Nonpoint-source pollution at the Fajardo River Basin, Puerto Rico

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

EXHIBIT 10
-PIL NAR -7o -7-o 3LI-i-o i wvq5
Nonpoint-Source Po ution at -the Fajardo River
Basin, Puerto Rico
Fe'lix A. Grana-Raffucci LE 0
Mayra T. Garcia-Pe'rez JI,
1993

Ceiba
Fajardo City State
Forest

CIO
C-< 3
.0*4 1; 6

8 Vieques

Passage

MunicipaLity of Fajardo

TD
2311
.PS
G73 Final Report Task 7.2
1993 Coastal Zone Management Program
Scientific Research Area
Department of Natural Resources
San Juan, Puerto Rico

A report of Puerto Rico Department of Natural
Resources to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration pursuant to NOAA
Award No. - -
NA270ZO347-01

D R

S.C

Un informe del Departamento de Recursos
Naturales de Puerto Rico a la Administracio'n
Ocea'nica yAtmosf6rica Nacional conducente
al Fondo NOAA No. NA270Z0347-01
AV:\

Nonpoint-Source Pollution at the
Fajardo River Basin, Puerto Rico

Fe'lix A. Grana-Raffucci
Mayra T. Gard'a-Pe'rez
1993

Final Report Task 7.2
Coastal Zone Management Program
Scientific Research Area
Department of Natural Resources
San Juan, Puerto Rico

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the last thirty years, at least, surface and ground water resources
in Puerto Rico have been impacted by large quantities of various kinds of
pollutants of both the point-source and nonpoint-source varieties. Nonpoint
source pollutants are diffuse, both in terms of origins and in the ways they
reach water bodies. These pollutants originates mostly from different human
activities: landfills, crop and animal farms, urban and rural communities'
runoff and waste leakage, soil movement and extraction, construction
projects, deforestation, marinas, etc. The Fajardo River basin, though
relatively small, is representative of the development of hydrological basins
in Puerto Rico and the impact this development brought. Geology and soil
type, land use, water management practices, biodiversity, and water quality
history for the basin were researched and are discussed. Field interviews to
parties involved in one way or another in nonpoint source pollution in the
basin were done. Based on the information presented, a series of
recommendations leading to control nonpoint source pollution at the basin is
offered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank the
following persons whose help
resulted indispensable for the
succesful completion of this
project: Ms. Ileana P6rez and the
staff from DNR Laboratory; Mr.
Carlos Padfn (CZMP), Mr. Paulino
Laguna (DNR-Water Resources),
Mr. Eric Morales (EQB-Water
Quality), Ms. Nitza Massini (DNR-
Scientific Inventory), Mr. Israel
Diaz, Mr. James Timber, Mr.
Miguel Miranda, Mr. Jos6 Col6n,
(DNR-Marine Resources) and the
staff of Consultations and
Endorsements (DNR).

LIST OF CONTENTS

Executive summary ...............................................................................................1

Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................2

List of contents ....................... ......
...........................................................3

List of figures ...........................................................................................................6

List of tables ............................................................................................................. 10

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 11

II. Overview of existing government efforts in Puerto Rico to control
nonpoint source pollution ............................................................................. 14

1. Federal level ................................................................................ 14

2. Commonwealth level ............................................................... 20

111. The Fajardo River basin ................................................................................ 26

Land use ........................................................................................... 29

Geology, hydrology, geogrphy and soils .................................. 30

Water management at the river basin ...................................... 31

Natural biota and biodiversity .................................................... 36

IV. Water quality history of the Fajardo River ............................................... 46

Sampling stations ........................................................................... 46

Water discharge .............................................................................. 51
Tempeiature .... ..................*...................................... .................... 51

Conductance, salinity, dissolved solids ..................................... 56

Fecal bacteria .................................................................................... 56

Turbidity, color, suspended material ......................................... 61

Oxygen requirements .................................................................... 67

Hardness and alkalinity ................................................................ 73

Substances reactive to Methylene Blue ..................................... 88

Chlorine and fluoride ................................................................... 88

Nitrogen and phosphorus ............................................................ 88

Phenolic substances ........... ;*****'* ....... 106

The carbon system and pH ........................................................... 106

Metals, silica and toxic substances .............................................. 114

Pesticides .......................................................................................... 114

Field sampling at the Fajardo River .......................................... 120

Summarized review of historical water data ........................... 149

V. Field interviews ............................................................................................... 150

Agricultural activities ................................................................... 150

Marinas ............................................................................................. 151

Hydromodifications ....................................................................... 152

Wetlands ............................. ............................................................ 152

Waste disposal systems ................................................................. 153

Construction and soil extraction activities ............................... 153

VI. Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................ 154

VH. References ....................................................................................................... 156

Appendix 1: Field interview questionnaires ................................................... 160

Appendix 2: Field photographs .......................................................................... 171

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - The Fajardo River basin .................................................................. 27

Figure 2: DNR-approved permits and endorsements; municipalities of
Fajardo and Ceiba (1989-1993) ......................................................... 28

Figure 3: EQB's schematic description of nonpoint-source pollution at the
Fajardo River ..................................................................................... 32

Figure 4: Phytoplankton standing crop from the Fajardo River ............. 42

Figure 5: Phytoplankton biodiversity at the Fajardo River ...................... 44

Figure 6: Benthic invertebrate biodiversity at the Fajardo River ............ 45

Figure 7: Water quality monitoring st4ions and nonpoint sources, as
identified by EQB, along the Fajardo River ................................ 47

Figure 8: Water quality monitoring station and nonpoint sources, as
identified by EQB, along the Fajardo River ................................ 49

Figure 9: Instantaneous water discharge ....................................................... 52

Figure 10: Annual water discharge ................................................................. 53

Figure 11: Temperature ..................................................................................... 54

Figure 12: Conductance ..................................................................................... 57

Figure 13: Salinity ............................................................................................... 58

Figure 14: Dissolved solids ............................................................................... 59

Figure 15: Sum of dissolved solids ................................................................. 60

Figure 16: Fecal coliforms ................................................................................. 62

Figure 17: Fecal streptococci ............................................................................. 64

Figure 18: Turbidity ............................................................................................ 65

Figure 19: Suspended solids ............................................................................. 68

Figure 20: Residue of suspended solids ......................................................... 69

Figure 21: Color ................................................................................................... 71

Figure 22: Suspended oils and greases ........................................................... 72
Figure 23: Dissolved oxygen' ............................................................................. 74

Figure 24: Percent of oxygen saturation ......................................................... 76

Figure 25: Biochemical oxygen demand ........................................................ 78

Figure 26: Chemical oxygen demand ............................................................. 79

Figure 27: Hardness ............................................................................................ 80

Figure 28: Noncarbonate hardness ................................................................. 81

Figure 29: Alkalinity .......................................................................................... 82

Figure 30: Dissolved sodium ........................................................................... 83

Figure 31: Dissolved calcium ........................................................................... 84

Figure 32: Dissolved potassium ...................................................................... 85

Figure 33: Dissolved magnessium .................................................................. 86

Figure 34: Dissolved sulfate ............................................................................. 87

Figure 35: Substances reactive to Methylene Blue ...................................... 89

Figure 36: Dissolved chloride .......................................................................... 90

Figure 37: Dissolved fluoride ........................................................................... 91

Figure 38: Nitrates .............................................................................................. 93

Figure 39: Nitrites .....................................b ......................................................... 95

Figure 40: Sum of nitrates and nitrites .......................................................... 96

Figure 42: Ammonia ......................................................................................... 98

Figure 43: Total organic nitrogen .................................................................... 99

Figure 44: Total nitrogen .................................................................................. 101

Figure 45: Sum of total nitrogen, ammonia and organic nitrogen ......... 102

Figure 46: Phosphorus ....................................................................................... 103

Figure 47: Phosphates ........................................................................................ 105

Figure 48- Phenolic substances ........................................................................ 107

Figure 49: Bicarbonates ...................................................................................... 108
Figure 50: Carbonat6s ......................................................................................... 109

Figure 51: Carbon dioxide ................................................................................. 110

Figure 52: Organic carbon ................................................................................. 111

Figure 53: Hydrogen potential (pH) ................................................................ 112

Figure 54: Silicates .............................................................................................. 121

Figure 55: Total iron .......................................................................................... 122

Figure 56: Dissolved iron .................................................................................. 124

Figure 57: Total copper ...................................................................................... 125

Figure 58: Total arsenic ..................................................................................... 127

Figure 59: Total barium ........................... 128

Figure 60: Total boron ....................................................................................... 129

Figure 61: Total cadmium ................................................................................ 131

Figure 62: Total chromium .............................................................................. 133

Figure 63: Total lead ........................................................................................... 134

Figure 64: Total manganese ............................................................................. 136

Figure 65: Total cyanide .................................................................................... 138

Figure 66: Total cobalt ................................ .......................................................... 139

Figure 67: Total mercury ................................................................................... 140

Figure 68: Total nickel ....................................................................................... 141

Figure 69: Total selenium ................................................................................. 142

Figure 70: Total zinc ........................................................................................... 143

Figure 71: Sampling stations established for this project (indicated by stars)
............................................................................................................................. 145

Figure 72: Upstream station established for this project (as indicated by a star)
................................................................................................................................ 146

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparison of land zoning categories for 1971 and 1979 at the
Fajardo River basin ............................................................................. 30

Table 2: EQB's use classification of the Fajardo River ................................ 33

Table 3: EQB's use description of the estuary segment of the Fajardo River
.............................................................................................................................. 33

Table 4: NPDES permit limits imposed by EQB on ASA's wastewater plant
filter backwash discharges unto the Fajardo R . ............................ 34

Table 5: Phytoplankton identified from, samples taken at station USGS 710,
Fajardo River ....................................................................................... 37

Table 6: Benthic invertebrates identified from samples taken from station
USGS 710, Fajardo River ................................................................... 39

Table 7: Water quality monitoring stations located at the Fajardo River basin
................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 8: Macro- and micronutrients essential for aquatic biota ............... 92

Table 9: Summarized analysis of historical water quality data gathered at
monitoring stations USGS 710, USGS 720, USGS 725, and EQB 78B
(1958-1992) .............................................................................................. 114

Table 10: Water quality field stations established by this project at the Fajardo
River system ...................................................................................... 147

Table 11: Water quality data from this project's field samples ................. 147

I. INTRODUCTION

Point-source pollution is clearly identified with a well-defined location
or place. Gross pollution of this kind have, in large part, been brought under
control. Government, by requiring permits and impact evaluations, has
created mechanisms whereby technology to treat these polluters can be
mandated, and the effect of such technology can be monitored. This success is
at best a partial one; water pollution remains a serious problems. Sediment,
nutrients, pathogenic organisms, and, toxins still find their way into our
waters, where thy degrade the ecosystem, pose health hazards, and impair the
full use of aquatic resources.
Nonpoint-source pollution or NPSP (unlike pollution from point
sources) is diffuse, both in terms of its origin and in the manner in which it
enters ground and surface waters. It results from a variety of human
activities that take place over a wide geographic area. Pollutants from
nonpoint sources usually find their way into water bodies in sudden surges
associated with rainfall, in addition to constant slow percolation from other
sources. The most significant sources of NPSP are:
1. Ag1icultural activities: Including sediments from eroded
croplands and overgrazed pastures, fertilizers, animal wastes,
pesticides, etc.
2. Runoff: From roads, sewers, and urban areas. Industrial
stormwater discharges and runoff from sewers serving
populations of 400,000 or more are considered point sources.
3. Hydromodification: Reservoir or dam construction, stream
channelization, flood prevention projects, etc.

4. Abandoned mines and other resource-extraction ol2erations:
Active mines are considered point sources.
5. Forestry operations
6. Construction: Produces toxic materials and huge sediment loads.
Construction activities disturbing five acres or more are
considered point sources.
7. Waste disl2osal on land: Largely leakage form septic tanks and
the spreading of sewage sludge.
8. Marinas: Responsible for important spills of oils, greases, paints,
metals, wastewaters, and others.
Often, the full effect of NPSP cannot be measured in terms of water
contamination alone: loss of topsoil due to erosion has a negative impact on
agricultural productivity and damages structures, roads and ditches.
Sediments can destroy breeding grounds for fish and other wildlife. Carried
all the way to the sea, sediments kill entire marine communities, such as
coral reefs and seagrass prairies. Increased levels of sediment mean increased
costs for dredging harbors and treating wastewaters.
Unfortunately, there is no practical way to write a permit for every
agricultural field because NPSP is not affected by discharge controls of
individual pipes or outfalls. Further, NPSP occurs as a direct result of land
use planning and zoning. Control strategies for NPSP proceed from two basic
principles involving land use practices:
1. Measures can b*e taken to lhcrease the ability of land to retain
water, thereby reducing runoff to streams, lakes, and the sea.
2. The kinds and amounts of pollutants swept away in runoff can
be minimized.
Puerto Rico has 100 hydrological basins, all showing signs of NPSP. In
fact, the Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico (EQB) considers that
NPSP currently presents "a serious threat to the quality of surface and
groundwaters, risking human health and the environment". As a result of
these and other human activities, EQB recently determined that impairment
of designated uses in rivers amounts to 73% of total area for aquatic life, 71%
for swimming, 69% for drinking water, and 63% for secondary contact
recreation. At estuaries, impairment for designated uses were determined as
64% of total area for aquatic life, 66% for swimming, and 58% for secondary
contact recreation. The main sources to which these results were related

included for rivers: land disposal, agriculture, urban runoff, and natural
sources (intermittence of streams, soil types, rains, etc.); and for estuaries:
urban runoff, storm sewer discharges, and land disposal. This document
reports on the Fajardo River Basin, a small basin chosen because it was
considered representative, at a small scale, of problems with NPSP
throughout Puerto Rico.

11. OVERVIEW OF E)CISTING GOVERNMENT EFFORTS IN PUERTO RICO
TO CONTROL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

1. Federal level

Federal agencies expect that state nonpoint source programs build on
and complement, rather than duplicate and conflict with, other Federal
statutory requirements and state imRIemented programs. State nonpoint
source agencies are encouraged to work with these programs in
implementing their programs.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

1. Clean Water Act Section 319 - Nonpoint Source Program
A number of local, state and Federal programs have been implemented
over time to address nonpoint source pollution. However, the first national
program to authorize Federal funding for the control of nonpoint sources
began in 1987 when Congress passed the Water Quality Act of 1987, enacting
section 319 of the Clean Water Act., which established a national program to
control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Section 319 requires that, in
order to be eligible for federal funding, states develop an assessment report
detailing the extent of nonpoint pollution, and a management program
specifying nonpoint source. controls. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue
grants to states to assist them in implementing their nonpoint source
management programs or portions of management programs that have been
approved by EPA.

2. Clean Water Act Section 320 - National Estuary Program
EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under section 320
of the Clean Water Act. This program focuses on point and nonpoint
pollution in geographically targeted, high-priority estuarine waters. Under
this program, EPA assists state, regional and local governments in developing
estuary-specific comprehensive conservation and management plans that
recommend corrective actiocs to restore and maintain estuarine water quality
and to protect fish populations and other designated uses of these targeted
waters. In Puerto Rico, one estuarine system (San Juan Bay) has been
designated as part of the National Estuary Program.

3. Near Coastal Waters Program
The Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Program serves as a primary vehicle
for implementing environmental protection in coastal areas under a variety
of programs and authorities. It is also the framework for coastal regions for
carrying-out Agency directives, strategic themes, and other initiatives not
specifically related to distinct program issues. Examples of these cross-cutting
themes include geographic targeting for management attention; pollution
prevention; and setting priorities based on the expected efficacy of preventive
measures as well as the magnitude of ecological or human health risks.

4. Ground-Water Protection -Programs -
EPA has a number of programs, in addition to section 319, to control
nonpoint source pollution of ground-water. Since at least 1984, ground-water
protection programs have provided technical and financial assistance to states
for the development of state ground-water strategies and, more recently,
Groundwater Protection Programs. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA
may designate sole source aquifers. These are aquifers that are the sole or
principal of drinking water source for an area. At EPA's discretion, no
commitment for federal funds can be made for projects that will contaminate
these aquifers. In addition, the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act established a Wellhead Protection program. This program was created to
protect ground waters that supply wells and wellfields that contribute to
public drinking water supply systems. USDA and EPA are also cooperating
under a program to assess private drinking water wells on farmsteads.

5. Pesticides Program
EPA's pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act addresses some forms of nonpoint pollution. Among other
things, this statute authorizes EPA to control pesticides that may threaten
ground water and surface waters. Pesticide State Management Plans will be
developed by state agriculture, water/ environment, and health agencies and
will prescribe pesticide application measures to protect ground water that is
vulnerable to pesticide contamination. Required components of these Plans
will include: state philosophy and goals, state roles and responsibilities, legal
authority, resources, assessment and planning, monitoring, prevention,
response, enforcement, public awareness and participation,information
dissemination, and records and reportifig.

6. Wetlands Protection Program
EPA's wetlands program also has undertaken a number of projects to
increase awareness of the relationship between the protection and restoration
of wetlands and nonpoint source control. In 1990, the agency developed
guidance to encourage coordination of nonpoint sources and wetlands
programs, both within EPA and the states, to attain water quality goals shared
by the two programs. In addition, EPA has released technical guidance on
how to ensure effective application of water quality standards to wetlands.
The Wetlands Division is working with several agencies to develop
methods and transfer information on protecting and restoring wetlands in
ways which can be expected to provide nonpoint source abatement benefits.
EPA is providing support for the development of criteria to address the many
types of nonpoint source pollutants including nutrients, clean sediment, and
organic contaminants (e.g., @esticides) *The Wetlands Division is assisting in
the development of wildlife criteria applicable to all waterbody types and
biological criteria for wetlands.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Coastal Zone Management Program
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a program for
states and territories to voluntarily develop comprehensive programs to
protect and manage coastal resources. In order to receive Federal approval

and implementation funding, states and territories must demonstrate that
they have progrards, incldding enfo!rceable policies that are sufficiently
comprehensive and specific to regulate land uses, water uses, and coastal
development; and to resolve conflicts among competing uses. In addition,
they must have the authority to implement the enforceable policies. The
programs operates within a coastal zone bound any which includes coastal
waters and those which have a direct one significant impact on coastal waters.
This program must protect and manage important coastal resources,
including: wetlands, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and
fish and wildlife and their habitats. Resource management and protection is
accomplished in a number of ways through state laws, regulations, permits,
and local plans and zoning ordinances. While water quality protection is
integral to the management of many coastal resources, it was not specifically
cited as a purpose or policy of the original statute. The Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 specifically charged state coastal
programs, as well as state nonpoint source programs, with addressing
nonpoint source pollution alfecting coastal water quality.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Extension Service administer a number
of programs that contribute to reducing nonpoint pollution from agricultural
production.

1. Agricultural Conservation Program
The Agricultural Conservation Program, administered by ASCS,
provides cost-share funds to farmers and ranchers to install conservation
practices. The program has several goals including: conserving soil and water,
improving water quality, protecting and maintaining productive farm and
ranch land, and preservin@ and developing wildlife habitat. ASCS also
administers the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), designed to protect the
most highly erodible land and to protect and improve water quality. Under
the CRP, farmers are reimbursed for retiring highly erodible and
environmentally sensitive croplands from production under ten year
contracts. Water quality improvements occur as lands are taken out of

production because of-lower fertilizer and pesticide applications and because
reductions in soil erosion decrease sediment loadings to water. Land enrolled
in the reserve program also provides habitat and other environmental
benefits. Criteria for the conservation reserve program have been expanded
to include environmentally sensitive lands such as filter strips, wetlands and
wellhead protection areas. . &

2. Soil Conservation Service
The Soil Conservation Services (SCS) is the technical arm of USDA.
SCS provides technical assistance to conservation districts throughout the U.
S. and Puerto Rico. Under the President's Water Quality Initiative, started in
1989, SCS is focusing some of its technical assistance on a number of
demonstration projects to address water quality problems. SCS staff are also
located in many of EPA's Regional Offices to provide technical assistance and
support to the States and EPA. SCS is also providing accelerated technical
assistance to multi-state, regional projects such as the National Estuary
Program.

3. Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Unit Areas
In selected agricultural watersheds and aquifer recharge areas, SCS,
Extension Service, and co9perating federal, state and local agencies will
provide technical assistance and conservation planning to help farmers and
ranchers meet state water quality goals without undue economic hardship.
These hydrologic units are selected based on: significance of the agricultural
sources of pollution, relative predominance of pollutants such as pesticides,
nutrients, and animal wastes; and conformance with other water quality
efforts. Findings on the water quality effects of selected conservation practices
will provide a basis for expanding applications of -such practices to other areas
with similar water quality problems.

4. Forest Service
In Puerto Rico, the Forest Se rvice manages approximately 14,400 acres
of public lands at the Caribbean National Forest, part of the National Forest
System. This agency shows increased concern regarding the potential impacts
of sediment production from forest management activities on water quality
and aquatic life. . It currently requires the implementation of Best

Management Practices Plans (BMPs) to any project carried out or proposed
within Forest boundaries. These BMPs include provisions to prevent
possible sources of NPSP.

5. President's Water Quality Initiative
In 1989, President Bush launched an initiative to protect ground and
surface water from contamination of fertilizers and pesticides. Congress has
funded the initiative in the past several years. USDA, EPA, USGS, and NOAA
are all working together on this initiative through a series of work groups.
Through this initiative, a number of watershed projects have begun to
address fertilizer and pesticides problems. The agencies are tracking the
implementation progress in these watersheds.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) pledging cooperation and collaboration on water
quality monitoring and assessment activities. Both agencies expend much
effort on monitoring and assessment activities and the MOU is a tool to
coordinate these efforts. USGS has a similar agreement with Puerto Rico's
Environmental Quality Board.

Related Federal laws and regulations

a. The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251, et seq.)

b. The Rivers and Harbours Act (RHA) (33 USC 401 et seq.).

c. Endangered Species Act (ESA) - 1973

d. Act for the Protection of Marine Mammals (1972) (16 USC 1361 et seq.).

e. Food Security Act, 1986 (16 USC 3821, et seq.).

f. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (PL-99-645).

g. Executive order Num. 11990, emitte& by President J. Carter on May 24, 1977
(42 CFR 26961).

h. Coastal Areas Management Act (1972) (16 USC 1451 et seq.).

2. Commonwealth level

Environmental Quality Board (EQB)

EQB is the local government agency with the legal responsibility to
implement federal and state laws and regulations concerning pollution in
Puerto Rico, it is the local "Lead Agency" concerning all types of pollution. It
has designated a Nonpoint Source Division under the Water Quality Area
with the main objective of controlling nonpoint source pollution from
livestock farms, and from sewage disposal in small communities. They
address the first by'requirinj@ livestock'farms to implement Best Management
Plans (BMPs). By agreement with Puerto Rico's Department of Agriculture
(PRDA) and the federal Department of Agriculture (USDA), farms found in
violation of their BMPs can loose subsidies and services offered by PRDA and
USDA. The implementation of these Plans is monitored by both EQB and
PRDA personnel. To address the second, EQB may provide financial
assistance for the construction of wastewater treatment works in rural
communities. Estuaries and wetlands conservation and management is
another concern of this Division, and EQB may also provide financial
assistance to deal with these problems.
As part of this Division tasks, EQB collects surf ace and ground water
quality data both from its own Water Quality Monitoring Network and from
monitoring stations operated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
This data, together with information provided by BMPs and other permits
applications (like is analyzed to pinpoint probable sources of NPSP in Puerto
Rico's major river basins.
Certain EQB programs related to point-source pollution, like requiring
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans to major construction projects, and
the emission of National Pollutant Discharge and Emission System (NPDES)
permits, are a source of useful data for evaluating the impact of non-point
source pollution at specific areas.

Related laws and regulations:

-Act 9 of 1970 (Environmental Public Policy Act)
Established the Environmental Quality Board as the agency in charge of the
surveillance, management and conservation of the quality of air, waters and
soils in Puerto Rico.'

-Regulation of Environmental Impact Statements (1984).
EQB fulfill this mandate through the evaluation of Environmental Impact
Statements and other environmental documents.

- Water Quality Standards Regulation (1990).
Based on current EPA water quality standards, this regulation established
similar standards for Puerto Rico. Currently it does not include standards or
use classifications for wetlands, but includes an anti-degradation statement
applicable to wetlands.

- Regulation for Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Control (1983).

Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for regulating the
extraction of water, soil and minerals through the emission of corresponding
permits. It evaluates any project which includes the above-mentioned
activities, and potential for non-point source pollution is one of the elements
considered. DNR is also responsible for ensuring the conservation of natural
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Extraordinary episodes , like fuel spills and
fish kills, are monitored by DNR.
Though not an integral part of DNR, the Coastal Zone Management
Program of Puerto Rico (CZMP) is ascribed to this agency. CZMP regulates
development activities within the coastal zone of Puerto Rico by proposing to
the Planning Board the designation of natural reserves and areas "of special
planning", in which certain human activities are restricted.

Related laws and regulations:

-Act 23 of 1972 (Organic Act of the Department of Natural Resources)
Established the Department of Natural Resources as the state agency in charge
of the protection, surveillance and conservation of all natural resources of
Puerto Rico, including water resources and aquatic biota.

-Act 83 of 1936, as amended (Fishing Act)
For fishing conservation; conservation of aquatic habitats is required since
they are fundamental for the'life cycle 9f many fish species.

-Act 6 of 1968 (pursuant to flood prevention and conservation of beaches and
rivers). DNR is responsible for providing surveillance and protection to
swamps, beaches, and rivers of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

-Act 133 of 1975 (Forests Act).
DNR is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the
forests of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

-Act 70 of 1976 (Wildlife Act).
For the protection of wildlife and its habitats.

-Act 1 of 1977 (DNR Corps of Rangers Act).
Establishes the Corps of Rangers as the law-enforcement division of PRDNR
and its statutes.

-Act 6 of 1961, as amended.
Stipulates that PRDNR is responsible for the surveillance and conservation of
the Commonwealth's mangrove swamps.

-Act 144 of 1976 (Act for the Control of Excavation and Extraction of Land).

-Spanish Act of Harbors and Rivers of 1896.
Established the maritime-terrestrial zone as a public domain, including
mangrove swamps.

-Regulation for the Protection of Endangered Species and Critical Wildlife
Management Areas in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (1985).

-Regulation for the Development, Use, Conservation and Management of the
Waters of Puerto Rico (1992).
Regulates the extraction of ground and surface water in Puerto Rico.

-Regulation for the Development, Surveillance, Conservation and
Management of the Territorial Wate-rs, the Lands Under Them and the
Maritime-TeTrestrial Zone (1992).
It establishes zones of special concern or value in the maritime-terrestrial
zone and territorial waters and regulates construction and extraction projects
within those areas.

Planning Board (PB)
PB is in charge of establishing land zoning and designating
corresponding planning objectives. As such, it is the PB the lead agency in
the evaluation of development projects. It is also the state organism with
legal power to designate state forests and reserves and other areas of special
planning.

Related laws and regulations:

-Act 75 of 1975, as- amendLed (Organi@ Act of the Planning Board of Puerto
Rico)
Established the Planning Board as the agency in charge of preparing public
policies and objectives regarding land use and zonification.

-Act 9 of 1970 (Environmental Public Policy Act)
Designated the Planning Board as the agency in charge of preparing public
policies regarding environmental protection.

-Land Use Plan of Puerto Rico (1977) '

-Integral Development Plan of Puerto Rico (1979)

Regulation 17, Regulation of Coastal Area Zonification and Beach and Coast
Entrance.

Regulation 13, Regulation for Floodable Areas.

Regulation 4, Zoning Regulation (1989)

Regulation for Special Zoning of Non-urban Areas for the Municipalities
Surrounding the Caribbean National Forest (1983).

Resolution Nurn. 74-21 (1974) to Preserve, Protect and Restore Mangrove
Swamps in Puerto Rico. a 0

Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture (PRDA)

PRDA is the local agency in charge of the development of agriculture
and commercial fishing in Puerto Rico, including assignment of state and
federal subsidies for agricultural production and other support services for
farmers. Agreements signed by PRDA, USDA, and EQB give PRDA the joint
responsibility (with EQB) of monitoring the implementation of Best
Management Plans (BMPs) for livestock farms and for the suspension of all
financial and technical support to farms found in violation of BMPs.
PRDA is also in charge of the application in Puerto Rico of all USDA
programs.

Aqueducts and Sewers Authority (ASA)

ASA is in charge of developing sources of drinking and irrigation
waters, of delivering these waters and of treating and disposing wastewaters
according to federal and state laws and regulations. ASA is required NPDES
permit for discharges from its wastewater and drinking water treatment
plants and has been found in violation of these permits repeatedly by EPA.
As a result, it has not only been forced to pay heavy fines, but also several of
its plants had been temporarily arrested.

Regulations and Permits Administration (REPA)

-Act 76 of 1975, as amended.
Established REPA as the agency in charge of the enforcement of planning
regulations promulgated by the Planning Board by reviewing applications for
the necessary permits for regulated activities, land use and construction
projects.

Solid Wastes Management Administration (SWMA)

-Act 70 of 1978, as amended.
Established SWMA as the agency in charge of assisting Commonwealth and
local (municipal) governments in the development of infrastructure at the
local and intermunicipal. levels for the disposal and recycling of solid wastes.

Other applicable local legislation:

Article IV of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (1952)
Established the use and conservation of Puerto Rico's natural resources as a
constitutional right.

III. THE FAJARDO RIVER BASIN

The Fajardo River basin, located in northeastern Puerto Rico, covers
some 118 km2 mostly within the municipalities of Fajardo and Ceiba, from
the Luquillo Sierra. to the Vieques PAssage, an arm of the Caribbean Sea
(Figure 1). This is the definition of the basin used by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS); the Department of Natural Resources WNR) has
used traditionally a wider definition which we did not agree with. The Basin,
(as defined by USGS) contains the southern part of a small city (Fajardo; 40,000
people), rural neighborhoods, farms, a small local airport, one marina and a
significant portion of the Caribbean National Forest, one of the few tropical
montane rainforests within the National Forest Service system. The
southern shoreline at the river mouth is covered by a small mangrove forest
which is part of the Ceiba State Forest, managed by DNR.
Although development in the area concentrates immediately north of
the basin. government and private interest in the basin per se is growing, as
evidenced by projects under way for flood control measures at the Fajardo
River mouth, enlargement of the local airport, an increasing number of
commercial farms, and residential and road construction projects. Between
1989 and 1993, DNR approved 99 -development projects' permits and
endorsements (Figure 2) for the municipalities of Fajardo and Ceiba. 38.38%
of them were for the reconstruction of public infrastructure, such as roads,
docks and sewers. The Fajardo River has even been mentioned as the site of
a possible new reservoir. There is already significant concern among
environmentalists and community groups for the increase in silting of the
River estuary and flooding along the river shore, and a reduction of fish
stocks, allegedly due to past and current development within the basin.

List of ruraL communities in the
Fajardo River Basin:
7. Fortuna Ceiba
1. Puerto ReaL Fajardo City State
2. Santa Rita 8. Vapor Forest
3. FLorencio 9. SaLdafia
4. San Pedro 10. PeA6n rr2
5. Mabi 11. Paraiso
6. Josefa 12. Rio Abajo 3

Vieques

Caribbean NationaL Passage
Forest

MunicipaLity of Fajardo

MunicipaLity of Ceiba Map 01*0

ruraL communities

Rio Fajardo main
FIGURE 1: The Fajardo River Basin. municipaL Limits

FIGURE DNR-approved permits and indorsements, municipalities of Fajardo and Ceiba (1989-1993).
2

23.23%

17,17%

Housing

Reconstruction
Dredging
Filling
Land Segregation

Commercial

9.09% W&PON.,400

38.38%

Goenaga and Cintr6n (1979), and Goenaga et al. (1990) cited possible increased
discharge of freshwater and sediment from the Fajardo River as one cause for
degradation of coral reefs and seagrass communities located off the Fajardo
coast and at the nearby Cordillera Keys..
The Fajardo River Basin is a typical Antillean mountain river basin.
In its headwater it flows in narrow valleys, have steep gradients, and
tTansport and deposit coarse sediments. The rural areas of the basin are
forested in its western third, the Caribbean National Forest having most of
this. The rest is used mainly by farms with a splash of growing rural
communities. Cow farms are present throughout the basin. In the lowlands,
multiple channels and depositional surfaces occur within the valley floor.
Sugar cane is still heavily planted in the alluvial valley next to the city of
Fajardo. Throughout the basin, there are many small plantain (a fruit closely
related to bananas) farms, and also a few small farms dedicated to pigs,
chicken, fruits (limes, papayas, grapefruits, oranges) or cassavas.

Land use

Available data on land use at the Fajardo River basin, obtained at the
Scientific Inventory Division of DNR, came from aerial photographs on the
area dating from 1971 and 1979, and was organized in thirteen zoning
categories and compared (see Table 1). Categories that showed the largest
increases in percentage of change during that period were: transportation
(+67.00%), communications (+50.00%), and forests (+38.39%). In terms of
absolute measurements, though, only the category of forests presented
considerable increase (+8.76 km2). On the other hand, the largest decreases in
percentage of change corresponded to agriculture (-36.09%), and wetlands (-
31.03%), while the largest decrease in area was also in agriculture 09.62 km2).
From this data one would expect that during the period 1971-1979, due
to a reduction in agricultural lands and increases in forest area, and
construction of transportation and communications projects, the generation
of pollutants related to agricultural activities (fecal streptococci and coliforms,
phosphates and nitrates, among others) would have decreased. An increase
in forests would mean a' larger carpacity of soils to retain water, so
measurements of water discharge would show diminished amounts. Finally,
an increase in construction projects could have generated larger sediment

loads in the river. While visiting the area working on this project (1992), the
authors received the impression that significant portions of land were being
cleared to be used for rural and urban construction, and for livestock farming.

TABLE 1: Comparison of land zoning categories for 1971 and 1979 at the
Fajardo River Basin.

LAND AREA PERCEN- AREA PERCEN- NET % OF
USE 1971 TAGE 1979 TAGE CHANGE CHANGE
(km2) M (km2) M (km2)
Agriculture 54.46 46.15 34.84 F53 -19.62 -36.07
Forests 52.85 44.79 72.70 61.61 +8.76 +38.39
Wetlands 0.68 0.58 0.47 0.40 -0.28 -31-03
Non- 0.78 0.66 0.78 0.66 none none
productive
Residential, 4.12 3.49 4.00 3.38 -0.74 -3.15
Urban
Residential, 3.46 2.93 3.U 2.83 -0.63 -3.41
Rural
Recreational 0.58 0.49 0.50 0.42 -0.26 -2.00
Public Uses 0.40 0.31 0.44 0.37 -0.03 -8.38
Commercial 0.21 0.18 0.120 0.17 -0.04 -5.66
Industrial 0.28 0.24 0.30 0.25 +0.01 -4.00
Extractions 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 +0.01 +14.29
Transport 0.10 0.08 0.28 0.24 +0.14 +67.00
Communica- 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 +0.01 +50.00
tions
TOTAL 118.00 100-00 118.00 100.00 ----- -----

Geology, hydrology, geography and soils

More than a dozen geological faults cross the area of the Fajardo River
basin. Most of them have a northwest-southeast orientation, although many
also run from east to west. The western third of the basin, part of the
Luquillo Sierra, comprises mostly mountains (some of them more than 670
m high) with steep slopes, and formed basicly from poorly cemented volcanic
rock, sandstone and mudstone. Formations in these areas include cupric
minerals and ferruginous @Iays. Soils here are thin, highly erodible, and
highly acidic.

The other two thirds comprise of and alluvial plain of sand, clays and
rock-and-pebble fields that broadens towards the river mouth, and then nears
the mouth narrows again. To the west, north and south, this plain is
bordered by hills formed of sandstone and mudstone. The alluvial plain is
separated from the sea by mangrove swamp deposits. As one goes from west
to east, soils gradually turn from thin to thick, from highly acidic to slightly
acidic, and from highly erodible to erodible.
The area is within the "rain mantle" of the Luquillo Mountains, the
first geographical sttucture in Puerto tco, that encounters moist-ladden trade
winds blowing in a northeast-to-southwest direction from the Atlantic Ocean
most of the year. When trade winds make contact with the warm surface of
the mountains, most of their humidity condenses into rain. As a result, the
Sierra receives an annual rainfall that ranges from 70 to 500 cm. Sudden,
heavy rains has been held responsible for constant bleaching of soil minerals,
frequent natural landslides and sudden large increases of water discharge of
the Fajardo River and its tributary creeks which causes, among other things,
significant erosion of riverbanks in periodic episodes. It is possible that these
episodes of sudden, large water discharges serve as a flushing mechanism for,
at least, some of the pollutants that percolates or fall into the Fajardo River.
However, this mechanism's action probably stops at the very moment that
freshwater coming down the river meets the saltier, denser water mass at the
estuary.

Water management -at the b@sin:

The Environmental Quality Board maintains a database of possible
sources of NPSP in Puerto Rican rivers (we found, that for the Fajardo River,
it needed updating). EQB, throughout its 1992 monitoring of point and
nonpoint source pollution on Puert *o Rican surface waters, found in the
Fajardo River Basin high levels of pesticides, metals, and phenolic substances
and attributed them to the Fajardo Drinking Water Plant, the Fajardo
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Ceiba Municipal Landfill, urban runoff,
road construction, soil extraction operations, and local produce and livestock
farms, as well as to natural causes (Figures 3, 7 & 8). In terms of use potential,
EQB divides the river into five segments: estuary segment, recharge area
segment, unclassified area segment, drinking water area segment, and

;X1 Yin )-wer 32

cite

*10

CrCet *7
creer-*V

fee

yet 710 Cree

c ree

re e IL AL

sQb jig o Krn LEr-eAD
Mver A V,,,V%l+brnS
at

Sc.%t
r-11

ko 14 G ATSPL

F
Ep
wT IN(. PLAMT
FIGURE 3: EQB's schematic description of FA9A POND
-Drinv-i"c- L-jhT'C'P
nonpoint-source polltion at the I fvT,&Kw-

Fajardo River.

ecologically sensitive area segment (Table 2). An EQB description of the
estuary segment (the only segment description available) is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 2: EQB's use clasification of the Fajardo River.

SEGMENT CLASSIFICATION TRIBUTARIES
INCLUDED
1. From the river mouthto 2.2 Esiuary
km upstream (Fajardo).
2. From the river mouth to Recharge area Redonda Creek
Km 10.8 HW 976 upstream
(Fajardo).
3. From the end of segment #2 Unclassified segment
upstream to Km 11.4 HW 976
(Fajardo).
4. From the end of segment #3 Drinking water area Aguas Buenas Creek, Rinc6n
(Fajardo) upstream to river's Creek, Juan Diego Creek,
birthplace (Ceiba). Sonadora Creek
5. From Km 18.0 HW 976 Ecologically sensitive area
(Fajardo) upstream to river's
birthplace (Ceiba).

TABLE 3: EQB's use description of the estuary segment of the Fajardo River.

Water body name Fajardo River
Water body segment type Estuary
Water body segment size 2.0 miles
Segment evaluation Estuarine
Aquatic life support Partially supporting
Swimming Partially supporting
Secondary contact 2.0 miles. Threatened by wastewaters.
Drinking Water Supply Unfit for drinking
Overall Partially supporting
Comments Presence of urban runoff.

In terms of water properties and water quality parameters, EQB divides
the river in two categories: "SC" (coastal-estuarine segment), and "SD" (all
other surface waters). The Aqueducts and Sewers Authority has a Drinking
Water Plant at , and a Wastewater Treatment Plant (Figures 7 & 8). This last
plant discharges filter backwash to the river under a NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System) permit issued by EQB.
Frequently, it has been found in violation of permit specifications (Table 4)
6 0

TABLE 4: NPDES permit limits imposedby EQB on ASA's wastewater
Plant filter backwash discharges unto the Fajardo R.
Clows Parameters NPIDES Limits Jan 1991 Feb 1991 Mar 1991 Apr 1991 May 1991
1 M >5 mg/l
2 Total Coliforms 10,000/100 ml
3 Fecal Coliforms 4,000/100 ml
4 Color lo STU
5 Surfactants 100 mg/I
6 Flow 2.2 MGD
7 TSS 30-45 mg/I
8 Residual Chlorine 0.5 ma/I 1.2 1.2
9 Turbidity 50 NTU 1300 750 0 0
10 Phosphorus, total 1 mg1l 0 2.39 1.91 1.96
11 Copp2r 40 ug/l 80 60
12 Lead- 50 --uq/l
13 Zinc 50 I&g/I 70
14 Fluoride 700 IA /1 0
15 Iron, total 300 Igg/I 27000- 25001 38001 38001 89

Rows Jul 1991 Aug 1991 Sep 1991 Oct 1991 Nov 1991 Dic 1991 Jan 1992

2 230000
3 230000
4 30
5 0
6 2.8
7
8 1.9 1.7 3 1.3 1.3 2.5
9 390
10 0 0 3.5@
11 0 0
12 70
13 90
14 90001 590L+-
1 151 12001 60001 0 64501 68001 10000
M
50
39

Rows Fab 1992 Mar 1992 Abr 1992 May 1992 Jun 1992 Jul 1992 Aug 1992
1 - 0 0 0 . 1
2 11000 70000 50000 23000000 13000000
3 30000 30000 13000000 3000000
4, 25 50 45 35 30 45 30
5 1640 0 9 800 1000
6 2.54 3.25 4.g6 2.91 3.09
7 8@ 79 35 40
8 2.6 3 2.8 2 2 4 8
9 - -0 0 315 850 55
10 2.87 5.45 5.09 4.46 3.35 4.41
11 125 70 70
12 .1 0
13 701 2201 1301 1401
14 0 .1 -1
9855 26001 200001 7001
15 38000 400

Rows Sep 1992 Oct 1992 Nov 1992 Doc 102
1 4.9 4 4.4
2 210QOOO
3 170QOOO 5000000 300000
41 50 40 30 30
5 3750 950 1000 @200
6 3.68_ 3.6 4.97 4.05
7 0. 48 35 35
8 2.2 2.2 3 4
9. 600 0 0
10 4.18 --4.22 4.66 3.04

12
13
14
79001 6100 3100 5800

creating a point-source pollution (turbidity, fecal bacteria, metals, nitrogen,
phosphorus, etc.) that is difficult to pinpoint as separate from NPSP in the
Fajardo River.

Natural biota and biodiversity:

USGS assessed phytoplankton populations in the Fajardo River from
1977 to 1981 at monitoring station #USGS 710. It also monitored, at the same
station, benthic invertebrates from 1980 to 1982. During those periods, 39
species of microalgae (Table 5), and 37 species of benthic invertebrates (Table
6) were collected and identified. Ananalyses of the river's phytoplankton
standing crop, defined as the amount of microalgal cells per milliliter of
sampled water, is shown on Figure 4. It fluctuated from 0 to 2,000 cells/ml
with an extraordinary peak in 1978 of around 11,000 cells/ml. While the
number of different species compares favorably with similar, nearby rivers
like the Mameyes, species diversity was very low, as demonstrated by the fact
that only two or three species of phytoplankton or invertebrates were
dominant on any single sampling day (Figures 5 & 6). Low biodiversity may
be induced by the frequent entrance to the river system of external tensors,
such as pollutants.
It has been reported that the Fajardo River is frequently visited by
recreational fishermen looking for tarpon (Megalops atlantica), and snooks
(Centropomus sp.). In addition, the authors of this report observed green
macroalgae of the genus Chara growing in some sections of the river passing
through the city of Fajardo, as well as needlefishes (Belonidae) and mullets
(Mugilidae) swimming in the estuary segment.

ROWS DIVISION CLASS ORDER FAMILY GENUS COMMENTS

I Chlorophyta** Chlorophyceae Chlorococcales Ooscystaceae Ankistrodesmus Common in pools & ponds.
2 Chlorella Widespread in organically
rich & polluted waters.
3 Gloeoactinium
4 Kirchneriella Usually an open-water group.
5 00cystl .S Common.
6 Selenastrum Common in shallow waters.
7 Scenedesmaceae Scenedesmus Corm-non in pools & ponds.
8 Cledogoniales Oedogoniaceae Oedogonium
9 Volvocales Chlamydomonadaceae Chlamydomonas Very common, specially in
barnyard pools and water
throughs.
10 Zygnematales Desmidiaceae Closterium Found in soft-water habitats.
I I Cosmarium Found in soft-water habitats.
12 Staurastrum Usually found in acid or soft-
water habitats.
13 Chrysophyta Bacillariophyceae Achnantales Achnantaceae Achnantes
14 Cocconeis
15 Bacillariales Nitzchiaceae Denticula
16 Nitzchi .a
17 Surirellaceae Surirella
18 Eupodiscales Coscinodiscaceae Cyclotella Found on hard or alkaline
water habitats.
19 Melosira Common.
20 Naviculales Cymbellaceae Cymbella
21 Diatomaceae Diatoma
22 Eunotiaceae Eunotia Found in soft or acid water
habitats.
23 Fragilariaceae Fragilart .a
24 Synedra
25 Gomphonemataceae Gomphonema
26 Naviculaceae Frustulia
27 1 Gyrosigma Common.
TABLE 5: Phytoplankton identified from samples taken at station USGS 710,
Fajardo River.

28 Navicula
29 Pinnularia
30 Cyanophyta** Cyanophyaceae Chroococcales Chroococcaceae Anacystis
31 Hormo onales Nostocaceae Anabaena
32 Anabaenopsts Found only in nitrogen-rich
waters.
33 Aphanizomenon
34 Oscillatoriaceae Lyngbya Common in lakes & streams.
35 Oscillatoria
36 Schizothrix
37 Spirulina
38 Rivulariaceae Rachidiopsis
39 Euglenophyta** Euglenophyceae EuLdenales I r-1--aceae Trachelomonas

NOTES:
Row numbers are the same as those used in Figure 5
Usually, Chlorophyta is more abundant in freshwater habitats than all other algal groups combined.
Cya4ophyta is most abundant in lotic waters rich in organic matter.
Euglenophyta are almost always found in ponds rich in organic matter.

W
Co

ROWS PHYLUM CLASS ORDER FAMILY GENUS COMMENTS

1 Annefida Oligochaeta Plesiopora Tubificidae unknown
2 Prosopora unknown unknown
3 Arthropoda Crustacea Decapoda Palaemonidae Macrobrachium
4 Palaemonetes
5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis
6 Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmya
7 Chironomus
8 Conchapelopia
9 Cricotopus
10 Eukiefferiella
11 Labrundinia
12 Larsia
13 Limnochironomus
14 Paramert'na
15 Pentaneura
16 Polypedilum
17 Tanytarsus
18 Thienemanniella
19 Empididae unkn6wn
20 Ephemenoptera Baefidae Baetis
21 unknown
22 Caenidae Caenis
23 Ephemerelfidae Ephemerella
24 Heptagenfidae Stenonema
25 Leptophlebiidae Hermanellopsis
26 Leptop lebia
27 unknown
28 Lepidoptera Pyralididae Paragyactis
29 Odonata Coenagrionidae Emallagma
30 unknown
31 Tricho tera Calanoceratidae Phylloicus
32 Hydroptilid22__@Hydroptila
33 Oxyethira

TABLE 6: Benthic invertebrates identified from samples taken
from station USGs 710, Fajardo River.

34 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia
35 Mesogastropoda Pleuroceridae Goniobasis
36 Pleurocera
37_ Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae unknown

Row numbers are the same as those used in Figure 7.

Plot 42

12000-

10000-

8000-

0
0 6000-
a
49
U)

4000-

2000-

0
7/7/77 2/24/78 10/13/78 6/2/79 1/19/80 9/7/80 4/26/81 12/14/81

Date

Stan Crop

FIGURE 4: Phytoplankton standing crop from the Fajardo River.
N J@A

population
7000.00
6000.00
!;000.00
4000.00
3000.00
200.00
1000. 00
0.00

sampling days

--------------------

species

FIGURE 5: Phytoplankton, biodiversity at the Fajardo River.

PIO'Rulation
150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00

species

sampling days

FIGURE 6: Benthic invertebrate biodiversity at the
Fajardo River.

IV. WATER QUALITY HISTORY OF THE FAJARDO RIVER

Sampling stations

EQB only established one monitoring station on the Fajardo River
Basin (EQB 78B). It is a c6astal marihe station located in estuarine waters
immediately north of the Fajardo River mouth that receive freshwater aport
from the river (EQB classification "SC"). EQB has contracted USGS to
monitor the river per se (EQB classification "SD"). USGS has three stations
along the river: USGS 710, 720 and 725. The locations of these stations is
described in Table *7 and sliown in Figures 7 & 8. An analysis of relevant
historical data gathered by EQB and USGS is presented in Table 9. Figures 9-70
are plots of this data for each station.

TABLE 7: Water quality monitoring stations located at the Fajardo River
Basin.

Station Monitoring Agency Location Period Monitored

USGS 710 U. S. Geological Survey On left bank, HW 976, 1960-1992
5.3 krn sw of Fajardo.

USGS 720 U. S. Geological Syrvey At bridge on HW 3, 1958-1967,1974
0.8 km south of Fajardo.

USGS 725 U. S. Geological Survey 1.9 krn sw of Playa Fajardo. 1974-1992

EQB 78B P. R. Environmental Quality Coastal marine station loca- 1986-1990
Board ted at Isleta Marina dock,
1.5 krn nw of river mouth.

--------------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

SARDINERA PLAYA SARDINERA

PTA.BATERIA

BAHIA
BELTRAN DE
FAJARDO

P, PLAYA, DE FAJARDO
-PUERTO
NOR REAL EQB 78B
PTA
FAJARDO

P EBLO

RIO FAJARDO
ESTE
A USGS 725 A
-N-

SANTARLTA
EST It
VERTEDERO ESCALA APROXIMADA
USGS 720 120,000

1KM

FIGuRE 7: water quality monitoring stations and nonpoint
sources, as identified by EQB, along the Fajardo River.
MAPA AREAS IDENTTFICADAS DE FUENTES DE CONTAMINACION NO PRECISADAS

LEYENDA

LEGEM FOR FIGURE 7

Mapa 1. Areas identificadas de fuentes de contaminaci'
on no
precisadas.
4D Estaciones de Bombas - Autoridad de
Acueductos y Alcantarillados.
Pump stations-ASA
0 Estaci6n de Monitoreo - Servicio Geol6gico
de E.U.
USGS water quality monitoring stations
Sistema de Uso Nacional de Eliminacion de
Descargas Contaminantes (Privadas).
Private NPDES discharge systems
Sistema de Uso Nacional de Eliminacion de
Descargas Contaminantes (Nblicas).
Public NPDES discharge systems
'All Estaci On de'Monitoreo Junta de Calidad
Ambiental.
EQB water quality monitoring station

Estaciones de Muestreo Departamento de
Recursos Naturales.

G)
CARR.

USGS 710 ESTAGION DE
VERTEDERO
ESGUELA
PERON

RIO ARRIBA RIO ARRIBA Ceiba Land-
f ill

PARAISO

Fajardo Landfill
Ah
RIO ABAJO
CARR 971 FAJARDO
ESCALA
APROXIMADA
Fo-1 1:20, 000
FIGURE 8: Water quality monitoring station and nonpoint I KM
sources, as identified by EQB, along the Fajardo River.
MAPA AREAS IDENTIFICADAS DE FUENTES DE CONTAMINACION N -
NO PRECISADAS

LEYENDA

LEGEND FOR FIGURE 8

lapa 2. Areas identificadas de fuentes de contaminacion noprecisadas.

Vertederos de relleno sanitarios
Municipal landfills
Pozos de oxidacion
oxydation ponds
Estacion de monitoreo (JCA)

Sistema de uso nacional de eliminacion de
descargas contaminantes.
NPDES discharge system

------ Fajardo River main course

Table 4 shows data from the monitoring of backwash discharges during
1991-1992 from the Fajardo Water Treatment Plant into the Fajardo River.
Though a point-source type of pollution that requires a NPDES, since these
discharges goes directly into the river, such data is needed to compare with
water quality data from the river's monitoring stations as an attempt to
separe pollution froin poinesources fr;m pollution from non-point sources.

Water discharge

Water discharges from the Fajardo River are typical (in volume and
behavior) of northeastern Puerto Rico mountain rivers born at the Luquillo
Sierra (Table 9: parameters #1 & 2; Figures 9 & 10). The fact that these
parameter has not shown significant change over time indicates that those
factors which may affect water retention capabilities of the basin's soils (like
significant vegetation cover loss, excessive water extraction from the river,
channelization, construction of dame, dikes or some other sort of flood-
control or water-retention project) are still absent from the basin.

Temperature

Temperature is a measure of heat. The physical properties of water are
dependant to a large degree on heat, since cool waters are capable of
dissolving more gases, salts, and minerals than warm waters. Aquatic
organisms adapt themselves to the natural heat fluctuations of the body of
water which they inhabit. Sudden extreme temperature changes can kill
these organisms as well as cause significant changes in the physical and
chemical properties of water. Temperatures in surface waters in Puerto Rico
usually fluctuate at around 300C. Abnormally high temperatures may be due
to warm water discharges or decomposition of huge amounts of organic
matter.
Temperature 'surges feflected in7data from the Fajardo River (Table 9:
parameter #3; Figure 11) coincide with peaks in other parameters like BOD
(parameter #17; USGS 725: 1973, 1977), total organic nitrogen (parameter #37;
USGS 725: 1973, 1974), and valleys in DO (parameter #15; USGS 710 & 725:
1973-1974), suggesting that * decomposjtion of abnormally high amounts of
organic matter throughout the river is the likely cause.

Plot

FIGURE 9: Instantaneous water discharge
700-
- USGS 710

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

0
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7118no 9117n3 11118n6 1/19/90 3/22183 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot 1100-

500- 1000-

900-
USGS 725 USGS 720
400- 800-

700-
CD 300- 600-
21
500-

200- 400-

300-

100- 200-

loo-

0 r---r-7
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70

Date Date

Line Chart

60000-

50000-
USGS 710

40000-

30000-

20000-

10000-

0-
1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991

FIGURE 10: Annual water discharge

Line Chart

40000-

USGS 720

30000-

20000-

10000-

0 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

54
Plot FIGURE 11: Temperature
32-

31- USGS 710

30-

29-

28-

27-

26-

25-

24-

23-

22-

21-,
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date
Temp.

32- USGS 720

31-

30-

29-

28-

cz 27-

E
26-

25-

24-

23-

22
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18/70 9/17/73

Line Chart

35 EQB 78B

3o-

25-

20-

15-

0
09/24/87 01/1@/89 09/210/90

Plot

38-

36- USGS 725

34-

32-

E 30-

28-

26-

24-

22
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Conductance, salinity, dissolved solids

Conductance is a measure of the speed with which an electric current is
transported through water (conductivity of water). As the concentration of
ions in water increases, so does conductance. Marine waters show
conductance values of more than 200 gs/cm, freshwaters usually show less
than 100 gs/cm, and estuarine waters has values anywhere in between.
Conductance is sometimes used as indirect measurements of water salinity
and amount of dissolved solids.
Salinity, to use the simplest pqssible definition, is a measure of the
amount of dissolved salts in water. Marine waters have salinity values of 30-
40 ppt. Freshwaters have a value of 0 ppt. Estuarine waters measure
anywhere in between. Dissolved solids is a measurement somewhat similar
to salinity but it is more general because it includes any solids in water that
can precipitate, not just salts.
All three parameters vary with freshwater inputs, sea water intrusions,
droughts, temperature chAnges, sedImentation, and inputs of any ion-
producing substance.
Conductance level fluctuations of over 150 gm/cm. on stations USGS
720 & 725 may reflect periodic saltwater intrusions from the river estuary
(Table 9: parameter #4; Figure 12). However, peaks in 1973 and 1980
appearing also at station USGS 710 (upriver) may signal episodes of NPSP
occurring along the river.
Salinity, measured at station EQB 78B, is normal for coastal estuarine
situations (Table 9; parameter #5; Figure 13). Dissolved solids show a
declining tendency (Table 9: parameters #10 & 11; Figures 14 &15).

Fecal bacteria

Bacteria are microscopic, unicellular, autotrophic organisms assigned
by biologists to the Kingdom Monera. Typically they are either spherical
(cocci), rodlike (bacilli) or threadlike (;pirilli). They often clump together to
form colonies. Many bacteria are found naturally in the soil or in surface
waters. However, bacteria that transmit waterborne diseases do not multiply
in natural waters or even in heavily polluted waters. Water and wastewaters
are not good media for their growth. Water serves primarily as a mechanical

Plot
FIGURE 12: Conductance

300- USGS 710

250-

200-

79 -
8
150-

100-

so -7 ......... 1-... .7r-
11/13/57 3/16/64 -5118/67 7/18no- 9117n3 -iiiiim 3/=? 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot 4000-

11000-
3500-
10000- USGS 725 USGS 720
9000- 3000-

8000-
2500-
7000-
0
6000- Z 2000-

5000- 0
1500-
4000-

3000- 1000-

2060-
500-
1000-

0
0-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70

Date Date

Conductance

FIGURE 13: Salinity

Line Chart
40- EQB 78B
35- a 0

30-

25-
-=1
'9
Z% 20-
A
,a
co 15-

10-

0- 1 1 1
09/24/87 01/19/89 09/20/90

q
vv

6 0

Plot
FIGURE 14: Dissolved solids

60 USGS 710

50-

40-

V
= 30
0
Cl)

20-

10-

0*1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 .11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

P I o t

40- 0
USGS 725

35-

3o-

25-

co 20-

C/) 15-

10-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

. Dale 0

P1 ot FIGURE 15: Sm of dissolved solids

170-

160- USGS 710

150-

140-

130-

120-

110-

100-
-6 go-

so-

70-

60-

so-

40-
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

P I o t

120-

Plot 110- USGs 720

170
USGS 725 100-
160-

150- 90-

140- E

130 80-
CO
E
120-

110- 70-

cn
100
go- 6o-
80- q 50-
70-
60-1 1 7-1 40-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6/15/59 8/16/62 10/16/65
Date Date

medium for transmission of disease organisms, and most of the natural
processes that go in water decrease the likelihood of transmittance.
Pathogenic bacteria usually originates in the intestines and feces of warm-
blooded animals. Consequently, water borne outbreaks are associated with
recent, gross pollution.
One of the measures used as an indicator of possible sewage pollution
is Total Coliform Bacteria Count. Coliform bacteria are a kind of aerobic or
facultative anaerobic bacillus. However,general bacterial counts, such as this
are not the best indicators because natural microbial flora is also present. As a
result, Fecal Coliforms are fr;quently separated and censused. Fecal coliforms
are mostly associated to human fecal material. Fecal Streptococci, bacteria
usually associated with farm animals' fecal material, are also commonly
counted in surface waters.
The Fajardo River Basin has a history of coliforms outbreaks (Table 9:
parameters #42 & 43; Figures 16 & 17). Its many cattle farms allow their
animals free access to the river, there are many rural houses that still spill
their wastewater to the river and the Fajardo Wastewater Treatment Plant
discharges its filters backwash into the river. From a high peak in 1973,
reflected at all stations, the situation has gotten better but its still
unsatisfactory.

Turbidity, color, suspended materials

Turbidity is a measure of the cpncentration of suspended material in
water. Color is an estimate of the amount of organic matter in water whose
decomposition process produces dark-colored substances. Suspended
sediments is a measure of the amount of suspended material in water. An
excess of suspended materials in water produces a significant reduction in
light penetration, which affects photosynthetic organisms and, eventually,
their production of oxygen and coitsumption of carbon dioxide (C02).
Sediments also clog the gills of aquatic animals, asphyxiating them.
Except for a peak in 1981 (USGS 710 & 725), turbidity fluctuations
appear to be localized episodes (Table 9: parameter #8 ; Figure 18). Suspended
sediments may be able to precipitate or settle between stations. Sediment
fluctuations at station EQB 78B are high and may be due to the vicinity of this

62
Plot FIGURE 16: Fecal Coliforms

60000-
USGS 710

50000-

40000-

30000-

20000-

10000-

0 -T-
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18/70 9/17f73 11/18t76 1/19/80 3/2Z/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/2Zt92

Date 7-1

Plot

50000-
EQB 78B

40000-

30000-

20000-

10000-

0- 7-
5/22186 12/22/87 7/23/89 2/21/91
Date

p I o t

20000000-

USGS 725

15000000-

10000000-

5000000-

0
9/17/73 1/1 9/8Q 6/22186 9/22/92

Date

Plot
FIGURE 17: Fecal streptococci
50000-

- USGS 710

40000-

30000-

20000-

10000-
0- 011 &A4 6-
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18f7O 9/17f73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22186 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot

2000000-
USGS 725

1500000-

Q
CL
(D
1000000-

500000-

0-7
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

65
Plot FIGURE 18: Turbidity

200-
USGS 710

loo-

0
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18170 9/17/73 11/18fl6 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot

2000-

USGS 725

1500-

1000-

500

9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Plot

30.00-
EQB 78B

25.00-

20.00-

15.00-
:9
.0

I a 0

10.00-- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - ---

5.00-

0.00 1 1 1. 1 1 1
5/22/86 - IZ=7 7/23/89 2/21/91

Daw
v

station to a marina whose boat motors lift bottom sediments continually
(Table 9: parameters #7 & 9; Figures 19, 20 & 21).
Suspended oils and greases, measured at EQB 78B, show frequent peaks
which may be due to frequent small spills from boats at the marina (Table 9:
parameter #14; Figure 22).

Oxygen requirements

Oxygen conc6ntratioiis determir@e the kinds of living activities that can
go on in water. It is determined mostly by water temperature, salinity,
pressure, and the interaLiion between water and atmosphere. Cool, clear, fast-
moving, over-oxygenated mountains streams support a small variety of
specialized organisms. As water slows and organic matter accumulates, these
organisms are replaced by d larger variety of more tolerant types. However, if
the concentration of organic wastes continue increasing, it could reach the
level in which oxygen is completely depleted by decomposition (water turns
anaerobic). Most organisms will be wiped out, bacteria will begin obtaining
oxygen from nitrite, nitrate, or sulfate in that order. Nitrite and nitrate will
be reduced to nitrogen gas which will show as bubbles. Sulfate will be
reduced to hydrogeh sulfidb. Sulfideg react with metals in water to form a
black suspension that darken polluted waters. Metals will also be reduced.
Soluble ferric and manganic compounds will turn into insoluble ferrous and
manganous ones. Organic matter decomposition will grind to a halt without
oxygen, leaving in the wate; organic ajids, alcohols, and aldehydes, as well as
C02, that normally are just transitional products in the breakdown of organic
matter.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) is a measurement of the amount of
dissolved oxygen required to convert organic waste compounds in the water
to stable, inoffensive, and harmless compounds (preferably, water and carbon
dioxide). As such, it is an indirect measurement of the amount of organic
and reducing material present. Determined values may correlate with water
color or organic pollution.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is the most popular measurement
of the likely behavior of organic wastes as oxygen consumers. It measures the
oxygen levels need@d for tl@e biochemLl oxidation of organic matter.

P 10 t
FIGURE 19: Suspended solids

USGS 710
2000-

1000

- - - - --r- 1-7 r-
lt/13/57 3716/64 7/18/70 1 T/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

P 10 t

USGS 725
2000-

1500-

CL -
U)
D
(n
-(OD 1000-

500-

9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

P10 t FIGURE 20: Residue of suspended
solids

200- USGS 710

loo-

11/13/57 3/16/64 7/1-8/70 1111 8_/766 V22@/83 7123189

Date

Plot

110-
100- EQB 78B

90-

80-

70-

E
co 60-
2
j2 50-

40-

30-

20-

10
5/22/86 12/22/87 7/23/89 2/21/91

Date

P I o t

700
- USGS 725

600-

500-

400-

CD
cc 300-

200-

100-
- I I 1@ - - @
0
9117/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9'/22/92

Date

Plot

110-

- USGS 720

100-

go-

CD
cc
0
U)

80-

70-

60
6/15/59 8/16/62 10/16/65

Date

Plot FIGURE 21: Color

10-
USGS 710

0
0

3- L

0
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18170 9/17fl3 11/18f76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/2.'

Date

40-

Line Chart 35-
20-

EQB 78B 30- USGS
720

15- 25-

0
0 20-

10-
u 15-

10-
5-

0.- T-
09/24/87 01/19/89 09/20/90 0 1
6/15/59 8/16/6210/16/65

Date

Plot
8.00- FIGURE 22: Suspended oils and greases
EQB 78B
7.00-

6.00-

5.00-

4.00-

3.00-

2.00-

1.00-

0.00-
5/22/86 12/22/87 7/23/89 2/21/91

Date
A

One way of estimating the requirements for oxygen in a body of water
is to study the pattern of oxygen uptake in the water itself using various
oxygen measurements along with COD and BOD over time. Several
conditions combine together to determine oxygen requirement: First, oxygen
is more soluble in cold water than in warm water, and in clear water than in
water with high levels of suspended sediments. Second, organic matter
consumes oxygen slower in cold water than in warm water. Third,
decomposition of organic matter in water increases C02 content and reduces
pH. Fourth, some'aquatic animals (like fish), cannot take up oxygen as fast in
low pH waters withhigh Cd2 as in higK pH waters with low C02.
Data from the Fajardo River show critical oxygen situations for 1973-74
(DO valley in 1974 at USGS 725; BOD peaks in 1973-74 at USGS 710).
Although such problem levels fell significantly to normal fluctuations, BOD,
COD and % of oxygen saturation data signals to an descending tendency in
available oxygen (Table 9: parameters # 15, 16, 17 &18; Figures 23, 24, 25 & 26).

Hardness and alkalinity

Hardness is the amount of dissolved alkaline metals in water. "Hard"
waters are waters high in such materials, particularly calcium and
magnesium; these waters are present in areas of limestone or other alkaline
type of soils. "Soft" waters, like those of the Fajardo River, are low in such
components.
Historical data from the Fajardo River show a declining tendency in
hardness, though periodical peaks occur. These peaks may be due to
intensive use of fertilizers, which tend to be alkaline (Table 9: parameters #19
& 20; Figures 27 & 28).
Alkalinity is an estimate of the amount of negative ions (anions)
dissolved in water (anions react with water to form alkaline materials). In
the Fajardo basin, alkalinity as such shows a decrease, but amounts of alkaline
materials: sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), and
sulfates (S04-2), all show increasing tendencies (Table 9: parameters #21, 22,
23, 24, 25 & 32; Figures 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 & 34).
S04-2 besides its alkaline properties, is a nutrient formed by
decomposition of organic matter.

Plot
FIGURE 23: Dissolved oxygen
13-
USGS 710
12-

11-

10-

8-
,a
E 7-

0 6-

1
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16164 5/18/67 7/18f7O 9/17f73 11118f76 1/19/80 3/2Z'83 5/2Z'86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

p 10 t

12-
USGS 725
11-

10-

6-
C\1
0
5-

0-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Dale

Line Chart

10-

EQB 78B

8-
6 0

9
8 4 -

0 09/2@/87 01/6/89 09/26/90

DO (mg/1) 0
0
VAN

76
Plot FIGURE 24: Percent of oxygen
150- saturation
USGS 710

140-

130-

120 -

110-

100-

90-

go-

11/13/57 J/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18/70 9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3=3 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

p 10 t

150-
USGS 725

140-

130-

120-

An
Cli 110-
0

100-

go-

80-

70
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

77
Line Chart

125

EQB 78B

100- a. 0

75-
9
V
t?
8 50-

25-

0 1 09/2@/87 01/1@fflq 09[26/90

a 0
V/@

Plot
FIGURE 25: Biochemical oxygen demand

USGS 710

0 1 1 f I 1 1
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7118nO 9/17n3 11118n6 1/19/80 3122183 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot

1000-

900-

800- USGS 725

700-

600-

500-

400-

300-

200-

100-

0-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/ 86 9122192

Date

Plot
80- FIGURE 26: Chemical oxygen demand

USGS 710
70-

60-

50-

40-
0
L)

30-

20-

10-

0
11/13/57 1114/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7118nO 9/17/73 1111.8n6 1/19/80 312;M3 5/22/86 7/23189 9/22192,

Date

p 10 t

110-

100- USGS 725
90-

80-

70-

60-

so-

40-

30-

20-

10-

9/22/92
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86
L

Date

80
Plot
Figure 27: Hardness

USGS 710
60-

50-

40-

30-

11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7118nO 9117n3 11118n6 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Hard CaC03
p 10 t

55-
p 10 t 50- USGS 720

80- USGS 725 45-

70- 40-

60- 35-

50-
30-

40- 25-

30- 1 20-

20
1 54@
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6/15/59 3/16/6 4 5/18 /6 7

Date Date
Hardness Hard (CaC03)

P lot FIGURE 28: Noncarbonate hardness

20- USGS 710

10-

0--
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18/70 9/17f73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot 6-
25- USGS 725 USGS 720

20-

is- '2
16 cu
3-
2

10-
2-
Li

0 0 -L-r@@
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6/15/59 8/16/62 10/16/65
Dale Date

p I o FIGURE 29: Alkalinity

60-
USGS 710

40-

< 30-

20-

10-
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

p I o t

130-

120-

110- USGS 725

100-

90-

80-

70-
Ag

60-

50-

40-

3o-

2o-

10
9117173 1119180 5/22/86 9/22192

Date

Plot
FIGURE 30: Dissolved sodium
60-

USGS 710

50-

40-

cc
Z 30-

20-

10-

11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7118nO 9/17f73 11118n6 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92
Dam

14-

Plot 13-

12-
2000- USGS 725 USGS 720
11-

10-
1500-
M
z

E
:5
:6 1000-
0 8-
U)

7-
500-

0 5
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6/15/59 8/16/62 10/16/65

Date Date

84
Plot

14- FIGURE 31: Dissolved calcium
USGS 710

13-

12-

11-

10-

M 9-

8-
U 7-

3
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18no 9/17fl3 11/18fl6 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date -7

12-
p 10 t 11-
25-

10-
- USGS 725 USGS
9- 720
20-

7-
15-
Cz

10- 5-

4-
5 3-1 --- r-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6/15/59 3/16/64

Date Date
Ca dis Ca

P 10 t FIGURE 32: Dissolved potassium

USGs 710
3.5-

3.0-

2.5-

CA
2.0-

1.0-

0.5

11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/-89

Date

P 10 t

go-

80-
70- USGS 725

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

8
9/17/73 1/19/ 0 5/22 86 9/22/92

Date

Plot
9- FIGURE 33: Dissolved magnessium

USGS 710
8-

11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7/18/70 9/17/73 11/18fl6 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date
7-

p 10 t USGS
6.5- 6- 720
USGS 725

6.0-

5.0- CY)

4.5-

4.0-
3-

3.5-

3.0- 2
2.5 i - 1@111
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6115/59 8/1616210/16/65

Date Date

87
p 10 FiGURE 34: Dissolved sulfate
14

13
USGs 710
12

7-
0
6-

0
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7123/89

Date
10

1 9 USGS 720
500- 8

USGS 725 7-

400-

5-
300-

200- 3-

100-

0 0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5122/86 9/22/92 6/15/59 8/16/62 10/16/65

Date Date

Suliale

Substances reactive to Methylene Blue

Methylene Blue is a chemical dye which changes color in the presence
of anions dissolved in water. So, the dye is used as an indirect method of
estimating alkalinity and hardness. In the data from the Fajardo River it
shows a declining tendency (Table 9: p4rameter #61; Figure 35).

Chlorine and Fluoride

Chlorine and fluoride are cheap, effective disinfectants added to treated
waters. Their presence in natural water bodies indicates waste water
discharges. Chlorine is also illegally used, in concentrated form, by fishermen
to kill and capture freshwater shrimp. Chlorine showed a very high peak in
the Fajardo River data foK 1973-74 4t station USGS 725 and an increase
tendency at USGS 720. Fluoride has fluctuated within acceptable levels (Table
9: parameters #26 & 27; Figures 36 & 37). Anions formed from both elements
also contribute to water's hardness and alkalinity.

Nitrogen and phosphorus

Nitrogen, ph6sphoru4 and solAe materials composed of them are the
most important sources of nutrients in aquatic systems (see Table 8). What
we call organic nitrogen is the sum of the amounts of nitrates (N03), nitrites
(N02) and ammonia (NI-14) in water. Clean natural waters rarely contain
more than a tenth of a milligram of ammonia nitrogen per liter (0.1 ppm N),
while community sewages commonly contain 15-50 ppm N. Most of this
ammonia rises from the hydrolysis of urea in urine, but additional ammonia
is generated by decomposition of other nitrogenous materials in sewage.
Sudden increases in the concentrations of ammonia found in streams
indicates that sewage, barnyard wastes, or other high energy nitrogen
additions are being added. Other changes commonly accompanies added
nitrogen from sewage: slime growth in shallow surfaces of the stream, algal
blooms, turbidity due to bacteria and colloids, fish kills, and sewage odors.
Ammonia measurements are used because they afford a rough quantitative
measurement of the relative concentration of sewage in the water, even at
very low levels of pollutioL If dissolved oxygen is available in the water,

89
p 10 t
FIGURE 35: Substances restive to
0.10- Methylene Blue
USGS 710
0.09-

0.08-

0.07-

0.06-

0.05-

0.04-

0.03-

0.02-

0.01-

0.00
1/144/61 @5/1 8/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 -5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Met i

p 10 t

0.10-

0.09-

0.08- USGS 725

0.07-

CO
0 0.06-
C

0.05-

0.04-

0.03-

0.02-

0.01-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date
MethyleneB

P1 Ot FIGURE 36: Dissolved Chloride

go-
- USGS 710

80-

7o-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-
10-

11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

p 10 t 25-

4000-

3500-
USGS 725 20- USGS
3000- 720

2500-

CD
15-
2000-
0

0
1500-

1000- 10-

500- -

0
5 1-T----
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22192 11/13/57 5/18/6 7 9/17/7 3

Date- Date

9-1
p 10 t
FIGURE 37: Dissolved Fluoride

0.40- USCS 710

0.30-

rn
LL 0.20-

0.10-

0.00-
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

1.4-

p 10 t
1.2-

0.5-
1.0-
- USGS 725 USGS
720
0.4-
0.8-

LL
CD 0.3-
0.6-

U-
0.2- L
0.4-

0.1-
0.2-

0,0 0.
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9122192 6/15/59 8/16/62 10/1 6/65
Date Date
Fluoride F

highly toxic ammonia, is eventually oxidized by some bacteria into nitrites,
which are, in turn, oxidized into nitrates (which are fertilizers for aquatic
plants). The presence of significant concentration of nitrites and nitrates is an
indicator of older waste or pollution further up stream. It is also an indirect
way of determining the presence of adequate amounts of dissolved oxygen in
the water. Ammorvia, nitrife, and nitrate. can also enter water from sources
other than sewage, like fertilizers and industrial wastes. Reported cases in
scientific literature have revealed that nitrates in concentrations above 10
mg/I can be fatal to small infants and to the elderly.

TABLE 8: Macro- and micronutrients essential for aquatic biota.

Macronutrients Micronutrients
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, calcium (for algae), iron, manganese,
phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, copper, zinc, molibdenum,
magnessium, calcium (except for vanadium, boron, chloride, cobalt,
algae) silica

From the data gathdred from 1he Fajardo River, it is obvious that
periodic episodes of peak levels of organic nitrogen in all its from have been
happening since 19i3 and co'ntinue (Table 9: parameters #33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
& 39; Figures 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 & 45).
Phosphates, which are soluble phosphorus derivatives, like
nitrogenous materials, are a normal component of sewage, but inclusion of
phosphates from detergents has multiplied phosphate coming from
treatment plants. Intensive fertilization of farm lands with fertilizers
containing high phosphorus' concentrations also raises the phosphate
contents of runoff waters. High phosphate levels in water produces heavy
algal blooms which disrupts the oxygen content of the water as well as the
balance of the food chain. Phosphorus levels reached a high peak in 1973 at
USGS 710 but have been showing a declining tendency since 1975 at USCS 725
(Table 9: parameters #40 & 41; Figures 46 & 47).

93
Plot FIGURE 38: Nitrates

1.4- USGS 710
1.3-

0.8-

0.7-

0.6-

0.5-

0.4-

0.3-

0.2-

0.1
0. C)j T
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18176 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

Plot

3.5-

3.0-

USGS 720

2.5-

2.0-

1.0-

0
.5-

0. cr
6/15/59 8/1616210/16/65

Date

Plot

USGS 725
0.9-

0.8-

0.7-

0.6-

CD
0.5-

z
0.4-

0.3-

0.2-

0.1-

0.0-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Plot

0.10-

0.10.-
EQB 78B

z 0.09-
cl@
0
z

0.09-

0.08-
5/22/86 12/22/87 7/23/89 2/21/91

Date

P I o t
FIGURE 39: Nitrites
0.06-
- USGS 710

0.05-

0.04-

,7, 0.03-
0
z

0.02-

0.01

0.00 f
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

Plot

0.14-

0.12- USGS 725

0.10-

0.08-

z 0.06-

0.04-

0.02 -
LLIa
0.00
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

p 0 t
FIGURE 40: Sum of nitrates and
1.1- nitrites

1.0- USGS 710

0.9-

0.8-

o.7-

0
CO 0.6-
0
z
c,-,j 0.5-
0
z
0.4-

0.3-

0.2-

0.1-

0.
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 111*18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

p 10 t

0.8-

0.7-
USGS 725

0.6-

0.5-

Z+ 0.4-
8
z
0.3-

0.2-

0.1-

0.0-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

9 7

Plot

0.30-

EQB 78B
0.25-

0.20-

,a
s 0
en
. 0 0.15-
z
as
S
z
0.10-
4,*"*\
0.05-

1 1 1 1
- 0.00 1 1 1 v I I I
5/2Z'86 IZ=7 7/23/89 2/21/91

p 10 t
5- FIGURE 42: Ammonia

USGS 710

z
2-

p r P. P1 40 d"T".
ll-/13/57 3/16/64 //18/70 11/18/76 3@/22/83 7/23/89

Date

p 10 t

4- USGS 725

.E
0 3-
E
E

2-
0 L
F
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Plot
2- FIGURE 43: Total organic nitrogen

USGS 710

0
z

0
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

10C
Plot
1-000- Total kiel N
EQB 78B
0.900-

0.800-

0.700-

0.600-

E
0.500-

0 0.400-

0.300-

Olm-

0.100-

0.000
5/22/86 12/=7 7/23/89 Zf21/91

Date

Plot

5-
Tot org Nitrogen USGS 725

c
CD
cm
0

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9122/92

Date

101
p 10 t
FIGURE 44: Total nitrogen
7-
USGS 710

z 3-

4
ICA
0 1
9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/2@/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

N tot

p 10 t

7-
USGS 725
6-

c 5-
(D
0)
0
4-

9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Nitrogen

102

p I o t
7- FIGJRE 4:@-. Sum of total nitrogen,
ammonia and organic
nitrogen
6- USGS 710

'6 4-
E?
0

z 3

AA
0- 1
9/17/73 11/18176 1119180 3/22/83 5122186 7123/89 9/22192

Date

Plot

0
z 5-

C
0 4- USGS 725
E
E
< 3-

1
0@
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

103

P 10 t
2.0- FIGURE 46: Phosphorus

USGS 710

B i.o-

0.5-

0.0-
9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80. 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

104

plot

0.400-

0.350- EQB 78B

0.300-

0.250-

0.2m -

90.150-

0.100-

0.050-

0.000--
5/22/86 12=7 W23/89 2121/91

Plot

1.6-
1.4- USGS '725

1.2-

0
-C
CL

0.6-

0.4-

0.2-

0.0--
9/17/73 1/19/80 5f22/86 9/22/92

Date

1 OS

FIGURE 47: Phosphates

Plot

0.10-

0.09-
USGS 710
0.08-

o.o7-

0.06-

0.05-

0.04-

0.03-

0.02-

0.01-

0.00 1 1 1
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

106

Phenolic substances

Phenols are by-products of organic matter in decomposition. Thus,
phenolic levels are used mostly as an indication of sewage and wastewater
pollution. In the Fajardo River, phenolics peaked in 1986 at USGS 710,
perhaps reflecting wastewater influx from a nearby landfill (Table 9:
parameter #60; Figure 48).

The carbon system and pH

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important material in a body of water,
besides water itself. It is picked up from the atmosphere, from the soil, from
decomposition of organic matter, and from the respiration of aquatic
organisms. In water, C02 produces carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCOY),
carbonate (C03-2), and hydrogen ions (H+) turning the water slightly acidic,
and increasing the water's ability to carry alkaline compounds. Waters that
flow through soils that cor@tain no al;aline materials will remain acidic and
will be slightly corrosive. Such waters are low in mineral content and are
called "soft". Aquatic plant life depends upon C02 and HC03 to survive,
using it (in the presence of sunlight) in photosynthesis (Renn, 1968). They
excrete oxygen. In the absence of sufficient sunlight, the process reverses, and
plants consume oxygen to produce C02. Aquatic animals always consume
oxygen to produce C02-.
The pH me`asurem@nt estim;tes the relative concentrations of
hydrogen (H+) and hydroxyl (OH-) ions in water; the proportions of acids and
bases. To a large extent, pH in water bodies is determined by those chemical
processes of the carbon system. As plants remove C02 from the water, the
oxygen content, pH, and alkalinity increases. Plants will also take from the
water dissolved salts, minerals, and metals.
Data from the Fajardo River shows a decreasing tendency of
bicarbonate at USGS 725 and of organic carbon at both USGS 725 &710.
However, it shows an increasing tendency for bicarbonate at USGS 720 (Table
9: parameters #28, 29, 30, 31; Figures 49, 50, 51 & 52). This may be due to
localized discharges of organic matter at stations USGS 710 and 725 that do not
reach station USGS 720.

107/

p 10

50- FIGURE 48: Phenolic substances

- USGS 710

40-

B
-6
C
(D
LL 20-

0-
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Pate
Fenol tot

p 10 t

10-

7- USGS 725
In
0
C 6-

CL
5-

9/1 7/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Phenols

108
p 10 t
FIGURE 49: Bicarbonates

USGS 710
70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20 1
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18170 1.1/18/76 .3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

65-

p 10 t 6 0 - USGS
720

150-
55-
140-
130- USGS 725 50-

120-
110- 45-

100-
40-
90-

80- 35-

70-
60- 30-

50-
25-
40-

30-1 20
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70

Date Date

HCO3

109

FIGUIZE 50: Carlbonates

p I o t

4- USGS 710

0 1
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

p 10 t FIGURE 51: Carbon dioxide

40-

USGS 710

30-

20-

10-

0
11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3/22/83 7/23/89

Date

002

p 10 t

250-

2oo-

150-
USGS 725

100-

50-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92
4-@

Date

C02

P I o t FIGURE 52: Organic carbon

25-

USGS 710

2o-

15-
LM
0

10-

0-
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Plot

200-

USGS 725
150-

C
0
-2 loo-

50-
L
0 ___T__I I I I I I I -I
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Dale

112

Plot
9.5- FIGURE 53: Hydrogen potential (pH)

9.0-

- USGS 710

8.5-

8.0-

7.5-

7.0-

6.5-

6.0
11/13/57 1/14/61 3/16/64 5/18/67 7118nO. 9/17/73 1108M V19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92
Date

010t

8.0-
USGS 720

7.5-

7.0-

6.5-

6.0-

5.5
11/13/57 5/18/67 9/17/73

Date

p I o t

8.0-
USGS 725

7.5-

7.0-

6.5-

6.0-

5.5
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Line Chart

10-
EQB 78B

0-
09/24/87 01/19/89 09/20190

114

pH peaked in 1973 at USGS 710, while showing valleys for the same
period at USGS 720 & 725 (Table 9: parameter #6; Figure 53). It may be due to
influx of organic matter at st. 720 which reached st. 725. Station EQB 78B
shows more recent high fluctuations.

Metals, silica and toxic substances

Metals, silica (which are micronutrients) and toxic substances like
cyanide, can come from soils, metallic pipes in contact or near the river,
wastewater, landfills or solid wastes thrown directly onto the river. Silica,
another micronutrient, comes mostly from the soil. Data from the Fajardo
River shows an increase tendency in silica, decreasing tendencies of copper,
chromium and cobalt and siable fluctuations for the other components (Table
9: parameters #13, 44, 45, 4@, 47, 48 , 44, 50 , 51, 52 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 & 59;
Figures 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 & 70). Amounts
of toxic substances have been low.

Pesticides

Samples for pesticides are taken once a year from station USGS 710. It
has never found significant traces of pesticides. However, since EQB has
established that pesticides is one of the most important types of NPSP at the
Fajardo River, it is possible that USGS sampling methods are inadequate for
this group of parameters.

TABLE 9: Summarized analysis of historical water quality data gathered at
monitoring stations USGS 710, USGS 720, USGS 725, and EQB 78B (1958-1992).

Parameter Station H L Comments

1. InstantaneousUSGS 710 Fluctuations: 10-200. Peaks: 1961, 1975, 1979,
Discharge 1980,1982,1990.
YO / s) USGS 720 Fluctuations: 10-100. Peaks: 1961, 1962, 1963.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 10-180. Peaks: 1973,1975,1990.

2. Total VolurneUSGS 710 Fluctuations: 10,000-35,000. Peaks: 1968, 1969,
(ft3) 1986.
USGS 720 Fluctuations: 15,000-30,000. Peak: 1962.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter Station H L Comments

3. TemperatureUSGS 710 32.2
(00 USGS 720 32.2
USGS 725 32!2 huctuations: 24-33. Peaks: 1974, 1975, 1977,
1981.
EQB 78B 32.2 Fluctuations: 25-33. Peak; 1988.

4. Conductance USGS 710 Fluctuations: 75-150. Valleys: 1962, 1972, 1980,
1981,
(gs/cm) 1985. Peaks: 1973, 1980, 1984.
USGS 720 Fluctuations around 100. Very high peak in
1973.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 100-500. Very high peaks in 1973-
1974.

5. Salinity EQB 78B Fluctuations: 25-40. Very low valley in 1988.
(ppt)

6. pH USGS 710 9.0 6.0 Fluctuations: 7.0-8.0 from 1961-1971 and
(standard units) afterwards from 6.0-9.0. Peak: 1973.
USGS 720 9.0 6.0 Fluctuations: 6.0-8.0. Valley: 1973.
USGS 725 9.0 6.0 Fluctuations: 6.0-8.0. Valley: 1973.
EQB 78B 8.5 7.3 Fluctuations: 7.3-8.5. Peak: 1987. Valley: 1989.

7. Color USGS 710 Fluctuations: 2-7. Peaks in 1967; valley in 1966.
(standard units)USGS 725 Fluctuations: 3-15. Peaks: 1962, 1966, Valleys:
1965,1966.
EQB 78B Fluctuations: 0-5. Peaks: 1987, 1989, 1990.

8. Turbidity USGS 710 50 Fluctuations: 0-20. Peaks: 1977,1978,1980,1981,
(NTU) 1989,1990.
USGS 725 50 Fluctuations: 0-10. Peaks: 1979, 1981, 1985 (very
high), 1986, 1990.
EQB 78B 10 Fluctuations: 0-20. Peaks: 1986, 1987, 1988-1989.

9.Suspended USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-600. Peaks: 1962, 1974, 1977,
Sediments 1980.
(mg/D USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-600. Peaks: 1974, 1975.

10. Dissolved USGS 710 fluctuations: 0-25. Peaks: 1977, 1978, 1979.
Solids Decrease tendency.
(tons/day) USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-25. Peaks: 1979, 1986. Decrease
tendency.

11. Total Sum USGS 710 500 Fluctuations: 40-100. Peaks in 1964 and 1979
Diss. Solids were within acceptable levels.
(nig/1) USGS 720 500 Fluctuations: 40-100. Peaks in 1962 and 1963
were within acceptable levels.
USGS 725 500 Fluctuations: 60-130. Peak in 1983 was within
acceptable levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Para eter Station H L Comments

12. Residue of USGS 710 Fluctuations between 1963 and 1979 were 50-120.
Susp.Solids From 1980 on, fluctuations are 0-50. Peaks: 1977,
(Mg/1) 1979,1981, 1989. Increase tendency.
USGS 720 Fluctuations: 60-95. Peak in 1966. Increase
tendency.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-50. Peaks: 1980, 1982, 1986.
EQB 78B Fluctuations: 10-80. Peaks: 1987, 1988.

13. Silica, diss USGS 710 Fluctuations: 10-30.
(mg/1) USGS 720 Muctuations: 16-27. Peak in 1962.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 12-26. Increase tendency.

14. Oil/grease EQB 78B Fluctuations 0-3. Peaks: 1988, 1989-1990.
(Mg/1)

15. Dissolved USGS 71.0 5.0 Fluctuations: 7.0-11.0. Very low valley in 1974.
Oxygen USGS 725 5.0 Fluctuations: 6.0-11.0. Valleys: 1973-1974, 1976.
(mg/1) EQB 78B 4.0 Fluctuations: 5.0-7.0.

16. % Saturation USGS 710 Fluctuations- 90-120. Decrease tendency.
Diss. OxygenUSGS 725 Fluctuations: 80-120. Decrease tendency.
EQB 78B Fluctuations: 50-100.

17. BOD (mg/I)USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-3. Peaks: 1968, 1971, 1973, 1979.
Increase tendency.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-200. Peaks: 1973-1974, 1977.

18. COD (mg/I)USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-30, increasing since 1983. Peaks:
1983,1987,1988,1990,1992.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 040. Peaks: 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989.

19. Hardness, USGS 710 fluctuations: 0-5. Peaks: 1962,1966,1967,1980.
Total (mg/1) Decrease tendency.
USGS 720 Fluctuations: 04. Peaks in 1966.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-7. Peaks: 1981, 1984, 1985.
Decrease tendency.

20. Hardness, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 15-45. Peaks: 1962, 1966, 1972,
Noncarbonate 1980.
(mg/1) USGS 720 Fluctuations: 15-45. Peak in 1966. Increase
tendency
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 35-60. Peak in 1984. Valleys: 1978,
1979.

21. Alkalinity USGS 710 Fluctuations: 10-50. Peaks: 1973,1991.
(mg/1) USGS 725 Fluctuations: 10-70. Peaks: 1973, 1974. Decrease
tendency.

22. Sodium, dissUSGS 710 Fluctuations: 5-15. Peaks: 1974,1980.
(mg/1) USGS 720 Fluctuations: 5-14.
USGS 725 Fluctuations; 0-50. Very high peaks in 1974.

117

Parameter --Station H L Comments

23. Calcium, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 4-10. Peaks: 1968, 1970.
diss (mg/1) USGS 725 Fluctuation: 5-9. Peak in 1966. Increase
tendency.
USGS 720 Fluctuations: 5-15. Peak in 1984.

24. Potassium, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0.5-2.0. Peaks: 1974, 1980, 1989-
diss (mg/1) 1990, 1991. Increase tendency.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-5.0. High peaks: 1973-1975,
1978.

25. MagnessiumUSGS 710 Fluctuations: 1.5-5-5. Peaks: 1962, 1967, 1980.
diss (mg/1) USGS 720 Fluctuations: 13-6.0. Peaks: 1963, 1967.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 3.0-5.0. Peaks: 1984, 1985, 1990.

26. Chloride, USGS 710 250 Fluctuations: 5-15. Peaks within acceptable
diss (Mg/1) 0 fevels: 1962, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1979.
USGS 720 250 nuctuations: 5-15. Peak in 1962 within
acceptable levels. Increase tendency.
USGS 725 250 Fluctuations: 0-100. Very high peaks in 1973-
1974.

27. Fluoride, USGS 710 0.7 Fluctuations: 0-0.3. Peak in 1973 within
diss (mg/1) acceptable levels.
USGS 720 0.7 Fluctuations: 0-0.4. Peak in 1962.
USGS 725 0.7 Fluctuations: 0-0.3. Peak in 1973 within
acceptable levels.

28. Bicarbonate,USGS 710 Fluctuations: 20-60. Peak in 1973.
diss (mg/1) USGS 720 Fluctuations: 20-60. Peaks: 1966,1973. Increase
tendency.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 30-80. Peaks; 1973, 1974. Decrease
tendency.

29. Carbonate, USGS 710 Around 0, except in 1971, 1974, 1978.
diss (mg/1)

30. Carbon USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-10. Peaks: 1973,1980,1981.
dioxide, diss USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-40. Peaks: 1973, 1977.
(mg/1) a

31. Carbon, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-15. Peaks: 1975, 1977. Decrease
organic total tendency.
(Mg/1) USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-25. Peaks: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977.
Decrease tendency.

32. Sulfate, USGS 710 250 Fluctuations: 0-10. Peaks (1973, 1974) are
diss (mg/1) within acceptable levels. Increase tendency.
USGS 720 250 Fluctuations: 0-10.
USGS 725 250 Fluctuations: 0-10. Peaks: 1973-1974.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

118

Parameter Station H L Comments

33. Nitrate, USGS 710 Fluctuations of 0-1.0 between 1962 and 1967, of
total (mg/1) 0-1.5 in 1968-1973, and of 0-0.5 in 1974 on.
USGS 720 Fluctuations: 0-1.5. Peaks: 1960, 1961.
USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-0.5. Peaks: 1981, 1990.
EQB 78B A single peak in 1990 (0.1-0).

34. Nitrite, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-0.3. Peaks: 1976,1980.
total (mg/1) USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-0.8. Peak in 1980.

35. N03 + N02,USGS 710 relative* Fluctuations: 0-0.4. Peaks: 1981, 1985.
total (mg/1) USGS 725 relative* Fluctuations: 0-0.5. Peak in 1981.
EQB 78B Fluctuations: 0-0.2. Peaks: 1988,1989.

36. Ammonia, USGS 710 1.0** Fluctuations: 0-0.3. Peak in 1974.
total (mg/1) USGS 725 1.0** Fluctuations: 0-1.0. Peaks: 1973, 1978, 1982.

37. Nitrogen, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 1.0-2.0.
organic, total USGS 725 Fluctuations: 1.0-2.0. Peaks 1973, 1974, 1975,
(Mg/1) 1976.

38. Nitrogen USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-2. Peaks in 1973.
(NO3), total USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-2. Peaks: 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976.
(Mg/1)

39. Amonnia + USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-2. Peak in 1973.
Norg + N USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-2. Peaks: 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976.
(mg/1) EQB 78B Fluctuations: 0-1.

40. Phosphorus,USGS 710 1 Fluctuations: 0-1. Significant peak in 1973.
total (mg/1) USGS 725 1 Fluctuations over 1.0 in 1973, 1974, 1975 & 1976.
Descending tendency since.
EQB 78B Fluctuations: 0-0.4. Peak in 1987.

41. Phosphate,USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-0.1.
total (mg/1)

42. Fecal Coli- USGS 710 2,000... Fluctuations: 0-10,000. Very high peaks: 1973,
forms (colonies/ 1974, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1989, 1991. Decrease
100 n-d) tendency.
USGS 725 2,000"-- From an extremely high count of near 20,000,000
in 1973, situation has normalized since 1983.
EQB 785 2,000' From a very high count in 1973, situation
normalized.

43. Fecal Strep-USGS 710 Fluctuation: 0-10,000. High peaks in 1973, 1978,
tococci (colonies/ 1980,1981,1982,1988,1989.
100 n-fl) USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-10,000. Peaks: 1973, 1974, 1975,
1976,1978.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parameter Station H L Comments

44. Iron, total USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-250. Peaks: 1978, 1980, 1990.
(pg/1) USGS 725 Fluctuations: 0-2,000. Peaks: 1979, 1986.
EQB 78B Fluctuations: 0-500. Peaks: 1987, 1988.

45. Iron, diss USGS 720 Values at 0, except peak in 1970.
(Mg/1)

46. Copper, USGS 710 relative* Fluctuations: 0-10. Peaks: 1977, 1981, 1987, 1990.
total (4g/1) USGS 7215 relative* huctuations: 0-25 after 1980. Peaks: 1975, 1976,
1977. Decrease tendency.
EQB 78B 50 Fluctuations: 0-10. Peak in 1987 within
acceptable levels.

47. Arsenic, USGS 710 50 Peaks in 1974, 1983 within acceptable levels.
total (pg/1) USGS 725 50 Peaks in 1974, 1983 within acceptable levels.

48. Barium, USGS 710 1,000 Fluctuations between 0-100.
total (gg/1)

49. Boron, USGS 710 1,000 Fluctuations between 10-30.
total (gg/1) USGS 725 1,000 Fluctuations between 10-50.
EQB 78B 4,800 Fluctuations between 2,000-4,500. Peak in 1987.

50. Cadn-dun, USGS 710 relative* Fluctuations between 0-5. Peaks in 1978,1980.
total (gg/1) USGS 725 relative* Fluctuations between 0-3. Peaks in 1973,1982.
EQB 78B 5 Fluctuations: 0-5. Decrease tendency.

51. Chromium, USGS 710 50 Fluctuations: 0-20. Peak in 1980 within
total, (gg/1) acceptable levels. Decrease tendency.
USGS 725 50 Fluctuations: 0-20. Peak in 1975 within
5cceptable levels. Decrease tendency.
EQB 78B 300 Values at 0, except peak in 1987 within
acceptable levels.

52. Lead, total USGS 710 relative* Fluctuations: 0-20. Peaks: 1978, 1981, 1989.
(jig/P USGS 725 relative* Fluctuations: 0-10. Peaks: 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977.
EQB 78B 15 Values at 0 except peak in 1986.

53. Manganese,USGS 710 50 Fluctuations: 0-50. Peaks: 1974, 1975,1977,1979,
total (gg/1) 1981,1987,1989.
USGS 725 50 Fluctuations over acceptable levels: 0-250.
High peaks in 1975, 1976, 1977.
EQB 78B 100 Fluctuations: 0-100. Peaks: 1986,1987,

54. Cyanide, USGS 710 0.02 Values at 0, except high peak in 1978.
total (mg/1)

55. Cobalt, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-2. Peaks: 1978, 1980.
total (gg/1) a 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

120

Parameter Station H L Comments

56. Mercury, USGS 725 1 Fluctuations: 0-0.5. Peaks: 1979, 1986.
total (gg/1)

57. Nickel, USGS 710 relative* Fluctuations: 04. Peaks: 1974, 1980.
total (gg/1) USGS 725 relative* Fluctuations: 0-25.

58. Selenium, USGS 725 10 Fluctuations: 0-1. Peak in 1976 within
total (4g/1) acceptable levels.

59. Zinc, total USGS 710 50 Fluctuations: 0-50. Peaks: 1980, 1988.
(Jig/1) USGS 725 50 Fluctuations after 1980: 0-50. Peaks: 1973-1974,
1975,1976,1977,1978,1979. Decrease tendency.
EQB 78B 50 Fluctuations over acceptable levels: 0-100.
High peaks 1986, 1987.

60. Phenols, USGS 710 Fluctuations: 0-10, except peak in 1986.
total (gg/1) W

61. Methylene USGS 710 0.1 Fluctuations: 0-0.05 except peak in 1989 within
Blue Active acceptable levels.
Substance, USGS 725 0.1 Fluctuations: 0-0.4 except peak in 1986 within
total (4g/1) acceptable levels.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H and L refer to the highest and lowest limits allowed by EQB.
Limit values depends on values for hardness obtained from the same sample.
Ammonia levels are restricted in specific water bodies which do not include the Fajardo
River.
Fecal bacteria levels are calculated as the geometric mean in a series of samples taken
sequentially.

Field sampling at the Fajardo River

For the purpose of confirming historical data, this projects personnel,
established two water sampling stations at the river and two additional
stations at the coast, just outside the river mouth (See Table 10; Figures 71 &
72). Samples were taken three times in- 1992-1993. Results are summarized in
Table 11.
Laboratory analyses results of our field water samples were consistent
with recent water quality data from USGS monitoring stations. They show
that, during sampling periods, levels of pollutants were relatively low.

12 2
P I o t
FIGURE 54: Silicates

30- USGS 710

25-

CO
2o-
0

15-

to-

11/13/57 3/16/64 7/18/70 11/18/76 3122/83 7/23/89

Date
Si02 dis P I

30-

USGS
Plot 28- 720
26-
USGS 725

26-
24-

22- 24-

0
Cd 20- U) 22-
.C.)
18- 20-
16- 18-
14-

12 16- 1 - Ll
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92 6/15/5 9 8/16/62 10/16/65

Date Date
Silica Si02

122

P I o t
FIGURE 55: Total iron
40000-
- USGS 710

30000-

16 20000-
CD
LL -

10000-

0-
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Plot

16000-

14000-

12000- USGS 725

10000-

-6 8000-
c

6000-

4000-

2000-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

123

a 0

Plot

4000-

3500-

3000- EQB 78B

2500-
1 2000-
92
9
1500-

1000- 0 0

500-

0 1 1 1 1 1 -- - - 1
8/6/85 5/22/86 3/7/87 12/22/87 10/6/88 7/23/89

Date

a a

124

a 0

FIGuRE 56: Dissolved iron

p 10 t

80-

70-

USGs 710

60-

50-

0
0
"D 40-
W 6
U -

30-

20-

10-

0 -
11/13/57 5/18/6 7 9/1 7/73

Date

0 0

P 10 t
go- USGS 710 FIGURE 57: Total copper

80-

60-

50-
B

40-

3o-

20-

10-

0
9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 -7/23/89 9/22/92-

Date

126

Plot

EQB 78B

0
8/6/85 5/22/86 3n187 12/22/87 10/6/88 7/23/89

Date

p 10 t

250-

200-
USGS 725

150-

100

50-

9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22186 9122192

p 10 t FIGURE 58: Total arssenic

USGS 710

B 3-

9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

As tot

p 10 t

- USGS 725

0-
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Arsenic

128

FIGURE 59: Total barium

Plot

100-

go-

80-
USGS 710
70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

0
9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

129

p I o t
FIGURE 60: Total boron
30-
USGS 710

25-

Z 20-

15-

10-
9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot

50-

45-

40-

USGS 725
35-

c
9 30-
0
m

25-

20-

15-

10
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

130
0
Plot

5000-

EQB 78B
4500-

4000-

c %
3500-
CQ
9

3000-

2500- a a

f
-2000 i -. I I I I 1 1
8/6/85 5/22/86 3/7/87 12/22/87 10/6/88 7/23/89
Date

a 0

p I O't FIGURE 61: OTotalcadmium 131
25-

USGS 710

20-

15-

10-

0-
9/17/73 11/1 t76
3/22183 5122/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

Date

Plot

20-

is-

USGS 725

E
E 10-

0 T I f I
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22186 9122/92

Date

'L 32

p I Ot 9 0

EQB 78B

1 4-

=L
a
9 2-

1 -

0 0

0- 1- I - - I - - 1
8/6/85 5/22/86 3f7/87 12=7 10/6/88 7/23/89 -
Date

0 0

133
Plot FIGURE 6;,. Total chromium
40-

USGS 710
35-

30-

25-

36 20-

15-

10-

0
9/17/73 11/18/76 1/19/80 3/22/83 5/22/86 7/23/89 9/22/92

r
Date - -

134

10 t
FIGURE 63: Total lead
120-

110-
100- USGS 710

go-

80-

70-

*6
.z 60-
(L
50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

0-
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

135

p 10 t

50-

USGS 725

40-

3o-

20-

to-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Plot

15-
EQB 78B

10-
=L

0-
5/22/86 12/22/87 7/23/89 2/21/91

Date

136

p 10 t
700- FIGURE 64: Total manganese

- USGS 710

600-

500-

400-
16

c
300-

200-

100-
0- A/\
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Mn tot

137

Plot

700.00-

EQB 78B
600.00-

500.00-

400.00-

9300.00-

200.00-

100.00-

0.00- 1
5/22/86 1=@87 7/23/89 2/21/91

Date

Plot

3500-

USGS 725

3000-

2500-

ton 2000-

cu
m
C:
1500-

1000-

500-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

138

FIGURE 65: Total cianide
p 10 t

0.10
0.09- USGS 710

0.08-

0.07

0.06-

z
0 0.05-

0.04-

0.03-

0.02-

0.01 -T - - I - I I I - - T-- - 1
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

139

FIGURE 66: Total cobalt

p 10 t

18-

16- USGS 710

14-

12-

10-

0-1
1/14161 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

140

FIGURE 67: Total mercury

p 10 t

4.5-

4.0-

3.5-

3.0- USGS 710

2.5-

2
CD 2.0-

1.0-

0.5-
0.0+
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Mercury

141

p 10 t
FIGURE 68: Total nickel
14-
13- usGS 710

12-

11-

10-

8-
B 7-
z 6-

0 r I
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Ni lot

p 10 t

25-

USGS 725

20-

15-

z
10-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

Nickel

142

FIWRE 69: Selenium
p 10 t

2.0-

USGS 710

E
:3
2 1.0- p
2
M
U)

0.5-

0.0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

14 3)

p 10 t FIGURE 70: Total zinc

400-

300 USGS 710

200-

100-

0
1/14/61 5/18/67 9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

p 10 t

200-

150- USGS 725

S
100-
N

50-

0
9/17/73 1/19/80 5/22/86 9/22/92

Date

144
Plot

600-

I
h
500- 1.II

EQB 78B

400-
I
i
I i
300-
4 11.
9

200-

100- 1
1\ I
0- 1 1 1 1
5/22/86 12/2@M 7/23/89 2/21/91

Date
- I
- A. a 0

14 5

FIGURE 71: Sampling stations established for
this project (indicated by stars)

SARDINERA PLAYA SARDINERA

PTA-BATERIA

BAHIA
BELTRAN DE
FAJARDO

R PLAYA DE FAJARDO
PUERTO*
NOR REAL PTA
FAJARDO

PUEBLO, *#3
RIO FAJARDO -tt #4
ESTE
A
-N-

SANTA RITA
EST
VERTEDERO ESCALA APROXIMADA
I 2qOOO

1KM

MAPA ESTACIONES DE MUE-STREC) DPN

146

FIGURE 72: Upstream station established for this project
(as indicated by a star).

CARR.

ESTAGION DE
VERTEDERO
ESGUELA
PERON

RIO ARRIBA RIO ARRIBA

PARAISO

v Fajardo River

RIO ABAJO
FAJARDO
CARR 971
ESCALA
APROXIMADA
1: 20, 000
47[1 1 KM
At
-N-

MAPA ESTACIONES DE MUESTREO DRN

147

TABLE 10: Water quality field stations established by this project at the
Fajardo River system.

Station Location --Type of site

1. HWY 971,3km upriver freshwater, river
from USGS 710.

2. Bridge at HWY 194, estuarine, river
0.5 km downriver from
USGS 725.

3. Coast, 200m off coastal estuarine
rivermouth.

4. Coast, 200 m south of coastal estuarine
StItion #3. 0

- ------------------ --------------------------------

TABLE 11: Water quality data from this project's field samples*.

Station 1: 0 0
Parameter D;c. 17,1992 Mar. 24,1993 Jul. 14. 1993

NH3 Mg/l NA 0.06 0.03
N02 n-g/l 0.001 0.001 0.002
N03 mg/l 0.43 0.19 0.262
P total mg/l 0.02 0.02 0.02
P04 Mg/l 0.01 0.01 0.01
Susp. Solids mg/l 1.6 7.1 9.3
Hardness mg/l 20 29 30
Fecal coliforms
(colonies/100 n-d) NA 210
Fecal streptococci
(colonies/ 100 ml) NA 220
Lead gg/l 5
Copper 4g/l 1
Zinc gg/I 12.5
Cadmium lig/l 0.5
Manganese pg/l 1
Iron gg/l 1
Cobalt lig/l 1
Nickel gg/l 1.5
Chron-dum 4g/l 1 1
---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------

146

Station 2:
Parametel Dec. 17.1992 Mar, 24,1993 Jul, 14.1993

NH3 mg/l NA 0.03 0.03
N02 mg/l 0.001 0.001 0.006
N03 mg/l 0.188 0.592 0.241
P total mg/l 0.01 0.02 0.01
P04 mo 0.01 0.01 0.01
Susp. Solids mg/I 2.3p 0
Hardness mg/l 45 42 38
Fecal coliforms
(colonies/100 n-d) NA 200
Fecal streptococci
(colonies/100 n-d) NA 110
Lead gg/l 5
Copper gg/l 1
Zinc gg/l 12.5
Cadmium 4g/I o.5
Manganese pg/l 35
Iron jig/l 1
Cobalt gg/l 1
Nickel gg/l 1.5
Chromium lig/l 1

Station 3:
Parameter Dec. 10, 1992 ME
jr. 23, 1993 Jul. 2, 199a

NH3 mg/l NA 0.06
N02 mg/l 0.001 0.001 0.006
N03 mg/l NA 0.020 0.226
P total mg1l 0.03 0.03 0.029
P04 Mg/l - 0.01 0.01 0.01
Susp. Solids mg/l 58 85.8
Hardness mg/l 6098 5920
Calcium mg/l 375
Magnesium mg/l 1300
Fecal coliforms
(colonies/100 ml) NA 20
Fecal streptococci
(colonies/100 ml) NA 1300
Lead gg/l 5
Copper jig/ 1
Zinc @tg/l 22.5
Cadmium gg/l 0.5
Manganese pg/l 90
Iron jig/l 1015
Cobalt gg/l 1
Nickel pg1l 3
Chromium gg/l 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

149

Station 4:
Parameter Dgc. 10. 1222 Max, 23,1993 Jul, 2. 1993

NH3 mg/l NA 0.18
NO@ mig/l 0.001 0.001 0.001
N03 n-CA NA 0.30 0.033
P total mg/l 0.02 0.29
P04 mg/l 0.06 0.01 0.01
Susp. Solids mg/l 43.8 96.8
Hardness mg/l 7207 6370
Calcium mg/l 399
Magnesium mg/I 1300
Fecal coliforms
(colonies/100 n-d) NA 10
Fecal streptococci
(colonies/100 n-d) NA 2
Lead gg/I 5
Copper @Lg/l 1
Zinc gg/l 62.5
Cadmium gg/l 1
Manganese pg/l 85
Iron lig/I 525
Cobalt gg/l 1
Nickel gg/l 2.2
Chron-dumpg/l 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ammonia, nitrate, and fecal bacterial tests could not be done for the first sample. Laboratory
analyses are yet to be completed for some samples. They will be added to this Table as soon as
we have them.

Summarized review of historical water quality data

When historical water quality data from the Fajardo River is reviewed
together, a pattern can be discerned: -there is some gradual increase in the
level of pollutants in the river during the late sixties; then, during 1973-1975
there is an outburst of growth in most parameters. This explosion ends
around 1975-1976, and then parameters' levels has very gradually been
decreasing since. Maybe pollution levels were reduced as a result of a growth
in forested lands and, consequently, in the water retention capability of the
soil; most probably, however, graphs* reflect the effect on the basin of the
implementation of point-source pollution controls beginning in the mid-
seventies. However, occasional peaks continue to appear in almost all
graphs, and some parameters involving oxygen requirements (% of dissolved
oxygen and COD) do show a slight worsening.

V. FIELD INTERVIEWS

To check in the field what impact, if any, government actions have had
over local activities suspected of producing non-point source pollution
(NPSP), a series of interviews were done along the basin. Questionnaires
were produced based on EPA's Guidance Specifying Management Measures
For Sources Of Nonpoint Pollution In Cbastal Waters (1993) (see Appendix 1).

Agricultural activities

Four cattle farms and a pig farm were visited. Cattle farms ranged from
20 to 300 acres each. All their owners were aware in one way or another of
nonpoint source pollution caused by soil erosion, wastewater, runoff,
pesticides and fertilizers. Only the largest one had a holding pond for
wastewater (cleaned once every five to six years), runoff ditches, vegetated.
filter strips, and critical area planting. All had their lands tested for pH, but
again, only the larger farm had tested for nutrient and runoff potential and
planned fertilizer application using such information. None had water
troughs. Their animals were taken to the river or some tributary creek to
drink. All had identified surface water bodies within their farms but none
took this into account when planning any of the farms' activities. Pesticides
and fertilizers and @orresp6nding equIpment were supplied to them by the
Department of Ag;iculture (PRDA) along with instructions on their use.
Equipment maintenance was the minimum necessary to maintain them
operational. Two of the farms also planted plantains on a commercial scale.
Pesticides and fertilizers were used on those crops according to PRDA
instructions.

15-1

The pig farm had some 20 acres and about 200 pigs in a confined facility
built according to Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and PRIDA guidance.
Animal wastes wer 'e washqd daily in@o a functional oxidation pond. The
farm included a plantain plantation to which pesticides and fertilizer were
applied according to PRDA instructions. The owner was aware of low pH and
erodibility potential'of her land. 0
We tried, unsuccessfully to interview other farmers, including the
owner of a crop farm planting cassava, limes, and papaya. We noticed that
plantain was a favorite crop because of generous subsidies and services
offered by PRDA. There was some oranges and grapefruits planted. We also
noticed that stripping the land of vegetation and topsoil with machines is a
common practices before planting crops or to let grasses grow for cattle. That
was being done even in very steep terrains. Sugar cane still dominates
agriculture in the lowlands. No commercial silviculture activity is currently
under way within the Fajardo River Basin.

Marinas

Though the coasts of the municipalities of Fajardo and Ceiba are home
to seven marinas, only one of them (Villa Marina), is within the Fajardo
River Basin per se. -The ma;ina includ;s a fueling station and has a capacity
for harboring as many as 870 boats (including 70 on land). Facilities were
designed and built without taking into account water quality or any kind of
waste or spill management. In fact, there is no water quality assessment
program run by Villa Marina management (although government
monitoring station EQB 78B was functioning here from 1986 to 1990). The
marina has a revegetation program, but it is a beautification program, not a
sediment-control one. Allegedly, the marina have implemented effective
runoff control strategies, boat cleaning programs, and installed dumpstation,
and restroom facilities to reduce release of sewage to surface waters. There are
no sewage pumpout facilities. Solid wastes from boats are collected on
docking and disposed by the municipal government. Absorbing pads are used
to collect oils, greases, and fuel from su"rface waters. There are no restrictions,
management or orientation regarding fish waste. There is no educational
strategy regarding pollution and wastes in the marina, although occasional
recordatories are offered via the marina's own monthly periodical and office

memos. Management established a speed limit within the marina to reduce
probabilities of boating accidents and turbidity in the water.

Hydromodifications

The Fajardo River is one of the very few rivers in Puerto Rico that, so
far, has not been channelized or dammed. However, there is a current
proposal in the hands of the*U. S. Arm@ Corps of Engineers for a flood control
program in the river which includes the construction of a dike to divert water
from the river directly into the mangrove forest that lies at the southern
shore of the river mouth. It is hoped that the mangrove will be able to absorb
this increased influx of freshwater and will act as a filtering system for
pollutants as well. The project is in the stage of gathering permits and
endorsements and its still collecting preliminary information for a future
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. The river has also been
mentioned by the Aqueducts and Sewers Authority as a probable site for a
new dam and reservoir.

Wetlands

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), administrator of Ceiba
State Forest, and the Federal Forest Service (USFS), in charge of the Caribbean
National Forest, administe; almost all wetlands in the basin classified as
ecologically sensitive or important. USFS has adopted a program for the
protection of its lands, which include asking of all projects within the Forest
to submit Best Management Practices Plans. Ceiba Forest is still lacking a
similar DNR program.
Protection of mangroves, and other wetlands, is pursued in Puerto
Rico mostly through EQB's Regulation of Environmental Impact Statements,
the Environmental Public Policy Act, Planning Board's Resolution Num. 74-
21, and Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. In addition, through the
Coastal Zone Management Program, certain construction and waste disposal
activities are restricted in wetlands of special concern within the Maritime-
Terrestrial Zone.

Wate disposal systems

The municipal landfills of both Fajardo and Ceiba are located within
the Fajardo River Basin. Until very recently, there were no government
controls on the production of non-point source pollutants from these sites.
As a result, neither of them had any mechanisms or plans to deal with this
problem. Farmers living near the landfills reported that it was usual to see a
dense, blackish muck going Zlown neargy creeks instead of water.
However, since the beginning of 1993, the Commonwealth and the
Municipal governments were instructed by the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency that they had to comply with the new regulations under
the Clean Water Act. There are plans to close one of the landfills and turn
the other into a regional system, and-recyclable materials are being identified
to try to reduce the load coming in.

Construction and soil extraction activities

Control of pollutants originating from construction and soil extraction
activities is pursued mostly by requiring Control of Erosion and
Sedimentation (CES) Plans at EQB and Soil Extraction Permits at DNR. CES
Plans submitted to EQB during 1992 were reviewed for this project. Most of
the measures they contain involves maintaining soil wet and compacted to
inhibit clouds of p@rticula@es, establAing hay barriers and sedimentation
ponds to capture runoff, dispositions on equipment washing and solid waste
disposal, and mandating revegetation or pavimentation of open spaces
remaining after completion of project.

154

VI. CONCLUSION ANEY RECOMMENDATIONS

All the information collected for this report presents a river system and
its basin which has been significantly impacted by non-point source pollution
(NPSP), at least since the early sixties. There are, for sure, natural causes
responsible for some pollutants, some of the time: sudden, heavy rains
common in the area, erodibility and acidity of the soils, valleys with steep
gradients, small natural deposits of metal-containing minerals, etc. However,
it is obvious that human activities are responsible for most NPS pollutants.
Data confirm that the Environmental Quality Board correctly assessed the
possible causes of NPSP at'the river: Agricultural activities, runoff, landfills,
construction activities, waste disposal, and soil extraction operations. The
existing marina is an NPSP source on the coastal region of the basin.
Although the situ@tion a * ears to @ave significantly improved since an
pp
upsurge in the early seventies, this improvement seems to reflect the
imposition of point-source pollution control, more than anything else. There
are some government controls on NPSP, but it is obvious that they are
insufficient at the present moment. Since development pressure is growing
along the basin, we can expect a future increase of pollutant production in the
area, and if this is not addressed now, maybe water quality data in the late
nineties will show a repetition of the crisis of the seventies.
The following are our short and mid-term recommendations in respect
to NPSP in the Fajardo River Basin:
1. DNR should adopt a Management Plan or Program for the Ceiba State
Forest with strict guidelines and requirements for all types of
development 'propos@ls.

2. There such be a concerted effort between the Federal, Commonwealth
and Municip@l gover@ments to avoid further destruction of wetlands
and explore the possibility of creating new ones.
3. There such be a concerted effort between the Federal, Commonwealth
and Municipal governments to maintain current levels of forested
lands as one way to sustain soils' water retention capability.
4. The Environmental Quality Board should reopen monitoring station
EQB 78B and establish at least one additional station on the river per se.
5. Pesticides should be monitored at least four times a year, instead, of just

once.
6. EQB's Best Management Practices Plans should be required to all
commercial (animal or crops) farms. This plans should require an
increase used of anti-erosion practices.
7. All direct wastewater discharges to the river should be closed.
8. Cattle should not be given direct access to surface waters. Drinking
troughs should be mqndatory for all animal farms.
9. All construction permits should include dispositions for revegetation
and mitigation of natural areas.
10. All soil extraction permits should include dispositions to revegetate
abandoned extraction areas.
11. There should be concerted efforts by the Federal, Commonwealth and
Municipal governments to increase public education on NPSP and
public participation in NSPS programs, as well as development
projects' permits evaluation process.
12. Government'@ assessm* ent of waste disposal in marinas should be done
in a systematic, frequent way. Fish waste disposal should be better
managed as well as current dispositions on boat fuels, oils, greases,
paints and human wastes.
13. Being one of the few rivers left in Puerto Rico without
hydromodifications, any such project should be considered with
extreme care in respect to its impact on the river's (and estuary)
hydrology, chemistry and biota, and effects on local community,
particularly in terms of hidden costs of pollution, erosion, loss of farm
and forest lands, etc.

VIL REFERENCES

Ahmad, R., F. N. Scatena & A. Gupta. 1993. Morphology and sedimentation
in Caribbean montane streams: Examples from Jamaica and
Puerto Rico. Sediment. Geof. 85:157-169.

Anonymous. 1973a. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1968. Part 1.
Surface Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 53.

---------------- 1973b. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1968-1972. Part 2a.
Water Quality Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 253-259.

---------- - ---- 1973c. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1969. Part 1. Surface
Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 46.

--------- - ----- 1973d. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1970. Part 1. Surface
Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 48.

---------------- 1973e. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1971. Part 1. Surface
Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 37.

---------------- 1973f. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1972. Part 1. Surface
Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 35.

---------------- 1975a. Water Repources Data For Puerto Rico, 1973. Part 1. Surface
Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 37.

---------------- 1975b. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1973. Part 2. Water
Quality Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 74-75.

---------------- 1976a. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1974. Part 1. Surface
Water Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 34.

157

---------------- 1976b. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico, 1974. Part 2. Water
Quality Records. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 100-103.

---------------- 1977. Soil Survey of Humacao Area of Eastern Puerto Rico.
USDA..San Juali, P. R. pp..105.

1978. Water Resources Data For Puerto Rico. Water Years 1973-76.
USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 206-214.

------------ - -- 1979. Geologic Map of the Fajardo and Cayo Icacos Quadrangles,
Puerto.Rico. U@GS- San Jujan, P. R.

----------- 1980. Geologic Map of the Naguabo and Part of Punta Puerca
Quadrangles, Puerto Rico. USGS. San Juan, P. R.

1982. Inventario de los cuerpos de agua superficiales de Puerto
Rico. EQB. San Juan, P. R.

1990. Reglamento de estindares de calidad de agua de Puerto Rico.
EQB. San Juan, P.- R. 105 pp.

----- - --- - ---- 1992. Goals and Progress Of Statewide Water Quality Management
Planning: Puerto Rico 1990-1991. Rev. Ed. EQB- San Juan, P. R.
194 pp.. 0

---------------- 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources Of
Nonpoint Pollution In Coastal Waters. EPA. Washington, D. C.
909 pp.

Col6n-Dieppa, E., P. L. Diaz & R. G4rcia. 1986. Water Resources Data for
Puerto Rico. W@ter Year 1985. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 195-202.

Curtis, R. E., Jr., Z. Aquino, P. L. Diaz & R. Garcia. 1987. Water Resources Data:
Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands: Water Year 1986. USGS.
San Juan, P. R. p. 201-210.

Curtis, R. E., Jr., Z. Aquino, P. L. Diaz & R. J. Vachier. 1988. Water Resources
Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands: Water Year 1987.
USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 195-199.

---------------- 1989. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1988. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 293-297.
---------------- 1990. Water R@sources D@ta-. Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1989. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 223-227.

158

--------- - ----- 1991. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1990. USCS. San Juan, P. R. p. 301-304.

1992. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1991. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 303-307.

Curtis, R. E., Jr., S. GuzmAn-Rios & P. L. Diaz. 1980a. Water Resources Data:
Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands: Water Year 1977. USGS.
San Juan, P. R. p. 101-104.

-- - ---- -. 1980b. Water Rqsources D4ta: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:
Water @ear 1978. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 124-131.

---------------- 1981. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands@ Water @ears 1979-80. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 198-211.

------------ - -- 1982. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Years 1981-82. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 182-203.

---------------- 1984. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1983. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 124-131.

---------------- 1985. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1984. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 172-179.

Cintr6n, B. 1993. Interagency field visit observations, Rio Fajardo, Puerto
Rico. Section 205 Study. Unpublished Memorandum. US Army
CoE. Jacksonville, Fla. pp. 3.

Diaz, P. L. , Z. Aq@ino, C..Figueroa-41amo, R. J. Vachier & A. V. Sdnchez.
1993. Water Resources Data: Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin
Islands: Water Year 1992. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 357-361.
Goenaga, C., & G. Cintr6n.o 1979. Invintory of the Puerto Rican coral reefs.
DNR. San Juan, P. R. pp. 190.

Goenaga, C., V. Mestey, V. Vicente, J. Berrios, J. Caballero, 0. DAvila, D.
Delgado, 1. Diaz, M. Rivera & V. Quevedo. 1990. Suplemento
t6cnico para el Plan de Manejo de la Reserva Natural La
Cordillera, Fajardo, Puerto Rico. P. M. Gonzdlez, M. T. Garcia &
R. F. Martinez (Eds.). DNR. San Juan, P. R. pp. 156.

Kipple, F. P. 1968. Water Records of Puerto Rico, 1958-63. USGS. San Juan, P.
R. p. 165-176.

i59

Lugo, A. E. 1993. Rio Marneyes and the water intake project of PRASA.
Unpublished document. USDA Forest Serv. San Juan, P. R. 17
PP.

Margalef, R. 1978. Diversity. In: Phytoplankton Manual. A. Sournia (Ed.).
UNESCO. Paris, France. p. 251-260.

Renn, C. E. 1968. A Study Of Water Quality. La Motte Chem. Prod. Co.
Chestertown, Mar. pp. 46.

1969. Our Envitonment Bgttles Water Pollution. La Motte Chem.
Prod. Co. Chestertown, Mar. pp. 32.

Rickher, J. G. 1970. Water Records of Puerto Rico, 1964-67. Vol. 1: North and
Northeast Slopes. USGS. San Juan, P. R. p. 248-261.

Riley, J. P., & R. Chester. 1@71. IntrodVction to Marine Chemistry. Academic
Press. &ew York, N. Y, p. 105-218.

Zayas, E. 1993. Gold rush! Business booms in Puerto Rico's eastern region.
Caribbean Business 21(4):1-2; 32-33.

160

APPENDIX 1: Field interviews' questionnaires.

161

AGRICULTURAL LANDS

1. Farm size: - acres (total). Estimate of acreage in active use: acres.

2. Farm use: a. Crops _. What crops? Plantains/bananas _ Sugar cane
Others (explain):
b. Animals Cattle Horses Pigs
Others (explain):

3. Farm location: Is it adjacent to surface waterbodies?
Yes No

4. Type(s) of soil in farm, if known:
Has the soil been classified as highly erodible? Yes No Do not know:

5. Erosion management:

a. Does activities in this farm include the following: Conservation tillage
Contour strip-cropping Sediment retention pond
Water control basin Terraces
Sediment control basin Critical area planting
Filter strip _ Field borders
Grade stabilization structure Reforestation None
b. Other erosion control activities (explain):

6. Confined animal facility wastewater and runoff management:

a. Is wastewater/runoff routed through holding pond, treatment lagoon or other settling
structure/ debris basin? Yes No
b. If Yes, How frequently are fh-ese structures cleaned/maintained?
c. For small facilities:
Do you maintain vegetated filter strips or any other mitigation area vegetation?
Yes No

7. Nutrient and Pesticide management-

a. Do you use nutrients? Natural Artif icial - None
b. Do you use pesticides? Natural Artificial None
c. Have you evaluated soil for: pH phosphorus nitrogen
potassium leaching/runoff potential?
d. Do you calibrate and maintain application equipment? Yes No
e. Do you determine yield expectations through yield history or soil series information?
Yes No
f. Do you apply nutrients and pesticides after determination of real economic benefit?
Yes No
g. Do you plan type of pesticide/nutrient application and timing, amount and frequency
taking into account: weather stage of crop development
type of crop soil type
pest problem toxicity -
previous pest control methods used _ persistence
h. Have you identified environmental concerns (sinkholes, surface water, shallow aquifer,)
highly erodible soil) in or near your farm? Yes No There are none
i. It yes, Do you plan nutrient/pesticide application taking this into account? Yes-No-.

16 2

8. Grazing Management:

a.To protect sensitive.areas (strpambanks, wptlands, surface waters, riparian zones), do
you:
Exclude livestock from these areas
Alternate grazing areas within farm
Provide alternate drinking location
Provide stream crossings or hardened access for drinking
Locate saft and shade away from sensitive areas
b. Grazing is not carded out in this farm

9. Irrigation water management:

a. Do you use irrigation water? Yes No
b. If yes, Do you irrigate unfformly? Yes - No
c. Have you prepared an irrigation schedule? Yes No
d. If yes, have you taken into account the following:
rainfall and temperature soil properties
type of crop and its resistance to stress
stage of crop development
availability of water supply

16 13

URBAN RUNOFF

1. New development management:

a. Type of development:
b. Area covered: Total:
Within the Fajardo River Basin:
c. Have you designed or constructed development to be able to reduce average annual
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loadings by, at least, 80% after project completion'?
Yes No
d. Have you designed or constructed development to be able to reduce
postdevelopment TSS loadings so that average annual loadings are no greater than
predevelopment loadings? Yes No

2. Watershed protection management:

Have you developed-a Watershed Protection' Program:
a. To protect areas particularly susceptible to erosion?
b. To protect areas that provide important water quality benefits?
c. To protect areas necessary to maintain riparian/aquatic biota?
d. To site development to protect natural integrity of waterbodies and natural drainage
systems?
e. Have not prepared Program.
f. Program not necdssary

3. Site development management:

Do you plan, design or develop sites to be able to:
a. Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are susceptible to erosion

b. Limit increases of impervious areas
c. Limit land disturbance activities to reduce erosion
d. Limit disturbances on natural drainages and vegetation

164

URBAN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

1. Site size:
2. Site location:

3. Construction site erosion and sediment control management:

a. Have you prepared a plan to control erosion? Yes No
b. If yes, have you taken into account: soil type(s)
site grading and present or future contours
topsoil preservation design for structural controls
stabilization measures revegetation
description of sequence of construction
mitigation areas near waterbodies or drainage systems
others (explain)

4. Construction she chemical control management:

a. How and where do you store chemicals?

b. Do you have a plan for their application? Yes No
c. If yes, explain:

d. How do you dispose of chemicals?

e. Have you established fuel and vehicle/equipment maintenance and washing areas
away from all drainage courses? Yes No
f. Do you cover and isolate construction materials and chemicals to prevent runoff ?
Yes No
g. Have you prepare a spill r ention and control plan? Yes No
h. Do you provide proper sanitary facilities for construction workers? Yes
No

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

a. Do you have a watershed management program to reduce runoff pollutants?
Yes No
b. If yes, does it include:
Identif ication of priority local/regional watershed pollutant reduction opportunities

A schedule for implementation of appropriate controls
Limits for destruction of natural conveyance systems
Preservation, enhancement or establishment of buffers along surface
waterbodies
c. Location of development:*
d. Site size:

POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT

a. Agency:
b. Is there a pollution prevention and education program to reduce nonpoint source pollutants
generated from the following activities:
Improper storage, use, and disposal of household hazardous chemicals, including
automobile fluids, pesticides, paints, solvents, etc.
Application and disposal of garden care products, and improper disposal of leaves and
yard trimmings.
Turf management of golf courses, parks and recreational areas.
Discharge of pollutants into storm drains,, including floatables, oil and litter.
Commercial activitiev including 'parking lots, das stations, and other entities not under
NPDES purview.
Improper disposal of pet excrement.
Others (explain)

ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

1. New onsite disposal systems (OSDS) management:
a. Do your agency has policies, regulations or plans to ensure that new OSDS are
located, designed, installed, operated, inspected and maintained to prevent the
discharge of pollutants to the ground, to ground waters and to surface waters?
Yes No
b. It yes, do you: Discourage the installation of garbage disposal to reduce hydraulic and
nutrient loadings?
Reduced total hydraulic loadings to the OSDS by 25% in new developments or
redevelopments where low-volume plumbing fixtures have not been installed?
Direct placement of O@DS away from' unsuitable areas including poorly or
excessively drained soils, areas with shallow water tables or with high seasonal
water tables, areas over fractured bedrock, floodplains, and areas where nutrient
or pathogen concentrations in the effluent can not be reduced?
Establish protective setbacks from surface waters, wetlands, and floodplains?
Establish protective separation distahces between OSDS and groundwaters?_
Require installation of OSDS that reduce total nitrogen loadings by 50% to
groundwaters, where conditions indicate that surface waters may be adversely
affected by excess nitrogen loadings from groundwaters?
c. System location:
d. System capacity:
2. Agency:

3. Operating onsite disposal systems (OSDS) management:
a. Do your agency has policies, regulations or plans to ensure that existing OSDS are
operated and maintained to prevent discharge of pollutants to the ground, groundwaters
or surface waters? Yes No
b. If yes, do you: Discourage the reduced use of garbage disposals?
Encourage the use of low-volume plumbing fixtures?
Reduce total phosphorus loadings by 15%?
Require an OSDS to be repaired, replaced, or modified when it fails or threaten or
impairs surface waters?
Inspect OSDS at a frequency adequate to ascertain whether OSDS are failing?_
Consider replacing or upgrading OSDS to treat influent so that total nitrogen
loadings in the effluent are reduced by 50%, if surface waters may be adversely
affected by groundwater nitrogen loading from OSDS?
c. System location:
d. System capacity:

6 C

ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES

1. Agency:

2. Planning, siting, and developing roads and highways management:
Do your agency plan, site and develop roadsthighways taking into account:
Protection of areas that provide important water quality benefits or are susceptible
to erosion?
Limits to land disturbance (clearing and grading, cut and fill, etc.) to reduce
erosion?
Limits to disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation?

3. Bridges management:
Do your agency site, design, and maintain bridges so that sensitive and valuable aquatic
ecosystems and areas providing important water quality benefits are protected from
adverse effects? Yes No

4. Construction projects (roads, highways, bridges) management:
Do you: Reduce erosion in construction projects?
Retain sediment onsite during and after construction?
Prior to land disturbance, prepare and implement an approved erosion control plan?

5. Construction site chemical control management:
Do you Limit application, generation, and migration of toxic substances?
Ensure proper storage and disposal of toxic materials?
Apply nutrients at rates necessary to establish and maintain vegetation without causing
significant nutrient runoff?

6. Operation and maintenance management:
Do you incorporate pollution prevention procedures into the operation and maintenance
of roads, highways and bridges to reduce pollutant loadings to surface waters?

7. Runoff systems management:
a. Have you developed runoff management systems for existing roads, highways and
bridges to reduce runoff pollutant concentration and volumes entering surface waters?
Yes No
b. If yes, have you: Identified priority and watershed pollutant reduction opportunities?_
Established schedules for implementing appropriate controls?

167

MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

1. Marinas flushing management:
a. Have you designed and site this marina such that tides or currents will aid in flushing of
site or renew water regularly? Yes No

2. Water quality assessment management:
a. Do you assessed water quality as part of marina siting and design? Yes No
b. If yes, do you tested for: Dissolved oxygen? Pathogens?
c. Do you currently run a regular water quality assessment program? Yes No
d. If yes, what do you test for?

3. Shoreline stabilization management:
a. Do you reforest/revegetate as a regular shoreline stabilization procedure?
b. If you use other procedures, did you take into account their cost effectiveness against
revegetation, prior to construction or implementation? Yes No
c. What are/were those other procedures?

4. Storm water runoff management:
a. Do you implement effective runoff control strategies? Yes No
b. If yes, do they include the following: Use of pollution prevention activities.
Proper design of hull maintenance areas to reduce annual loadings of total
suspended solids by 80%?

5. Fueling station design managementi
A
Have you designed iOeling stations to allow for ease in spills cleanups? Yes No

6. Sewage facility management:
Have you installed pumpout, dump station and restroom facilities to reduce release of
sewage to surface waters? Yes No

7. Solid waste management:
a. Do you propedy dispose of solid wastes from boats to limit their entry to surface waters?
Yes No
b. If yes, how (explain):

8. Fish waste management:
a. Do you apply any kind of fish cleaning restrictions? Yes - No
b. Do you implement some kind of public education regarding fish waste disposal?
Yes No
c. Do you implement proper disposal procedures for fish waste? Yes No
d. If yes, explain which ones:

9. Petroleum control management:
a. Have you implemented measures to reduce amount of fuel and oil entering surface
waters? Yes No
b. If yes, explain:

10. Boat cleaning management:
a. Do you perform boat cleaning operations such that the release to surface waters of
cleaners, solvents, and paints is minimized? Yes No
b. If yes, explain how:

168

11. Public education management:
a. Do you implement any public education, oLoreach or training program dealing with
proper disposal of polluting maeerial? Yes No
b. If yes, describe:

12. Maintenance of sewage facilities management:
a. Do you have sewage pumpout facilities? Yes No
b. If yes,: Do you encourage their use? Yes No
Do ybu ensurethat they are Fnaintained in operational conditions?
Yes No

13. Marina:

14. Marina location:

15. Marina size and capacity:

BOAT OPERATION MANAGEMENT

1. Do you restrict boating activities where necessary to decrease turbidity and physical
destruction of shallow-water habitat? Yes.- No

2. If facility is not a marina, identify source of information:

3. Source size/capacity and location, if apply:

169

CHANNELIZATION AND CHANNEL MODIFICATION

1. Physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters management:
a. Has there been an evaluation of chemical and physical charactedstics of surface waters
previous to construction? Yes No
b. Have you evaluated the potential effects of proposed channel modif ication on the
chemical and physical charactedstics of surface waters? Yes No
c. Have you planned and designed channel modification to reduce negative impact?
Yes No
d. Do you have an operation/maintenance program for existing modified channels?
Yes No
e. If yes, does it includes measures to improve chemical and physical characteristics of
surface waters? Yes No

2. Instream and riparian habitat restoration management:
a. Has there been an.evaluation of instream and riparian habitats previous to construction?
Yes No
b. Have you evaluated the potential eff ects of proposed channel modif ication to instream
and dparian habitats? Yes No
c. Have you planned and designed channel modification to reduce negative impact?
Yes No
d. If you do have an operation/maintenance program for existing modif ied channels, does
it includes measures to restore instream and hpadan habitats in those channels?
Yes No

ERODING STREAMBANKS AND SHORELINES MANAGEMENT

1. Have you identified areas of streambank and shorline erosion which represents a nonpoint
pollution problem? Yes No
2. If yes, are you taking measures to protect these areas? Yes No
a. What measures are you implementing?

170

WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN AREAS

1. Wetlands and riparian areas protection management:
a. Have you identif ied wetlands and riparian areas which serve a signif icant nonpoint
source pollution abatement? Yes No
b. Do you have a program for the protection of these areas?
c. If yes, does it include maintenance of the following:
non point source pollution abatement species composition
vegetative cover hydrology of surface water
hydrology of ground water substrate geochemistry

2. Wetlands and riparian areas restoration management:
Do you promote the restoration of preexisting functions in damaged and destroyed
wetlands and riparian systems? Yes No

3. Vegetated treatment systems management:
Do you promote the use of engineered vegetated treatment systems, such as:
constructed wetlands vegetated filter strips

17 1

APPENDIX 2: Field photographs.

172

"ova

Author F A. Grana-Raffucci overLooking the Fajardo River at bridge
over HeCd Station Pl.

I= OL
Vik
AL

E7 m

JIM

r
-@4r

FieLd Station #P,

173

je. @WO
4t .. f-
7?

_47

p4r
4*

PLantain pLantation adjacent to FieLd Station #1.

4,
q@

44.

40-
-
110*
AA
v@.

Author F. A. Grana-Raffucci taking water sampLes at FieLd Station #1.