the
fishing community and are discussed below.

Effect of Regulations

Contrary to the belief of these reviewers, NOAA does not intend to
restrict or prohibit commercial fishing as part of establishing the
proposed sanctuary. With the exception of small areas proposed
for consideration as underwater trails, the proposed regulations
do not impose restrictions on commerc 'ial fishing. No additional
restrictions have been placed on gear or boats, the introduction
to the regulations specifically lists commercial and sportfishing
as activities that are not regulated. Furthermore, NOAA believes
that the proposed regulations directly benefit the fishermen in
several ways. Three regulations, 939.7(a) (2)(i) and (ii) and
(a)(6), specifically prohibit: approaching closer to a fishing
vessel than 200 feet at a speed greater than 3 knots; prohibit
interfering with any fishing activities; and disturbing or tampering
with any legal fishing gear. These regulations protect the right
of the fishermen to conduct their traditional fishing activities
unhampered by other uses of the sanctuary.

In addition, regulations protecting the coral reefs and red
mangroves (939.7(l)(i) and (ii)) assure that these resources, which
provide vi.tal spawning nursery and adult habitat for commercially
valuable fish species, will be protected. Similarly, the regulation
prohibiting the use of poisons, electrical charges and explosives
will protect the reefs and other habitats important to the fisheries
resources from damage.

Finally, the regulation prohibiting discharges (939.7(3)) will
maintain and improve the water quality necessary for the viability
of commercially important species. At the same time, this regulation
does not burden fishermen because it exempts the discharge of
indigenous fish or fish parts from the prohibition (939.7(3)(i)).

174

The reef areas where trails may'be established and where fishing would
be prohibited are small. The areas at Enrique would be a maximum of
.44 km2, and San Cristobal .1 km2. The area at Turrumote I would
be of comparable size. NOAA 'does not believe that out of a
sanctuary containing approximately 66 square mfles, the areas
set aside for underwater trails are either unreasonable or unduly
rest ri cti ve.

Changes to the Designation Document

The final management plan and HIS conta.ins additional language
reaffirming the right of the fishermen to use the area. The
Designation Document (Appendix E) which serves as the "constitution"
for the sanctuary and cannot be modified without going through the
entire designation process, including public hearings, gubernatorial
and presidential approval, has been modified to this effect.
Article 3. Characteristics of the Area .which Give It Particular
Va-lue, has been expanded to recogniz-e--t-Wa-t the area contains
@T@n-ificant fishery resources and is the location of traditional
fishing activities.

Goals and Objectives

A new fifth goal has been added.to the final Management'P 'Ian,
Part I. C-National Marine Sanctuary Program and Part III. A--
Sanctuary Goals and Objectives. This goal provides that one of
the purposes of the sanctuary is. to promote and enhance traditional
small scale artesianal and sportfishing activities through habitat
protection, research and regulation. Associated with the goal
are five objectives that benefit the fishermen:

Goal V - Promote and enhance traditional small scale artesianal
anU -sportfishing activities through habitat protection, research
and regulation.

Objectives:

1. Develop regulations that protect habitat important to fishery
resources, such as reefs and mangroves.

2. Develop-regulations that protect water quality.

3. Provide regulatory protection for legitimate fishing activities.

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

5. Design and implement research and resource study projects that
addresses commercially important fishery species such as conch.

175

In addition to the new goal and objectives, a new objective has
been added to Goal IV (Provide for maximum compatible public and
private use of the sanctuary). This new objective provides for
community use of the visitor center for public meetings and
discussions. This will benefit the fishermen by providing an
additional meeting place.

Conch Assessment and Dock Construction

In the DEIS/Draft Management Plan NOAA proposed a Conch Fishery
Stock Assessment (Part III, D, Resources Study Plan). This
assessment has beeW-@-x-p-a-nJe-d--to include a possible-Conch seeding
project similar to those conducted elsewhere by the University of
Puerto Rico.

The final management plan (Part III. C--'Interpretive Program)
also provides for construcfion of a dock or boat ramps. This
dock would be used by both the general public and the fishermen
and provide the fishermen and the public with an additional point
of access to the water.

Delineation on NOS Charts

Finally, once the sanctuary is designated, the location of boundaries
will be delineated on NOAA charts for the area. This will alert
ships and,boats that the area contains important and fragile
resources and that extra care should be taken in passage. As a
result of reduced speeds and extra caution, incidence of damaged
fish pots, nets and lines resulting from boat traffic and propellers
will be less likely.

In addition to these direct benefits to fishermen, NOAA believes
that the protection and maintenance of a high quality environment
and the sanctuary facilities will benefit the fishermen as well
as all the residents of the area.

176

Generic Response #2 Ide uacY of Information

A number of commenters suggested that adequate information,on the
proposal was not provided and that the documents which were distributed
were not in Spanish.

NOAA Response

NOAA has relied significantly on DNR to coordinate the proposal
in Puerto Rico. It is not our normal practice to involve a State
agency to this degree at this phase of sanct'uary designation; but
because of the language and cultural di,fferences an exception
was made.

As part of this public participation effort NOAA also provided
Junds for DNR to place a Spanish speaking person on a part-time
basis in La Pargu-era to act as community liaison, from October,
1982 through November, 1982 and then April 16,,1983 through
June 30, 1983. In addition, English language publications were
translated into Spanish for this project and distributed. They
included brochures on the national program and all material for
public review, such as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Draft Management Plan (DEIS). Public information specifical.ly
for this project and oriented to the fishing community was written
in Spanish and distributed in La Parguera in June of.1982. This
material included a questionaire designed to determine how the
proposal could benefit the fishing community. Two workshops
with local fishing leaders and scientists were held on the DEIS
in December 1982--one in English, one in Spanish. Fin6lly, the
public hearings both in La Parguera and in San Juan, April 12,
and 13, 1983 were conducted in Spanish.

177

Generic Response #3 - Support for the__Proposal

A number of commenters supported the proposal.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your comments. NOAA concurs with those reviewers who
believe that the proposed National Marine Sanctuary at La Parguera
will provide an effective approach to managing this important resource
and will provide an opportunity for educational and interpretive
activities that will increase the understanding of the value of the
resources.

178

Generic Response #4 - Regulation-of Wastewater Discharges

Several reviewers expressed the belief that the-presence of the
casetas was legitimate and that the proposed sanctuary should not
jeopardize their existence or their ability to discharge wastewater.

Conversely, several other reviewers suggested that the discharges
of sewage and other waste water from the casetas cause significant
water quality degradation and should be prohibited.

NOAA Response

According to the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources,
with very few exceptions, the casetas along the shoreline are
second homes, built without the Commonwealth or Federal permits
and illegally occupy public land. Their continued existence is
accepted until 1990 by virtue of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Commonwealth and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The MOU prohibits new construction and requires written approval
for repair or expansion of existing structures without formal
written approval. Such approval.must be obtained from the
Regulations and Permits Administration, under local law, and from
the Corps of Engineers, under Federal law. At the present time
none of the casetas appear on the property lists and owners are
not paying taxes.

The U.S. Envronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region II and
the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) are entering
into an agreement to correct the deficiencies in the sewage
collection and treatment system at La Parguera as part of that
agreement. Under the agreement, the system is scheduled to be
operable by July 31, 1985. Within 90 days of that date the
casetas must have either a self-contained treatment system or
hook up to the trunk line. Consistent with the USEPA/PRASA
compliance plan, NOAA has modified the proposed regulation on
discharges within the sanctuary by prohibiting any discharges
inconsistent with USEPA/PRASA requirements (Part III--939.7(a)(3)(iv)).
Enforcement of the regulation will be carried out by the Ranger
Corps as part of sanctuary enforcement activities.

179

Summary of Written Comments

Comments from Puerto Rico Public Interest Groups and Individuals

1. 2,6U4 Identical letters from members of "Fondo de Mejoramiento"

- Support the proposed marine sanctuary at La Parguera and understand
that,the sanctuary will permit maximum human use.

- The sanctuary will provide an effective educational and interpretive
program that will increase the understanding of the value of natural
resources. The sanctuary will benefit not only the residents and
fishermen of La Parguera but all Puerto Rico.

NUAA Response

NOAA agrees with these reviewers and believes that the sanctuary will
provide benefits to the people-of Puerto Rico. Please see Generic
Response #3.

2. 649 Identical letters from residents of southwest Puerto Rico

- Supports the conservation of the environment but opposes the
proposed sanctuary.

- The DEIS is incomplete, ambiguous and contradictory and does not
explain the restrictions that would be imposed once the sanctuary
is designated.

NUAA Response

NUAA's intent not to restrict most commercial fishing activities
was made clear in the DEIS. However, additional language to that
effect has been provided in the FEIS. Please see Generic Response
#1 for further discussion.

- The proposed area is exceedingly large.

NUAA Response

The boundaries of the sanctuary were drawn to include habitat
representative of tropical ecosystems, habitat for endangered
species and the unique bioluminescent bays.

- The area of the sanctuary would be automatically under the jurisdiction
of the Federal government.

NUAA Reponse
Designating a national marine sanctuary in Commonwealth waters
under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended (the Act), does not affect the,sovereignty
of Puerto Rico over those waters, and does not transfer such property
to the United.States.

180

The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, with the President's
approval, to designate areas of ocean and coastal waters as national
marine sanctuaries in order to preserve or restore such areas for their
11conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values" (Section
3U2(a) of the Act). If a proposed marine sanctuary lies wholly or,
partly within the boundaries of a State or the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Governor must approve the designation and its
terms before it is effective. The Act also requires the Secretary
to indicate in the terms of the designation the types of activities
which may be regulated, subject to the Governor's approval.
Changes in the terms of the designation, including removal of State
or Territorial waters, may be made only by the same procedures
.through which an original designation ismade, i.e., congressional
review and Presidential approval (Section 3U2(f)).

Marine sanctuary designation does not transfer Commonwealth property
to the United States. The Act applies in the coastal waters of
Puerto Rico in essentially the same manner as other Federal laws
applicable in Puerto Rico, except that no designation of a marine
sanctuary in Commonwealth waters may be effective without the
approval of the Governor.

The area is densely populated and the sanctuary will adversely affect
thousands of families when the restrictions are implemented. This will
put the fishing industry and general -economy in danger.

NUAA Response

The proposed sanctuary would not impose restrictions on most
commercial fishing activities. For further discussion please see
Generic Response #1.

The community feels deceived by DNR. Little information on the proposal
has beenprovided and in' the past DNR had not demonstrated competence
to take care of our resources.

NUAA Response

NOAA believes that a reasonable and adequate effort was made to
solicit public participation. Please see Generic Response #2.

Existing federal and state laws, if implemented, would protect the
area without the necessity of a sanctuary.

NUAA Response

NUAA agrees that there are a number of existing authorities that
provide management and protection for certain resources Within the
proposed sanctuary and NOAA is relying on these authorities. The
laws and their limitations are discussed in Part Il of the Management
Plan/FEIS. NUAA also agrees that better enforcement of these
statutes would enhance resource protection, For precisely this
reason, NOAA has emphasized Increased enforcement activities as
part of the final management plan and will fund 3 additional rangers.

181

3. Republican National Committee - Luis A. Ferre, State Chairman

The DEIS is comprehensive and the concept of a sanctuary dates
to his period of service as Governor when the report "Puerto
Rico and the Sea" originally recommended similar proposal.
Strongly supports designation of La Parguera as a marine
sanctuary.

NOAA Response

Thank you for support and NOAA is pleased to be able to implement
some the recommendations from "Puerto and the Sea". Please see
Generic Response #3.

4. League of Women Voters of Puerto Rico - Blanca J. Arce Rivera, Chair,
Natural Resources

The proposed marine sanctuary represents the only viable means of
ending conditions that threaten the permanent destruction of one of
the most valuable coastal areas of the island. The League supports
the proposals.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your support. Please see Generic Response #3.

5. Instituto De Cultura Puertorriquena, Hector 0. Perez, Architect Director
March 25, 1983

No attention has been given to the historic-prehistoric occupations
of the area. Southwest Puerto Rico is known to have numerous
pre-historic sites. They recommend archeological evaluation be
included in the FEIS.

NOAA Response

NOAA has' expanded the management.plan,to include a provision for
cultural as well as natural resources. Part III, C of the final
management plan (Stage II, Interpreting the Natural and Cultural
History of the Sanctuary) now includes a focus on the historic and
pre-historic history of La Parguera.

6. Petition from'32 Citizens and Merchants of La Parguera

Request extension of deadline of public comments until at least
June 2,1983.

NOAA Response

In response to the request an extension for public comments was
grantRd until June 2, 19830

182

- Believe DNR has not adequately discussed the proposal with residents
and DNR's perspective does not reflect the community of La Parguera.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that a reasonable attempt was ma *de to inform the
public about the proposal. For further discussion please see
Generic Response #3.

- Restrictions on recreational activities will c ause people to stop
visiting La,Parguera and there are no guarantees that the economy
will remain the same.

NOAA Response

The regulations in the management plan do not restrict recreational
activities and will not have an adverse impact on the economy. Please
see Part III, B. 6. Surveillance and Enforcement Program.

- Project should be carried out elsewhere in the U..S. where people will
not be affected.
NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the impacts on the residents of La Parguera will be
beneficial in nature. Please see Parts V, VI, and.VII of the HIS
for a discussion of the effects of designation.

7. Miguel A. Ventura

- Supports proposed sanctuary and believes casetas are compatible.

- Does not believe that the casetas should be returned to the Commonwealth
because they will not be properly maintained.

NOAA Response ,

The proposed-marine sanctuary does not have the authority to address
the disposition of the casetas. This is-'an issue that is being
addressed directly by the Commonwealth and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.

- People who oppose the sanctuary are misinformed.

NOAA Response

NOAA and DNR have made a substantial effort to insure adequate
information. Please see Generic Response #2.

8. Jennie Ramirez

Fishing is an important activity in La Parguera and the sanctuary would
negatively impact the economy.

183

NUAA Response

NUAA does not believe that the proposed sanctuary will adversely
impact the local economy. The Sanctuary proposal is designed with
certain specific benefits for the fishing community. Please see
Generic Response #1 for a discussion of restrictions on fishing.

The proposed tourist development is not feasible because there are
no beaches.

NOAA Response

The proposed marine sanctuary is not a plan for tourist development.
The underwater trails, mangrove boardwalk and visitor center will
focus on interpretation of the natural and cultural resources and
do not rely on the existence of beach areas.

DNR only desires federal money and protection could be done without a
sanctuary. UNR pollutes the area, cuts mangroves and can not be trusted.

NOAA Response

Without the sanctuary, the degree of protection that could be provided
to the resources of the area would remain at the present limited
level. Any additional funds, whether local or federal, would
undoubtedly strengthen URN's capability to protect these resources.
Local appropriations are not enough to provide increased resources
protection.

UNR has remedied the problem of waste disposition at Mata de la
Gata by installing a sewage collection system on the island. DNR
and the town of Lajas have signed a contract by which the "municipio"'
collects and disposes of the wastes in the Lajas sewage treatment
facility.

DNR rangers have been enforcing regulations that limit the cutting
of mangroves. These same regulations may at times provide exceptions
for some specific activities.

9. Luis A Battistini

Supports proposed marine sanctuary.

NUAA Response

Please see Generic Response #3.

1U. Kathleen Wilderwood

Requests that NOAA not continue proposal because the people of La Parguera
do not want the sanctuary.

184

NOAA Response

The proposal will result in certain benefits for the residents of
La Parguera and will not result in adverse economic impacts. The
resources of the area are common to all the people of Puerto Rico
and their long term conservation will have far' reaching benefits.

The people of La Parguera will maintain the environment and it will
not be degraded. There are more important projects.

NUAA Response

The issues and problems outlined in the DEIS and HIS are of a
magnitude that Otizen involvement alone can not maintain the
.environment or alleviate the problems. NOAA believes that a long
term comprehensive management framework involving local citizens,
and a strong interpretive program will help to ensure the areas
resource health.

11. Nathaniel Shelman

The proposal is being pushed in haste and is a threat to the
fishermen as La Parguera.

NOAA Response

NOAA began the process and has been working on developing a
marine sanctuary proposal of Puerto Rico in 1979. NOAA does
not believe that this has been a hasty decision. For a
discussion of how the proposal may affect the fishing
community, please see Generic Response #1.

Does not believe that DNR is the appropriate entity to manage the
sanctuary.

NOAA Response

DNR has experience with managing other-protected natural areas
in Puerto Rico, and DNR is the Commonwealth agency statutorially
mandated with this mission'.

Steps should be taken to strengthen the enforcement of DNR, not
create a new entity.

NOAA Response

NOAA will be adding 3 additional rangers to enhance enforcement
at La Parguera as part of the sanctuary proposal.

18S

12. Charles L. Fulp

- Understands that the proposed sanctuary will cost $30,000,000.

NOAA Response

NUAA estimates that the total cost of the first five years of
the sanctuary will be about $8UU,UUU (please see Part V of
the FEIS)

- The sanctuary is an unnecessary threat to the fishermen and the residents
of La Parguera do not want the sanctuary because many of them will
lose homes and jobs.

NUAA Response

NUAA has not proposed restrictions.,that will adversely impact the
local fishermen or the local economy. For further discussion please
see Generic Response #1 and Sections V, VI and VII of the FEIS.

- The people of La Parguera have been misinformed as to what the plans for
the sanctuary would mean to them since all the plans and discussions
were originated in English rather than Spanish. Unly a few residents
understand English, and many do not read or write.

NUAA Response

NOAA believes that there has been a reasonable effort to inform local
residents of the proposed sanctuary. Visits were made by UNR officials,
discussions were conducted in Spanish and the DEIS was translated into
Spanish. For further discussion please see Generic Response #2.

The sanctuary is not needed because there are sufficient laws now
available to protect the resources. Existing Natural Reserve is
adequate to protect the resources.

NUAA Response

NUAA agrees that there is considerable existing Federal and
Commonwealth authority to manage the resources and discusses these
authorities in the FEIS (Part 11 Management Context, E. Legal
Institutional Background). For reason NUAA is rely7ng primarily
on these authorities. However, a marine sanctuary is considerably
more than regulations. The focus of the management plan is on the
Interpretive/Educational program and Resource Studies Plan. For
the details of these please see Part III, C and 0 of the FEIS/
Management Plan.

A smaller sanctuary in a different location would possibly meet the
criterion of the established study; however, this would-be better
achieved if an area were chosen that would be less disruptive to the
life of people who have homes and jobs in that area.

186

NOAA Response

NOAA evaluated six Puerto Rican sites as possible sanctuary
candidates. Uf these the proposed La Parguera site was selected
for further study. It possesses the unique diversity of resources
which will make it a valuable addition to the national system.
The Commonwealth concurs with this position., There is no evidence
that the sanctuary will be disruptive either to the lives of the
people in La Parguera or to the local economy.

The people now in La Parguera have bui-lt themselves casetas at their
expense, and are paying taxes. They would like to improve their
properties which would be aesthetically as beautiful as their natural
surroundings; however, the present policy by the government is to
eliminate construction improvements.

NOAA Response

The policy of the Commonwealth regarding construction improvements
to the casetas is beyond the scope of NUAA's sanctuary improvement.
However, the casetas occupy public land and the MOU between the
.Commonwealth and the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers prohibits new
construction, repair or expansion without wriften approval.
Please see Generic Response #4.

The government hotel located in La Parguera now is dumping sewage into
the coastal'water. Present laws on the books could correct this condition.

NOAA Response

The Villa Parguera Hotel , which is owned by the Puerto Rico Industrial
Development Company (PRIUCU), has a septic tank which at the present
time is not functioning properly. However, the hotel will be
connected to the public sewer system when it becomes operational.
PRASA is now working to correct the deficiencies in the..trunk
sewer. The treatment plant has been completed and stands ready to
operate as soon as the trunk line delivers the sewage from the
village.

Many large storms create damage to the coral reefs--not the people who
visit there. This is evidenced by personal visits. Peop.le problems
can be corrected by enforcement of present laws..-

NUAA Response

Natural forces do damage reefs, and such damage, of course
cannot be prevented.

NUAA agrees that enforceme 'nt-of existi ng laws is crucilal. to resource
protection at La Parguera..-Provisions have been made in the management
pla.n to provide 3 addi,tional enforcement rangers for this specific
area,

187

Oil found on some of the reefs comes from the large boats in the deep
outer coastal waters, not the small boats using the shallow waters.

NOAA Response

No Response Necessary (NRN).

1.3. Rosa M. Steele'

opposes proposed sanctuary.

NOAA Response.

Thank you for your comment.

DEIS proposes to develop an area which is incompatible with protection
of the resources.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the type of "development" activities described
in the management plan (e.g. visitor center, boardwalk, underwater
trails) will result in a greater citizen awareness and appreciation
of the resources and the need for their wise use and protection. It
is our position and has been our, experience that public education
can be as effective a tool for resource protection as increasing
the number of enforcement officers.

Playita Rosada is a failure. It is a muddy beach, and Puerto Rico
Recreation and Sports Department in the past has opposed designating
La Parguera as a recreation area or park because of inadequate lodging
and transportation facilities.

NOAA Response

NOAA is not proposing to develop a park similar to Playita Rosada.
The focus of the program is not recreational/beach development, but
protection, education and interpretation of the marine resources.
In addition, it should be noted that the Puerto Rico Sports and
Recreation Department has endorsed the proposal for sanctuary
designatioon of La Parguera.

The sanctuary is an excuse for government not to install a sewage
treatment plant.
NOAA Response
The Issue of the installation'of the sewage treatment plant is outside
the 'scope of the proposed sanctuary. Questions and concerns relating
to it should be addressed to the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewer
Authority.

188

14. Petition from 245 Residents of Southwest Puerto Rico

Oppose proposed sanctuary because it will negatively affect the fishermen
and economy of southwest Puerto Rico.

NUAA Response

NUAA believes that any economic effects of the proposed sanctuary
will be positive For further discussion regarding the benefits
to fishermen, please see Generic Response #1.

15. Mary Davola

The proposed sanctuary will mean an end to tourist attractions for
vacationers at La Parguera.

NUAA Response

NUAA believes that the provisions in the management plan will if
anything, enhance tourist attractions. In fact, several commenters
have expressed concern that the sanctuary might increase the number
of visitors to the detriment of the resources.

16. Kenneth D. George

Believes that opponents at public hearing were misinformed.

NUAA Response

NOAA agrees that many of the,people who spoke at the hearing
apparently were recipients of misinformation. For example, they
believed that the proposal would prohibit commercial fishing within
the entire sanctuary; no such restrictions were ever contemplated.

17. Reginald W. Garner

- Natural Resources Department has unwisely handled funds to this date
on expensive equipment (i.e., boats, helicopters, etc.).

NUAA Response

NOAA is the responsible funding agency and will determine management
expenditures.

- Natural Resources Department has provided little or no enforcement of
existing laws on conservation and pollution.

NUAA Response

Both-NUAA and the DNR recognize the eed for increased enforcement of
existing*laws. A primary focus of the management p1an is a better
staffed and coordinated enforcement and surveillance plan specific to
the Sanctuary area.

189

Natural Resources Rangers have harassed some dwellers with twelve (12)
years or more in residence, yet have been blind to others who have
constructed houses on the water within the past five (5) years.

NOAA Response

The rangers assigned to the Sanctuary will focus on enforcement of
natural resource conservation regulations. Sanctuary authority
extends only to water areas.

The University of Puerto Rico Marine Biology Center located on Magueyes
Island has been conducting marine science studies and could continue
to do so.

NOAA Response

NOAA will seek agreements with the University of Puerto Rico to
involve the University in the resource studies program. As a result
of implementing the management plan, NOAA will be funding management
oriented research that is not frequently funded by academic institutions.
In this way the sanctuary would complement the work of the center.

Other alternatives that would solve the conservation and pollution problems
at d much lesser cost to the U.S. taxpayers are stated below:

0 Community Service: construct a public pier in La Parguera.
Currently there is none.

0 Enforcement: transfer a suitable boat and rangers to La Parguera
from one of the places that have more than enough equipment.
Currently there is none in La Pargu,era.

0 Education: Have rangers and crew members of now existing touring
boats distribute hand-outs on the area's natural phenomenon with
information on existing laws for protection.

Pollution Control:

a. construct pumping station and lines to activate
existing sewage treatment plant.

b. have Coast Guard to'intensify inspections to assure
boats, houseboats, etc., meet existing laws.

c. insist that ranger and tour boat personnel set
example and stress clean water measures.

NOAA Response

The sewage treatment plant is beyond the scope of-this sanctuary
proposal. The proposed Sanctaury plan will focus attention on
public education and enhanced enforcement at what we believe to
be minimal costs. A public dock is proposed for the area.

1 90

DNR only wants the sanctuary to get federal funds.

NOAA Response

The DNR is mandated to conserve and protect the environment. Sanctuary
designation will complement their efforts. NOAA funds will be used
only to implement the National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan.

If D14R goes through with its plan to take the casetas and rent them
for vacation houses, pollution will increase.

NOAA Response

NUAA believes that a final decision on the disposition of the
casetas has not been made. The disposition of the casetas
is contained in the MOU between the Commonwealth and the Corps
of Engineers. DNR informs us that converting the casetas into a
vacation center will not be undertaken unless there is an
appropriate method of disposing sanitary of wastes fromthose
houses.

Sanctuary would restrict boat use and the economy would suffer, but
big business will arrive and strangle the small businesses.

NUAA Response

NUAA has not proposed any regulations that would.restrict boat use
within the proposed sanctuary (please see proposed Sanctuary
Regulations). We have no idications that any aspect of this proposal
would attract big business.

The area of the proposed sanctuary is too extensive.

NUAA Response

The boundaries of the proposed sanctuary were drawn to include
habitat representative of tropical ecosystems (such as grassbed
areas and mangroves) habitat for endangered species, and the unique
bioluminescent bays.

A marine reserve should extend southe ast towards Ponce because they need
tourism. It should not be placed in La Parguera.

NOAA Response

The National Marine Sanctuary Program is not intended to promote
tourism as such. The area around La Parguera contains a number of
valuable significant and representative marine resources, including
extensive coral reefs and mangrove habitats that,are appropriate
for inclusion in a marine sanctuary. The resource5-in and around
Ponce are-not as extensive and not as suitable for the purposes of
.the sanctuary program.

18. Luis M. Amador

- The area of proposed sanctuary is too large.
NUAA Response

The boundaries of the proposed sanctuary were drawn to include habitat
representative of tropical ecosystems, (Such as grassbed areas and
mangroves) habitat for endangered species, and the unique bioluminescent
bays.

- Several years ago the Department of Recreation and Sports declared
La Parguera was not a good area for recreational and tourist development.
Better sites with beaches exist elsewhere to the east of La-Parguera.

NUAA Response

NUAA's program is not one of parks and recreation. It does not seek
sites for beach quality but rather for the value of the marine resources.
In addition it should be noted that the Puerto Rico Department of
Sports and Recreation has endorsed this sanctuary proposal (please
see public hearing comments).

Marine sanctuary proposal is contradictory. Recreational development and
environmental protection are incongruous.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the type of "development" activities described
in the management plan (e.g. visitor center, boardwalk, underwater
trails) will result in a greater citizen awareness and appreciation
of the resources and the need for their wise use and protection.
it is our position and has been our experience that public education
can be as an effective tool for resource prot6ction as increasing
the number of enforcement officers.

proposed'sanctuary will destablize the economy of La Parguera.

NOAA Response

NUAA does not believe that the proposed sanctuary will adversely
impact the local economy. Please see Generic Response #1 for a
a discussion of restrictions on fishing and Parts V, VI,.VII of
the FEIS for a discussion of impacts.

19. 6 Identical letters from Fishermen

- Upposes proposed sanctuary because it Will adversely affect the
fisherinen and the area is too extensive.

NUAA Response

It is not the intent of NUAA to restrict or prohibit fishing within
the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary with the limited

. 152

exception of underwater trails. In fact the sanctuary proposal
will benefit local fishermen both in the near and Tong term. Please
see Generic Response # 1 for a further discussion of this Jssue.

20. Marcos Velazquez

Opposes the sanctuary because no valid studies were made of the effects
of the sanctuary on the community

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the discussion of the impacts of,,the proposal on
the local community was presented in the DEIS. Please refer to
Parts V, V1 and VII of the FEIS for a complete discussion of the
impacts of the proposal.

21. Petition by Mr. Rafael Olivieri Iand 25 Students.from'Department of
Marine Scienc@`s-FUKT-

- Do not support the plan as it is presented, but recognize the.need to
care for, preserve and utilize the area. Sufficient laws currently exist.
However, government departments and agencies have not demonstrated the
ability to apply and enforce these laws.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees that there are a number of existing authorities that
provide management and protection for certain resources within
the proposed sanctuary and NOAA is relying on these authorities.
The laws and their limitations are discussed in Part II of the
Management Plan/FEIS. NOAA also agrees that better enforcement of
these statutes would enhance resource protection. For precisely
this reason, NOAA has emphasized increased enforcement activities as
part of the final management plan and will fund 3 additional rangers.

- An example of this is the casetas, which have a negative impact on
the surrounding environment, and their construction which is allowed
by the Department of Natural Resources.

- Preferential treatment has also been given casetas by quickly approving
construction permits, yet approval of a building for the fishermen was
slow.

NOAA Response

DNR is not in a position to "allow" construction of casetas, which
have been built on the public domain, and according to DNR are for
most part illegal. Construct,ion permits are the responsibility of
ARPE, not DNR.

193.

This plan has inconsistencies beginning with the fact that the document
written in Spanish differs significantly from that written in English.

NOAA Rtsppnst

There is only one significant deviation. It has been brought to
NOAA's attention that national defense, as an exception of the
activities prohibited and controlled within the sanctuary, was
inadvertently omitted in the Spanish version of the DEIS. This was
an oversight and not an attempt to produce two different documents,
particularly taking into account that, in the Spanish version of
the Designation Document of the DEIS, Section 2. Defense Activities
was properly included.

Moreover, neither document is clear regarding the regulations and/or
guarantees that take into consideration for the best possible utilization
and conservation of the resource. We oppose the continuation of the
project until all previously expressed doubts are cleared up in writing.

NOAA Response

Although misinformation has been generated over what activities
are proposed to be restricted or prohibited by the proposed sanctuary,
NOAA believes that the DEIS was very clear and the public adequately
informed (please see Generic Response #2). Regarding the issue of
restrictions, particularly restrictions on commercial fishing
activities, NOAA has added clarifying language to the FEIS.
Please see Generic Response #1.

21. Nicolas Santiago Negron

Opposed to sanctuary because he fishes in the waters surrounding
La Parguera.

NOAA Rt!@po@se

It is not the intent of NOAA to restrict or prohibit fishing within
the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary with the limited
exception of fishing at underwater trails. Please see Generic
Response #1 foe a further discussion of this issue.

22. Petition from Pedro S. Lozada and 30 fishermen from southwest Puerto Rico

- Have met with Secretary Hilda Diaz-Soltero and have been assured that
the interests of the fishermen would not be harmed.

- support the proposed sanctuary.

NOAA @i@spon@e

NOAA agrees that interests of the fishing community have been
protected. It is not the intention of NOAA to curtail or
unreasonably restrict commercial fishing. For a detailed discussion
of these assurances, please see Generic Response #1.

194

24. Irving Casiano Cordero

- professional fisherman.

- opposes sanctuary because DNR wants.to impose the sanctuary to deny them
the right to fish.

- guarantees are false; once designated no one will be allowed to use the
sanctuary.

NUAA Response

With the exception of restricting fishing at underwater trails, it
is not the intent of NOAA to curtail commercial fishing and NUAA
has provided assurances to that effect in the FEIS. For a further
discussion of those assurances, please see Generic Response #1.

- DNR destroys the environment by dumping waste at Mata dela Gata and
Isla de los Monos.

NOAA Response

DNR has built a system for collecting sanitary wastes at Mata de la
Gata and for disposing of them through a treatment system on shore.
DNR does not maintain facilities on Isla Cueva (Isla de los Monos),
which was operated by University of Puerto Rico but is part of the
Boqueron State forest.

- UNR is hiding things - excavations in search of oil are happening at
Cayo Enrique.

NOAA Response-

NOAA is not aware of any search for oil in any area of the proposal
sanctuary.

25. Gregorio Luciano Matley

- Is a fisherman and is opposed to sanctuary.

- Believes his livelihood would be denied.

NOAA Response

With the exception of restricting fishing at underwater trails, it
is not the intent of NUAA to curtail commerical fishing and NUAA
has provided assurances to that effect in the FEIS. For a further
discussion of those assurances, please see Generic Response #1.

- $5U,UOU fine is too high and, the fishermen could not pay.

NUAA Response

One of the purposes of the fine is to provide a deterent to committing
prohibited activities. That amount is the maximum fine authorized

196

by Title III of the Marine Research Protection and Sanctuaries
Act. In application, fines at the other sanctuaries have been
considerably lower.
26. Carlos E. Pacheco Irizarry

- Supports sanctuary because it would protect the area from disorderly
devel opment.

NUAA Response

Please see Generic Response #3.

27. Petition from 37 individuals

- The amount of $8UU,UUU is not just compensation for the loss of rights
to priied fishing territory.

- There are no guarantees for the combination of commercial or recreational
fishing. The DNR cannot guarantee anything outside their domain. The
example given is the area of Turrumote I needed for nat,ional defense.
(hence fishing there is prohibited)

- The local economic impact would be negative. Also, the displacement
of fishermen to other towns would cause a population problem--these
people who have lived all or most of their lives as fishermen in the
area are seeing their lifestyles seriously affected; although it is
reasonable, within the project, to regulate fishing areas and seasons.

NOAA Response

Wi-th the exception of restricting fishing at-underwater trails, it
is not the intent of NUAA to curtail commerical fishing and NUAA
has provided assurances to that effect in the FEIS. Any economic
impacts are ex*pected to locally beneficial. For a further discussion
o.f those assurances, please see Generic Response #1.

- The project lacks a real management plan.

NUAA Response

NOAA believes that both the,draft and final management plans provide
a clear framework for the day-to-day operation of the proposed
sanctuary and provide a clear indication of development for an
educational/interpretive program and resource studies. While the
plan could contain more detail NOAA believes that by management
planning standards the document constitutes a management plan.

- One gets the impression that the Federal government, through the
Department of Commerce, is trying to be a guardian angel and watch
over everything and that the Puerto Ricans cannot care for themselves.
The implication is that Puerto Ricans are irresponsible destroyers of
their own environment. There is much opposition to the fact that

196

Puerto Rico counts as a state when the federal government wants to
institute laws to protect something, thus also compelling Puerto Rico
to obey them. Examples of this are the Endangered Species Act, and
the Ley de Bosques (Forestry Act).

NUAA Response

The proposed marine sanctuary does not imply that Puerto Rico is
unable to. manage its resources and that the Federal.government is
imposing itself on the Commonwealth. La Parguera is a proposed
National Marine Sanctuary because it meets the program criteria
and will be a valuable asset to the U.S. National system of marine
protected areas. There.are currently six existing National Marine
Sanctuaries off the coasts of North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and
California. Since 1979 when NOAA and UNR first began working on a
proposal for a marine sanctuary, the concept and the proposal has
had the support of both the UNR and the Governor of Puerto Rico.
In fact, the proposal relies considerably on existing Commonwealth
statute's (see Part II, E. Legal Institutional Background) to protect
the resources i-ndOUXTA Fas-Yd-opti'd @certaln Commonwealth regulations.
Furthermore, the proposal provides for DNR enforcement within the
sanctuary. It should also be noted that the Forestry Act is a
Commomwealth, not Federal law.

28, Sandra M. Laureano

- Represents the fishermen of Lajas, Cabo Rojo, Guanica and Mayaguez.

- A belief exists that Federal agencies are more efficient-than Puerto
Rican agencies. It cannot be concluded, however, that Puerto Ricans
cannot adequately protect their resources when they Intend to do so.

NUAA Response

The proposed marine sanctuary does not Imply that Puerto Rico is
unable to manage Its resources and that the Federal government is
imposing Itself on the Commonwealth. A Puerto Rican site was chosen
because the Island waters contain unique nationally significant
resources which will be a valuable addition to the U.S. system of
protected marine areas. Should it be designated it will be managed
in a manner similar to other sites off the U.S. coast. Since 1979
when NOAA and UNR first began working on a proposal for a marine
sanctuary the concept and the proposal have had the support of both
the DNR and the Governor of Puerto Rico. In fact, the proposal
relies considerably on existing Commonwealth statutes (see Part
ii,.E. Legal Institutional Background) to protect the resources
a5d 1TOA-A has adopted certai,n Commonwealth regulations. Furthermore,
the proposal provides for UNR enforcement within the sanctuary.

The basic proposal in the DEIS would cede jurisdiction and authority
of 68.27 square nautical miles of marine resources in the water column
and the submerged lands to the U.S. Government. If conflicts arise,
the Federal government would thus have the final decision on the
utilization of those renewable and non-renewable resources.

197

NOAA Response

Designating a national marine sanctuary in Commonwealth waters
under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended (the Act), does not affect the sovereignty
of Puerto Rico over those waters, and does not transfer such property
to the United States.

According to the DEIS, the DNR would receive, following designation,
$800,000 for the first five years of sanctuary management. The management
plan, however, does not have a detailed budget and f"urthermore, the
prevailing worldwide economic situation and the present administration's
attitude toward environmental protection makes the efficient and real
transfer of federal funds for plan implementation doubtful.

NOAA Response

The funding level discussed in the plan is for planning purposes
and is based on our experience in other National Marine Sanctuaries.
Effective implementation of designation requires an average of
$150,000 to $200,000 per site per year. The figure $800,000 is
an estimate of the total five year cost to NOAA for managing the
proposed sanctuary. DNR will receive certain portions of these
funds to carry out specific responsibilities in implementing the
management plan.

Reference to the need for prohibiting activities in the sanctuary zone for
national' defense reasons, found in the English version of the document,
is totally eliminated in the Spanish version and hidden in an appendix.
The possible contradictions between national defense and fishing activi-
ties have been experienced by Puerto Rico in Culebra and Vieques.

NOAA Response

It has been brought to NOAA's attention that national defense, as an
exception of the activities prohibited or controlled within the
sanctuary, was inadvertently omitted in the Spanish version of the
DEIS. This was an oversight and not an attempt to produce two
different documents, particularly taking into account that, in
the Spanish version of the Designation Document of the DEIS,
Section 2. Defense Activities was properly included.

it should be clarified that this section does not allow NOAA to
prohibit activities for defense purposes. On the contrary it
acknowledges that the Department of Defense would be exempt from
sanctuary regulations for national defense purIposes.

Area fishermen, aware of thO need for protection of coral and marine
plants,.could orient divers and other visitors to their importance.

NOAA Response

The management plan contains an interpretive/educational component.
This program proposes to utilize people from La Parguera to assist
in*these very activities and NOAA would certainly welcome and
encourage the involvement of the fishermen in this project.

198

Red mangroves can be protected by enforcing the various statutes and
regulations that now exist which affect red mangrove forests.

NOAA Response

Since most red mangroves are within the "maritime zone and therefore
within the public domain a permit from DNR is needed to cut or take
the mangrove. However, DNR is not able to supply sufficient
enforcement rangers and DNR and NOAA believe that one of the most
significant problems at La parguera is lack of enforcement. NOAA
proposes to address this issue by providing three additional rangers.

The EIS and Management Plan proposes underwater trails. Although the
plan states that no person shall fish in the trails, dimensions and
final locations are not given. Fishermen could find themselves
restricted to fishing in small areas surrounded by underwater trails.

NUAA Response

The management plan states that eventually underwater trails may be
established at Enrique, San Cristobal and Turrumote I. However, the
area committed to the trails and where fishing would be prohi.bited
is small. The areas at Enrique would be a maximum of .44 km2, and
San Cristobal .1 km2. The area at Turrumote I would be a maximum
of comparable size. NUAA does not believe that out of a sanctuary
containing approximately 66 square miles that the areas set aside
for underwater trails are either unreasonable or restrictive.

Sea turtles are already protected by,federal regulations. Inadequate
enforcement seems to be the problem.

NUAA Response

NUAA agrees with your observation that enforcement is not sufficient
and has made provisions to upgrade enforcement'by providing three
additional rangers. While turtles are protected by federal statute,
presently there are no restrictions on gear used exclusively for
the poaching of turtles. The proposed sanctuary regulations would
provide this.

Violations of sanctuary regulations bring a maximum fine of $50,UOO,
an unrealistic amount for fishermen.

NOAA Response

one of the purposes of the fine is to provide a deterent to
committing prohibited activities. That amount is the maximum fine
authorized by Title III of the Marine Research, Protection and
Sanctuaries Act. In application, fines at the other sanctuaries
have been considerably lower.

There is no need to give away to the United States Government this set
of resources in order to manage them efficientlyi There are at least
three Commonwealth agencies and four Federal agencies with resource

199

management responsibility. Scientific research is being conducted in
La Parguera and adjacent areas by existing educational institutions.
What is lacking, to a great extent, has been personnel to implement
resource laws and regulations.

NOAA Response

NOAA concurs that many of the important resources of La Parguera
are covered by existing Commonwealth and Federal statutes. These
are discussed in Part II, Management Context, E. Legal and Institutional
Background. Howe ii-F,-t Fe re are several gaps a-s n-ofed Part V:
Environmental Cons@qt@@qc@s; most notably protection of--su-5-m-erged
cultural resources, and protection of endangered turtles through
gear restrictionsi NOAA also agrees that one of the most significant
problems at La Parguera is lack of enforcement. In the management
plan NOAA proposes to address this by adding three additional
rangers to assist in the La Parguera area.

The premise that overfishing exists is without any significant scientific
basis. The fishermen are right to feel threatened by the sanctuary
and oppose it. Although the DEIS states that fishing will not be
restricted, it points*out various adverse impacts on marine resources
from man's use of the coastal water which indicates to the fishermen
that future restrictions on fishing activity are inevitable. The
fishermen asks himself, "where can I make a living to support my family
if, little by little, my options are being taken away?"

NOAA Response

With the limited exception of fishing at underwater trails, NOAA will
not restrict fishing within the proposed sanctuary. Please see
generic response #1 for further discussion.

Fishermen oppose the sanctuary not through lack of knowledge, but because
they be'lieve that the government has not adequately consulted them and
now wants their unconditional approval.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that it has made a reasonable effort to adequately
disseminate information on the proposal. Please see generic response
#2 for further discussion of this issue.

200

29. Natural History Society of Puerto Rico

- Serious environmental problems exist in La Parguera, i.e., lack of
enforcement of resource protection laws.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees that some serious problems exist at La Parguera and
believes that the management plan for the proposed sanctuary addresses
many of these issues.,
- Note conflict in the sanctuary plan,between recreational and conservation
objectives.

NOAA Response

NOAA does not observe a conflict between recreational and conservation
'objectives. NOAA believes that the type of "development" activities
described in the ma'nagement plan (e.g. visitor center,,boardwalk,
underwater trails) will result in a greater citizen awareness and
appreciation of the resources and the need for their wise use and
protection. It is our position and has been our experience that
public education can be an effective tool for resource-protection.

- Public education in La Parguera is more important than scientific
investigation.

NOAA Response

NOAA concurs that public education is a very important component of
the proposed sanctuary and believes that the management plan presents
a reasonable balance among the interpretive/educatonal, research
and administrative components.

- The document condones,.for an indefinite perio.d, avoidable pollution
from the casetas; incompatible with sanctuary objectives.

NOAA Response

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Puerto Rico Aqueducts
and Sewer Authority are now dealing with individual owners to provide
adequate alternatives for waste disposal and enforcement of the Clean
Water Act. These provisions include repair of the trunk line and
sewage treatment plant, and on site sanitary systems. NOAA has
revised the proposed regulation regarding discharging of polluting
substances (939.7(3)), to bring it into conformance With the EPA/EQB
compliance plan,. Please see Generic.Response #4.

- The proposed enforcement programs.are unacceptable. For example, the
preferred,alternative recommends one ranger, although the-DEIS states
that two are not sufficient.

201

AOA
A Response

The draft management plan proposed one ranger in additon to the two
already assigned to La Parguera. NOAA did not mean to imply that
there would be only one ranger at La Parguera. However, NOAA has
modified the management plan and is proposing to provide 3 additional
rangers for the proposed sanctuary.

The DEIS does not allow a comparison of proposed alternatives based on
cost of content. Presents only the cost of the status quo as a comparison
basis.

NOAA Response

The DEIS and the FEIS do provide comparisons among the alternatives
and also compares each of the alternatives to the status quo. Please
refer to Section V of the FEIS.

No segregated local and federal costs to evaluate the resulting impacts
of the various alternatives.

NOAA Response

There are no direct costs of the program to the Commonwealth. The
proposed marine sanctuary is federally funded and does not require
Commonwealth funds.

The $800,000 will be spent on a visitor center, an interpretive program,
a pier, a new bureaucracy in San Juan and in the community and no net
increase in enforcement activities.

NOAA Response

The draft management plan added an additional ranger. The final
management plan has been modified to add 3 additional rangers. The
$800,000 figure was a planning estimate to be spread over a five
year period.

Of the twelve entities proposed for the Advisory Committee, only two
represent protective interests.

NOAA Response

It has been NOAA's experience that those parties with a direct
interest in the operation of the marine sanctuary should be represented
on the Advisory Committee. This list represents likely members and
could be modified. However, NOAA believes that it is a reasonable
and comprehensive mix of interests.

The law exempting seven public institutions from extracting coral is
inconsistent with sanctuary protection goals.

202

NOAA Response

One of the purposes of sanctuary designation is to foster research
and education. In all National Marine Sanctuaries prohibited
activities may be allowed and permitted for these purposes. These
seven institutions are presently recognized under Commonwealth law
as allowed to take coral while conducting scientific activities
and there has been no apparent resource degradation as a result.
Consequently, NOAA believes that it is reasonable to continue this
provision.

Law No. 133, the Forest Law, does not prohibit the cutting of all
trees within State Forests.

NOAA Response

The DEIS was incorrect and the text of the HIS has been changed.
(Part II, Management Context, Section E). The Forest Law requires a
permit from DNR before any cutting is allowed.

30. Center for Energy and-Environment Research

Strongly endorses proposal.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #3.

31. Dr. Manuel L. Hernandez Avila

- The University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant Program and the Department of
Marine Sciences cannot endorse, at this time, the DEIS and management
plan.

- Support the concept and endorse the establishment of the.marine
sanctuary at La Parguera.

- Believe that the sanctuary designation could be of great socio-economic
benefit to the fishing-industry, commercial concerns and community
residents.

- see no conflict between sanctuary implementation and protection
conservation and utilization of marine resources, if moderation prevails.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees that sanctuary designation will result in benefits to the
local residents and that a balance can be struck between conservation
and resource utilization.

203

The-following questions must be resolved before approval is given:

1. Plans for Aquaculture.

2. Regulation of recreational boating and fishing.

3. Development of recreation or sport fisheries.

4. Rights of reef fishermen.

5. Participation responsibilities and proposed benefits to La Parguera
residents, particularly the fishermen.

Recommend that the plan guarantee, in writing, that no fishing be
restricted without sound scientific evidence.

NOAA Response

It is not the intent of NOAA to restrict fishing and this position
was discussed in the DEIS. Please see generic response #1 for a
further discussion of assurances to this-effect. NOAA has added a
conch mariculture project to the list of research activities and
has made this a high priority (Part !I!, Management Measures, D
Resource Studies Plan). The Dis-i-g-nit-ion Document, which a@tfs Tas a
constMO'on WF -t-Fe-sanctuary contains a provision requiring
Commonwealth approval for modification of any regulation. The
management plan also makes provisions for the establishment of an
advisory committee. This committee would advise the sanctuary
manager in sanctuary operations. The committee would consist of
between 10-15 members and include representatives from groups with
interest relevant to the sanctuary and include members from fishing
organizations, government and the private sector. Benefits to the
residents are discussed in both the DEIS and FEIS.

Recommend that Alternative,5 be adopted at first while adjustments are
made and then later, alternative 2, the preferred alternative.

NOAA Response

NOAA discusses Alternative 5. in V. Environmental Consequences and
did not select that Alternative because-protecti6n7-of-TW -resources
would be incomplete on two accounts. First, some important resources
are not covered by any protective regulation. Gear employed speci-
fically for the illegal taking of sea turtles is not outlawed and
underwater cultural and archaeological resources are not protected.
Secondly, present efforts are insufficient to adequately enforce
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.

204

Comments from:

Commonwealth Agencies and Legislators
1. Carlos Romero - Barce'lo - Governor, Com_6nwealt.h of Puerto Rico

- Has consulted with the Hon@ Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Secretary of the
Department of Natural Resources concerning the questions raised
at the public hearings and believes the document provides reasons
why La Parguera should be a National Marine Sanctuary.

- Is satisfied that the small scale commercial fishery will continue
and that only appropriate level of tourist activities will result.

- Establishment of the National Marine Sanctuary is consistent with
the long-standing public policy of the Government of Puerto Rico.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your support.

- Suggests that the boundary of the proposal be extended to-Punta
Jorobado.

NOAA Response

The area around La Parguera contains a number of valuable
significant and representative marine resources, including
extensive coral reefs and mangrove habitats that are -
appropriate for Inclusion in a marine sanctuary. The
resources between Punta Sombrero and Punta Jorobado are not
as extensive and NOAA does not believe as suitable for the
purposes of the sanctuary program. NOAA has discussed thi 's
boundary modification with Hon. Hilda Diaz-Soltero and her
technical staff.

2. Puerto Rico Aqu6d6ct'an'd Sewe"r AOth6rity

Wants to inform us that rehabilitation of existing sanitary.sewer system
is underway.

NOAA Response

Thank you for the information.
3. Puerto Rico industrial Devel6p66nt_Compa'ny

The sanctuary would add resource protection mechanilsms to the coastal
areas of -La Parguera. At the present time, however, it would be
better to establish the sanctuary only between Punta Sombrero and
Punta Pitahaya (47.30 square nautical miles).

205

tNOAA Response

The areas west of Puerto Pitahaya include Bahia Sucia and Bahia
Salinas, both areas with extensive seagrass beds and which provide
habitat for threatened and endangered sea turtles. Consequently,
NOAA believes that inclusion of these areas is appropriate. It
should be noted that the western boundary of the proposed sanctuary
has been modified to exclude areas of commercially exploitable
sand. Please see figure #3.

- The proposed management plan, if funded, will be very beneficial to the
southwest and for the Island generally.,.The Spanish version of the
document should be revised, if possible. Terms were used which distort
meanings expressed in the English version.

NOAA Response

NOAA has provided the comments on the Spanish version to the firm in
Puerto Rico that is responsible for the translation to insure that
appropriate changes are made to the FEIS.

- Recommend that a listing of all acronyms (laws, departments, offices)
mentioned be included in the FEIS.

NOAA Response

NUAA agrees and has added the list to the FEIS.

- There is an omission of data in the English version on page 32, heading
B, Subheading 1, third paragraph, i.e., number of total work force where
the precentage of 12.6 unemployed, equivalent to 39,000 has beeri calculated.

NUAA Response

The figure of 39,OUO is incorrect, the correct figure should be
14,0000

4. Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority

No comment.

NOAA Response

NRN

5. Puerto Rico Recreational Development Company

No comment

NOAA Response

206

6. Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture

No specifi c comments but endorses the proposal.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #3.

7. Puerto Rico Department of Commerce

- Fully supports proposal.

- Sanctuary will strengthen small and medium businesses in the area and
agrees with the DEIS that neither commercial or recreational fishing
should be regulated.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see Generic Response #3.

8. Puerto Rico Department of Recreation and Sports

- Cons'ervation of the environment in light of population and industrial
gowth confronts the Puerto Rico of today with one of the greatest
challenges in our history. Not conserving such resources only prevents
future generations from being able to enjoy them. Not only would it
threaten the environment, but it would also cause a disintegration of
the economic base of the area.

- The region'of La Parguera as a recreation center, attracts a considerable
number of Puerto Ricans--more than 35,000 visitors a year. With '
careful planning this figure-could be increased which would directly
benefit the economy of the area.

- Although it is clear that nature at the sanctuary must be preserved,
we feel that it is essential to consider the needs of the fishermen.
We know that traditional fishing activities can come into conflict with
conservation practices. Therefore, interests must.be balanced, and the
resulting policy must be discussed with and explained to the fishermen.,

- Considering the importance that the Marine Sanctuary at La Parguera
has for all Puerto Rico, we endorse the plan without reservations, and
we reaffi rm our promise to cooperate so that-the sai.d plan can be
realized.

NOAA Response

Thank you for comments. Please see Generic Response #3. NOAA
agrees that the proposal benefits the community of La Parguera.
Generic Response #1 provides further discussion of the effects
of designation on commercial fishing.

207

9. Municipal Assembly of Moca Resolution No. 21

Endorses the proposed sanctuary and believes that it will beneift
the fishermen.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your support. Please see Generic Response #3.

10. Municipal Assembly of Lajas - Resolution No. 9

Opposes designation of the proposed sancturay because the sanctuary
will not help the economy if the restrictions on fishing will destroy
the fishing industry.

NOAA-Response

Please see Generic Response #1.

11. Mickey Miranda, Senator, Senate of Puerto Rico

Believes that the sanctuary is a logical way to protect the resources
of the area and that the social and economic impact of the sanctuary
will be positive.

Urges additional discussion exploring the impact of the proposal
on the fishing community.

NOAA Response

Thank you for you support. NOAA has added further discussion
concerning the impact of the sanctuary on the fishing community.
Please see Generic Response #1 and Part I of the FEIS.

12. Efrain Santiajo,_'_Senato'r, Senate of PuertoIRico

Supports the proposal but suggests the number of enforcement ranges
be increased to at least four or five.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your support. In the final proposal NOAA has
increased the number of existing enforcement rangers by three.
This will increase the total number.of rangers to at least
five.

13. Rolando A. Silva, Senator, Senate of Puerto Rico

Believes that the sanctuary will be beneficial for the environment
and for the enjoyment of the Public; and that no other program offers
this type of comprehensive management of marine areas.

208

NOAA Response

Thank you for your support. Please see Generic Response,#3.

14. Common-wealth of Puerto Rico, -House 'of,-R-ep-re's*en-tativ"e-s,,-H._k.'735

- Expresses opposition to the propsed marine sanctuary..

- Citizens were not given enough time to study the proposals.

NOAA Response

NOAA and DNR have been working on the proposal for a sanctuary
in Puerto Rico since 1979. La Parguera has been considered
since 1981 and there have been numerous points at which the
public has been made aware of the proposal. Please see Generic
Response #2.

- The public hearings were crowded and held in subhuman conditions.

NOAA Response

The public hearings were held in the largest public 'space available,
the community center, and although the conditionws were crowded
everyone who wished to speak was given an opportunity. The hearings
were conducted fully in accordance with Federal regulations for public
hearings on environmental impact statements.

The proposed increase in rangers is insufficient in light of the
need for additional enforcement documented in the DEIS

Response

NOAA agrees that one additional ranger would not be adequate and
the proposal now contains provisions'to add three additional,
rangers.

Existi.ng laws and programs offer sufficient protection and management
for the area.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees that there are-a number of existing authorities that
provide management and protection for certain resources within
the proposed sanctuary and NOAA is relying on these authorities.
The laws and their limitations are.discussed in Part II of the
Management Plan/FEIS. NOAA also agrees that better enforcement of
these statutes would enhance resource protection. For preci'sely
this reason, NOAA has emphasized increased enforcement activities
as part of the final management plan and will fund 3 additional
rangers.

209

Comments-from:

Federal Agencies

1. EPA Region II

- Believes that the preferred alternative will result in needed additional
protection for the area and-will supplement existing Commonwealth and
Federal statutes.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #3.

- The level of enforcement proposed in the preferred alternative is
inadequate and should be increased to manpower level in alternative 4.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees with a number of reviewers who have suggested that the
enforcement level provided by the proposed management plan would
not be sufficient. The final plan contains provisions for three
additional enforcement officers.

EPA also suggests that section 939.7 of the proposed rulemaking be
reassessed in terms of its conformance with the 1978 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) executed between the Corps of Engineers and the
Governor of Puerto Rico concerning the discharge of polluting substances
from the casetas (shoreline dwellings) with no discharge to the waters
of La Parguera. The proposed rules allow discharge of untreated sewage
from the casetas until expiration of the MOU (1990)'or the completion
of an areawide collection system. EPA requests that the final EIS
address the conformance of the MOU with the proposed rulemaking,
accompanied by a discussion of the present and future.impact of the
casetas' untreated discharges into the sanctuary.

NOAA Response

NOAA has modified the regulation governing the discharges into the
sanctuary. The new proposed regulation is consistent with the
agreement between USEPA Region 11 and the Puerto Rico Aquaduct and
Sewer Authority (PRASA) by requiring self-contained treatment or
hook-up to the se'wage system within 90 days after operation of the
facility. Please see Part 111 86-235.7(8).

2. The Department of the Interior

The document does not adequately depict the magnitude of the problem.
There has been a significant increase in people moving into the Bahia
Montalva area. The accompanying development associated with this influx
has resulted in unauthorized fill actions (under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act) for piers, road access, house pads, and similar

210

construction. This activity, if continued in an unregulated manner,
could severely impact the unique bioluminescence microorganisms in
the area. The sanctuary plan should take into account these-various
impacts to the resources within the proposed sanctuary.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the regulations (Part 939 CFR) proposed under
Management Measures Part IV of the HIS when enforced in concert
with existing Commonwealth and Federal regulations (discussed in
in Part II Management Context) will address these unauthorized
acflro-ns.-The sanctuary will also enhance enforcement of these
protective measures by providing three additional rangers. This
number has been increased from the one additional ranger proposed
in the DEIS.

Cabo Rojo West offshore sand deposit lies partly within the sanctuary..
There are approximately 19 million cubic meters of sand within boundary
alternative #1 and about 7 million cubic meters within boundary alterna-
tive #3. There are no sand deposits of economic potential within
boundary alternative #2. Similarly, if- the western boundary of the
sanctuary was placed directly south of the eastern end of Cabo Rojo,
the Cabo Rojo West offshore sand deposit would lie entirely outside of
the sanctuary.

.NOAA Response

NOAA has modified the preferred boundary alternative to exclude the
area of the known sand deposits from the proposed sanctuary. Please
see Figure 3 of the FEIS.

3. U.S. Army Corps of'Engineers

- The Environmental Consequences section should contain some discussion
of the possible impacts on the proposed marine sanctuary if the sand
deposits discussed on page 18 were to be exploited.

NOAA Response

The area off Cabo Rojo containing sand deposits is no longer included
within the proposed sanctuary.

- The economic analysis of fishing in the area is not clear. In the
DEIS it is stated that the Average income of fishermen is $3,258. Using
the data on pages 35-38, the income of fishermen is calculated as being
$15,015/year (35 average pots/fisherman @ 5 lb/lift x $8.25 average
price per pound of fish x 104 lifts/annum = 15,015). Conversely, using
the data on pages 35-38, $3258 income' = 3949 pounds of fish/annum
$.825 average price
pots = 1 lb. of fish/pot, not the 5,lb present in the data. There
should be some explanation for this apparent 5 fold inconsistency.

211

NOAA Response

NOAA concurs that there is an apparent inconsistncy between the
CODREMAR data indicating an average income of #3258 and the
figures obtained by the Wilcox and Associates study. This
portion of the FEIS has been rewritten to acknowledge the
di screpency.

Page 46. The discussion about Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
shouT-d-include the role of the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB). DNR
submits the @ndorsement. The PRPB submits a certificate of consistency
with the PR-CZM.

NOAA Response

The Planning Board in 1978 adopted the PRCMP as an element of the
Puerto Rico Land Use Plan. Therefore, it is appropriate that the
Planning Board is responsible for issuing certificates of consistency
with regard to projects in the coastal zone. As a matter of internal
coordination, the PRPB contacts DNR prior to issuing such certification
of consistency.
Page 82. (3) (iv). The Corps does not issue permits for the "casetas."
Existing structures are unauthorized. The owners can move these
structures whenever necessary.

NOAA Response

The reference to the COE permit has been deleted from the revised
regulation. However, NOAA understands that under the terms of the
1978 MOU, the Corps of Engineers issues permits for three years at
a time to the casetas, legalizing their presence in navigable water
of the United States. Most of the structures were built without
permits, from ARPE or the Planning Board, and are considered illegal.
However, the owners cannot move them to other sites without all of
the required permits, from ARPE and the Corps. Casetas should not
be confused with houseboats, which are floating structures that do

It should be noted that as of this time, the Memorandum of Agreement
between the Corps and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has not been
executed by the Commonwealth. The Corps is honoring the provisions of
the Memorandum.

NOAA Response

The MOU states that DNR will do a plan for La Parguera. Initially
there was some ambiguity in the MOU as to whether that plan should
also include the maritime zone as well as thee upland area of the
village. DNR is now working a plan that includes the "maritime
zone" and the "casetas".

212

4. Department of Health and Human Services

- Designation of a sanctuary should not preclude the use of control
measures for public health purposes.

NOAA Response
NOAA has modified the proposed regulations for the marine sanctuary
to provide for permits for the use of control Measures for public
health purposes.

- The EIS should indicate whether the shore areas of the proposed sanctuary
have the potential for harboring any large population of vectors@capable
of causing vector-borne disease problems or nuisance problems for local
communities and residents.

The purpose of the EIS is to analyze the environmental impacts on
resources of the marine environment as a result of 0,'@signation the
proposed sanctuary. The issue raised here is beyond the scope of
this project.

- With regard to the proposed research objectives, consideration should be
given to determining the species of mosquitoes or other vectors of public
health importance in the sanctuary.

NOAA Response

The primary purpose of the NOAA funded sanctuary research is to pro-
vide information that will assist the on-site manager in day-to-day
operation of the sanctuary; therefore that research-is first priority.
Your suggestions will be brought before our Advisory Committee for
review as the research plan is updated.

5. Department of Transportation

No comment.

NOAA Response

NRN

6. Department of the Air Force

-According to the 17 February 1983 DOD Area Planning Chart for Military
Routes, the proposed sanctuary area lies in the vicinity of three
military training routes (VR-1079, VR-1080, VR-1081) and three military
warning areas (W-371A, W-371B, W-370).

- There are no Air Force or Air National Guard (ANG) facilities in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed sanctuary.

213

Appreciates acknowledgement of DOD activities under Appendix E, Article
5, Section 2 of the DEIS. Approval of any of the proposed sanctuary
alternatives should not adversely impact current Air Force National
Guard operations.

NOAA Response

Thank you for the information.

214

National Public Interest Groups

Comments from:

1. Defenders of Wildlife

- Strongly supports the designation of La Parguera as a national marine
sanctuary.

NUAA Response

The support is appreciated. Please see Generic Response 0.,

- Requests that an explanation of the status of the Mona/Monito site
be provided in the "History of the Proposal" section.

NUAA Response

The FEIS has been revised to explain that Mona is still an active
candidate.

- Some details on Figure 3 have been omitted.

1. There is no scale of mileage provided.

2. There is no indication of the eastern boundary of the La Parguera
Natural Reserve, nor of Punta Sombrero. (According to the
narrative boundary alternative descriptions on page 125, these
two points are apparently the same.)

3. Given the slightly complicated nature of the extent of Puerto
Rico's jurisdiction, the distance from shore of the "Territorial
Sea" line is unclear: is it three miles, or three marine
leagues (i.e., 10.35 miles)?

NOAA Response

A scale has been added to the Figure. The eastern boundary of the
Natural Reserve, Punta Sombrero, has been delineated. The territorial
sea in Puerto Rico is three nautical miles and the line demarcating
the 3 mile limit has been removed from the Figure.

- Defenders is supportive of boundary alternative 3 (the preferred
alternative), particularly because it incorporates Bahia Salinas,
which is likely to be an important nesting area for sea turtle species.

NUAA Response

NRN

Pa e 18 The DEIS indicates that the "area of greatest commercial
ning) potential in the southwest lies di 'rectly south of
Cabo Rojo point." However, reference to Figures 6 (p. 14) and 10
(p. 23) indicates that sand deposits actually occur well to the west

215

of Cabo Rojo point, directly south (but considerably offshore) of
Bahia Salinas. Which location is accurate?

Response

The Department of the Interior has informed NUAA that the *sand
deposit extends south of Cabo.Rojo as well as.to the west as'shown
on Figures 6 and 10.

-.Pages 25-28. The discussion of mangrove systems, although quite good,
leaves unanswered the-question of why only the red mangrove (Rhizophora
mangle) receives any protection in the proposed Sanctuary regulations
1p. 82). As this section clearly'indicates, there are at least three,
and possibly four mangrove forest types found in the proposal area;
why is only one protected? Defenders urges that proposed regulations
at Part 939.7(l)(ii) be expanded to incorporate any mangrove species
occurring within the Sanctuary.

NOAA Response

The jurisdiction of the marine sanctuary program can-include areas
only to the extent of the ebb and flow of the tide. Red mangroves
are generally confined to this intertidal zone. However, the white
and black mangroves predominately live in areas not subject to
tidal action, and therefore outside the boundary of the proposed
sanctuary.

Pages 3U-31. The discussion of rare and endangered species wou,ld be
significantly enhanced if the list of species compiled for the Puerto
Rico Department of Natural Resources in 1973 was included, perhaps as
an appendix. This information would provide the public with a better
overall picture of species diversity and abundance in the proposal area.

NUAA Response

Because the documents containing this information are lengthy, NUAA
has not included the information as an appendix. However, copies
can be obtained from the Sanctuary Programs Division.

West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus). Is the taking of "a small
number" of manatees in fishing nets considered incidental to fishing
operations? Are there Commonwealth statutes protecting manatees, as
we] I as . the Enda nge red Speci es Act ? Does hu nt i ng of these ani mal s st i I I
occur? If Sanctuary designation occurs, Defenders hopes that scientific
effort., as outlined to ascertain the numbers of manatees utilizing
these waters will be given a priority status.

NOAA Response

Sightings of manatees within the propose sanctuary are rare and
there i-s no hunting of the species. Commonwealth statutes do not
protect the manatee.

216

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). The most obvious
observation about this discussion on page 30 are other threatened or
endangered sea turtle species omitted. As the DEIS itself later notes
(p. 56), these other sea turtle species "are known to frequent the
waters of the proposed LPNMS area": green (Chelonia mzdas), leatherback
aa
(Dermochelys coriacea.), and loggerhead (Caretta carettaTT All of these,
as well as the hawksbill, are Federally listed under the Endangered
Species Act as follows, as they occur in the proposal area:

hawksbi,11 (endangered)
green (threatened)
leatherback (endangered)
loggerhead (threatened)

This.Anformation should be included'in this section.

.NOAA Response

This information has been added to the text of the FEIS,

Page 39. The discussion on the Commonwealth's jurisdiction is confusing.
It appears that Puerto Rico generally has jurisdiction and authority over
natural resources, including fisheries, within three marine leagues
(or 10.35 miles) of its coastline. Jurisdiction and authority over
wildlife resources, however, remains unclear: it extends either to
three or to 10.35 miles. If it is possible to clarify the extent of
Commonwealth jurisdiction over marine resources, this should be done.

.NOAA Response

All resources within three marine leagues are under
the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. This is clarified in the
FEIS.

Page 45, In the section Federal Statutes," to what does 48 U.S.C.
�748 re er? Although 48 U.S.C. �749 is previously discussed, there is
no reference �748.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the reference to �748 was an error and has been
deleted from the FEIS.

Pa e 47 Defenders believes the development of fishery management plans
e a top priority, and that Sanctuary management.could enhance
the success of-those plans thro ugh.coordination with its resource studies
programs.

NOAA Response

NOAA has added the,Caribbean Fishery Management Council as a group
with whom the sanctuary will coordinate for edu Icatio.nal'and scientific
purposes.

217

Pages 48-51. From the descriptions of existing Federal and Commonwealth
entities with some jurisdiction over the proposed Sanctuary area, it
is important that clear lines of responsibility be drawn and understood,
so that sound@and effective Sanctuary management is achieved. As indicated
by Figure 13 (p. 73) a large segment of the Commonwealth's Department
of Natural Resources appears to be potentially involved in Sanctuary
management.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees on the need for clear lines of responsibility in a
management relationship involving so many entities. In addition,
please note that the discussion on the relationship.of DNR components
and organization has bee "n modified slightly to reflect new
administrative changes with DNR.

Page 52. The "Issues and Problems" section is exceptionally good in
identifying areas of concern related to natural resources and human
activities. (Parenthetically, the reference cited as "Cotte, 1982"
on pp. 52 and 56 is not identified in the bibliography or elsewhere in
the DEIS.)

NOAA Response

The Cotte references are personal communications and are not
published material. Accordingly, they are not included in the
bibliography.

Page 82. The draft sanctuary regulations do not address oil spills
specifically; is a prohibition against oil (gr chemical) spills to be
presumed from proposed 939.7(a)(b)?

NOAA Response

Section 939.7(a)(3) would prohibit discharge of substances (with
limited exceptions) into the sanctuary. Oil and other chemicals would
be unauthorized discharges under these regulations.

Page 55. The statement that the Corps of Engineers "has expressed a
willingness to modify" the 1978 Nemorandum of Understanding signed
with the Governor of Puerto Rico is unclear. Is there still a commitment
to convert the casetas into a public vacation center by 1990? Sanctuary
designation would provi-de an unprecedented opportunity to address these
problems from a constructive and long-range perspective, and thus firmly
supports the aggressive resolution of these issues.
NOAA Response

This statement was intended to convey the idea that modifications
to the MOU could be possible. A decision on the final disposition
of the casetas has not been decided.

Page 80-86. That.a regulation be added at 939.7(a)(2): Operation
of Vessels, to the effect that vessels shall be operated at no more
than "wake speed" while in established manatee areas.

218

NUAA Response

NOAA has not yet identified manatee areas and will consider the
need for the suggested regulation after completion of Study 2.1
Distribution and Status of the West Indian Manatee P*lation.

Page 87. Both Enrique Reef and San Cristobal Reef are ext 'ensively used
for research purposes. Is there any significant potential for user
conflict or resource damage by designating these reefs as underwater
trails for beginning snorklers? Are there other reefs in the vicinity
which would be equally suitable?

NOAA Response

NOAA has proposed these locations as possible sites for underwater
trails. However, before any final decision is made Resource Study 4.2
Coral Reef Underwater Trail Feasibility Study will be completed to
answer these kinds of questions.

Technical Corrections - (indicated by page number).

1. Page iv. "III. Management Measures (Continued)" should read
7. -Management Measures (Continued)."

2. Page 32. "B. Social and Economic Factors" should read "D. Social and
Economic Factors."

NOAA Response

NOAA has made these corrections.

2. Center for Environmental Education

- The Center for Environmental Education believes that the draft
-environmental impact statement (DEIS) demonstrates that the scientific,
esthetic, ecological and. recreational values of the La Parguera area
make it a sound choice for sanctuary designation.

NOAA Response

NOAA appreciates the support. Please see Generic Response #3,

- Neither the DEIS nor'the proposed regulations explain why the Culebra/
Culebrita and Mona/Monito sites are not being considered at this time.

NUAA Response

on July 13, 1981, NOAA published a notice in the.Federal-Re *ster
(vol. 46, No. 133, page 35951) announcing the remo al of ra/
Culebrita site from active consideration. Mona is.still an active
candidate although a schedule for designation has*n6t been decided.

219

We support boundary alternative 1 since, among other things, it includes
all of the Boqueron Natural Reserve. Futhermore, this alternative includes
the extensive seagrass beds of Bahi,a Sucia and Bahia Salinas which,.as
the UEIS notes.on page 141, are important habitats for endangered and
,threatened sea turtles and manatees.

NUAA Response

The preferred boundary alternative (alternative 3) includes both
the areas of Bahia Sucia and Bahia Salinas. NOAA agrees that these
are important habitats and should be within the proposed sanctuary.
However, the area between Punta Sombrero and Punta Jorobado is
characterized by sand and rubble bottom and is not threatened or in
need of additional management measures.

We urge a fuller discussion of the submerged reef and the antipatharian
and black coral zones. Specifically, what areas of these two habitats
are included within the boundary and what areas are not.

NOAA Response

NUAA does not have that information at this time. The Resource
Studies Plan (Part 111. 0) is designed to gather detailed resource
information of this nature.

We must express concern about continued dumping of raw sewage into the
waters of the proposed sanctuary. The lack of a solution to this
problem, despite development plans and the memorandum of understanding
between the Commonwealth and the Corps of Engineers, do not inspire
confidence that the problem of sewage from the casetas, in particular,
will be solved in the near future.

NUAA Response

USEPA and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) have
entered into an agreement to make the sewage system operable (Please
see Generic Response # 4 and Part IIi F--Issues and Problems for an
update).

We suggest that the discussion of rare and endangered species on pages
3U-31 include green, leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. We support
the proposed regulations regarding the use of turtle nets within the
sanctuary area. Our discussions with people familiar with hunting of
sea turtles indicate clearly that such nets are distinguishable from
other types of nets and are used only to catch sea turtles.

NOAA Response

The suggested discussion has been added to the text. NOAA appreciates
your substantiation that the nets prohibited by the proposed regulations
are used for illegal hunting of turtles.

2'2 0

- Since sand deposits which may be extractable occur within the proposed
sanctuary areas, we urge that sand mining be listed as a regulated
activity.

NOAA Response

The final western boundary of the proposed sanctuary has been
modified and no longer includes areas where sand mining is likely.

- We urge that the statement of purpose not restrict itself to protection
and regulation. The research and educational objectives of the proposed
sanctuary are very important and should be included in the purpose.

NUAA Response

The broader purpose of the sanctuary is discussed in Part III
Management Measures where detailed goals and objectives reTa-tlng to
research and education are found.

- The discussion of the Impact of commercial fishing within the proposed
sanctuary should be broadened to include an assessment of the health of
the reef fish community. Will the continued removal of top-level
predatory fish alter the reef fish community structure?

NUAA Response

This information is not available at this time. However, as part
of the Resource Studies Plan, particularly Study 1.2--Compilation
of Literature and Ongoing Research on the Proposed LPNMS will result
in a comprehensive document providing this type of information or
indicating gaps for further needed research. If this resource
information is not available the Resource Studies portion of the
management plan could be mofified to add this topic.

- Also, there is little discussion of spearfishing within the proposed
sanctuary area. With designation, will there be an increase in
spearfishing? In other areas, spearfishing seems to have altered reef
fish community structure and to have made the remaining fish less
approachable. In light of this, we urge that spearfishing be listed as
a regulated activity. Should the research recommended on page 120 of
the DEIS show a negative impact, regulations should be promulgated. We
urge that the proposed study be conducted much earlier.than the fifth
year, as-currently contemplated (DEIS p. 123).

NUAkResponse

Data in writing the DEIS indicated that the Incidence of spearfishing
at La',Parguera is probably not.significant. However, NOAA will
invest1gate the level of.the-activity as part of the Resource
Studi,es' Plan. This topic is.not a higher priori.ty.'because the
proposed regulations would not,allow spearfishing,laft.underwater
trails..,where potential problems regarding spearfishing.might arise.

2 .21

We wish to complime.nt the preparers of the DEIS on producing a sound
decisionmaking document.

We urge NOAA to proceed with the consideration of the proposed
La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary. This site will be a valuable
addition to the program.

NOAA Response

Thank you for the comment.

222

San Juan, Puerto Rico
Summary of Testimony
DEIS Public Hearing
April 13, 1983

1. Hector Bonilla Noret, Architect

Recommends that protection be implemented to encourage better use,
of La Parguera for future generations.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your support. Please see Generic Response #3.

2. Eliseo Morales, Engineer

La Parguera needs better recreational infrastructure for visitors.

NOAA Response

One of the objectives of the management plan is to provide an
infrastructure that will help La Parguera accomodate both the
existing level of visitors and that projected for the future.
The proposed visitor center, mangrove boardwalk, underwater
trails and increased enforcement are central to accomodating
this use and should assist in enhancing the visitor's experience.

3. Eddie Laboy, Manager, Jobos Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary

- Endorses the sanctuary because comprehensive planning and public
education for La Parguera are necessary.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #3.

- More dialogue between DNR and the fishermen should take place.

NOAA Reponse

The Secretary of DNR has met with representatives of several
fishing associations and individual fishermen in an effort to
explain the concept and purpose of designating a National Marine
Sanctuary in La Parquera and to listen to their concerns on all
matters relating to the fishing industry.

4. Luis Juarbe, Architect, Tourism Company of Puerto Rico

Adequate.use of La Parguerals resources must be guaranteed to all
users of the area including fishermen.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #1.

2 2-5

5. Senator Antonio Fas Alzamora

Following discussions with the fishermen of La Parguera and the
surrounding towns, filed Senate Resolution 639 to order the Agriculture
and Natural Resources Commission to undertake a study for the sanctuary
project. This study will determine if a balance can be attained
between the use and enjoyment of.the natural resources and commerical
and sports fishing, in Lajas and adjacent areas.

NOAA Response

The Secretary of DNR on Thursday, 9 February 1984, testified before
the Agriculture and Natural Resources Commission to the effect that
the National Marine Sanctuary project in La Parguera does provide
a balance between the use and enjoyment of the natural resources
and commercial and sports fishing in Lajas and adjacent areas.

6. Luis Nieves Falcon

Concerned with the degree of pollution caused by American corporations
and believes that their profits 'are not reinvested into recovery
of the Puerto Rican environment.

NUAA Response

No Response Necessary (NRN).

States that there was lack of participation on the part of the fishermen
who will be most affected by the proposed sanctuary.

NUAA Response

NUAA believes that a reasonable attempt was made to inform the people
of La Parguera about the proposal. For further discussion, please
see Generic Response #2.

Believes that the project points out a significant difference in values
between the Puerto Rico and American cultures.

NOAA Response

The maintenance, of a high quality natural and human environment
is a concern to people of all cultures. Actions by the Commonwealth
and citizens of Puerto Rico have demonstrated a heritage of
environmental concern many times. Written public comments on the
DEIS, even among opponents of the proposal, stress the importance
of the concept of environmental conservation and management in
Puerto Rico. The establishment by theCommonwealth of systems of
parks, natural reserves and state forests (as early as 1918) air
and water quality laws and other environmental protection measures
are evidence of the importance of environmental quality to Puerto
Rico.

224

Raises the question of Puerto Rico controlling its own maritime coast or
ceding the control to a federal agency.

NOAA Response

Designating a natinal marine sanctuary in Commonwealth waters
under Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended (the Act), does not affect the sovereignty
of Puerto Rico over those waters, and does not transfer such
territory to the United States.

The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, with the President's
approval, to designate areas of ocean and coastal waters as '
national marine sanctauries in order to preserve or restore such
areas for their "conservation, recreational, ecological, or
esthetic values" (Section 302(a) of the Act). If a proposed
marine sanctuary lies wholly or partly within the boundaries of a
State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Governor must
approve the designation and its terms before it is effective.
The Act also requires the Secretary to indicate the types of
activities in the terms of the designation which may be regulated,
subject to the Governor's approval. Changes in the terms of the
designation, including removal of State or Territorial waters,
may be made only by the same procedures through which an original
designation is made, i.e., congressional review and Presidential
approval (Section 3U2(f)).

Marine sanctuary designation does not transfer Commonwealth
territory to the United States. The Act applies in the coastal
waters of Puerto Rico in essentially the same manner as other
Federal laws applicable in Puerto Rico, except that no designation
of a marine sanctuary in Commonwealth waters may be effective
without the approval of the Governor.

Points out that this project is another example of the colonial condition
of Puerto Rico and emphasi,zes that control of the territory is in the hands
of the U.S.

NUAA Response

The process for designation and management of a National,Marine
Sanctuary is conducted in accordance with established Federal
regulations for operating the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
The same regulations apply anywhere within the United States and
the same process has been, or is being used, not only in Puerto
Rico, but in California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and American
Samoa. In the future the process will be used elsewhere in the
United States.

In an effort to be sensitive to some of the cultural and language
differences that exist between the Commonwealth and the continental
U.S., NOAA modified the approach to the designation process. For
a more detailed discussion, please see Generic Response #2.

2 25

Opposes the project and will submit more substantial evidence in writing.

NOAA Response

No additional information was provided.

7. Carlos Flores Torres

The residents of La Parguera have not been properly briefed from the
.,beginning, concerning the impacts of the sanctuary.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #2.

Funds should be spent on the La Parguera sewer system which needs completion
and could be more important to the marine resources than the sanctuary.

NOAA Response

PRASA has been working on the defective trunkline at La Parguera.
Funds for-this sewer line on the amount of $300,OUO have been
committed in an agreement between EPA and PRASA.

8i Ramberto Hernandez

DNR should help the conch fishermen rather than propose the sanctuary.

NOAA Response

The proposed sanctuary does not prevent DNR or any other Commonwealth
or Federal agency,: such as CODREMAR from providing assistance to
the fishermen. Because the proposed sanctuary is totally federally
funded, the project does not compete with other priorities for
Commonwealth funds.

The DEIS contained a proposal for a conch stock assessment. In the
HIS this topic has been expanded to include a conch seeding mariculture
project if the initial investigation indicates the effort might
prove successful.

9. Edwin Torres Torres

- Opposes the sanctuary because it will not be useful and will bring
economic restrictions to the fishermen and the tourists coming to
La Parguera are already enough to support the tourist businesses.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #1.

226

10. Victor Rosado Torres

Opposes the sanctuary because cutting of red mangroves is prohibited.
Fishermen need to clear red mangrove paths in order to get the black
and white mangrove spikes for their nets.

NOAA Response

Under present Commonwealth law (Forest Act) the cutting of mangroves
is illegal without a permit from DNR within state forests. In most
cases, and particularly in the La Parguera area, the black and
white mangroves are accessible from.the land. Cutting through the
red mangroves is not necessary.

Since fishing lobster and octopus with harpoons and hooks involves
some damage to the reefs, concerned the fishermen will be barred from
the reefs.

- The net fishermen in La Parguera cannot fish beyond the reef area.
Concerned that the fishermen will not be able to make a living in
deeper water beyond the reefs.
- Other areas outside of La Parguera, where fishermen live will also
be adversely affected by sanctuary designation'. Hearings should be held
in Cabo Rojo, Guanico, El Combate, Boqueron, Joyuda.,.Mayague.z and Aquadilla.

NOAA Response-

Only those activities specifically prohibited by the proposed
regulations would be prohibited. The regulations do not curtail
harpoons, hook and line, or nets with the mesh size normally
used at La Parguera for fishing. Consequently, the livelihood of
-these fishermen will not be affected. For additional discussion
please see Generic Response #1.

11. Testimony of 14 Fishermen

Oppose the sanctuary because once designated there will.be restrictions
on fishing including a ban on fi-shing in the areas of the coral reefs.
These restrictions will create safety problems and cause an economic
loss to the fishing community in the southwest.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #1.

12. Testimony of 2.Fishermen

Opposed due to la,ck of adequate available information..

NOAA Response

Please see General Response #2.

227

13. Ignacio Martinez

Opposes the sanctuary because the area will continue to be the best
sanctuary for all without designation.

NOAA Response

NOAA and DNR believe that pressures from increasing use of the area
will ultimately degrade the quality of the natural environment of
La Parguera. Over 35,OUO visitors a year are attracted to La Parguera
(DNR managing office statistics, 1981). Accordingly, we maintain
that the strategies presented in the management for the proposed
sanctuary offer the best approach to protecting the resources while
providing for recreational and commercial uses of the area- For
additional discussion please see Section V, Environmental 6onsequences
of the FEIS.

14. Froilan Lopez

Opposes.the sanctuary because DNR did not orient the community to
the sanctuary proposal.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #2.

ONR is not capable of managing the sanctuary when it cannot manage
its present responsibilities, such as help to the fishermen.

NOAA Response

DNR is the Commonwealth agency charged with the legal responsibility
to*manage many of Puerto Rico's natural resources. NOAA believes
that DNR has demonstrated it is both effective and capable. -In
addition, NOAA is responsible for management of the sanctuary and
day to day operations conducted by DNR will be guided by the final
management plan.

15. Ruben Mercado
Opposes the sanctuary because the sanctuary may expropriate his land
at the water's edge.

NOAA Response

The designation of the marine sanctuary does not empower the
expropriation of any land area. The marine sanctuary program
has.jurisdiction only over water areas.

16. Lydia Martinez

Urges the DNR,to explain the federal laws that apply and then hold
new hearings and opposes the sanctuary.

228

NOAA Response
Please see Part H, Management Conte'xt,'E, Legal/Institutional
8kkgr66nd,_T6_ra di*scussion of all re e7van-t-fe-Te-rall laws.

The management plan should be more conclusive and,DNR shoul d present
more accurate documentation in relation to the DEIS.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the information provided in the DEIS is
accurate. Where reviewers have indicated incorrect or misinformationj
changes have been made. The purpose of the management pl'an is to
provide a framework to guide day-to-day activities within' a sanctuary.
NOAA believes that the specificity in both the draft and final
plans provides the public with a reasonable idea of what it can
expect from the management of the sanctuary and provides adequate
guidance for the on-site manager, while allowing enough flexibility
to respond to changing circumstances.

17. Cesar Padilla
Opposed. The fish market in La Parguera sells one to two thousand pounds
monthly from 20 fishermen in La Parguera.

NOAA Response

Sanctuary designation will not restrict commercial fishing. Please see
Generic Response #1.

18. Pipo Rodri�u6z

- Not enough time for citizens to respond to the DEIS. The notices for
the DEIS hearing were not adequate. Use posters, loudspeakers, in

addition to newspapers.

- Another hearing should be held in La Parguera.

- DNR explanation of the sanctuary was not effective.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #2.

- As a caseta owner, oppose's the sanctuary because DNR/NOAA wants to
eliminate them and the caseta owners provide business and employment
for La Parguera.

NOAA R6spo*nse

Please see Generic Response #4.

229

19. Ivan-Lopez

Opposes the sanctuary because the area will not be large enough to
support the visitors to the sanctuary and believes that a marine
sanctuary will not solve the many problems of La Parguera.

NOAA Response

The variety of attractions in La Parguera results in over 35,000
visitors a year (DNR@ Mayaguez Office Statistics, 1981), the majority
coming from Ponce and Mayaguez. NOAA believes the management plan
for the proposed sanctuary, specifically the visitor center facilities,
interpretive program and increased number of enforcement rangers
will result in more effective management of these and possibly increased
numbers of visitors. While NOAA acknowledges a marine sanctuary
will not solve all of the problems at La Parguera, we believe that
designation of the sanctuary and subsequent management consistent
with the final plan will contribute to resolution of some of the more
important issues.

20. Rosa Maria Steele

- See Summary of Written Comments testimony #13.

21 Juan Ricart

The sanctuary concept warrants greater explanation but believes that
the sanctuary concepts, well-developed and established, will result in
social, economic and educational benefits.

NOAA Response

.Please see Generic Response #3.

22. Salvador Capestany

7 The Pl.anning Board spent years advocating the preservation of La Parguera
resources. It is sad that Puerto Ricans do not understand that the
sanctuary will protect these same resources.

@O
A@jes
R(n@e

No Response Necessary (NRN).

The sanctuary project will respect the fishermen's way of life but this
has not been adequately explained to them.

NOAA Response

NOAA has provided additional explanations regarding the impact of the
sanctuary on commercial fishing activities in the FEIS. Please see
Generic Responses #1 and #2.

230

Sewage from the casetas is the main environmental problem. There is
a treatment plant already built in La Parguera but not appropriate for
the area. There is an accelerated photo-synthesis. sewage treatment
system which would work in La Parguera but,,offe rs to put in this
experimental system which would treat caseta wastes, have.been rejected.

NOAA Response

PRASA has been working on,the defective trunk line and USEPA and
PRASA have entered into an agreement that.commi.ts $400K to the
project and have agreed on a completion date of July 31, 1985.

23. Honorable Carlos Acevedo Laz-zarini

- Represents the House Youth Commission and the House Natural-,Resources
Commission. Public hearingswill be held on House Resolution 612 in the
future to learn more about the problems of the.fishing industry.

NOAA Response

NRN

- Believes that the DNR, and to a lesser extent, NOAA did not properly
inform the fishermen of their intentions nor took their rights into
account in developing the plan.

NOAA Response

NOAA made a conscious effort to give every consideration to the
fishing community in developing this proposal and believes that
the people of La Parguera were adequately informed of the
development of the proposal. Please see Generic Responses #1
and #3.

- Asserts that the sanctuary will interfere with Puerto Ricans' property
and management rights over the 10.35 mile coastal zone.

NOAA Response

Designating a natonal marine sanctuary in Commonwealth waters under
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended (the Act), does not affect the sovereignty of
Puerto Rico over those waters, and does not transfer such property
to the United States.

231

and its terms before it is effective. The Act also requires the
Secretary to indicate the types of activities in the terms of the
designation which may be regulated, subject to the Governor's approval.
Marine sanctuary designation does not transfer Commonwealt:h territory
to the United States. The Act applies in the coastal waters of
Puerto Rico in essentially the same manner as other Federal laws
applicable in Puerto Rico, except that no designation of a marine
sanctuary in Commonwealth waters may be effective without the
approval of the Governor.

The DEIS is inaccurate in its description of the fishing community in
the area of the proposed sanctuary. Cedes his time to his advisor,
Luis Bonilla Soto.

NOAA Response

NOAA welcomes corrections of any incorrect statement and has
modified the FEIS when this has been pointed out and correct
information provided by reviewers.

24. Luis Bonilla Soto

- Questions whether those who would be authorized to limit boat traffic
in the bioluminescent bay would be the same boat companies taking
tourists to the bay.

NOAA Response

Any regulation of boat traffic within the marine sanctuary would
not be left to private individuals or businesses. It would be the
responsibility of sanctuary management and DNR and authorized under
Federal and Commonwealth statutes.

- Concerned that once the sanctuary is designated, the residents may not
be consulted.

NOAA Response
One of the most important, and NOAA believes useful, aspect of
sanctuary management would be the proposed sanctuary advisory
committee. This committee would advise the sanctuary manager in
sanctuary operations. The committee would consist of between
10-15 members and include representatives from groups with interests
relevant to the sanctuary and include members from fishing organi-
zations, government and the private sector.

- Concerned that funds may not be available for the five-year plan.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees that as in the case of all federal programs funding
for national sanctuaries can not be guaranteed. However, no
management activities such as construction of the visitors center,

232

or boardwalk can be undertaken until an appropriation for the
National Marine Sanctuary Program has been made by Congress.. All
project funding is federal and the Commonwealth is not making a
commitment to undertake these activities without Federal funds.

- Clari-fication is needed on how the management plan would be developed
following designation.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the management-strategies in the DEIS and
FEIS are sufficiently well developed to constitute a management
plan and that the sanctuary manager and staff would be able to
use this framework to undertake day-to-day operations of the
sanctuary. Future modification of the plan will bethe
responsibility of NOAA, DNR, and the Advisory Committee-.

- Existing resource protection statutes are sufficient. Additional
surveillance, however, is needed. The DNR should petition the legislature
for more funds.

NOAA Response

NOAA concurs that many of t'he important resources of La Parguera
are covered by existing Commonwealth statutes. These are discussed
in Part II, Management Context, E. Legal and Institutional Background.
However, there are several gaps as noted in Part V: Envirionmental
.Consequences. The most notable of these ar6_prot7ecti_6n -of submerged
cultural resources, certain activities regarding cutting of red
mangroves, and protection of endangered turtles through gear
.restrictions. NOAA agrees the additional surveillance is needed.
Consequently, the final management plan makes provisions to increase
the existing number of rangers from 2 to 5.

Opposes the sanctuary for the above reasons and others to be submitted
in a written statement.

NOAA Response

No further statement was received.

25. Charles Picoly

- Submitting prepared comments on behal f of the Honorable Secretary
of the Department of Sports and Recreation; Pedro Bared Rosario.

- The balancing of population growth with the conservation of the
island environment is-one of Puerto Rico's most serious challenges.

- Planning enables man to exploit natural resources in an orderly way,
allowing for enjoyment-and conservation.

233

With appropriate planning and regulation, the number of visitors
to La Parguera could increase considerably, directly benefiting the
economy.

NOAA Response

NOAA concurs with this reviewer and believes that the provisions
found in the management plan will result in more effective
handling of the visitors to La Parguera and protection for the
resources. NOAA also believes that the sanctuary will result in
increased benefits to the economy of La Parguera.

the needs of the smal I-scale fisherman native to the area must not be
overlooked. There could be a conflict between traditional fishing
practices and the conservation measures proposed. Discussions of the
short and long-term effects of the plan must be presented to the
various fishermen associations of the area.

NOAA Response

NOAA does not intend to overlook the needs of the small-scale
fishermen and has added language clarifying that the proposed
sanctuary would not restrict commercial fishing. Please see
Generic Response #1 for further discussion. NOAA and DNR intend
to continue discussion with the fishing community and will involve
that community in the future management through membership on the
Advisory Committee.

- The DEIS study of the fishermen in the area should be extended to
consider the economic benefits of the sanctuary to the fishermen
for activities other than commercial fishing.

NOAA Response

The HIS discusses the benefits of the overall proposal including
activities other than commerical fishing. Please see Part I,
Introduction and Summary, and Parts V, VI and VII.

- Law No. 126 of July 13, 1980 (Organic Law of the Department of
Sports and Recreation) enables the DSR and the DNR to design a
plan for the regulation of recreation in the sanctuary. A major
advantage to this is the authority to impose a $1000 fine for
violation of said regulations.

- Endorses the sanctuary without reservation, and reaffi ms his
Department's offer to cooperate.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your comment.

234

26. Francisco Javier Blanco, Executive Director, PRCT

- The Conservation Trust, which acquired the land surrounding the
Bioluminescent Bay, does not oppose the sanctuary but questions
the way it has been presented to the publi.c.
- Believes there has been lack of information and education.

NOAA Response

NOAA shares your concern that the public has misundersto od certain
aspects of the proposal, particularly the effectlof designation on
fishing activities and we regret that the public felt it was not
kept adequately informed. However, whileone could always do more
NOAA believes that the information provided to the public by NOAA
and DNR was adequate. Please see generic response #2 for further
discussion of this issue.

- The coastal areas are administered for the benefit of not only the
fishermen, but the public at large.

NOAA Response

NOAA agrees that the management plan for the proposed sanctuary
addresses this point. The sanctuary will be administered for the
benefit of the general public.

27. Frank Wadsworth

See Summary of Written Comments.

End of DEIS hearing

235

Lajas, Puerto Rico
Summary of Testimony
DEIS Public H'earing
April, 12, 1983

1. Testimony of.32'Fisherm-ein'

Oppose the sanctuary because once designated there will be restrictions
on fishing including a ban on fishing in the areas of the coral reefs.
These restrictions will create safety problems and cause an economic
loss to the fishing community in the southwest.

NOAA Response

It is not the intent of NOAA to restrict or prohibit fishing within
the proposed La Parguera National Marine Sanctuary.with the limited
exception of fishing at underwater trails. Please see Generic
Response #1 for a further discussion of.this Issue.

2. Testimony of 5 Fishermen

Opposed due to lack of adequate available information.
NOWRisodn'se
NOAA believes that it has made a reasonable effort to adequately
disseminate information on the proposal. Please see Generic
Response #2 for further discussion of this issue.

3. Lui s M. Amado' r'

See Summary of Written Comments #18.

4 Jose Amado"r Acost a'

Believes that the sanctuary promotes two conflicting goals; resource
protection and recreational enjoyment.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that while resource protection and recreational use
may in some instances conflict, the two are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. Experience with the six marine sanctuaries that have
already been established has demonstrated that the two goals can
be pursued simultaneously. Increased awareness and resource
.education combined with recreational activities can-heighten concern
and raise consciousness about the importance of the natural environ-
ment and resources.

237

5. Jenny Ramirez

See'Summary of Written Comments #8.

6. Jose A. Ramos

- The word sanctuary means you cannot do anything within the boundaries
but the management plan provides for cutting trails in the mangroves
and planning underwater trails.

NOAAResponse

In certain respects the term "sanctuary" is a misnomer. The national
marine sanctuaries are not pristine inviolate areas where human use
activities are discouraged. The program emphasizes multiple use of
sanctuaries and restricts or p rohibits only those activities that
conflict with the values'and purposes for which the sanctuary was
originally designated.

- No casetas dumping wastes in the water should be present in the sanctuary.
NOAA Response

USEPA and PRASA have come to an agreement regarding the sewage
collection and treatment system and stipulatons regarding discharges
from casetas; and NOAA has revised the proposed sanctuary regulation
on discharges from the casetas so that it now conforms to these
stipulations. Please see Generic Response #4.

7. Confesor Rosado Ruiz

- Opposes the sanctuary and believes too much importance has been given
to tourism and the conservaton of coral reefs.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that tourism and conservation of the coral reefs are
important to the well-being of the residents of La Parguera and to
future generations. The reefs provide an important habitat for
commercially important species of fish. Maintaining the health of
the reefs helps maintain the fish stocks and is therefore important
to the local fishing industry. Over 35,000 visitors come to
La Parguera every year and although NOAA does not have statistics on
their economic value to La Parguera, it-is clearly significant.

- States that damage to coral reefs is caused not by fishermen but by
storms.

NOAA Response

In neither the DEIS or HIS has NOAA attributed significant damage
to the reefs to fishermen. In the HIS NOAA states that damage

238

other.than that from natural causes is more likely to come from
activities involving recreational boating (Part I, F. Issues and
Problems; 3. Issues and Problems Associated with Co7ral
NOAA agrees tFa-tevidence demonstrates that storm surge can
contribute significantly to reef damage.

Believes the sanctuary,will nega tively affect the community and will
benefit only a small group.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the effect of the sanctuary will be positive. The
manageme'nt plan provides protection for the resources, a visitor center/
and interpretive and resource-studies programs. At the sametime
designation does not restrict commercial fishing activities. NOAA
believes that designation will benefit local residents.

8. Honorable Waldemar Ramirez, Mayor of Lajas

There is insufficient information to judge whether the project is good
or bad. The Lajas municipality has to have time to 'make a decisi-on
concerning the project, and the Mayor cannot give his endorsement.
However, will support the project if it is good for the fishermen.

NOAA Response

NUAA agrees that final judgement on the value of the proposal can only
be made after the sanctuary has been operating and its effectiveness
becomes apparent. However, over the past 3 years NOAA has distributed
material for review on four occasions and conducted two public meetings
and a round of hearings. We believe that sufficient detail has
been provided to allow an eval -uation of whether or not the site should
be designated. NOAA believes that in time the proposed sanctuary
will be judged to have beneficial impact on the community of La Parguera.

9. Wilson Arroyo

Represents the Honorable Mayor of Cabo Rojo and asserts that the
proposed plan to-develop the area will adversely affect the,coast.

NOAA Reponse

NOAA has analyzed the impacts of the proposed sanctuary in the
DEIS and FEIS and believes that its assessment of positive effects
is accurate. For a discussion on how the sanctuary. would provide
significant long-term benefits to the people of La Parguera and
Puerto Rico please see Parts V, VI, VII Environmental Consequences,
For further discussion on how the sanctuary may specifically affect
commercial fishing, please see Generic Response #1.

239

- The development will produce excessive dependence on federal funds.

.NUAA Response

Although NOAA is responsible for the funding of all National Marine
Sanctuaries, Puerto Rico DNR retains its responsibiliti-es, under
Puerto Rican laws and will continue to fund and undertake a
significant number of. activities.

- Opposes the sanctuary. Believes it is a menace to the freedom of the
fishermen and to the freedom of the people to enjoy.thei.r national
wealth.

NOAA Response

With very limited exception, the management plan for the proposed
sanctuary does not restrict or curtail fishing activities. For
further discussion please see Generic Response A.

10. Mr. Arroyo's Personal Comments

- No one will benefit if restrictions are placed on the use of natural
resources.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the restrictions placed on use of resources by
the proposed regulations will benefit not only the people of
La Parguera, but Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States as
well. The regulations allow for considerable use but at the same
time will protect the resources and assure their existence for
future generations. Many of these resources, such as coral reefs
and mangroves are important habitat that serve as the basis for
the fishing industry. One of the consequences of the designation
would be increased maintainence of these systems and the continued
viability of the local fishing industry.

- ONR should use federal funds to improve living conditions and fishing
opportunities.

- The sanctuary 'will not benefit the community just as the fisheries research
facilities in Puerto Real and Joyuda have not been a benefit to the people.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that the proposed sanctuary will have direct benefit
to the community. Please see Generic Response #1 and Sections V, VI,
and VI I of the FE IS.

240

Fishermen will not have safe access to commercially exploitable grounds
if the sanctuary is designated.

NOAA Response

Please see.Generic Response #1.

11. Llime'r Melendez

Believes that more attention should be given to pollution in the water
and on the beaches and to support for the fishermen.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response 1 and #4.

12. Sean Furniss

Believes that the-sanctuary could be good for the citizens of Puerto
Rico, including the fishermen, by fostering the tourism and.fishing
industries.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your comment.

13. Professor Alida Ortiz

The sanctuary permits, as the DNR has permitted, the keeping''of
structures (casetas) in La Parguera that will constantly pollute
the coast.

NOAA Response

USEPA and PRASA have come to agreement regarding the sewage
collection and treatment system and stipulations regardi.ng
discharges from casetas; and NOAA has revised the proposed
regulation on discharges from the casetas so that it conforms
to these requirements. Please see Part III, B.6.--Sanctuary
Regulations and Generic Response.#4.,

Puerto Rico does not need a Federal marine sanctuary to educate the
people. There are many educational institutions, like the Marine
Sciences Research Laboratory, that. could educate the public.

NOAA Response

NOAA,,in the management plan envisions agreements with the.University
of Puerto Rico and other in.,stitutions so that they'will have a
significant role in both public education and research.act,i,vities for:
the sanctuary. It is NOAA's intent to utilize existing facilities
and augment them by providing additional funding when necessary.

241

The Commonwealth Government, has regulations and the capability to
implement theregulations.

NOAA Response

Because the Commonwealth and DNR do have considerable authority and
regulations NUAA is relying mostly on this existing regime to provide
resource protection.

Why should the ONR obtain Federal funding to increase the number of
rangers?. How effective has the DNR Ranger Corps been?

KUAA Response

The DEIS points out that lack of enforcement presence is a major
obstacle to protecting the,resources of La Parguera. NOAA believes
that an increase of 3 rangers funded by the sanctuary will provide
a significant improvement in the effectiveness of the Ranger Corps
in the area designated as a National Marine Sanctuary. Adequate
enforcement and surveillance are management responsibilities in
National Marine Sanctuaries.

Puerto Rico cedes a considerable portion of its coast so that the
DNR, through the Federal Sanctuary, can accomplish its work.

NOAA Response

Designating a national marine sanctuary in Commonwealth waters under
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended (the Act), does not affect the sovereignty of
Puerto Rico over those waters, and does not transfer such property
to the United States.

The Act authorizes the Secretary of Comerce, with the President's
approval, to designate areas of ocean and coastal waters as national
marine sanctuaries in order to preserve or restore such areas for
their "conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values"
(Section 3U2(a) of the Act). If a proposed marine sanctuary lies
wholly or partly within the boundaries of a State or the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Governor must approve the designation and-its
terms before it is effective. The Act also requires the Secretary
to indicate the types of activities in the terms of the designation
which may be regulated, subject to the Governor's approval. Changes
in the terms of the designation, including removal of State or
Territorial wates, may be made only by the same procedures through
which an original designation is made.(Section 3U2(f)).

242

14. Nora Lopez Tirado.,

- The truth about the real meaning of the sanctuary has not been said
to the fishermen who are the ones who will suffer. Understands that
there will be strict regulations curtailing the residents activities.
Opposes the sanctuary and wants the DNR to tell the-people what the
sanctuary real ly means.

NUAA Response

The management plan.-for the sanctuary and the regulations will not,
burden the fishermen or significantly curtail residents' activities.
For further discussion please see Generic Response #1. The meani,ng
and consequences of Sanctuary designationerie spelled out in the
management plan and DEIS.
- Private ci tizens and fishermen have had limited opportunities to
express themselves.

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that there have been reasonable opportunities for
public involvement. For further discussion please see generic
response #2.

15. Ismael Ramos

Although the DEIS does not prohibit fishing, it states that the best
areas for underwater trails would be San Cristobal Enrique and'Turrumote
which are also good fishing areas. There seems to be an inconsistency
in the document.

NOAA Response

Eventually underwater trails may be established at one or all of these
reefs. However, areas committed@to the trails and where fishing would
be prohibited is small. The areas at Enrique would be a maximum of
.44 km2, and San Cristobal .1 km2. The area at Turrumote I would be of
comparable size. NUAA does not believe that out of a sanctuary
containing approximately 66 square miles that@the areas set aside for
underwater trails are either unreasonable or restrictive.

Recommends selection.of Alternative 5.

NOAA Response

NOAA discusses Alternative 5. in V. Environmental Consequences and
did not select that Alternative because protection of the resources
would be incomplete on two accounts. First, some important resources
are not covered by any protective regulation. Gear employed specifi.-
cally for the illegal taking of sea turtles is not outlawed and

243

underwater cultural and archaeological resources are not protected.
Secondly, present enforcement levels are insufficient to adequately
enforce existing regulations. Both Federal agencies and the
Commonwealth lack the necessary enforcement officers and have
their focus of opera 'tions outside the La Parguera area. Consequently,
violators would continue to go undetected and without prosecution.

Questions how to insure tha t federal funds will be used directly for
the sanctuary and not mixed up with other DNR funds.,

NOAA Response

NOAA is the responsible agency for all expenditures in National
Marine Sanctuaries. As onsite manager DNR will receive certain funds
to perform specific tasks discussed in the management plan and
detailed in existing contracts or cooperative agreements. There will
be no comingling of NUAA, and DNR funds. Funds to operate the sanctuary
would be allocated for very specific tasks e.g. construction of
visitor center, ranger salaries, interpretation brochure, etc. and
will not be merely given to ONR or any agency as a lump sum. There
will also be periodic audits of the Federal funds.

Proposes that, if the sanctuary is designated, there not be any sanctuary
publicity since the carrying capacity of the resource has not yet been
established.

NUAA Response

NOAA is sensitive to the possibility that designation of an area as
a marine sanctuary may increase the number of visitors, and has
attempted to develop a management plan that will help alleviate
pressures from visitor use. Uur experience in other designated
sanctuaries has demonstrated that this can be done.

The issue of the casetas is more important than the sanctuary at this
time.

NUAA Response

NOAA concurs that a resolution to the issue of the casetas is
extremely urgent. However, the proposed sanctuary should-not
prevent DNR from working on this issue.

Fishermen must be included among those who manage the fisheries within
.the sanctuary.

NOAA Response

The management plan (Part III, Management Measures, B Sanctuary
Administration and Uperation) discusses the role of the Sanctuary

244

Advisory committee. That body will advise the sanctuary manager
on the operation of the sanctuary and will include representatives
of the fishing organizations.

Recommends that the term sanctuary be dropped from the Marine Sanctuary
Program because it causes misunderstanding.

NUAA Response

NUAA agrees that the term sanctuary can and has caused misunder-
standing. However, Congress has chosen to use the term in establishing
the national program.

Recommends that this federal program spend its'budget in other places.

NUAA Response

For the reasons stated in the Introduction (Purpose and Need for
Designation) and the Management Context (Part III) NOAA believes *that
the area of La Parguera meets the criteria for marine sanctuary status
and will be a valuable asset to the national system.

16. Rosa Steele

- See Summary of Written Comments.

17. Elvin Be Jesus-Pagan

Upposes the sanctuary because ONR, the administering agency, is not
qualified to manage the sanctuary. Cites the pollution at Mata de la
Gata Island as an example.

NOAA Response

NUAA is the responsible Federal agency. DNR will serve as onsite
manager for NOAA and as such will perform specific tasks as outlined
in the management plan. Changes in the plan must be approved by
both NOAA and DNR.. DNR has installed a sewage:collection system
at Mata de la Gata.

18. Santiago Mercado

Opposes the sanctuary because once designated there will be more
restrictions.

NUAA Response

The process for modifying the regulations is a lengthy one, involving
public notification, request for public comment, and approval by the
Commonwealth. Consequently, it is unlikely that NUAA will seek to
modify the regulations except under extraordinary circumstances.
In accordance with the Designation Document, any such proposed

245

modifications would require the concurrence of DNR. NUAA believes
that the regulations in the management plan address long-term
protection of the most significant resources and intends to rely
on Commonwealth authorities to provide any additional protection.

The caseta o wners want what is best for La Parguera and for the fishermen
and the sanctuary will not benefit the community.

NOAA Response

NUAA believes that designation will result in positive benefits to
local residents. Please see Generic Response A.

19. Maximo Cerame-Vivas

- Opposes the sanctuary because there is no management plan.

NUAA Response

NUAA believes that both the draft and final management plans provide
a clear framework for the day-to-day operation of the proposed
sanctuary, a clear indication of development for the sanctuary for
the next five years and a framework for an educational/ interpretive
program and resource studies. While the plan could contain more
detail NUAA believes that by management planning standards the document
constitutes a management plan.

- The document suggests-that a management plan will be produced following
designation and will be constantly changing depending on the results
obtained from research. Cites the history of the Memorandum of
Understanding between Puerto Rico and the Corps of Engineers as an
example of how the rules of management can change.

NUAA Response

The management plan will not be a static document, and will be
modified as more information is gained about the resources. However,
this does not apply to the regulations.

The process-for modifying the regulations is a lengthy one, involving
public notifi'cation, request for public comment, and approval by
the Commonwealth. Consequently, it is unlikely that NUAA will seek
to modify the regulations except under extraordinary circumstances.
In accordance with the Designation Document, any such,proposed
modifications would require the concurrence of DNR,- NUAA believes
that the regulations in the management plan address long-term
protection of the most significant resources and intends to rely on
Commonwealth authorities to provide any additional protection.

Suggests that scientific research be accomplished first before the
management plan-Is designed and then brought to the public for
consideration.

246

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that sufficient information exists to develop a
management plan,that is reasonable for the proposed sanctuary and
that there is no compelling reason to delay.

20. Mr. Jusino

Opposes the sanctuary.
Lives in a caseta and has not 6een-able to re solve the waste problem.

NOAA Response

NRN

Believes that La Parguera is already a natural sanctuary and by creating
a Federal sanctuary, fishermen would be restricted and the character of
the area and its attractions would change.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #1.

21. Jose Enrique Ri.vera

- Represents Codremar's Executive Director, Mr. Inoel Rivera,.

- Within the area analyzed by the DEIS are 59,000 cuerdas of major
"fishing grounds". More emphasis, therefore, should be given to
commercial fishing in the document.

- Commercial fishermen take care of marine resources since t-heir
income depends to a great extent, on the volume of their catch.

NOAA Response

The FEIS contains additional references to the importance of
commercial fishing. Please see Generic Response #1.
Codremar requests that the following must Ibe included i'n the HIS and
.if they are, Codremar will be able to endorse the sanctuary.

1. Assurances that the management plan will not affect fisheries
and will provide for fisheries development and enhancement.

2. A provision,of development of a mariculture project within
the sanctuary.

3.1 That the Commonwealth will set aside any action by NOAA that
could adversely affect fishing or mariculture projects.

247

NOAA Response

It is not the intent of NOAA to restrict fishing. Please see
Generic Response #1 for a discussion of assurances to this,effect.
N(AA has added a conch mariculture project to the list of research
activities and has made this a high priority (Part III, Management
Measures, D Resource Studies Plan). The Desig-natio-rF-Document,
which acts as a con-s-tTtution Tor-the sanctuary contains a provision
requiring Comrwnwealth approval for modification of any regulation.

22. Giberto Ronda Pabon

- Represents the Boqueron fishing village.

- The fishermen do not destroy the resources since they only catch fish
and believes that if honest fishermen unconsciously violate the sanctuary
laws, they will have to pay federal fines'.

NOAA Response

NQAA's experience in other sanctuaries indicates that fishermen are
not the usual violators of the regulations.

Fearful that in the future the sanctuary would enclose the entire
island of Puerto Rico and would be prejudicial to the interests of
Puerto Ricans.

NUAA Response

The area of the proposed sanctuary is delineated in the Designation
Document (which acts as a constitution for the sanctuary) and the
regulations. Neither can be changed without the explicit consent
of the Commonwealth and a repeat of the lengthy review process leading
to this designation.

23. Gabriel Ferrer Amador

Represents the "Fondo de Mejoramiento", a private group which fosters
environmental conservation through public education.

Puerto Rico is the most populated area in America. Visits throughout
the Island i.ndicate that Puerto Rico's environment is deteriorating
at 6 fast rate.

The major issue of the sanctuary is what is best for the,future of
Puerto Rico. Agrees that, although the sanctuary is a good idea, a
wider orientation on the project is needed.

Believes that those who have taken over beachfront p0blic lands
illegally, and not the fishermen, will be most harmed by the sanctuary.

The sanctuary will finally enable,the government to put the needed
La Parguera Master Plan and other plans into action.

248

The argument that DNR is only pursuing this project to obtai.n federai
funds in unfair.. The DNR is carrying out its responsibility to
conserve the natural resources.

NOAA Response

.NOAA appreciates the support. Please see Generic Response #3.

24. Jesus Casiano Rivera

Represents the Cabo Rojo Young Fishermen Association and the La Nueva
Experanza Fishermen Association.

The @sanctuary project is only to obtain federal funds which will
actually harm the fishermen, the economy and tourism. Benefits should
be given instead to the fishermen.

NOAA Response

NUAA sanctuary funds are available for implementation of sanctuary
management plans only. The program is not a funding mechanism for
other agencies. Please seL-,Generic Response #1.

25. Jose Enrique Besa

- Represents some eleven groups of fishermen around the Island.

- Objects to the sanctuary.

- The fishing industry needs support, not a sanctuary.

NOAA Response

Please see Generic Response #1.

26. Mr.. Martinez Coll

- Represents the La Par guera Yacht Club.

- Does not endorse establishment of a marine sanctuary.

- Believes the sanctuary would adversely affect commerce, social
interaction, and nautical sports (most of which are.promoted by the
La Parguera Yacht Club).

NOAA Response

NOAA believes that there is no provision in the management plan,"
including regulations that will adversely affect the local
recreational community and'.commercial pursuits.

249

27. Manuel Hernandez Avila

See Summary of Written Comments #31.

28. Agustin V6lid6"-USb!9*FWS

This proposal has the complete endorsement of the Office of Ecological

Services and Endangered Species for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

It will have a positive effect on conservation, knowledge and enjoyment
of natural resources.

NOAA Response

Thank you for your comment. Please see Generic Response #3.

29. Rafael Arnaldo Olivieri

See Summary of Written Comments #21.

End of DEIS hearing in La Parguera

250

PART XII: 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

251

APPENDIX A

CORAL REEF DESCRIPTIONS

1. 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
frequent. The crest or shallowest part is dominated by sparce. A. palmata
(less then 40% cover) alternating with P. porites. The zoanthid, Palythoa
caribaeorum, is a very important component of this zone. Farther seaward, the
palmata zone, with a moderate cover, slopes to about four meters giving way to
diffuse mixed coral zones where gogonians, head corals (i.e., Colpophyllia
natans, Montastrea annularis and A. cervicornis) dominate. The reef dissipates
at about 13 meters, where isolated patches 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 Diadema antillarum, is common. The reef crest,
or the shallowest section of the reef as in other low 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 the 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 developed
Porites biotope with a large number of invertebrates. In several places the
Porites colonies are intermingled with Thalassia and/or zoanthids of the genus
Zoanthus. Isolated coral patches occur in this back reef apron especially on
the "head" 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 ofthe 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 Tover 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
ilgae. South of the cres a very narrow palmata zone (probably due to the
steepness of the reef front) followed by a pTa_t_Fo_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 dominated by star coral,
Montastrea, annularis.. Diploria sp., Agaricia agaricites, and Gorgonians are
abundant in this zon@. The loweF-par-t of tne slope 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 i,s 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 reif separ@'ated from 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 re5ult cent storm damage.
The sea urchin, Ethinometra luncunter, occurs in very high densities; coralline
algae is a seco ry componeTt-7-5-51-1 colonies of Diploria sp. are very common.
The palmata zone, although formerly one of the mosf '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
se0_ara_t_ed7_Y__E_arren sand. They also form very intricate ledges and overhangs
which support many other species of corals (mainly Agaricia) and other
invertebrates. Icthyofauna is very dense and diverse. South of this zone,
the reef gradually-dissipates. 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 di'verse. There is an
extensive Porites biotope. The reef crest.is dominated by broken or lacerated
colonies-M-7-co-m-pTanata (as a consequence of recent storms). A..-!palmata is a
codominar@t_i`p_eci"e__s,in some parts. Seaward is a denuded, ve@y-wi_deR_L_TFata

A-2

zone, followed by a very long mixed coral zone where gorgonians.and M. annularis
dominate. Gorgonians are especially dense. The reef continues soutTFfor 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 cora@ 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 verti&l. 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 COOREMAR and the Caribbean Fisheries Council.
A letter explaining the objectives and &cope 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. TITe
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

I. 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.

IIL- 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 fisherinen 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 and 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.

Guaniza

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 3U 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. Par_guera

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 Rosa6o
7. Confessor Rosado
8. Juan Rosado
9. Pablo Rosado
10b Ricardo Rosado Ramos
11. Anibal Santiago

2. Playa Santa, Guanica

Asociacion de Pescadores Salinas Providenda
Programa de Desarrollo Pesquero de la Agencia de Acclon Comunal

Fishermen

1. Eddie Carbonell
2. Eladio Garcia Cherena
3. Felix Garcia Cherena
4. Vicente Mattei
5. Juan Mattei
6. Juan Sant-os 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

3. Guanica (Cont'd)

9. Enrique Gilbert
1.0. 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 Melendez
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 Neg'ron
5. Carlos Pabon
6. Estebon Pabon
7. Delvis Ramos
8. Ca melo Vargas
9. Walter Vargas
10. Epifanio Velez

5. Combate

Asociacion de Pescadores del Combate (not active)

1. German Acosta
2. Jarge Acosta
3. Luis Acosta
4. Nelson Acosta
5. Marteniano Comacho
B6

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
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 affected commercial fishery was to identify mufni-
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 Figueroa, 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.

TABLE 1 LANDINGS BY MUNICIPALITY ON THE SOUTH COAST OF PUERTO RICO
1970-1980a

Municipality/ Volume Value
Year S@R-h Puerto South Puerto
Pounds Coast--- ''Rico. Dollars Coast Rico-
Percent of Total Percent of Total

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.

2. Fishermen, Gpar and Roats

The number of fishermen in Lajas increased from 20 in 1970 to 50 in 19731,
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 uspd
by sailing ships. It is of a rather graceful desiqn, 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. I-arger
versions, decked over at the bow, have a mast step, and may carry an auxili6ry
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 nake their
nets or get them from local residents.

The-size of fishing units appears to be 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 $1,044 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
MUNICIPALITIES, 1970-1980a

Municipality/ Fishermen Boats Gear Units
Year Pots Other Total

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 6.0 751 18' 769
1976b
1977 72 529 15 '2 681
19-78 86 64 559 136 696
1979b
19801b 61 711

Lajas
1970 20 20 376 60 436
1971 21 21 381 65 446
1972 21 21 406 65 471
1973 so so 808 171 979
1974 44 44 557 183 740
1976 32 32 612 70 582
1976b
1977' 37 34 460, 98 558
1978. 45 44 5,51 163 714
1979b
01980b 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.
bOata 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 19'80 (Figueroa,, 1981). In Guanica,, grunts and
snappers were reported to be the primary species.

A review of landings by species 4oo 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

TABLE 3 CATCH BY. SPE-CIES ON SOUTH COAST OF PUERTO RICO, 1977-1978
(THOUSANDS)
Species 1977a 1978b Average
Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars-

Tuna 3 2 5 3 4 3
Ballyhoo 33 15 28 15 31 15
Grunt 263 109 290 152 277 131
Hogfish 9, 6 19 14 14 10
Trunkfish 16 8 18 11 17 10

Dolphin 6 4 19 12 13 8
Squirrelfish 14 7 29 9 22 8
Mullet 21 11 33 18 27 15
Jack 7 4 5 3 6 4
Parrotfish 44 .19 45 17 45 18

Blue Marlin 1 (1) (1) (1)
Grouper 173 95 149 205 122
Mojarra 1 1 2 2 2 1
Snappers:
Lane 45 @30 197 143 121 86
Yellowtail 27 16 53 38 40 27
Silk 73 54 97 99 85 77
Mutton 16 10 52 37 34 24
Others 12 7 23 15 17 11

Triggerfish 34 18 28 12 31 15
Barracuda 13 9 16 10 15 10
Porgy 11 5 10 7 11 6
Snook 7 4 14 8 10 6
Goatfish -60 27 79 49 70 38

Sardine (1) (l
Mackerel 73 45 114 76 94 61
Other 24 11 31 20 27 16
Total Fish Q6 P-7 1,444 918 1,215 718

Conch 67 57 115 115 91 86
Crab (1) (1) 2 6 1 3
Lobster .93 184 148 350 121 267
Oysters (1) (1 4 4 2 2
Octopus 8 8 14 15 11
Other 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Shellfish I-7T -29-2 284 T97 M 7377

Total 1,155 767 1,728 1,409 1,442 1,088

Source: Wo ler and Saurez-Caabro, 1980.
ViLess than 500 pounds or dollars.

Totals and averages may not add due to rounding or inclusions or
quantities less than 500 pounds or dollars.

a80% of actual production.
bgl% of actual production.
C6

C O M M O N W E A L T H 0 F P U E R T 0 R I C O
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR APPENDIX D
LA FORTALEZA. SAN JUAN

LA PARGUERA RECREATIONAL AREA

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

between the

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

AND THE

U.S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico (hereinafter referred to as the Commonwealth), and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers - Jacksonville District (hereinafter referred to as the

Corps), for the purpose of establishing guidelines by which the Commonwealth

and the Corps will work toward the preservation and the best use of the natural

environment of the La Parquera area in the Municipality of Lajas, and for the

purpose of the Commonwealth developing the La Parguera coastal areas into a

recreational community for the use and enjoyment of all people.

Both parties agree that the continuation of the present situation, characerize

by the unauthorized invasion of coastal areas, the illegal and disorderly construc-

tion of private piers and stilt houses in the mangrove coastal areas of La Farguera

D-1

poses an undesirable situation and a threat to marine cosystmes, and also

constitutes an unauthorized infrigement upon the navigable waters of the

United States.

With the purpose of upgrading the quality of the waters and enhancing

the recreational aspects of the area, and for safeguarding the ecological sys-

tem and preserving the waterways for the benefits of all people, both parties

agree to the following:

a. The Commonwealth will declare La Parguera a reserved natural fish and

wildlife aea in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Plan for

the Island of Puerto Rico. (See Exhibit A)

b. The Commonwealth will name the Department of Natural Resources as the

agency with sole responsibility for the supervision of this area. This

responsibility will necessarily include transfer of all documents, contracts

maps, letters, etc., to the Department of Natural Resources from any other

Commonwealth agency that presently or in the past was involved in La

Pargueral; the Department of Natural Resources will be forthwith responsible

for the safeguard and/or compliance of these documents, etc., whichever

be the case.

c. Within two years of the acceptance of this Memorandum, the Commonwealth

will prepare a Master Plan for the future use and development of La Parguera

-2-

as a recreational area, similar to the government-operated vacational areas

of Boqueron and Monte del Estado. The Master Plan will be conformance

with the Coastal Zone Management Program for the Island of Puerto Rico.

In addtion to Commonwealth agencies and the public the Corp's may be

invited to review and comment on the Master Plan.

d. The Commonwealth agrees, notwithstanding the above, to pursue the

following:

(1) The cancellation of all leases authorizing private offshore structures

erected in the navigable waters around the outlying cays of La Parguera

within one year of the acceptance date of this Memorandum and to

require their physical removal.

(2) Denial of new permits to construct on the outlying cays and adjacent

waters of La Parguera.

(3) Removal of all abandoned, unsafe, or hazardous structures from the

waters and mangroves of La Parguera.

(4) Control of all shoreline structures by way of regulation. This regulation,

among other things, must include provision as to the disposal of solid

and liquid waste, prohibition of destruction of surrounding mangroves

and vegetation, and prohibition of construction of barriers or fences

restricting access to the shoreline.

-3-

(5) Provide close field supervision to prevent unauthorized construction

and destruction of the coastal mangrove areas. Any new construction

wouldd need to conform with the approved Master Plan and be subject

to the established permit review procedures of the Commonwealth and

the Corps.

(6) To prohibit the discharge of any material, liquid or soild, into the

waters of La Parguera and to require owners of existing structures to

connect to a trunk sewer line with adequate treatment facilities to be

constructed by the Commonwealth no later than two years from the

acceptance of this Memorandum.

(7) Conserve and maintain as provided by the Master Plan, the waters,

outer islands, cays, coastal area, mangroves, and mud flat areas.

(a) Initiate a program of replanting of mangroves in those areas where

they have been previously indiscriminately removed or destroyed.

(9) Within a 12-year period there will be a phase out of private ownership

of the remaining structures on the shoreline. This phase out and

subsequent acquisition of these structures by the area by properly

laying out and restructuring the houses and facilities in an orderly

pattern and into appropriate, safe, and sanitary structures. These

are to be made available to the public for short periods of time as

-4-

part of a recreation concept to be developed for the use and enjoyment

by the general public, in a form similar to the vacation community

principle employed by the Commonwealth in Boqueron and Monte del

Estado. However, La Parguera will be oriented towards marine recrea- a-

tion.

(10) Within three years of the signing of this Memorandum, all facilities

in a coastal area of appropriate water frontage, of approximately

70-80 meters in the vicinity of the village center should become

public: as such, there should be a replacement and building of new

public piers, boat ramps, mooring, recreational, and concessionary

facilities, etc., designed and constructed conforming to the approved

Master Plan for the area. Two other similar areas and public accesses

to the coastal waters will be created at some convenient points to the

east and west of the village.

(11) Fees collected from the leasing of land and structures will be used for

the acquisition of additional structures, restoration of structures.

removal of old structures, and for the general maintenance and conser-

vation of the area.

(12) The establishment of a citizens advisory committee that will participate

in the future development of La Parguera in accordance with the La

Parguera Master Plan will be encouraged.

-5-

(13) The Commonwealth agrees to encourage development of additional

public facilities in the Playita Rosada area, or any other suitable

area and to encourage development of passive recreational facilities

at Mata de la Gata or the general Caracoles area. The development

of Isla de los Monos Monkey Island) as a wildlife recreational

reserve is also enccouraged.

e. The Corps, conscious of its responsibilities in the conservation of the

natural environment and in the development of recreational areas for the

enhancement of the quality of life, agrees that the highest public interest

is served in La Parguera by encouraging the use of the coastal zone as a

passive and active recreational area for the benefit of all the people, as

conditionally provided for under this Memorandum. The Corps will execut

its responsibilities under Federal laws and regulations to further these air

and agrees to the following:

(1) To issue conditioned after-the-fact permits to private individuals for

privately owned piers and structures built in the areas shown on the

accompanying photographic map (Exhibit A), the after-the-fact permi

will include the additional special provisions contained in Exhibit B

attached to this Memorandum.

-6-

(2) No permit will be issued for any unaurthorized private pier or residence

constructed after 9 July 1977, in the coastal navigable waters of La

Parguera.

(3) In general, no permit will be issued for any private structure previously

built in the navigable waters surrounding the offshore islands and cays.

(4) There will be no Corps permit issued for any work not authorized by the

Commonwealth.

(5) Corps permits issued previous to th date of this Memorandum, to owners

of privately owned piers, houses, and other stuctures, will be null and

void after 1 January 1980. After that date all structures and facilities

must be authorized by a permit issued after that date and under the pro-

visions of this Memorandum. The effective period of permits issued

under this provision will not exceed the time period stipulated in after-

the-fact permits.

f. Both parties accept and understand that this agreement in no way limits or

resticts the Corps legal responsibility in prosecuting past, present, or

future violators of Federal laws and regulations.

This Memorandum of Understanding is subscribed by both parties on this day

of 13 June 1978 in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

DONALD A WISDOM CARLOS ROMERO BARCELO
Colonel, U. S. Army Governor
District Engineer The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Jacksonville Engineer District
Corps of Engineers

-7-

C-7

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Office of the Governor
San Juan, Puerto Rico

La Parguera Recreational Area

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
AND THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Amendment

To delete Part d (1) of the Memorandum of Understanding and change subsequent

enumeration to reflect said change.

To delete Pare e (3) and substitute for:

(3) After-the-fact permits will be granted to private structures previously

built in navigable waters surrounding the offshore islands and cays under the

same conditions as those on the shoreline for the remainder of the twelve-year

period which began on 9 December 1979. Prior to issuance of the permit, struc-

tures will have a self-contained waste disposal system for liquid and solid

wastes. Structures on and around offshore cays will be totally removed upon

termination of the permit period.

Signed on the 16 day of Jan 1981.

FRED SOLTERO HARRINGTON WILLIAM C. BURNS
Secretary LTC. Corps of Engineers
Department of Natural Resources Deputy District Engineer for
Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands

-8-

P A R G U E R A

C O S
A R E I O

EXHIBIT B

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

To be incorporated to DA and DNR After-the-Fact Permits as Appropriate
to be Issued to Certain Existing Structures in La Parguera

1. Permits will be for three-year duration with renewal at the option of
the grantor not to exceed a total of twelve years.

2. Permits will not be transferable.

3. At the expiration of the permtis, the structures may become the property
of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under value conditions to be agreed by
the owner of the structure and the Commonwealth.

4. Annual fees on the basis of occupancy of any public land and water area
will be paid to the Commonwealth confirming to established laws and
regulations.

5. Structures will be used essentially be the owner and his family only
for recreation, not as a permanent dwelling nor for commercial purposes.

6. No changes, additions or alteratins whatsoever will be allowed unless
authorized in writing.

7. No cutting, removing or destruction of mangroves or other vegetation
will be permitted.

8. No filling of submerged land or wetlands will be permitted unless
specifically authorized in writing.

9. No alteration of the ground, surface area, contour, topography or
coastline will be permitted.

10. No discharge of pollutants whatsoever, liquid or solid, will be
permitted.

11. Within one year of the granting of the permits all houses will be
provided by the owners with approved self-contained sewage package
collection units or converted to a trunk sewer line if installed and
operating by that date.

-10-

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 Mari-ne Sanctuary (the
Sanctuary.described in Article 2, establishes the basis for cooperative
management of the area by the Commonwealth of Puerto'Rico (Commonwealth)
and the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Within the area designated as the Sanctuary described in Art,icle 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 66.16 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. The area also contains significant fishing
resources and is the location of traditional fishing activities.

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 fishery
resources, 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.

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 conditions:

(1) No alteration or modification of any Sanctuary regulation shall become
effective without the written concurrence of both the Commonwealth and NUAA; 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 bden a significant failure to provide adequate 6nforcement 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 6U 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)

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 421 859 16455

E-3

SE VICES CTR LIBRARY
SE
111,111 @,l
-@@ @l @-[ I z
@ @[l
10036 4
3 6668 1@@