INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN
COSTA RICA ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA
REJOINDER OF COSTA RICA
VOLUME III
ANNEXES 4 - 14
2 FEBRUARY 2015 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN
COSTA RICA ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA
REJOINDER OF COSTA RICA
VOLUME III
ANNEXES 4 - 14
2 FEBRUARY 2015 LIST OF ANNEXES
VOLUME III
Annex Document Page
No. No.
4. University of Costa Rica, Centre for Research in Sustainable 1
Development, Department of Civil Engineering, Second Report on
Systematic Field monitoring of Erosion and Sediment Yield along
Route 1856, November 2014
5. Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), SBU Projects 45
and Associated Services, Centre for Basic Engineering Studies,
Department of Hydrology, Second Report on Hydrology and
Sediments for the Costa Rican River Basins draining to the San
Juan River, December 2014
6. Bernald Pacheco Chaves, Response to and Analysis of “Ecological 127
Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua”,July
2014 (Ríos Touma 2014), October 2014
7. Arturo Angulo Sibaja,Environmental Diagnostic Assessment. Fish 141
Fauna in the San Juan River. Literature Review Report, November
2014
8. Pablo E. Gutiérrez Fonseca, Critical statistical analysis of the 161
report “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan
River, Nicaragua” by Blanca Ríos Touma, November 2014
9. Juan Carlos Fallas Sojo,Comments on the Report by Dr Kondolf as 175
it pertains to Hurricanes and Tropical Storms, 2014
10. Professor Allan Astorga Gättgens, Extraordinary sediment inputs 183
due to exceptional events on the San Juan River, December 2014
11. Consejo Nacional de Vialidad (CONAVI),Works on National Road 207
856: Before and After, December 2014
12. Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San Carlos (CODEFORSA), 253
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Route
1856. Quaterly Report, November 2014
iii Annex Document Page
No. No.
13. Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San Carlos (CODEFORSA), 323
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an
Environmental Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Ro,d
Report of Contract SINAC-CDE-004-2012, November 2014
14. Centro Científico Tropical (CCT) Follow-up and Monitoring Study 439
Route 1856 Project- EDA Ecological Component, January 2015
iv ANNEX 4
University of Costa Rica, Centre for Research in Sustainable Development
Department of Civil Engineering
Second Report on Systematic Field monitoring of Erosion and Sediment
Yield along Route 1856
November 2014
12 Annex 4
UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA
VICERECTORÍA DE INVESTIGACIÓN
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN EN DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE
CIEDES
Second Report on Systematic Field monitoring of
Erosion and Sediment Yield along Route 1856
By:
Eng. Rafael Oreamuno Vega, M. Eng.
Eng. Roberto Villalobos Herrera
San José, Costa Rica
November, 2014
3Annex 4
4 Annex 4
Index
1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3
2.1 Evaluated sites .......................................................................................3
2.2 Data a cquisition ................................ ......................................................7
2.2.1 Land LiDAR ....................................................................................7
2.2.2 UAV Ph otogrammetry ........................................................................ 8
2.3 Data analysis .........................................................................................9
2.3.1 Land LiDAR ....................................................................................9
2.3.2 UAV Photogrammetry ...................................................................... 11
2.4 Sheet erosion .......................................................................................15
3 Results ................................ ...................................................................... 17
3.1 Sheet erosion on cut slopes .................................................................... 17
3.2 Cut slope erosion .................................................................................17
3.2.1 Site 1 ................................ .............................................................18
3.2.2 Site 2 ................................ .............................................................19
3.2.3 Site 3 ................................ .............................................................19
3.2.4 Site 4 ................................ .............................................................19
3.3 Fill slope erosion .................................................................................20
3.3.1 Site 8 ................................ .............................................................20
3.3.2 Site 9 ................................ .............................................................21
3.3.3 Site 10 ................................ ...........................................................21
3.3.4 Sites 11 -13 ................................ .....................................................21
3.4 Commen ts on studies presented by Nicaragua on July 2014 ........................22
3.4.1 On the scope of the 2013 study: ........................................................22
3.4.2 On the methodology of the 2013 study: ..............................................22
3.4.3 Rotational landslides ....................................................................... 22
3.4.4 Omitted erosion features at Site 4 .....................................................23
3.4.5 Site 5 ................................ .............................................................24
3.4.6 Erosion estimates by Mr. Danny Hagans and Dr. Bill Weaver ...............25
5Annex 4
3.5 Recommended erosion rates for use in volumetric calculations. ..................26
4 Conclusions ................................ ...............................................................27
5 References ............................................................................................... 28
6 Annex – Photographic inventory of studied sites ...........................................29
6.1 Surface area estimate for slopes in Km 18. ..............................................37
Index of Figures.
Figure 1. Map of the sites studied by CIEDES. ......................................................6
Figure 2. Point cloud acquired at Site 4 on May 27, 2014. ...................................... 7
Figure 3. Raw photograph of Route 1856 acquired using an UAV showing on -going
mitigati on work at slope T -72 (Eroding site 9.6), October 28, 2014. .........................9
Figure 4. Pre- processed contour data for Site 4 on May 27, 2014. ..........................10
Figure 5. Terrain model on May 27, 2014 (left) and Reference Surface model for Site
4. ..................................................................................................................11
Figure 6. LAS point cloud generated during pre -processing of UAV photogrammetry.
.....................................................................................................................12
Figure 7. Digital surface model of Route 1856. Site 11 is visible in the top left -hand
corner of the image. ........................................................................................13
Figure 8. Cross -section 2, Site 12. ..................................................................... 13
Figure 9. Orthophoto and Digital Elevation Model of Site 12 on October 28, 2014. .. 14
Figure 10. Sediment trap #2 on October 1, 2014. .................................................15
Figure 11. Survey points and elevation model of Sediment trap #2 on October 22,
2014. ................................ ..............................................................................16
Figure 12. Cut slope adjacent to Site 4 on August 19, 2014. ................................. 23
Figure 13. Landside edge of Route 1856, August 19, 2014. ................................... 24
Figure 14. Photographs of Site 1 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 15. Photographs of Site 2 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 30
Figure 16. Photographs of Site 3 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 17. Photographs of Site 4 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 1 8. Photographs of Site 8 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 19. Photographs of Site 9 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 34
Figure 20. Photograph of Site 10 on May 27, 2014. .............................................35
6 3.5 Recommended erosion rates for use in volumetric calculations. ..................26
4 Conclusions ................................ ...............................................................27
5 References ............................................................................................... 28
6 Annex – Photographic inventory of studied sites ...........................................29
6.1 Surface area estimate for slopes in Km 18. ..............................................37
Index of Figures.
Figure 1. Map of the sites studied by CIEDES. ......................................................6
Figure 2. Point cloud acquired at Site 4 on May 27, 2014. ...................................... 7
Figure 3. Raw photograph of Route 1856 acquired using an UAV showing on -going
mitigati on work at slope T -72 (Eroding site 9.6), October 28, 2014. .........................9
Figure 4. Pre- processed contour data for Site 4 on May 27, 2014. ..........................10
Figure 5. Terrain model on May 27, 2014 (left) and Reference Surface model for Site
4. ..................................................................................................................11
Figure 6. LAS point cloud generated during pre -processing of UAV photogrammetry.
.....................................................................................................................12
Figure 7. Digital surface model of Route 1856. Site 11 is visible in the top left -hand
corner of the image. ........................................................................................13
Figure 8. Cross -section 2, Site 12. ..................................................................... 13
Figure 9. Orthophoto and Digital Elevation Model of Site 12 on October 28, 2014. .. 14
Figure 10. Sediment trap #2 on October 1, 2014. .................................................15
Figure 11. Survey points and elevation model of Sediment trap #2 on October 22,
2014. ................................ ..............................................................................16
Figure 12. Cut slope adjacent to Site 4 on August 19, 2014. .................................. 23
Figure 13. Landside edge of Route 1856, August 19, 2014. ................................... 24
Figure 14. Photographs of Site 1 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 15. Photographs of Site 2 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 30
Figure 16. Photographs of Site 3 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 17. Photographs of Site 4 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 1 8. Photographs of Site 8 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 19. Photographs of Site 9 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014
(bottom). ....................................................................................................... 34
Figure 20. Photograph of Site 10 on May 27, 2014. .............................................35Annex 4
1 Introduction
The Universidad de Costa Rica’s Centre for Research in Sustainable Development
(CIEDES) has continued its assessment of the average erosion rates occurring along
Route 1856. CIEDES previously submitted a report on the subject in September 2013
to the Minis terio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de la República de Costa Rica as
part of ongoing litigation in the International Court of Justice.
This second report represents the continuation and refinement of studies carried out
in-situ on what are some of the sites with worst erosion along Route 1856. Two mayor
changes have been introduced in respect to the 2013 report by CIEDES. State of the
art LiDAR topography has replaced manual measurements at all slopes studied in
2013 , and a photogrammetric survey has be en completed for three additional sites with
difficult access. A fourth additional site was not included because it is undergoing
extensive mitigation work.
Both changes have resulted in more accurate measurements of the volume of soil
erosion which has o ccurred in the studied sites, this in turn has improved the
reliability of the erosion rates estimated in this report. The addition of three sites
between Río Infiernito and Boca San Carlos ensure the erosion rates this report
presents are representative o f those occurring in the section of Route 1856 which is
subject to the most intense erosion.
The study area is defined by the road corridor of Route 1856 adjacent to the Río San
Juan from the vicinity of Marker II to a point approximately 18.2 km downstre am of
Marker II. Visit dates of particular importance are those of May 27, October 22 and
28, 2014. LiDAR topography was carried out on the first two dates for Sites 1 -4 and
8-10, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle was used to carry out a survey of Sites 11 -13 on
the latest date.
Erosion data is now presented in a more direct fashion than the 2013 report. Erosion
rates are now estimated only for the area of each erosion feature without distributing
it over the entire slope. This information could also be obtained from the 2013 report,
thus the data used and presented remains the same, only the way in which it is
presented has changed.
It is important to comment that the section of Route 1856 between Marker II and Río
Infiernito has been subject to mitigation work during 2014. Most of the sites included
in this report have been left un -mitigated or partially mitigated so they may continue
to serve as control sites for erosion along the road. All sites will be fully mitigated
when final design and construction takes place.
1
81 Introduction
The Universidad de Costa Rica’s Centre for Research in Sustainable Development
(CIEDES) has continued its assessment of the average erosion rates occurring along
Route 1856. CIEDES previously submitted a report on the subject in September 2013
to the Minis terio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto de la República de Costa Rica as
part of ongoing litigation in the International Court of Justice.
This second report represents the continuation and refinement of studies carried out
in-situ on what are some of the sites with worst erosion along Route 1856. Two mayor
changes have been introduced in respect to the 2013 report by CIEDES. State of the
art LiDAR topography has replaced manual measurements at all slopes studied in
2013 , and a photogrammetric survey has be en completed for three additional sites with
difficult access. A fourth additional site was not included because it is undergoing
extensive mitigation work.
Both changes have resulted in more accurate measurements of the volume of soil
erosion which has o ccurred in the studied sites, this in turn has improved the
reliability of the erosion rates estimated in this report. The addition of three sites
between Río Infiernito and Boca San Carlos ensure the erosion rates this report
presents are representative o f those occurring in the section of Route 1856 which is
subject to the most intense erosion.
The study area is defined by the road corridor of Route 1856 adjacent to the Río San
Juan from the vicinity of Marker II to a point approximately 18.2 km downstre am of
Marker II. Visit dates of particular importance are those of May 27, October 22 and
28, 2014. LiDAR topography was carried out on the first two dates for Sites 1 -4 and
8-10, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle was used to carry out a survey of Sites 11 -13 on
the latest date.
Erosion data is now presented in a more direct fashion than the 2013 report. Erosion
rates are now estimated only for the area of each erosion feature without distributing
it over the entire slope. This information could also be obtained from the 2013 report,
thus the data used and presented remains the same, only the way in which it is
presented has changed.
It is important to comment that the section of Route 1856 between Marker II and Río
Infiernito has been subject to mitigation work during 2014. Most of the sites included
in this report have been left un -mitigated or partially mitigated so they may continue
to serve as control sites for erosion along the road. All sites will be fully mitigated
when final design and construction takes place.
1Annex 4
2 Methodology
This section discusses the sites selected for study and the methods used to study them.
2.1 Evaluated sites
A total of 11 sites have been evaluated in this report. Their coordinates and a brief
description are given in Table 1. Also, t heir location relative to each other and the
San Juan River is shown in Figure 1.
The sites monitored in 2013 and included in the 2013 report were selected because
they could be accessed by road during both wet and dry seasons, so that they could be
monitored on an ongoing basis . In addition at least one or more monitored site s was
dominated by rill, gully, landslide , or sheet erosion.
In 2013, access to the Road in the stretch between Río Infiernito and Boca San Carlos
was particularly difficult. Consequently, it was not certain that measurements could be
made in that stretch thro ughout the year. For that reasons, sites in that area were not
included. For the reasons explained in our 2013 Report, the sites included in the 2013
report were representative of the erosion processes occurring on the Road.
In this 2014 Report, additional sites have been added to the monitoring programme. Of
particular note to this report is the inclusion of Sites 11- 13 . These sites were not
included in the 2013 report due to the access constraints mentioned above which
hindered reaching and studying the s ites in the limited time frames available for visits
to Route 1856 . Sites 11, 12 and 13 correspond to Eroding Sites 8.1, 9.4 and 9.5 as
numbered in Volume II of Nicaragua’s Reply of August 04, 2014. Site 8.2 was not
included in the monitoring study because it does not display a single, dominant type
of erosion in a way which would enable us to derive a reliable estimate of an erosion
rate for one type of erosion .
Eroding Sites 8 and 9 have been subject to great scrutiny by Nicaragua’s experts. Th e
opportuni ty to use an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) has been exploited to obtain
photogrammetric data for these sites . This data is of great value because it directly
addresses the main criticism levelled at our 2013 report, the absence of measurements
in what Dr. Kondolf considers to be the worst eroding portion of the road.
The data obtained using the UAV also permits a comparison between the estimates
carried out by Hagans & Weaver and the estimates set out in this report. The large
gullies in Sites 11 -13 have allow ed the team to establish whether the rate of land
surface lowering due to erosion in the largest gullies is fact higher than that based on
the long -term monitoring of smaller gullies. As is explained below, erosion rates
established for Dr Kondolf’s Sites 8.1, 9.4 and 9.5 based on the UAV survey were
3
102 Methodology
This section discusses the sites selected for study and the methods used to study them.
2.1 Evaluated sites
A total of 11 sites have been evaluated in this report. Their coordinates and a brief
description are given in Table 1. Also, t heir location relative to each other and the
San Juan River is shown in Figure 1.
The sites monitored in 2013 and included in the 2013 report were selected because
they could be accessed by road during both wet and dry seasons, so that they could be
monitored on an ongoing basis . In addition at least one or more monitored site s was
dominated by rill, gully, landslide , or sheet erosion.
In 2013, access to the Road in the stretch between Río Infiernito and Boca San Carlos
was particularly difficult. Consequently, it was not certain that measurements could be
made in that stretch thro ughout the year. For that reasons, sites in that area were not
included. For the reasons explained in our 2013 Report, the sites included in the 2013
report were representative of the erosion processes occurring on the Road.
In this 2014 Report, additional sites have been added to the monitoring programme. Of
particular note to this report is the inclusion of Sites 11- 13 . These sites were not
included in the 2013 report due to the access constraints mentioned above which
hindered reaching and studying the s ites in the limited time frames available for visits
to Route 1856 . Sites 11, 12 and 13 correspond to Eroding Sites 8.1, 9.4 and 9.5 as
numbered in Volume II of Nicaragua’s Reply of August 04, 2014. Site 8.2 was not
included in the monitoring study because it does not display a single, dominant type
of erosion in a way which would enable us to derive a reliable estimate of an erosion
rate for one type of erosion .
Eroding Sites 8 and 9 have been subject to great scrutiny by Nicaragua’s experts. Th e
opportuni ty to use an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) has been exploited to obtain
photogrammetric data for these sites . This data is of great value because it directly
addresses the main criticism levelled at our 2013 report, the absence of measurements
in what Dr. Kondolf considers to be the worst eroding portion of the road.
The data obtained using the UAV also permits a comparison between the estimates
carried out by Hagans & Weaver and the estimates set out in this report. The large
gullies in Sites 11 -13 have allow ed the team to establish whether the rate of land
surface lowering due to erosion in the largest gullies is fact higher than that based on
the long -term monitoring of smaller gullies. As is explained below, erosion rates
established for Dr Kondolf’s Sites 8.1, 9.4 and 9.5 based on the UAV survey were
3Annex 4
W
5" W " N
.714.61".12. W .79".W65." .509. W8.7" .02. N5.8" .769.75. W8.6" ." .62".W
Coordinates
54'24.191
84°210'°84°20'454°20'2874°19'3834°20'0874°19'2864°18'1884°21'1894°18'2160°54'5190°84°1110'82.'16.'437'5547W7" N
mitigatmedit.igated.
- -
discussed in this report. Refer to
Description
-itigated.
MitigatMiointamtionemt.minent.
-itigatmitigated. -itigatmitigated.
- -
Un Un Un
Large rLotaaenrolttloosnllesdloeuu.ssoppe.tsno.pe. UnGully on fill slope. Partially mitigated.s report. Refer to prism.
33 37 42 39 29 8b 65 68 70
NA - - - - - -8a - -7a -5b - - -
T T T T C T T T T T T T
Mende et. al.
. LiSite number and their coordinates.
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (8.1) (9.4) (9.5)
Table UCR 11 12 13 5
12 Annex 4
1 Map of the sites studied by CIEDES.
Figure
6
13Annex 4
2.2 Data acquisition
There has been a marked refinement in the methods used to assess the erosion volume
and rate occurring at each selected site. The basic principle behind our work has been
to use the best methods available to us for our research. During 2014, LANAMME
made a vailable to us their Laser Scanner and a team of engineers trained in its use.
This equipment has been used twice on those sites which can be accessed by road in
lieu of the manual measurements used during 2013. Aitec Group, a private
international company , was contracted to deliver photogrammetric data from three
sites with difficult road access. These sites were not visited during 2013 and are thus
new additions to the monitored sites on Route 1856.
2.2.1 Land LiDAR
The raw product of a laser scanner is a poin t cloud which can be used to generate
accurate three -dimensional representations of the scanned area. These point clouds are
produced by a laser scanner which emits a laser beam onto a surface at a known
direction ; the scanner records the time taken for th e beam to return and uses this time
to determine the distance to the object. In this way direction and distance is known for
each point were a laser beam impacts a surface. By emitting hundreds of thousands of
beams per scan session, a laser scanner genera tes a cloud of points which can be
accurately located in three -dimensional space. A low -resolution digital camera is then
used by the scanner to paint each point with colour; this enables a user to distinguish
vegetation from uncovered soil. An example of a raw point cloud is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Point cloud acquired at Site 4 on May 27, 2014 .
7
142.2 Data acquisition
There has been a marked refinement in the methods used to assess the erosion volume
and rate occurring at each selected site. The basic principle behind our work has been
to use the best methods available to us for our research. During 2014, LANAMME
made a vailable to us their Laser Scanner and a team of engineers trained in its use.
This equipment has been used twice on those sites which can be accessed by road in
lieu of the manual measurements used during 2013. Aitec Group, a private
international company , was contracted to deliver photogrammetric data from three
sites with difficult road access. These sites were not visited during 2013 and are thus
new additions to the monitored sites on Route 1856.
2.2.1 Land LiDAR
The raw product of a laser scanner is a poin t cloud which can be used to generate
accurate three -dimensional representations of the scanned area. These point clouds are
produced by a laser scanner which emits a laser beam onto a surface at a known
direction ; the scanner records the time taken for th e beam to return and uses this time
to determine the distance to the object. In this way direction and distance is known for
each point were a laser beam impacts a surface. By emitting hundreds of thousands of
beams per scan session, a laser scanner genera tes a cloud of points which can be
accurately located in three -dimensional space. A low -resolution digital camera is then
used by the scanner to paint each point with colour; this enables a user to distinguish
vegetation from uncovered soil. An example of a raw point cloud is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Point cloud acquired at Site 4 on May 27, 2014 .
7Annex 4
Figure 3. Raw photograph of Route 1856 acquired using an UAV showing on -going
mitigation work at slope T-72 (Eroding site 9.6), October 28, 2014.
2.3 Data analysis
In this sub -section the methods used to process the raw data are presented. The
procedures are described in full using Site 4 and Site 12 as examples. The results
obtained are presented in Section 3.
2.3.1 Land LiDAR
The methods d escribed below were applied to S ites 1-4 and 8 -10. The raw data used at
each site is a point cloud generated by a laser scanner.
The processing methods can be separated into two distinct stages, pre -processing and
processing. The pre -processing required for the raw laser data used in this report
involved transforming point clouds obtained by LANAMME into contour data. This
pre -processing was handled exclusively by LANAMME personnel using Leica Cyclone
proprietary software. Pre -processing consisted of removing vegetation points and
background data not relevant to the site under stu dy from the point cloud. The
9
16Figure 3. Raw photograph of Route 1856 acquired using an UAV showing on -going
mitigation work at slope T-72 (Eroding site 9.6), October 28, 2014.
2.3 Data analysis
In this sub -section the methods used to process the raw data are presented. The
procedures are described in full using Site 4 and Site 12 as examples. The results
obtained are presented in Section 3.
2.3.1 Land LiDAR
The methods d escribed below were applied to S ites 1-4 and 8 -10. The raw data used at
each site is a point cloud generated by a laser scanner.
The processing methods can be separated into two distinct stages, pre -processing and
processing. The pre -processing required for the raw laser data used in this report
involved transforming point clouds obtained by LANAMME into contour data. This
pre -processing was handled exclusively by LANAMME personnel using Leica Cyclone
proprietary software. Pre -processing consisted of removing vegetation points and
background data not relevant to the site under stu dy from the point cloud. The
9Annex 4
erosion depth. Finally this erosion depth was distributed over time to produce an
average erosion rate.
Figure 5. Terrain model on May 27, 2014 (left) and R eference Surface m odel for Site 4.
2.3.2 UAV Photogrammetry
The procedure used to process Sites 11 -13 can also be divided into a pre -processing
stage and a processing stage. Pre -processing consisted of the steps required to produce
ortho -rectified photographs and digital elevation models of the corridor containing
Sites 11 -13, this was carried out by Aitec . Processing , carried out b y CIEDES,
involved using the elevation models to estimate the total erosion at each site.
The pitch, roll and yaw recorded by the UAV’s IMU are related to the aircraft’s local
tangent plane. These values must be translated into angles referred to a projec tion
such as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) ; Simactive Correlator 3D software was
used for these calculations. Further pre -processing steps include generating digital
surface models, and then digital terrain models are created by removing vegetation.
Finally, orthophotos are generated with a 7 cm/pixel spatial resolution. All elevation
models and orthophoto mosaics are projected using UTM and WGS -84.
11
18erosion depth. Finally this erosion depth was distributed over time to produce an
average erosion rate.
Figure 5. Terrain model on May 27, 2014 (left) and R eference Surface m odel for Site 4.
2.3.2 UAV Photogrammetry
The procedure used to process Sites 11 -13 can also be divided into a pre -processing
stage and a processing stage. Pre -processing consisted of the steps required to produce
ortho -rectified photographs and digital elevation models of the corridor containing
Sites 11 -13, this was carried out by Aitec . Processing , carried out b y CIEDES,
involved using the elevation models to estimate the total erosion at each site.
The pitch, roll and yaw recorded by the UAV’s IMU are related to the aircraft’s local
tangent plane. These values must be translated into angles referred to a projec tion
such as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) ; Simactive Correlator 3D software was
used for these calculations. Further pre -processing steps include generating digital
surface models, and then digital terrain models are created by removing vegetation.
Finally, orthophotos are generated with a 7 cm/pixel spatial resolution. All elevation
models and orthophoto mosaics are projected using UTM and WGS -84.
11Annex 4
Figure 7. Digital surface model of Route 1856. Site 11 is visible in the top left -hand
corner of the image.
Final processing of Sites 11 -13 used the digital elevation models supplied by Aitec to
calculate erosion volumes for three large gullies. This was carried out using Global
Mapper’s Measure tool along several cross -sections such as the one shown in Figure
8. The red line shown represents the surface elevation used to calculate the cut and
fill volumes of the cross -section. At e ach cross -section the software calculates the
eroded volume of a strip of terrain 10 m wide ( 5 m on either side of the cross -section ).
Cross -sections were spaced every 10 m as needed to cover the entire erosion feature.
Figure 8. Cross -section 2, Site 12.
Figure 9 shows the cross -sections used to calculate the erosion volume at Site 12. The
shaded area represents the area of the gully used to distribute the volume calculated
with th e cross -sections. Both the orthophoto and the elevation model are presented to
13
20Figure 7. Digital surface model of Route 1856. Site 11 is visible in the top left -hand
corner of the image.
Final processing of Sites 11 -13 used the digital elevation models supplied by Aitec to
calculate erosion volumes for three large gullies. This was carried out using Global
Mapper’s Measure tool along several cross -sections such as the one shown in Figure
8. The red line shown represents the surface elevation used to calculate the cut and
fill volumes of the cross -section. At e ach cross -section the software calculates the
eroded volume of a strip of terrain 10 m wide ( 5 m on either side of the cross -section ).
Cross -sections were spaced every 10 m as needed to cover the entire erosion feature.
Figure 8. Cross -section 2, Site 12.
Figure 9 shows the cross -sections used to calculate the erosion volume at Site 12. The
shaded area represents the area of the gully used to distribute the volume calculated
with th e cross -sections. Both the orthophoto and the elevation model are presented to
13Annex 4
2.4 Sheet erosion
The method used to estimate sheet erosion has also been refined from that used for the
2013 report. The underlying principle of using a sediment trap to capture eroded soil
generated at a cut slope which only presents sheet erosion is repeated from 2013. T he
method used to record sediment depth has been improved.
As mentioned in the 2013 report, during the final visit on September 21 Sediment trap
#2, numbered as Site 5 in Figure 1, was observed to be full. This impeded continued
measurements in the same sediment trap as the area the trap was too large to remove
the sediment by hand. The opportunity of cleaning the trap with machinery presented
itself when maintenance and mitigation works resumed in Route 1856.
During August, 2014 a back -hoe excavator was used to remove the sediment
accumulated in Sediment trap #2. This process required the replacement of the silt
fence which formed the sides of the trap. Iron L -beam sections 1 m in length were also
driven into the sediment trap and the length of each beam left unburied was recorded.
Finally, the precise location of each boundary post and L -beam was recorded using a
topographic total station. Figure 10 illustrates the sediment trap and the placement of
L-beams within it.
Figure 10. Sediment trap #2 on October 1, 2014.
As a result of the late cleanup and set -up date of Au gust 19, 2014, only two pairs of
sediment depth were used. These correspond to the October 1 and October 22, 2014,
visits. An initial measurement was carried out on August 19, 2014 however this was
15
222.4 Sheet erosion
The method used to estimate sheet erosion has also been refined from that used for the
2013 report. The underlying principle of using a sediment trap to capture eroded soil
generated at a cut slope which only presents sheet erosion is repeated from 2013. T he
method used to record sediment depth has been improved.
As mentioned in the 2013 report, during the final visit on September 21 Sediment trap
#2, numbered as Site 5 in Figure 1, was observed to be full. This impeded continued
measurements in the same sediment trap as the area the trap was too large to remove
the sediment by hand. The opportunity of cleaning the trap with machinery presented
itself when maintenance and mitigation works resumed in Route 1856.
During August, 2014 a back -hoe excavator was used to remove the sediment
accumulated in Sediment trap #2. This process required the replacement of the silt
fence which formed the sides of the trap. Iron L -beam sections 1 m in length were also
driven into the sediment trap and the length of each beam left unburied was recorded.
Finally, the precise location of each boundary post and L -beam was recorded using a
topographic total station. Figure 10 illustrates the sediment trap and the placement of
L-beams within it.
Figure 10. Sediment trap #2 on October 1, 2014.
As a result of the late cleanup and set -up date of Au gust 19, 2014, only two pairs of
sediment depth were used. These correspond to the October 1 and October 22, 2014,
visits. An initial measurement was carried out on August 19, 2014 however this was
15Annex 4
3 Results
This section contains the results obtained by CIEDES in Route 1856. Discussion is
focused on the 2014 results, 2013 results are presented for comparative purposes.
3.1 Sheet erosion on cut slopes
The difference in sediment volume between the October measurements of Sediment
trap #2 is of 2.59 m 3. This volume of soil is removed from the sediment trap’s
catchment area of 837 m 2 through sheet erosion processes. The extent of this tributary
area remains unchanged from our 2013 report and is not di scussed in detail here.
Table 2. Estimated volume of sediment stored by the sediment trap.
3
Date Estimated volume stored by the sediment trap (m )
October 1, 2014 16.94
October 22, 2014 19.53
Assuming sheet erosion to occur evenly over the tributary area, a value of 3 mm of
average erosion depth obtained by dividing the erosion volume over the area it was
generated in. As an average erosion depth of 3 mm occurred over a 21 day time span,
the an nual erosion rate is 5.38 cm/yr.
Two other erosion rates of 6.15 cm/ yr. and 9.47 cm/ yr. were calculated for this same
tributary area and sediment trap during 2013.Our final estimate for sheet erosion on
cut slopes is the average of the 2013 and 2014 rates , this gives and erosion rate of
7.00 cm/yr.
3.2 Cut slope erosion
This section presents and briefly discusses the results obtained at Sites 1 -4. The
erosion features in these sites are located on cut slopes . Sites 1 and 2 contain two of
the three large rotational landslides found in the study area.
It is no accident that large rotational landslides are present only on cut slopes. Fill
slopes along Route 1856 are too weakly cohesive for this type of failure to develop on
them. Site 3 is still one of the largest gullies found on cut slopes, and Site 4 is a steep
cut slope with very intense rill erosion.
The erosion estimates generated using these sites are still considered to be
conservatively high as these sites represent worst case erosion scenar ios.
17
243 Results
This section contains the results obtained by CIEDES in Route 1856. Discussion is
focused on the 2014 results, 2013 results are presented for comparative purposes.
3.1 Sheet erosion on cut slopes
The difference in sediment volume between the October measurements of Sediment
3
trap #2 is of 2.59 m . This volume of soil is removed from the sediment trap’s
catchment area of 837 m 2 through sheet erosion processes. The extent of this tributary
area remains unchanged from our 2013 report and is not di scussed in detail here.
Table 2. Estimated volume of sediment stored by the sediment trap.
Date Estimated volume stored by the sediment trap (m 3)
October 1, 2014 16.94
October 22, 2014 19.53
Assuming sheet erosion to occur evenly over the tributary area, a value of 3 mm of
average erosion depth obtained by dividing the erosion volume over the area it was
generated in. As an average erosion depth of 3 mm occurred over a 21 day time span,
the an nual erosion rate is 5.38 cm/yr.
Two other erosion rates of 6.15 cm/ yr. and 9.47 cm/ yr. were calculated for this same
tributary area and sediment trap during 2013.Our final estimate for sheet erosion on
cut slopes is the average of the 2013 and 2014 rates , this gives and erosion rate of
7.00 cm/yr.
3.2 Cut slope erosion
This section presents and briefly discusses the results obtained at Sites 1 -4. The
erosion features in these sites are located on cut slopes . Sites 1 and 2 contain two of
the three large rotational landslides found in the study area.
It is no accident that large rotational landslides are present only on cut slopes. Fill
slopes along Route 1856 are too weakly cohesive for this type of failure to develop on
them. Site 3 is still one of the largest gullies found on cut slopes, and Site 4 is a steep
cut slope with very intense rill erosion.
The erosion estimates generated using these sites are still considered to be
conservatively high as these sites represent worst case erosion scenar ios.
17Annex 4
3.2.2 Site 2
Site 2 is another large rotational landslide on a cut slope which shows the two
processes illustrated by Site 1, a lateral expansion of the landslide and an increased
vegetation cover. Site 2 differs from Site 1 in that it has a much more deeply seated
slip surf ace.
Figure 15 shows that the slope on the left margin of the landslide has failed along a
deep slip surface. The failed material has suffered a vertical displacement into the old
landslide area. This is re gistered in the volume calculations as a net decrease in the
eroded volume as material from the left margin of the landslide has been deposited in
the landslide’s toe.
A comparison between the volume loss for 2013 and May 2014 shows the 2013 report
overes timated sediment production at this point by a factor of 2.27. Sediment from
this site also reaches an impounded stream; therefore it makes no direct contribution
to sedimentation in the Río San Juan.
3.2.3 Site 3
Site 3 is a large gully partially covered with a geotextile along its left margin. Unlike
Sites 1 and 2 this site shows no drastic change over time. Most erosion takes place at
the head of the gully and its upper edges where the steepest slopes are found. This site
has shown a near constant erosion rat e according to the laser topography
measurements.
2013 results for this site show the gully’s area and volume were underestimated in
comparison to May 2014.
3.2.4 Site 4
Erosion estimates in Site 4 were greatly changed during 2014 in comparison to 2013.
The mo st significant difference is an increase in the area subject to evaluation and
erosion estimation from 2013 to 2014. A single 1 m long section of a rill was
2
measured in 2013, in comparison over 173 m of rilled slope have been studied in
2014.
2014 laser topography shows near constant erosion rates for this site, with no large
changes between May and October.
19
26 Annex 4
3.3 Fill slope erosion
Fill slopes along Route 1856 have higher erosion rates than cut slopes. This because
cut slopes present more cohesion and compa ction than fill slopes. Unlike cut -slopes
two different methods have been used to evaluate fill sites, as mentioned above Sites
8-10 were subject to land Li DAR while sites 11 -13 were subject to photogrammetric
survey using an UAV.
Table 4. Results summary for Sites 8 -10.
Scanned area Feature area Total volume Total erosion rate Volume
Date 2 2 3
(m ) (m ) loss (m3) (m/yr.) difference (m )
Site 8
September 21, NA 120.58 90.43 0.75 NA
2013
May 27, 2014 86.16 86.16 99.38 1.00 8.95
October 22, 86.00 86.16 101.44 0.76 2.06
2014
Site 9
September 21, NA 7.36 7.97 1.08 NA
2013
40.37 18.41 7.41 0.35 -0.56
May 27, 2014
October 22, 35.59 18.41 8.72 0.30 1.31
2014
Site 10
May 27, 2014 145.77 91.45 18.73 0.07 NA
October 22,
228.17 91.45 23.78 0.07 5.05
2014
3.3.1 Site 8
This gully shows the highest erosion rate of any site studied along Route 1856. A
preliminary intervention carried out in early 2013 failed to properly mitigate this site .
3
Since then a total of 101.44 m of fill have been lost to erosion caused by the
intermittent flow of a small stream over the road fill.
Recently mitigation works along this stretch of the road have reduced the flow of
water over the gully. This has resulted in a dramatic decrease in er osion at this site,
an average of 6 cm/ yr. of erosion were calculated to have occurred in Site 8 between
May and October 2014.
20
27Annex 4
3.3.2 Site 9
Site 9 corresponds to a pair of gullies which have developed at the end of a fill prism
near Río Infiernito. Only one o f these gullies was subject to erosion estimation during
2013 however the volume estimate was found to be much greater than the
measurement using LiDAR. Like most sites there haven’t been dramatic changes in
shape or size of either gully at this site.
Acc ording to the 2014 measurements the erosion rate in this gully is approximately
half of that occurring in Site 8; however it is close to the average erosion rate found
for Sites 11 -13 (25 cm/ yr. ).
3.3.3 Site 10
Site 10 is a new site added for study during 2014. This site presents rill erosion
occurring on a fill slope. Here average erosion rates are found to be constant in time
and smaller than the erosion rate for rill erosion in cut slopes. The low erosion rate is
attributed to the narrowness of the rills at t his site, so even if individually they are
very deep the ridges between each rill raise the average. Therefore a site which
visually seems to be severely eroded may in reality produce limited amounts of
sediment. This site highlights the perils of conducti ng erosion estimates based on
images rather than in -situ measurements.
3.3.4 Sites 11-13
The use of stereo photogrammetry to survey and estimating erosion at three sites in
Route 1856’s most inaccessible section (between Río Infiernito and Boca San Carlos)
was highly anticipated. The results obtained from these measurements show that while
these sites may be visually impressive their erosion rates are not extraordinary and are
comparable to the rates measured in sites included in the 2013 report. Sites 12 and 13
present streams flowing intermittently over the road fills.
Table 5. Results summary for Sites 11 -13.
Site Feature area Total volume loss Average Av era ge erosio n rate
(m ) (m ) depth (m) (m/yr .)
11 173.9 0 134.49 0.77 0.22
12 500.00 659.86 1. 32 0. 38
13 720 .00 303.11 0.42 0.12
21
283.3.2 Site 9
Site 9 corresponds to a pair of gullies which have developed at the end of a fill prism
near Río Infiernito. Only one o f these gullies was subject to erosion estimation during
2013 however the volume estimate was found to be much greater than the
measurement using LiDAR. Like most sites there haven’t been dramatic changes in
shape or size of either gully at this site.
Acc ording to the 2014 measurements the erosion rate in this gully is approximately
half of that occurring in Site 8; however it is close to the average erosion rate found
for Sites 11 -13 (25 cm/ yr. ).
3.3.3 Site 10
Site 10 is a new site added for study during 2014. This site presents rill erosion
occurring on a fill slope. Here average erosion rates are found to be constant in time
and smaller than the erosion rate for rill erosion in cut slopes. The low erosion rate is
attributed to the narrowness of the rills at t his site, so even if individually they are
very deep the ridges between each rill raise the average. Therefore a site which
visually seems to be severely eroded may in reality produce limited amounts of
sediment. This site highlights the perils of conducti ng erosion estimates based on
images rather than in -situ measurements.
3.3.4 Sites 11-13
The use of stereo photogrammetry to survey and estimating erosion at three sites in
Route 1856’s most inaccessible section (between Río Infiernito and Boca San Carlos)
was highly anticipated. The results obtained from these measurements show that while
these sites may be visually impressive their erosion rates are not extraordinary and are
comparable to the rates measured in sites included in the 2013 report. Sites 12 and 13
present streams flowing intermittently over the road fills.
Table 5. Results summary for Sites 11 -13.
Site Feature 2rea Total volum3 loss Average Av era ge erosio n rate
(m ) (m ) depth (m) (m/yr .)
11 173.9 0 134.49 0.77 0.22
12 500.00 659.86 1. 32 0. 38
13 720 .00 303.11 0.42 0.12
21Annex 4
fill, steep scarps are generated, especially at the gully’s head. These scarps may then
fail and collapse into the gully . This process is part of a gully ’s erosion mechanism.
Deep -seated rotational landslides are not observed in the fill slopes of Route 1856
because fills these lack the cohesion required for a massive block of soil to fail as a
unit. The landslides mentioned by Dr. Kondolf in his report are shallow mass
movements which are less much less massive, by virtue of their shallow nature, than
rotational landslides.
3.4.4 Omitted erosion features at Site 4
In page 46 of his July 2014 report, Dr. Kondolf states that landslides are present in
the slope adjacent to Site 4 . He has indicated shallow mass movements in the oblique
aerial photographs acquired on October 2012. These mass movements mobilize small
amounts of soil, most of which has remained on the cut slope as evidenced by Figure
12, which covers a similar area to Figure 28 b) of Dr. Kondolf’s report.
Dr. Kondolf has also mentioned that large erosion fe atures were omitted from study in
Site 4, a simple comparison between the rills present in Figure 12 and those present in
Site 4, visible in Figure 17, show that this statement is also false. The rills studied as
part of Site 4 are the deepest and largest in the entire slope of which Site 4 is part.
Figure 12 . Cut slope adjacent to Site 4 on August 19, 2014 .
23
30fill, steep scarps are generated, especially at the gully’s head. These scarps may then
fail and collapse into the gully . This process is part of a gully ’s erosion mechanism.
Deep -seated rotational landslides are not observed in the fill slopes of Route 1856
because fills these lack the cohesion required for a massive block of soil to fail as a
unit. The landslides mentioned by Dr. Kondolf in his report are shallow mass
movements which are less much less massive, by virtue of their shallow nature, than
rotational landslides.
3.4.4 Omitted erosion features at Site 4
In page 46 of his July 2014 report, Dr. Kondolf states that landslides are present in
the slope adjacent to Site 4 . He has indicated shallow mass movements in the oblique
aerial photographs acquired on October 2012. These mass movements mobilize small
amounts of soil, most of which has remained on the cut slope as evidenced by Figure
12, which covers a similar area to Figure 28 b) of Dr. Kondolf’s report.
Dr. Kondolf has also mentioned that large erosion fe atures were omitted from study in
Site 4, a simple comparison between the rills present in Figure 12 and those present in
Site 4, visible in Figure 17, show that this statement is also false. The rills studied as
part of Site 4 are the deepest and largest in the entire slope of which Site 4 is part.
Figure 12 . Cut slope adjacent to Site 4 on August 19, 2014 .
23Annex 4
and t herefore would not be available for continued study. Once again Dr. Kondolf has
used outdated photographs which do not reflect the current reality of Route 1856.
3.4.6 Erosion estimates by Mr. Danny Hagans and Dr. Bill Weaver
In Annex 2, Volume 2 of Nicaragua’s July 2014 Reply erosion estimates are presented
for selected sites along Route 1856. The sites included in their report are Severely
Eroding Sites (8.1 ), (9.4 ), and (9.5 ) which correspond to Sites 11, 12 and 13 in this
report. The method used by Hagans & Weaver in their report is to measure the area of
large gullies present at each site using December 2013 satellite images, and then to
assume an average erosion depth which is multiplied by the feature’s area to generate
a volume. They have assumed average erosion depths of 3m for Site 11. Th is depth is
the product of an assumption because they do not have any elevation data or
topography for these sites .
The results obtained from the elevation model generated by UAV photogrammetry of
these sites indicate t hat the true average erosion depth for Site 11 is 0.77m. A direct
comparison between the assumed and measured depths was not carried out for Sites
12, 13 and (9.6); because they have been subject to intervention during 2014. Sites 12
and 13 were intervened by filling in portions of the eroded road, subsequent erosion
has returned these sites to conditions similar to those observed in the Hagans &
Weaver report. These interventions were limited to the top portion of each fill, and are
insufficient to explain the discrepancy in erosion volume estimated by Hagans &
Weaver.
Dr Kondolf's S ite 9.6 was not surveyed using the UAV because by, the time of that
survey, it was already in the process of being mitigated. Slopes are re -profiled or
terraced during mitigation, and their surfaces may be protected using geofabrics
and/or vegetation planting. Consequently, historical erosion cannot be measured and
current rates are reduced following mitigation. For these reasons, mitigated sites
would not provide erosion rates typical of un -remediated slopes. The decision to
exclude mitigated sites makes the erosion rates determined by UCR more
conservative, because the mitigati on programme is progressively lowering erosion
rates at slopes along the Road.
However it is evident that the average depth assumptions of Hagans & Weaver for Site
11 were mistaken by a very wide margin creating an impression of severity which is
not suppo rted by measurements of the site. The error in Hagans & Weaver’s
unsupported estimate for Site 11 undermines the credibility of their estimates at the
remaining sites.
25
32and t herefore would not be available for continued study. Once again Dr. Kondolf has
used outdated photographs which do not reflect the current reality of Route 1856.
3.4.6 Erosion estimates by Mr. Danny Hagans and Dr. Bill Weaver
In Annex 2, Volume 2 of Nicaragua’s July 2014 Reply erosion estimates are presented
for selected sites along Route 1856. The sites included in their report are Severely
Eroding Sites (8.1 ), (9.4 ), and (9.5 ) which correspond to Sites 11, 12 and 13 in this
report. The method used by Hagans & Weaver in their report is to measure the area of
large gullies present at each site using December 2013 satellite images, and then to
assume an average erosion depth which is multiplied by the feature’s area to generate
a volume. They have assumed average erosion depths of 3m for Site 11. Th is depth is
the product of an assumption because they do not have any elevation data or
topography for these sites .
The results obtained from the elevation model generated by UAV photogrammetry of
these sites indicate t hat the true average erosion depth for Site 11 is 0.77m. A direct
comparison between the assumed and measured depths was not carried out for Sites
12, 13 and (9.6); because they have been subject to intervention during 2014. Sites 12
and 13 were intervened by filling in portions of the eroded road, subsequent erosion
has returned these sites to conditions similar to those observed in the Hagans &
Weaver report. These interventions were limited to the top portion of each fill, and are
insufficient to explain the discrepancy in erosion volume estimated by Hagans &
Weaver.
Dr Kondolf's S ite 9.6 was not surveyed using the UAV because by, the time of that
survey, it was already in the process of being mitigated. Slopes are re -profiled or
terraced during mitigation, and their surfaces may be protected using geofabrics
and/or vegetation planting. Consequently, historical erosion cannot be measured and
current rates are reduced following mitigation. For these reasons, mitigated sites
would not provide erosion rates typical of un -remediated slopes. The decision to
exclude mitigated sites makes the erosion rates determined by UCR more
conservative, because the mitigati on programme is progressively lowering erosion
rates at slopes along the Road.
However it is evident that the average depth assumptions of Hagans & Weaver for Site
11 were mistaken by a very wide margin creating an impression of severity which is
not suppo rted by measurements of the site. The error in Hagans & Weaver’s
unsupported estimate for Site 11 undermines the credibility of their estimates at the
remaining sites.
25Annex 4
4 Conclusions
The use of L iDAR has improved the accuracy of the erosion rate estimates presented
in this report by providing an accurate representation of 7 erosion sites.
LiDAR topography of Sites 1 -4 and 8 -10 has shown that most erosion rate estimates
carried out in 2013 were co rrect to within 5 cm/year relative to the October 2014
estimates. Erosion rates for Sites 2 and 9 were overestimated in 2013.
Average erosion rates have decreased or remained constant in all between May and
October , 2014 estimates using LiDAR topography . Erosion rates are expected to
continue decreasing as vegetation cover and mitigation works progress on the road.
Site 8 presents the highest erosion rate of all the evaluated sites, including those
downstream of the 2013 study area.
The flow of small, in termitten t streams over fill prisms generate some of the most
intense erosion along Route 1856. This phenomenon occurs in Sites 8, 12 and 13,
therefore they can be compared directly between each other.
UAV stereo photogrammetry of Sites 11, and 12 and 13 established that the average
erosion rates of these gullies on fill slopes are half or less than the average erosion
rate of Site 8.
A comparison of the total volume loss in Site 6 between the measurements of May and
3
October, 2014 show a net loss of only 2 m , this corresponds to an average erosion
rate of 6 cm/yr. The dramatic decrease in erosion at this site is due to the proper
channelling of the intermittent stream which used to erode this site. Similar mitigation
work elsewhere, that is the constructi on of proper stream crossings and vegetation of
the slopes, is expected to generate similar decreases in erosion rates. Deep -seated
rotational landslides have not been observed on any fill slope along Route 1856 from
Marker II to Site 13.
The erosion est imates presented by Hagans & Weaver in their July 2014 report are
based on conjecture and assumptions which have been disproved on the basis of a
survey of the same sites they evaluated. Erosion loss volumes at these sites are less
than half of those origi nally estimated by Hagans & Weaver.
The erosion rates presented in Section 3.5 are representative of the most severe
erosion rates occurring along Route 1856. The y may be conservatively applied to
erosion features anywhere on the road by simply multiplying them by the projected
surface area of each erosion feature.
27
344 Conclusions
The use of L iDAR has improved the accuracy of the erosion rate estimates presented
in this report by providing an accurate representation of 7 erosion sites.
LiDAR topography of Sites 1 -4 and 8 -10 has shown that most erosion rate estimates
carried out in 2013 were co rrect to within 5 cm/year relative to the October 2014
estimates. Erosion rates for Sites 2 and 9 were overestimated in 2013.
Average erosion rates have decreased or remained constant in all between May and
October , 2014 estimates using LiDAR topography . Erosion rates are expected to
continue decreasing as vegetation cover and mitigation works progress on the road.
Site 8 presents the highest erosion rate of all the evaluated sites, including those
downstream of the 2013 study area.
The flow of small, in termitten t streams over fill prisms generate some of the most
intense erosion along Route 1856. This phenomenon occurs in Sites 8, 12 and 13,
therefore they can be compared directly between each other.
UAV stereo photogrammetry of Sites 11, and 12 and 13 established that the average
erosion rates of these gullies on fill slopes are half or less than the average erosion
rate of Site 8.
A comparison of the total volume loss in Site 6 between the measurements of May and
3
October, 2014 show a net loss of only 2 m , this corresponds to an average erosion
rate of 6 cm/yr. The dramatic decrease in erosion at this site is due to the proper
channelling of the intermittent stream which used to erode this site. Similar mitigation
work elsewhere, that is the constructi on of proper stream crossings and vegetation of
the slopes, is expected to generate similar decreases in erosion rates. Deep -seated
rotational landslides have not been observed on any fill slope along Route 1856 from
Marker II to Site 13.
The erosion est imates presented by Hagans & Weaver in their July 2014 report are
based on conjecture and assumptions which have been disproved on the basis of a
survey of the same sites they evaluated. Erosion loss volumes at these sites are less
than half of those origi nally estimated by Hagans & Weaver.
The erosion rates presented in Section 3.5 are representative of the most severe
erosion rates occurring along Route 1856. The y may be conservatively applied to
erosion features anywhere on the road by simply multiplying them by the projected
surface area of each erosion feature.
27Annex 4
6 Annex – Photographic inventory of studied sites
Expansion along
left margin
Figure 14 . Photographs of Site 1 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014 (bottom) .
29
366 Annex – Photographic inventory of studied sites
Expansion along
left margin
Figure 14 . Photographs of Site 1 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014 (bottom) .
29Annex 4
Figure 16. Photographs of Site 3 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014 (bottom) .
31
38 Figure 16. Photographs of Site 3 on May 27, 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014 (bottom) .
31Annex 4
Figure 18. Photographs of Site 8 on May 27 , 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014 (bottom) .
33
40 Figure 18. Photographs of Site 8 on May 27 , 2014 (top) and October 22, 2014 (bottom) .
33Annex 4
Figure 20. Photograph of Site 10 on May 27 , 2014.
Figure 21. Photograph of Site 10 on October 22, 2014.
35
42 Figure 20. Photograph of Site 10 on May 27 , 2014.
Figure 21. Photograph of Site 10 on October 22, 2014.
35Annex 4
Figure 24. Orthophoto of Site 13 on October 28, 2014.
6.1 Surface area estimate for slopes in Km 18.
The th ree -dimensional surface area of slopes T -68b, T -69b, T -70b, T -72b, and T -74b
was measured on Global Mapper at the request of Dr. Andreas Mende. These surface
area measurements take into account the inclination of the slopes to calculate the real
surface ar ea of the slope.
Table 8. Surface area of selected slopes in Route 1856 .
Slope T-68b T-69b T-70b T-72b T-74b
Surface area (m 2) 728 1292 1809 3951 2386
37
44 Figure 24. Orthophoto of Site 13 on October 28, 2014.
6.1 Surface area estimate for slopes in Km 18.
The th ree -dimensional surface area of slopes T -68b, T -69b, T -70b, T -72b, and T -74b
was measured on Global Mapper at the request of Dr. Andreas Mende. These surface
area measurements take into account the inclination of the slopes to calculate the real
surface ar ea of the slope.
Table 8. Surface area of selected slopes in Route 1856 .
Slope T-68b T-69b T-70b T-72b T-74b
Surface area (m 2) 728 1292 1809 3951 2386
3746 Annex 5
INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD (ICE)
ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
CENTER FOR BASIC ENGINEERING STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY
SECOND REPORT ON HYDROLOGY AND SEDIMENTS FOR THE
COSTA RICAN RIVER BASINS DRAINING TO THE SAN JUAN RIVER
DECEMBER 2014
SAN JOSÉ, COSTA RICA
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
1
47Annex 5
48 Annex 5
Prepared by:
Juan José Leitón Montero
David Jiménez González
With the collaboration of:
José Alberto Zúñiga Mora Director of Center for Basic Engineering Studies
Jorge Granados Calderón head of the Hydrology Department
Marcelo Avendaño Castro and the URM Unit
José Pablo Cantillano and the UPH Unit
Berny Fallas López and the UPM-UAH Units
Paola Sánchez Arguedas and the ULQ Unit
49Annex 5
50 Annex 5
CONTENTS
Table index..........................................................................................................................iii
Figure index..........................................................................................................................v
1. Introduction................................................................................................................1
2. Study area...................................................................................................................3
3. Base information........................................................................................................5
3.1. Meteorological data..............................................................................................5
3.2. Hydrological data ..................................................................................................6
3.3. Sedimentological data...........................................................................................9
3.4. Spatial information..............................................................................................10
4. Suspended sediment load ........................................................................................15
5. Bed load transport at the colorado river..................................................................21
6. Estimation of sediment load at the mouth of the S arapiquí and San Carlos River
and at the San Juan River...................................................................................................23
7. Soil erosion model ....................................................................................................33
7.1. Input data............................................................................................................33
7.2. Potential erosion based on USLE model and uncertainty analysis.....................41
7.3. Calibration procedure .........................................................................................43
7.4. Sediment yield.....................................................................................................47
8. Sediment budget......................................................................................................49
9. References................................................................................................................57
10. Appendix...................................................................................................................61
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
i
51Annex 5
52 Annex 5
TABLE INDEX
Table 2.1 Major basins draining directly to the San Juan River...........................................4
Table 3.1 Properties of the meteorological gauging stations located in the San Juan River
tributary basins ........................................................................................................5
Table 3.2. Properties of the hydrological gauging stations located in the San Juan River
tributary basins ........................................................................................................7
Table 3.3. Properties of the hydrological gauging stations located in the San Juan River
tributary basins ........................................................................................................8
Table 3.4 Measurements of streamflow discharge in the hydrological and
sedimentological gauging stations in the San Juan River tributary basins. .............8
Table 3.5 Properties of suspended sediment gauging stations located in the San Juan
River tributary basins...............................................................................................9
Table 3.6 Properties of grain size distribution curve gauging stations located in the San
Juan River tributary basins.....................................................................................10
Table 4.1 Suspended sediment production observed in the gauging stations .................17
Table 4.2. Confidence intervals as normalized anomalies for the su spended sediment
production observed in the gauging stations ........................................................18
Table 4.3. Specific sediment yield observed in the gauging stations ................................18
Table 5.1 Slope reported in Andrews (2014) and the calculated slope using the Engelund-
Hansen method as presented in García (2007) .....................................................21
Table 5.2 Bed load sediment production in the Delta Colorado Station (11-04)..............22
Table 6.1 Drainage area, discharge mean value, hourly and daily coefficient of variation
and mean annual sediment load for the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers ............27
Table 6.2 Sediment loads in the San Juan River given different percentage of discharge
flowing to the Colorado River................................................................................29
Table 6.3 Sedi ment loads in the Lower San Juan River given different percentage of
discharge flowing to the Colorado River................................................................30
Table 7.1 Types of cover found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the
corresponding area for each geographic unit ........................................................33
Table 7.2 Types of cover found in the San Juan River tributary basins and central
tendency descriptors, limiting values and coefficient of variation (according to
different probability density distributions) of coverage USLE Factor C. ...............34
Table 7.3 Types of soil found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the
correspondent area for each geographic unit .......................................................36
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
iii
53Annex 5
Table 7.4 Types of soil found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the
correspondent mean, mid, max & min erodability factor with the associated
coefficient of variation assuming different probability density distributions ....... 37
Table 7.5 Potential erosion estimates based on aggregated and distributed model
approaches.............................................................................................................42
Table 7.6 Calibration process for the suspended sediment yield ..................................... 46
Table 7.7 Potential soil erosion and sediment yield for major basins draining directly to
the San Juan River.................................................................................................. 48
Table 8.1 Erosion rates for the road bed...........................................................................49
Table 8.2 Sediment load increments, per basin, due to construction of the 1856 Road . 49
Table 8.3 Sediment load increments, per reach, due to construction of the route 1856. 50
Table 8.4 Adjusted sediment budged for the San Juan River basin system......................51
Table 8.5 Suspended and bed load separation of sediment loads increments, due to
Route 1856 construction, at the Delta for different assumed percentage of coarse
material present in Route 1856 material (as mass)...............................................53
Table 8.6 Suspended and bed load separation of sediment loads increments, due to
Route 1856 construction, at the Delta for different assumed percentage of coarse
material present in Route 1856 material (as volume)...........................................53
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
iv
54 Annex 5
FIGURE INDEX
Figure 2.1 San Juan River basin system. ..............................................................................3
Figure 2.2 Study area...........................................................................................................4
Figure 3.1 Hydrological gauging stations located in Costa Rican basins draining to the San
Juan River.................................................................................................................7
Figure 3.2 Hydrologically correct digital elevation model of the study area. ...................11
Figure 3.3 Land cover map of the study area ....................................................................12
Figure 3.4 USDA soil taxonomy map of the study area. ....................................................13
Figure 3.5 Mean annual precipitation field for the entire study area...............................14
Figure 4.1 Simple averaged concentrations and discharge weighted averaged
concentrations comparison for the Colorado (11 -04), Sarapiquí (BSa) and San
Carlos Rivers (BSC). ................................................................................................15
Figure 4.2 Suspended sediment load rating curve in Delta Colorado (11 -04) gauging
station. ...................................................................................................................16
Figure 4.3 Specific sediment yield observed in the gauging stations................................19
Figure 5.1 Bed load rating curve in the Delta Colorado (11-04) gauging station..............22
Figure 6.1 Empirical (time series based) and theoretical (probability distribution based)
hourly duration curve for the Delta Colorado Station (11-04)..............................24
Figure 6.2 Nash Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient between the modeled duration curve and
the duration curve obtained based on the discharge time series.........................25
Figure 6.3 Suspended and bed sediment load using modeled duration curves and
discharge time series approach. ............................................................................26
Figure 6.4 Daily and hourly coefficient of variation, as a function of the basin drainage
area, based on 6 gauging stations located in the San Juan River tributary basins
(Costa Rican slope).................................................................................................27
Figure 6.5 Suspended and bed sediment mean annual loads distribution at the San Juan
River assuming the percentage of discharge flowing to the Colorado River equals
to (a) 95, (b) 90 and (c) 80%..................................................................................29
Figure 6.6 Suspended sediment mean annual loads at the Colorado and the Lower San
Juan River as a percentage of the San Juan River suspended sediment mean
annual load assuming the percentage of discharge flowing to the Colorado River
equals to (a) 95, (b) 90 and (c) 80%.......................................................................30
Figure 6.7 Bed sediment mean annual loads at the Colorado and the Lower San Juan
River as a percentage of the San Juan Ri ver bed sediment mean annual load
assuming the percentage of discharge flowing to the Colorado River equals to (a)
95, (b) 90 and (c) 80%............................................................................................31
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
v
55Annex 5
Figure 7.1 Comparison of C Factor coefficient of va riation assuming different probability
density distributions. .............................................................................................35
Figure 7.2 C factor for the study area................................................................................36
Figure 7.3 Comparison o f erodability coefficient of variation assuming different
probability density distributions............................................................................38
Figure 7.4 K factor in the study area. ................................................................................38
Figure 7.5 R-factor as a function of mean annual precipitation for the study area..........39
Figure 7.6 R factor for the study area................................................................................40
Figure 7.7 LS factor in the study area................................................................................40
Figure 7.8 Potential erosion in the study area. ................................................................. 41
Figure 7.9 Delivery index in the study area....................................................................... 44
Figure 7.10 Empirical potential erosion density distribution as a function of the delivery
index for the study area.........................................................................................45
Figure 7.11 Delivery function calibrated for minimal weighted sum of squared errors... 45
Figure 7.12 Modeled (MSSY) and observed (OSSY) suspended sediment yield compared.
................................................................................................................................47
Figure 7.13 Sediment yield in the study area.................................................................... 47
Figure 8.1 Sediment load increments, per basin, due to construction of the route 1856.50
Figure 8.2 Sediment load increments, per reach, due to construction of the route 1856.
................................................................................................................................50
Figure 8.3 Sediment budget of the San Juan River Basin (values in t yr )........................52
Figure 8.4 Colorado River to Lower San Juan River total sediment transport ratio as a
function of the assumed percentage of Route 1856’s sediment yield composed by
coarse (sand) material. ..........................................................................................54
Figure 8.5 Increment of mean annual suspended sediment load of the San Juan River due
to Route 1856 construction assuming a 5% (values in parenthesis correspo nd to
10%) fraction of coarse material............................................................................55
Figure 10.1 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Delta Colorado (11 -04) gauging
station....................................................................................................................61
Figure 10.2 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Puerto Viejo (12 -03) gauging
station....................................................................................................................61
Figure 10.3 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Veracruz (12-04) gauging station.62
Figure 10.4 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Toro (12-06) gauging station....... 62
Figure 10.5 Suspended sediment rating curve for the San Miguel (12-11) gauging station.
................................................................................................................................63
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
vi
56 Annex 5
Figure 10.6 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Río Segundo (12 -13) gauging
station. ...................................................................................................................63
Figure 10.7 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Jabillos (14-02) gauging station...64
Figure 10.8 Suspended Sediment rating curve for the Terrón Colorado (14 -04) gauging
station. ...................................................................................................................64
Figure 10.9 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Peñas Blancas (14 -05) gauging
station. ...................................................................................................................65
Figure 10.10 Suspended Sediment rating curve for the Pocosol (14-20) gauging station.65
Figure 10.11 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Guatuso (16 -02) gauging station.
................................................................................................................................66
Figure 10.12 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Santa Lucía (16 -05) gauging
station. ...................................................................................................................66
Figure 10.13 Suspended sediment rating curve for the San Carlos (BSC) sediment station.
................................................................................................................................67
Figure 10.14 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Sarapiquí (BSa) sediment station
................................................................................................................................67
Figure 10.15 Bed sediment rating curve for the Sarapiquí (BSa) sediment station..........68
Figure 10.16 Bed sediment rating curve for the San Carlos (BSC) sediment station. .......68
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
vii
57Annex 5
58 Annex 5
1. INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared at the request of the Honorable Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera,
President of the Republic of Costa Rica, and the Honorable Manuel Antonio González Sanz,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Costa Rica . It provides information concerning
the processes related to the sediment in the San Juan River.
Background
The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) is a national institute dedicated to the
identification, design, development and operation of electricity and telecommunication
projects. Since the founding of the I nstitute in 1949, the Electrical Division has specialized in
conducting hydrological and sedimentological measurements and studies.
Several of the main basins draining to the San Juan River have been monitored by ICE
because of their hydrological potential . Sediment, precipitation and discharge information
can be found in these basins for periods of time that vary from decades to years.
Using available information and the technical expertise a Report of Hydrology and Sediments
for the Costa Rican River Basins Draining to the San Juan River was written in 2013. Many of
the issues covered in that report are re-analysed, redefined and explained herein.
Present report
This report is intended to describe the processes related to sediments in the San Juan River,
with special emphasis on the sediment budget and its calculation. Compared to the previous
one, it presents a different approach to the sediment transport phenomenon based both on
a change from a classical deterministic paradigm to a more realistic stochastic one and on a
better understanding of the sediment transport phenomenon itself due to application of
different theoretical relations and new methodologies. As a consequence, results are
expected to change compared to the previous report.
A description of general aspects of the study area is presented in the first chapter, followed
by a brief description of the meteorological, hydrological, sedimentological and spatial
information used in the study in the second chapter. It is essential to point out that most of
the spatial information was improved in terms of density of information and hydrological and
meteorological congruence. Also, the period of measurements was extended by more than a
year in all the gauging stations active to date.
In the third chapter the suspended sediment production for all the sedimen togical stations is
presented. The correspond ing time and suspended sediment rating curve intervals of
uncertainty were calculated. In the sixth chapter, this u ncertainty analysis was used in the
calibration process.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
1
59Annex 5
The bed load calculation process was improved by the use of the Engelund-Hansen approach.
The results allowed calculation of the bed sediment production with its correspond ing
confidence intervals as presented in the fourth chapter.
To increase the density of information in the lower part of the hydrological system an
assessment of the Boca San Carlos and Boca Sarapiquí sediment production was made using
the probabilistically modeled flow duration c urve mentioned in Krasovskaia & Gottschalk
(2014) and the sediment duration curve approach proposed by Garcia (2014).
A soil erosion model was used to build a spatially distributed sediment model for the San
Juan River Basin confined in the study area. Th e methodology used was based mainly on the
CALSITE model (Bradbury, 1995). Some improvements were made such as the increase in the
spatial resolution of the pixels, the analysis of the whole catchment area as one hydrological
congruent unit, the uncertainty weighted calibration and the application of different delivery
ratio functions.
It can be noted that the uncertainty analysis was also carried out for the USLE model. This
implies that the sediment spatial distribution has its own uncertainty, thus, th e unmeasured
items of the budget have it too.
Once the distributed model was built, the sediment budget was made, using the main basins
as unit areas. Results from investigations conducted by Oreamuno -Vega &
Villalobos-Herrera (2014) and Mende (2014) we re applied to determine the Route 1856
production added to the budget sediment of the Río San Juan River and therefore its
contributions to Lower San Juan River and Colorado River.
One of the highlights of this study, as it can be seen throughout th is report, is the natural
variability in the sediment load of the San Juan River. It is not an overstatement to say that
the sediment production caused by the Route 1856 is, probably, statistically inconsequential
to the variability of the sediment behavior in the San Juan River.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
2
60 Annex 5
2. STUDY AREA
The study area is located in the San Juan River Basin (Figure 2.1) and comprises, specifically,
only the area draining directly to the San Juan River before the diversion at the Delta (region
highlighted in pale red in Figure 2.1).
87°0'0"W 86°0'0"W 85°0'0"W 84°0'0"W
Legend
San Juan River
¯ Nicaraguan Lakes
13°0'0"N 13°0'0"N
San Juan River Basin
Study Area
12°0'0"N 12°0'0"N
11°0'0"N 11°0'0"N
0 40 80 160 Kilometers
10°0'0"N 10°0'0"N NIC - EBI
Department of Hydrology
87°0'0"W 86°0'0"W 85°0'0"W 84°0'0"W
Figure 2.1 San Juan River basin system.
It is importa nt to note that the San Juan River Basin is a hydrological system of more than
40 500 km 2; moreover, it possesses two hydrological dampers (the lakes) that decouple the
behavior of the upper part of the basin from its lower part. This particular condition allowed
us to model the study area as a separated system with a single sediment inlet at the lake.
The study area covers, approximately, 11 474 km and it was segmented in 13 drainage units
which are shown in Figure 2.2. Six of them are located in the Nicaraguan Southern slope,
while the other seven are in the Costa Rican Northern slope. Finally, general information for
each basin, as well of the whole study area, is presented in Table 2.1.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
3
61 Annex 5
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W84°32'0"W84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Legend
San Juan River
11°20'0"N Sábalos ¯ 11°20'0Study Area
Melchora
Santa Cruz
11°4'0"N 11°4'0"N
Barlota
Pocosol
Infiernillohado
Las Banderas
10°48'0"N Frío Cureña 10°48'0"N
Chirripó
10°32'0"N San Carlos 10°32'0"N
Sarapiquí
10°16'0"N 10°16'0"N
0 15 30 60 Kilometers
ICE - NIC - EBI
10°0'0"N 10°0Department of Hydrology
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W84°32'0"W84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Figure 2.2 Study area.
Table 2.1 Major basins draining directly to the San Juan River
2 -1
Basin Country DA (km ) P (km) E (msnm) Pa (mm yr )
Las Banderas Nicaragua 198 79.0 52 3953
Machado Nicaragua 352 110.2 92 3344
Barlota Nicaragua 219 74.7 142 3050
Santa Cruz Nicaragua 418 118.8 129 3014
Sábalos Nicaragua 571 148.0 125 2615
Melchora Nicaragua 305 108.2 80 1942
San Carlos Costa Rica 2642 313.5 474 3777
Cureña Costa Rica 353 93.3 52 3634
Sarapiquí Costa Rica 2770 280.4 701 4660
Chirripó Costa Rica 236 118.1 39 3828
Frío Costa Rica 1577 215.9 189 2758
Pocosol Costa Rica 1224 212.3 68 2788
Infiernillo Costa Rica 609 165.8 88 3556
Study area 11474 705.5 338 3560
Note: DA = drainage area; P = perimeter; E = average elevation; Pa = mean annual precipitation.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
4
62 Annex 5
3. BASE INFORMATION
This chapter describes the meteorological, hydroogical and sedimentological information
used as input for theconstruction and calibration of the erosion model.
3.1. Meteorological data
A list of the 52 ICE meteorological gauging s tations analyzed in this report is shown in Table
3.1. Over 63810 storms were analyzed along the period 1995 -2014 with the aim of
estimating USLE’s erosivity R factor according to the EI30 index methodology
(Wischmeier & Smith, 1960). Finally, m ean annual precipitation totals and R factor values
were used to derive an empirical relation of the erosivity factor as a function of the mean
annual precipitation.
Table 3.1 Properties of the meteorological gauging stations located in the San Juan River tributary
basins
COD Station name NSAR Coordinates CRTM-05 RP
USLE X (m) Y (m) Z (masl) BRC ERC
69505 Vara Blanca 1295 482664 1125351 1773 1996 2014
69507 Colonia Los Angeles 1558 476730 1137081 1026 1999 2014
69520 Aguacate 938 396767 1167718 652 2000 2014
69522 Pueblo Nuevo 1067 414140 1154413 572 2000 2014
69524 Caño Negro 1727 415438 1149218 785 1995 2014
69530 La Marina 684 458754 1147733 434 2006 2014
69532 Laguna Cote 1295 399677 1169607 679 1999 2014
69544 Guayabos 1083 410359 1155732 613 1999 2014
69547 Pajuila 1370 415692 1160962 783 1999 2014
69548 Jilguero 1909 421499 1154373 600 1996 2014
69549 Dos Bocas 1199 399737 1167140 583 1999 2014
69550 La Union 1007 406603 1162405 557 2000 2014
69551 Guatuso 952 409692 1179373 72 2000 2014
69561 El Sabalo 1420 390511 1171644 935 1995 2014
69563 San Gerardo 1571 411748 1143736 1530 1995 2014
69570 Pastor 1283 417358 1152088 689 1999 2014
69571 Sitio Presa Sangregado 1510 416734 1158476 547 1995 2014
69574 Canalete 533 386324 1198090 98 2006 2014
69576 Bijagua 1164 384826 1186690 451 1999 2014
69578 El Bum 993 500265 1179119 59 2000 2014
69583 Alto Baca Lucía 1243 408793 1164851 778 1999 2014
69587 Pocosol 1439 426992 1144530 750 1999 2014
69588 Isla Bonita 1317 481741 1131555 1165 1999 2014
69596 Chachagua 1190 433813 1151398 319 2000 2014
69598 Santa Lucia 1165 410061 1172486 351 1999 2014
69600 Cerro Zurqui 1768 499839 1113344 1516 1999 2014
continued
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
5
63Annex 5
Table 3.1 Properties of the meteorological gauging stations located in the San Juan River tributary
basins (continued)
COD Station name NSAR Coordinates CRTM-05 RP
USLE X (m) Y (m) Z (masl) BRC ERC
69602 Carrillo 1137 505479 1124178 570 1999 2008
69604 La Montura 1597 502920 1118140 1146 1999 2011
69608 Proyecto Venado 1162 418871 1167585 262 1999 2014
69610 Peñas Blancas 996 442741 1156930 80 1999 2014
69612 Alto Palomo 1172 466137 1125544 1986 1997 2014
69614 Bajos del Toro 1056 467318 1129356 1449 1999 2014
69616 Picada de Palmira 1211 462774 1127816 2072 1998 2014
69618 Rio Segundo 1147 466594 1131745 1435 1997 2014
69620 Quebrada Gata 1376 471100 1134912 1094 2000 2014
69622 Quebrada Pilas 1585 471526 1131014 1596 1996 2014
69624 Rio Desague 1411 471463 1128533 1826 1997 2014
69626 Quebrada Gonzalez 798 506817 1123628 520 2008 2014
69628 Toma De Agua Arenal 640 401496 1164871 532 1999 2014
69632 Nuevo Arenal 871 402192 1166190 624 1999 2014
69634 La Picada de Turrialba 829 523738 1108575 2633 1999 2013
69636 Finca Gavilanes 799 519316 1107279 2111 1999 2014
69638 Chindama 1589 520317 1118862 729 1999 2014
69642 Volcancito 1494 485405 1132750 1372 2000 2014
69646 Audubon 1241 421535 1139979 821 2000 2014
69648 Aleman 1125 418150 1139009 952 2000 2014
69650 Gorrion 1399 467617 1127911 1769 1995 2014
69652 Alto Rio Segundo 1733 464564 1132961 1615 1995 2014
69654 Fila Toro 1404 422861 1135038 1634 2000 2014
69656 S.P. Peñas Blancas 1224 433779 1145779 473 2000 2014
69658 Cota 1600 1342 486235 1130838 1574 2000 2012
69662 Toma Peñas Blancas 797 433825 1146444 333 2001 2014
Note: COD = station code; NSAR USLE = number of storms analyzed for USLE’s R factor estimations;
X = East coordinate; Y = North coordinate; Z = elevation; RP = recording period; BRC = beginning of
the recording period; ERC = end of the recording period.
3.2. Hydrological data
The location of ICE’s hydrological gauging stations, as well as basin definitions and main
drainage network, is shown in Figure 3.1. For each of these stations relevant information
such as coordinates, the time period during which the measurements were carried out (at
daily and hourly scale), the tributary drainage area and the mean disc harge recorded in the
river over the corresponding period, among others, is presented in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
6
64 Annex 5
Figure 3.1 Hydrological gauging stations located in Costa Rican basins draining to the San Juan River
Table 3.2. Properties of the hydrological gauging stations located in the San Juan tributary
basins
Coordinates Sampling record period
COD Station name CRTM-05 Daily scale Hourly scale
X Y BRC ERC EF BRC ERC EF
11-04 Delta Colorado 526434 1190821 2010 2014 3.6 2010 2014 3.6
12-03 Puerto Viejo 498692 1158025 1968 1999 30.5 1995 1998 3.0
12-04 Veracruz 474785 1161207 1971 2014 42.1 1995 2014 17.6
12-06 Toro 467991 1130400 1993 2014 20.6 1993 2014 18.7
12-11 San Miguel 481560 1141878 1998 2014 9.7 1998 2014 9.4
12-13 Río Segundo 469116 1132339 1999 2014 15.4 1999 2014 14.6
14-02 Jabillos 441528 1147419 1963 2014 51.2 1994 2014 18.4
a
14-04 Terron Colorado 446162 1166915 1980 2008 28.7 1995 2008 11.8
14-05 Peñas Blancasb 442605 1156821 1968 2014 45.9 1995 2014 18.9
14-20 Pocosol 429133 1145006 1980 2014 34.0 1992 2014 20.8
16-02 Guatuso 409975 1180225 1968 2014 45.9 1995 2014 18.3
16-05 Santa Lucía 409268 1172575 1982 2014 31.8 1994 2014 18.5
Note: COD = station code; X = East coordinate; Y = North coordinate; BRC = beginning of the recording
period; ERC = end of the recording period; EF = number of effective years.
aSince 1980 Terron Colorado hydrological station is regulated by the construction of Arenal Reservoir
Dam. Since 2002 Peñas Blancas hydrological station is regulated by the Peñas Blancas hydropower
plant.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
7
65Annex 5
Table 3.3. Properties of the hydrological gauging stations located in the San Juan Rivetributary
basins -1
2 Qa (m s )
COD Station name River name Basin DA (km ) Daily Hourly
a
11-04 Delta Colorado Colorado San Juan 11479 1002.7 1002.5
12-03 Puerto Viejo Sarapiquí Sarapiquí 841 113.4 114.0
12-04 Veracruz Toro Sarapiquí 195 26.2 29.2
12-06 Toro Toro Sarapiquí 41 4.3 4.3
12-11 San Miguel Volcán Sarapiquí 59 11.1 11.2
12-13 Río Segundo Segundo Sarapiquí 17 2.6 2.6
14-02 Jabillos San Carlos San Carlos 538 51.1 51.9
14-04 Terrón Colorado San Carlos San Carlos 1552 153.4 169.5
14-05 Peñas Blancas Peñas Blancas San Carlos 297 35.0 35.5
14-20 Pocosol Peñas Blancas San Carlos 124 17.9 17.5
16-02 Guatuso Frío Frío 241 28.0 30.2
16-05 Santa Lucía Venado Frío 34 3.9 4.1
aote :COD = station code; DA = drainage area; Qa = mean annual discharge.
The value reported corresponds to study area only; catchment area, inclu ding Lake Nicaragua and
basins draining directly into it, is, approximately, 40541 km .
Streamflow measurements have been performed by ICE since the 1950s for hydropower
purposes. Classical measurement devices –such a mechanical current meters – as well as
more modern ones –such as Acoustic Doppler current profilers – have been used along the
study area in order to generate discharge and suspended sediment rating curves for each of
the hydrological gauging stations presented in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3, and for the mouth of
the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers.
The number of discharge samples taken, as well as the measuring devices and the sampling
period are shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Measurements of streamflow discharge in the hyd rological and sedimentological gauging
stations in the San Juan River tributary basins.
Number of SP
COD Station name Measuring device
samples BRC ERC
11-04 Delta Colorado 78 Acoustic Doppler current profiler 2010 2014
12-03 Puerto Viejo 514 Mechanical current meter 1968 1999
12-04 Veracruz 597 Mechanical current meter 1971 2014
12-06 Toro 438 Mechanical current meter 1993 2014
12-11 San Miguel 115 Mechanical current meter 1998 2014
12-13 Río Segundo 206 Mechanical current meter 1999 2014
14-02 Jabillos 789 Mechanical current meter 1958 2014
14-04 Terrón Colorado 396 Mechanical current meter 1968 2014
14-05 Peñas Blancas 771 Mechanical current meter 1968 2014
14-20 Pocosol 693 Mechanical current meter 1978 2014
continued
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
8
66 Annex 5
Table 3.1 Properties of the meteorological gauging stations located in the San Juan River tributary
basins (continued)
COD Station name Number of Measuring device SP
samples BRC ERC
16-02 Guatuso 1021 Mechanical current meter 1968 2014
16-05 Santa Lucía 459 Mechanical current meter 1976 2014
BSa Boca Sarapiquí 27 Acoustic Doppler current profiler 2011 2014
BSC Boca San Carlos 27 Acoustic Doppler current profiler 2011 2014
Note: COD = station code; NSS = number of subsamples; SP = s ample recording period;
BRC = beginning of the registration period; ERC = end of the recording period.
3.3. Sedimentological data
Similarly to streamflow measurements, suspended sediment sampling has been carried out
by ICE in the Costa Rican Northern Slope since the 1960s. Sediment samples were collected
in field by the URM Unit and the n processed by the ULQ Unit where suspended sediment
concentration, grain size distribution and characteristic diameters were figured.
For this particular report, over 2350 suspended sediment samples from ICE’ s
sedimentological database were analyzed with the purpose of defining suspended sediment
rating curves for the fourteen river points outlined in Table 3.4. Relevant information such as
the numb er of individual samples collected per river point and the sampling period is
presented in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Properties of suspended sediment gauging stations located in the San J uan River tributary
basins.
SRP
COD Station name NSS NS NSDD
BRC ERC
11-04 Delta Colorado 255 41 40 2010 2014
12-03 Puerto Viejo 792 264 264 1970 1998
12-04 Veracruz 855 285 285 1972 2012
12-06 Toro 369 123 123 1995 2013
12-11 San Miguel 168 56 56 1998 2010
12-13 Río Segundo 78 26 26 1999 2009
14-02 Jabillos 1029 343 343 1967 2013
14-04 Terrón Colorado 162 54 54 1998 2009
14-05 Peñas Blancas 936 312 312 1970 2011
14-20 Pocosol 834 278 278 1980 2012
16-02 Guatuso 1113 371 371 1970 2013
16-05 Santa Lucía 465 155 155 1984 2011
BSa Boca Sarapiquí 92 28 23 2011 2014
BSC Boca San Carlos 89 27 23 2011 2014
Note: COD = station code; NSS = number of subsamples or individual samples ; NS = number of
samples; NSDD = number of samples with discharge data; SRP = sample recording period;
BRC = beginning of the registration period; ERC = end of the recording period.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
9
67Annex 5
Bed load samples have been collected at monthly basis in the Colorado River (at Delta
Colorado hydrological gauging station) and in the mo uth of the Sarapiquí and San Carlos
Rivers since 2010. The number of bed load samples analyzed as well as the corresponding
sampling period is shown in Table3.6.
Table 3.6 Properties of grain size distribution curve gauging stations located in the San Juan River
tributary basins.
SRP
COD Station name NSS NS NSDD BRC ERC
11-04 Delta Colorado 156 32 28 2010 2014
BSa Boca Sarapiquí 75 25 21 2011 2014
BSC Boca San Carlos 72 24 20 2011 2014
Note: COD = station code; NSS = number of subsamples or individual samples ; NS = number of
samples; NSDD = number of samples with discharge data; SRP = sample recording period;
BRC = beginning of the registration period; ERC = end of the recording period.
Suspended sediment concentrations, bed load grain size distributions and discharge time
series records were used to estimate sediment transport at hydrological gauging stations
shown in Table 3.5. Sediment transport rates for all hydrological gauging stations, except
Boca Sarapiquí and Boca San Carlos, were calculated based on a Riemann Sums approach
(time series approach, hereafter); sediment transport rates at Boca Sarapiquí and Boca San
Carlos were estimated base d on statistical modelling of dimensionless flow duration curves
(duration curve approach, henceforth) following Foster (1933).
3.4. Spatial information
A 30 m hydrologically correct digital elevation model (DEM) was generated for the study area
(see Figure 3.2) using Topo to R aster interpolation algorithm from the ArcGIS® geographic
information system (GIS). Digitalized contour lines based on the Instituto Geográfico Nacional
de Costa Rica (IGNCR, 1988) official 1:50000 cartography were used as input for the Costa
Rican Northern Slope while point data extracted from ASTER GDEM (METI-NASA, 2014) was
used as base information for the Nicaragua Southern Slope . Drainage enforcement process
was applied using stream line data digitalized from the 1:50000 U.S. National Imagery and
Mapping Agency cartography (1970).
Land cover map of the study area is presented in Figure 3.3. The map was constructed based
on RapidEye satellite imagery from 2009 -2010 period and automatic classification
procedures where used for the Costa Rica n Northern Slope while vectorization based on
visual interpretation was used for the Nicaraguan Southern Slope.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
10
68 Annex 5
Figure 3.2 Hydrologically correct digital elevation model of the study area.
Note: Based on IGNCR (1988), METI-NASA (2014) & U.S. NIMA (1970).
The soil type map of the study area, according to the USDA classes and subclasses soil
taxonomy classification, is presented in Figure 3.4. Soil information was based on the
1:200000 soil orders and suborders map of Costa Rica published by ACCS (2013) and
digitalized information from INETER (2008, p. 58).
Finally, a continuous mean annual precipitation field ( Figure 3.5) for the entire study area
was provided by the National Institute of Meteorology (IMN, hereafter). The map was
constructed based on IMN’s rainfall stations and INETER (2004) official mean annual
precipitation map over the period 1971-2000.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
11
69 Annex 5
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W84°32'0"W84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W83°44'0"W
Legend
Study Area
11°20'0"N 11°20'0"N
¯ Type of cover
APCP LASL
11°4'0"N 11°4'0"NPCR PASB
BASO PIPA
CITR PLAN
FORE RISH
10°48'0"N 10°48'0"N
FOSH SALA
GIAV SUCA
GRAS URBA
10°32'0"N 10°32'0"N
INFR WELA
LARI
10°16'0"N 10°16'0"N
0 15 30 60 Kilometers
10°0'0"N 10°0'0"N NIC - EBI
Department of Hydrology
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W84°32'0"W84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W83°44'0"W
Figure 3.3 Land cover map of the study area
Note: Based on RapidEye satellite imagery from 2009 -2010 period. APCP = annual and Permanent
crops mixed with pastures ; APCR = annual and Permanent crops ; BASO = bare soil ;
CITR = citric plantation ; FORE= forest; FOSH = forest, tree plantation, shrubs ; GRAS = grass;
GUAV = guava plantation ; INFR = infrastructure; LARI = lake, river ; LASL = landslide;
PASB = paddock with some bushes or trees; PIPA =pineapple plantation; PLAN = plantain plantation;
RISH = river shore ; SALA = set-aside land ; SUCA = sugar cane plantation ; URBA = urban area ;
WELA = wetland.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
12
70 Annex 5
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W84°32'0"W84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Legend
Study Area
11°20'0"N ¯ 11°2USDA Soil Taxonomy
Al In
AnUd InAq
11°4'0"N 11°4'0"N
AnUd/UlHu InUd
AnUs InUd/AnUd
10°48'0"N 10°48'0"N La
EnAq Mo
EnAq/HiSa Ox
EnAq/InAq Ul
10°32'0"N 10°32'0EnOr UlHu
EnOr/AnUd UlHu/InUd
EnPs UlUd
10°16'0"N 10°16'0"N
Hi UlUd/InUd
HiSa UlUs
0 15 30 60 Kilometers
10°0'0"N 10°0'0"N- NIC - EBI
Department of Hydrology
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W84°32'0"W84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Figure 3.4 USDA soil taxonomy map of the study area.
Note: Based on “Subórdenes de suelo de Costa Rica [GIS file]”, by Asociación Costarricense de la
Ciencia del Suelo [ACCS], 2013, and “Estudio del suelo del departamento de Río San Juan”, by Instituto
Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales [INETER], 20 08. Al = Alfisols; AnUd = Andisols Udands;
AnUd/UlHu = Andisols Udands or Ultisols Humults; AnUs = Andisols Ustands; En = Entisols;
EnAq = Entisols Aquents; EnAq/HiSa = Entisoles Aquents or Histosols Saprists;
EnAq/IcAq = Entisoles Aquents or Iceptisols Aquepts; EnOr = Entisols Orthents;
EnOr/AnUd = Entisoles Orthents or Andisols Udands; EnPs = Entisols Psamments; Hi = Histosols;
HiSa = Histosols Saprists; In= Inceptisol; InAq = Inceptisols Aquepts; InUd = Inceptisols Udepts;
InUd/AnUd = Inceptisols Udepts or Andisols Udands; Mo = Mollisols; Ox = Oxisols; Ul = Ultisols;
UlHu = Ultisols Humults; UlHu/InUd = Ultisols Humults Inceptisols Udepts; UlUd = Ultisols Udults;
UlUd/InUd = Ultisols Udults or Inceptisols Udepts; UlU= Ultisols Ustults.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
13
71Annex 5
Figure 3.5 Mean annual precipitation field for the entire study area.
Note: based on IMN’s rainfall stations and “Precipitación media anual en milímetros (mm) Periodo
1971-2000”, by Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales [INETER], 2004.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
14
72 Annex 5
4. SUSPENDED SEDIMENT LOAD
This chapter describes the methodology used in order to estimate the suspended sediment
load of the twelve hydrological gauging stations shown in Table 3.2. Suspended sed iment
load rating curves were estimated based on suspended sediment concentration samples and
mean annual suspended sediment production values were calculated based on Riemman
Sums. Finally, confidence intervals for the mean annual suspended sediment production are
calculated based on time and sample variability.
Discharge (Table 3.4) and suspended sediment ( Table 3.5) samples were analyzed in order to
generate suspended sediment rating curves (SSRC, henc eforth) for the fourteen river points
mentioned in the previous chapter. Suspended sediment concentrations were transformed
to suspended sediment load (SSL) using ec. 1
ec. 1
( )
-1 3 -1
where Q is the suspended sediment load in t s , Q is the instantaneous discharge in m s
and C s is the suspended sediment concentration in mg l . Concentrations were estimated
both as simple and discharge weigh ted averages based on the velocity profiles generated by
the acoustic Doppler current profiler. As no significant differences were noted between both
methodologies the choosing criterion was based on sample size and ordinary mean value
was selected as averaging procedure for concentration samples. A comparison between both
methodologies is shown in Figure 4.1.
100000
1)
-
10000
11-04
1000
BSa
BSC
100
1:1
Mean concentration (mg l
10
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Pondered concentration (mg l )1
Figure 4.1 Simple averaged concentrations and discharge weighted average d concentrations
comparison for the Colorado (11-04), Sarapiquí(BSa) and San Carlos Rivers(BSC).
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
15
73Annex 5
It is important to consider that, even though the SSRC represent s a relation between
discharge and sediment load, this correlation does not necessarily impl ied causation. They
are two different phenomena that, in some cases, are triggered by the same variable
(i.e., precipitation events) and, in some others, are completely uncorrelated (e.g. high
concentrations registered due to massive erosion processes such as gully and landslides).
With that idea in mind it was decided to use all the points in the discharge -concentration
data sets to generate the SSRC corresponding to each hydrological station. A power function
was selected because this kind of relation b etween these two particular variables is widely
b
accepted for hydrological purposes. Also, a power function of the form y = a x goes through
the origin for all values of a and b –an imperative condition to the physical process being
modeled.
So, a power f unction was fitted for each hydrological station using the least squares
approach. Confidence and prediction intervals at 95% were estimated at each case with the
aim of quantifying uncertainty. As an example, the SSRC for Delta Colorado gauging station is
shown in Figure 4.2. The SSRC corresponding to the other thirteen river points reported in
Table 3.5 can be found in the Appendixto this Report.
1.6881
100 y = 2E-06x
R² = 0.2678
-
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0001
100 1000 10000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 4.2 Suspended sediment load rating curve in Delta Colorado (11-04) gauging station.
SSRC were used, along with the discharge records, to generate daily and hourly SSL time
series at each of the river points . Mean annual sediment production was then estim ated as
the integral of the SSL time series divided by the effective length of each record period. As
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
16
74 Annex 5
the daily and hourly time series are discrete instead of continues variables, a Riemman Sums
approach was implemented in order to approximate the integral of the SSL time series as a
sum of rectangles of constant width and variable height.
Moreover, following Jansson (1992), correction factors between daily and hourly estimates
were calculated for each river point. According to Jansson, estimates based on hourly data
yield higher sediment production values than those based on daily records. These differences
are due to the increase in the coefficient of variation (CV) of the time series and the power
nature of the SSRC function.
Sediment production values were estimated for hourly and daily time scales along the same
time period for all the hydrological station showed in Table 4.1. Correction factors were
calculated as the ratio between the respective hourly and daily production values. Finally, the
production values based on daily records along its whole record period was multiplied by the
correction factor mentioned before.
Table 4.1 Suspended sediment production observed in the gauging stations
-1
COD Station name Suspended sediment load (t yr )
Mean TLCI TUCI SSRC LCI SSRC UCI
11-04 Delta Colorado 7 599 000 2 611 000 12 586 000 4 023 000 15 148 000
12-03 Puerto Viejo 161 000 141 000 182 000 140 000 186 000
12-04 Veracruz 86 000 37 000 135 000 62 000 123 000
12-06 Toro 12 000 7 000 17 000 8 000 18 000
12-11 San Miguel 22 000 12 000 33 000 13 000 40 000
12-13 Río Segundo 2 000 1 000 3 000 1 000 6 000
14-02 Jabillos 215 000 155 000 274 000 170 000 274 000
14-04 Terrón Colorado 1 175 000 988 000 1 362 000 783 000 1 806 000
14-05 Peñas Blancas 141 000 115 000 167 000 116 000 172 000
14-20 Pocosol 130 000 85 000 175 000 98 000 174 000
16-02 Guatuso 55 000 49 000 61 000 48 000 62 000
16-05 Santa Lucía 3 000 3 000 4 000 3 000 4 000
Note: COD = station code; T LCI = lower 95% confidence interval due to time series variability ;
TUCI = upper 95% confidence interval due to time series variability; SSRC LCI= lower 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve; SSRC UCI= upper 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve.
The mean annual suspended sediment production values estimated using this methodology
are presented in Table 4.1, as well as 95% confidence intervals due to time series variability
and uncertainty in the SSRC; additionally, confidence intervals as normalized anomalies are
included in Table 4.2. Lastly, information of Table 4.1 is included in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3
as specific sediment yield –i.e. normalized by drainage area.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
17
75Annex 5
Table 4.2. Confidence intervals as normaliz ed anomalies for the suspended sediment production
observed in the gauging stations
UTSV (normalized anomalies) USSV (normalized anomalies)
COD Station name LCII UCI LCII UCI
11-04 Delta Colorado -66% +66% -47% +99%
12-03 Puerto Viejo -13% +13% -13% +15%
12-04 Veracruz -58% +58% -28% +43%
12-06 Toro -40% +40% -32% +47%
12-11 San Miguel -48% +48% -43% +79%
12-13 Río Segundo -28% +28% -61% +192%
14-02 Jabillos -28% +28% -21% +28%
14-04 Terrón Colorado -16% +16% -33% +54%
14-05 Peñas Blancas -18% +18% -18% +22%
14-20 Pocosol -34% +34% -25% +34%
16-02 Guatuso -11% +11% -12% +14%
16-05 Santa Lucía -12% +12% -21% +27%
Note: COD = station code; UTSV = uncertainty due to time series variability; USSV = uncertainty due to
sample variability in the sus pended sediment rating curve; LCI = lower 95% confidence interval;
UCI = upper 95% confidence interval.
Table 4.3. Specific sediment yield observed in the gauging stations
-1 -2
COD Station name Specific sediment yield (t yr km )
Mean TLCI TUCI SSRC LCI SSRC UCI
11-04 Delta Colorado 662 227 1 096 350 1 319
12-03 Puerto Viejo 191 167 215 166 220
12-04 Veracruz 450 191 709 324 643
12-06 Toro 291 174 408 199 429
12-11 San Miguel 380 197 562 218 679
12-13 Río Segundo 116 84 148 45 338
14-02 Jabillos 389 281 496 307 497
14-04 Terrón Colorado 755 635 875 503 1 160
14-05 Peñas Blancas 481 393 569 396 588
14-20 Pocosol 1 051 689 1 413 793 1 405
16-02 Guatuso 216 192 239 189 247
16-05 Santa Lucía 96 84 107 75 122
Note: COD = station code; TLCI = lower 95% confidence interval due to time series variability;
TUCI = upper 95% confidence interval due to time series variability; SSRC LCI= lower 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sedim ent rating curve; SSRC UCI= upper 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
18
76 Annex 5
16-05
16-02
14-20
14-05
14-04
14-02
12-13
12-11
G12-06g Station Mean Specific Yield
Time confidence intervals
12-04
12-03 Rating curve confidence intervals
11-04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Specific yield (t yr km )
Figure 4.3 Specific sediment yield observed in the gauging stations.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
19
77Annex 5
78 Annex 5
5. BED LOAD TRANSPORT AT THE COLORADO RIVER
This chapter describes the methodology used for estimating the bed sediment load of the
Delta Colorado gauging station. The procedure used to generate a bed sediment load rating
curve based on Engelun-Hansen formula is outlined and confidence intervals for the mean
annual bed sediment production are calculated based on time and sample variability.
Grain size particle distributions from the bed load material were analyzed in order to
estimate the characteristic particle diameters D50 and D 84 and c ross section hydraulic
parameters were derived from the acoustic Doppler current profiler streamflow
measurements. Hydraulic and sedimentological data from Delta Colorado gauging station, as
well as from the mouth of the Sarapiquí and San Ca rlos Rivers, was used as input into
Engelund-Hansen transport formula according to the procedure outlined in Garcia (2007).
Bed slope was estimated from the Engelun -Hansen hydraulic resistance relation (García,
2007, p. 125) for the Colorado, Sarapiquí an d San Carlos Rivers at the control points defined
by Delta Colorado, Boca Sarapiquí and Boca San Carlos gauging stations. It was noted that the
slope was implicitly defined in the formula mentioned above so it could be solved as a
fixed-point iteration pr oblem. Steffensen’s method for accelerated convergence was used
and a solution was found in 58 of 69 cases. As the Engelun-Hansen hydraulic resistance
formula does not fulfill the fixed theorem conditions (the first derivative must exist and be
bounded for all numbers in the defined interval) convergences cannot be ensure for all cases
and divergences is expected for some of the samples.
In the particular case of the Colorado River, the median value of the slope at Delta Colorado
gauging station, based on 26 out of 28 bed load samples (two of them did not yield a
solutions for the reasons mentioned before ), was estimated at 1.79 x 10 -4m/m. This value is
in the same order of magnitude as the slopes reported by Andrews (2014) and reproduced in
Table 5.1 for the Boca Sarapiquí-Delta and Delta-Caribbean Sea reaches. This correspondence
between theoretical (derived from Engelun -Hansen hydraulic resistance relation) and field
measured slopes –even when these belong to different river reaches– seems to indicate that
the Engelund-Hansen formula is a good reference for modeling bed load transport at the
lower part of the San Juan River Basin.
Table 5.1 Slope reported in Andrews (2014) and the calculated slope using the Engelund -Hansen
method as presented in García (2007)
-1
River reach Slope value (m m )
Boca Sarapiquí - Delta 1.70E-04a
Delta –Caribbean Sea 1.50E-04a
b
aColorado River measuring cross section 1.79E-04
Based on “An evaluation o f the methods, calculations and conclusions provided by Costa Rica
regarding the yield and transport of sediment in the Río San Juan Basin ”, by E.D Andrews, 2014.
bEstimated according to the Engelun-Hansen method as presented i n “Sediment transport and
morphodynamics”, by M.H. García, 2007.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
21
79Annex 5
Engelund-Hansen transport formula was used to generate a bed load rating curve (BLRC) for
the Delta Colorado gauging station (see Figure 5.1). Confidence and prediction intervals were
estimated in order to quantify uncertainty due to dispersion in the sampled data. The
function was derived using the computational procedure for normal flow outlined in Garcia
(2007, p. 125) along with the hydrological and sedimentological measurements mentioned in
Chapter 3.
10 y = 6E-08x2.0593
R² = 0.6218
)
- 1
0.1
0.01
Bed sediment load (t s
0.0001
100 1000 10000
3 -1
Discharge (m s )
BL estimate Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 5.1 Bed load rating curve in the Delta Colorado (11-04) gauging station.
Bed load production values were estimated directly from hourly streamflow time seri es
because both hourly and daily recording periods were equal for this particular gauging
station. Mean annual bed load production values for the Colorado River at Delta Colorado
gauging station, as well as the 95% confidence intervals due to time series v ariability and
uncertainty in the BLRC, are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Bed load sediment production in the Delta Colorado Station (11-04).
Bed sediment load (t yr )
COD Station name
Mean TLCI TUCI BLRC LCI BLRC UCI
11-04 Delta Colorado 2 898 000 719 000 5 077 000 1 798 000 4 809 000
Note: COD = station code; TLCI = lower confidence interval due to time series variability; TUCI = upper
confidence interval due to time series v ariability; BLRC LCI= lower confidence interval due to
uncertainty in the bed load sediment rating curve; BLRC UCI= upper confidence interval due to
uncertainty in the bed load sediment rating curve.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
22
80 Annex 5
6. ESTIMATION OF SEDIMEN T LOAD AT THE MOUTH OF THE SARAPIQUÍ
AND SAN CARLOS RIVER AND AT THE SAN JUAN RIVER
This chapter describes the methodology used to estimate both suspended and bed sediment
load at the mouths of the rivers Sarapiquí and San Carlos and at the San Juan River upstream
the Delta . The procedur es used to generate dimensionless flow duration curve s are
described and different flow separation scenarios at the Delta are assessed.
As no hydrological gauging stations were installed at the mouths of the rivers Sarapiquí and
San Carlos, or at the San Juan River upstream the Delta, no hydrological records were
available for these points. Due to lack of discharge time series the Riemman Sums approach
could not be used and sediment load estimates at this points were made based on
probabilistic methods.
A flow duration curve (FDC) represents the relat ionship between the magnitude
and frequency of daily, weekly, monthly (or other time interval) flow for a
particular river basin, providing an estimate of the duration (percentage of time)
a given streamflow w as equaled or exceeded over the historical period . (Vogel
and Fennessey, 1994; in Krasovskaia & Gottschalk, 2014, p. 48)
According to Krasovskaia & Gottschalk (p. 49), “… a flow duration curve is a plot of the
sample empirical quantile function , i.e. the p-th quantile or percentile of streamflow of
certain duration versus exceedance probability p”, p being
( ) ( )
. ec. 2
As flow duration curves could be seen as emp irical probability distributions , it is natural to
consider that they could be model ed by a theor etical probability distribution –such as the
2-parameters lognormal distribution– with practically no loss of information. Moreover, for
normalized data, it is known t hat this distribution can be expressed as a function of the
coefficient of variation only and could yield the equivalent of a dimensionless flow duration
curve.
For the lognormal distribution with mean m Q 1 the cumulative distribution function of
runoff Q with the coefficient of variation V is written as:
Q
( ( ))
( )
( ) ∫ ec. 3
√ ( )
while its quantile function can be expressed as
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
23
81Annex 5
√ ( ) ( ) ec. 4
where z is the Gaussianvariate of the probability p.
p
Finally, the flow duration curve value for duration p (Q ) ps then a plot of this dimensionless
sample quantile function of streamflow times the long term mean value versus exceedance
probability p and it can be calculated as
( ) ec. 6
Daily and hourly flow duration curves were modeled according to this methodolog y for the
twelve hydrological gauging stations aforementioned in Table 3.2. The empirical (time series
based) and theor etical ( probability distribution based ) hourly duration curve for Delta
Colorado gauging station is shown inFigure 6.1.
2000 Q lognormal
1800
Q Data
1600
)
-s1400
3 1200
1000
800
600
Discharge (m
400
200
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of time
Figure 6.1 Empirical (time series based) a nd theoretical ( probability distribution based ) hourly
duration curve for the Delta Colorado Station (11-04).
The fit between the theoretical curves and the empirical data was evaluated by the
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE)
[( ) ] ( )
( ) ec. 7
where M stands for model and O for observations, r is the correlation coefficient and m and s
denote mean and standard deviation. The NSE is a very complex performance criterion
because it includes not only a measure of best linear fit, but also takes into account bias in
mean and variances.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
24
82 Annex 5
QQ plots for the empirical and theoretical quantiles were constructed for each gauging
station at daily and hourly scale and the NSE was estimated for each of them . These values,
along with the drainage area of each gauging stations are shown in Figure 6.2. It is noted that
the correspondence between observed and modele d quantiles is high, with efficiency values
greater than 0.92 (0.94) at hourly (daily) scale in 13 out of 14 cases and greater than 0.70
(0.80) in all of the cases.
Area (km )
10000000 1000000 100000 10000 1000 100 10
11-04
14-04
12-03
14-02
14-05
16-02
12-04
14-20
Gauging station
12-11
12-06
16-05
12-13
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Nash Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient
Hourly discharge series Daily discharge series Area
Figure 6.2 Nash Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient between the modeled duration curve and the duration
curve obtained based on the discharge time series.
Moreover, according to García & Fernández (2014, p.25), mean annual suspended sediment
load estimates for a particular gauging station could be made by applying its SSRC to its
corresponding flow duration curve. This procedure yields a suspended sediment load
duration curve that can be numerically integrated in order to estimate mean annual
suspended sediment load.
Modeled (probability distribut ion based) flow durations and suspended sedimen t load rating
curves (see Appendix ) were used as input and mean annual suspended sediment load
estimates were made for gauging stations in the study area using the methodology
previously described. A compariso n between this modeled sediment duration curve
approach and the time series approach explained in Chapter 4 is presented in Figure 6.3
(black crosses). Coefficient of determination R and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient NSE
were reported as 0.9996 and 0.9864. As it can be seen from Figure 6.3, agreement between
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
25
83Annex 5
both methodologies is remarkably good. This comparison was made also for bed load
estimates (hollow circle) at Delta Colorado gauging station and the result was comparable to
the other ones (see the hollow circle in Figure 6.3).
10 000 000
NS = 0.9864
R = 0.9996
) 1 000 000
-
SSL production
100 000
BSL Production
1:1
approach (t yr
10 000 Lineal (SSL & BSL)
Modeled d1 000on sediment curve
1 000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000 10 000 000
Discharge time series approach (t yr )
Figure 6.3 Suspended and bed sediment load using modeled durat ion curves and discharge time
series approach.
So far it has been shown that both suspended load and bed load mean annual estimates can
be made with great accuracy using flow duration curves ( observed or modeled ) and its
respective sediment rating curves. This means that sediment estimates could be made for
ungauged river points provided discharge mean values, standard deviation (or coefficient of
variation) of daily or hourly data and a sediment rating curve.
For the particular case of the mouth o f the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers, both suspended
load and bed load sediment rating curves were available so that only the long term mean
values of discharge and the standard deviation (or coefficient of variation) of hourly and daily
data were needed to be estimated in order to calculate mean annual sediment loads . Long
term mean discharge values were estimated based on rainfall -area methodology using
information –drainage area and mean discharge– from Terrón Colorado (14-04), Puerto Viejo
(12-03) and Veracruz (12-04) gauging stations and mean areal precipitation extracted from
the precipitation field shown in Figure 3.5.
On the other hand, coefficient of variation was estimated based on the fact that this
particular moment ratio , in the same catchment, tends to decrease as the drainage are a
increases. This behavior is , most likely, due to damping of meteorological and hydrological
processes and the fact that every tributary that flows into the main river represents the sum
of two cor related random variables –so the resulting signal will tend to be more and more
normal as this process continues.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
26
84 Annex 5
Hourly and daily coefficients of variation of six hydrological gauging stations located in Costa
Rican Northern Slope are shown in Figure 6.4 as function of their drainage area. As was
stated, a reduction on the coefficient of variation could be noted for both time scales as
drainage area increases. Two power functions were fitted to the data with R 2values of 0.94
and 0.99 for hourly and daily data, respectively. T hese functions were used to estimated,
based on basins areas, the coefficient of variation at the mouth of the Sarapiquí and San
Carlos Rivers for both time scales.
1.00 y = 2.0094x -0.137
R² = 0.9909
0.90 -0.108
y = 1.5158x
0.80 R² = 0.9404
0.70 Daily
Hourly
0.60
Daily
Coefficient of variation
0.50 Hourly
0.40
100 1000 10000 100000
Drainage area (km )
Figure 6.4 Daily and hourly coefficient of variation, as a function of the basin drainage area , based on
6 gauging stations located in the San Juan River tributary basins (Costa Rican slope).
Annual sediment load estimates were made for the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers according
to the methodology set out above. Results are presented in Table 6.1 along with the
respective drainage area, discharge mean value and hourly and daily coefficients of variation.
Table 6.1 Drainage area, discharge mean value, hourly and daily coefficient of variation and mean
annual sediment load for the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers
2 a 3 -1 b b c -1
COD Station DA ( km ) Qa (m s ) CVD CVH SSY (t yr )
BSa Boca Sarapiquí 2 643 377 0.647 0.683 2 342 000
BSC Boca San Carlos 2 771 266 0.644 0.678 2 927 000
Note: COD = station code; DA = drainage area; Qa = mean annual discharge; CVD = daily coefficient of
variation; CVH = hourly coefficient of variation; SSY = suspended sediment yield.
a b c
Based on rainfall -area methodology. Based on coefficient of variation -area functions. Based on
modeled sediment duration curves.
Due to a lack of information published on sediment transport on the San Juan River upstream
the Delta, heavier assumptions were made in order to estimate a mean annual sediment
loads at this particular point . Based on Gómez -Delgado, Leitón-Montero & Aguilar -Cabrera
(2013, p.14 ), it was assumed that the mean annual discharge at Delta Colorado gauging
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
27
85Annex 5
station was roughly 90% of the San Juan River mean annual discharge upstream the Delta
and that both suspended and bed sediment load rating curves at Delta Colorado gauging
station were good approximations of the San Juan River sediment rating curves at th is point.
Also, in order to assess the sensibility of sediment transport calculations to this assumption
and to take into account that discharge separation varies along the year, sediment transport
rates were also estimated assuming Colorado River to San J uan River mean annual discharge
ratios of 85 and 95%.
The latter assumption does not meet the law of conservation of mass because linearity is lost
due to the power nature of sediment rating curves. This means that if we assume that
discharge at the Color ado River (Q C) is a given fraction, say , of the discharge at the San
Juan River (Q )SJnd, therefore, discharge at the Lower San Juan River (QLSJis equal to
[(1-)/] Q , the mean annual sediment loads estimated with these discharges will not add
SJ
up –i.e., the San Juan River sediment transport estimates will be greater than both the
Colorado River and the Lower San Juan Rivers added.
Although this condition seems unnatural, a similar result would have been obtained even by
having discharge records an d sediment measurements in all three points due to natural
variability on hydrological variates. The main difference would be that , in this latter case ,
uncertainty could be quantified and a space of possible solutions –i.e. triplets of mean annual
sediment loads at each site– could be found given a level of confidence.
That been said, it is important to acknowledge that, although t he procedure outlined before
is not perfect, it is the most accurate one given the data available. Also, as the San Juan River
and the Colorado River are more hydraulically similar to each other than to the Lower San
Juan River, it was decided to estimate the San Juan River annual sediment loads based on
Delta Colorado discharge time series and the Lower San Juan River annual sed iment loads as
the difference between the other two.
Three scenarios were assessed where the San Juan River discharge was modeled as the Delta
Colorado gauging station discharge magnified by a factor of (1 00/PSJR), where PSJR
corresponded to 85, 90, and 95% and stands for the hypothetical Delta Colorado -San Juan
River mean annual discharge ratio. Modified discharge time series where transformed into
suspended and bed load time series and statistics of them were calculated. Results for the
San Juan River are presented in Table 6.2 for both suspended and bed sediment loads and
the three discharge scenarios. It can be seen that, for PSJR = 90, the suspended and bed
sediment mean annual loads at the San Juan River are, approximately, 9.1 and 3.6 million
tons per year, respectively.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
28
86 Annex 5
A graphical comparison between the suspended and bed load ratio to total sediment load of
the San Juan River , for the mean values shown in Table 6.2, can be found in
Figure 6.5. It is noted that this ratio remains practically the same for the
percentage-of-discharge interval assumed and the methodologies used to calculate both
suspended and bed sediment loads.
Table 6.2 Sediment loads in the San Juan River given different percentage of discharge flowing to the
Colorado River
-1 -2
3 -1 Sediment yield (t yr km )
PSJR Qa (m s ) Mean TLCI TUCI SSRC LCI SSRC UCI
Suspended sediment
95 1055 8 286 000 2 847 000 13 725 000 4 300 000 16 951 000
90 1114 9 078 000 3 119 000 15 036 000 4 598 000 19 153 000
85 1180 9 997 000 3 435 000 16 559 000 4 919 000 21 873 000
Bed sediment
95 1055 3 221 000 799 000 5 643 000 1 967 000 5 447 000
90 1114 3 600 000 893 000 6 307 000 2 157 000 6 227 000
85 1180 4 050 000 1 005 000 7 095 000 2 373 000 7 191 000
Note: PSJR = Assumed percentage of San Juan River discharge flowing to Colorado River;
Qa = Mean annual discharge; TLCI = lower 95% confidence interval due to time s eries variability;
TUCI = upper 95% confidence interval due to time series variability; SSRC LCI= lower 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve; SSRC UCI= upper 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve
(a) (b) (c)
(a)
28% 28% 29%
28%
72% 72% 71%
72%
Suspended load Bed load
Figure 6.5 Suspended and bed sediment mean annual loads distribution at the San Juan
River assuming the percentage of discharge flowing to the Colorado River equals to (a) 95, (b) 90
and (c) 85%.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
29
87Annex 5
Using the information presented in Table 6.2 and the suspended ( Table 4.1) and bed
(Table 5.2) sediment mean annual loads estimated for the Colorado R iver at Delta Colorado
gauging station, it was possible to approximate the Lower San Juan River sediment loads
given the limitations mentioned before. Results are presented in Table 6.3 for both
suspended and bed sediment loads an d the three discharge scenarios.
Table 6.3 Sediment loads in the Lower San Juan River given different percentage of discharge flowing
to the Colorado River
-1 -2
3 -1 Sediment yield (t yr km )
PSJR Qa (m s ) Mean TLCI TUCI SSRC LCI SSRC UCI
Suspended sediment
95 1055 687 000 236 000 1 139 000 277 000 1 803 000
90 1114 1 479 000 508 000 2 450 000 575 000 4 005 000
85 1180 2 398 000 824 000 3 973 000 896 000 6 725 000
Bed sediment
95 1055 323 000 80 000 566 000 169 000 638 000
90 1114 702 000 174 000 1 230 000 359 000 1 418 000
85 1180 1 152 000 286 000 2 018 000 575 000 2 382 000
Note: PSJR = Assumed percentage of San Juan River discharge flowing to Colorado River;
Qa = Mean annual discharge; TLCI = l ower 95% confidence interval due to time series variability;
TUCI = upper 95% confidence interval due to time series variability; SSRC LCI= lower 95% confidence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve; SSRC UCI= upper 95% confid ence
interval due to uncertainty in the suspended sediment rating curve
Finally, graphical representations of how the suspended and bed sediments load are divided
at the Delta, based on mean values presented in Table 6.3, are sho wn in Figure 6.6 and
Figure 6.7.
(a) (b) (c)
(a) 8% 16%
24%
8%
92% 84% 76%
92%
Colorado River Lower San Juan River
Figure 6.6 Suspended sediment mean annual loads at the Colorado and the Lower San Juan River as a
percentage of the San Juan River suspended sediment mean annual load assuming the percentage of
discharge flowing to the Colorado River equals to (a) 95, (b) 90 and (c) 85%.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
30
88 Annex 5
(a) (b) (c)
(a) 10%
20% 28%
10%
72%
90% 80%
90%
Colorado River Lower San Juan River
Figure 6.7 Bed sediment mean annual loads at the Co lorado and the Lower San Juan River as a
percentage of the San Juan River bed sediment mean annual load assuming the percentage of
discharge flowing to the Colorado River equals to (a) 95, (b) 90 and (c) 85%.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
31
89Annex 5
90 Annex 5
7. SOIL EROSION MODEL
This chapter describes t he input data , calibration procedures and implementation of the
erosion model built for estimating sediment yield along the San Juan River Basin. The
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was used as base of the erosion model in order to
approximate erosion spatialdistribution along basins draining directly to the San Juan River.
7.1. Input data
The USLE is a multiplicative equation where potential soil erosion (E) is approximate by the
product of five different factors: crop and cover management factor (C), soil erodibility
factor (K), slope (length and steepness) factor (LS), rainfall erosivity factor (R) and
conservation practice factor (P). Raster models for each of them –except the P factor which
was conservatively assumed equal to 1 across the entire study area– were built based on the
information shown in Chapter 3.
Land cover coding for USLE’s C factor is presented in Table 7.1 along with the corresponding
area for each geographic unit.
Table 7.1 Types of cover found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the correspond ing area for
each geographic unit
2
Code Land cover category Area (km )
CR NI SJR SA
CITR Citric plantation 0.4 ----------- 0.4
SALA Set-aside land 0.5 ----------- 0.5
GUAV Guava plantation 0.8 ----------- 0.8
RISH River shore 4.8 ----------- 4.8
LASL Landslide 8.5 ----------- 8.5
BASO Bare soil 20.7 ----------- 20.7
URBA Urban area 0.2 20.8 21.1
SUCA Sugar cane plantation 24.2 ----------- 24.2
WELA wetland 1.9 30.1 32.0
LARI Lake, river 59.7 20.4 80.0
INFR Infrastructure 107.9 ----------- 107.9
GRAS Grass 40.3 111.1 151.4
PLAN Plantain plantation 123.5 ----------- 123.5
APCR Annual and Permanent crops ----------- 193.1 193.1
PIPA Pineapple plantation 284.3 ----------- 284.3
APCP Annual and Permanent crops mixed with pastures 0.5 520.9 521.4
FORE Forest 52.8 1 143.5 1 196.3
FOSH Forest, tree plantation, shrubs 3 998.3 1.3 3 999.6
PASB Paddock with some bushes or trees 4 687.1 21.9 4 709.0
Note: CR = Costa Rica, NI = Nicaragua; SJR SA = San Juan River study area.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
33
91Annex 5
Minimum and maximum C factor values based on these categories, as well as the mean value
and the interval’s middle point , are shown in Table 7.2. Coefficient s of variation were
estimated for each category based on the uniform, symmetric (unbiased) triangular,
asymmetric (biased) triangular and normal probability density distributions. In the case of
normal distribution, it was assume d that minimum and maximum values represent 95%
confidence intervals for the corresponding parent distribution.
Table 7.2 Types of cover found in the San Juan River tributary basins and central tendency
descriptors, limiting values and coefficient of variation (according to different probability density
distributions) of coverage USLE Factor C.
Limiting values CTD Coefficient of variation CV
Code Min Max Mean MID UD STD ATD ND
CITR 0.0030 0.400 0.1748 0.20150 0.57 0.40 0.40 0.49
SALA 0.3000 0.900 0.6071 0.60000 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.25
GUAV 0.0030 0.400 0.1915 0.20150 0.57 0.40 0.40 0.49
RISH 0.9000 1.000 0.9833 0.95000 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
LASL 0.9000 1.000 0.9833 0.95000 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
BASO 0.9000 1.000 0.9833 0.95000 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03
URBA 0.0030 0.015 0.0093 0.00900 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.33
SUCA 0.0400 0.800 0.2505 0.42000 0.52 0.37 0.38 0.45
INFR 0.0030 0.015 0.0093 0.00900 0.38 0.27 0.27 0.33
GRAS 0.0020 0.900 0.0939 0.45100 0.57 0.41 0.45 0.50
PLAN 0.0100 0.600 0.2446 0.30500 0.56 0.39 0.40 0.48
APCR 0.0100 0.500 0.2475 0.25500 0.55 0.39 0.39 0.48
PIPA 0.1000 0.800 0.4244 0.45000 0.45 0.32 0.32 0.39
APCP 0.0020 0.400 0.0997 0.20100 0.57 0.40 0.42 0.50
FORE 0.0001 0.100 0.0177 0.05005 0.58 0.41 0.43 0.50
FOSH 0.0001 0.300 0.0380 0.15005 0.58 0.41 0.44 0.50
PASB 0.0020 0.400 0.0997 0.20100 0.57 0.40 0.42 0.50
Note: Min = minimum value; Max= maximum value; CTD = central tendency descriptors;
MID = interval’s middle point; UD = uniform distribu tion; STD = symmetric triangular distribution;
ATD = asymmetrical triangular distribution (mean value as central vertex); ND = normal distribution.
Based on “Strategic environmental assessment [Volume 5]”, by Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations [FAO], 2001; “Capacidad de uso y erosión de los suelos en el Valle central del río
Guadalquivir”, by Junta de Andalucía, n.d.; “Evaluación del Factor C de la RUSLE para el manejo de
coberturas vegetales en el control de la erosión de la cuenca de l río Birrís, Costa Rica ”, by E. Lianes,
M. Marchamalo & M. Roldán, 2009, Revista de Agronomía, 33(2), 217-235; “Use of the Universal Soil
Loss Equation to predict erosion in West Afric”, by E.J. Roose, 1977Proceedings of the national
conference on soil erosion; and “ Estudio de erosió n para la República de Guatemala ”, by
J. Saborío-Bejarano, 2000 in “Evaluación de la erosión potencial y producción de sedimentos en tres
cuencas de Costa Rica”, by F. Gómez-Delgado, 2002.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
34
92 Annex 5
A plot of the coefficient s of va riation estimated assuming different probability density
distributions is presented in Figure 7.1. It can be seen from this figure that the uniform
distribution systematically assign s higher values that the other probability distr ibutions,
followed by the normal and both triangular distri butions. The asymmetric triangular
distribution was chosen above the other ones because, along with the symmetric triangular
distribution, yielded the lowest coefficient of variation –thus it represents a lower bound for
uncertainty and it was the only one that considers skewnessin data.
Finally, the spatial distribution of the USLE C factor along study area, based on the land cover
map from Figure 3.3 and the mean C fac tor values presented in Table 7.2, is shown in
Figure 7.2.
0.60
0.50
CvN
0.40 CvTB
0.30 CvTNB
Cactor CV 1:1
0.20
Lineal (CvN)
0.10
Lineal (CvTB)
Lineal (CvTNB)
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
C-Factor CV uniform distribution
Figure 7.1 Comparison of C Factor coefficient of variation assuming different probability den sity
distributions.
Types of soil found in the San Juan River tributary basins, according to the USDA Soil
taxonomy classification, and the correspondent presence area for each geographic unit are
presented in Table 7.3. Minimum and maximum C factor values based on these categories, as
well as the mean value and the interval’s middle point, are shown in Table 7.4 along with
coefficients of variation estimated for different probability density distributions.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
35
93Annex 5
Figure 7.2 C factor for the study area
Table 7.3 Types of soil found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the correspondent area for
each geographic unit
USDA soil taxonomy Area (km )
Code
Class Subclass CR NI SJR SA
UlUs Ultisols Ustults 0.01 ------------- 0.01
Hi Histosols ----------------------- 0.21 ------------- 0.21
HiSa Histosols Saprists 3.13 ------------- 3.13
InUd/AnUd Inceptisols/Andisols Udepts/Udands 5.25 ------------- 5.25
EnOr/AnUd Entisoles/Andisols Orthents/Udands 5.78 ------------- 5.78
Mo Mollisols ----------------------- 7.12 25.97 33.09
EnPs Entisols Psamments 44.87 ------------- 44.87
EnAq/HiSa Entisoles/Histosols Aquents/Saprists 72.08 ------------- 72.08
EnAq/IcAq Entisoles/Iceptisols Aquents/Aquepts 78.20 ------------- 78.20
EnAq Entisols Aquents 91.90 0.18 92.08
EnOr Entisols Orthents 109.34 ------------- 109.34
Al Alfisols ----------------------- ------------- 122.05 122.05
UlHu/InUd Ultisols/Inceptisols Humults/Udepts 162.87 ------------- 162.87
InAq Inceptisols Aquepts 189.85 0.07 189.92
Ox Oxisols ----------------------- ------------- 226.60 226.60
En Entisols ----------------------- 66.34 171.79 238.13
AnUs Andisols Ustands 286.28 ------------- 286.28
In Inceptisols ----------------------- 48.76 251.03 299.79
AnUd/UlHu Andisols/Ultisols Udands/Humults 397.18 ------------- 397.18
continued
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
36
94 Annex 5
Table 7.3 Types of soil found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the correspondent area for
each geographic unit (continued)
2
Code USDA soil taxonomy Area (km )
Class Subclass CR NI SJR SA
InUd Inceptisols Udepts 969.94 ------------- 969.94
UlUd/InUd Ultisols/Inceptisols Udults/Udepts 1 191.32 -------------1 191.32
Ul Ultisols ----------------------- 96.17 1 264.92 1 361.09
UlHu Ultisols Humults 1 408.84 0.43 1 409.27
AnUd Andisols Udands 1 489.49 -------------1 489.49
UlUd Ultisols Udults 2 679.00 0.11 2 679.12
Note: SJR SA = San Juan River Basin study area; CR = Costa Rica, NI = Nicaragua
Table 7.4 Types of soil found in the San Juan River tributary basins and the correspondent mean, mid,
max & min erodability factor with the associated coefficient of variation assuming different
probability density distributions
Limiting values CTD Coefficient of variation CV
Code Min Max Mean Mid UD STD ATD ND
UlUs 0.009 0.024 0.014 0.017 0.262 0.186 0.223 0.227
Hi 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
HiSa 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
InUd/AnUd 0.009 0.025 0.017 0.017 0.272 0.192 0.192 0.235
EnOr/AnUd 0.017 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.047 0.033 0.033 0.041
Mo 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EnPs 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EnAq/HiSa 0.001 0.023 0.012 0.012 0.529 0.374 0.374 0.458
EnAq/IcAq 0.009 0.025 0.020 0.017 0.272 0.192 0.167 0.235
EnAq 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EnOr 0.017 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.047 0.033 0.033 0.041
Al 0.017 0.024 0.020 0.021 0.099 0.070 0.072 0.085
UlHu/InUd 0.009 0.025 0.015 0.017 0.272 0.192 0.220 0.235
InAq 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Ox 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
En 0.006 0.025 0.017 0.016 0.354 0.250 0.229 0.306
AnUs 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
In 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
AnUd/UlHu 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.044 0.031 0.031 0.038
InUd 0.009 0.025 0.017 0.017 0.272 0.192 0.192 0.235
UlUd/InUd 0.009 0.025 0.016 0.017 0.272 0.192 0.205 0.235
Ul 0.009 0.024 0.014 0.017 0.262 0.186 0.223 0.227
UlHu 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.044 0.031 0.031 0.038
AnUd 0.009 0.019 0.013 0.014 0.206 0.166 0.166 0.179
UlUd 0.009 0.024 0.015 0.017 0.262 0.205 0.205 0.227
Note: Min = minimum value; Max= maximum value; CTD = central tendency descriptors;
MID = interval’s middle point; UD = uniform distribution; STD = symmetric triangular distribution;
ATD = asymmetrical triangular distribution (mea n value as central vertex); ND = normal distribution.
Based on “Evaluación de los estados de la erosión hídrica de los suelos de Costa Rica: Informe técnico
Nº 2-E”, by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 1989.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
37
95Annex 5
Analogous to Figure 7.1, a comparison between the coefficients of variation assigned to each
soil type is shown in Figure 7.3. Like in the previous case , asymmetric triangular distribution
was chosen over the others for the same reasons exposed above. At last, spatial distribution
of the USLE K factor along the study area is presented in Figure 7.4.
0.60
0.50
CvN
0.40 CvTB
0.30 CvTNB
-actor CV 1:1
K 0.20
Lineal (CvN)
0.10 Lineal (CvTB)
0.00 Lineal (CvTNB)
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
K-Factor CV uniform distribution
Figure 7.3 Comparison of erodability coefficient of variation assuming different probability density
distributions.
Figure 7.4 K factor in the study area.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
38
96 Annex 5
USLE’s erosivity R factor was estimated based on an empirical equation derived using rainfall
information from the 52 meteorological stations located in the Costa Rican Northern Slope
(Table 3.1). A power function was fitted using the least squares approach and confidence and
prediction intervals at 95% were estimated at each c ase with the aim of quantifying
uncertainty (see Figure 7.5).
The function thus estimated was then applied to the precipitation field presented in
Figure 3.5 in order to create an R factor field. Spatial distribution of this variable can be found
in Figure 7.6.
90000 1.1093
y = 2.2754x
)80000 R² = 0.7239
-
1y70000
-h
- 60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
Erosivity (MJ mm Ha
10000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
-1
Mean annual precipitation (mm yr )
Erosivity data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 7.5 R-factor as a function of mean annual precipitation for the study area.
It is noted that the R factor fiel d resembles the precipitation field –which is obvious given
that one is a function of the other – but, due to the power nature of the empirical function
used, the R factor field tends to present a higher spatial asymmetry than the precipitation
one. Moreove r, a standard deviation field was calculated assuming the 95% prediction
intervals from Figure 7.6 as minimum and maximum bounds for an asymmetric triangular
probability density function with the central vertex at the central tendency line.
Finally, USLE LS factor was estimated following Bradbury (1995, pp. 36 -37). Length of slope
values were limited to 300 m in order to consider that beyond this distance sheet flow
usually becomes shallow concentrated flow collecting in swales, s mall rills, and gullies.
Spatial distribution of the USLE LS factor is shown in Figure 7.7 where a logarithmic scale was
used for visualization purposes only.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
39
97Annex 5
Figure 7.6 R factor for the study area.
Figure 7.7 LS factor in the study area.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
40
98 Annex 5
7.2. Potential erosion based on USLE model and uncertainty analysis
Spatial information from section 7.1 (C factor, K fa ctor, R factor and LS factor) was used as
input for the USLE model and potential e rosion was estimated for the study area (see
Figure 7.8).
Figure 7.8 Potential erosion in the study area.
Erosion uncertainty was quantified by a partial derivatives approach after Singh, Jain & Tyagy
(2007). Theoretically, variance of a multivariate function Y(X) = Y(x 1, x2, … x n) with
independent variables could be estimated as
∑( ) ec. 8
where stands for the sample variance, X is the vector of variables and n is the length of
such vector. In the particular case of USLE equation, ec.8 becomes
[( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ]
∑ ec. 9
Variances for the C and K factors were taken from Table 7.2 and Table 7.4 and an R factor
variance function was estimated based on Figure 7.5 assuming an asymmetric triangular
distribution with central vertex located at the central tendency line of the mean annual
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
41
99Annex 5
rainfall - erosivity function and both minimum and maximum values located at function’s
95% confidence intervals. Finally, LS factor variance was left out of calculations because
there was neither information nor objective methods to calculate it.
Assuming that C, K and R followed an asymmetric triangular distribution and that the
variance of the LS factor equals zero (as no inference of it was made) , ec. 9 becomes a
lower-bound for modeled potential erosion variance.
Potential erosion estimates were made by two different methods. In the first one, mean
areal values were taken for each of the major basins shown in Table 7.5 and calculations
were made at basin scale. In the second one, calculation were run at cell scale and then
integrated over each basin area. Table 7.5 shows that both methods yielded different results
for both the mean value E and the coefficient of variation CV.
Table 7.5 Potential erosion estimates based on aggregated and distributed model approaches
USLE mean factors M1 M2
Basin
C K LS R SE CV SE CV
Las Banderas 0.022 0.013 0.91 22300 5.67 3.43 4.73 1.067
Machado 0.020 0.010 1.05 18500 3.97 3.29 3.86 0.902
Barlota 0.020 0.015 1.35 16700 6.49 3.52 6.73 0.596
Santa Cruz 0.065 0.015 1.25 16500 19.92 1.40 19.73 0.159
Sábalos 0.109 0.015 1.14 14100 25.39 1.13 26.02 0.088
Melchora 0.091 0.018 0.91 10100 14.80 0.91 16.19 0.148
San Carlos 0.095 0.015 1.31 21200 40.20 0.69 30.20 0.039
Cureña 0.055 0.014 0.51 20300 7.72 1.16 7.21 0.442
Sarapiquí 0.084 0.014 1.45 26800 47.00 0.76 32.80 0.045
Chirripó 0.105 0.018 0.20 21500 8.11 1.06 6.86 0.480
Frío 0.089 0.015 0.72 15000 14.51 0.83 13.74 0.082
Pocosol 0.086 0.016 0.46 15100 9.19 0.90 9.38 0.142
Infiernito 0.070 0.014 0.80 18600 14.93 1.17 12.79 0.193
Study Area 0.083 0.015 1.06 19900 25.92 0.52 21.58 0.029
Note: SE = soil erosion (t ha yr ); CV = coefficient of variation; M1 = first method used to calculate SE
which consist on calculating the mean and the coefficient of variation with the aggregated vaofes
USLE factors; M2 = second method used to calculate SE which consist on calculating the mean and
the coefficient of variation using the distributed USLE factors
It must be noted that the coefficient of variation diminishes from the aggregated to the
distributed model approach and that the mean value of potential erosion fluctuated from
one case to the other but tends to be higher in the former one. Based on this information, it
is believed that the distributed approach is better than the aggregated one because the
latter one does not take into account the spatial variability of the parameters along each of
the basins.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
42
100 Annex 5
7.3. Calibration procedure
A delivery index field was estimated following Bradbury (1995, pp.40-43). The delivery index
is defined as a ratio between transport capacity and sediment supply . Thus
… when transporting capacity is high but there is only a small sediment supply,
de DI value is very high indicating that all the available sediment will be carried.
When both the transporting capacity and sediment supply are high the Delivery
Index values will be intermediate in size as there may be insufficient transporting
capacity to carry all the sediment. When the sediment supply is high and the
transporting capacity is low the delivery index will be very low. (Bradbury, 199 5,
p. 20)
According to Bradbury (1995, p. 41), the delivery index was defined after laboratory studies
of Govers (1990) andempirical studies by Amphlet and Dickinson (1989)as
{ }
ec. 10
where Pa is the annual rainfall in mm, A is the pixel’s drainage area, S is the slope in degrees,
min{·} stands for the minimum value down flow path and SE is the soil erosion
-1 -1
in ton ha yr . Moreover, a minimum slope value of 1 was selected based on a
recommendation made by Bradbury; he stated that
… in gently sloping valley floors, high overland flow will form streams connecting
to the main river system. If this assumption is not made many areas of high flow-
times slope will be disconnected from the main river network due to low slope
values in the valley bottoms. (Bradbury, 1995, p. 42)
The delivery index (DI) field estimated according to these assumptions is presented in
Figure 7.9.
Sediment yield is calculated as the product of potential erosion and a delivery ratio (DR)
value. As DR is a function of DI, pixels with the biggest transport capacity -sediment supply
will, theoretically, obtain maximum DR, while pixel s with low transport capacity -sediment
supply ratio obtain low values of DR.
A delivery function was calibrated in order to minimize squared errors between the observed
sediment productions and the ones obtained from the erosion model. As DI defines a
partition over the erosion field, the problem reduces to a linear system on DI because all the
elements on each partition of the erosion field are multiplied for the same DR value; so, the
sum of erosion that gets multiplied by a particular DR(DI) remains con stant although the DR
function itself varies. In other words
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
43
101Annex 5
∑ ( ) ∑[ ( ) ∑ ] ec. 11
and histograms for the empirical potential erosion density distribution like the one showed in
Figure 7.10 were built for each of the 14 calibration bashown in Table 3.5) and later
used as part of the calibration process.
Figure 7.9 Delivery index in the study area.
A weighted sum of the squared errors (WSSE) was used as objecti ve function during
optimization processes. Weights were defined as
∑ ( { } { })
( { } { }) ec. 12
where sup and inf stand, respectively, for the supremum and infimum of each subset, n is the
number of calibration basins and threlative errors were taken from Table 4.2. This way,
basins with the lowest confidence intervals (represented as anomalies here) were pondered
by higher coefficients and values with more (relative) uncertainty were given less importance
in the calibration process.
Following Bradbury (1995, Appendix D), a piecewise delivery function was tested as first
approximation and evolutionary optimization were used to minimized the objective function;
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
44
102 Annex 5
for this case, WSSE = 3.74 and NS = 0.94. A second (linear) delivery function was tested and
yielded a constant DR function (slope value was equal to zero) that reduced the WSSE from
3.74 to 2.49 and increased the NS from 0 .94 to 0.96. The delivery functions thus calibrated
are presented in Figure 7.11 along with the histogram shown in Figure 7.10.
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Frequency
1%
1%
0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Delivery index DI
Figure 7.10 Empirical potential erosion density distribution as a function of the delivery index for the
study area.
3.5%
100%
3.0%
80%
2.5%
60% 2.0%
40% 1.5%
Frequency
Delivery ratio DR 1.0%
20% 0.5%
0% 0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Delivery index DI
Linear Bradbury (1995) EPEDD
Figure 7.11 Delivery function calibrated for minimal weighted sum of squared errors.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
45
103Annex 5
As can be noted in Figure 7.11, the function proposed by Bradbu ry is somewhat restrictive in
the matter that it fixes low and high delivery ratio values at the extremes of the function
domain; thus, a straight line must connect these minimum and maximum val ues to ensure
continuity no matter what the potential erosion distribution looks like . In the other hand,
potential erosion distribution resembles a normal distribution where most of the erosion
values are located in the middle of the DI domain with simila r frequency values and
practically no asymmetry ; given that, a constant DR value for this eroding symmetrically
distributed area seems good. Thus, the linear function was chosen as delivery function and a
sediment yield estimates were calculated for the entire study area.
Observed and modeled values for the fourteen control points are shown in Table 7.6 and in
Figure 7.12. It is noted that agreement between observed and modeled data tends to
increase as drainage area increases. This particular condition is ideal because the erosion
model was built in order to generate a sediment budget of the major basins draining directly
to the San Juan River basin system.
Table 7.6 Calibration process for the suspended sediment yield
DA MSSE MSE MSSY OSSY
COD EPF (km ) (t ha yr ) (t yr ) (t yr ) (t yr )
a
SJR 0.34 11479 21.57 24 756 000 7 604 000 8 490 000
1203 2.13 841 30.71 2 584 000 794 000 161 000
1204 0.52 195 64.93 1 263 000 388 000 86 000
1206 0.69 41 45.99 187 000 57 000 12 000
1211 0.47 59 27.91 166 000 51 000 22 000
1213 0.24 17 30.61 53 000 16 000 2 000
1402 1.08 538 39.28 2 115 000 650 000 215 000
1404 0.69 1552 36.59 5 680 000 1 745 000 1 175 000
1405 1.48 297 25.56 760 000 233 000 141 000
1420 0.87 124 28.42 352 000 108 000 130 000
1602 2.24 241 25.39 613 000 188 000 55 000
1605 1.24 34 29.56 100 000 31 000 3 000
Bsa 1.00 2771 32.78 9 085 000 2 791 000 2 342 000
BSC 1.00 2643 30.19 7 980 000 2 451 000 2 928 000
Note: COD= station code; EPF = error ponderation factor; DA = drainage area; MSSE = modeled
specific sediment erosion; MSE = modeled sediment erosion; MSSY= modeled suspended sediment
yield; OSSY =observed suspended sediment yield.
aSuspended sediment load assuming 90% of the discharge of the San Juan River goes to the Colorado
River. The sediment added by the lake to the system is abstracted from the suspended sediment load
because is a component that lies outside the system.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
46
104 Annex 5
1.E+08
1.E+07
)
- 1.E+06
MSSY (t yr 1:1
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
OSSY (t yr )
Figure 7.12 Modeled (MSSY) and observed (OSSY) suspended sediment yield compared.
7.4. Sediment yield
The constant function of DR found in the previous section was applied to the potential soil
erosion field presented in Figure 7.8 in order to produce a sediment yield field for the entire
study area. The spatial distribution of the sediment yield is presented in Figure7.13.
Figure 7.13 Sediment yield in the study area.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
47
105Annex 5
Soil erosion and sediment yield estimates are presented in Table 7.7. It is important to
remember that, because of the constant delivery ratio used to transform soil erosi on into
sediment yield, the uncertainty analysis is stills valid for sediment yield and the coefficients
of variations shown inTable 7.5 can be applied directly to results presented in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7 Potential soil erosion and sediment yield for major basins draining directly to the San Juan
River
DA SSE SE SSY SY
Basin 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
(km ) (t ha yr ) (t yr ) (t ha yr ) (t yr )
Melchora basin 305 16.19 494 000 4.97 152 000
Sábalos basin 571 26.02 1 486 000 7.99 456 000
Santa Cruz basin 418 19.73 825 000 6.06 253 000
Barlota basin 219 6.73 147 000 2.07 45 000
Machado basin 352 3.86 136 000 1.19 42 000
Las Banderas basin 198 4.73 94 000 1.45 29 000
Frío basin 1577 13.74 2 167 000 4.22 666 000
Pocosol basin 1224 9.38 1 148 000 2.88 353 000
Infiernillo basin 609 12.79 779 000 3.93 239 000
San Carlos basin 2642 30.20 7 979 000 9.28 2 451 000
Cureña basin 353 7.21 254 000 2.21 78 000
Sarapiquí basin 2770 32.80 9 087 000 10.07 2 791 000
Chirripó basin 236 6.86 162 000 2.11 50 000
Study area 11474 21.58 24 758 000 21.58 7 605 000
Note: DA = drainage area; SSE = specific soil erosion; SE = soil erosion; SSY = specific sediment yield;
SY = sediment yield.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
48
106 Annex 5
8. SEDIMENT BUDGET
A sediment budget was constructed based on results presented on previous sections and
reports prepared by Oreamuno-Vega & Villalobos-Herrera (2014) and Mende (2014). The San
Juan River Basin sediment production was estimate based on the erosion model described in
Chapter 7 while sediment increments due to Route 1856 construction were calculated base d
on Oreamuno-Vega & Villalobos-Herrera erosion rates and Mende slopes’ inventory.
For road bed erosion estimat es, erosion rates and road widths shown in Table 8.1 were
assumed as valid for the entire road based on Dr. Mende’s expert judgment.
Table 8.1 Erosion rates for the road bed
Road bed Road width Erosion rate for Erosion rates for
material (m) gentle slopes (m yr ) steep slopes (m yr )
b b
Gravel 10 0.0014 0.0044
Dirt 10 0.0140a 0.0440 a
Trail 5 0.0028c 0.0088 c
a
Based on “Report on hydrology and sediments for the Costa Rican river b asins draining to the San
Juan River”, by F. Gómez-Delgado, J.J. Leitón-Montero & C.A Aguilar-Cabrera, 2013. Assumed as 10%
of trail’s erosion rate. Assumed as 20% of trail’s erosion rate.
Sediment load increments (per basin) due to construction of the Route 1856 were calculated
using erosion rates and road widths from Table 8.1, as well as erosion rates published by
Oreamuno-Vega & Villalobos-Herrera and GIS data provided by Dr. Mende. A delivery ratio of
0.60 was assumed based on Gómez-Delgado et al. (2013). Results are presented in Table 8.2
and Figure 8.1.
Table 8.2 Sediment load increments, per basin, due to construction of the 1856 Road
RL Erosion (m ) Total erosion
Basin -1
(km) RBE CSE FSE Total (t yr )
Major Costa Rican river basins draining directly to the San Juan River
Infiernito basin 41.0 855 12 348 19 051 32 253 53 863
San Carlos basin 11.1 173 253 399 825 1 378
Cureña basin 29.5 387 1 738 8 966 11 091 18 521
Sarapiquí basin 4.5 172 49 --------- 221 369
Chirripó basin 22.8 192 190 107 489 817
Costa Rican area that drains directly to the San Juan River
Total 108.8 1 778 14 578 28 523 44 879 74 949
Note: RL = road length; RBE = road bed erosion; CSE = cut slope erosion; FSE = fill slope erosion.
Similarly, sediment load increments (per reach) due to construction of the Route 1856 were
calculated using the exact same methodology and base information. Results ar e presented in
Table 8.3 and Figure 8.2.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
49
107Annex 5
45 25000
40
20000
35 Sediment (m
30
15000
25
20
15 10000 3
)
R10d length (km) 5000
5
0 0
Infiernito San Carlos Cureña Sarapiquí Chirripó
Road length Road Cut slopes Fill slopes
Figure 8.1 Sediment load increments, per basin, due to construction of the route 1856.
Table 8.3 Sediment load increments, per reach, due to construction of the route 1856.
3
Reach between rivers Road length Erosion (m ) Total erosion
(km) Road Slopes Total (t yr )
Major Costa Rican rivers draining directly to the San Juan River
Pocosol-Infiernito 14.2 375 12 323 12 698 21 205
Infiernito-San Carlos 27.8 569 19 075 19 644 32 825
San Carlos-Cureña 15.4 129 2 809 2 938 4 907
Cureña- Sarapiquí 28.2 511 8 547 9 058 15 127
Sarapiquí-Chirripó 1.7 14 347 361 603
Chirripó-Colorado 21.5 181 0 181 302
Costa Rican area that drains directly to the San Juan River
Total 108.8 1 778 43 102 44 880 74 949
30 30000 Suspended sediment load (m
25 25000
20 20000
15 15000
10 10000
Road length (km)
5 5000
0 0 3
)
Poc-Inf Inf-San San-Cur Cur-Sar Sar-Chi Chi-Col
Road length Road Slopes
Figure 8.2 Sediment load increments, per reach, due to construction of the route 1856.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
50
108 Annex 5
Sediment yield estimates for each of the main basins draining directly to the San Juan River
were adjusted so conservation of mass could be achieved. Suspended sediment load from
Lake Nicaragua was assumed,as reported on Gómez-Delgado et al., equal to 588 000 t yr -.
Mouths of the Sarapiquí and San Carlos Rivers (Table 6.1) estimates and San Juan River
(Table 6.2) estimates were used as control points and the differences between the USLE
modeled and time series based modeled mean annual sediment load were redistributed
proportionally to sediment yield between the remaining basins. Both modeled and adjusted
sediment yield values are presented in Table 8.4.
Table 8.4 Adjusted sediment budged for the San Juan River basin system
Basin DA SSY Erosion SY ASY
(km ) (t ha yr ) (t yr ) (t yr ) (t yr )
Melchora basin 305 16.19 494 000 152 000 207 000
Sábalos basin 571 26.02 1 486 000 456 000 622 000
Santa Cruz basin 418 19.73 825 000 253 000 345 000
Barlota basin 219 6.73 147 000 45 000 62 000
Machado basin 352 3.86 136 000 42 000 57 000
Las Banderas basin 198 4.73 94 000 29 000 39 000
Frío basin 1577 13.74 2 167 000 666 000 907 000
Pocosol basin 1224 9.38 1 148 000 353 000 481 000
Infiernillo basin 609 12.79 779 000 239 000 326 000
San Carlos basin 2642 30.20 7 979 000 2 451 000 2 928 000
Cureña basin 353 7.21 254 000 78 000 106 000
Sarapiquí basin 2770 32.80 9 087 000 2 791 000 2 342 000
Chirripó basin 236 6.86 162 000 50 000 68 000
Study Area 11474 21.58 24 758 000 7 605 000 8 490 000
Lake Nicaragua 29067 --------- --------- --------- 588 000
Note: The values in bold are the ones that were assumed to be correct; therefore, the error was
distributed in the remaining ones so that the sum of all equals 8 490 000 t yr . DA = drainage area;
SSY = specific sediment yield; SY = sediment yield; ASY = adjusted sediment yield.
Due to lack of information publi shed on sediment transport on the San Juan River and the
absence of any joint studies on the San Juan River , sediment separation at Delta had to be
made based on the assumption that 90% of the San Juan River discharge flows through to
the Colorado River and suspended and bed load estimates for the San Juan River ( see
Table 6.2) were split between the Colorado River ( according to Table 4.1 and Table 5.2) and
Lower San Juan River (based on Table 6.3). These results, as well as the information of Table
8.4, were used to create the sediment budget diagram of the San Juan River basin shown in
Figure 8.3.
However, it must be stated that since no bed load material information was available for the
mouth of twelve out of fourteen of the major basins draining directly to the San Juan River
and no distributed or lumped models were built in order to indirectly est imate this particular
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
51
109 Annex 5
variate, no further assumptions were made and only bed load separation at the Delta is
presented in the diagram.
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W 84°32'0"W 84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Legend
River
11°20'0"N N1 N3 ¯ 11°20'0"Ncaraguan Lakes
Study Area
N2
N1 N4 N1: Lake Nicaragua
11°4'0"N 11°4'0"Nelchora basin
N5 N3: Sábalos basin
CR2 N4: Santa Cruz basin
CR3 N6 N8 N5: Barlota basin
N7 CR8 N6: Machado basin
10°48'0"N CR1 CR5 10°N7: Las Banderas basin
CR7 N8: Lower San Juan River
CR1: Frío basin
10°32'0"N 10°32'0"Nocosol basin
CR4 CR3: Infiernito basin
CR6 CR4: San Carlos basin
CR5: Cureña basin
10°16'0"N 10°16'0"Narapiquí basin
CR7: Chirripó basin
CR8: Colorado River
0 15 30 60 Kilometers
10°0'0"N 10°0'0"N NIC - EBI
Department of Hydrology
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W 84°32'0"W 84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
-1
Figure 8.3 Sediment budget of the San Juan River Basin (values in t yr ).
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
52
110 Annex 5
Different percentages of coarse material were assumed for Route 1856 annual sediment load
estimates presented in Table 8.2 and Table 8.3. Sediment separation for both suspended and
bed load material was made according to Figure 6.6 (b) and Figure 6.7 (b), respectively, and
can be found inTable 8.5 and Table8.6.
Table 8.5 Suspended and bed load separation of sediment loads increments, due to Route 1856
construction, at the Delta for different assumed percentage of coarse material present in Route 1856
material(as mass)
Sediment yield (t)
Sediment load
APCM = 5 APCM = 10 APCM = 15 APCM = 20 APCM = 25 APCM = 30
Suspended
LSJR 11600 10990 10379 9769 9158 8548
CoR 59601 56464 53327 50190 47053 43917
Bed
LSJR 731 1461 2192 2923 3654 4384
CoR 3017 6033 9050 12067 15083 18100
Total
LSJR 12331 12451 12571 12692 12812 12932
CoR 62618 62497 62377 62257 62137 62017
Note: APCM = Assumed percentage of Route 1856's sediment yield composed by coarse [sand]
material; LSJR = Lower San Juan River; CoR = Colorado River.
Table 8.6 Suspended and bed load separation of sediment loads increments, due to Route 1856
construction, at the Delta for different assumed percentage of coarse material present in Route 1856
material (as volume) 3
Sediment yield (m )
Sediment load APCM = 5 APCM = 10 APCM = 15 APCM = 20 APCM = 25 APCM = 30
Suspended
LSJR 6946 6581 6215 5849 5484 5118
CoR 35689 33811 31932 30054 28176 26297
Bed
LSJR 438 875 1313 1750 2188 2625
CoR 1806 3613 5419 7226 9032 10838
Total
LSJR 7384 7456 7528 7600 7672 7744
CoR 37496 37424 37352 37280 37208 37136
Note: APCM = Assumed percentage of Route 1856's sediment yield composed by coarse [sand]
material; LSJR = Lower San Juan River; CoR = Colorado River.
Also, Colorado River to Lower San Juan River total sediment transport ratio s, for each of the
aforementioned percentages of coarse material , are presented in Figure 8.4. It must be
noted that, according to this figure, these ratios are practi cally identical for the percentage
range used in see Table 8.5 and Table 8.6–as the slope value of the best fit equation is
practically zero.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
53
111Annex 5
5.2 y = -0.01x + 5.13
R² = 1.00
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.8
t4.7l sediment transport ratio
Colorado River to Lower San Juan River 15 20 25 30 35
Assumed percentage of Route 1856's sediment yield composed by
coarse [sand] material (%)
Figure 8.4 Colorado River to Lower San Juan River total sediment transport ratio as a function of the
assumed percentage of Route 1856’s sediment yield composed by coarse (sand) material.
If it is assumed that 5 to 10 percent of the sediment yield from the Road that is transported
to the Delta is sand and a one to nine ratio for the discharge flowing through the Lower San
Juan River and the Colorado River, respectively, is also assumed – i.e. that 90% of the San
Juan River discharge flows through to the Colorado River – then it could be stated, according
to Table 8.5 and Table 8.6, that, as an average, the annual sediment load increments at the
3
outlets of the system are, approximately, less than 12 450 t (or 7 460 m ), for the Lower San
Juan River, and 62 620 t (or 37 500 m 3), for the Colorado River.
Mean annual sediment load increments, due to Route 1856 construction, are presented
graphically in Figure 8.5. As it can be seen from this diagram, the effects of Route 1856 over
the mean annual sediment load of the San Juan River are not just insignificant; they are, in
practice, indiscernible.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
54
112 Annex 5
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W 84°32'0"W 84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Legend
River
11°20'0"N 11°20'0"Ncaraguan Lakes
N1 N3 ¯
N2 Study Area
N4
N1 N1: Lake Nicaragua
11°4'0"N 11°4'0"Nelchora basin
N5 N3: Sábalos basin
N4: Santa Cruz basin
CR2 N6 N8 N5: Barlota basin
CR3 N7
10°48'0"N CR1 CR8 10°48'0"Nchado basin
CR5 N7: Las Banderas basin
N8: Lower San Juan River
CR7
CR1: Frío basin
10°32'0"N 10°32'0"Nocosol basin
CR4 CR3: Infiernito basin
CR4: San Carlos basin
CR6
CR5: Cureña basin
10°16'0"N 10°16'0"Narapiquí basin
CR7: Chirripó basin
CR8: Colorado River
0 15 30 60 Kilometers
10°0'0"N 10°0'0"N NIC - EBI
Department of Hydrology
85°4'0"W 84°48'0"W 84°32'0"W 84°16'0"W 84°0'0"W 83°44'0"W
Figure 8.5 Increment of mean annual suspended sediment load of the San Juan River due to
Route 1856 construction assuming a 5% (values in parenthesis correspond to 10%) fraction of coarse
material.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
55
113Annex 5
114 Annex 5
9. REFERENCES
Andrews, E.D. (2014). An evaluation of the methods, calculations and conclusions provided by
Costa Rica regard ing the yield and transport of sediment in the Río San Juan Basin .
California, United States of America: Pacific Watershed Associates.
Asociación Costarricense de la Ciencia del Suelo ACCS [Mata, R., Rosales, A., Vásquez, A &
Sandoval, D.A.]. (2013). Subórdenes de suelo de Costa Rica [GIS file]. 1:200000.
Retrieved from http://www.cia.ucr.ac.cr/?page_id=139
Bradbury, P.A. (1995). CALSITE version 3.1: User manual. United Kingdom: HR Wallingford.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO ]. (1989). Evaluación de los
estados de la erosión hídrica de los suelos de Costa Rica: Informe técnico Nº 2 -E.
Rome, Italy: Cooperation program FAO/Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO]. (2001). Strategic
environmental assessment [Volume 5]. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural
Development IFAD.
Foster, H.A. (1933). Duration curves. Trans. American Society of Civil Engineers , 99,
1213–1267
García, M.H. (2007). Sediment transport and morphodynamics. In M.H. Gar cía (Ed.),
Sedimentation engineering: processes, measurements, modeling, and practice (ASCE
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 110), (pp. 104 -105). United States
of America: American Society of Civil Engineers.
García, M.H & Fernández, R. (20 14). Actualización e implementación de metodologías para
estimar sedimento de fondo afluente a embalses de futuras plantas hidroeléctricas.
San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad ICE.
Gómez-Delgado, F. (2002). Evaluación de la erosión potencial y producción de sedimentos en
tres cuencas de Costa Rica (Civil Engineering grade thesis ). University of Costa Rica .
San José, Costa Rica.
Gómez-Delgado, F., Leitón-Montero, J.J. & Aguilar-Cabrera, C.A. (2013). Report on hydrology
and sediments for the Costa Rican river basins draining to the San Juan River . San
José: Costa Rica: Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad ICE.
Instituto Geográfico Nacional de Costa Rica [IGNCR ]. (1988). Costa Rica topographic maps
[GIS files]. 1:50000.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
57
115Annex 5
Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales INETER . ( 2008). Estudio del suelo del
departamento de Río San Juan. Nicaragua. Retrieved from
http://www.ineter.gob.ni/Ordenamiento/files/suelos_rio_san_juan.pdf
Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales INETER. (2004). Precipitación media anual en
milímetros (mm) Periodo 1971-2000 [JPG file]. 1:750000.
Jansson, M. (1992). Afluencia de sedimentos en suspensión al embalse de Cachí . In A.
Rodríguez-Rodríguez & M. Jansson (Eds.), Estudios sedimentológicos en el embalse de
Cachí, Costa Rica (pp. 41-79). Uppsala, Sweden : Uppsala University, Department of
Physical Geograph.
Junta de Andalucía. (n.d.) Capacidad de uso y erosión de los suelos en el Valle central del río
Guadalquivir. Andalucía, España: Consejería de Medio ambiente y ordenación del
territorio. Retrieved from http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/
documentos_tecnicos/uso_suelo/evaluacion9.pdf
Krasovskaia, I. & Gottschalk, L. (2014). Compensatory flow phase 2: Methodology for the
determination o f adaptive flow - Final report . San José, Costa Rica: Instituto
Costarricense de Electricidad ICE.
Kondolf, G.M., Hagans, D., Weaver, B. & Weppner, E. (2012). Environmental impacts of Juan
Rafael Mora porras Route 1856, Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua. California,
United States of America.
Lianes, E., Marchamalo, M. & Roldán, M. (2009). Evaluación del Factor C de la RUSLE para el
manejo de coberturas vegetales en el control de la erosión de la cuenca del río Birrís,
Costa Rica. Agronomía Costar ricense, 33(2), 217 -235. Retrieved from
http://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/agrocost/article/view/6722/6410
Mende, A. (2014). Inventory of Slopes and Watercourses related to the Border Road Nº 1856
between Mojón II and Delta Costa Rica - Second Report. San José, Costa Rica.
Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry of Japan [METI] - United States National
Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]. (2014). ASTER Global Digital Elevation
Model [ASTER GDEM]. Retrieved form http://gdem.ersdac.jspacesystems.or.jp/
Oremuno-Vega, R. & Villalobos -Herrera, R. (2014). Second report on systematic field
monitoring of erosion and sediment yield along Route 1856. San José: Costa Rica:
University of Costa Rica, CIEDES.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
58
116 Annex 5
Roose, E.J. (1977).Use of the Universal Soil Loss Equation to predict erosion in West Africa. In
Proceedings of the national conference on soil erosion . Iowa, United States of
America: Soil Conservation Society of America. Retrieved from
http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/pleins_textes…-
09/09135.pdf
Saborío-Bejarano, J. (2000). Estudio de erosion para la República de Guatemala . Turrialba,
Costa Rica: Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza CATIE.
Singh, V.P, Jain, S.K. & Tyagy, A.K. (2007). Risk and reliability analysis: a handbook for civil and
environmental engineers . United States of America: American Society of Civil
Engineers.
U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency. (1970). Nicaragua topographic maps [PDF map].
1:50000. Retrieved from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/nicaragua/
Vogel, R. M. & Fennessey, N.M. (1995). Flow duration curves I: New interpretation and
confidence intervals. Journal of the American Water Resources Association , 120(4),
485-504.
Wischmeier, W.H. & Smith, D.D. (1960). A Universal soil-loss equation to guide conservation
farm planning. Transactions 7th International Congress Soil Sciences, 418-425.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
59
117Annex 5
118 Annex 5
10. APPENDIX
100 y = 2E-06x1.6881
R² = 0.2678
-)
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0001
100 1000 10000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.1 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Delta Colorado (11-04) gauging station.
1 y = 7E-07x1.8232
R² = 0.7975
1)
-
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.00001
10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.2 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Puerto Viejo (12-03) gauging station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
61
119Annex 5
2.2208
1 y = 7E-07x
R² = 0.7375
-)
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.000001
1 10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.3 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Veracruz (12-04) gauging station.
y = 3E-06x 2.6051
10
) R² = 0.81
- 1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0000001
1 10 100
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.4 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Toro (12-06) gauging station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
62
120 Annex 5
2.1137
10 y = 2E-06x
R² = 0.8027
1) 1
-
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0000001
1 10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )-1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.5 Suspended sediment rating curve for the San Miguel (12-11) gauging station.
y = 5E-06x2.0369
1
R² = 0.5407
-) 0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0000001
0.1 1 10 100
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.6 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Río Segundo (12-13) gauging station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
63
121Annex 5
2.4352
100 y = 2E-07x
R² = 0.7867
-) 10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.000001
1 10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.7 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Jabillos (14-02) gauging station.
y = 3E-06x 1.8445
10
) R² = 0.665
-
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0001
10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.8 Suspended Sediment rating curve for the Terrón Colorado (14-04) gauging station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
64
122 Annex 5
2.3923
10 y = 4E-07x
R² = 0.8466
-)
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.000001
1 10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.9 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Peñas Blancas (14-05) gauging station.
y = 8E-08x3.1767
100
R² = 0.8177
-) 10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
Sus0.000001ediment load (t s
0.0000001
1 10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.10 Suspended Sediment rating curve for the Pocosol (14-20) gauging station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
65
123Annex 5
1.8709
1 y = 2E-06x
R² = 0.8135
1)
- 0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0000001
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.11 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Guatuso (16-02) gauging station.
1
y = 8E-06x 1.6795
-) 0.1 R² = 0.7546
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0000001
0.1 1 10 100
Discharge (m s )1
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.12 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Santa Lucía (16-05) gauging station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
66
124 Annex 5
10 y = 3E-06x1.8047
R² = 0.7846
1)
-
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.0001
10 100 1000
3 -1
Discharge (m s )
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.13 Suspended sediment rating curve for the San Carlos (BSC) sediment station.
1
1)
-
0.1
0.01
1.6715
y = 3E-06x
R² = 0.7503
Suspended sediment load (t s
0.001
10 100 1000
3 -1
Discharge (m s )
SS sample data Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.14 Suspended sediment rating curve for the Sarapiquí (BSa) sediment station
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances dela Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
67
125Annex 5
1 y = 8E-07x 1.8085
R² = 0.8341
-)
0.1
0.01
0.001
Bed sediment load (t s
0.0001
10 100 1000
3 -1
Discharge (m s )
BL estimate Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.15 Bed sediment rating curve for the Sarapiquí (BSa) sediment station.
1
y = 4E-05x 1.0066
R² = 0.7345
-)
0.1
0.01
0.001
Bed sediment load (t s
0.0001
10 100 1000
3 -1
Discharge (m s )
BL estimate Central tendency line
Confidence intervals 95% Prediction intervals 95%
Figure 10.16 Bed sediment rating curve for the San Carlos(BSC) sediment station.
Prohibida su reproducción según los alcances de la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683, Art. 14
68
126 ANNEX 6
Bernald Pacheco Chaves
Response to and Analysis of “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the
San Juan River, Nicaragua”, July 2014 (Ríos Touma 2014)
October 2014
127128 Annex 6
Technical Report
Response to and Study Analysis of
“Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua”,
July 2014 (Ríos Touma 2014).
By
Bernald Pacheco Chaves, Lic. MPM
For
Tropical Science Center
October 2014
129Annex 6
This analysis is developed in response to the criticisms made by Dr. Ríos Touma in "Ecological
Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua", July 2014 (Annex 4 to Nicaragua’s
Reply) concerning the macroinvertebrates study included in the EDA Ecological Component of
Route 1856, 2013. In addition, a critical analysis of Dr. Ríos’ study is presented.
Bernald Pacheco Chaves is a Costa Rican biologist who has worked i n the field of Freshwater
Biology in Costa Rica during the last 10 years; he is an Associate Investigator at the Zoology
Museum of the University of Costa Rica, where he contributes in the area of Aquatic Entomology
and is also Manager of Aquatic Bio monitoring Laboratory AquaBioLab S. A. He has written more
than 100 technical studies for environmental impact assessments, most of which are related to the
aquatic component. The author’s curriculum vitae is included in Appendix A.
1. Response to the criticisms made inthe study "Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856
on the San Juan River, Nicaragua", July 2014 by Dr. Ríos Touma to the macro
invertebrate analysis included in the EDA Ecological Component, CCT 2013
The study by Ríos Touma (2014) states that the 2013 EDA Ecological Component presented no
conditions of reference for the rivers where macro invertebrates were sampled, suggesting it was
not understood that such reference was provided by the upstream sampling sites (with no direct
influence, or target sites) . The results in down stream sites (with direct influence of the routes)
were compared with the results in upstream sites. The sampling method is clearly explained in the
EDA Ecological Component, which was the main reason for not citing the source. Scientific support
of the use of this method may be found in Ramirez (2010). Ríos Touma (2014) also contended that
it is a deficiency of the EDA Ecological Component that it did not include a g ranulometry analysis;
however, such analysis was not part of the scope and objectives of the EDA and it is not in the
follow up ecological assessment. In both cases, the substrate was characterized using a qualitative
method which classifies the substrate into blocks, boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay.
Ríos Touma (2014) criticises the absence of any use of statistics in the macro invertebrate analysis.
In fact, the analysis was based on the results of BMWP index adapted to Costa Rica. This index
assigns sensitivity scores to macro invertebrates present in the water body, which are used as
bioindicators; the most sensitive taxa are given a high score, the more tolerant are given a low
score. Once the taxa present were rated, scores are summed up and this summation is compared
to a set of categories to determine where it fits. Thus, each study site is given a value ranging from
water of excellent quality to water of poor quality.
Ríos Touma (2014 ) refers to the statement in the EDA 2013 that in 1.5 years the macro
invertebrate community has recovered . This is not an accurate reading of the EDA 2013 in its
context. The EDA mentions the possibility that some results from the macro invertebrate analysis
might have been affected by the fact that the civil works were started 1.5 years prior to the
realization of the EDA. During the time elapsed, the macro invertebrate communities could have
recovered by a natural resilient process.
130 Annex 6
Dr. Ríos criticizes the maps included with the EDA 2013, saying that they do not have explanatory
legends, but in reviewing the maps of sampling sites included in the EDA 2013, we could not
identify where such omission where. To the contrary, all maps have very clear explanatory
legends that meet standard mapping practices.
2. Analysis of the Study "Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River,
Nicaragua", July 2014.
Some deficiencies were found in the experimental model adopted in Ríos Touma (2014) study and
its conclusions. Firstly, Dr. Ríos’ study claims that the works of Route 1856 do not alter the deltas
of north bank of the San Juan river, but do alter the deltas in the south bank. This statement
implies that if there were any impact on the river , it is only restricted to the side of the river
adjacent to Costa Rica. The assertion strongly contradicts the concept of riverfront continuum
(Vannote et al. 1980), which conceptualizes the river as a continuum in which the composition of
aquatic communities are changing from the upper basin , through mid and to lower basin ,
depending on environmental conditions. As a continuum, a strong sediment discharge would be
expected to alter the conditions downstream not only and selectively on one bank but rather
throughout the aquatic environment, altering both riversides and especially those sites that given
their hydrological characteristics are likely to trap sediment and form deltas. Furthermore, if we
took the statement by Ríos Touma (2014) that the deltas in the north bank of the river are not
affected by sediment from the works of Route 1856, then we would have proof that there is no
significant impact on the San Juan river, since the sampling sites in the north bank do not present
impacts according to the same study. In summary, the claim that the north bank of the river was
not affected by the works of Route 1856, contradicts the statement by Ríos Touma (2014) that the
works of this route significantly degraded aquatic communities in the San Juan river.
A second error or omission in the experimental design by Ríos Touma (2014) is that the author
does not consider the land use variables. According Roldán & Ramirez (2008), several factors
determine the physical and morphological processes of rivers, including local climate, nature of
riparian vegetation, land use in their area of influence and direct human intervention. The study by
Ríos Touma (2014) applied a weak nonparametric statistical significance test to compare variables
between the north bank on the Nicaraguan territory with dense forest cover at least on the banks
of San Juan river (Reserve Indio Maiz), with the south bank of this river in Costa Rican territory,
which as observed in field trips in 2013 (by land and air) and 2014 (by land) exhibitagricultural and
livestock activities in most of the extension of Route 1856. The same study by Ríos Touma (2014)
points out the difference in water temperature of the Nicaraguan tributaries to the San Juan river
with lower temperature compared to the Costa Rican tributaries of this river which reported
higher temperatures; the author attributes this difference to the scarce forest cover in Costa Rica
territory. Land use is an important variable which was left out of the analysis performed by Ríos
Touma (2014), questioning the validity of her assertion that the works of Route 1856 degraded
significantly aquatic communities in the San Juan river.
131Annex 6
The study by Ríos Touma (2014) presents an important sampling bias, firstly because 14 of the 16
sampling sites are concentrated in one section of the San Juan river, designated in the EDA 2013 as
a critical section, between Infiernito and Bo ca San Carlos, and leaving most of the length of the
project area without sampling (i.e. Boca San Carlos-Delta Costa Rica). Sampling sites were not
randomly chosen and were remarkably concentrated on the stretch of Route apparently in worst
conditions. Only 2 of the 16 sites are out of this critical stretch. This shows lack of objective criteria
in the definition of the sampling sites.
The study by Ríos Touma(2014) attributed the accumulation of sediment in the deltas of the south
margin of the San Juan river to the works of Route 1856; however, there is no baseline for
objective, scientific comparison . To scientifically demonstrate an environmental change and
attribute such a change to the construction of Route 1856, data on the conditions of the area prior
to the construction would be necessary. The lack of such baseline data makes the attribution of
the alleged harm to the works of Route 1856 questionable.
Another weakness in the study of Ríos Touma (2014) is the sampling method used, a sample of D
Net with 2 minutes of total effort by sampling site. This is not considered a time sufficient effort
to obtain a representative sample of benthic macro invertebrates in a sampling s ite. Reyes-
Morales & Springer (2014) evaluated this method using several subsamples of 5 minutes and
recommended a sampling effort of 10 minutes.
Ríos Touma (2014) mentions that many of the taxa found are sensitive to sediment; however, the
author bases her argument on scientific literature studies in the United States (Zweig & Rabeni
2001; Carlisle et al. 2007). This has two major flaws: first, the studies that the author used as
reference do not correspond to the study area , country or even the tropics. The environmental
conditions found in temperate areas are very different from the tropics, and it has been reported
that macroinvertebrates can respond differently to environmental stimuli even in different regions
(Heino 2014). Secondly, the level of taxonomic resolution which it refers to reaches the family and
gender level, which is normal in this type of studies; taxonomic identification to species level in
macroinvertebrates is often not possible with the scientific literature published to date and it
requires a high degree of taxonomic expertise to do so. For this reason, it is very difficult to know
whether the species studied in the literature Ríos Touma uses as references correspond or do not
correspond to species present in San Juan river; although we do not dismiss the possibility that
some species be shared (e.g. some species of cosmopolitan distribution), it is very likely that such
species are different from those found in the San Juan river. We should conside r the fact that
tolerances of macroinvertebrates to sediments may vary depending on the taxonomic resolution
used (Bailey et al. 2001), and may vary even between different species within the same genus
(Flowers 2009).
At this particular point, we detected a strong contradiction in the study of Ríos Touma (2014). On
one hand, the author states that aquatic communities in the San Juan have been significantly
degraded due to the release of sediments from the construction works of Route 1856; on the
other hand, the author provides a list of taxa that she collected in the San Juan river, which are
132 Annex 6
sensitive to sediment on the aquatic environment. Assuming the tolerances of these taxa were
really applicable to the study site , Ríos Touma (2014) would be providing evidence on the
presence of these "sensitive to sediment macroinvertebrates" in a claimed "degraded aquatic
ecosystem". Thus, we could conclude aquatic communities did not suffer degradation as
"macroinvertebrates sensitive to sediment" are present in the sampling sites in the San Juan river.
According to Roldán & Ramírez (2008):
"the physicochemical nature of the waters of a drainage basin, as well as their biological
productivity, are a function of the nature of its soil, its use and conservation status…The
alluvial sandy and clay substrates are located in the lower reaches of rivers where the
current is low . These types of substrate are very poor benthic fauna, as they are a very
unstable environment for their establishment. The predominant wildlife here consists of
organisms adapted to low oxygen potential, as oligochaetes, molluscs and chironomids
(Diptera: Chironomidae). As the river is coming to the valley, the water speed
decreases…From an ecological standpoint, water with high amounts of dissolved solids
indicates high conductivity which can be a limiting factor for the life of many species as
they are subjected to osmotic pressure. A high content of suspended solids or high
turbidity is also limiting for the aquatic ecosystem, as it prevents the passage of sunlight,
damages and plugs the gas exchange system in aquatic animals (gills, guts) and destroys
their habitats natural".
In using macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of water quality it is very common to use the
chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae) as a bioindicator tolerant to changes in the environment
(e.g. Sandoval & Molina Astudillo 2000), given that the scope of conditions under which
chironomids can be found is more extensive than any other family of aquatic insects (Ferrington et
al. 2008). At a more local level, the BMWP index adapted to Costa Rica gives this particular family
a score of 2 on a 1-9 scale going from greater tolerance (score of 1) a lower tolerance (score 9)
(MINAE-S 2007). If we analyze the number of individuals Ríos Touma (2014) presented in Annex 4
of the study , and estimate what percentage of those individuals are chironomids (Diptera:
Chironimidae), 68% of the individuals collected belong to this group (829 out of 1219). Then,
there is wide dominance of a taxon that is broadlyconsidered as a bioindicator tolerant to impacts
in the aquatic environment . Salvatiera et al. (2013) reached similar conclusions in a study
conducted in the San Juan river; the authors sampled macroinvertebrates as bioindicators at 10
sampling stations along the Rio San Juan, using the artificial substrate method. They found t hat
Chironomidae was present at the 10 sites , being predominant in relative abundance in 90% of
them in dry season and 80% of them in the r ainy season . Moreover, in applying a sampling
method with dredge in 20 sampling sites distributed along the San Juan river, Chironomidae was
predominant in 80% of the sites in the dry season , and in 65% of the sampling sites in the rainy
season, with percentages ranging between 40 and 100 % of individuals per sampling site at sites
where this family was foundin both seasons.
133Annex 6
Conclusion
It is considered that the study of Ríos Touma (2014) does not provide valid evidence to
demonstrate significant degradation of aquatic communities in the San Juan river due to sediment
discharge by works in Route 1856.
References
Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson. 2001. Taxonomic resolution of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessment. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 20: 280-286.
Carlise, D. M., M. R. Meador, S. R. Moulton II & P. M. Ruhl. 2007. Estimation and application of
indicator values common macroinvertebrate genera and families of the United States. Ecological
Indicators. 7 (1): 22-33.
Ferrington, L. C., M. B. Berg & W. P. Coffman. 2008. Chironomidae. Pp: 847-989. En: An
introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Merrit, R. W., K. W. Cummins & M. B. Berg
(Eds) (4ta ed.). Estados Unidos.
Flowers, R. W. 2009. A new species of Thraulodes (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae,
Atalophlebiinae) from a highly altered river in western Ecuador. Zootaxa 2052: 55-61.
Heino, J. 2014. Taxonomic surrogacy, numerical resolution and responses of stream
macroinvertebrate communities to ecological gradients: Are the inferences transferable among
regions? Ecological indicators. 36: 186-194.
MINAE-S. 2007. Decreto N° 33903. Reglamento para la evaluación y clasificación de la calidad de
cuerpos de aguas superficiales. La Gaceta 178. San José, Costa Rica.
Ramírez, A. 2010. Capítulo 2 Métodos de Recolección. Pp: 41-50. En: Macroinvertebrados de agua
dulce de Costa Rica I. Springer, M., A. Ramírez & P. Hanson (eds.). Rev. Biol. Trop. 58 (Suppl. 4).
Reyes-Morales, F. & M. Springer. 2014. Efecto del esfuerzo de muestreo en la riqueza de táxones
de macroinvertebrados acuáticos y el índice BMWP/Atitlán. Rev. Biol. Trop. 62 (Suppl. 23): 291-
301.
Ríos Touma, B. 2014. “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua” Vol.
II “Reply of the republic of Nicaragua: Dispute concerning construction of a road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan river (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)”.
Roldán, G. & J. Ramírez. 2008. Fundamentos de Limnología Neotropical. Editorial Universidad de
Antioquia, Antioquia, Colombia.
Sandoval, J. C. & I. F. Molina Astudillo. 2000. Insectos. Pp. 405-550. En: Organismos indicadores de
la calidad del agua y de la contaminación (bioindicadores). De la Lanza Espino, G., S. Hernández
Pulido & J. L. Carbajal Pérez (Eds). México.
134 Annex 6
Salvatierra, T., R. Varela & L. Moreno. 2013. Macroinvertebrados acuáticos como indicadores
biológicos de calidad. In T. Salvatierra (ed). Contribución al establecimiento de la línea de base
ambiental del río San Juan de Nicaragua - 2012. Centro para la Investigación en Recursos Acuáticos
de Nicaragua - Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua. Pp 138 - 157.
Vannote, R. L; G. W. Minshall; K. W. Cummins; J. R. Sedell y C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. XI. 37: 130-137.
Zweig, L. D. & C. F. Rabeni. 2001. Biomonitoring for deposited sediment using benthic
invertabrates: A test o 4 Missouri streams. Journal of the North American Bentholoical Society. 20
(4): 643-657.
135Annex 6
Appendix A – author’s CV
Résumé
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name: Bernald Pacheco-Chaves.
Nacionality: Costa Rican.
ID: 1 1020 0129. Driver Licence: B1.
Marital status: Single.
Residence: San Pedro de Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica.
Contacts: E-mail: [email protected], Skype: pacheco-chaves, Cell phone: (506) 8992-
2693, Postal code: 2241-2050, Web: http://bernaldpacheco.yolasite.c,www.aquabiolab.co.cr,
http://museo.biologia.ucr.ac.cr/
STUDIES
Colegio Académico Diurno de Palmares: High School.
Universidad de Costa Rica:Bachelor (“Licenciatura”) in Biology.
Universidad Tecnológica y Pedagógica de Colombia:Intership.
Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje: Open water diver (PADI License).
Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica, Fundatec: Regular and advanced conversational english.
Universidad para la Cooperación Internacional:Masters in Project Management.
Colegio de Biólogos de Costa Rica:Certification as Especialist in Limnology and Hydrobiology.
WORKING EXPERIENCE
2004 aug. - dec. Assistant at Laboratorio de Entomología, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de
Costa Rica.
136 Annex 6
2004 feb.-2006 dec. Research Assistant at Laboratorio de Productos Forestales, Facultad de
Ingeniería, Universidad de Costa Rica.
2007 aug.-dec. Assistant at Museo de Zoología, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica.
2007 oct. Assistant at Course: Tropical Agroecology (section of biomonitoring), Organization for
Tropical Studies.
2007 mar.-2008 feb. Research Assistent for Ph. D. Thesis, University of Florida.
2008 mar.-jul. Assistant at Museo de Zoología, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica.
2008 mar.-dec. Assistant at Project of PROGAI-UCR (Integrated Management of the Jabonal River
Watershed).
2008 oct.-nov. Consultant for Industrias Infinito S. A. Crucitas Gold Mine, Wil dlife monitoring and
rescue.
2009 nov. Invited Lecturer for Tropical Biology Course, Undergrad Studies Abroad Program (USAP),
Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS).
2010 jan. Invited Lecturer for Tropical Field Ecology Course, Kent State University.
2011 oct.-2012 mar. Consultant at Research Project at Universidad de Costa Rica: “Hymenopteran
Parasitoids Associated with Rice Crops in Costa Rica”.
2013 abr -dic. Consultant at Environmental Impact Assessment of the Project of Systems of
Drinking Water and Sewage of Bluefields City, RAAS, Nicaragua. VEOLIA-TECNITASA.
2013 may-oct, 2014 jul-nov. Consultant at Project of Environmental Diagnosis Assessment, Ruta
1856, Tropical Scientific Center.
2008 feb.-Present: Laboratorio de Biomonitoreo Acuático AquaBioLab S. A. (Manager since 2010
jul.). Studies in aquatic fauna (fresh water macroinvertebrates and fish) and limnology for different
porpouses (environmental impact assessments, hydropower P rojects, biomonitoring, industria l
and agricultural pollution, mining, building, others).
2013 mar –Present: Associate Researcher, Museo de Zoología, Universidad de Costa Rica.
Professional Associations: Colegio de Biólogos de Costa Rica (1695); SETENA -MINAET (CI-214-
2008); Wildlife Regent SINAC-MINAE (348-2011).
More than 100 Technical Studies made so far in Environmental Impact Assessment and Bio -
monitoring.
137Annex 6
OTHER STUDIES AND EXPECIENCES
2000 jun. Curso libre de Ecología de Manglares (UCR).
2007 set. I Simposium: Macroinvertebrados Acuáticos, Investigaciones y Biomonitoreo en Costa
Rica (UCR).
2008. Lecturer of Aquatic Biomonitoring Workshops (PROGAI-UCR).
2008 feb. I National Congress: Gestión Integral, Retos y Oportuni dades de la Sostenibilidad
Ambiental en Costa Rica (UCR).
2009 jun. Miniforo IBEROEKA: Gestión de la Calidad del Agua (MICIT-CYTED).
2009 oct. Speech Presenter: Diversidad Taxonómica y Distribución de Chinches Patinadores
(Hemiptera: Gerridae) en Costa Rica (UPTC, Boyacá, Colombia).
2009 oct. XIII Congress of the Mesoamerican Society of Biology and Conservation . Speech
Presenter (Belize City, Belize).
2009 oct. 2010 set. Speech Presenter: Diversidad Taxonómica y Distribución de Chinches
Patinadores (Hemiptera: Gerridae) en Costa Rica (UCR).
2009 nov. II Simposium: Macroinvertebrados Acuáticos y Limnología. Speech Presenter (UCR-
CIMAR).
2009 dic. Course: Regencias de Manejo de Vida Silvestre (Colegio de Biólogos de Costa Rica -
SINAC).
2010 nov. III Congres o Colombiano de Zoología. Magistral Conference Presenter. (Medellín,
Colombia).
2010 jun.-2011 dec. Comission of Professional Tariffs Member (Colegio de Biólogos de Costa Rica).
2011 ago. Presentación de Resultados del PROMEBIO y Capacitación en el Manejo del Sistema de
Información de Biodiversidad. Workshop Presenter (San Salvador, El Salvador).
2011 nov. Meeting P articipant: Red de Macroinvertebrados Dulceacuí colas de Mesoamérica
(MADMESO) (UCR).
2012 feb. Aquatic Mites Course: I Congreso Latinoamericano de Macroinvertebrados Acuáticos
(UCR).
2012 feb. I Congreso Latinoamericano de Macroinvertebrados Acuáticos . Speech Presenter (UCR-
CIMAR).
138 Annex 6
2012 oct. Competitive Advantages to Incorporation in Job Market Workshop Attendant, UCR, San
José, Costa Rica.
2013 set. VIII Congreso Centroamericano y del Caribe de Administración de Proyectos “APCON
2013”.
2013 oct. Sewage Treatment Systems Workshop, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Guanacaste,
Costa Rica.
2014 feb. XXX Congresso Brasileiro de Zoología, Co-Author of Poster,Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Participation in Expert Workshops and Meetings: 1 (El Salvador), 1 (Honduras), 6 (Costa Rica).
Software Experience (Office, ArcView, MAPSource, Past, Adobe Photoshop, OpenProj, MS Project,
PC Ord, FBackup).
Sports: Japanese Martial Arts: Karate do (Sho dan), Iaido (Roku kyu), Jodo, Kobudo.
PUBLICATIONS
Scientific Articles
Oceguera-Figeroa, A; A . J. Phillips; B. Pacheco-Chaves; W. K. Reeves & M. E. Sidall (2010).
Phylogeny of macrophagous leeches (Hirudinea, Clitella ta) based on molecular data and
evaluation of the barcoding locus. ZSC. 40: 194-203.
Oceguera-Figeroa, A. & B. Pacheco-Chaves (2012). Registros de sanguijuelas de Costa Rica y clave
para la identificación de las especies con redescripción de Cylicobdella costaricae. Rev. Mex.
Bio. 83: 946-957.
Pacheco-Chaves, B; F.F.F. Moreira & M. Springer. (2014). New records of Gerromorpha (Insecta:
Hemiptera: Heteroptera) from Costa Rica. Check List 10 (1): 180-186.
Padilla-Gil, D. N & B. Pacheco-Chaves. (2012). New records of Rheumatobates Bergroth
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae) from the Pacific coast of Colombia and Costa Rica, with a key
to males of Rheumatobates in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Zootaxa 3427: 33-46.
Rodríguez, L. M; J. F. Fernández & B. Pacheco . (2012). Calidad del agua en la Cuenca del
Reventazón, Costa Rica, Indicadores Biológicos y Físico-Químicos. VIDA 8: 11-18.
139Annex 6
Books
Pacheco-Chaves, B. (2010). Guía ilustrada para el estudio ecológico y taxonómico de los insectos
acuáticos del Orden Hemiptera en El Salvador. In: Springer, M & J. M. Sermeño Chicas (eds.).
Formulación de una guía metodológica estandarizada para determinar la calidad ambiental de la s
aguas de los ríos de El Salvador, utilizando insectos acuáticos. Proyecto Universidad de El Salvador
(UES)-Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). SINAI Editores e Impresores, S. A. de C. V.,
San Salvador, El Salvador.
Thesis
Pacheco Chaves, B. (2010). Diversidad Taxonómica y Distribución de Chinches Patinadores
(Hemiptera: Gerridae) en Costa Rica. Monograph, Universidad de Costa Rica, Facultad de Ciencias,
Escuela de Biología.
PUBLICATIONS (In prep.)
Scientific Articles
Moreira F. F. F; B. Pacheco-Chaves & M. Spriger. (In prep). Two new Rhagovelia (Hemiptera:
Heteroptera: Veliidae) from Costa Rica, with key and new records from the country.
Moreira F. F. F; B. Pacheco-Chaves & M. Springer (En prep.). Checklist and distribution of the
family Gerridae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) from Costa Rica.
Moreira F. F. F. & B. Pacheco -Chaves (In prep.) New records of Gerromorpha (Hemiptera:
Heteroptera) from Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
Pacheco-Chaves, B. (In prep.). Re -description of females of Platygerris caeruleus and P.
asymmetricus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae).
Books
Pacheco Chaves, B. & L. M. Rodríguez Quirós (In prep.). Macroinvertebrados Acuáticos de la
Cuenca del Río Reventazón: Bioindicadores de la Calidad del Agua, ICE.
Chapters of Books
Pacheco Chaves, B. & F. F. F. Moreira (In prep.). Gerromorpha from Costa Rica. In: Springer, M; A.
Ramírez & P. Hanson (eds). Macroinvertebrados de agua dulce de Costa Rica: Vol. 2: Blattodea,
Hemiptera; Hymenoptera; Coleoptera & Diptera. Suppl. Rev. Biol. Trop.
140 ANNEX 7
Arturo Angulo Sibaja
Environmental Diagnostic Assessment. Fish Fauna in the San Juan River.
Literature Review Report
November 2014
141142 Annex 7
“Route 1856´s EDA Ecological Component Follow up Ecological Assessment”
TROPICAL SCIENCE CENTER
FISH FAUNA IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER
Literature Review Report
By
M.Sc. Arturo Angulo Sibaja
November 2014
143Annex 7
AUTHOR´S BIOSKETCH
M.Sc. Arturo Angulo did his undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of Costa Rica ,
where he was also involved in several research projects at the Center of Marine Research and the
Zoology Museum of the University of Costa R ica. As result of such research, several papers on the
ichthyofauna of Costa Rica have been published in different international journals. In 2014, he was
awarded with an OAS doctoral scholarship to study animal biology at the University Estadual
Paulista, Brazil, and he will begin his studies this year (2015). His research interests center around
systematics, taxonomy, biogeography and ecology of fishes, both freshwater (mainly neotropical)
and marine (mainly deep-water).
INTRODUCTION
With the goal of providing technical criteria to assist in the analysis of potential impacts of the
construction of Route 1856 on the San Juan River, and particularly their fishes, and because
sampling in the river was not possible due to the refusal of Nicaragua to allow Costa Rica to carry
out studies in the River, a literature review was conducted to find out the species of fish reported
by previous studies for the San Juan river. This review is intended to obtain information about the
presence, abundance and tolerance of fishes in environments with high sediment yields, at the
species, genus and family levels in some cases.
In addition, information on fish species in the tributaries of the San Juan River was obtained, such
tributaries providing both sediments and fish fauna to the San Juan river.
RESULTS OF REVIEW
Rojas and Rodriguez (2008), after a monitoring program of approximately one year (February
2004-April 2005) conducted in the Térraba River basin in the Pacific of Costa Rica, including
disturbed and undisturbed environments, determine d that there is no close relation between
richness and abundance of fish species in the basin and water physicochemical variables such as
suspended solids, dissolved solids and turbidity; these variables were measured in a total of 4
stations along the basin and associated with the total sediment load in the watershed. These
authors recorded in this period and space, a total of 33 species and 14 families of fish es, the most
diverse being Cichlidae (n = 5), Characidae (n = 4) and Poecilidae (n = 3) families. These families
were also the most frequently collected (over 75% of all specimens caught). The authors
demonstrated that environmental variables such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, season ality
(winter-summer) and proximity to the sea, are more important determining the structure and
composition of fish communities in this basin.
Both Rojas and Rodriguez (2008) and Cotta -Ribeiro and Molina-Ureña (2009) reported the
presence of “tepemechín” Agonostomus monticola (Mugilidae) in this basin, which has also been
144 Annex 7
recorded in the San Juan River macro-basin (Bussing 1998). Besides “tepemechín” (Agonostomos
monticola), Rojas and Rodriguez (2008) reported species such as Poecilia gillii, P. mexicana
(Poeciliidae) and Astyanax aeneus, which have also been recorded in the San Juan river macro-
basin (Bussing 1998). Rojas and Rodriguez (2008) also reported species such as Archocentrus
sajica, Astatheros altifrons, Theraps sieboldii (Cichlidae) and Priapichthys panamensis (Poeciliidae),
which have "ecological equivalents" (Bussing 1998) in the San Juan r iver macro-basin, namely
Archocentrus septemfasciatus, Astatheros alfari, Theraps underwoodii and Priapichthys annectens,
respectively.
Although Rojas and Rodriguez (2008) did not research the impact of the changes in environmental
variables measured (suspended solids, dissolved solids and turbidity, among st other) to the
intraspecific level, in terms of the observed differences in the relative abundance values, given the
general results, it can be inferred that differences in the values of these parameters in the water
have no significant effect on the diversity and abundance of the relevant taxa, specifically
Cichlidae, Characidae, Poeciliidae and Mugilidae families.
This could also apply to the San Juan macro-basin, under the assumption of ecological equivalence
(Bussing 1998), and considering parameters which make the two basins comparable, such as the
geological origin, land use, climat e regime, life zones, the relative geographical proximity and
vertical limits. With regards to vertical limits, it should be noted that the sampling in the Térraba
basin was performed between 15 -145 masl (Rojas and Rodriguez 2008), which overlap with the
vertical area of the San Juan River macro-basin (1-31 masl).
Bonatti et al. (2005) determined the total sediment yield of the Térraba river basin at 404
ton/km2/year; this was attributed to the combination of a pattern of land use and rainfall erosion.
According to the data presented by Rojas and Rodriguez (2008), such level of sediment yield seems
not to exert a measurable effect on the dynamics and structure of fish populations in this region.
Similarly, Villegas (2011) reported no statistically significant differences between the abundance of
fish species in rivers of the south Pacific region of Costa Rica with or without anthropogenic
influence, nor in the capture of species. The most important physico-chemical variables of water in
its model of canonical correlation were the flow speed and type of substrate, while variables such
as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, percentage of oxygen saturation, salinity, oxygen reduction
potential, conductivity, io n concentration, total dissolved solids and turbidity (most of them
related to the total sediment yield in the basin) had no effect on the structure of fish communities.
Villegas (2011) suggests that anthropogenic influences (pollution and sedimentation) in rivers
assessed do not alter the conditions of water quality or the formation of assemblies of freshwater
fish in the area. It also concludes that fluctuations of environmental variab les, abundance,
richness, distribution and fish diversity shown are normal and characteristic of these dynamic
ecosystems.
Villegas (2011) reports in his study, a total of 24 fish species and 12 families; again , Poeciliidae
family (n = 5), Cichlidae (n = 4) and Characidae (n = 4) had the highest diversity values and relative
abundances. It is noteworthy that the species Agonostomus monticola (Mugilidae) was collected
145Annex 7
relatively frequently, as the seventh species with highest number of catches (3.37% on the total of
catches).
Consistent with the results of Rojas and Rodriguez (2008) on the fishes of the Térraba river basin,
Villegas (2011) states that variation in fish diversity and its taxonomic assemblages are a
consequence of the discontinuities in geomorphology and structural complexity of ecosystems.
So, there is no evidence that such values are associated with the physico-chemical conditions of
the water, much less obtained by human impacts. This suggests some level of tolerance by fish
communities in response to changes in these parameters (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen,
percentage of oxygen saturation, salinity, oxygen reduction potential, conductivity, ion
concentration, total dissolved solids and turbidity).
For the Rio Frio basin, located in the northern Caribbean region of Costa Rica, Ortin et al. (2009)
determined at 897.0 ton/km2/year, the total sediment yield, which as in the Térraba river is due to
a combination of land use patterns and rainfall erosion. This value, when compared to those
measured in other basins of the country, such as Térraba, can be considered high, exceeding 2.22
times the reported value for that basin by Bonatti et al. (2005). Despite these sediment yield
values, in general the basin has a rich fish f auna consisting of a total of 52 species (Angulo et al.
2013), where Cichlidae (n = 15), Poeciliidae (n = 9 ) and Characidae (n = 8) families are dominant in
terms of total number of species and relative abundances (Garita and Angulo 2009, Saenz et al.
2009). In comparison, the Térraba river basin has a fish fauna composed of a total of 88 species
(Angulo et al. 2013); however, unlike the Rio Frio, the Térraba river is a coastal river in which the
influence of the peripheral fish component (sensu Bussing 19 98) is greater (Angulo et al. 2013).
This could explain the differences in the absolute values of taxonomic diversity between the two
basins. Regarding the dominance of the Cichlidae family in the Rio Frio basin, Saenz et al. (2009)
point out that tolerance to environmental variations and genetic plasticity that characterize this
family, influence the fact that this taxon is the best represented, as these attributes give it a more
advantageous position over other components of the local fish fauna. Considering the values of
total sediment yield reported for this basin, local fish tolerance or adaptation to such conditions
could be inferred.
Saenz et al. (2009) also reported changes in the composition of fish species in the Rio Frio basin
correlated with changes in rainfall levels. During the rainy season (May-September), these authors
reported a greater diversity of species (20 vs. 17, during the time of lower rainfall , March-April).
Several authors such as Black (1996), Restrepo (2005) and Arr oyave-Rincón et al. (2012) have
demonstrated a positive correlation between levels of rainfall and the total sediment yield in river
basins in the tropics. Considering the results of Saenz et al. (2009) and this pattern of covariation,
as it has been demon strated for basins in south Pacific of Costa Rica, it could be inferred that a
change in the values of sediment yield due to an increase in values of precipitation will not
produce a harmful effect on the composition of the local fish fauna, in terms of to tal number of
registered taxa. This would indicate, in accordance with the above, some degree of tolerance or
natural adaptation of communities of fishes in the region, due to changes in levels of suspended
solids, dissolved solids and turbidity associated with higher sediment yields.
146 Annex 7
For the Aranjuez river basin, located in the Central Pacific of Costa Rica, Tiffer -Sotomayor (2005)
reports dramatic increases during flood events in the mean concentrations of total solids,
dissolved solids and suspended solids. Such increases are more than a 51 times the basal levels
(117.4 mg/L vrs. 6000 mg/L). In this basin, at least 10 fish species have been reported (Bussing
1998 Tiffer -Sotomayor 2005), including Agonostomus monticola (Mugilidae), Astyanax aeneus
(Characidae), Archocentrus nigrofasciatus (Cichlidae) and Poecilia gillii (Poeciliidae), species which
are also recorded for the San Juan River macro-basin (Bussing 1998, Angulo et al. 2013). After such
flood events, Tiffer -Sotomayor (2005) does not report dramatic decreases in the relative
abundances of these species. This might suggest some tolerance from such species to changes in
the mean concentrations of total solids, dissolved so lids and suspended solids associated with
higher sediment yields as a result of seasonal changes in water levels. Similar conditions and
effects have been reported in other basins of the country, Reventaz ón, San Carlos and Sarapiqu í
(PROCUENCA-San Juan 200 4, Jimenez et al. 2005), for example, all of them located in the
Caribbean slope and the San Carlos, and the Sarapiqu í being part of the San Juan river macro-
basin.
Throughout history, t he San Juan River macro-basin has undergone a natural sedimentation
process its discharge being made through two sites: the Bay or Lagoon of San Juan del Norte,
where sediments are accumulated, and the mouth of the Colorado River in Costa Rica, where
higher flow discharge occurs (PROCUENCA-San Juan 2004). Particularly, the Colorado River, part
of the Tortuguero river basin is home to one of the most diverse freshwater fish fauna of Central
America (Bussing 1998, Angulo et al. 2013), with about 115 species reported, 46% of the total
species known to Costa Rica (Angulo et al. 2013). In this basin, families such as Cichlidae (n = 16),
Poeciliidae (n = 9) and Characidae (n = 8) are dominant (Angulo et al. 2013). A similar pattern in
terms of diversity and high levels of sedimentation occurs in adjacent basins, some of them part of
the San Juan River macro-basin, where the values of total sediment yield exceed 600.0
ton/km2/year (PROCUENCA-San Juan 2004). For example, in Terrón Colorado station, located on
the San Carlos River, a total sediment yield of 817.0 ton/km2/year is reported (PROCUENCA-San
Juan 2004). In this basin (San Carlos) Bussing (1998) and Angulo et al. (2013) reported a total of 54
fish species; again Cichlidae (n = 15), Poeciliidae (n = 10) and Characidae (n = 8) being dominant.
The Peñas Blancas station, specifically, located on the river of the same name and also part of the
San Carlos river basin, has reported a total sediment load of 700.0 ton/km2/year (PROCUENCA-San
Juan 2004); in turn, Molina (2008) reports a total of 31 fish species in this sub -basin (Peñas
Blancas), where Cichlidae (n = 10), Characidae (n = 5) and Poeciliidae (n = 4) are the dominant
groups. Meanwhile, in the Reventazón river basin, which drains into the Caribbean Sea, have been
reported (in the Cachí dam station) values of sediment yield up to 1158.9 ton/km2/year (Jimenez
et al. 2005). In this basin, as in previous cases, a large fish diversity also has been reported ,
consisting of a total of 65 species; Cichlidae (n = 15), Poeciliidae (n = 6) and Characidae (n = 5) have
the greatest diversity (Molina 2011). It should be emphasized that in the Colorado, San Carlos and
Reventazón basins, the presence of Agonostomus monticola (Mugilidae) has also been reported
(Bussing 1998, Molina 2011, Angulo et al. 2013). The presence of these taxa in rivers with high
147Annex 7
sediment yields might suggest high levels of tolerance, as various authors have suggested (Bussing
1998 Tiffer-Sotomayor, 2005, Rojas and Rodriguez 2008, Saenz et al. 2009), and is supported by
the present revision.
Finally, it has been reported that some piscivorous and insectivorous fish are, to some extent, able
of preying better under conditions of high concentrations of suspended solids and turbidity
(Chesney 1993, Berry and Hill 2003). This has been attributed to a greater contrast between the
pray and the surrounding water, which facilitates prey identification by the predator and makes
the predator difficult to detect by the prey (Chesney 1993, Berry and Hill 2003). In the San Juan
River macro-basin, a wide variety of piscivorous and insectivorous species has been reported
(Bussing 1998); species such as “guapotes” (Parachromis dovii and P. managuensis, Cichlidae),
“pepesca gaspar” Belonesox belizanus (Poeciliidae), beaked sardine Bramocharax bransfordii
(Characidae), “barbudos” (Rhamdia spp.) and gar fish (Atractosteus tropicus), most of them of
economic importance (Bussing 1998) and relatively common in some parts of the macro-basin.
Several of these species (Parachromis spp, Belonesox belizanus and Atractosteus tropicus , for
example), are particularly abundant in lentic environments with high levels of suspended solids
and high turbidity (for example, in areas of Caño Negro and Medio Queso within the Rio Frio
basin) (Bussing 1998, Garit a and Angulo 2009, Saenz et al. 2009). It could then be inferred that
there is some degree of tolerance or even adaptation of such species to high levels of sediment, as
suggested by Chesney (1993) and Berry and Hill (2003).
REFERENCES
Angulo, A., C.A. Garita-Alvarado, W.A. Bussing & M.I. López. 2013. Annotated checklist of the
freshwater fishes of continental and insular Costa Rica: additions and nomenclatural
revisions. Check list 9 (5): 987-1019.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260752820_Annotated_checklist_…
reshwater_fishes_of_continental_and_insular_Costa_Rica_additions_and_nomenclatural
_revisions).
Arroyave-Rincón, A, J.F. Blanco & A. Taborda. 2012. Exportación de sedimentos desde cuencas
hidrográficas de la vertiente oriental del golfo de Urabá: influencias climáticas y
antrópicas. Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín 11 (20): 13-30.
(http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/rium/v11n20/v11n20a02.pdf ).
Berry, W. & B. Hill. 2003. The Biological Effects of Suspended and Bedded Sediment (SABS) in
Aquatic Systems: A Review. Internal Report. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. 58 p.
(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/sedim…
ad/2004_08_17_criteria_sediment_appendix1.pdf).
Black, P.E. 1996. Watershed Hydrology, 2 ed., Syracuse, New York: CRC Press. 460 p.
148 Annex 7
Bonatti, J., C. Borge, B. Herrera & P. Paaby. 2005. Efectos ecológicos del cultivo de la piña en la
cuenca media del río General-Térraba de Costa Rica. Informe Técnico. TNC. San José,
Costa Rica. 254 p.
(http://www.pnp.cr/backend/files/catalogo/2148_Efectos%20Ecol%C3%B3gicos…
0del%20Cultivo%20de%20la%20Pi%C3%B1a%20en%20la%20Cuenca%20Media%
20del%20R%C3%ADo%20General%20Térraba-2006bib.pdf).
Bussing, W.A. 1998. Peces de las aguas continentales de Costa Rica. Universidad de Costa Rica,
San José, Costa Rica. 478 pp.
Chesney, E.J. 1993. A model of survival and growth of striped bass larvae Morone saxatilis in
the Potomac River, 1987. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 92: 15-25.
Cotta-Ribeiro, T. & H. Molina-Ureña. 2009. Ontogenic changes in the feeding habits of the
fishes Agonostomus monticola (Mugilidae) and Brycon behreae (Characidae), Térraba
River, Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical 57 (1): 285-290.
(file:///Users/arturoangulo/Downloads/25-Cotta-Agonostomus.pdf )
Garita, C. & A. Angulo. 2009. Evaluación ecológica rápida de peces de Río Frío y Humedal
Medio Queso. Informe final. Proyecto Desarrollo Sostenible de la Cuenca de Río Frío.
AECID, INBio, ACAHN-MINAET-SINAC. 21 p.
(http://www.proyectorioFrío.org/pdf/Evaluacionecologicarapida.pdf ).
Jiménez, O., H.D. Farias & C. Rodríguez. 2005. Procesos de sedimentacion en embalses en
ambientes tropicales. Estudios de casos en Costa Rica y Republica Dominicana. Revista
Ingeniería del Agua 12 (3): 1-16.
(https://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/2499/1/123article2.pdf ).
Molina, A. 2008. Peces de la Cuenca media-alta, quebradas y tributaries del río Peñas Blancas.
Unidad de Cuenca del río Peñas Blancas. ICE. 33 p.
Molina, A. 2011. Peces de la Cuenca del río Reventazón. RIOCAT, ICE. 132 p.
Ortin, B.S., L. Caballero, C. Coloma & M. Ricart. 2009. Diagnóstico de la cuenca de río Frío,
Arenal Huetar Norte, Costa Rica. Proyecto Araucaria XXI. INBio, MINAE, Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona. 15 p.
(http://www.recercat.net/bitstream/handle/2072/40709/DiagnosticoRioFrío_…
.pdf?sequence=3).
PROCUENCA-San Juan. 2004. Problemas relacionados con la degradación de los suelos y la
sedimentación. Informe técnico. Disponible en internet.
(http://www.oas.org/sanjuan/spanish/documentos/adt/informacion/suelo.html ).
Restrepo, J.D. 2005. Sedimentos del río Magdalena: Reflejo de la crisis ambiental, Medellín:
Fondo editorial Universidad de EAFIT. 267 p.
149Annex 7
Rojas, J.R. & O. Rodríguez. 2008. Diversidad y abundancia ictiofaunística del río Grande de
Térraba, sur de Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 56 (3): 1429-1447.
(http://www.scielo.sa.cr/pdf/rbt/v56n3/art35v56n3.pdf ).
Sáenz, I., M. Protti & J. Cabrera. 2009. Composición de especies y diversidad de peces en un
cuerpo de agua temporal en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Caño Negro, Costa
Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical 54 (2): 639-645.
(file:///Users/arturoangulo/Downloads/14112-24539-1-SM.pdf ).
Villegas, J.C. 2011. Relación entre la diversidad de ictiofauna y la calidad del agua en ríos con
diferente grado de afectación por diques y canales en la zona sur de Costa Rica. Tesis
de Maestría, Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Costa Rica. 113 p.
(http://www.uned.ac.cr/ecologiaurbana/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tesis-J…-
Carlos.pdf).
150 Annex 7
APPENDIX A: CURRICULUM VITAE
N
Arturo Angulo Sibaja, M.Sc.
n
Museo de Zoología, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica. 11501–2060, San Pedro
de Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica. Phone: (506) 8326-2632/ (506) 2282-8697 / (506)
2511-5446. E-mail: [email protected]/[email protected]
Education
-B.Sc. Biology, Universidad de Costa Rica (2005-2009).
-M.Sc. Biology (with honours), Universidad de Costa Rica (2010-2014).
Languages
-Spanish (100%)
-English (Read 80%, Write 75%, Speak 50%).
-Portuguese (Read 90%, Write 75%, Speak 75%).
Current position
-Research collaborator, assistant curator and database manager, at the fish collection of the
Museo de Zoología, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica.
Work experience
-Laboratory of General Biology, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica (2007-2008):
Preparation and installation of laboratories (practices), management of equipment, specimens
and reagent preparation.
-Centro de Investigación en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología (CIMAR), Universidad de Costa Rica
(2010-currently): Collaboration in the field and identification in laboratory of ichthyological
specimens for multiple projects:
-Deep-sea fishes from the Pacific of Costa Rica (2010-2013; Responsible: Lic. Myrna
López Sánchez).
-Effects and recovery in the aquatic communities in the Sarapiqui River Basin against
the earthquake of Cinchona, Heredia-Alajuela Costa Rica (2011; Responsible: M.Sc.
Gerardo Umaña Villalobos).
-Terms of eutrophication in lakes and reservoirs of Costa Rica (2011; Responsible: M.Sc.
Gerardo Umaña Villalobos).
-Assessment and monitoring of fishery resources, Golfo Dulce, Pacífico de Costa Rica
(2012-currently; Responsible: Ph.D. Helena Molina Ureña).
-Collection of otoliths and soft tissues of fresh-water and marine fishes of Costa Rica
(2013-currently; Responsibles: Lic. Myrna López Sánchez and M.Sc. Arturo Angulo
Sibaja).
-Unidad de Investigación Pesquera (UNIP), CIMAR, Universidad de Costa Rica (2012):
Collaboration in the field and identification in laboratory of ichthyological specimens for
multiple projects:
-Distribution and trophic dynamics of demersal sharks and rays of the continental shelf
of the Pacific Costa Rica (2011-2012; Responsible: M.Sc. Mario Espinoza).
151Annex 7
-Demersal sharks and rays of the Pacific continental shelf of Costa Rica: location of
important reproductive sites and developing recommendations for sustainable
management (2011-2012; Responsible: Ph.D. Ingo W. Wehrtmann).
-Independent consultant:
-Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio) (2009): Field work and laboratory
identification of ichthyological specimens for the project "Sustainable Development of
the Rio Frio basin (Diagnostics for assessing the extension or the declaration of a
management category in the Rio Frio and / or Medio Queso wetland; rapid ecological
Assessment)".
-AquaBiolab S.A. (since 2010): Aquatic biomonitoring.
-International Game Fish Association (IFGFA) (since 2010): Identification of specimens
and records validation.
Teaching experience
-School of Biology, University of Costa Rica:
-Laboratory of general biology (B-0107), Instructor (2007-2008).
-Freshwater fishes of Costa Rica: diversity and ecology (B-0798), Instructor (2009-
2010-2011-2012-2013-2014).
-Laboratory of introduction to biology II (B-0163), Instructor (2010).
-Aquaculture (B-0347), Instructor (2010-2011-2012-2013-2014).
-Natural History of Costa Rica (B-0300), Instructor (2010-2011-2012-2013-2014).
-Aquinas College Costa Rica Program, Aquinas College, Michigan (E.E.U.U.) – Municipality de
Santa Ana, San José (Costa Rica):
-Tropical Ecology/Ecología Tropical (SH260), Professor (2012-2013-2014).
-Tirimbina Biological Reserve– Asociación Costarricense de Acuarismo y Conservación de los
Ecosistemas Dulceacuícolas, La Virgen de Sarapiquí:
-Diversity and ecology of freshwater fishes of Costa Rica, Professor (2014).
Scientific publications
(1) Matamoros W.A., P. Chakrabarty, A. Angulo, C.A. Garita-Alvarado, & C.D. McMahan (2013)
A new species of Roeboides (Teleostei: Characidae) from Costa Rica and Panama, with a key to
the middle American species of the genus. Neotropical Ichthyology, 11, 2, 285-290.
(2) Angulo, A., C.A. Garita-Alvarado, W.A. Bussing & M.I. López (2013) Annotated checklist of
the freshwater fishes of continental and insular Costa Rica: additions and nomenclatural
revisions. Check list, 9 (5), 987-1019.
(3) Angulo, A. & J.M. Gracian-Negrete (2013) A new species of Brycon (Characiformes:
Characidae) from Nicaragua and Costa Rica, with a key to the lower Mesoamerican species of
the genus. Zootaxa, 3731 (2), 255-266.
(4) Angulo, A. (2013) Nombres comunes y técnicos de los peces de agua dulce de Costa Rica.
Filología y Lingüística, 39 (2), 77-103.
(5) Angulo, A. (2014) First record, and range extension, of the Mocosa ruff Schedophilus
haedrichi (Perciformes: Centrolophidae) from the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Marine
Biodiversity Records, 7 (2014), e70 (4).
152 Annex 7
(6) Angulo, A. (2014) First record, and range extension, of the Slimy head Hoplostethus mento
(Beryciformes: Trachichthyidae) from the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Marine Biodiversity
Records, 7 (2014), e88 (4).
(7) Angulo, A., M.I. López, W.A. Bussing & A. Murase (2014) Records of Chimaeroid fishes
(Holocephali: Chimaeriformes) from the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, with the description of a
new species of Chimera (Chimaeridae) from the eastern Pacific Ocean. Zootaxa, 3861 (6), 554-
574.
(8) Murase, A., A. Angulo, Y. Miyazaki, W.A. Bussing & M.I. López (2014) Marine and estuarine
fish diversity in the inner Gulf of Nicoya, Pacific coast of Costa Rica, Central America. Check
List, 10 (6), 1401-1413.
(9) Angulo, A., B. Naranjo-Elizondo, M. Corrales-Ugalde & J. Cortés (2014) First record of the
genus Paracaristius (Perciformes: Caristiidae) from the Pacific of Central America, with
comments on their association with the siphonophore Praya reticulata (Siphonophorae:
Prayidae). Marine Biodiversity Records, 7 (e132), 1-6.
(10) Del Moral-Flores, L.F., E. Ramírez-Antonio, A. Angulo & G. Pérez-Ponce de León (In
press). Ginglymostoma unami sp. nov. (Chondrichthyes: Orectolobiformes:
Ginglymostomatidae), una nueva especie de tiburón gata del Pacífico oriental tropical. Revista
Mexicana de Biodiversidad.
(11) Angulo, A., M. López, W. Bussing, A.R. Ramírez-Coghi & G. Arias-Godínez (In press)
Colección Ictiológica del Museo de Zoología de la Universidad de Costa Rica. En: Del Moral-
Flores, F., J.A., Martínez-Pérez & A.J. Ramírez-Villalobos. Colecciones ictiológicas de
Latinoamerica. Editorial de la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México.
(12) Angulo, A., G. Arias-Godínez, M. López & W. Bussing (In press) Catálogo de material tipo
depositado en la colección ictiológica del Museo de Zoología de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
En: Del Moral-Flores, F., J.A., Martínez-Pérez & A.J. Ramírez-Villalobos. Colecciones ictiológicas
de Latinoamerica. Editorial de la Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
(13) Angulo, A., W.A. Bussing & M.I. López (In review) Occurrence of the Ventrad spiderfish
Bathypterois ventralis (Aulopiformes: Ipnopidae) in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Revista
Mexicana de Biodiversidad.
(14) Angulo, A. (In review) Cetomimus gillii Goode & Bean 1895 (Cetomimiformes:
Cetomimidae): range extension and first record in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. Marine
Biodiversity Records.
Manuscripts submitted
(15) Del Moral-Flores, L.F. & A. Angulo (In review) Catálogo de los peces mexicanos
depositados en el Museo de Zoología de la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR). Universidad y
Ciencia.
153Annex 7
(16) Del Moral-Flores, L.F., A. Angulo, M.I. López & W.A. Bussing (In review) Nueva especie
del género Urobatis (Myliobatiformes: Urotrygonidae) del Pacífico oriental tropical. Revista de
Biología Tropical.
(17) Molina-Arias, A., A. Angulo, A. Murase, Y. Miyazaki, W. Bussing & M. López (In review)
Fishes from the Tusubres River basin, Pacific coast, Costa Rica: Checklist, identification key
and photographic album. Check list.
(18) Cruz-Mena, O.I. & A. Angulo (In review) First record, and range extension, of the Pacific
hagfish Eptatretus stoutii (Myxiniformes: Myxinidae) from the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Acta
Ichthyologica et Piscatoria.
(19) Cruz-Mena, O.I. & A. Angulo (In review) Filling gaps on the distribution of the Whiteface
hagfish Myxine circifrons (Myxiniformes: Myxinidae) in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica and
Central America. Check list.
(20) Cruz-Mena, O.I. & A. Angulo (In review) First record of the Snipe eels Nemichthys
scolopaceus and Avocettina bowersi (Anguilliformes: Nemichthyidae) from the Pacific coast of
Costa Rica. Cybium.
Manuscripts in preparation
(21) Angulo, A. (In preparation) Records of Lampridiform fishes from the Pacific coast of
Costa Rica. Journal of fish biology.
(22) Angulo, A., M.I. López, W.A. Bussing, H. Molina-Ureña & M. Espinoza (In preparation)
Deep-water fishes of the Pacific of Costa Rica: an annotated catalog of species with comments
on zoogeographical affinities. Zootaxa.
Technical reports
(1) Garita, C. &A. Angulo. 2009. Evaluación ecológica rápida de peces de Río Frío y Humedal
Medio Queso. Informe final. Proyecto Desarrollo Sostenible de la Cuenca de Río Frío.
AECID, INBio, ACAHN-MINAET-SINAC. 21 p.
(http://www.proyectorioFrío.org/pdf/Evaluacionecologicarapida.pdf ).
Popular works
(1) Angulo, A. (2011) Peces dulceacuícolas de Costa Rica. Avalaible at:
http://pecesdulceacuicolascr.jimdo.com.
(2) Angulo, A. & C.A. Garita-Alvarado (2013) Peces comunes de la cuenca del río Sarapiquí,
Costa Rica. Editorial Ciencia, Arte y Tecnología (CA&T) S.A., 135 pp.
Scientific reviewer
-Revista de Biología Tropical (2013).
Research internships
154 Annex 7
-Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Sciences, Louisiana State University (E.E.U.U.).
Julio 2011. Responsibles: Ph.D.c. Caleb McMahan, Ph.D. Wilfredo Matamoros, and Ph.D.
Prosanta Chakrabarty.
-Separation and identification of ichthyological material collected in Costa Rica and
Panama and review of specimens ofRoeboides spp. (Characidae) for the description of R.
bussingi.
-Colección Nacional de Peces, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
(México). Marzo 2013. Responsibles: M.Sc. Héctor Espinosa Pérez, and M.Sc. Luis Fernando
del Moral Flores.
-Review of ichthyological material collected in deepwaters and of specimens of Brycon
guatemalensis (Characidae) for the description of B. costaricensis.
Meetings and conferences
(1) Angulo, A. & C. Méndez-Vásquez (2012) Avifauna de Isla Grande, Golfito. III Congreso
costarricense de Ornitología. Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica. Poster .
(2) Angulo, A. (2012) Ecomorfología trófica de algunas especies de peces (Pisces, Perciformes)
asociadas a arrecifes rocosos/coralinos en la costa pacífica de Costa Rica. I Congreso de
Morfometría. Universidad del Mar, Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, México. Poster .
(3) Angulo, A. & C. Méndez-Vásquez (2012) Análisis morfométrico de tres especies de Astyanax
(Characiformes, Characidae) de Centroamérica. I Congreso de Morfometría. Universidad del
Mar, Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, México. Talk .
(4) Méndez-Vásquez, C. & Angulo, A. (2012) Morfogeometría comparada de las especies
simpátricas Parachromis friedrichsthalii y P. loisellei (Perciformes, Cichlidae) en Centro América.
I Congreso de Morfometría. Universidad del Mar, Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, México. Poster .
(5) Bussing-Burhaus, W.A., M.I. López-Sánchez, A.R. Ramírez-Coghi, A. Angulo & F. Jiménez
Hernández (2012) Diversidad íctica costarricense. I Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología.
Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas, San Cristobal de las
Casas, Chiapas, México. Talk .
(6) Angulo, A. (2012) Composición y estructura de las comunidades de peces en los ríos Corozal
y Cañaza, Golfito, Puntarenas, Costa Rica. I Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Sociedad
Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas, San Cristobal de las Casas,
Chiapas, México. Poster .
(7) Angulo, A., F. Jiménez Hernández, M.I. López-Sánchez & W.A. Bussing-Burhaus (2012)
Diversidad de peces de aguas profundas en el pacífico de Costa Rica. I Simposio
Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad de Ciencias y Artes
de Chiapas, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, México. Cartel. Talk
(8) A. Angulo, C.A. Garita-Alvarado & B. Naranjo-Elizondo (2012) Diversidad ictiofaunistica de
la cuenca del río Sarapiquí, Costa Rica. I Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Sociedad
Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas, San Cristobal de las Casas,
Chiapas, México. Poster .
155Annex 7
(9) Angulo, A., M.I. Lopez-Sánchez & A.R. Ramírez-Coghi (2013) Cuatro nuevos registros de
quimeras (Holocephali: Chimaeriformes) para el Pacífico de Centroamerica Meridional. II
Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala/Sociedad
Iciológica Mexicana, Antigua, Guatemala. Poster .
(10) Angulo, A., M.I. López-Sánchez & W.A. Bussing-Burhaus (2013) Peces de aguas profundas
del Pacífico de Costa Rica: diversidad y afinidades biogeográficas. II Simposio Latinoamericano
de Ictiología. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala/Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana, Antigua,
Guatemala. Talk .
(11) Bussing-Burhaus, W.A., M.I. López-Sánchez, A.R. Ramírez-Coghi, A. Angulo, G. Arias-
Godínez (2013) El acervo de la colección ictiológica del Museo de Zoología de la Universidad de
Costa Rica (UCR). II Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Universidad de San Carlos de
Guatemala/Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana, Antigua, Guatemala. Cartel. Talk.
(12) Pedraza-Marrón, C. del R., O. Puebla-Ranz, A.I. Domingo, A. Angulo, C. Garita-Alvarado,
J.E. Barraza, E. Espinoza y O. Domínguez-Domínguez (2013) Relaciones filogenéticas de las
especies del género Malacoctenus (Labrisomidae) en el Pacífico Oriental Tropical. II Simposio
Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala/Sociedad Iciológica
Mexicana, Antigua, Guatemala. Talk .
(13) López-Sánchez, M., W. Bussing-Burhaus, A.R. Ramírez-Coghi y A. Angulo (2013)
Colección Ictiológica del Museo de Zoología de la Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR). I Encuentro
de Curadores de Colecciones Zoológicas y Botánicas Estatales. Universidad de Costa Rica, San
José, Costa Rica. Talk .
(14) Angulo, A., M.I. López-Sánchez & W.A. Bussing-Burhaus (2014) Estado actual del
conocimiento ictiológico en Costa Rica. I Simposio estudiantil, Escuela de Biologia, Universidad
de Costa Rica. Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. Talk .
(15) Angulo, A., M.I. López-Sánchez & W.A. Bussing-Burhaus (2014) Diversidad ictiológica en
Costa Rica: estado actual del conocimiento y papel del Museo de Zoologia de la Universidad de
Costa Rica. VII Congreso Nacional de Biología. Colegio de Biólogos de Costa Rica, San José,
Costa Rica. Talk .
(16) Méndez-Vásquez, C., A. Angulo & L. Sandoval (2014) Efecto de dos tipos de depredadores
sobre el comportamiento de respuesta de Melozone leucotis (Aves: Emberizidae). IV Congreso
costarricense de Ornitología. Universidad Latina, San José, Costa Rica. Talk .
(17) Torres, E., G. Palacios-Morales, A. Angulo, E. Espinoza & O. Domínguez-Domínguez
(2014) Barcode of life suggests that Canthigaster punctatissima, C. janthinoptera, and C.
jactator (Tetraodontidae) are synonyms. 2nd Fish Barcode of Life World Conference. El Colegio
de la Frontera Sur, Chetumal, Mexico. Poster .
(18) Angulo, A., G. Arias-Godínez, A.R. Ramírez-Coghi & M.I. López-Sánchez (2014) La
colección de tejidos de peces del Museo de Zoología de la Universidad de Costa Rica (CTP-
UCR). III Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad
Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico. Poster.
156 Annex 7
(19) Angulo, A., G. Arias-Godínez, A.R. Ramírez-Coghi & M.I. López-Sánchez (2014) La
colección de otolitos sagita de peces actinopterigios del Museo de Zoología de la Universidad
de Costa Rica (COP-UCR). III Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Sociedad Iciológica
Mexicana/Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico.
Poster .
(20) Angulo, A., M.I. López-Sánchez, W.A. Bussing-Burhaus, H. Molina-Ureña & M. Espinoza
(2014) Peces de aguas profundas del Pacifico de Costa Rica: un catálogo comentado de las
especies con notas sobre sus afinidades biogeográficas. III Simposio Latinoamericano de
Ictiología. Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo,
Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico. Talk .
(21) Angulo, A., M.I. López-Sánchez & W.A. Bussing-Burhaus (2014) Adiciones a la ictiofauna
marina de Costa Rica. III Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología. Sociedad Iciológica
Mexicana/Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico.
Poster .
(22) Achí-Castro, L., A. Angulo & M.I. López-Sánchez (2014) Ilustración científica: Peces de
aguas profundas del Pacifico de Costa Rica. III Simposio Latinoamericano de Ictiología.
Sociedad Iciológica Mexicana/Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia,
Michoacan, Mexico. Poster .
Workshops
-Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica:
-Analysis of themes of bioethics (20 hours; 2005).
-Geometric morphometrics applied to taxonomy (20 hours; 2012).
-Training and upgrading in chemistry for laboratory assistants and aides, modules I and
II (80 hours; 2014).
-Universidad del Mar, Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, México; as part of the I Congreso de Morfometría:
-Biomechanics and Ecomorphology in vertebrates (4 hours; 2012).
-Morphological evolution (4 hours; 2012).
-Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca
Hidalgo, México.
-Introduction to geometric morphometric (40 hours; 2013)
-Sistema Costarricense de Información sobre Biodiversidad (CRBio) in collaboration with the
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) and the
Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica:
-Tools for management, dissemination and use of information on biodiversity (16
hours; 2013).
-Universidad Latina, San José, Costa Rica; as part of the IV Congreso costarricense de
Ornitología.
- Introduction to bioacoustics (4 hours; 2014).
Scientific societies and organizations
-Unión de Ornitólogos de Costa Rica (since 2010).
-Sociedad Ictiológica Mexicana (since 2012).
-Vice-precident of the Asociación Costarricense de Acuarismo para la conservación de los
Ecosistemas Dulceacuícolas (since 2013).
157Annex 7
Grants
- Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University (E.E.U.U.):
-Travel grant, 1000$ (2011).
-Vicerrectoría de Vida Estudiantil, Universidad de Costa Rica:
-Travel grant, 400$ (2012).
-Sistema de Estudios de Posgrado, Universidad de Costa Rica:
-Travel grant, 1200$ (2012).
-Travel grant, 1000$ (2014).
-Vicerrectoría de Administración/Rectoría, Universidad de Costa Rica:
-Travel grant, 1000$ (2012).
-Travel grant, 834$ (2013).
-Red Latinoamericana de Ciencias Biológicas (RELAB):
-Travel grant, 500$ (2013).
-Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago (E.E.U.U.):
-Travel grant (Visiting Scholarship), 2500$ (2015).
-Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, Washington (E.E.U.U.):
-Travel grant (Visiting Scholarship), 3000$ (2015).
-Coimbra Group of Brasilian Universities – Organization of American States:
-Doctoral fellowship, $70000 (2015-2019).
Areas of interest
-Ichthyology.
-Systematics and taxonomy of tropical fishes.
-Ecology, behavior and natural history of tropical fishes.
-Bioacoustics.
-Biogeography, genetics and phylogeography of tropical fishes.
-Comparative morphometry.
-Ornithology.
-Systematics and taxonomy of Neotropical birds.
-Bioacoustics.
-Biogeography.
-Natural History of Costa Rica.
-Conservation biology.
-Experimental design and multivariate tatistics.
-Geometric morphometrics.
Skills and techniques
-Experience in identifying, collecting, handling (for scientific purposes, collects license valid in
Costa Rica, issued by the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), according to
Resolution No. 007-2013-SINAC) and curation of ichthyological specimens (marine (coastal,
pelagic, reef, demersal and deepwater) and freshwater) and in the maintenance of
ichthyological collections.
-Experience In the capture, handling, collecting and identification of amphibians, reptiles,
birds and aquatic macroinvertebrates, and in implementing the BMWP-CR index for
determining water quality.
-Experience in the collection, preparation and identification of plant samples.
-Experience in experimental design and statistical analysis; use of statistical packages (PAST,
STATISTICA, JMP, SYSTAT).
158 Annex 7
-Experience in geometric morphometric analysis; use of programs and statistical packages
(IMP, TPS, Morpho J, PAST).
-Management of scientific collections and associated data (File Maker, Specify, Microsoft
Excel) and online databases (GBIF Fishnet2).
-Management and analysis database (File Maker, Microsoft Excel).
-Management of computer software and satellite positioning, Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) and spatial analysis of ecological data (ArcGIS 9.3, ArcView 3.3).
-Software/Office packages (Word, Powerd Point, Excel, Outlook, Adobe).
Social-Networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Linkedin, ResearchGate).
-Scientist drawing.
-Management and maintenance of aquariums.
159160 ANNEX 8
Pablo E. Gutiérrez Fonseca
Critical statistical analysis of the report “Ecological Impacts of the Route
1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua” by Blanca Ríos Touma,
November 2014
161162 Annex 8
Report: Critical statistical analysis of the report “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San
Juan River, Nicaragua” by Blanca Ríos Touma, included in Annex 4 in Volume II “Reply of the
Republic of Nicaragua: Dispute concerning construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan
River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)”
By Pablo E. Gutierrez Fonseca
Licenciado in Water Resources, University of Costa Rica
Doctoral Candidate in Ecology and Systematics, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico
A Introduction
In the report titled “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River,
Nicaragua” (the Ríos Report), which is included as Annex 4 in Volume II of “Reply of the Republic
of Nicaragua: Dispute concerning construction of a road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) ”, methods and statistical analysis were used to interpret certain data
(biological and physicochemical) collected at eight sites (rivers) on the south bank (side of Costa
Rica) and eight sites on the north bank (side of Nicaragua), studied during three periods (March,
April and May 2014). A review of the methods and statistical analysis in the Ríos Report indicates
that there are significant inconsistencies in the interpretation of the relevant data. These are se t out
in Section [B] below.
Following this, the statistical test used in the work ofRíos Report is set out; then why
such testing is not appropriate in each analysis is explained , and the test which is the more
appropriate according to the objectives of the Ríos Report is set out. It is important that highlight
that when an incorrect statistical testis used to analyze and interpret data, conclusions may be
drawn that do not correspond to the reality of the target system.
B Inconsistencies in the Rios Report
(1) Inappropriate type of test
First, the author of the Rios Report used a type of test Test Medium (Median test is a
special case of Chi Square) to compare the environmental variables between the deltas (specifically
from the eight rivers that were assessed) that allegedly drain from the road (Costa Rica n side) and
deltas of the streams that drain from forests (Nicaragua n side) ( the Rios Report, Section “A.
Substrate and environmental variables ”). Thus, the author compared the temperature, type of
substrate, and electrical conductivity, and reports significant differences between deltas according
to environmental variable analyzed (ie, temperature and type of substrate).
However, it is incorrect to use a type of test Test Medium to compare variables be tween
different locations, and the test is not suitable to meet the goal set by the author of the Ríos Report.
1
163Annex 8
The statistic test Test Medium uses a Chi Square to examine data. The Chi Square is a standard
method used to determine the similarity between ob served and theoretical values derived from the
same set, and to establish whether the distribution is due to chance or if it reflects a trend. Test
Medium sorts the data from lowest to highest and does a count of how many values are above and
below the median values, forming groups . It then uses the equation of Chi Square to compare the
observed data with theoretical data for each group.
The statistical proceeding of this method involves the generation of hypotheses to be
tested (null hypothesis is that th ere is no difference; alternative hypotheses are that trends exist)
(Zar 1999). Moreover, according to several authors (eg, Zar 1999) this test has low power
(explanatory efficiency) for samples of moderate to large size (n> 20). For this reason, it is
considered that this test is wholly inadequate to meet the defined objective in the Ríos Report,
because there is no hypothesis to be tested with the collected data, which also come from different
sets (different river basins that are not associated). It islso inadvisable to use this method with
continuous data (eg, temperature, conductivity), as continuous data can be examined with statistical
tests of greater power and robustness.
To compare between environmental variables of the deltas south and north, it is suggested
that an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) should be used. The proposed overall of ANOVA is to test
significant differences between group means (ie, averages of environmental variables recorded in
each river bank) (Gotelli and Ellisno 2004). Thus, ANOVA can respond if there are differences in
environmental variables between the two banks tested by the author of the Ríos Report.
(2) Inappropriate type of comparison
Secondly, the author of the Ríos Report compares the periphyton biomass, abundance,
taxa richness and EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) by the Kruskal Wallis test analysis
of variance for nonparametric data. The author obtains significant differences in several of the cases
evaluated (Ríos Report, Section “B. Periphyton” and “C. macroinvertebrates”). However, this test is
not recommended because there is covariance in one of the main parameters examined, namely the
Drainage Area. In this particular case the recommended test is an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). According to Gotelli and Ellisno (2004), an ANCOVA test type should be used when
a covariate (in this case Drainage Area) somehow contributes to the variation of the response
variable (ie, periphyton and macroinvertebrates). The ANCOVA test attempts to eliminate any
systematic error that may skew the results and take into account differences in responses due to the
characteristics of the object of study, in this case study sites. The purpose of ANCOVA is to
2
164 Annex 8
eliminate the effect of a variable that influencesin a portion or all of the sites ( such as Drainage
Area).
The drainage area is commonly defined as the area from the headwater to the river mouth,
and is clearly delimited by topography (Allan and Castillo 2007). The drainage area of a river is a
predictor of the volume o f the flow, which through the gradient (from the headwater to the river
mouth) produces an increase in the amount of transported water which in turn directly affects the
turbidity, temperature and sediment load carried on the way (Allan and Castillo 2007, Dudgeon
2008). This may explain part of the Discussion in the Ríos Report which refers to turbidity (“…It is
notable that the only samples that had to be eliminated for the analysis due to higher turbidity than
those detected for Chlorophyll a were from so uth bank (i.e., road impacted) sites.”). Therefore, it is
apparent that the study sites may naturally fluctuate due to differences in the drainage area, which
have an amplitude ranging from 0.1 km 2to over 25 km (Table 1), being the rivers draining from
the south bank (side of Costa Rica) the ones that have a n allegedly higher average drainage area
(5km ) compared to ri vers draining the north side (~ 1km ); the author should have included the
drainage area as a covariate in an ANCOVA analysis.
Table 1. Analysis of the Drainage Area of the sites studied in the Ríos Report according to
each country. Data were obtained for analysis in the Ríos Report. “Table 1. Location of sampled
deltas in the San Juan River, Nicaragua. ‘A’ points correspond to deltas formed by creeks draining
the road at the south bank of the river and ‘B’ points correspond to deltas formed by draining the
Nicaraguan side at the north bank of the river.”
Country of the Number of Average Area Standard Minimum Maximum
2 2 2
sites studied Sites (km ) Deviat2on area (km ) Area (km )
(km )
Nicaragua 8.00 1.34 2.25 0.10 6.80
(North Bank)
Costa Rica 8.00 5.00 8.71 0.40 > 25.00
(South Bank)
Thirdly, the Ríos Report uses an ordination type n on-Metric Multidimentional Scaling
(nMDS) using the enviro nmental variables and substrate as vectors to assess differences in the
composition of macroinvertebrates ( Ríos Report, Section “D. Composition Changes ”). Thus, the
author uses a nMDS to determine differences in macroinvertebrate assemblage and its relatio n to
environmental variables and the substrate. However, this statistical test is not appropriate to
determine the relationship.
3
165Annex 8
An nMDS is a non -parametric statistical test used to simulate gradients with groups of
ecological data. Some authors, such as M cCune and Grace (2002) suggest that the nMDS is the
most effective test data to apply to communities data. Meanwhile, to determine gradients according
to environmental variables, the recommended test is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Additionally, t he relationship between composition of macroinvertebrates and environmental
parameters can be examined with other special ordinations (most explanatory power) such as
Redundancy Analysis (RDA), or a db -RDA as an alternative method to test complex multivari ate
models (Gotelli and Ellisno 2004 , Ramette 2007 ). Consequently, in the section dealing with
“change in composition ”, the author of the Ríos Report incurs a primer error by applying a non -
parametric test (nMDS) to determine the relationship between envir onmental variables and the
composition of macroinvertebrates.
The second error of the author in the section dealing with “change in composition” is to
assert that the nMDS showed segregating sites (ie, segregation of groups) without performing a
statistical test to prove that assertion (Ríos Report , “The non -metric multidimentional scaling
analysis (Figure 7) showed a segregation of most sites of the north and south bank across axis 2...”).
In statistics, one of the most appropriate tests to determine segre gation ways is to apply an
ANOSIM (Similarity Analysis). However, in the Ríos Report, a test such as ANOSIM was not
conducted, so the segregation of groups suggested in the Ríos Report is entirely subjective and
cannot be tested.
The third mistake that the author of the Ríos Report makes in the analysis section of
“change in composition ” is using nMDS to make a direct relationship between environmental
variables and macroinvertebrates. The author suggested that the sites showed segregation and that
the macroinvertebrate assemblages were influenced by some environmental parameters which were
recorded in the work ( Ríos Report “On the other hand the macroinvertebrate communities were
influenced by bigger d16, d50, lower temperatures and better -sorted sediments (lower sg
coefficient”). However, this observation is subjective because a statistical test that proves a
relationship between environmental variables and substrate with the macroinvertebrate assemblages
was not performed.
Some of the most common statistical tests to determine the relationship between
environmental parameters and macroinvertebrates are Multiple Regression and/or Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC). Both tests are used to determine in a precise way (and not subjective
as does the author) whic h physicochemical variables are most important in influencing the
fluctuations in the aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages, and thus explain the segregation of sites
(if any segregation indeed exists).
4
166 Annex 8
Conclusion
In summary, in the Ríos Report one can observe three remarkable inconsistencies in the
methods for the analysis and interpretation of data from eight sites in the south bank (side of Costa
Rica) and eight sites on the north bank (side of Nicaragua). First, applying a test Median Test
(special case of Chi Square) to compare between sites, when an Analysis of Variance should have
been used. Second, applying a Kruskall Wallis analysis of variance to determine differences
between sites, knowing that there was a covariate (drainage area) that would influence the results
and should be solved by applying an ANCOVA. Third, applying a type nMDS ordination and
subjectively determine segregation of sites related to environmental variables, when statistical tests
(eg, ANOSIM, Multiple Regression and/or AIC) wer e not used to ensure such segregation and
relationships.
References
Allan, J. D., and M. M. Castillo. 2007. Stream ecology —structure and function of running waters.
2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Dudgeon, D. (Ed.). 2011. Tropical stream ecology. Academic Press.
Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM. 2004. A primer of ecological statistics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates.
McCune, B. & Grace, J.B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Mjm Software Designs,
Gleneden Beach.
Ramette, A. 2007. Multivariate analyses in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 62(2),
142-160.
Ríos-Touma, B. 2014. “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua”.
Vol. II “Reply of the Republic of Nicaragua: Dispute concerning construction of a road in
Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)”
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 4. ed.
5
167Annex 8
Pablo E. Gutiérrez-Fonseca
Laboratory for Aquatic Ecology telephone: (787) 6673 33 5
University of Puerto Rico-RP e-mail: gutifp@gmail
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00936-8377
Education
PhD Candidate. Ecology and Systematic Program, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras
campus, Puerto Rico.
Positions
Research Assistant, University of Puerto Rico
Research affiliate at Museum of Zoology University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras
Honors & Awards
Best student oral presentation award , second place. First Latin -American Congress of Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates. San Jose, Costa Rica 2012.
Distinguished LicenciateThesis, University of Costa Rica, 2010.
Research Grants
The Rufford Foundation, Rufford Small Grants (Ref: 15017-1), 2014, Key factors for aquatic
macroinvertebrate conservation in the face of global climate change, $9006.
Publications
Ramírez, A. & P.E. Gutiérrez-Fonseca. 2014. Estudios sobre macroinvertebrados acuáticos en
América Latina: avances recientes y direcciones futuras. Revista de Biología Tropical.
62(Suppl2):9-20.
Ramírez, A. & P.E. Gutiérrez-Fonseca. 2014. Functional feeding groups of aquatic insect families
in Latin America. Revista de Biología Tropical. 62(Suppl2):155-167.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E. & C.M. Lorion. 2014. Application of the BMWP-Costa Rica biotic index
in aquatic biomonitoring: sensitivity to collection me thod and sampling intensity. Revista de
Biología Tropical. 62(Suppl2):275-289.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E. & L., Ortiz-Rivas. 2013. Substrate preferences for attaching gumfoot
lines in Latrodectus geometricus (Aranae: Theridiidae). Entomological News. 123 123(5):
371-379.
6
168 Annex 8
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E., K.G. Rosas & A. Ramírez. 2013. Aquatic insects of Puerto Rico: a list of
families. Dugesiana. (20)2: 215-219.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E., A. Ramírez, G. Umaña & M. Springer. 2013. Macroinvertebrados del
agua dulce de la Isla del Coco, Costa Rica: primer listado y un análisis comparativo con otras
islas del Pacífico Tropical Oriental. Revista de Biología Tropical. 61(2):257-268.
Ramírez, A. & P.E. Gutiérrez -Fonseca. 2013. The larvae of Heteragrion majus Selys and H.
atrolineatum Donnelly, with a key to known species from Costa Rica (Odonata:
Megapodagrionidae). Zootaxa 3609(1): 096–100.
Ramírez, A., Altamiranda -Saavedra M., Gutiérrez-Fonseca P . & M. Springer. 2011. The
Neotropical damselfly genus Cora: new larval de scriptions and a comparative analysis of
known species (Zygoptera: Polythoridae). International Journal of Odonatology. 14(3): 249 -
256.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. & M. Springer. 2011. Description of the final instar nymphs of seven
species from Anacroneuria Klapalék (Plecoptera: Perlidae) in Costa Rica, and first record for
an additional genus in Central America. Zootaxa 2965: 16-38.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. 2010. Plecoptera. Revista de Biología Tropical. 58(Suppl. 4): 139-148.
López, L.I., Gutiérrez P. y J.M. Mora. 2010. Macrofauna Acuática de la Quebrada Santa Inés,
Subcuenca del Río Yeguare, Honduras. Ceiba 51:17-28.
Outreach Publications
Gutiérrez Fonseca, P.E. 2010. Guía ilustrada para el estudio ecológico y taxonómico de los
insectos acuáticos del Orden Coleoptera e n El Salvador. En: Springer, M. & J. Sermeño
(eds.). Formulación de una guía metodológica estandarizada para determinar la calidad
ambiental de las aguas de los ríos de El Salvador, utilizando insectos acuáticos. Proyecto
Universidad de El Salvador (UES) -Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). SINAI
Editores e Impresores, S.A. de C.V., San Salvador, El Salvador. 64 p.
Sermeño, J.M, Pérez, D. & P.E. Gutiérrez-Fonseca. 2010. Guía ilustrada para el estudio ecológico
y taxonómico de los insectos acuáticos inmaduros del Orden Odonata en El Salvador. En:
Springer, M (ed.). Formulación de una guía metodológica estandarizada para determinar la
calidad ambiental de las aguas de los ríos de El Salvador, utilizando insectos acuáticos.
Proyecto Universidad de El S alvador (UES) -Organización de los Estados Americanos
(OEA). SINAI Editores e Impresores, S.A. de C.V., San Salvador, El Salvador. 38 p.
Gutiérrez Fonseca, P.E., Sermeño Chicas, J.M. & J.M. Chávez Sifontes. 2010. Guía ilustrada para
el estudio ecológico y taxonómico de los insectos acuáticos inmaduros del orden Plecoptera.
En: Springer, M (Ed.). Formulación de una guía metodológica estandarizada para determinar
la calidad ambiental de las aguas de los ríos de El Salvador, utilizando insectos acuáticos.
7
169Annex 8
Proyecto Universidad de El Salvador (UES) -Organización de los Estados Americanos
(OEA). SINAI Editores e Impresores, S.A. de C.V., San Salvador, El Salvador. 14 p.
Sermeño Chicas, J., Serrano Cervantes, L., Springer, M., Paniagua Cienfuegos, MR., Pérez, D.,
Rivas Flores, AW., Menjívar Rosa, RA., Bonilla de Torre, BL., Carranza Estrada, FA., Flores
Tensos, JM., Gonzáles CA., Gutiérrez Fonseca, P., et al. 2010. Determinación de la calidad
ambiental de las aguas de los ríos de El Salvador, utilizando invertebrado s acuáticos: índice
biológico a nivel de familia de invertebrados acuáticos en El Salvador (IBF -SV-2010). En:
Formulación de una guía metodológica estandarizada para determinar la calidad ambiental de
las aguas de los ríos de El Salvador, utilizando insect os acuáticos. Proyecto Universidad de
El Salvador (UES) -Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Editorial Universitaria
UES, San Salvador, El Salvador. 43 p.
Pérez, D., Serrano Cervantes, L., Sermeño Chicas, J., Springer, M., Paniagua Cienfuegos, MR. ,
Hernández Martínez, MA., Rivas Flores, AW., Monterrosa Urias, AJ., Bonilla de Torre, BL.,
Carranza Estrada, FA., Flores Tensos, JM., Gonzáles CA., Gutiérrez Fonseca, P., et al.
2010. Clasificación de la calidad de agua de los principales ríos de El Salva dor y su relación
con las poblaciones de macroinvertebrados acuáticos. En: En: Formulación de una guía
metodológica estandarizada para determinar la calidad ambiental de las aguas de los ríos de
El Salvador, utilizando insectos acuáticos. Proyecto Universi dad de El Salvador (UES) -
Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Editorial Universitaria UES, San Salvador,
El Salvador. 84 p.
Invited talks
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E., CM Pringle & A., Ramírez. 2014. Dinámica a largo plazo de las
variables fisicoquímicas y sus efectos sobre la estructura y composición del ensamblaje de
macroinvertebrados en ríos de zonas bajas en Costa Rica. Second Latin American Congress
of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Queretaro, Mexico. [April 7-12].
Ramírez, A*. & P.E., Gutiérrez-Fonseca. 2014. Estudios sobre macroinvertebrados acuáticos en
América Latina: avances recientes y direcciones futuras. Second Latin American Congress of
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Queretaro, Mexico. [April 7-12] Speaker*.
Ramírez, A*. & P.E., Gutiérrez-Fonseca, C.M., Pringle, M. Ardon-Sayo, G.E. Small. 2013. Long-
term ecological research in lowland streams in Costa Rica: The importance of groundwater -
th
surface water interactions on eco system dynamics. 50 Annual meeting of Association for
Tropical Biology and Conservation. San Jose, Costa Rica. [June 23-27] Speaker*.
Pringle, CM, GE Small*, B Bixby , A Ramírez, JH Duff, M Ardon, AP Jackman, M Snyder , CN
Ganong, P Gutiérrez and FJ Trisk a. 2013. Climate-driven acidification in lowland
Neotropical streams: Insights from a 25 -year dataset on ground water - surface water
th
interactions. 98 Annual meeting of Ecological Society of America. Mineapolis. [August 4-
9] Speaker*.
8
170 Annex 8
Ramírez, A*. & P.E., Gutiérrez -Fonseca. 2012. Alta similit ud interespecífica en larvas de
Odonata: el caso de Cora (Polythoridae) y Heteragrion (Megapodagrionidae) . First Latin
American Congress of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. San José, Costa Rica. [Febrero 6-10]
Speaker*.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E. & A., Ramírez. 2012. How stable are the macroinvertebrates assemblages
of tropical streams? First Latin American Congress of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. San José,
Costa Rica. [Febrero 6-10].
Gutiérrez Fonseca, P.E. 2010. Mexican National Congress of Zoology at the Special Meeting:
Freshwater Macroinvertebrates in Mesoamerica. Tabasco, México. [Junio 16-18].
Gutiérrez Fonseca, P.E. 2010 Second National Symposium of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. San
José, Costa Rica. [Noviembre 20].
Mora, J.M., L.I. Lopéz y P. Gutiérrez 2009. The e ffect of l and change uses on aquatic
macroinvertebrate community in Pine forest. Seminar: Research in the Pine -Oak forests and
related ecosystems. Tegucigalpa, Honduras. [March 23]
Mora, J.M., L.I. Lopéz y P. Gutiérrez. 2008. XII Congress of the Mesoamerican Society for
Biology and Conservation. San Salvador, El Salvador. [November 10-14].
Gutiérrez Fonseca, P.E. 2007. First National Symposium of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates . San
José, Costa Rica. [Setiembre 21].
Contributed Papers
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. & A. Ramírez. 2014. Food webs topology and biomass flow in a tropical
urban stream. Joint Aquatic Societies Meeting - Society for Freshwater Science. Portland,
Oregon. [May 18-23].
Sánchez-Ruiz, J.A.*, Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P.E. , Rosas, K.G., Ramírez, A. 2014. Assessing
macroinvertebrate growth rates in the Rio P iedras, a tropical urban stream, Puerto R ico. .
Joint Aquatic Societies Meeting - Society for Freshwater Science. Portland, Oregon. [May
18-23] Speaker*.
Ramírez, A*. & P.E., Gutiérrez-Fonseca, K., Wagner, J., Sánchez, K., Rosas, B., Vázquez. 2014.
Biodiversidad y productividad de los macroinvertebrados acuáticos de un río urbano tropical,
Puerto Rico. Second Latin American Congress of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate s. Queretaro,
Mexico. [April 7-12] Speaker*.
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. & A. Ramírez, CM Pringle. 2013. Long-term patterns of aquatic
macroinvertebrate assemblages in lowland neotropical streams. 50th Annual meeting of
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation. San Jose, Costa Rica. [June 23-27].
9
171Annex 8
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. & A. Ramírez. 2013. Effects of flood disturbance and episodic acidification
events on aquatic macroinvertebrates in tropical lowland streams. Society for Freshwater
Science. Jacksonville, Florida, USA. [May 19-23].
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P. & A. Ramírez. 2012. Importance of long-term sampling in the assessment
of tropical stream biodiversity. Society for Freshwater Science. Louisville, Kentucky. USA.
[May 20-24].
Rosas, K.G.*, Gutiérrez Fonseca, P.E. & A. Ramírez. 2012. Trophic basis of Insect secondary
production in a tropical urban River. Society for Freshwater Science. Louisville, Kentucky.
USA. [May 20-24]. Speaker*
Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P . & A. Ramírez. 2011. Temporal variation in benthic macr oinvertebrate
assemblages in two tropical headwater streams in Costa Rica. North Amer ican Benthological
Society. Rhode Island. USA. [May 22-26].
Research Experience
Assistant in the Zoological Museum of the University of Costa Rica. Aquatic Invertebrates
Collection, M.Sc. Monika Springer. Costa Rica. 2003- 2008.
Associate Researcher for a collection of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the watershed Yeguare,
Valle del Zamorano. Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, El Zamorano. PhD José Manuel Mora.
Honduras October 2007 - January 2008.
Teaching Experience
Teaching Assistant, General Biology II. University of Puerto Rico. Winter 2012.
Teaching Assistant, Botany. University of Puerto Rico. Spring 2012, 2013.
Instructor, Macroinvertebrates indicator of environmental q uality of surfaces waters, April 20 -30
2010, University Rafael Landivar, Guatemala.
Teaching Assistant, Limnology, 2009, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
Teaching Assistant, Aquatic Entomology, 2009, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
Professor, Macroinvertebrates indicator of environmental quality of surfaces waters, June -10 to
July-1 2008, University of El Salvador, El Salvador.
Teaching Assistant, Aquatic Entomology, 2008, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
Teaching Assistant, Limnology, 2007, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica.
Reviewer for
Caldasia (1)
10
172 Annex 8
Hydrobiologia (2),
International Review on Hydrobiology (1),
International Review of Limnology (1),
Journal of Freshwater Ecology (1),
Revista de Biologia Tropical (6).
Society memberships
Society for Freshwater Science (after: North American Benthological Society)
Red Mesoamericana de Recursos Bióticos
Sociedad Mesoamericana para la Biología y la Conservación
Workshops
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of Mesoamérica. Tabasco, México 2010.
Students mentored
Crystal Purcell, University of Dallas, Research Experience for Undergraduate, Summer 2014.
Ismael Oregon, Universidad Metropolitana, Research Experience for Undergraduate, Summer 2013.
Lelanee Ortiz Rivas, University of Humacao, Research Ex perience for Undergraduate, Summer
2011.
Some groups in the course : Tropical Field Ecology in Costa Rica. Penn State UniversityWinter
2007 to 2013.
Some groups in the course: Tropical Field Biology and Conservation. Kent State University. Winter
2012.
11
173174 ANNEX 9
Juan Carlos Fallas Sojo
Comments on the Report by Dr Kondolf as it pertains to Hurricanes and
Tropical Storms
2014
175176 Annex 9
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
COMMENTS ON THE REPORT BY DR KONDOLF
(AS IT PERTAINS TO HURRICANES AND TROPICAL STORMS) IN:
SECTION 1.2 - RISKS OF LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RTE. 1856
[Annex I, pages 71-74]
1
by Juan Carlos Fallas Sojo
In Annex 1 to Nicaragua’s Reply (The Kondolf Report), Dr Kondolf states on page 71 that:
“…It is not true that a hurricane or tropical storm has never struck the Río San Juan.
The eyes of Hurricanes Irene and Olivia in 1971 both tracked just to the north of the
Río San Juan”. 2
This statement is incorrect. In the first instance, Hurricanes Irene and Olivia were not two separate
events. These were two different names given to the same event in 1971: t he hurricane was called
Irene as it passed through the Atlantic Ocean , the Caribbean Sea, and the mainland territory of
Nicaragua. When it passed to the Pacific Ocean, it was given the name Olivia beacuse there are
separate naming conventions for hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific Basins.
Hurricane Irene entered Nicaraguan territory
at Punta Gorda 3 (see adjacent map), which is
located some 68 km north -east of Delta
Colorado, the nearest point on Costa Rican
territory where Route 1856 starts.
INETER reported that the accumulated
precipitation volume over the drainage area
San Juan River for this event , i n the
Nicaraguan territory , was 100 millimetres .
From a hydrological point of view, the total
volume of precipitation is not a good indicator
of the runoff pattern and the magnitude of a
flood hydrograph . The runoff pattern of a
basin depends upon the spatial and temporal
distribution of the rain. In the San Juan River
Basin these characteristics are particularly important because of the attenuation effect of the
1
Director General, Costa Rican National Meteorological Institute (Instituto Meteorológico Nacional) and
Professor of Physics and Meteorology, University of Costa Rica.
2 Kondolf Report, Annex 1, p 71, third paragraph.
3 See http://webserver2.ineter.gob.ni/Direcciones/meteorologia/Desastres/, visited 23 Septembere.htm
4014.
Ibid.
1
177Annex 9
Apartado: 5583-1000
SCalle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
Nicaragua Lake upon the flood hydrograph. Assuming that the total volume of precipitation,
mentioned in the INTER reports, precipitated over a time span of two or three days, which is typical
for a hurricane storm, 100 millimetres of rain, as a total volume of precipitation, does not represent a
severe event and probably will not generate and extraordinary flood hydrograph along the San Juan
River channel. For example, over the Sarapiquí River Basin, the total volume of precipitation with 5
years return period, has been estimated in, approximately, 200 mm, over 48 hours. Therefore, a
total volume of 100 mm of rain, over the drainage area of the San Juan River Basin in the
Nicaraguan territory, does not represent a severe storm for this catchment.
Additionally, in Annex 1 to Nicaragua’s Reply, Dr Kondolf states (page 71, paragraphs 5 and 6):
“… An example of the heavy rains that can over the Rio San Juan and its Costa Rican5
tributary basins is the tropical storm that occurred 6-11 May 2004…”
Dr Kondolf states that a tropical storm affected Costa Rica in May 2004 . This is incorrect. The
weather system that generated rainfall over the territory of Costa Rica was not a tropical storm ; it
was a much smaller disturbance in its intensity and persistence , called a tropical wave or tropical
easterly, which is the name correctly given to the disturbance by N ASA, as is clear in the image
reproduced by Dr Kondolf as Figure 32 on page 72 of his report. Meteorological events of this type
and intensity are actually common in this area, and the dynamics of the region are well adapted to
assimilate the rainfall intensities, durations and distributions associated with them.
Dr Kondolf’s Characterization of Impacts of Tropical Cyclones in Costa Rica
A tropical cyclone is the general term forthe type of air circulation associated with a low pressure
center. These weather events are designated by their intensity (from lowest to highest): tropical
depression, tropical storm or hurricane.
5
Kondolf Report, Annex 1, p 71, fifth and sixth paragraphs.
2
178 Annex 9
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
Figure 1. Relationship between a tropical cyclone near the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua and the associated
distribution of wind and rain in Costa Rica.
th
Although no hurricane or tropical storm has struck Costa Rica directly during t he 20 century and
none have done so thus far in the 21 stcentury, some tropical cyclones occurring outside the country
have had indirect effects in Costa Rica. However, due to Costa Rica’s prominent mountain system,
the rainfall associated with these events is greater in catchments draining to the Pacific than it is in
catchments draining to the Caribbean, such as that of the San Juan River (Figure 1, above).
Dr Kondolf does not mention the characteristic of the distribution of rainfall resulting from tropical
cyclones in the Caribbean (Figure 1), which is clearly evident in the rainfall map for Hurricane Mitch
(Figure 2).
3
179Annex 9
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
Figure 2. Rainfall distribution in Costa Rica during Hurricane Mitch
This is significant because Dr Kondolf refers to seven fatalities caused by Hurricane Mitch in Costa
Rica as though they occurred in the Rio San Juan Basin. This is incorrect. In fact, these deaths not
only occurred outside the Rio San Juan basin, they were not even in the Caribbean drainage basin,
but occurred in the Pacific drainage basin, on the other side of the continental divide, which is easily
understandable considering the circulation (Figure 1) and rainfall distribution (Figure 2).
A clear indication of the regional severity of Hurricane Mitch and its significant impact on the Pacific
side in contrast to the Caribbean (Figure 2), is given by the numbers of people who evacuated to 7
storm shelters on the Pacific and Caribbean sides of the continental divide , respectively .
Contemporaneous reports indicate, among other things, that 5,411 people were forced to leave their
homes. Of these, just 60 people were located in the Caribbean drainage basin, actually in Upala
District, in the province of Alajuela (indicated in red in Figure 3, below). Dr Kondolf states in his
report that, “thousands were forced from their homes” , which is true, but he does not mention that
the vast majority of those displaced were on the Pacific, rather than the Caribbean side of the Costa
Rican mountains.
6 Kondolf Report, Annex 1, p 72, first paragraph.
7 CEPAL report, LC7MEX7L373, of March 4, 1999 and located on the web:
8 www.cepal.org.publicaciones ; visited on 22 and 23 September 2014.
Kondolf Report, Annex 1, p 72, first paragraph.
4
180 Annex 9
Apartado: 5583-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Calle 17, Avenida 9
Teléfono: (506) 2222-5616
Fax: (506) 2223-1837
Correo Electrónico.: [email protected]
Sitio Web: http://www.imn.ac.cr
Figure 3. Map of cantons where people were displaced by Hurricane Mitch. Areas in blue are in
the Pacific Basin. The area in red is the only canton where people were displaced in the
Caribbean Basin. Original map based on data obtained from CEPAL (Comisión Económica para
América Latina y el Caribe) – see footnote 6, below.
5
181Annex 9
JUAN CARLOS FALLAS SOJO
Date of Birth: 21 November 1957
Education
Licenciatura in Meteorology, Universidad de Costa Rica, 1987
Over the course of his career, Mr. Fallas Sojo has participated in a wide variety of seminars, courses and
workshops on relevant issues, such as: water resources, climate change, disaster risk reduction, etc.
Professional Experience
Director General of the Costa Rica National Meteorological Institute (Instituto Meteorológico
Nacional) since 7 April 2008
Deputy Director of the Costa Rica National Meteorological Institute (Instituto Meteorológico
Nacional) from 15 February 2007 to 4 April 2008
Information and Commercialization Management Coordinator of the National Meteorological
Institute (Instituto Meteorológico Nacional) of Costa Rica from 1 July 1996 to 14 February 2007
Deputy Chief of the Department of Information and Publication of the National Meteorological
Institute (Instituto Meteorológico Nacional) Costa Rica from 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1996
Task Force Chief at the Department of de Meteorological Sinoptics and Aeronautics, from 1980 to
30 June 1992
Academic Experience
Professor of Physics and Meteorology, University of Costa Rica, Costa Rica, since 1980
Professor, Training for Meteorological Staff Class II, joint prgram University of Costa Rica -
WMO (4 sessions)
Professor of Physics, Centro de Investigación y Perfeccionamiento de la Educación Técnica,
CIPET, Costa Rica
Professor, Training for Meteorological Staff Class IV, National Meteorological Institute (Instituto
Meteorológico Nacional), Costa Rica (2 sessions)
Expert-Instructor within the CIBERAPRENDIZ (Cyber Apprentice) Programme, Fundación Omar
Dengo, Ministry of Public Education, Costa Rica, 2003-2006
Professor of Climatology, Universidad Latina, Costa Rica, 1998– 2007
Expert-Instructor within the GLOBE Programme, Fundación Omar Dengo, Ministry of Public
Education, 1997-2006
Instructor of Aeronautical Meteorology, Líneas Aéreas de Costa Rica LACSA (Airlines of Costa
Rica)
Internacional Experience
Mr. Fallas Sojo has participated in multiple international meetings of a specialized technical nature.
Member of the Executive Committee of the WMO from 2009
Publications
Fenómenos Atmosféricos y Cambio Climático. Guía para el Docente, 1994.
Proyecto del MEP y del IMN-MINAE.
Libros de Ciencias y Estudios Sociales de Sétimo Año, temas de Meteorología, Climatología y Desastres
Naturales. EDITORIAL SANTILLANA 1999.
Fenómenos Atmosféricos y Cambio Climático. Visión Centroamericana, Guía para el Docente, San José,
C.R. 2003.
182 ANNEX 10
Professor Allan Astorga Gättgens
Extraordinary sediment inputs due to exceptional events on the San Juan
River
December 2014
183184 Annex 10
Extraordinary sediment inputs due to exceptional
events on the San Juan River
Dr. Allan Astorga Gättgens
Bachelor’s Degree in Geology from the University of Costa Rica, Doctor of Natural Sciences of the
University of Stuttgart, Germany. Specialist in sedimentology, environmental geology, land use
planning and environmental impact assessment. Professor of the Central American School of
Geology at the University of Costa Rica since 1991.
December 2014
1. Introduction
In order to obtain a better understanding of the sediment load entering the San Juan River,
particularly in the sector of the basin which is located in Costa Rican territory,is study
analyses extraordinary sediment inputs caused by exceptional geologic events.
This issue is very important, given that the basin of the San Juan River has a ve ry dynamic
geological situation: an island ar c which has evolved into an isthmus. T herefore, these
extraordinary sediment inputs represent a periodic or cyclical process that has long played
an important role in the natural development of the lower part of the basin and which is
responsible for the capacity of the San Juan River to transport significant volumes of
sediment toward to the Caribbean Sea.
This document summarizes the results of a study on geological events that occur primarily
in the Costa Rican part of the basin of the San Juan River and that explains how,
periodically, extraordinary inputs of sediment adds to the natural process es of sediment
production, transfer and delta building.
As a methodological basis for the preparation of this study, sediment volumes produced by
extraordinary events from the upper part of the basin, as well as their possible frequency
and type of sediment, are considered. While t his study provides only a preliminary
numerical approximation of the quantities of sediment involved , this is sufficient to better
understand sediment dynamics of the San Juan River.
The author is a Professor of Sedimentology and Environmental Geology at the University
of Costa Rica since 1991, and C onsultant in Environmental Impact Assessment,
Page 1 | 22
185Annex 10
Environmental Management and Environmental Land. He holds the degrees of Licentiate in
Geology by the School of Geology at the University of Costa Rica (1987), and Doctor of
Natural Sciences by the University o f Stuttgart, Germany (1996). A more extensive
description of his CV is included as Appendix A.
2. Geography of the basin of the San Juan River
2
The San Juan River basin has an area of about 42 thousand km . It is the largest river basin
in Central America (SIC A, 2011). It is a binational river basin, occupying parts of
Nicaragua and Costa Rica (Figure 1).
Around 70% of the basin is located in Nicaragua, and this part of the basin includes Lake
Cocibolca (or Lake Nicaragua) and Lake Managua. The other ~30% is lo cated in Costa
Rica (Figure 1).
The basin rises from the Caribbean coastal plains of Río Indio -Maíz (in Nicaragua) and
Tortuguero (in Costa Rica), with most of it ly ing 500 m or more above sea level. The
highest points in the basis are volcanic peaks, with heights of 1,500 - 3,000 metres in Costa
Rica and a little over 1,600 metres in Nicaragua.
This topography exerts a considerable influence on rainfall, which varies from 4,000 to
6,000 mm in the most humid, upland areas, to 1,000 to 2,000 mm in the drier areas around
Lake Cocibolca, where the dry season lasts approximately seven months.
The only outlet from Lake Cocibolca is the San Juan River, which flows for about 205 km
from its source at the Lake to the Caribbean. Initially, the river is located enti rely in
Nicaraguan territory, but five kilometres downstream from El Castillo, its south bank
becomes the international border between the two countries (Figure 1). The river’s
direction is southeast, and some 174 km from its origin, at the proximal head o f its delta, it
divides into two branches: the lower San Juan River and the Colorado River, which have
separate mouths in the Caribbean Sea that are separated by about 20 km.
Page 2 | 22
186 Annex 10
Fig. 1. Map of the binational basin of the San Juan River (cf. SICA, 2011).
The characteristic of the tributary network is that rivers draining to Lake Cocibolca in the
North part of the basin are short in length, with directions East-West, West-East and South-
North, while tributaries draining to and the San Juan River from the No rth are oriented
North-South.
Most of the rivers draining from the Southern sector of the basin originate in Costa Rica, in
the Guanacaste mountain range to the West, originating at elevations up to 3,000 metres in
the Tilarán mountain range to the South-East. High levels of rainfall along the north flank
of the Tilarán mountain range contribute approximately 85% of the discharge of the San
Juan River. The estimated average annual discharges of the river are 475 m³/s at San Carlos
de Nicaragua (the source of the San Juan River at Lake Cocibolca ), increasing to 1,308
3
m /s at the mouth of Sarapiquí River. Of th is discharge , 26% originates from Lake
Nicaragua; 6.5% from tributary inputs between San Carlos de Nicaragua and El Castillo;
and 67.5% from tributarie s confluencing between El Castillo and Sarapiquí
1
(PROCUENCA, 1997: p. 86: Régimen Hidrológico ).
1
PROCUENCA (1997): Estudio de Diagnóstico de la Cuenca del Río San Juan y Lineamientos del Plan de Acción.
Manejo Ambiental y Desarrollo Sostenible de la Cuenca del Río San Juan. Gobierno de Costa Rica. Gobierno de
Page 3 | 22
187Annex 10
3. Geology of the basin of the San Juan River
The basin of the San Juan River is mainly located in the back -arc of the south of Central
America, although its most north-western point forms part of the fore-arc basin of the south
of Nicaragua (Figure 2). For full details see Astorga et al. (1991).
Fig. 2. Tectonic map of part of the South Central American orogen, with an indication of
the main tectonic and neo tectonic elements related to the basin of San Juan River (blue
line). As you can see this watershed occurs in an area of fore -arc and back -arc in
Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
The basin has a complex geological history that is related to the tectonic evolution of the
lithospheric blocks that now make up the Caribbean plate. The Chortis block and South
block of Central America have been evolving together since the Upper Paleocene (50
million years ago), when they were united by the Mesoamerican trench (see Astorga, 1997).
Nicaragua. Programa de las Naciones Unidades para el Medio Ambiente. Unidad de o Sostenible y Medio
Ambiente. Secretaría General de la Organización de Estados Americanos. Washington, D.C. 334 p.
(http://www.oas.org/DSD/publications/Unit/oea05s/oea05s.pdf)
Page 4 | 22
188 Annex 10
Prior to that, they had a separate history. During the Mesozoic era, what today is largely the
San Juan basin, including the northern part of the Costa Rican territory, were part of the
fore-arc of the Chortis Block.
The traces of this tectoni c process are evidenced by the presence of fragments of oceanic
crust of the ancestral Farallón Plate, trapped and tectonically deformed (accretionary
wedges) in what the author called “Ofiolita de Sábalos ” (see Astorga, 1997). These are
serpentinized harzburgite rocks, basalts and Mesozoic radiolarites possibly of Jurassic -
Lower Cretaceous age.
Since the Upper Paleocene, both regions of what today is the San Juan basin have evolved
mainly as a back-arc region, with deposits of important successions of volcaniclastic rocks.
However, during the late Miocene (and possibly linked to the rearrangement of plates and
tectonic blocks in the Caribbean region ), a back-arc “rift” began to open up. This has been
referred to by Astorga et al. (1991) as the San Carlos Basin, and more regionally it is
known as the Nicaragua Graben (see Figure 2, above).
The existence of the Lakes Nicaragua and Managua are the best evidence of the existence
of this second-generation basin, which is still geologically active. Conversely, the sector of
the basin in Costa Rica has been subject to a process of silting up that is rapid on a
geological timescale, with slight tectonic uplift, which caused this portion of the basin to be
raised, possibly from the Pliocene (about 5 million years ago).
It is highly probable that before this phenomenon occurred, the Nicaragua Graben drained
towards the Caribbean Sea in a paleo -San Juan River, in a similar position to the current
course of the river. This situation must have occurred at leas t from the Middle Miocene (10
million years ago).
With the uplift of the basin of San Carlos in Costa Rica, drainage to the Nicaragua Graben
was further increased through the San Juan River. Through that process, the San Juan River
Basin was created as it exists today, and since that time it has had a relatively homogeneous
evolution.
Page 5 | 22
189Annex 10
4. General characterization of the San Juan River and its delta
The slope of San Juan River, from its source at Lake Cocibolca to its mouth in the
Caribbean Sea, is limited by the low drop in its elevation, of only around 30 m (Figure 3).
It is an antecedent river, meaning that it developed prior to uplifting of the mountains
through which it runs . This explains why the river’s course “cuts” through mountain
highlands that are tens to hundreds of metres high (Figure 3).
The course downstream of Lake Cocibolca may be divided into two contrasting reaches;
the mountainous and plain reaches.
San Juan River
Marker II
Caribb
ean
Sea
Plains stretch
Colorado
River
Topographic profile
Fig. 3. Course of the San Juan River from where it flows from Lake Cocibolca to its mouth
in the Caribbean Sea, superimposed on a digital elevation model. A topographic profile of
San Juan River from the Lake to the mouth is show below the map. There are two reaches:
a mountainous reach and a plain one. These reaches can be divided into segments that are
indicated on the map and explained in the text. The San Juan River is an antecedent river,
meaning that it existed prior to geological uplifting of the mountai ns that it crosses; this
fact demonstrates that this river is ancient, which is corroborated by the presence of a delta
at its mouth whose age is estimated at approximately 10 million years (see text for details).
Page 6 | 22
190 Annex 10
The mountainous reach extends from its source at Lake Cocibolca to the mouth of San
Carlos River. This reach may be divided into two sub-reaches: a) Río Frío - Pocosol and b)
Pocosol - San Carlos River. It is in the lower sub-reach that the greatest number of “rapids”
occur in the river, where bed rock is exposed in the bed (see Figure 3).
This reach is characterized by the fact that the San Juan River cut s through the topography
of the land, with its fluvial valley constrained between mountain ranges. In general, the bed
gradient or slope is steeper in this reach compared to the plain reach downstream.
The plain reach extends from the mouth of the San Carlos River to the mouth of the San
Juan River in the Caribbean Sea. It too may be divided into sub-reaches (Figure 3): a) San
Carlos River - Sarapiquí River, b) Sarapiquí River - Delta and c) Delta - Mouth. This reach
has a lower slope or gradient compared to the mountainous reach upstream.
In th e plain reach, the fluvial valley of the San Juan River is wider and more open,
generally lacking constriction by adjacent to mountain ranges, with a few exceptions on the
left bank of the Sarapiquí River - Delta sub-reach.
The San Juan River forks at Delta Costa Rica, which is the start of the river’s Delta - Mouth
sub-reach (Figures 3 and 4) . The San Juan River continues from Delta Costa Rica to its
mouth in the Ca ribbean Sea at the Bay of San Juan del Norte, but much of the discharge
(probably 80 to 90%) passes to the Colorado River, which discharges to the Caribbean
about 20 km to the south -east. The origin of this fork is explained by the fact that Delta
Costa Rica lies at the proximal head of the delta of the river, which has been accumulating
sediment and building towards the east for at least the last 10 million years (Figure 4). For
full details, see Astorga et al. (1991).
Page 7 | 22
191Annex 10
Fig. 4. Lower sub-reach of the San Juan River. At Delta Costa Rica, the river forks to form
the lower San Juan River and Colorado River . The pattern of growth faults (or listric
faults) parallel to the coast in the deltaic front of this sedimentary system formed by eastern
advance of the delt2 begin from this location. Note that this is an area includes
approximately 250 km of wetlands that extends between both countries.
Interpretation of the seismic reflection lines by Astorga et al. (1991) identified an important
pattern of growth faults (or listric faults) parallel to the coast in the deltaic front of this
sedimentary system (Figure 5). These geological faults seem to have played an important
role in the control and evolution of the shoreline associated with the delta.
It is believed that these features were formed by eastern advance of the lower San Juan -
Colorado delta during the last 10 million years, which has extended through prolongation
2
towards the sea to create a delta with an area of at least 1 ,000 km , much of which is
currently submerged. During this period it has, nevertheless, increased the area of the
coastal plain by approximately 1,250 km . 2
Another geologic feature to highlight from the work of these authors is the interpretation of
the direction of the Hess Fault (or Hess Scarp) which enters the coast approximately in a
northeast to southeast direction in the vicinity of the mouth of the lower San Juan River.
Page 8 | 22
192 Annex 10
Fig. 5. Figures taken from the article by Astorga et al. (1991) which show the tectonic
structure of Costa Rica, with particular emphasis on the delta of the San Juan - Colorado
system. The profile was obtained from the interpretation of seismic reflection sections in
the delta, which indicate the maximum age of the feature to Miocene (approximately 10
million years ago) and the abundant presence of listric faults parallel to the coast,
evidencing high sedimentation rates and also a possible process of tectonic and neotectonic
control in the sedimentation system of the delta.
5. Extraordinary inputs of sediment due to geological events in the Costa Rican part
of the San Juan River basin
Figure 6 shows the digital elevation model of the Costa Rican part of the San Juan River
basin. It indicates the main extraordinary sources of sediment toward the San Juan River.
Eleven volcani c structures, some of them complex (stratovolcanoes) that are currently
active are indicated on the map , including the Rincón de la Vieja, Arenal, Poas , and
Turrialba volcanoes.
Extraordinary inputs of sediment to the basin are defined as all of those that result from
“catastrophic” or “exceptional” geological events, directly associated with volcanic
eruptions (pyroclastic flows and lahars) and earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 6.0,
which generate large numbers of landslides (Figure 7). Major flood events are not included
because they impact the fluvial system primarily through transporting large volumes of
sediment, but are not necessarily a primary source of new sediment.
Page 9 | 22
193Annex 10
Fig. 6. Extraordinary sources of sediment input to the S an Juan River, from the Costa
Rican part of the basin. It should be noted that there are at least eleven currently active or
potentially active volcanoes with heights between 2,000 and 3,000 metres above sea level
that periodically contribute extraordinary amounts of sediment to the basin.
Figure 8 presents a timeline of “Historical Seismic events (earthquakes) and volcanic
eruptions recorded on the Costa Rican side of the basin of the San Juan River” for the last
three centuries.
In this compilation, ea rthquakes with magnitudes greater than 6.0 have been included, as
these are known to induce landslides in the upper parts of the sub -basins in Costa Rica
(Figure 7), as well as volcanic eruptions that input sediment to t he sub-basins, particularly
through the development of volcanic mudflows (known as lahars).
Figure 8 shows that there is a significant volcanic eruption within the Costa Rican portion
of the basin of the San Juan River approximately every 40 years. Earthquakes occur more
frequently: on average about 13 per century.
Thus, it must be concluded that a “catastrophic” or “exceptional” geological event that
provides extraordinary sediment to the basin occurs, on average, about every 20 years.
Page 10 | 22
194 Annex 10
Fig. 7. Natural erosion processes occurring in t he upper part of Irazú Volcano (for
approximate location see red arrow in Figure 6). Large and numerous landslides feed
sediment into the streams that drain the volcanic mountain range towards the North,
especially in the San Carlos and Sarapiqi tributary basins within the San Juan River basin.
The sediments consist of gravel, sand , silt and clay in different percentages. As clays, silts
and fine sands are easier to transport, they are carried directly to the San Juan River
during the rainy season.
Page 11 | 22
195Annex 10
Fig. 8. Extraordinary sources of sediment input to the San Juan River, from the Costa
Rican side of th e basin. Note that there are at least eleven currently active or potentially
active volcanoes with heights between 2,000 and 3,000 metres above sea level th at
periodically contribute significant amounts of sediment to the basin and that earthquakes
happen even more frequently than volcanic eruptions.
Technical information about the detailed characteristics of these extraordinary events is
limited because systematic geological studies did not begin in Costa Rica until the creation
of the Central American School of Geology at the University of Costa Rica in the 1970s.
However, the historical data compiled by the authors cited in Figure 8 indicate s that these
events generate extraordinary sediment inputs (associated with landslides and/or mudflows)
to the drainage systems of tributary rivers that transport the sediment to the San Juan River
either quickly (for fine sediment) or more gradually (in the case of coarse sediment).
It is relevant in this context to mention the case of the Cinchona earthquake ; an event of
magnitude 6.2, that occurred on 8 January 2009 in the Central Volcanic Range of Costa
Rica, within the basin of the San Juan River.
According to Alvarado (2010), the total volume of sediment generated by this seismic event
was between 2.5 to 3.5 million m , which is equivalent to between 4 and 5 million tonnes.
Sediments ranged from clays to large blocks of volcanic rock , which fragmented during
Page 12 | 22
196 Annex 10
their transport. Alvarado (2010) indicates that numerous landslides and mudslides triggered
by the earthquake flowed at speeds between 4.8 and 13.3 m/s in areas with steep gradients
decreasing to between 10 and 2.5 m/s in areas with lower gradients as a result of the
earthquake (Figures 9 and 10).
Alvarado (2010) points out that the sediment impacts of the Cinchona earthquake have
been corroborated in the world (Keefer & Wilson, 1989), Central American (Devoli et al.,
2009) and Costa Rican literature (Mora & Mora, 1994) which, “establish the relationship
between the magnitude of earthquakes, the affected area, the slipped area and the
generation of mudflows, among other things. ” Emphasis is given to the fact that major
mudflows and landslides have been generated by earthquakes with magnitudes greater than
5.2 (Mora & Mora, 1994). In the case of the Cinchona earthquake, according to Alvarado
(2010), the affected area was around 200 km , with 349 measured landslides within an area
2
of 21.7 km within which hill slopes completely slipped (Figure 9). This was clearly an
extraordinary event in terms of the quantity of sediment s uddenly contributed to the
drainage basin.
Given the characteristics of the sediments produced, it is estimated that approximately 50%
of the material input to streams and rivers by these landslides were in the clay to sand size
range. This suggests that the fluvial systems draining the northern flank of the mountains
would have carried that sediment to the San Juan River within a period of weeks to months.
Thus, it is concluded that within a year after such an exceptional event in the upper part of
the basin, the fine component of the material extraordinarily contributed ( making up
between 10 to 50% of the overall volume ) is likely to reach the San Juan River, to be
transported to its deltaic mouths at the Caribbean Sea.
Based on the timeline of known events , and technical information gathered following the
2009 earthquake, it is possible to conclude that the San Juan River has received
extraordinary inputs of sediment (especially clay, silt and fine sand) in varying volumes at
approximately 20 year intervals, with these inputs lasting from several months to a
maximum of a year or so.
Page 13 | 22
197Annex 10
Fig. 9. The areas
marked in black
represent the
landslides that
occurred as a
result of the
Cinchona
earthquake of
2009. The star
indicates the site
of the epicentre.
Image taken from
Alvarado (2010).
Page 14 | 22
198 Annex 10
Fig. 10. Photographs of landslides triggered in January 2009 showing the types of damage
caused by the Cinchona earthquake (see Figure 9 for location).
This establishes that the San Juan River has been subjected to extraordinary inputs of
sediment for centuries and that it has the ability to transport such inputs of sediment,
particularly in relation to its morphological resilience to carry additional sediment which
periodically, but extraordinarily, adds to the annual load generated by normal processes of
erosion that operate semi-continuously within the drainage basin.
The study has e stablished that geological events that occur periodically (on average one
every 20 years) in the Costa Rica n part of the basin , are able to suddenly contribute
exceptional inputs of sediment to the fluvial system, ranging from 1 to perhaps 4 or 5
million additional tonnes of sediment. This has been documented for centuries and has
probably been the case for millennia or perhaps 10 million years. It follows that the
environmental effects on the ecological conditions of the river are not significant because
the fluvial and ecosystems are adapted to these conditions and events.
The additional contribution of sediment represented by the construction of Ruta 1856 must
be considered within this context.
According to the latest measurements of slope erosion (based on field surveys of all the
slopes along the Road and supplied in the 2014 Mende Report ), added to estimates of
erosion of the road bed itself provided in the 2014 ICE Report, and assuming a sediment
delivery ratio of 0.6, the upper bound estimate of the volume of sediment input to the San
Page 15 | 22
199Annex 10
Juan River due to construction of the Road under a ‘worst case’ rainfall scenario is about
75,000 tonnes per year. This represents about 1.5 to 7.5% of the load periodically supplied
to the drainage system by natural geologic events.
Considering the geological setting of the San Juan River Basin, and its long history of
periodically receiv ing extraordinary inputs of sediment, it must be concluded that the
environmental impacts of the additional sediment supplied due to construction of the Road
are insignificant. This is particularly the case taking into account the fact that periodic
contributions due to natural, geologic events may be 10 to 60 times greater than the input
produced by sediment from Ruta 1856.
6. Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. The hydrographic basin of the San Juan River, is a bi-national basin that has an area
of a little over 42 ,000 Km . Of the basin, about 70% is in Nicaragua, with the
remaining 30% in Costa Rica.
2. Geologically, the drainage basin of the San Juan River falls into two different
geological zones: the volcanic arc, and the back-arc. The geological situation results
in the highest parts of the basin being formed by volcanoes, some of which are
currently active.
3. The Lakes Nicaragua and Managua , as well as the northern part of Costa Rica,
which is known as the San Carlos Basin , form a geologic back -arc structure,
tectonically controlled, which originated 15 to 20 million years ago ( during the
Lower Miocene). Originally this area was covered by the sea, but about 10 million
years ago it was separated as a large fresh water lake. The drain age of this lake was
an ancient San Juan River, whose mouth was towards the East, in a location close to
the present mouth of the River.
4. During the last 10 million years, the San Juan River has built a delta (the San Juan –
2
Colorado Delta) with an area of around 1,250 km and a thickness on the order of
4,500 metres. This delta is the accumulation of literally billions of cubic metres of
sediment.
Page 16 | 22
200 Annex 10
5. The existence of the San Juan – Colorado Delta is testament to the operation of
natural sediment erosion, transport and deposition processes that have operated for
about 10 million years . In addition to this “normal” sediment input, there have
periodically been extraordinary sediment inputs caused by seismic and volcanic
events.
6. The record of geologic events in the Costa Rican part of the San Juan River Basin
during the last three centuries (i.e. earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that have
generated landslides and mudflows) indicates tha t, on average, such events have
occurred about every 20 years . These events input extraordinary volumes of
sediment to tributaries draining to San Juan River in the following months to a year.
7. For example, the 2009 Cinchona earthquake, which had its epicentre on the northern
slope of the Poás Volcano in Costa Rica and within the basin of the San Juan River,
is documented to have triggered 349 landslides within an area of 21.7 km 2around
the epicentre. Between 2.5 to 3.5 million cubic meters of sediment were released, of
which about 50% is estimated to have reached the San Juan River in the 12 months
following the event.
8. As similar (and stronger) seismic events are documented as having occurred in the
basin for centuries, the San Juan River has evolved the capacity to transport heavy
and variable sediment loads to its delta , along with the morphological resilience to
absorb extraordinary increases in the supply of sediment due exceptional events.
9. Recognising the natural capacity of the San Juan River to transport high and highly
variable sediment loads, I conclude that the additional sediment load produced
temporarily by the construction of Ruta 1856, which is estimated to be of the order
of 75,000 tonnes/year, is insignificant in comparison to the natural sediment load
carried by the River and geologically-driven variability in that load.
7. References
ALVARADO, G. (2000): Volcanes de Costa Rica: Editorial UNED, 269 p.
Page 17 | 22
201Annex 10
ALVARADO, G. (2010): Aspectos geohidrológicos y s edimentológicos de los flujos de
lodo asociados al terremoto de Chinchona (M w6,2) del 8 de enero del 2009, Costa
Rica. Revista Geológica de América Central, 43: 67 – 95.
ASTORGA, A., (1997): El Puente-Istmo del Sur de América Central y la evolución de la
Placa Caribe (con énfasis en el Mesozoico). Profil 12: 1-212, Stuttgart.
ASTORGA, A., FERNANDEZ, J.A., BARBOZA, G., CAMPOS, L., OBANDO, J.,
AGUILAR, A. & OBANDO, L.G., (1991): Cuencas Sedimentarias de Costa Rica:
Evolución Geodinámica y Potencial de Hidroc arburos. Revista Geológica de
América Central, 13:25-59.
BARQUERO, R. & ROJAS, W. (1994): Sismicidad inducida por el terremoto de Limón.
Revista Geológica de América Central. Volumen Especial. Terremoto de Limón, 22
de abril de 1991, 111 – 120.
BOSCHINI, I. & MONTERO, W. (1994): Sismicidad histórica e instrumental del Caribe
de Costa Rica. Revista Geológica de América Central. Volumen Especial.
Terremoto de Limón, 22 de abril de 1991, 65 – 72.
COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICITY (ICE) (2014). Second Repor t on
Hydrology and Sediments for the Costa Rican River Basins Draining to the San
Juan River, Center for Basic Engineering Studies, Department of Hydrology, San
José, Costa Rica, December 2014, 34 pages.
DENYER, P., MONTERO, W. & ALVARADO, G. (2003): Atlas tectónico de Costa Rica.
Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Serie Reportes técnicos, 81 p.
DEVOLI, G.; DE BLASIO, F.V., ELVERHOI, A. & HOEG, L. (2009): Statistical Analysis
of Landsalide Events in Central America and Their Run – out Distance. – Geotech.
Geol. Eng., 27: 23 – 42.
GOMEZ, F., LEITÓN, J.J., AGUILAR, C., LAPORTE, S., ZUÑIGA, J.A., AVENDAÑO,
M., FERNANDEZ, J.F. & FALLAS, B. (2013): Report on hydrology and sediments
for the Costa Rican river basins draining to de San Juan River. Costa Rica n Institute
Page 18 | 22
202 Annex 10
of Electricity (ICE), SBU Projects and Associated Services Centre for Basic
Engineering Studies. Department of Hydrology. 80 p.
http://www.oas.org/sanjuan/spanish/documentos/dialogo/dialogo/01-charac…-
abstract.html: PROCUENCA. Diálogo sobre agua y Clima. Enfrentando la
variabilidad del clima en una cuenca transfronteriza de América Central: La cuenca
del río San Juan (Costa Rica y Nicaragua).
KEEFER, D. & WILSON, R. (1989): Predicting earthquakes -induced landslides with
emphasis on arid and semiarid environments. – Publ. Inland Geol. Soc., 2: 118 –
149.
MENDE, A. (2014): Inventory of Slopes and Watercourses related to the Border Road Nº
1856 between Mojón II and Delta Costa Rica- Second Report.
MORA, S. & MORA, R. (1994): Los desliza mientos causados por el terremoto de Limón:
Factores de control y comparación con otros eventos en Costa Rica. –Revista
Geológica de América Central, Volumen Especial. Terremoto de Limón: 139 – 152.
PERALDO, G. & MONTERO, W. (1994): Terremotos coloniales d e COSTA RICA.
Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica, 162 p.
PERALDO, G. & MORA, M. (2008): Enseñanzas de la actividad histórica de los volcanes
Irazú y Turrialba, Costa Rica, América Central. En: García, V. (Coordinadora):
Historia y desastres en América Lat ina, III. Publicaciones de la Casa Chata: 115 –
164 p.
RODRÍGUEZ, J.P. & ARCHE, A. (2010): Deltas. En: ARCHE (ED.): Sedimentología. Del
proceso físico a la cuenca sedimentaria. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas. Textos Universitarios, 1287 p.
SICA (2011): Atlas Centroamericano para la Gestión Sostenible del Territorio. Comisión
Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo (CCAD). Programa Regional para la
Reducción de la Vulnerabilidad y Degradación Ambiental (PREVDA). Primera
Edición. Auspiciado por la Unión Europea.
Page 19 | 22
203Annex 10
APPENDIX A
Curriculum Vitae: Allan Astorga Gättgens
Born in Cartago, Costa Rica, on 26 January 1962. He received his primary education at
Escuela República de Guatemala, and secondary education at Instituto de Alajuela. He
obtained a Bachelor’s Degree in Geology in 1984 and a Licenciatura Degree in Geology in
1987 from Universidad de Costa Rica, with honours. From 1989 to 1996 he pursued post -
graduate studies at the Institute of Geology and Paleontology of the University of Stuttgart ,
Germany, where he obtained a PhD in Natural Sciences with the highest marks.
He worked as assistant in the Seismology Laboratory at the Instituto Costarricense de
Electricidad de Costa Rica during 1984. From 1984 to 1999 he worked as geologist for oil
exploration at the Primary Production Management of the Refinadora Costarricense de
Petróleo (Costa Rican Oil Refinery). He performed oil exploration work specializing in
geological mapping and sedimentology at several sedimentary basins in Costa Rica.
Between 1991 and 1993 he carried out oil exploration in the South of Nicaragua, as part of
an agreement with the Government of Nicaragua. He also conducted geological studies in
Panama.
To date, and since 1991, he joined the team of professors of the Central A merican School
of Geology at the University of Costa Rica. He teaches Petrography of sedimentary rocks,
Environmental Geology I (environmental impact assessment) and Environmental Geology
II (strategic environmental assessment of policies and plans with emphasis on land use). He
has also taught courses on National Affairs and Sedimentary Basins and Hydrocarbons.
For several years he taught environmental impact assessment for the master’s degree
courses of Universidad Estatal a Distancia, Universidad de Co sta Rica and Universidad
Nacional.
Since 1993 he joined the Inter -institutional Committee of Environmental Impact
Assessment of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources of Costa Rica, as
environmental impact examiner. In 1994 he assumed charge of the S trategic Planning Unit
of the Environmental Impact Commission of the Ministry of the Environment. Since 1995
he became part of the environmental impact assessment technical team of the Secretaría
Page 20 | 22
204 Annex 10
Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) of the Ministry of Envir onment and Energy of
Costa Rica. Between 1997 and 1998 he was technical director (Secretary General) of the
SETENA. As part of his work as environmental examiner, he conducted more than 700
environmental assessment analysis of different types of projects: energy, road works, urban
planning, mining, industry, tourism, among other.
To date, and since 1999, he works as a private environmental consultant on environmental
impact assessment, environmental management and environmental land management. From
1999 to 2006 he served as international consultant for the Central American Commission
on Environment and Development, the Inter -American Development Bank (IADB), the
World Bank, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), among other
organizations, to support the development of the System of Procedures for Environmental
Impact Assessment of the Central American countries. As part of this consulting work, he
coordinated or participated in the preparation and modernization of the regulations for
environmental impact assessment of Belize, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and
Panama. In 2004 he was the IADB Coordinator for the preparation of the proposal of
Environmental Protection Policies for Central America. In 2006, he acted as coordinator of
the EIA Modernization and Strengthening Project in Central America. During the same
year he drafted the proposal of a procedure for the application of the Strategic
Environmental Assessment for Central America, for which regional courses were given for
all the countries of Central America.
From 2007 to 2009 he participated as consultant for the Ministry of Natural Resources and
the Environment of Honduras, as the main coordinator in the modernisation of the
Regulations of the System for Environmental Evaluatio n and Control, as well as the EIA
Technical Manual of Honduras. From 2009 to 2011 he participated as consultant of the
Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources of El Salvador, responsible for
preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment Technical Manual of El Salvador.
Between 2007 and 2010, he participated as a member of the Peace with Nature Initiative of
the Government of Costa Rica. He acted as coordinator of the components of
Environmental Management and Land Use. He was the coordinator of th e preparation of
the technical procedure to prepare Environmental Management Plans at State institutions.
Page 21 | 22
205Annex 10
He also developed the proposal for the procedure to apply the EAE policies, plans and
programmes in Costa Rica.
Between 2007 and 2009 he coordinated the multidisciplinary technical team that developed
the basis of land planning of the Greater Metropolitan Area of Costa Rica for the
PRUGAM Plan, which includes 31 urban municipalities of Costa Rica. He has worked as
Coordinator of environmental studies for land use of over 35 municipalities in the country.
As a consultant in environmental impact assessment he has performed over 100 technical
studies on various types of development projects. He has participated in several EAE. He
has over 50 publications, technical and scientific documents published. Since 2012 he
collaborates with the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the technical issues of
geology and sedimentology of the dispute with Nicaragua.
Page 22 | 22
206 ANNEX 11
Consejo Nacional de Vialidad (CONAVI)
Works on National Road 856: Before and After
December 2014
207208 Annex 11
Tel: (506) 2202-5479 Tel Fax: (506) 2253-1180
Email: [email protected]
WORKS ON NATIONAL ROAD N° 856: BEFORE AND AFTER
Updated as of December 2014
The details shown comprise the works performed by CONAVI between Marker 2 and
Caño Cureñita as of December 2014. All of the coordinates are presented in
Lambert North projection. In cases where the station is indicated, the origin 0+000
corresponds to the site where the gravel road begins from Marker 2, coordinates
E496511, N329581. The following map shows the area of study where the works
were performed:
209Annex 11
Ing. Page 2 of 44rmona
Point: Marker 2
Name: View toward Marker 2
Location: E496655 N329700
Description: Placement of coconut fibre, construction of ford. Station 0+100.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
210 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 3 of 44
Point: Culvert
Name: Culvert # 9
Location: E496918, N 329956
Description: Placement of a culvert to allow the passage of water which was
stagnant. Station 0+213.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
211Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 4 of 44
Point: Marker 2
Name: Entrance to marker 2
Location: E497210, N330195
Description: Placement of coconut fibre near the water course has substantially
promoted vegetation growth. Station 0+900
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
212 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 5 of 44
Point: Laying of gravel
Name: Laying of gravel at entrance to Marker 2
Location: E497210, N330195
Description: Laying of gravel to improve the condition of the road. Station 1+000,
close to slopes T1 and T2
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
213Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 6 of 44
Point: T-6
Name: Slope
Location: E497318, N329883
Description: Contouring of slopes, placement of coconut fibre and placement of
lined ditch. Station 1+100, corresponding to slope T-6
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
214 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 7 of 44
Point where gravel was laid
Name: Laying of gravel
Location: E: 497075 N:429800
Description: Laying of gravel to improve the conditions of the road. Station
1+300, close to slopes 8a and 8b.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
215Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 8 of 44
Point: T-8a
Name: Landslide
Location: E497578, N329755
Description: Clearing away of landslide material, contouring of slopes, placement
of lined ditch. Station 1+427, corresponding to slope T-8a
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
216 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 9 of 44
Point: T-10
Name: Landslide
Location: E 497850, N 329600
Description: Clearing of landslide material off the road. Station 1+800,
corresponding to slope T-10
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
217Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 10 of 44
Point: C-8
Name: Culvert # 1
Location: E: 498517 N: 328350.
Description: Placement of culvert at a pass where there was an imminent fault
and removal of sediment at water course C-8. Station 2+764.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
218 Annex 11
Ing. Page 11 of 44mona
Point: T-17
Name: Slope and lined ditch
Location: E498634, N328436
Description: Tidying of slope, placement of lined ditch.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
219Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 12 of 44
Point: C-9
Name: Culvert # 2
Location: E498700, N328350
Description: Placement of culvert in a land pass undermined due to existing
fence. Elimination of fence, placement and compacting of gravel. In addition,
construction of a lined ditch at slope near water course C-9. Station 3+270.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
220 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 13 of 44
Point: C-12
Name: Caño Trinidad
Location: E497870, N325822
Description: Removal of logs and placement of new panel-type modular bridge.
Station 6+500
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
221Annex 11
Ing. Page 14 of 44mona
Point: C-13
Name: Culvert # 8
Location: E 498089, N 325299
Description: Placement of culvert. Station 6+900, water course C-13
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
222 Annex 11
Ing.Page 15 of 44rmona
Point C-17
Name: Culvert # 3
Location: E499087, N324972
Description: A concrete culvert is placed in water course C-17. Station 8+034.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
223Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 16 of 44
Point: T-38
Name: Point 1, important slope.
Location: E499520, N324600
Description: Lined ditch, contouring of slope, construction of berm at slope T-38.
Station 9+040
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
224 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 17 of 44
Point: T-39
Name: Lined ditch and sediment trap
Location: E499250, N324459
Description: Sediment trap of the University of Costa Rica (UCR) to control and
monitor sedimentation from slope T-39, construction of lined ditch at the slope.
Station 9+040
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
225Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 18 of 44
Point: C-19
Name: Culvert # 4
Location: E499753, N324049
Description: Removal of logs and placement of new culvert in water course C-19.
Station 9+040
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
226 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 19 of 44
Point C-21
Name: Culvert # 5
Location: E499856, N323698
Description: Removal of logs and placement of new culvert in water course C-21.
Station 9+783
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
227Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 20 of 44
Point T-40
Name: Lined ditch and hydroseeding
Location: E 499982 N 323271
Description: Planting on slope using hydroseeding on slope T-40. Station
10+350,
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
228 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 21 of 44
Point T-40
Name: Lined ditch, hydroseeding and coconut fibre
Location: E500088 N 323078
Description: Contouring of slopes, construction of lined ditches, placement of
coconut fibre, application of hydroseeding at station 10+428, on slope T-40
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
229Annex 11
Ing. Page 22 of 44mona
Point C-24
Name: Culvert # 6
Location: N:500187 E:323027
Description: Placement of culvert at water course C-24. Station 10+585
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
230 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 23 of 44
Punto T-41
Name: Lined ditch, contouring of slope with fibre and planting.
Location: E500075, N323103
Description: Contouring of slopes, construction of lined ditch, placement of
coconut fibre, application of hydroseeding at station 10+630, on slope T-41
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
231Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 24 of 44
Point: C-27
Name: Repaired log bridge.
Location: N: 500667 E: 322447
Description: The bridge was deteriorated to the point where passing through it
was dangerous, therefore it was repaired, facilitating its use.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
232 Annex 11
Ing.Page 25 of 44rmona
Point: T-43
Name: Lined ditch, contouring of slope with fibre.
Location: E500797, N322258
Description: Contouring of slopes, construction of lined ditch, placement of
coconut fibre, at station 11+825, on slope T-43. There has been a very significant
growth of vegetation along all the slope.
BEFORE AFTER
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
233Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 26 of 44
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
234 Annex 11
Ing.Page 27 of 44rmona
Point C-30
Name: Culvert # 7
Location: E 501099, N321688
Description: Culvert placed on log pass over water course C-30. Station 12+200
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
235Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 28 of 44
Point: C-32
Name: Dissipaters
Location: E 501457 N 321529
Description: Construction of energy dissipaters in flow conditions with high
gradient at water course C-32. Station 11+825.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
236 Annex 11
Ing.Page 29 of 44rmona
Point T-49
Name: Lined ditches
Location: E 501457 N 321529
Description: Construction of lined ditches along slope T-49. Station 12+635
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
237Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 30 of 44
Point: T-50
Name: Site for excess material
Location: E 501855, N 321475
Description: Site contemplated to deposit excess material from the digging
performed at the end of slope T-50. Station 13+050
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
238 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 31 of 44
Point T-58b
Name: Infiernito
Location: E503111, N321375
Description: Contouring of slopes, lined ditch, hydroseeding and placement of silt
fence sediment traps along slope T-58b. Station 14+600.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
239Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 32 of 44
Point T-63
Name: Infiernito Crucitas
Location: E506807, N321188
Description: Contouring of slope, lined ditch, and placement of silt fences.
Station 15+400
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
240 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 33 of 44
Point T-66a, T-66b
Name: Caño Venada - Crucitas
Location: E505112, N319194
Description: Compaction and contouring of loose filling on slope, construction of
verges, placement of coconut fibre.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
241Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 34 of 44
Point T-67
Name: Caño Venada - Crucitas
Location: E505258, N319091
Description: Compaction and contouring of loose filling on slope, construction of
verges, placement of coconut fibre.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
242 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 35 of 44
Point T-70b
Name: Caño Venada - Crucitas
Location: E505336, N319069
Description: Compaction and contouring of loose filling on slope, construction of
berms, placement of coconut fibre at slope T-70b
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
243Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 36 of 44
Point T-72b
Name: Caño Venada - Crucitas
Location: E505466, N319037
Description: Compaction and contouring of loose filling on slope, construction of
berms at slope T-72b
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
244 Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 37 of 44
Point T-73a, T-73b
Name: Caño Venada - Crucitas
Location: E505698, N319032
Description: Compaction and contouring of loose filling in slopes and berms,
placement of coconut fibre along the length of slopes T-73a and T-73b
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
245Annex 11
Ing.Page 38 of 44rmona
Point C-45
Name: Caño Venada
Location: E507041, N318778
Description: Removal of logs and placement of new bridge over Caño Venada
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
246 Annex 11
Ing.Page 39 of 44rmona
Point C-46
Name: Caño Venada - Crucitas
Location: E507408, N318879
Description: Placement of bridge over creek C-46
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
247Annex 11
Ing.Page 40 of 44rmona
Point C-49
Name: Caño La Chorrera
Location: E510406, N317065
Description: Placement of pedestrian bridge over La Chorrera creek (C-49)
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
248 Annex 11
Ing.Page 41 of 44rmona
Point C-69
Name: Quebrada
Location: Boca San Carlos, E 516386 N307325
Description: Removal of smooth pipe at collapsed pass and placement of log
pass on water course C-69.
BEFORE AFTER
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
249Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 42 of 44
Location on the map:
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
250 Annex 11
Ing.Page 43 of 44rmona
Point C-86
Name: Caño Cureña
Location: E 526425, N 304545
Description: In the process of building two panel-type modular bridges.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
251Annex 11
Ing. José Mena Carmona
Page 44 of 44
Point C-89
Name: Caño Cureñita
Location: E 528087, N 303657
Description: Removal of logs and placement of new panel-type modular bridge
over water course C-89.
BEFORE AFTER
Location on the map
Montes de Oca de la Rotonda de Betania 50 mts Este. Tel: (506)22-02-53-00 Apdo. 616-2010 Zapote, Costa Rica
252 ANNEX 12
Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San Carlos (CODEFORSA)
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the construction of
the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Route 1856. Quarterly Report
November 2014
253254 Annex 12
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS
Corporate ID number: 3-002-066610-06
Telephone: 2460-1055 Fax: 2460-1650
Email: [email protected]
Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
P.O. Box 205-4400 Ciudad Quesada, San Carlos
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems
affected by the construction of the Juan Rafael
Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
QUARTERLY REPORT
November 2014
255Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………………1
I. INDEX OF APPENDIXES.........................................................................................................3
II. INFORMATION OF THE EXECUTOR......................................................................................4
III. AREA OF STUDY .....................................................................................................................5
IV. AREAS TO INTERVENE: .........................................................................................................6
1. Profile of the land grading......................................................................................................................6
a) Cut slopes:............................................................................................................................................. 6
b) Road surface.......................................................................................................................................... 7
c) Fill slopes:............................................................................................................................................. 7
2. Water courses.........................................................................................................................................7
V. ACTIVITIES PERFORMED:......................................................................................................9
1. Restoration or compensation measures developed.................................................................................9
a) Labelling of the areas to be intervened.................................................................................................. 9
b) Drains on cut slopes: ........................................................................................................................... 10
c) Cross drains on the road:..................................................................................................................... 12
d) Small sediment trap:............................................................................................................................ 13
e) Large sediment trap:............................................................................................................................ 14
f) Sediment trap with box: ...................................................................................................................... 15
g) Coverage of areas lacking vegetation:................................................................................................. 16
h) Planting of native species of trees: ...................................................................................................... 17
VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED BY SITE...........................................18
1. Point 4 of the areas to intervene. 600 m of slope. ................................................................................18
a) Slope T64 a & b .................................................................................................................................. 19
b) Slope T65 a & b: ................................................................................................................................. 21
2. Point 5 of the areas to intervene 2690 m of slope. ...............................................................................23
a) Slope T66 a & b: ................................................................................................................................. 24
b) Slope T67 ............................................................................................................................................ 26
c) Slope T69 a & b: ................................................................................................................................. 27
d) Slope T71 ............................................................................................................................................ 29
e) Slope T73 a & b: ................................................................................................................................. 31
f) Slope T75 ............................................................................................................................................ 33
g) Slope T76 a & b: ................................................................................................................................. 35
3. Point 6 of the areas to intervene 1200 m of slope ................................................................................37
a) Slope T81 ............................................................................................................................................ 38
b) Slope T82 a & b: ................................................................................................................................. 40
4. Water courses between slopes at Point 5..............................................................................................42
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page1
Tel: (506) 2460-1055 Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
256 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
5. Survey of areas to intervene.................................................................................................................44
6. Characteristics of the materials. ...........................................................................................................44
7. Timetable for implementation of the activities. ...................................................................................45
8. Maintenance activities..........................................................................................................................46
a) Cleaning: ............................................................................................................................................. 46
b) Repair:................................................................................................................................................. 46
c) Construction of new works:................................................................................................................ 47
9. Follow-up of the project.......................................................................................................................49
VII. APPENDIXES .............................................................¡ERROR! MARCADOR NO DEFINIDO.
10. APPENDIX 1: COORDINATES OF LOCATION OF THE SEDIMENT TRAPS BUILT TO DATE.
51
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page2
Tel: (506) 2460-1055 Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
257Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
I. INDEX OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1: COORDINATES OF LOCATION OF THE SEDIMENT TRAPS
BUILT TO DATE.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page3
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
258 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
II. INFORMATION OF THE EXECUTOR
Organization: Asociación Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San
Carlos (CODEFORSA)
Location: Ciudad Quesada, San Carlos
Address: 800 m. sur de la estación de Bomberos.
Contact information: [email protected], www.codeforsa.org
www.facebook.com/CODEFORSA
Phone number: 2460-1055, 2460-0952.
Fax: 2460-1650
Legal representative: Fabio Rodríguez Camacho
ID number: 2-282-687
Powers: General attorney in fact with no amount limit
Persons to notify:
Executive Director: MSc. Jhonny Méndez Gamboa,
[email protected].
Technical manager: Gilberth Solano Sánchez, Eng. [email protected].
Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San Carlos (CODEFORSA) is a non -
governmental organization (NGO), non -profit, established in July 1983, whose
actions are aimed at achieving sustainable growth and rendering forestry services
and general services for environmental management and conservation.
The area of direct influence of CODEFORSA is mainly the
North of Costa Rica , where lowland tropical rainforests
predominate. It practically extends from the top of the
Central Volcanic and Guanacaste mountain ranges to the
border with Nicaragua. The area represents approximately
20% of the national territory.
CODEFORSA has over 30 years of experience in the environmental field,
having performed work in the North area of the country in natural forest,
commercial reforestation and other environmental field work.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page4
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
259Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
III.Area of study
The area where the works are performed is located between the towns of Tiricias,
specifically at the mouth of Infiernito River, and the community of Chorreras, on the
right bank of the San Juan River.
According to the first line of the service requested for restoration and rehabilitation
of ecosystems in three sectors of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta
1856, the geographic location of the project is the following:
Project: Restoration and rehabilitation of Geographic coordinates
ecosystems affected by the construction of the (CRTM 05)
Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta
1856, located within the Northern Border Corridor
Wildlife Refuge ( Refugio de Vida Silvestre,
Corredor Fronterizo Norte).
Province: Alajuela 83° 39’ 58.53”/10°55’ 50.88”
Canton: San Carlos
District: Cutris
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page5
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
260 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
IV.AREAS TO INTERVENE:
1. Profile of the land grading
In this area, the border road was built on land covered by forest with slopes varying
between 45 and 60 degrees, with cut and fill slopes, as well as areas of deposits of
material to soften the slopes in the water courses present on the built road.
LAND
GRADING
ROAD SURFACE
FILLING
Figure 1. Grading profile for theroad.
a) Cut slopes:
Land grading or cut slopes
correspond to an exposed area of
land on a slope; this grading may
occur, depending on the altitude,
in a single cut or in terraces.
At these sites six activities are
performed, aimed at the protection
and restoration of the ecosystems
present. These measures include:
drains at the base of the cut and
on the terraces to divert the runoff,
drain over the cut to prevent the
water from flowi ng through the cut due to gravity, sediment traps, either small or
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page6
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
261Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
large to reduce sediment carried off and finally protection of exposed soil through the
placement of saran on the surface and planting of vetiver grass to stabilize the land
and native tree species at suitable sites.
b) Road surface
It includes the area where vehicles
circulate plus surrounding areas on both
sides; road surfaces are between 14 and
20 metres wide.
In these areas work is currently being
performed with machinery to lay gra vel
on the road from Quebrada Venada to
Quebrada Crucitas. Channels will be built
in these areas to divert the water towards
the edges of the road, as well as barriers
to slow down water runoff and reduce the
sediments carried on the surface of the
road.
c) Fill slopes:
Fill slopes for this work correspond to
areas of contouring of the road where
part of the material from land grading
has been deposited, and where there
has been loss of soil.
In this area of road contouring soil
conservation activities should also be
performed. For fill slopes sufficient
sediment traps will be placed to slow
down water runoff and prevent soil
loss, drains will be built at the base of
the fill slope to route the disposal of
surface water and works will be
performed to prevent the carrying of materials in drains. In addition, saran cover will
be placed on areas lacking vegetation, vetiver grass will be planted to stabilize the
soil and native tree specieswill be planted atsuitable sites.
2. Water courses.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page7
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
262 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Another factor that is causing soil loss is
the watercourses that cross the Ruta
1856.
In most of these sites small culverts
were placed, which in some cases
became obstructed with branches and
trunks, leading to the formatio n of
blockages which due to the amount of
rain destroyed the pa ssage built and
culverts placed. The most troubling is
the carrying of material to the river bank,
causing the direct contamination of both
the creek and the river at its mouth and downstream.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page8
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
263Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
V. ACTIVITIES PERFORMED:
1. Restoration or compensation measures developed.
We describe herein the different restoration or compensation measures which are
being implemented to reduce or correct the problems of soil loss and
sedimentation occurring in the area to be intervened.
The order to begin activities was issued through communication No. SINAC -DE-
GDF-300, of 11 September 2014.
Restoration activities were initiated by CODEFORSA, on 17 September 2014, at
point 5 of the three points to intervene, since this area presents more problems.
a) Labelling of the areas to be intervened.
The first activity performed was the labelling of the different slopes defined in the
contract to keep better control of the activities to be performed.
For this report we are using the numbering of the slopes used by Dr. Andreas
Mende in his study.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page9
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
264 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Currently restoration works are being carried out at the three points defined in the
contract. Point 6 is where the most progress has been achieved, with 70%
progress in the construction of drains and sediment traps.
b) Drains on cut slopes:
These drains are being built in the upper part of the cut slope . Their function is to
prevent runoff water from flowing on the cut slope, directing it instead transversely,
descending the slope to an area with sufficient vegetation cover to absorb the
water flow.
POINT 4.Construction of drain in the upper part of the cut slope.
Construction of drain in the terraces.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page10
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
265Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
POINT 5.
Upper drain, Slope T66a. Upper drain, Slope T73a.
Drain on terrace, Slope T75 Drain on road, Slope T75.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page11
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
266 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
POINT 6.
Drain at base of cut, Slope T81. Drain at base of filling, Slope T82b.
Drain on terrace, Slope T81 Drain on upper part of cut, Slope T82a.
c) Cross drains on the road:
These divert runoff water from the surface of the road to prevent it from running
freely along the road forming small holes and preventing soil loss.
These drains are not going to be built for now given that there is machinery
working in point 5 to enable access from Quebrada Venada to Quebrada Crucitas.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page12
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
267Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
At Point 6 some drains have been built that could work like this type of drain to
direct runoff waters from the road surface.
Cross drains built at Slope T82a on the edge of the road.
d) Small sediment traps:
A sediment trap is an artisanal trap placed on the drains in order to filter the
passage of sediments downstream and at the same time reduce the speed of run -
off water.
This sediment trap is built with logs or wooden stakes lined with saran, on the
surface of built drains and natural outlets of rainwater, fulfilling the function of
sediment filters and water speed reducers.
To date 263 small sediment traps have been built at the three points on which work
is being performed.
Later on we present the percentage of progress for the number of works to be
performed for each of the slopes that are being intervened.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page13
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
268 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Fill Slope T69b. Cut Slope T82a.
Small sediment traps.
e) Large sediment traps:
These have the same function as small sediment traps but are placed to cover
more extensive areas of exposed soil and protect more against soil loss.
Their size may range from a few to several metres depending on t he size of the
area to protect. It is convenient to place several in a row to increase effectiveness.
Large sediment trap, Slope T76b. Large sediment trap, Slope T66b.
Large sediment trap, Slope T69a. Large sediment trap, Slope T66a.
These sediment traps are placed in areas where landslides occur.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page14
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
269Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
To date 58 large sediment traps have been built at the three points where work is
being performed.
f) Box sediment trap:
This type of trap is being placed at the end of all drains that have been built, either
at the top of cut slopes or on terraces.
The dimensions of the box built vary depending on the location of the drain and the
space available; however, the measures of the boxes are approximately 1 metre
long by 75 cm wide, and 50 cm deep.
To date 148 box sediment traps have been built.
Box sediment traps in gullies and at the end of the drain
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page15
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
270 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
g) Coverage of the areas lacking vegetation:
In order to prevent and reduce soil loss due to rain , and to retain soil material in
place, all coverage will be placed on all exposed areas of soil at the three points to
intervene.
Priority has been given at Point 5 to the placement of coverage material with saran
and also the establishment of vegetation cover with the planting of vetiver grass is
mainly in the cut slope areas and Sotacaballo trees in the fill slopes.
So far 4.140 m² of slopes have been covered with saran and 910 plantsof vetiver
grass and 783 Sotacaballo trees have been planted.
Placement of saran on Slope T76a.
Planting of Vetiver Planting of Sotacaballo trees
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page16
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
271Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
h) Planting of native species of trees:
The planting of trees is a remedial measure that has been implemented in several
sites along Ruta 1856 from Delta Costa Rica to the sector of Río Pocosol in Los
Chiles, northern border area. This activity has been performed in exposed areas
dedicated to livestock where the owners have offered part of the productive areas
to perform this activity.
This activity was co ntemplated only for two specific points on Slopes T64b and
T81; however, the planting of trees has already been implemented in all possible
areas within the slopes to be intervened, primarily in the fill slopes of each sector.
As indicated above, a total of 783 trees have already been planted , mainly on
slopes T66b and T76b.
As can be seen in the picture, natural grass is already coming out of the saran,
improving the coverage in the fill slope, in this case on Slope T66b. In the upper
part of the picture you can see “Lengua de Vaca” plants that were already
colonising the fill slope; a hol e was made in the saran to let their development
process continue in the fill area.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page17
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
272 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
VI.Description of the activities implemented by site.
Below is a breakdown of the reconstruction works carried out in each of the
prioritized sites.
1. Point 4 of the areasto intervene. 600 m of slope.
Slope T64 a & b
SECTOR 2 Slope T65 a & b
SECTOR 1
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page18
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
273Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
a) Slope T64 a & b
Restoration measures to be
implemented Number of Progress
units per of Percentag
e %
activity activities
Drains at the base of the
cut slope and on the 300 metres 195,4 65,1%
terrace
Small sediment traps at
drains 13 units 0 0,0%
Cut slopes:
Box sediment traps at
the end of the drain 3 units 6 200,0%
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 1.485, 5 m² 0 0,0%
Road surface: Cross drains to divert
waters 100 metres 0 0,0%
Drains at the base of the
150 metres 190 126,7%
fill slopes
Small sediment traps.
16 units 0 0,0%
Box sediment traps
12 units 4 33,3%
Fill slopes:
Large sediment traps
10 units 0 0,0%
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 1.372 m² 0 0,0%
Planting of trees 100 trees 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page19
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
274 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page20
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
275Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
b) Slope T65 a & b:
Restoration measures to be Number of Progress of Percentage
implemented. units per activities %
activity.
Drains at the base of
the cut slope and on 300 metres 225 75,0%
the terrace
Drain in the upper 150 metres 151,7 101,1%
part of the cut slope
Cut slopes: Small sediment traps 14 units 0 0,0%
for drains
Box sediment traps at 8 units 7 87,5%
the end of the drain
Coverage of areas 3.233 m² 0 0,0%
without vegetation
Road Cross drains to divert
120 metres 0 0,0%
surface: waters
Drains at the base of 150 metres 0 0,0%
the fill slopes
Box sediment traps
for drains and gullies 38 units 0 0,0%
Fill slopes:
Large sediment traps 24 units 0 0,0%
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 1.861 m² 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page21
Tel: (506) 2460-Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
276 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page22
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
277Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
2. Point 5 of the areas to intervene 2690 m of slope.
Slope T66 a & b
Slope T67
Slope T69 a & b
Slope T71
Slope T73 a & b
Slope T75
Slope T76 a & b
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page23
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
278 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
a) Slope T66 a & b:
Number of
Restoration measures to be units per Progress of Percentage
implemented activities %
activity
Drains at the base of
the cut slope and on 500 metres 154,5 30,9%
the terrace
Drain in the upper part
of the cut slope 150 metres 200 133,3%
Small sediment traps
40 units 33 82,5%
for drains
Cut slopes:
Box sediment traps at
the end of the drain 10 units 17 170,0%
Large sediment traps
(15 m) for landslide 4 units 9 225,0%
area
Coverage of areas 5.397 m² 0 0,0%
without vegetation
Cross drains to divert
Road surface: waters 160 metres 0 0,0%
Drains at the base of 200 metres 115 57,5%
the fill slopes
Small sediment traps
for drains 41 units 9 22,0%
Fill slopes:
Box sediment traps for
drains and gullies 21 units 33 157,1%
Large sediment traps 5 units 10 200,0%
(10 m) for gullies
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page24
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
279Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be Number of Progress of Percentage
units per
implemented activity activities %
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 4.562 m² 1200 26,3%
Planting of trees 0 trees 600 60000,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page25
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
280 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
b) Slope T67
Number of
Restoration measures to be units per Progress of Percentage
implemented activities %
activity
Drains at the base of
the cut slope and on 150 metres 60 40,0%
the terrace
Drain in the upper 50 metres 75 150,0%
part of the cut slope
Small sediment traps
Cut slopes: for drains 18 units 13 72,2%
Box sediment traps
at the end of the 8 units 2 25,0%
drain
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 974 m² 880 90,3%
Cross drains to
160 metres 0 0,0%
divert waters
Road
surface:
Box sediment traps
to intervene gullies 16 units 2 12,5%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page26
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
281Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
c) Slope T69 a & b:
Restoration measures to be Number of
implemented units per Progress of Percentage
activity activities %
Cut slopes: Drains at the base of 600 metres
the cut slope and on 400 66,7%
the terraces
Drain in the upper 250 metres
part of the cut slope 250 100,0%
Small sediment traps 25 units
for drains
28 112,0%
Box sediment traps at 14 units
the end of the drain
9 64,3%
Large sediment traps 6 units
(15 m) for landslide
area 6 100,0%
Coverage of areas 2.450 m²
without vegetation
1200 49,0%
Road surface: Cross drains to divert 90 metres
waters
0 0,0%
Box sediment traps to 6 units
intervene gullies
0 0,0%
Small sediment traps. 12 units
0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page27
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
282 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be Number of
implemented units per Progress of Percentage
activity activities %
Large sediment traps 4 units
(15 m) for gullies
0 0,0%
Fill slopes: Drains at the base of 100 metres
100 100,0%
the fill slopes
Small sediment traps 25 units
for drains
6 24,0%
Box sediment traps 31 units
for ditch and gullies
1 3,2%
Large sediment traps 5 units
(15 m) for gullies 0 0,0%
Coverage of areas 882 m²
without vegetation 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page28
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
283Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
d) Slope T71
Restoration measures to be
implemented
Number of Progress of Percentage
units per
activity activities %
Cut slopes: Drains at the base
of the cut slope and
290 metres 200 69,0%
on the terraces
Drain in the upper
part of the cut 180 metres 180 100,0%
slope
Small sediment
traps for drains
12 units 19 158,3%
Box sediment traps
at the end of the
drain 8 units 7 87,5%
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for 2 units 0 0,0%
landslide area
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 1.355 m² 800 59,0%
Road Cross drains to
surface: divert waters 90 metres 0 0,0%
Box sediment traps
to intervene gullies
20 units 0 0,0%
Small sediment
traps. 10 units 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page29
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
284 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be
implemented Number of
units per Progress of Percentage
activity activities %
Fill slopes: Drains at the base
80 metres 80 100,0%
of the fill slopes
Small sediment
traps for drains 34 units 5 14,7%
Box sediment traps
for drains and
gullies 28 units 1 3.6%
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for
8 units 0 0,0%
gullies
Coverage of areas
without vegetation 1.094 m² 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page30
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
285Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
e) Slope T73 a & b:
Restoration measures to be
implemented Number of
units per Progress of Percentage
activity activities %
Cut slopes: Drains at the
base of the cut
slope and on the 400 metres 405 101,3%
terraces
Drain in the
upper part of the 200 metres 200 100,0%
cut slope
Small sediment
traps for drains
25 units 18 72,0%
Box sediment
traps at the end
of the drain 8 units 3 37,5%
Large sediment
traps (15 m) to
surround 4 units 0 0,0%
mounds of soil.
Coverage of
areas without 2.499 m² 2300 92,0%
vegetation
Road Cross drains to
surface: divert waters
90 metres 0 0,0%
Box sediment
traps to
intervene gullies 36 units 13 36.1%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page31
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
286 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be
Number of
implemented Progress of Percentage
units per activities %
activity
Small sediment
traps.
44 units 12 27,3%
Large sediment
traps (15 m)
12 units 6 50,0%
Fill slopes: Drains at the
base of the fill 50 metres 240 480,0%
slopes
Small sediment
traps for drains
18 units 5 27,8%
Box sediment
traps for drains
and gullies 10 units 5 50,0%
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for
gullies and 15 units 4 26,7%
protection
Coverage of
areas without 5.160 m² 0 0,0%
vegetation
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page32
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
287Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
f) Slope T75
Number of
Restoration measures to units per Progress of Percentage
be implemented activity activities %
Cut slopes: Drains at the
base of the
cut slope and 350 metres 348,5 99,6%
on the
terraces
Drain in the
upper part of
the cut slope 150 metres 150 100,0%
Small
sediment 22 units 22 100,0%
traps for
drains
Box sediment
traps at the
end of the
6 units 5 83,3%
drain
Large
sediment
traps (15 m)
to surround 10 units 2 20,0%
mounds of
soil.
Coverage of
areas without 745 m² 1000 134,2%
vegetation
Road Cross drains
surface: to divert
waters 90 metres 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page33
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
288 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to Number of Progress of Percentage
be implemented units per activities %
activity
Box sediment
traps to
intervene 7 units 8 114,3%
gullies
Small
sediment 20 units 20 100,0%
traps.
Large
sediment
traps (15 m) 4 units 4 100,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page34
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
289Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
g) Slope T76 a & b:
Restoration measures to be Number of
implemented Progress of Percentage
units per activities %
activity
Cut slopes: Drain at the
base of the cut 400 metres 400 100,0%
slope
Drain in the
upper part of
400 metres 400 100,0%
the cut slope
Small sediment
traps for drains 34 units 34 100,0%
Box sediment
traps at the end
of the drain 8 units 5 62,5%
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for
landslides 6 units 6 100,0%
Coverage of
areas without
989 m² 1100 111,2%
vegetation
Road Cross drains to
surface: divert waters
90 metres 0 0,0%
Small sediment
traps. 10 units 0 0,0%
Fill slopes: Drains at the
base of the fill 200 metres 200 100,0%
slopes
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page35
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
290 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be Number of Progress of Percentage
implemented units per
activity activities %
Small sediment
traps for drains
22 units 22 100,0%
Box sediment
traps for drains
and gullies 8 units 9 112,5%
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for
gullies and 10 units 10 100,0%
protection
Coverage of
areas without 821 m² 840 102,3%
vegetation
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page36
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
291Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
3. Point 6 of the areas to intervene 1200 m of slope
Slope T81
Slope T82 a & b
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page37
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
292 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
a) Slope T81
Number of
Restoration measures to be units per Progress of Percentage
implemented activity activities %
Drains at the base
of the cut slope
and on the 900 metres 921,3 102,4%
terraces
Drain in the upper
part of the cut 250 metres 232,6 93,0%
slope
Small sediment
70 units 73 104,3%
traps for drains
Box sediment
trapsat the end of 25 units 41 164,0%
Cut slopes: the drain
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for 10 units 11 110,0%
gullies and
landslide areas
Coverage of areas 12.463 m² 0 0,0%
without vegetation
Planting of the
trees in the upper
20 units 100 500,0%
part of the cut
slope
Road Cross drains to
surface: divert waters 90 metres 0 0,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page38
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
293Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be Number of Progress of Percentage
implemented units per activities %
activity
Small sediment
traps. 6 units 0 0,0%
Drain to direct
water from the 300 metres 254 84,7%
road drains
Fill slopes: Small sediment 20 units 18 90,0%
traps for drains
Large sediment
traps (15 m) for 5 units 4 80,0%
protection
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page39
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
294 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
b) Slope T82 a & b:
Restoration measures to be Number of
implemented units per Progress of Percentage
activity
activities %
Cut slopes: Drains at the 300 metres
base of the cut 323 107,7%
slope and on the
terraces
Drain in the 150 metres
upper part of the 162 108,0%
cut slope
Small sediment 16 units
traps for drains
20 125,0%
Box sediment 4 units
traps at the end
8 200,0%
of the drain
Coverage of 1.678 m²
areas without 1700 101,3%
vegetation
Road surface: Cross drains to 90 metres
divert waters
90 100,0%
Small sediment 4 units
traps. 4 100,0%
Fill slopes: Drains at the 150 metres
base of the fill 175 116,7%
slopes
Small sediment 20 units
traps for drains
18 90,0%
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page40
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
295Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Restoration measures to be Number of
implemented units per Progress of Percentage
activity activities %
Box sediment 12 units
traps for drains
and gullies 20 166,7%
Large sediment 6 units
traps (15 m) for
gullies and 7 116,7%
protection
Coverage of 1.379 m²
areas without
1379 100,0%
vegetation
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page41
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
296 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
4. Water courses between slopes at Point 5.
Two waterfall-type sediment traps were built, of the necessary width in each case,
and along the channel of the creeks both upstream from the road passage and
along the trajectory between the road and San Juan River to reduce the water
speed and also to filter sediments.
Five large sediment traps were built upstream from each of the seven water
courses, and after the road passage sediment traps were built up to the mouth on
the San Juan River; at least 10 sediment traps were placed in each creek.
All of these works have already been built in the planned areas, and several
additional works were built according to the needs of each case.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page42
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
297Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Number of
Restoration measures to units per Progress of Percentage
be implemented activities %
activity
Large
Creeks sediment 105 108 102,9%
traps
Construction of sediment traps downstream from the creek at the end of
slope T76 b.
Sediment trap functioning, downstream between slopes T69 and T71.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page43
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
298 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
5. Location of areas to intervene
With the previous report, both digital and physical information was presented of the
design of the works to be built and the corresponding blueprints for each of the
sites, with the location in the cartographic sheets and in Google Earth. The
information was presented both in print and digital, with the locations of each of the
slopes with the detail of each of the works to be performed in the field at that time.
Regarding the digital files, the se will be presented in SHP format with tracks for
each of the works (drains in cut slopes, cross drains and drains in the upper part of
the slope as well as in water courses and natural drains), the geo -referenced
points for each of the individual works to be performed (small sediment traps, large
sediment traps and box sediment traps ) and polygons for the coverage of areas
without vegetation.
Appendix 1 presents the location with coordinates of the sediment traps built thus
far.
6. Characteristics of the materials
Regarding the materials to be used, these are: a) saran, which is the material to be
used as a fence for retention of sediment particles of the different traps to be built;
b) the vegetative material to be planted at the different sites already specified,
which consist of vetiver grass in the areas of the slopes as cover material to
prevent erosion on the slope, and the trees to be planted which are located on fill
slopes, in addition to the areas indicated in the contracts. This vegetative material
is produced directly at the CODEFORSA nursery.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page44
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
299Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
7. Timetable for implementation of the activities.
The following table shows the progress in relation to the timetable for the
implementation of activities.
As previously shown, there already is progress in the recovery work at the three
points of the contract. At this time the most progress has been achieved at point 6.
Table 1. Schedule of implementation of the activities of restoration and
rehabilitation works on Ruta 1856.
Point Perform restoration and compensation activities.
Year 1
Sept Dec. Feb. 2015
2014 Oct. 2014 Nov. 2014 2014 Jan. 2015
SIIISeIVSemISemIIem III IVm I SII SeIIIeIVSemISemIIem I SeIISeIIISIV SIm SII SIII SIV
Business
day 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
(96)
Point 4 X X X X X
Point 5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Point 6 X X X X X X
Water
X X X X X X
courses
Implemented Pending implementation
To date works have been performed during 37 days of the 96 working days
required to complete 100% of the activities stipulated in the contract.
There have been some delays related to the weather conditions on the site, which
prevent the entrance of materials to the slopes requiring work.
Another important issue is that the work teams of the com pany MECO, contracted
by CONAVI to enable the bridge over Quebrada Venada and the laying of gravel
on the access at point 5 of the contract, are conducting stabilization of slopes and
fills at point 5, but the weather conditions prevent them from working normally;
consequently, the work teams in charge of creating drains and sediment traps are
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page45
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
300 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
also delayed, given that they must prevent any work from being destroyed by the
passing of machinery.
In general terms, the progress of the working days to conduct the works is 33%,
and the progress of the execution of the works is at 45% or 50% ; therefore, it is
expected that all of the contracted works will be executed by the deadline.
Another issue that has delayed the progress of the works is the purchase of
materials for the work of covering the exposed areas, specifically saran and metal
rods, due to the lack of issu ance of the first payment of the contract. T o date, 37
business days after the issuance of the order to begin construction of the works,
the first payment of the contract has not been made.
8. Maintenance activities
The construction of soil conservation works is just as important as the maintenance
that must be provided so that they are truly effective and fulfil the functions for
which were implemented.
The timeline of maintenance works includes:
a) Cleaning:
Consists of the elimination of sediment retained
by the different traps built and disposal of these
sediments in natural trenches or accumulation at
sites without risk of erosion , and covered with
saran for protection, always applying the planting
of vetiver g rass for their final disposal.To this
end, work teams will perform the cleaning of
sediment traps once a month for each work
during two years.
The cleaning of sediment traps will be performed
manually, and sediment will be moved with carts to a place with protection from the
rain to prevent their runoff. Along with the sediment traps, maintenance will also be
given to drains and the vegetation
cover established.
b) Repair:
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page46
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
301Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
The strength of the water current or sediment load can make the traps collapse ;
therefore the maintenance works contemplate the partial or full repair of the traps
and drains in general, built according to the needs of the work.
Sediment trap at creek, slope 66b.
c) Construction of new works:
Apart from the repair of the works, due to
destruction or to the identification of new
sites where works are required to comply
with the protection of the San Juan River
from sedimentation from the road, the
installation of new works is contemplated,
such as sediment traps or drains in the
various points proposed. At each
maintenance stage we will assess the
construction of new works or substitution of
works destroyed at each point to visit.
Below is the table with the schedule for implementation of the general maintenance
of the built works.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page47
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
302 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
Table 2. Schedule of implementation of the activities of restoration and
rehabilitation works on Ruta 1856.
Maintenance of the works built
Point
Activities Month
oct- nov- dec- jan- feb- mar- apr- may- jun- jul- aug- sept- oct- nov- dec- jan- feb- mar- apr- may- jun- jul- aug- sept-
14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Point 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Point 5
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Point 6 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Water
courses X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Cleaning, repair, and/or construction of works
Implemented Pending implementation
To date maintenance work has been performed by work crews to repair damaged
sediment traps, mostly on works built on creeks since the force of the water causes
the retention material (saran) to break, or even the full destructio n of the sediment
trap has occurred, and in those cases the work has been repaired or rebuilt. In
addition, the cleaning of sediment traps located in built drains has already begun.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page48
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
303Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
9. Follow-up of the project.
For the general monitoring of the project CODEFORSA, through its technical
department, has qualified personnel to perform the project monitoring activities,
which consist of field visits to verify compliance with the activities programmed and
executed, and planning of pending activities.
Table 3. Schedule of technical and administrative monitoring of the project of
restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems in Ruta 1856.
Technical and administrative monitoring of the project
Activities
Month
oct- nov- dec- jan- feb- mar- apr- may- jun- jul- aug- sept- oct- nov- dec- jan- feb- mar- apr- may- jun- jul- aug- sept-
14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Technical
monitoring
visits to all X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
points
Presentation
of progress X X X X X X X X
reports
Implemented Pending implementation
As shown in the picture, technical visits havbeen performedeach week by the person
responsible for the contract, Gilberth Solano, Eng. During these visits the works
performed are supervised, and the works to be performed for each week are planned ,
as well as addressing questions or suggestions by the person in charge of the field
works on site.
Thisis the first quarterly report of the project.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page49
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
304 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
VII. APPENDIXES
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page50
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
305Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
10.APPENDIX 1: COORDINATES OF LOCATION OF THE SEDIMENT TRAPS
BUILT TO DATE.
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page51
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
306 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
1 Point 4 1 SVC 1 468071,256 1206167,77
2 Point 4 1 SVC 2 468038,249 1206210,68
3 Point 4 1 SVC 3 468046,17 1206196,59
4 Point 4 1 SVC 4 468063,014 1206162,62
5 Point 4 1 SVC 5 468088,154 1206132,18
6 Point 4 1 SVC 6 468040,502 1206190,96
7 Point 4 1 SVR1 468082,038 1206217,11
8 Point 4 1 SVR2 468085,304 1206203,5
9 Point 4 1 SVR3 468091,639 1206198,41
10 Point 4 1 SVR4 468123,972 1206174,26
11 Point 4 2 SVC1 468113,787 1206090,36
12 Point 4 2 SVC2 468192,448 1205996,47
13 Point 4 2 SVC3 468196,012 1205987,41
14 Point 4 2 SVC4 468132,853 1206088,32
15 Point 4 2 SVC5 468172,494 1206047,24
16 Point 4 2 SVC6 468197,374 1206002,54
17 Point 4 2 SVC7 468196,178 1206008,95
18 Point 5 3 SVC1 468567,987 1204825,41
19 Point 5 3 SVC2 468678,546 1204662,02
20 Point 5 3 SVC3 468712,358 1204643,44
21 Point 5 3 SVC4 468697,159 1204684,64
22 Point 5 3 SVC5 468688,644 1204690,97
23 Point 5 3 SVC6 468676,978 1204689,8
24 Point 5 3 SVC7 468672,264 1204684,95
25 Point 5 3 SVC8 468644,059 1204741,62
26 Point 5 3 SVC9 468646,597 1204741,29
27 Point 5 3 SVC10 468637,472 1204742,61
28 Point 5 3 SVC11 468637,358 1204747,28
29 Point 5 3 SVC12 468633,813 1204749,21
30 Point 5 3 SVC13 468637,405 1204758,77
31 Point 5 3 SVC14 468631,772 1204761,03
32 Point 5 3 SVC15 468628,419 1204761,5
33 Point 5 3 SVC16 468627,649 1204770,92
34 Point 5 3 SVC17 468587,309 1204832,39
35 Point 5 3 SPC1 468574,82 1204822,69
36 Point 5 3 SPC2 468584,536 1204816,81
37 Point 5 3 SPC3 468586,755 1204803,49
38 Point 5 3 SPC4 468596,835 1204790,47
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page52
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
307Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
39 Point 5 3 SPC5 468601,495 1204777,18
40 Point 5 3 SPC6 468609,099 1204766,14
41 Point 5 3 SPC7 468617,474 1204747,5
42 Point 5 3 SPC8 468627,834 1204724,83
43 Point 5 3 SPC9 468631,909 1204712,22
44 Point 5 3 SPC10 468641,488 1204697,16
45 Point 5 3 SPC11 468648,378 1204686,54
46 Point 5 3 SPC12 468652,147 1204680,61
47 Point 5 3 SPC13 468652,392 1204677,6
48 Point 5 3 SPC14 468650,399 1204672,65
49 Point 5 3 SPC15 468653,722 1204660,08
50 Point 5 3 SPC16 468655,699 1204657,11
51 Point 5 3 SPC17 468657,005 1204653,44
52 Point 5 3 SPC18 468658,297 1204653,11
53 Point 5 3 SPC19 468663,676 1204653,72
54 Point 5 3 SPC20 468671,916 1204656,38
55 Point 5 3 SPC21 468677,076 1204658,04
56 Point 5 3 SPC22 468678,974 1204658,96
57 Point 5 3 SPC23 468682,674 1204657,14
58 Point 5 3 SPC24 468690,574 1204658,34
59 Point 5 3 SPC25 468691,966 1204658,03
60 Point 5 3 SPC26 468697,874 1204655,6
61 Point 5 3 SPC27 468701,723 1204646,78
62 Point 5 3 SPC28 468709,362 1204643,47
63 Point 5 3 SPC29 468613,967 1204778,34
64 Point 5 3 SPC30 468609,713 1204785,47
65 Point 5 3 SPC31 468602,176 1204799,44
66 Point 5 3 SPC32 468595,639 1204814,26
67 Point 5 3 SPC33 468591,145 1204829,71
68 Point 5 3 SGC1 468671,422 1204676,11
69 Point 5 3 SGC2 468678,954 1204676,09
70 Point 5 3 SGC3 468693,141 1204669,74
71 Point 5 3 SGC4 468692,333 1204667,91
72 Point 5 3 SGC5 468642,813 1204740,92
73 Point 5 3 SGC6 468638,913 1204745,13
74 Point 5 3 SGC7 468633,888 1204750,18
75 Point 5 3 SGC8 468632,658 1204758,16
76 Point 5 3 SGC9 468629,287 1204769,14
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page53
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
308 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
77 Point 5 3 SVR1 468612,319 1204843,67
78 Point 5 3 SVR2 468614,94 1204840,57
79 Point 5 3 SVR3 468695,307 1204746,48
80 Point 5 3 SVR4 468688,963 1204742,28
81 Point 5 3 SVR5 468675,403 1204737,21
82 Point 5 3 SVR6 468682,42 1204759,32
83 Point 5 3 SVR7 468618,556 1204849,64
84 Point 5 3 SVR8 468654,27 1204815,87
85 Point 5 3 SVR9 468646,073 1204817,42
86 Point 5 3 SVR10 468675,222 1204777,47
87 Point 5 3 SGR1 468678,477 1204750,92
88 Point 5 3 SGR2 468690,287 1204754,89
89 Point 5 3 SPR1 468618,664 1204848,42
90 Point 5 3 SPR2 468621,607 1204840,12
91 Point 5 3 SPR3 468627,171 1204828,17
92 Point 5 3 SPR4 468636,345 1204818,76
93 Point 5 3 SPR5 468651,975 1204816,42
94 Point 5 3 SPR6 468647,164 1204814,99
95 Point 5 3 SPR7 468651,089 1204804,26
96 Point 5 3 SPR8 468662,333 1204788,21
97 Point 5 3 SPR9 468674,567 1204777,47
98 Point 5 3 SGR3 468702,823 1204742,56
99 Point 5 3 SGR4 468696,722 1204750,39
100 Point 5 3 SGR5 468691,284 1204760,33
101 Point 5 3 SGR6 468711,975 1204744,28
102 Point 5 3 SGR7 468706,404 1204755,16
103 Point 5 3 SGR8 468699,375 1204766,04
104 Point 5 3 SGR9 468693,008 1204776,65
105 Point 5 3 SGR10 468686,376 1204783,94
106 Point 5 3 SVR12 468671,269 1204758,01
107 Point 5 3 SVR13 468672,368 1204764,31
108 Point 5 3 SVR14 468681,006 1204766,85
109 Point 5 3 SVR15 468657,63 1204785,78
110 Point 5 3 SVR16 468653,474 1204783,57
111 Point 5 3 SVR17 468652,277 1204788,77
112 Point 5 3 SVR18 468652,168 1204789,33
113 Point 5 3 SVR19 468655,01 1204789,54
114 Point 5 3 SVR20 468649,331 1204795,3
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page54
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
309Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
115 Point 5 3 SVR21 468646,707 1204794,2
116 Point 5 3 SVR22 468646,499 1204805,59
117 Point 5 3 SVR23 468637,213 1204812,46
118 Point 5 3 SVR24 468640,825 1204816,54
119 Point 5 3 SVR25 468745,97 1204682,17
120 Point 5 3 SVR26 468748,596 1204684,93
121 Point 5 3 SVR27 468755,475 1204676,19
122 Point 5 3 SVR28 468754,381 1204675,97
123 Point 5 3 SVR29 468749,022 1204672,88
124 Point 5 3 SVR30 468758,747 1204669,22
125 Point 5 3 SVR31 468762,795 1204672,53
126 Point 5 3 SVR32 468769,128 1204664,56
127 Point 5 5 SVR33 468770,011 1204673,3
128 Point 5 4 SVC1 468819,118 1204582,45
129 Point 5 4 SVC2 468754,87 1204615,14
130 Point 5 4 SVC3 468770,615 1204618,33
131 Point 5 4 SVC4 468817,162 1204595,28
132 Point 5 4 SPC1 468817,698 1204584,11
133 Point 5 4 SPC2 468814,856 1204584,33
134 Point 5 4 SPC3 468805,128 1204585,34
135 Point 5 4 SPC4 468801,741 1204587,11
136 Point 5 4 SPC5 468793,986 1204593,64
137 Point 5 4 SPC6 468776,069 1204606,16
138 Point 5 4 SPC7 468764,376 1204610,26
139 Point 5 4 SPC8 468755,417 1204614,92
140 Point 5 4 SPC9 468773,238 1204618
141 Point 5 4 SPC10 468785,37 1204615
142 Point 5 4 SPC11 468798,155 1204610,12
143 Point 5 4 SPC12 468806,239 1204603,81
144 Point 5 4 SPC13 468815,306 1204597,05
145 Point 5 4 SGC1 468752,732 1204626,42
146 Point 5 4 SGC2 468751,565 1204623,68
147 Point 5 4 SVR1 468930,9 1204646,27
148 Point 5 4 SVR2 468945,236 1204662,63
149 Point 5 5 SVC1 468900,781 1204554,28
150 Point 5 5 SVC2 468886,343 1204537,04
151 Point 5 5 SVC3 468982,034 1204511,1
152 Point 5 5 SVC4 468985,113 1204492,77
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page55
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
310 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
153 Point 5 5 SVC5 468986,921 1204495,69
154 Point 5 5 SPC1 468892,306 1204544,6
155 Point 5 5 SPC2 468886,809 1204535,59
156 Point 5 5 SPC3 468898,254 1204536,41
157 Point 5 5 SPC4 468902,893 1204539,12
158 Point 5 5 SPC5 468912,977 1204535,34
159 Point 5 5 SPC6 468955,203 1204519,45
160 Point 5 5 SPC7 468982,153 1204511,5
161 Point 5 5 SPC8 468984,956 1204491,03
162 Point 5 5 SVR1 469056,5 1204524,16
163 Point 5 5 SPR1 469047,759 1204528,7
164 Point 5 5 SPR2 469043,388 1204530,14
165 Point 5 5 SPR3 469036,393 1204531,48
166 Point 5 5 SPR4 469021,202 1204536,03
167 Point 5 5 SPR5 469015,518 1204536,36
168 Point 5 5 SPR6 469004,803 1204534,82
169 Point 5 5 SVC6 468876,812 1204555,63
170 Point 5 5 SVC7 468949,528 1204460,44
171 Point 5 5 SVC8 468969,016 1204492,17
172 Point 5 5 SVC9 468931,319 1204510,23
173 Point 5 5 SPC9 468877,685 1204553,86
174 Point 5 5 SPC10 468885,002 1204546,11
175 Point 5 5 SPC11 468884,559 1204540,03
176 Point 5 5 SPC12 468884,883 1204535,71
177 Point 5 5 SPC13 468892,299 1204516,68
178 Point 5 5 SPC14 468902,678 1204510,92
179 Point 5 5 SPC15 468914,476 1204501,29
180 Point 5 5 SPC16 468934,691 1204492,64
181 Point 5 5 SPC17 468946,485 1204478,8
182 Point 5 5 SPC19 468948,661 1204467,96
183 Point 5 5 SPC20 468948,77 1204467,96
184 Point 5 5 SPC18 468950,523 1204472,16
185 Point 5 5 SPC21 468948,656 1204462,54
186 Point 5 5 SPC22 468949,638 1204461,1
187 Point 5 5 SPC23 468949,529 1204461,21
188 Point 5 5 SPC24 468949,637 1204460,33
189 Point 5 5 SPC25 468968,585 1204498,36
190 Point 5 5 SPC26 468959,402 1204497,7
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page56
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
311Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
191 Point 5 5 SPC27 468943,34 1204506,68
192 Point 5 5 SPC28 468935,255 1204510,56
193 Point 5 5 SGC1 468962,234 1204486,86
194 Point 5 5 SGC2 468965,843 1204489,18
195 Point 5 5 SGC3 468969,452 1204490,06
196 Point 5 5 SGC4 468969,995 1204486,86
197 Point 5 5 SGC5 468969,335 1204482,43
198 Point 5 6 SVC1 469082,804 1204419,83
199 Point 5 6 SVC2 468971,502 1204478,45
200 Point 5 6 SVC3 469087,374 1204456,81
201 Point 5 6 SVC4 469078,415 1204459,38
202 Point 5 6 SVC5 469026,198 1204471,86
203 Point 5 6 SVC6 469066,33 1204459,75
204 Point 5 6 SVC7 469039,74 1204471,08
205 Point 5 6 SPC1 469079,677 1204427,16
206 Point 5 6 SPC2 469066,231 1204432,5
207 Point 5 6 SPC3 469055,06 1204431,11
208 Point 5 6 SPC4 469051,646 1204435,33
209 Point 5 6 SPC5 469032,289 1204449,13
210 Point 5 6 SPC6 469019,319 1204454,15
211 Point 5 6 SPC7 469019,394 1204455,94
212 Point 5 6 SPC8 469008,726 1204463,23
213 Point 5 6 SPC9 468989,869 1204463,16
214 Point 5 6 SPC10 468991,012 1204470,64
215 Point 5 6 SPC11 468990,81 1204470,48
216 Point 5 6 SPC12 468990,352 1204470,2
217 Point 5 6 SPC13 469081,968 1204457,04
218 Point 5 6 SPC14 469053,039 1204474,07
219 Point 5 6 SPC15 469041,064 1204475,76
220 Point 5 6 SPC16 469033,416 1204478,25
221 Point 5 6 SPC17 469054,604 1204462,65
222 Point 5 6 SPC18 469051,136 1204467,23
223 Point 5 6 SPC19 469041,216 1204471,09
224 Point 5 6 SVR1 469063,053 1204517,41
225 Point 5 6 SPR1 469113,868 1204498,44
226 Point 5 6 SPR2 469103,593 1204499,67
227 Point 5 6 SPR3 469086,219 1204507,32
228 Point 5 6 SPR4 469073,869 1204510,32
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page57
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
312 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
229 Point 5 6 SPR5 469066,22 1204514,2
230 Point 5 7 SVC1 469319,705 1204383,97
231 Point 5 7 SVC2 469301,648 1204397,36
232 Point 5 7 SVC3 469269,733 1204376,91
233 Point 5 7 SPC1 469324,297 1204385,96
234 Point 5 7 SPC2 469317,449 1204392,36
235 Point 5 7 SPC3 469306,529 1204394,1
236 Point 5 7 SPC4 469299,157 1204399,16
237 Point 5 7 SPC5 469290,357 1204394,54
238 Point 5 7 SPC6 469273,504 1204392,12
239 Point 5 7 SPC7 469259,466 1204391,64
240 Point 5 7 SPC8 469296,918 1204394,79
241 Point 5 7 SPC9 469282,951 1204392,51
242 Point 5 7 SPC10 469278,355 1204386,37
243 Point 5 7 SPC11 469267,563 1204378,72
244 Point 5 7 SPC12 469250,261 1204375,67
245 Point 5 7 SPC13 469239,096 1204370,95
246 Point 5 7 SPC14 469219,155 1204378,19
247 Point 5 7 SPC15 469202,199 1204383,06
248 Point 5 7 SPC16 469189,766 1204394,3
249 Point 5 7 SPC17 469181,43 1204406,3
250 Point 5 7 SPC18 469177,061 1204407,93
251 Point 5 7 SVR1 469282,5 1204450,51
252 Point 5 7 SVR2 469245,651 1204440,81
253 Point 5 7 SVR3 469169,717 1204485,89
254 Point 5 7 SVR4 469162,73 1204495,52
255 Point 5 7 SVR5 469164,912 1204490,88
256 Point 5 7 SPR1 469184,357 1204476,48
257 Point 5 7 SPR2 469177,034 1204477,7
258 Point 5 7 SPR3 469172,117 1204480,92
259 Point 5 7 SPR4 469170,916 1204482,02
260 Point 5 7 SPR5 469191,243 1204475,15
261 Point 5 7 SGR1 469164,372 1204498,62
262 Point 5 7 SGC1 469471,863 1204412,67
263 Point 5 7 SGC2 469469,258 1204409,45
264 Point 5 7 SGC3 469435,348 1204392,43
265 Point 5 7 SGC4 469440,162 1204395,66
266 Point 5 7 SGC5 469452,018 1204404,65
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page58
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
313Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
267 Point 5 7 SGC6 469457,591 1204407,08
268 Point 5 8 SVC1 469636,273 1204402,83
269 Point 5 8 SVC2 469524,84 1204399,87
270 Point 5 8 SVC3 469519,905 1204433,75
271 Point 5 8 SVC4 469619,215 1204406,63
272 Point 5 8 SPC1 469623,425 1204401,82
273 Point 5 8 SPC2 469619,768 1204400,63
274 Point 5 8 SPC3 469612,908 1204403,44
275 Point 5 8 SPC4 469597,632 1204401,6
276 Point 5 8 SPC5 469586,652 1204398,37
277 Point 5 8 SPC6 469573,647 1204396,12
278 Point 5 8 SPC7 469561,22 1204393,32
279 Point 5 8 SPC8 469537,592 1204397,33
280 Point 5 8 SPC9 469527,626 1204400,05
281 Point 5 8 SPC10 469519,73 1204433,13
282 Point 5 8 SPC11 469522,493 1204418,4
283 Point 5 8 SPC12 469525,862 1204415,03
284 Point 5 8 SPC13 469550,927 1204419,95
285 Point 5 8 SPC14 469572,159 1204411,53
286 Point 5 8 SPC15 469584,04 1204408,34
287 Point 5 8 SPC16 469596,508 1204405,27
288 Point 5 8 SPC17 469605,801 1204407,46
289 Point 5 8 SVR1 469634,372 1204427,73
290 Point 5 8 SVR2 469472,784 1204409,63
291 Point 5 8 SVR3 469495,867 1204427,86
292 Point 5 8 SVR4 469495,976 1204427,97
293 Point 5 8 SVR5 469496,085 1204427,97
294 Point 5 8 SVR6 469522,76 1204429,82
295 Point 5 8 SVR7 469522,761 1204430,27
296 Point 5 8 SVR8 469522,655 1204434,03
297 Point 5 8 SPR1 469630,766 1204429,61
298 Point 5 8 SPR2 469614,801 1204424,21
299 Point 5 8 SPR3 469584,076 1204417,16
300 Point 5 8 SPR4 469528,32 1204412,56
301 Point 5 8 SPR5 469510,392 1204412,8
302 Point 5 8 SPR6 469490,055 1204408,51
303 Point 5 8 SPR7 469472,893 1204409,74
304 Point 5 8 SPR8 469547,793 1204428,25
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page59
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
314 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
305 Point 5 8 SPR9 469533,909 1204427,82
306 Point 5 8 SPR10 469508,658 1204429,5
307 Point 5 8 SPR11 469495,32 1204427,86
308 Point 5 9 SVC1 469833,474 1204349,48
309 Point 5 9 SVC2 469661,78 1204420,2
310 Point 5 9 SPC1 469832,705 1204350,07
311 Point 5 9 SPC2 469815,294 1204359,35
312 Point 5 9 SPC3 469797,875 1204358,76
313 Point 5 9 SPC4 469787,429 1204358,3
314 Point 5 9 SPC5 469762,66 1204366,7
315 Point 5 9 SPC6 469754,697 1204376,13
316 Point 5 9 SPC7 469748,531 1204386,31
317 Point 5 9 SPC8 469736,105 1204395,35
318 Point 5 9 SPC9 469726,28 1204402,94
319 Point 5 9 SPC10 469709,565 1204410,54
320 Point 5 9 SPC11 469691,985 1204415,44
321 Point 5 9 SPC12 469676,584 1204417,01
322 Point 5 9 SPC13 469666,956 1204419,34
323 Point 5 9 SGC1 469763,806 1204277,38
324 Point 5 9 SGC2 469764,164 1204277,84
325 Point 5 9 SGC3 469758,95 1204287,06
326 Point 5 9 SGC4 469770,221 1204287,51
327 Point 5 9 SGC5 469758,75 1204299,31
328 Point 5 9 SGC6 469774,552 1204304,37
329 Point 5 9 SVR1 469752 1204430,72
330 Point 5 9 SVR2 469719,114 1204450,66
331 Point 5 9 SVR3 469782,367 1204405,58
332 Point 5 9 SVR4 469784,227 1204406,69
333 Point 5 9 SVR5 469791,55 1204405,36
334 Point 5 9 SVR6 469795,481 1204401,26
335 Point 5 9 SVR7 469796,353 1204397,83
336 Point 5 9 SVR8 469803,02 1204396,72
337 Point 5 9 SPR1 469719,196 1204450,66
338 Point 5 9 SPR2 469713,209 1204448,89
339 Point 5 9 SPR3 469705,776 1204449,23
340 Point 5 9 SPR4 469699,982 1204449,02
341 Point 5 9 SGR1 469724,911 1204454,52
342 Point 5 9 SGR2 469754,515 1204432,04
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page60
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
315Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
343 Point 5 9 SGR3 469763,035 1204423,63
344 Point 5 9 SGR4 469782,267 1204415,32
345 Point 5 9 SGR5 469794,835 1204411,1
346 Point 5 9 SGR6 469811,886 1204408,88
347 Point 5 9 SGR7 469778,438 1204411,89
348 Point 5 9 SGR8 469769,259 1204416,44
349 Point 5 9 SGR9 469763,794 1204417,22
350 Point 6 10 SVC1 472354,623 1203962,01
351 Point 6 10 SVC2 472350,028 1203978,31
352 Point 6 10 SVC3 472421,008 1203938,73
353 Point 6 10 SVC4 472426,883 1203940,31
354 Point 6 10 SVC5 472311,134 1203981,68
355 Point 6 10 SVC6 472296,991 1204019,71
356 Point 6 10 SVC7 472476,025 1203963,44
357 Point 6 10 SVC8 472513,291 1203957,25
358 Point 6 10 SPC1 472399,413 1203919,14
359 Point 6 10 SPC2 472406,449 1203928,73
360 Point 6 10 SPC3 472407,238 1203940,26
361 Point 6 10 SPC4 472412,226 1203944,18
362 Point 6 10 SPC5 472403,025 1203942,5
363 Point 6 10 SPC6 472388,796 1203944,05
364 Point 6 10 SPC7 472380,019 1203946,32
365 Point 6 10 SPC8 472373,103 1203948,92
366 Point 6 10 SPC9 472358,966 1203961,35
367 Point 6 10 SPC10 472353,927 1203961,9
368 Point 6 10 SPC11 472343,657 1203963,53
369 Point 6 10 SPC12 472335,321 1203967,08
370 Point 6 10 SPC13 472314,594 1203977,68
371 Point 6 10 SPC14 472299,724 1203978,97
372 Point 6 10 SPC15 472292,016 1203966,21
373 Point 6 10 SPC16 472296,908 1203975,33
374 Point 6 10 SPC17 472305,666 1203983,98
375 Point 6 10 SPC18 472313,191 1203986,71
376 Point 6 10 SPC19 472321,283 1203987,81
377 Point 6 10 SPC20 472333,588 1203986,68
378 Point 6 10 SPC21 472348,766 1203981,04
379 Point 6 10 SPC22 472350,677 1203976,86
380 Point 6 10 SPC23 472357,578 1203966,99
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page61
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
316 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
381 Point 6 10 SPC24 472376,661 1203963,23
382 Point 6 10 SPC25 472398,545 1203955,48
383 Point 6 10 SPC26 472413,491 1203944,77
384 Point 6 10 SPC27 472418,654 1203938,82
385 Point 6 10 SPC28 472426,81 1203940,32
386 Point 6 10 SPC29 472424,616 1203947,07
387 Point 6 10 SPC30 472407,262 1203958,34
388 Point 6 10 SPC31 472382,686 1203968,11
389 Point 6 10 SPC32 472366,738 1203974,52
390 Point 6 10 SPC33 472335,659 1203976,4
391 Point 6 10 SPC34 472324,693 1203978,79
392 Point 6 10 SPC35 472315,504 1203980,57
393 Point 6 10 SPC36 472298,637 1203994,12
394 Point 6 10 SPC37 472283,244 1203994,65
395 Point 6 10 SPC38 472275,071 1203996,22
396 Point 6 10 SPC39 472273,972 1204007,85
397 Point 6 10 SPC40 472268,544 1204013,55
398 Point 6 10 SPC41 472284,215 1204016,3
399 Point 6 10 SPC42 472293,378 1204016,84
400 Point 6 10 SPC43 472297,467 1204019,6
401 Point 6 10 SPC44 472424,106 1203983,55
402 Point 6 10 SPC45 472449,838 1203975,03
403 Point 6 10 SPC46 472475,98 1203964,79
404 Point 6 10 SPC47 472454,855 1203958,81
405 Point 6 10 SPC48 472489,749 1203949,78
406 Point 6 10 SPC49 472476,733 1203954,58
407 Point 6 10 SPC50 472502,749 1203946,82
408 Point 6 11 SVC1 472562,259 1203942,07
409 Point 6 11 SVC2 472600,402 1203916,58
410 Point 6 11 SVC3 472694,348 1203892,6
411 Point 6 11 SVC4 472608,484 1203928,86
412 Point 6 11 SVC5 472599,297 1203923,67
413 Point 6 11 SVC6 472698,211 1203900,03
414 Point 6 11 SVC7 472692,307 1203899,26
415 Point 6 11 SVC8 472560,402 1203950,8
416 Point 6 11 SPC1 472562,598 1203942,1
417 Point 6 11 SPC2 472583,246 1203924,81
418 Point 6 11 SPC3 472598,549 1203914,45
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page62
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
317Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
419 Point 6 11 SPC4 472609,911 1203914,41
420 Point 6 11 SPC5 472638,486 1203898,51
421 Point 6 11 SPC6 472661,897 1203897,44
422 Point 6 11 SPC7 472626,188 1203921,54
423 Point 6 11 SPC8 472609,795 1203927,86
424 Point 6 11 SPC9 472606,843 1203927,31
425 Point 6 11 SPC10 472600,608 1203922,12
426 Point 6 11 SPC11 472633,504 1203911,58
427 Point 6 11 SPC12 472656,677 1203909,02
428 Point 6 11 SPC13 472678,538 1203905,02
429 Point 6 11 SPC14 472696,572 1203901,36
430 Point 6 11 SPC15 472690,996 1203899,48
431 Point 6 11 SPC16 472675,143 1203897,39
432 Point 6 11 SPC17 472656,998 1203900,5
433 Point 6 11 SPC18 472635,904 1203905,5
434 Point 6 11 SPC19 472602,348 1203911,94
435 Point 6 11 SPC20 472561,385 1203949,8
436 Point 6 11 SVR1 472734,628 1203916,04
437 Point 6 11 SVR2 472728,171 1203908,3
438 Point 6 11 SVR3 472682,048 1203919,73
439 Point 6 11 SVR4 472668,28 1203926,6
440 Point 6 11 SVR5 472659,207 1203927,93
441 Point 6 11 SVR6 472663,474 1203932,02
442 Point 6 11 SVR7 472661,945 1203933,35
443 Point 6 11 SVR8 472659,541 1203935,45
444 Point 6 11 SVR9 472655,386 1203933,36
445 Point 6 11 SVR10 472655,169 1203936,23
446 Point 6 11 SVR11 472650,577 1203934,8
447 Point 6 11 SVR12 472654,077 1203937,01
448 Point 6 11 SGR1 472607,411 1203953,52
449 Point 6 11 SGR2 472735,505 1203919,02
450 Point 6 11 SGR3 472685,548 1203921,5
451 Point 6 11 SGR4 472674,619 1203925,38
452 Point 6 11 SGR5 472661,182 1203935,89
453 Point 6 11 SGR6 472652,331 1203940,44
454 Point 6 11 SGR7 472635,951 1203962,46
455 Point 6 11 SPR1 472614,195 1203960,82
456 Point 6 11 SPR2 472618,894 1203958,49
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page63
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
318 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
457 Point 6 11 SPR3 472628,073 1203954,61
458 Point 6 11 SPR4 472639,765 1203947,64
459 Point 6 11 SPR5 472648,069 1203942,65
460 Point 6 11 SPR6 472659,104 1203935,56
461 Point 6 11 SPR7 472668,282 1203929,58
462 Point 6 11 SPR8 472675,822 1203925,93
463 Point 6 11 SPR9 472686,531 1203921,05
464 Point 6 11 SPR10 472697,68 1203919,16
465 Point 6 11 SPR11 472709,265 1203915,84
466 Point 6 11 SPR12 472722,056 1203916,49
467 Point 6 11 SPR13 472733,862 1203915,93
468 Point 6 11 SPR14 472731,564 1203912,94
469 Point 6 11 SPR15 472726,859 1203907,75
470 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN1 468688,693 1204918,81
471 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN2 468681,254 1204912,84
472 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN3 468667,475 1204907,99
473 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN4 468658,731 1204909,1
474 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN5 468626,91 1204898,18
475 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN6 468617,833 1204894,76
476 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN7 468609,521 1204890,13
477 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN8 468605,694 1204889,47
478 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN9 468597,707 1204882,06
479 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN10 468593,221 1204878,31
480 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN11 468572,472 1204859,66
481 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN12 468566,825 1204856,86
482 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN13 468559,967 1204851,58
483 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN14 468552,713 1204844,98
484 Point 5 SECTOR 3 DN15 468543,933 1204834,04
485 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN16 468909,759 1204600,72
486 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN17 468910,638 1204605,92
487 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN18 468912,612 1204612,67
488 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN19 468912,287 1204615,87
489 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN20 468915,243 1204620,3
490 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN21 468930,9 1204646,27
491 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN22 468945,236 1204662,63
492 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN23 468876,487 1204579,41
493 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN24 468863,915 1204557,11
494 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN25 468860,98 1204543,91
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page64
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
319Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
495 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN26 468859,181 1204535,81
496 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN27 468859,355 1204527,12
497 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN28 468938,712 1204654,82
498 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN29 468926,531 1204640,1
499 Point 5 SECTOR 4 & 5 DN30 468922,471 1204634,52
500 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN31 468981,647 1204469,78
501 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN32 469002,453 1204466,64
502 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN33 469004,897 1204474,73
503 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN34 469003,016 1204481,36
504 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN35 469011,852 1204483,97
505 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN36 469109,746 1204533,18
506 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN37 469106,353 1204528,65
507 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN38 469094,329 1204529,99
508 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN39 469091,924 1204530,1
509 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN40 469090,503 1204530,1
510 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN41 469076,4 1204529,01
511 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN42 469053,108 1204520,62
512 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN43 469049,718 1204519,74
513 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN44 469043,924 1204519,41
514 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN45 469036,704 1204514,22
515 Point 5 SECTOR 5 & 6 DN46 469034,079 1204512,46
516 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN47 469140,237 1204419,94
517 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN48 469141,959 1204419,2
518 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN49 469137,743 1204417,46
519 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN50 469133,329 1204400,91
520 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN51 469103,565 1204437,26
521 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN52 469100,707 1204437,89
522 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN53 469105,326 1204439,14
523 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN54 469098,901 1204436,75
524 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN55 469091,445 1204400,92
525 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN56 469162,873 1204531,91
526 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN57 469152,03 1204509,58
527 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN58 469155,632 1204504,05
528 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN59 469158,913 1204505,7
529 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN60 469158,913 1204505,59
530 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN61 469156,937 1204496,64
531 Point 5 SECTOR 6 & 7 DN62 469157,155 1204496,19
532 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN63 469474,539 1204413,58
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page65
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
320 Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
533 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN64 469474,774 1204409,53
534 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN65 469467,487 1204406,69
535 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN66 469461,153 1204404,68
536 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN67 469456,751 1204400,07
537 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN68 469522,999 1204451,94
538 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN69 469544,435 1204461,99
539 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN70 469534,923 1204460,34
540 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN71 469527,161 1204460,46
541 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN72 469522,33 1204452,11
542 Point 5 SECTOR 7 Y 8 DN73 469518,193 1204456,15
543 Point 5 SECTOR 7 & 8 DN74 469511,195 1204454,5
544 Point 5 SECTOR 7 & 8 DN75 469503,976 1204449,2
545 Point 5 SECTOR 7 & 8 DN76 469501,788 1204447,98
546 Point 5 SECTOR 7 & 8 DN77 469495,986 1204438,36
547 Point 5 SECTOR 7 & 8 DN78 469492,59 1204430,74
548 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN79 469656,68 1204424,56
549 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN80 469660,113 1204421,42
550 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN81 469662,898 1204410,12
551 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN82 469667,944 1204397,95
552 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN83 469656,027 1204439,66
553 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN84 469649,688 1204440,21
554 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN85 469640,728 1204445,2
555 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN86 469638,655 1204449,74
556 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN87 469633,312 1204464,45
557 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN88 469637,248 1204464,89
558 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN89 469638,122 1204464,78
559 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN90 469650,367 1204466,1
560 Point 5 SECTOR 8 & 9 DN91 469651,658 1204442,76
561 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN92 469797,764 1204317,28
562 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN93 469821,024 1204322,33
563 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN94 469822,054 1204326,48
564 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN95 469814,489 1204330,56
565 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN96 469812,453 1204328,18
566 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN97 469821,786 1204333,46
567 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN98 469828,658 1204334,09
568 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN99 469836,57 1204338,09
569 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN100 469877,997 1204380,06
570 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN101 469884,67 1204384,7
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page66
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
321Annex 12
Restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems affected by the
Construction of the Juan Rafael Mora Porras border road, Ruta 1856
# Type of file POINT SECTOR TRAP COORD. X COORD. Y
571 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN102 469885,769 1204391,67
572 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN103 469895,722 1204397,19
573 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN104 469909,715 1204397,95
574 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN105 469913,002 1204406,24
575 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN106 469916,393 1204408,01
576 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN107 469924,701 1204408,11
577 Point 5 SECTOR 9 DN108 469936,835 1204407,44
SYMBOLS
SPC: Small sediment trap at cut slope
SVC: Sediment trap with box at cut slope
SGC: Large sediment trap at cut slope
SPR: Small sediment trap at fill slope
SVR: Box sediment trap at fill slope
SGR: Large sediment trap at fill slope
DN: Sediment traps at natural drain
COMISION DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page67
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
322 ANNEX 13
Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San Carlos (CODEFORSA)
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an
Environmental Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road, Report
of Contract SINAC-CDE-004-2012
November 2014
323324 Annex 13
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS
Corporate ID number: 3-002-066610-06
Phone number: 2460-1055 Fax: 2460-1650
Email: [email protected]
Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
P.O. Box 205-21001 Ciudad Quesada, San Carlos
Consulting Services for the Development and
Implementation of an Environmental Plan for the
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
REPORT OF CONTRACT
SINAC-CDE-004-2012
November 2014
325Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………………1
I. INDEX OF APPENDIXES .........................................................................................................2
II. THE PROJECT. ........................................................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 3
III. PHASES OF THE PROJECT:...................................................................................................5
1. PHASE no. 1. Planning and coordination of the actions contained in the environmental management
plan for re-vegetation. .................................................................................................................................... 5
a) Coordination with the Conservation Areas involved: ........................................................................... 5
b) Coordination with the holders of the lots to obtain their consent for the reforestation ......................... 7
2. Phase No. 2: Implementation of the work plan ..................................................................................... 7
a. Scheduling of the planting events.......................................................................................................... 7
b. Availability of trees for planting ........................................................................................................... 8
c. Preparation of the ground and protection of the trees............................................................................ 8
d. Initial mowing and herbicide spots........................................................................................................ 8
e. Building of Fences ................................................................................................................................ 9
f. Planting of the trees............................................................................................................................... 9
3. PHASE NO. 3. MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT COVER .......................................................... 13
a. Monitoring of planted areas ................................................................................................................ 13
b. Mowing:.............................................................................................................................................. 13
c. Spot herbicide treatment around trees:................................................................................................ 14
d. Mortality and replanting:..................................................................................................................... 14
e. Fertiliser application:........................................................................................................................... 16
f. De-suckering:...................................................................................................................................... 17
g. Maintenance of the fences:.................................................................................................................. 18
h. Follow-up visits to the planted areas................................................................................................... 18
4. SLOPES .............................................................................................................................................. 63
a. Recovery of slopes .............................................................................................................................. 63
b. Maintenance of plant cover on slopes: ................................................................................................ 76
IV. APPENDIXES .........................................................................................................................78
APPENDIX 1: Material prepared FOR DELIVERY to the participants of the activities and members of
public institutions involved. ......................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX 2: Maps of the location of the planted areas, FIRST STAGE.................................................. 82
APPENDIX 3: Maps of the location of the planted areas, SECOND STAGE (EXPANSION)................. 103
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page1
Tel: (506) 2460-1055 Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
326 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
I. INDEX OF APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1: Material prepared for delivery to the participants of the activities and
members of public institutions involved.
APPENDIX 2: Maps of the location of the planted areas, FIRST STAGE.
APPENDIX 3: Maps of the location of the planted areas, SECOND STAGE
(EXPANSION).
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page2
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
327Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
II.THE PROJECT.
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of
an Environmental Plan for the Border Road
Juan Rafael Mora Porras
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Start date: APRIL 2012.
End date of the first stage: APRIL 2014.
Duration of the project: 2 years
Start date of the second stage: DECEMBER 2013.
End date of the second stage: SEPTEMBER 2015.
Duration of the project: 2 years
1. INTRODUCTION
On 7 March 2011, Executiv e Decree No. 36440-MP was published in Gazette No.
46, which declared a state of emergency in the cantons bordering with Nicaragua,
and authorized the institutions of the State to take the measures necessary to
guarantee national sovereignty and the environment.
Within the framework of th is decree, the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de
Conservación (SINAC, National System of Conservation Areas) published the
tender entitled “Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an
Environmental Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Borde r Road” as part of the
actions within its jurisdiction to restore the landscape in the process of construction
of Ruta 1856.
By means of Tender Award Order SINAC -CDE-004-2012 of 12 April 2012, which
was declared final on 19 April 2012, the tender was off icially awarded to
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS (CODEFORSA,
Commission for Forestry Development in San Carlos).
Based on this resolution, CODEFORSA developed a work plan, including a
breakdown of the actions to be implemented, schedule of activities to be performed
during its execution and maintenance activities, within the deadlines stipulated in
the consulting contract.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page3
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
328 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
The work plan consisted in performing institutional administrative coordination, field
visits to coordinate with the o wners of the area of influence of the project,
coordination and planning to locate volunteers to plant trees and the field activities
necessary to plant and provide maintenance to 25,000 trees and the management
of 12 slopes in the areas surrounding Ruta 1856 and/or the San Juan River, as
part of the implementation of the Environmental Management Plan for the border
road.
In this first stage of the contract a total of 26 ,575 trees were planted, and the total
mortality was estimated at 1.5%. During 2013 an extension to the contract was
agreed, to plant and provide maintenance to 24,000 new trees. Between
December 2013 and July 2014 a total of 24 ,134 trees were planted in this second
stage of the contract.
In total, as part of the Environmental Management P lan for the border road Ruta
1856, 50,709 trees were planted trees, aged between 2 months and 28 months,
with heights ranging from 50 centimetres to 7 metres, in an area equivalent to 46
hectares of land ceded through an agreement by the holders of these lands
adjacent to the border road and/or the San Juan River.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page4
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
329Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
III. PHASES OF THE PROJECT:
The phases presented were carried out for both stages of the project. In the second
stage no tree-planting was performed by volunteers, only in the first.
1. PHASE NO. 1. PLANNIN G AND COORDINATION O F THE ACTIONS
CONTAINED IN THE ENV IRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
RE-VEGETATION.
The success of the implementation of the consulting services’ Work Plan was largely
due to CODEFORSA’s field experience in the work area, in addition to the adequate
application of the terms of reference of the consulting work.
Below is a description of how we worked with the areas whose involvement was
required by the consulting contract to coordinate the activities.
a) Coordination with the Conservation Areas involved:
During the planning process, coordination was established with the Conservation
Areas involved in the portion of Ruta 1856 that was already built, from Delta Costa
Rica to the area of Las Tablillas in Los Chiles.
Figure 1. Map of the built portion of Ruta 1856
Meetings were held with the three Conservation Areas involved: Área de
Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte (ACAHN), Área de Conservación Cordillera
Volcánica Central (ACCVC) and Área de Conservación Tortuguero (ACTO), as
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page5
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
330 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
shown in Figure 1, to present the Work Plan and hear the opinions and suggestions
of the State’s Forestry Administration.
The number of meetings scheduled with the Conservation Areas of the Sistema
Nacional de Áreas de Conservación was determined based on the area of
influence of each conserv ation area. As observable in Figure 1 above,
approximately 80% of the total border road area which is in the vicinity of the San
Juan River is in ACAHN territory, followed by ACTO and lastly by ACCVC, which
has a 7 km area of influence of the border road i n the area currently covered by
Ruta 1856, which goes from the Costa Rican Delta to Los Chiles de Alajuela, with
an approximate length of 167 km. In total, 15 meetings were held with the different
offices.
Regarding the field visits for supervision of th e activities, these were performed
after the presentation of each of the quarterly progress reports during the term of
both stages of the project. Once each quarterly report was presented to the offices
of the technical managers of the project, the field visits were programmed with
each of them to verify the information presented in each of the reports.
The technical managers of the conservation areas are:
-Área de Conservación Arenal Huetar Norte: Mr. Carlos Ulate Rodríguez
-Área de Conservación Cordillera
Volcánica Central: Mr. José Luis Agüero Barquero
-Área de Conservación Tortuguero: Mr. Erick Herrera Quesada.
The field visits performed with each of the officials of th e Conservation Areas are
presented in the following table.
Table Nº 1: Meetings with the different Conservation Areas involved.
Conservation
Area Field visits with Conservation Areas
FIRST STAGE SECOND STAGE
3
Tortuguero 7
(ACTO)
Cordillera 3
Volcánica Central 7
(ACCVC)
Arenal Huetar 7 3
Norte (ACAHN)
TOTAL 21 9*
* To date.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page6
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
331Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
b) Coordination with the holders of the lots to obtain their consent
for the reforestation
The area where the project was implemented has two characteristics regarding its
inhabitants:
a. diverse centres of population located mainly near the access roads, where the
holders of the lands and other inhabitants live; and
b. isolated houses along the border road and adjacent to the San Juan River,
where the holders and farm workers live further away from the cent res of
population.
General meetings were held with the inhabitants, with the aim achieving an
adequate distribution of the areas and sites to be reforested, which had been
previously identified together with the Conservation Areas (CA). In each general
meeting the goals of t he project were explained as well as the expected results,
and their collaboration was requested. This was fundamental to obtain the
collaboration required.
2. PHASE NO. 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORKPLAN
a. Scheduling of the planting events
Once the participation agreements were signed by the inhabitants of the different
areas, the activities were scheduled based on the list of agreements. The Work
Plan contemplated performing all planting events between June and August;
however, due to a de lay in the first payment of the consulting work, the planting
activities with volunteers for July were suspended. There were 20 planting events
in total from June to December 2012.
Table No. 2. Execution of planting events with volunteers during 2012.
Name of the area Planting events with volunteer and student groups
Week-Month
01- 02- 03- 04- 03- 04- 01- 02- 04- 01- 02- 03- 04- 01-
jun jun jun jun ago ago sep sep sep oct oct oct oct dec TOTAL
Delta Costa Rica 1 3
Trinidad (Mouth
of Sarapiquí 1 2 1 5
River)
Mouth of San
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Carlos River
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page7
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
332 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Tiricias 1 1 1 1 2 5
TOTAL 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 20
b. Availability of trees for planting
CODEFORSA has a certified nursery from which
most of the material planted in the project was
sourced. As part of the commitments, the trees were
transferred to the planting site the day be fore or on
the day of the event in order to prevent damages o r
theft of trees at the site and to guarantee optimal
strength and develo pment conditions of the trees at
the time of planting. In addition, we complied with the
commitment that all the trees planted were native
species.
c. Preparation of the ground and protection of the trees
Once the agreements of participation in the
planting of trees were signed with the
inhabitants of the different areas, the
planning for preparation of the ground at the
different sites began.
d. Initial mowing and herbicide spots
In all cases, the preparation of the ground began
with a general mowing, tracing and staking of the
planting system. Subsequently, herbicide was
applied in the spots around each st ake, covering
a radius of 1 met re, to guarantee that weeds
would not compete with the trees to be planted.
Finally, holes were dug at the sit es so that when
the planting events took place the volunteers
could focus exclusively on planting the trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page8
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
333Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
e. Building of Fences
In some cases it was not necessary to
place wire fences for protection since there
were previous ones in place, while in
others a fence was placed to separate the
planting area from the rest of the site. In all
cases maintenance will be given to the
fences as protection of the planted areas.
f. Planting of the trees
Table 7 shows the date of planting and number of trees planted per site for the first
stage of the project. The planting goal of the project was establishing 25 ,000 trees;
however, at the 20 planting events a total of 26,575 trees were planted. The
activities began on 5 June 2012 in the Trinidad area (Sarapiquí) and concluded in
the Tiricias area. The last planting event was on 4 December 2012.
The trees were pla nted at 31 sites, with the collaboration of the volunteers who
were transported, personnel from public institutions and students from schools and
colleges in the neighbouring areas.
Table Nº 3: Actual number of trees planted at the sites with a plantation agreement
in the first stage
Name of the party to the Number of Date of planting
No. Place
agreement trees planted (year 2012)
Boca La Ceiba
1 Félix Hernández Jarquín (Trinidad) 260 05 june
Boca La Ceiba
2 Iglesia Boca La Ceiba (Trinidad) 225 05 june
3 Segundo Gaitán Mora Boca Río 100 12 June
Sarapiquí
Boca La Ceiba
4 Fabio Vargas 407 16 and 19 June
(Trinidad)
Boca La Ceiba
5 Escuela Boca La Ceiba (Trinidad) 117 19 June
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page9
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
334 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Name of the party to the Number of Date of planting
No. agreement Place trees planted (year 2012)
Boca La Ceiba
6 Melis Góngora Moraga (Trinidad) 252 19 June
7 María Hilaria Miranda Rivas Boca Las 500 15 July
Marías
8 Tito Hernández Ferreto Delta Costa 366 30 June
Rica
9 Escuela Delta Costa Rica Delta Costa 325 30 June
Rica
10 Fredy Ulate Castro Remolinito 3180 22 September
Fabio Cedeño G. Boca Río San
11 (F. San Antonio 1 ) Carlos 420 23 June
Fabio Cedeño G. Boca Río San
12 (F. San Antonio 2 ) Carlos 1180 28 June
Boca Río San
13 Fabio Cedeño G. (Saíno) Carlos 875 04 July
14 Fabio Cedeño G. (Boca Boca Río San 770 06 September
Tapada ) Carlos
15 Fabio Cedeño G. (Jóvenes Boca Río San 1000 29 September
) Carlos
16 Olman Quesada Campos Tiricias 650 25 July
Daniel Jiménez B.
17 Tiricias 1907 22 August
(El Guabo)
18 Daniel Jiménez B. (Slopes) Tiricias 1000 14 August
19
Daniel Jiménez B. (Alonso) Tiricias 200 16 August
20 Daniel Jiménez B. (Pilo) Tiricias 950 20 August
21 Daniel Jiménez B. Tiricias 1280 29 de agosto
(Bismark)
22 Marcelo Méndez Morales Tiricias 1870 27 August
23 William Cortés Madrigal Tiricias 1460 25 August
24 German Díaz Ruiz Mojón 2 2570 26 September
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page10
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
335Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Name of the party to the Number of Date of planting
No. Place
agreement trees planted (year 2012)
German Díaz Ruiz
25 Mojón 2 668 02 October
(El Concho)
German Díaz Ruiz
26 (Banderas) Mojón 2 857 04 October
27 Fabio Cedeño G. Boca Río San 900 11 October
(Gastón Peralta ) Carlos
28 Fabio Cedeño G. (Pital ) Boca Río San 1000 16 October
Carlos
Fabio Cedeño G. (Aguas Boca Río San
29 800 23 October
Zarcas ) Carlos
Delta Costa
30 Escuela Delta Costa Rica Rica 500 01 December
31 Edgar Salazar Ramírez Tiricias 86 04 December
TOTAL TREES PLANTED 26,575
Table 4 shows the date of planting and number of trees planted per site for the
second stage of the project. The activities were carried out between December
2013 and August 2014, when the last plots were planted.
The trees were planted at 12 sites along the border road, from Delta Costa Rica to
Las Delicias de Los Chiles, northern border.
Table Nº 4: Actual number of trees planted at the sites with a plantation agreement
in the second stage.
# Name of the party to the Place Trees Date of
agreement planted establishment
1 Fabio Cedeño González Boca Río 3.100 02 December 2013
(Ochoa) San Carlos
2 Melis Góngora Moraga Boca La 220 20 January 2014
Ceiba
(Trinidad)
3 Tito Hernández Ferreto Delta Costa 570 24 January 2014
Rica
4 Edwin Segura Retana Delta Costa 2.610 23 January 2014
Rica
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page11
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
336 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
# Name of the party to the Place Trees Date of
agreement planted establishment
5 Marcelo Méndez Morales Tiricias 1.345 20 December 2013
6 Eylin Cruz Campos Los Chiles 3.550 26 December 2013
7 Frits Perera Jiménez Cureña 2.500 20 December 2013
(Palo seco)
8 Porfirio Rodríguez Campos Delta Costa 920 10 January 2014
Rica
9 Fabio Vargas Boca Río 4.050 18 December 2013
(Chachalaca) San Carlos
10 Daniel Jiménez Berrocal Tiricias 2.463 15 August 2014
(El Almendro)
11 Daniel Jiménez Berrocal Tiricias 256 30 August 2014
(La Laguna)
12 Frits Perera Jiménez Cureña 2.550 30 de agosto de
(Pindongo) 2014
TOTAL 24.134
The species used were:
For protection of the land on the banks of rivers and creeks : Zygia longifolia
(Sotacaballo).
For humid areas : Vochysia guatemalensis (Cebo), Calophyllum brasiliense
(Cedro María), Tabebuia rosea (Roble sabana), Hyeronima alchorneoides (Pilón),
Anacardium excelsum (Espavel).
For high areas : Vochysia ferruginea (Botarrama), Dipteryx panamensis
(Almendro), Tabebuia ochracea (Corteza amarilla), Terminalia amazonia (Roble
coral), Cordia alliodora (Laurel), Delonix regia (Malinche), Samanea saman
(Cenizaro) and Schizolobium parahyba (Gallinazo).
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page12
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
337Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
3. PHASE NO. 3. MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT COVER
a. Monitoring of planted areas
As of July 2012 follow -up visits to the planted areas are made as part of the
commitments of the consulting contract, and also as input for the submission of
quarterly progress reports.
During the term of the project, the maintenance work was performed by work crews
comprised of people from the areas surrounding the projects, to collaborate with
the economy of the area, which is difficult and there are few sources of
employment. Four work crews were used for this task, one in the area of Tiricias,
another in the mouth of Río San Carlos, another in La Ceiba - Trinidad de
Sarapiquí and the fourth in the Delta Costa Rica area.
b. Mowing:
As programmed, a full mowing was performed for each plot, either manually or with
a hedge trimmer. There is a variety of wee ds in each lot. The one that gave the
most problems is called gamalote (bullgrass), which grows very aggressively and
its roots spread through the ground which makes it difficult to clean.
Mowing of rotana grass Mowing of gamalote (bullgrass)
These pictures correspond to the mowing work performed at the plots planted in
June and July 2014.
The planted area of each plot was fully mowed five times during the first two years
of each project.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page13
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
338 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
c. Spot herbicide treatment around trees:
After the mowing at each plot, a spot herbicide treatment was applied in a circle
around each tree to fully eliminate the competition of weeds with the planted trees.
Due to the aggressiveness of bullgrass, at the plots which had this type of grassy
weed a full chemical burning of the site was performed with glyphosate, which is a
green-label herbicide permitted by international certifiers such as FSC or ISO
14001.
Spot herbicide treatment to the tree. Total burning of the plot.
Similarly, spot herbicide treatments or full chemical burns were applied five times,
as visible in the pictures, depending on the type of weeds at the site of each plot.
d. Mortality and replanting:
Within the terms of reference of the consulting contract, the number of trees was
established by units and not by area; therefore, the commitment of the contractor,
in this case CODEFORSA, was to maintain the number of trees originally planted
in each lot planted until the end of the respective contract.
This is why during the entire period of the project, within the maintenance
programme (mowing, herbicide spot, etc.), we conducted for each plot a review of
mortality and replanting of any trees lost during the term of the project.
For each plot we performed a monthly monitoring visit, and the field visit reports
indicated the number of trees to be replaced for each, if necessary, to maintain the
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page14
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
339Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
initial number of trees planted by plot, meaning that this activity was constant in
each of the plots until the end of the project.
Below is the data from the mortality reports of the visits to the projects, performed
during 2012, 2013 and 2014 for all plots during both stages of the contract.
Table Nº 5 : Mortality report from follow -up visits to all plots planted during both
stages of the contract.
FIRST STAGE (26.575 TREES PLANTED)
MORTALITY IN MORTALITY IN MORTALITY IN
NAME OF THE PARTY TO THE TOTAL
AGREEMENT TREES 2012 2013 2014
PLANTED N % N % N %
Escuela Delta Costa Rica 325 28 8,6% 25 7,7% 0 0,0%
Escuela y Policía 500 0 0,0% 25 5,0% 0 0,0%
Tito Hernández Ferreto 366 14 3,8% 5 1,4% 0 0,0%
María Hilaria Miranda Rivas 500 30 6,0% 20 4,0% 0 0,0%
Felix Hernández Jarquín 260 17 6,5% 15 5,8% 0 0,0%
Fabio Vargas 407 52 12,8% 10 2,5% 0 0,0%
Escuela Boca La Ceiba 117 10 8,5% 5 4,3% 0 0,0%
Melis Góngora Moraga 252 25 9,9% 5 2,0% 0 0,0%
Iglesia Boca La Ceiba 225 30 13,3% 7 3,1% 0 0,0%
Fredy Ulate Castro 3,180 150 4,7% 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Fabio Cedeño G. (F. Ochoa) 5,345 329 6,2% 345 6,5% 0 0,0%
Fabio Cedeño G. (San Antonio )
1,600 57 3,6% 50 3,1% 0 0,0%
Marcelo Méndez Morales 1,870 75 4,0% 25 1,3% 0 0,0%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (El
Guabo) 1,907 125 6,6% 30 1,6% 0 0,0%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Alonso) 200 20 10,0% 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Slopes) 1,000 40 4,0% 20 2,0% 0 0,0%
Olman Quesada Campos 650 26 4,0% 5 0,8% 0 0,0%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Lote Pilo950 95 10,0% 4 0,4% 0 0,0%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal ( Bismark1,280 78 6,1% 8 0,6% 0 0,0%
William Cortés Madrigal 1,460 150 10,3% 25 1,7% 0 0,0%
German Díaz Ruiz 4,095 274 6,7% 100 2,4% 0 0,0%
Edgar Salazar Ramírez 86 0 0,0% 5 5,8% 0 0,0%
TOTAL 26,575 1,625 6,6% 734 2,8% 0 0,0%
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page15
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
340 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SECOND STAGE ( 24,134 TREES PLANTED )
MORTALITY IN MORTALITY IN MORTALITY IN
NAME OF THE PARTY TO THE N TREES
AGREEMENT PLANTED 2012 2013 2014
N % N % N %
Fabio Cedeño González (Ochoa) 3,100 150 4,8%
Melis Góngora Moraga 220 5 2,3%
Tito Hernández Ferreto 570 55 9,6%
Edwin Segura Retana 2,610 270 10,3%
Marcelo Méndez Morales 1,345 255 19,0%
Eylin Cruz Campos 3,550 40 1,1%
Frits Perera Jiménez (Palo Seco) 2,500 50 2,0%
Porfirio Rodríguez Campos 920 150 16,3%
Fabio Vargas Vargas (Chachalaca) 4,050 250 6,2%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (El
Almendro) 2,463 0 0,0%
Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (La 256 0 0,0%
Laguna)
Frits Perera Jiménez (Pindongo) 2,550 0 0,0%
TOTAL 24,134 1,225 6,0%
For both stages of the contract, the mortality in the first year of planting did not
exceed 6.6%, of which 100% were replanted.
The main causes of mortality in the first year were: dry conditions (several days
without rain) immediately after the day when the tree was planted, bad planting
technique, high humidity in areas close to point where the tree was planted, entry
of ruminants and equines to the planted area and finally poisoning effect of
herbicide applied for weed control.
As you can see also, for the second year the mortality was much lower, and by the
end of the first stage of the proje ct no dead trees were found within the planted
areas. Similar behaviour is expected for 24 ,134 trees planted in the second stage
of the project.
e. Fertiliser application:
Soil improvement activities contemplated in the project were implemented in a
satisfactory manner, at each lot planted. One month after the tree -planting an
earthing up was performed on all the trees planted, followed by the application of a
dose of granulated fertiliser (10-30-10) at a ratio of 60 g per tree.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page16
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
341Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
When the plots reached one year from planting, foliar fertiliser was applied (20-20-
20 plus minor elements) as part of the soil improvements scheduled for the plots
planted. Whitewashing was also a pplied when the trees reached one year of age,
using 500 g of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3) at the base of each tree. This work was
carried out after the fourth activity of herbicide spot treatment applied to the plots.
f. Pruning:
This activity has been implemented in all
plots to trees that have required it,
including Cebo, Roble Coral and Laurel
trees, which have been intervened the
most to prevent that due to the effect of
wind they fall due to the weight of the
canopy, practically the only species that
has not required pruning due its growth
style is the sotacaballo.
Pruning of Project Fabio Cedeño Och.a
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page17
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
342 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
g. Maintenance of the fences:
According to the approved Work Plan, this activity
was scheduled once a year; however, as part of
the program of maintenance visits executed at
the planted plots, the fences were checked on
each visit to prevent the entry of cattle to the site,
and this activity was performed whenever
necessary. In some cases it was reinforced with
more posts, and in others it was replaced with
barbed wire.
h. Follow-up visits to the planted areas
Since July 2012 follow -up visits are made to the planted areas. As per the work
plan, project visits were made monthly during the first year and bi -monthly during
the second year.
After each visit a report was prepared with the corresponding observations and
maintenance recommendations that should be applied. All of these reports were
presented in the quarterly progress reports of the project, along with ph otographic
records of each plot.
Below is a summary of each plot planted in the first stage of the project, which
presents a photographic sequence of the status of the plot at the beginning of the
planting and its current state.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page18
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
343Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Félix Hernández Jarquín.
Holder: Félix Hernández Jarquín.
Located: La Ceiba, near the mouth of the Río Sarapiquí
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.C.V.C., Sarapiquí sub-region.
Number of trees planted: 260 trees.
Planting date: 05 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 3433.00 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species sotacaballo, laurel, malinche, cedro
maría, almendro, cebo, roble coral, roble sabana, botarrama and pilón. A fence
was built for its protection, 40 metres long and with three wires. The initial cover of
the plot was pastures of short grasses.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 3.2 metres, with more development of the malinche and laurel trees which
are approximately 5 metres high.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page19
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
344 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT FELIX HERNANDEZ JARQUIN
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 3.2 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page20
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
345Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Iglesia Boca La Ceiba.
Holder: Adilia Com Hernández (member of the Church council)
Located: Mouth of Caño La Ceiba with the Sarapiquí River.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.C.V.C., Sarapiquí sub-region.
Number of trees planted: 225 trees.
Planting date: 05 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 1918 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, roble coral, cedro maría, laurel,
botarrama, malinche, sotacaballo, pilón . This plot was already surrounded by a
wire fence, therefore we only gave it maintenance. The initial cover of the plot was
scrubland and a mimosacea called abacá.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.8 metres, with more development of the malinche and laurel trees which
are approximately 4 metres high.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page21
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
346 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT IGLESIA BOCA CAÑO LA CEIBA
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.8 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page22
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
347Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Fabio Vargas Vargas.
Holder: Fabio Vargas Vargas.
Located: Next to the school of Caño La Ceiba.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.C.V.C., Sarapiquí sub-region.
Number of trees planted: 407 trees.
Planting date: 16 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 3671 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species pilón, sotacaballo, roble sabana,
cebo, cedro maría, almendro, roble coral . For this plot 70 metres of fence were
built, with three wires, given that the rest was already surrounde d by a wire fence.
The initial cover of the plot was pastures of short grasses.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.2 metres, with more development of the cebo and pilón trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page23
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
348 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT FABIO VARGAS VARGAS
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.2 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page24
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
349Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Escuela Boca del caño La Ceiba.
Holder: Area neighbouring the school.
Located: Next to the school of Caño La Ceiba.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.C.V.C., Sarapiquí sub-region.
Number of trees planted: 117 trees.
Planting date: 19 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 1062 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species pilón, cebo, roble sabana, roble coral,
cedro maría, malinche, gallinazo, almendro, sotacaballo . This plot was already
surrounded by a wire fence, therefore we only gave it maintenance. The initial
cover of the plot was pastures of short grasses.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.4 metres, with more development of the malinche and gallinazo trees
which are approximately 3 metres high.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page25
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
350 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT ESCUELA BOCA CAÑO LA CEIBA
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.4 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page26
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
351Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Melis Góngora Moraga.
Holder: Melis Góngora Moraga.
Located: Next to the plot of the school of Caño La Ceiba.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.C.V.C., Sarapiquí sub-region.
Number of trees planted: 252 trees.
Planting date: 19 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 1975 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the following species cebo, roble coral, cedro
maría, malinche, almendro, sotacaballo. For this plot 70 metres of fence were built,
with three wires, given that the rest was already surrounded by a wire fence. The
initial cover of the plot was pastures of short grasses.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation fro m newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 3.1 metres, with more development of the cebo and pilón trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page27
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
352 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT MELIS GONGORA MORAGA
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 3.1 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page28
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
353Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: María Hilaria Miranda Rivas.
Holder: María Hilaria Miranda Rivas.
Located: To one side of the mouth of Caño Las Marías.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.C.V.C., Sarapiquí sub-region.
Number of trees planted: 500 trees.
Planting date: 15 July 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 5167.12 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, sotacaballo, botarrama. For this
plot 316 metres of fence were built, with three wires, to protect the planted area.
The initial cover of the plot was gamalote.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.5 metres, with more development of the cebo and botarrama trees, in
addition to a natural regeneration of trees of the cedro amargo and jobo species.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page29
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
354 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT MARIA HILARIA MIRANDA RIVAS
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.5 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page30
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
355Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Tito Hernández Ferreto.
Holder: Tito Hernández Ferreto.
Located: San Antonio, on the road to Delta Costa Rica.
MINAE Office which supervises: A C.To., Gerencia de A.S.P.
Number of trees planted: 366 trees.
Planting date: 30 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 3047 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, sotacaballo, roble coral,
genízaro, cedro maría, pilón, roble sabana . For this plot 200 metres of fence were
built, with three wires, to protect the planted area. The initial cover of the plot was
gamalote.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the planta tion from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 3.2 metres, with more development of the cebo, pilón and genízaro trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page31
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
356 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT TITO HERNANDEZ FERRETO
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 3.2 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page32
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
357Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Escuela La Esperanza, Delta Costa Rica.
Holder: Area behind the school, land of the institution.
Located: Delta Costa Rica.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.To., Gerencia de A.S.P..
Number of trees planted: 325 trees.
Planting date: 30 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 3200 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, roble coral, genízaro, cedro
maría, pilón, roble sabana, sotacaballo . For this plot 100 metres of fence were
built, with three wires, to protect the planted area. The initial cover of the plot was
gamalote and grasses.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2 metres, with more development of the cebo, pilón and roble sabana
trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page33
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
358 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT ESCUELA DELTA COSTA RICA
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page34
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
359Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Escuela La Esperanza- Policía Frontera.
Holder: Area behind the school and to the side of the facilities of
the border police.
Located: Delta Costa Rica.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.To., Gerencia de A.S.P..
Number of trees planted: 500 trees.
Planting date: 01 December 2012
Area of the plot: 0 ha 4140 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species sotacaballo, cebo, guanacaste, roble
sabana. For this plot 50 metres of fence were built, with three wires, to prot ect the
planted area. The initial cover of the plot was gamalote and grasses.
The planted trees have had a regular development, with a high mortality rate at the
beginning and a replanting during June 2013. All maintenance proposed in the
Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation fr om newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 1.8 metres, due to the replanting applied, and that the plot next to the
border police mainly has sotacaballo trees, which fork and grow relatively low.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page35
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
360 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT ESCUELA DELTA COSTA RICA- POLICIA FRONTERA
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 1.8 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page36
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
361Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Fredy Ulate Castro.
Holder: Fredy Ulate Castro.
Located: Remolinito de La Cureña
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 3180 trees.
Planting date: 22 September 2012.
Area of the plot: 3 ha 7715.66 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, pilón, sotacaballo, almendro,
guaba, roble coral, guanábana . For this plot 1300 metres of fence were built, with
three wires, to protect the planted area. The initial cover of the plot was gamalote.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2 metres, with more development of the cebo and pilón trees. In addition,
there was replanting of genízaro and guaba trees.
In this plot the average height decreases due
to the effect of the sotacaballo trees, which
represent approximately 50% of the total
number of trees planted and have a lateral
growth and fork in the shaft at a low height.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page37
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
362 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT FREDDY ULATE CASTRO
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page38
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
363Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Fabio Cedeño González (San Antonio).
Holder: Fabio Cedeño González
Located: Boca del río San Carlos.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 1600 trees.
Planting date: 25 June 2012.
Area of the plot: 1 ha 4404 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, roble coral, roble sabana, pilón,
almendro, laurel, botarrama, sotacaballo. For this plot 600 metres of fence were
built, with three wires, to protect the planted area. The initial cover of the plot was
gamalote and grasses.
At this point two of the plots planted with volunteers are joined.
The planted trees have d eveloped well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 3 metres, with more development of the roble coral, laurel and roble
sabana, with trees close to 5 metres high.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page39
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
364 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT FABIO CEDEÑO GONZALEZ (SAN ANTONIO)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 3 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page40
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
365Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Fabio Cedeño González (Ochoa).
Holder: Fabio Cedeño González
Located: Boca del río San Carlos, Finca Ochoa.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 5.345 trees.
Planting date: September 2012.
Area of the plot: 7 ha 8.450,59 m².
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species cebo, roble coral, roble sabana, pilón,
almendro, espavel, botarrama, sotacaballo, cedro maría, guapinol, cenízaro,
guanacaste. For this plot 8000 metres of fence were built, with three wires, to
protect the planted area. The initial cover of the plot was gamalote.
Six of the plots planted with volunteers are joined here.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantati on from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.2 metres, with more development of the cebo and genízaro trees, which
are over 3 metres high.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page41
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
366 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT FABIO CEDEÑO GONZALEZ (OCHOA)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.2 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page42
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
367Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Olman Quesada Campos
Holder: Olman Quesada Campos
Located: Tiricias, next to caño Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 650 trees.
Planting date: 25 July 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 4678 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was pla nted with the following species roble coral, cedro maría,
pilón, laurel. For this plot 50 metres of fence were built, with three wires, to protect
the planted area. The initial cover of the plot was grasses and gamalote.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all main tenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 3.5 metres, with more development of the laurel and roble coral trees,
which are over 4 metres high.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page43
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
368 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT OLMAN QUESADA CAMPOS
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 3.5 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page44
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
369Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (El Guabo)
Holder: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal
Located: 2 km east of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 1907 trees.
Planting date: 22 August 2012
Area of the plot: 2 ha 0443.77 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species almendro, cedro maría, cebo, pilón,
sotacaballo, corteza amarillo, botarrama, guanacaste, roble coral, genízaro . For
this plot it was not necessary to build a wire fence, only maintenance was given to
the existing one. The initial cover of the plot was grasses and gamalote.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 3 metres, with more development of the almendro and cebo trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page45
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
370 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT DANIEL JIMENEZ BERROCAL (EL GUABO)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 3 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page46
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
371Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Slopes)
Holder: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal
Located: 800 m west of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 1000 trees.
Planting date: 14 August 2012
Area of the plot: 1 ha 3730 m²
Description of the plot:
The trees planted in this lot are all sotacaballo species, given that this area
is for the protection of a slope. For this plot it was not necessary to build a wire
fence; maintenance was given to the existing one. The initial cover of the plot was
grasses, which was maintained most of the time only with mowing so that the slope
protected by these trees was maintained with vegetation cover.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 1.8 metres, given that since they are sotacaballo trees the growth is
mainly lateral due to the typical forking of the tree.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page47
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
372 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT DANIEL JIMENEZ BERROCAL (SLOPES)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 1.8 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page48
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
373Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Alonso)
Holder: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal
Located: Next to the plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 200 trees.
Planting date: 16 August 2012
Area of the plot: 0 ha 1584 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species malinche, pilón, cebo, almendro,
sotacaballo, botarrama, guapinol, roble coral . For this plot 120 metres of fence
were built, with three wires, to protect the planted area. The initial cover of the plot
was grasses.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.3 metres, with more development of the malinche, pilón and cebo trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page49
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
374 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT DANIEL JIMENEZ BERROCAL (ALONSO)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.3 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page50
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
375Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Pilo)
Holder: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal
Located: 1.7 km northwest of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 950 trees.
Planting date: 04 September 2012.
Area of the plot: 0 ha 8644 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the following species cebo, espavel, sotacaballo,
corteza amarillo, cedro maría, roble coral, pilón, botarrama . For this plot 50 metres
of fence were built, with three wires, to protect the planted area. The initialcover
of the plot was grasses and gamalote in the areas close to San Juan River.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantat ion from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.8 metres, with more development of the corteza amarilla, pilón and
espavel trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page51
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
376 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT DANIEL JIMENEZ BERROCAL (PILO)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.8 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page52
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
377Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal (Bismark)
Holder: Daniel Jiménez Berrocal
Located: 2 km northwest of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 1280 trees.
Planting date: 04 September 2012.
Area of the plot: 1 ha 7004 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species botarrama, cebo, sotacaballo,
almendro, malinche, cedro maría, guapinol . This plot did not require fencing, we
only gave maintenance to the existing one. The initial cover of the plot was
grasses and matones.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.1 metres, with more development of the malinche and cebo trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page53
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
378 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT DANIEL JIMENEZ BERROCAL (BISMARK)
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.1 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page54
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
379Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Marcelo Méndez Morales
Holder: Marcelo Méndez Morales
Located: 5.8 km northwest of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 1870 trees.
Planting date: 27 August 2012
Area of the plot: 2 ha 1216 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species almendro, pilón, cedro maría,
botarrama, cebo, genízaro, guanacaste, corteza amarillo, sotacaballo, roble coral,
espavel. For this plot 715 metres of fence were built, with three wires, to protect the
planted area. The initial cover of the plot was grasses and matones.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.4 metres, with more development of the cebo, botarrama and almendro
trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page55
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
380 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT MARCELO MENDEZ MORALES
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.4 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page56
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
381Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: William Cortéz Madrigal
Holder: William Cortéz Madrigal
Located: 4.5 km northwest of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 1460 trees.
Planting date: 25 August 2012
Area of the plot: 1 ha 6099 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species roble sabana, espavel, pilón,
sotacaballo, cedro maría, cebo, roble coral, corteza am arillo, botarrama. For this
plot 550 metres of fence were built, with three wires, to protect the planted area.
The initial cover of the plot was grasses and matones.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.1 metres, with more development of the roble sabana and cebo trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page57
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
382 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT WILLIAM CORTEZ MADRIGAL
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.1 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page58
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
383Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: German Díaz Ruíz
Holder: German Díaz Ruíz
Located: 5.5 km northwest of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 4095 trees.
Planting date: 02 October 2012.
Area of the plot: 4 ha 2401.58 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was planted with the species espavel, sotacaballo, cedro maría,
cebo, corteza amarillo, botarrama. For this plot 360 metres of fence were built, with
three wires, to protect the planted area. The initialcover of the plot was grasses
and matones.
Three of the plots planted with volunteers are joined here.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an average
height of 2.1 metres, with more development of the cebo trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page59
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
384 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT GERMAN DIAZ RUIZ
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 2.1 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page60
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
385Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Information per plot of the project:
Name of the plot: Edgar Salazar Ramírez
Holder: Edgar Salazar Ramírez
Located: 1 km northwest of plaza de deportes de Tiricias.
MINAE Office which supervises: A.C.A.H.N., Gerencia de Manejo Forestal.
Number of trees planted: 86 trees.
Planting date: 04 December 2012
Area of the plot: 0 ha 0774 m²
Description of the plot:
This plot was pla nted with the following species Roble coral, cedro maría,
pilón, guaba, cebo and fruit trees. For this plot it was not necessary to build a wire
fence. The initial cover of the plot was grasses and matones.
The planted trees have developed well since the beginning, and all maintenance
proposed in the Work Plan has been applied.
Below is a photo sequence of the development of the plantation from newly
planted, to one year and the current state of the trees, which have an ave rage
height of 1.8 metres, with more development of the maría trees.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page61
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
386 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
PLOT EDGAR SALAZAR RAMIREZ
One month from planting
One year from planting
Current Condition (average height 1.8 m)
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page62
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
387Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
4. SLOPES
a. Recovery of slopes
Regarding the recovery of slopes, as part of the project’s commitments, after
walkthroughs of the areas of influence of the project we found that the Tiricias area
has the most pronounced terrain cuts. Therefore, most of the recovery of slopes
was performed in that area.
We identified a total of 9 slopes in the area of Tiricias, which were sown with
vetiver grass, digging rows on the slope (as can be seen in the photo). The
vegetation material was reproduced in the nursery of CODEFORSA and taken to
the field in a plastic bag, similar to the production of timber trees. This is to promote
a good amount of "ado be" composed of fertile soil in the area of roots of the
vegetation material, since the slopes are areas with little fertile soil, rather, they
correspond to the deeper layers of soil with very little ability to provide nutrients to
planted material.
Design of the sowing of grass at each slope.
Once the different slopes were intervened, they were labelled for identification and
subsequent management and maintenance.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page63
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
388 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
At some of the intervened slopes in the area of Tiricias, they were covered by
saran, which had been placed during the process of construction of the border
road. However, in many cases the saran was stolen from the site, so we decided to
break it with the planting of the vegetation material to take advantage of its effect of
reducing the impact of rain on the exposed soil of the slope and thus promote the
decrease in sediment erosion and pollution of waters and finally so it would not to
be removed from the site.
View of planting of vegetation on Slope No 5 Signs placed on the slopes.
To complete the number of slopes to be intervened, work was performed on three
slopes in the area of the mouth of San Carlos River, with the numbers 10, 11 and
12. In total there were nine slopes in the Tiricias area and three in the area of the
mouth of San Carlos River.
View of Slope No. 10 Signs placed at the slopes.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page64
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
389Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
Below are photographs of the state of the slopes in February 2014 . The
photographs presented correspond to the visit made in February 2014.
The cover has suffered the impact of the dry season and shows a yellowing in the
stumps; however, once the first rains fall this situation will normalize.
SLOPE 1
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page65
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
390 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 2
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page66
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
391Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 3
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page67
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
392 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 4
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page68
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
393Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 5
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page69
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
394 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 6
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page70
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
395Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 7
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page71
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
396 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 8
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page72
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
397Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 9
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page73
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
398 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 10
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page74
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
399Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 11
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page75
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
400 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
SLOPE 12
b. Maintenance of plant cover on slopes:
The maintenance work on the slope cover consisted of applying foliar fertiliser to
the planted material to favour the establishment of the cover, improve the amount
of nutrients available and ensure the cover of the slope with vegetation.
Foliar fertiliser applications at each of the slopes and the indicated repetitions were
performed as described in table 16. In total, four applications of foliar fertiliser were
applied to the twelve treated slopes.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page76
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
401Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
In addition to the vegetation material established on the site, in most of the slopes
the vegetation seeds from the site re -sprouted, helping to repopulate the cover,
which enhances both recovery in the affected area and the improvement in the
landscape surrounding the border road.
Foliar fertilisation lower part of the slope.Foliar fertilisation higher part of the slope.
Foliar fertiliser applications were carried out using a back pump with an adaptation
or extension of the hose and the rod to ensure that the fertiliser reached all of the
material established on each slope.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page77
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
402 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
IV. APPENDICES
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page78
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
403Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
APPENDIX 1: MATERIAL PREPARED FOR DELIVERY TO THE
PARTICIPANTS OF THE ACTIVITIES AND MEMBE RS OF PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page79
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-16Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
404 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
8-PAGE MAGAZINE GIVEN TO EACH VOLUNTEER AT THE
PLANTING EVENTS.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page80
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
405Annex 13
Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border
2012
-04-
81
-DE
Page
Road
Report of the Project
Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
Direct ConVOLUNTEER AT THE PLANTING EVENTSAC
-650
FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS
-055 Fax: (506) 2460
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental Plan for the
POSTER WITH INFORMATION AND MAPS OF THE PLANTED SITES DELIVERED TO EACH
COTelII0N)D460DESARROLLO
406 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
APPENDIX 2: MAPS OF THE LOCATIONOF THE PLANTEDAREAS,
FIRST STAGE.
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page82
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-1650Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
407Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page83
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
408 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page84
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
409Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page85
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
410 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page86
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
411Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page87
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
412 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page88
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
413Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page89
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
414 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page90
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
415Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page91
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
416 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page92
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
417Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page93
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
418 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page94
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
419Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page95
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
420 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page96
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
421Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page97
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
422 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page98
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
423Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page99
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
424 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page100
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
425Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page101
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
426 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page102
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
427Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
APPENDIX 3: MAPS OF THE LOCATIONOF THE PLANTEDAREAS,
SECOND STAGE (EXPANSION).
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page103
Tel: (506) 2460-1Fax: (506) 2460-165Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
428 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page104
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
429Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page105
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
430 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page106
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
431Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page107
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
432 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page108
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
433Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page109
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
434 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page110
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
435Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page111
Tel: (506) 2460-10Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
436 Annex 13
Report of the Project
Consulting Services for the Development and Implementation of an Environmental
Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road
Direct Contract by Emergency Exception SINAC-CDE-004-2012
COMISIÓN DE DESARROLLO FORESTAL DE SAN CARLOS Page112
Tel: (506) 2460-105Fax: (506) 2460-1650 Webpage: www.codeforsa.org
437438 ANNEX 14
Centro Científico Tropical (CCT)
Follow-up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project- EDA Ecological
Component
January 2015
439440 Annex 14
)ROORZ▯XS▯DQG▯0RQLWRULQJ▯6WXG\
RI▯WKH▯(QYLURQPHQWDO▯'LDJQRVWLF▯$VVHVVPHQW
(FRORJLFDO▯&RPSRQHQW▯
5RXWH▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯-XDQ▯5DIDHO▯0RUD▯3RUUDV▯▯
3URMHFW
7523,&$/
6&,(1&((5
6'HFHPEHU▯▯▯▯▯▯▯5LFD▯
441Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
i. Professional team participating in Follow -up and Monitoring Study of the
Environmental Diagnostic Study - Ecological Component, Route 1856.
This document was coordinated and prepared by the TROPICAL SCIENCE CENTER, with the
participation of the following professional specialists:
Professional
Association,
Professional Specialist Field SETENA Signature
membership
Geography Colegio: CIA-6450
Oscar Lücke Sánchez, Technical SETENA: CI-235-12
MSc. Coordinator __________________
Natural Sciences for
Development and
Environmental Colegio: 1967
Olivier Chassot Labastrou, Management SETENA: CI-157-12
Ph.D. __________________
Technical
Coordinator
Sustainable
Tourism Colegio: 1202
Ana Luisa Báez Rojas __________________
Biology and Natural
Colegio: 844
Guisselle Monge Arias, Resources SETENA: CI-146-13 __________________
Ph.D. Management
Forestry and Land Colegio: CIA-4377
Rafael Bolaños Montero Use SETENA: CI-001-98 __________________
Colegio: 1695
Bernald Pacheco Cháves Aquatic Biology SETENA: CI-214-08 __________________
Digital Cartography
and Geographic CGCR: 382
Andreas Mende, Ph.D. Information SETENA: CI-173-14 __________________
Systems
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%!
442 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
ii. General Index
1 ! OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................... !0
2 ! INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12 !
2.1 ! Background ...................................................................................................................! 12
2.2 ! Scope ........................................................................................................................!.... 12
2.3 ! Objectives....................................................................................................................!.. 13
2.3.1 ! General ................................................................................................................!... 13
2.3.2 ! Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................13!
2.4 ! METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 13 !
2.5 ! Duration of Follow-up Study ........................................................................................... 16 !
2.6 ! Geographical Scope of Follow -up Study ........................................................................16 !
2.7 ! Criticisms by Nicaragua ..................................................................................................16 !
3 ! GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PROJECT ..................................................................17 !
3.1 ! Geographic Location ......................................................................................................17 !
3.2 ! Political and Administrative Location .............................................................................. 17 !
3.3 ! Area of the Follow-up Study and Impacted Areas.......................................................... 17 !
4 ! The 2013 EDA ...................................................................................................................... !0
4.1 ! Description of activities assessed in EDA ......................................................................20 !
4.2 ! Environmental impacts identified in the 2013 EDA ........................................................ 21 !
4.2.1 ! Terrestrial flora and fauna ........................................................................................ 21 !
4.2.2 ! Aquatic flora and fauna ............................................................................................ 23 !
4.2.3 ! Landscape ..............................................................................................................! 23
5 ! ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF ROUTE 1856 IN 2014 ............................................. 23 !
5.1 ! Update of environmental impacts according to 2014 field observations ........................ 23 !
5.2 ! Environmental impacts updated to observed conditions in 2014 ...................................24 !
5.2.1 ! Terrestrial flora and fauna ........................................................................................ 24 !
5.2.2 ! Aquatic flora and fauna ............................................................................................ 25 !
5.2.3 ! Landscape ..............................................................................................................! 25
5.3 ! Description of Environmental Characteristics .................................................................25 !
5.3.1 ! Terrestrial Environment ........................................................................................... 25 !
5.3.2 ! Aquatic Environment................................................................................................ 33 !
6 ! Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Corrective Measures .......................................... 52 !
6.1 ! Methodology...................................................................................................................!52
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%3 !
443Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
6.2 ! Assessment of Identified Environ mental Impacts and Updating of Environmental Control
Measures.................................................................................................................................53
6.2.1 ! Control Measures for Terrestrial Flora and Fauna ................................................... 53 !
6.2.2 ! Aquatic Flora and Fauna ......................................................................................... 5!
6.2.3 ! Landscape .........................................................................................................!..... 62
6.3 ! Environmental Action Plan - Environmental Adaptation Plan (EAP) ............................... 66 !
7! CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................71 !
7.1 ! General Conclusions .....................................................................................................!71
7.1.1 ! Terrestrial Biology ...............................................................................................!....71
7.1.2 ! Aquatic Biology ...................................................................................................!....78
7.1.3 ! Tourism............................................................................................................!....... 80
7.1.4 ! Ecological Connectivity ...........................................................................................! 82
7.1.5 ! Impacts Identified.................................................................................................!...82
7.2 ! Recommendations .........................................................................................................!83
8! BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................!. 86
9! ANNEXES.......................................................................................................................!..... 93
!
Table Index
Table 4-1 :Activities conducted during the Project´s construction stage. .......................20!
Table 5-1: Description of Sampling Sites and Points along Route 1856 (2014).............37!
Table 6 -1: Matrix of the Importance of Environmental Impact (MIIA) for the Project
Route 1856, in Costa Rica (2014)...........................................................................64!
Table 6-2: Environmental Adaptation Plan.....................................................................67!
!
Map Index
Map 1: Geographical location of the project...................................................................18!
Map 2: Updated Ecosystems Map..................................................................................27!
Map 3: Updated Ecosystems Map..................................................................................28!
Map 4: Updated Ecosystems Map..................................................................................29!
Map 5: Updated Ecosystems Map..................................................................................30!
Map 6: Updated Ecosystems Map..................................................................................31!
Map 7: Updated Ecosystems Map..................................................................................32!
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%4 !
444 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
Map 8: Location of Sampling Sites.................................................................................34!
Map 9: Location of Sampling Sites.................................................................................35!
Map 10: Location of Sampling Sites...............................................................................36!
Photo Index
Photo 1: Direct collect of macro-invertebrates in the field. .............................................15!
Photo 2: Net used for macro-invertebrate collection. .....................................................15!
Photo 4: Sedimentation mitigation measures in section Infiernito river -Boca San Carlos.
................................................................................................................................74!
Photo 5: Sedimentation mitigation measures in section Infiernito river -Boca San Carlos.
................................................................................................................................74!
Photo 6: Sedimentation mitigation measures in section Infiernito river -Boca San Carlos.
................................................................................................................................75!
Photo 7: Slope contention in section Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos. ..........................75!
Photo 8: Slope contention in section Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos. ..........................75!
Photo 9: Slope contention in section Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos. ..........................76!
Photo 10: Slope contention in section Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos. ........................76!
Photo 11: Sotacaballo trees planted on saran-covered slopes in Chorreras sector.......76!
Photo 12: Sedimentation mitigation measures in the Chorreras sector. ........................77!
Photo 13: Sedimentation mitigation measures in the Chorreras sector. ........................77!
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%5!
445Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
Glossary
Agarradores: “clingers”, organisms found in bodies of water with strong currents, which often
have features (long, strong claws nails, hooks, suction cups) enabling them to hold onto their
surroundings.
Altered primary forest : primary forest that has been previously subject to some form of human
intervention, such as logging and land clearing below the canopy level.
Auto-trophs: organisms that have the ability to synthesize all elements essential to their
metabolic needs based on non-organic substances, such that they do not need other living
organisms for their nourishment.
Bailey bridge: portable pre-fabricated metal bridge, designed primarily for military use, which is
used in many countries as a provisional bridge whilst a perm anent structure is being built.
Bentonic: relative to the community formed by organisms that inhabit the bottom of aquatic
ecosystems.
Bentonic macro-invertebrate: non-vertebrate animal that lives all or part of its life cycle in the
bottom or in the subs tratum of the bottom layer in bodies of fresh water, whose body size allows
direct visual observation without the use of instruments.
Bio-indicator: organism selected for its degree of sensibility or tolerance to diverse types of
contamination or its effec ts. It measures or quantifies the magnitude of stress and degree of
ecological response to it.
Biological Corridor: a territory that offers connectivity among landscapes, eco -systems and
habitats, natural or modified, assuring the presence of biological di versity and ecological
processes.
Boundary marker or landmark : artificial structure used commonly to define the limits of
properties and territories.
Branchiae: gills, respiratory organs of aquatic animals which allow extraction of oxygen diluted
in the water, and transference of carbon dioxide (CO 2) to the environment.
Caudal: current, quantity of water that moves through a section of a river during a given unit of
time.
Caño: channel, water course that runs through muddy, flooded terrain, or through palu strine or
lacustrine wetlands, whose depth and appearance change as a function of the level of water.
“Climbers”: organisms that live in the submerged part of aquatic plants.
Collectors: organisms that collect fine particles deposited in water surfaces.
Community: group of organisms of all species that co -exist in a defined space called a biotope
which offers the required environmental conditions for their survival.
Density: number of organisms in an area or defined volume.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%!
446 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
Detriment: slight or partial des truction of something.
Detritus: residues, generally solid and permanent, that result from the decomposition of organic
sources (vegetal and animal); dead matter.
Diversity: related to the number or richness of species, as well as the equality or relative
abundance of individuals between species.
Divers: organisms that dive and swim to feed themselves; often they spend time holding onto
submerged objects.
Egg-laying: fish, reptiles and amphibians which release eggs into the environment.
Endemic Species : taxon that is limited to a reduced geographic area, not found in a natural
state anywhere else in the world.
Epi-lithic: organism that develops on the surface of hard substrata.
Extinction: disappearance of all the individuals of a species or a taxonomic grou p; a species is
extinguished when the last individual of the species dies.
Filters: organisms that feed off particulate, fine, and very fine organic matter in suspension,
which are collected by the organism with the use of mouth brushes or silk nets.
Forest: natural vegetation of a forest ecosystem of an extension greater than 2 hectares.
Forested: a section covered by natural tree vegetation, with variable surfaces, whether smaller
or larger than 2 hectares.
Fragmenters: organisms that chew large pieces of vascular plants to feed themselves.
Habitat: area where organisms live and grow in a natural way.
Interstitial Space: space or crevice between two bodies or between parts of a body.
Lacustrine: organisms that exist or develop in waters of little or no mov ement.
Lentic: system of stagnant continental waters with little movement and exchange, for example,
lakes formed by emerging waters, lakes, ponds, swamps and marshes.
Monitoring: systematic use of biological responses to evaluate changes in the environmen t for
the purpose of implementing conservation and control programs.
Morbility: proportion of organisms the health of which declines in a site over a specified period
of time.
Mortality: number of individuals within a population that die within a specified period of time.
Palustrine: referring to stagnant or slow moving shallow waters with emergent vegetation at
least in 30% of the area.
Phytoplancton: group of aquatic organisms that are plankton auto -thropic, have photosynthetic
capacity and live dispersed in water.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%7!
447Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
Plancton: group of organisms, mainly microscopic, that inhabit salty or fresh waters, whose
movement is passive.
Population: group of organisms, or individuals of the same species that co -exist in a given
space and time, and share certain biolog ical properties which produce a high reproductive and
ecological cohesion in the group.
Predators: herbivores and other organisms that feed on other organisms.
Richness: number of species that are part of a community.
River: natural course of water that fl ows continuously has a defined stream, constant
throughout the yearly cycle, that flows into the sea, a lake, or another river (in which case it is
considered an affluent or tributary course).
“Scrapers”: organisms that feed on peri -phyton algae and microb es that adhere to rocks and
other substrata.
Sediment: solid accumulated material on the terrestrial surface (lithosphere) derived from the
action of phenomena and processes that act on the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere
(winds, temperature variatio ns, meteorological precipitations, circulation of surface or
underground waters, displacement of masses of water in marine or lacustrine environments,
chemical agents or the action of live organisms.
Slope: slanting surface, inclined surface of land or ar tificial inclined structure that is part of an
engineering work.
Skaters: organisms that live in the aerial phase on the surface film of water and skate on this
surface.
“Sprawlers”: organisms that live in habitats, or micro -habitats with less current and which crawl
on the surface of the bottom substratum, on rocks, sediment, leaves and wood.
Swimmers: organisms that live in permanent submersion and are capable of swimming with
movements such as those of fish; organisms spend time holding on to rocks, root s of aquatic
plants and other submerged objects.
Taxa: plural of taxon.
Taxon: any unit, category or group used in the science of biological classification, such as
phylum, order, family, genus or species.
Tributary (or affluent): body of water that does n ot run its course to the sea, but empties into a
river, at a point known as the confluence of both.
Trophic level: each one of the group of species or organisms of an eco -system that coincide by
the place they occupy in the system of energy and circulation of nutrients; those that occupy an
equivalent place in the food chain.
Wetland: area covered with water generally containing natural and semi -natural vegetation and
very often rich in diversity of organisms.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%8!
448 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
“Yolillal” patch or extension : basal tropical e co-system that generally grows close to the
coasts and is frequently inundated, and is dominated by the palm known as ”Yolillo” (Raphia
taedigera).
Abbreviations
RNVSMM: Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Maquenque ( Maquenque National Wildlife
Refuge)
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height (1.30 meters)
TSC: Tropical Science Centre
BBC: Border Biological Corridor
ICE: Costa Rican Electrical Institute
IGN: National Geographic Institute
RSJ: San Juan River, on the Costa Rica - Nicaragua border
UCR: University of Costa Rica
Tropical Science Center
! 2014!
Page%9!
449Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
1 OVERVIEW
This study is responsive to various statements made by the Government of Nicaragua in the
case concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.
Costa Rica) (‘Road case’) regarding purported impacts on its territory allegedly caused by the
construction of the 1856 Route in Costa Rica .
Following the issue of proceedings in the Road case, the Costa Rican Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Worship commissioned an exhaustive assessment of conditions of the Route and its
potential environmental impacts. This led to the study entitled “Environmental Diagnostic
Assessment - Ecological Component” of Route 1856 ( ‘EDA’), completed in November of 2013,
one of a number of studies commissioned by Costa Rica in th e context of the Road case.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Government of Costa Rica commissioned the
services of the Tropical Science Center ( ‘TSC’) to carry out the EDA , based on its well -known
reputation, technical expertise concernin g the topics under study and more than 20 years of
experience conducting research projects in the area.
One year after the completion of the EDA , the Government of Costa Rica commissioned the
TSC to conduct a Follow -up and Monitoring Study to the EDA, whic h was completed in
December 2014 (‘Follow-up Study’), the results of which are set out in this report . The Follow-up
Study reviewed the environmental measures recommended in the EDA required to attain an
environmental equilibrium for the works and activiti es executed, and it compared new samples
with samples assessed in the EDA in order to evaluate potential changes that might have taken
place over a one-year period.
The project description also clarifies that this Follow-up Study is not a new assessment o f the
Route project, but rather an analysis of the actual state of Route 1856, and of the technical and
environmental recommendations that have been put into effect over the past 12 months.
The general objective of this Follow -up Study is “[t]o formulate an environmental follow -up
document which repeats the methodology applied during the [EDA] of Route 1856, for
comparison and further evaluation of current environmental conditions of the same, and of the
effectiveness of corrective environmental measures th at have been applied in the Project area.”
This general objective finds expression in four specific objectives that define with greater
precision the activities that are proper to this study in areas such as field verification of current
physical and biolo gical conditions, a synthesis of the environmental conditions identified in the
EDA, and review and adjustment of environmental measures established in the EDA.
The methodology established for this study is also presented in some detail as it describes wit h
precision the steps taken to collect the field information, and its analysis.
It must be pointed out that even though this Follow-up Study is not a repetition of the EDA, it
does take into account as a reference base general aspects of the EDA, such as geographic
location, description of the project works, influence area, description of the activity under study,
environmental aspects analy sed and the environmental risk control system evaluated.
This Follow-up Study presents the environmental diagnostic study with the description of the
potential environmental impacts identified in the EDA, and the current environmental conditions
with the results obtained in the new sampling and field verifications.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%1!
450 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
It also comprises an assessment of the alleged environmental impacts and corrective
measures, with specification of the methodology employed for such assessment and the
characterization of evaluation criteria.
It presents both the EDA data of 2013 alongside follow-up and monitoring data of 2014 in the
Matrix o f Importance of Environmental Impact (MIIA), in order to conduct the comparative
assessment of the results of the two years being evaluated.
Further, environmental control measures are updated for the impacts identified, specifying and
describing the environmental measures executed and proposing the environmental measures to
be put into effect.
In this manner the assessment of impacts and updating of corrective measures are used as
inputs for the formulation of an Environmental Action -Environmental Restorat ion Plan, which
presents the environmental aspect considered, the environmental aspect identified, the
corrective or compensatory measure with its corresponding environmental goals and respective
environmental indicators; its location, the interpretation and feedback, the entity responsible for
its execution and the degree of compliance.
This plan for the Correction and Environmental Action is updated according to the results of the
assessment, to ensure monitoring and follow -up. It includes a chapter of conclusions and
recommendations which contains the conclusions for the current situation and the updated
recommendations. Maps are included with the spatial distribution of the sampling points and
tables with illustrative photographs and coordinates for the same.
Annexes contain data and indexes that support the aquatic and terrestrial environmental
analysis conducted in this Follow -up Study.
!
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%11!
451Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
As a result of allegations made by the Government of Nicaragua concerning purported impacts
on the territory of Nicaragua allegedly caused by the construction of Route 1856, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica commissioned an exhaustive evaluation of the Route
and the potential environmental impacts allegedly caused by it. This led to the EDA, which was
completed in November 2013.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica commissioned the TSC to conduct
the EDA, given its well -known reputation, technical knowledge of the topics in question and
more than 20 y ears of experience in research projects in the study area. The EDA was
principally focused on impacts on Costa Rican territory although it sought to incorporate an
element of potential transboundary impact. However, the TSC’s work in this respect was
inevitably limited because the Nicaraguan authorities did not permit measurements or
assessments to be carried out by the technical personnel of the TSC on Nicaraguan territory
(i.e. to sample or monitor the Rio San Juan, where the impacts are said to have been felt).
One year after the completion of the EDA, the Government of Costa Rica commissioned the
TSC to conduct th is Follow-up Study, which was completed in December 2014. This Follow-up
Study reviews the recommended environmental measures of the EDA which were deemed
necessary to attain environmental equilibrium of the activities and works conducted , and it
evaluates new samples of the same points assessed in the EDA, as it compares these with
samples assessed in the EDA in order to determine potential chan ges taking place over a
period of one year.
2.2 Scope
This Follow-up Study fulfils the objective of conducting a monitoring study based on scientific
criteria of current environmental conditions in the same area where the EDA sampling was
conducted.
The purpose of the present Follow-up Study is to verify the present state of Route 1856, and the
effectiveness of the technical and environmental recommendations that have been applied over
the last 12 months.
This Follow-up Study constitutes a new analysis of the area of the project . It involved carrying
out a field verification of the environmental conditions, in addition to the execution of 10 aquatic
sampling studies in the same riverbeds analy sed in the EDA.
This Follow-up Study is not a further EDA. Rather, it is a means by which to monitor the
environmental conditions previously identified , and to update the mitigation measures proposed
in the EDA.
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%1!
452 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
2.3 Objectives
2.3.1 General
To formulate an environmental follow -up document applying the same methodology employed
in the EDA, in order to compare the matters presented in the EDA with those analysed in the
present Follow -up Study, and to further evaluat e the current environmental conditions and
effectiveness of the corrective environmental measures which have been implement ed.
2.3.2 Specific Objectives
a. To carry out a field verification of the current physical and biological conditions of the
ecosystems in the area, specifically from Border Marker 2 to the site known as Delta
7 (Delta Costa Rica).
b. To conduct a synthesis of environm ental conditions identified in the EDA of the area
where Route 1856 is located.
c. To formulate a comparative analysis of potential environmental impacts identified in
the EDA, resulting from the construction activities related to the Route, and the
current conditions of the same.
d. To review and adjust, if and where necessary, the environmental measures
established in the EDA, based on the environmental conditions analy sed in the
present Follow-Up Study, and providing technical -scientific bases to guide decisio n-
making by the Government of Costa Rica regarding design and construction works
of the Route.
2.4 METHODOLOGY
The EDA was used as a base line for the Follow -up Study. In addition, a methodological
verification ( by means of sampling the aquatic environments) , an updated version of the
bibliography of studies and research conducted in the past by the authors and colleagues of the
TSC in the region, and the results of five field visits were used to validate aspects of the
characterization of the local ecosystems and the potential environmental factors purportedly
impacted by Route 1856.
This Follow-up Study benefited from the experience gained over the last 15 years from field
work carried out by experts Guisselle Monge and Olivier Chassot, who form part of the La pa
Verde Program which the TSC has developed in the area, which allowed field verification with
respect to information contained in the literature. This Follow-up Study also benefited from the
experience of consultants from relevant disciplines acquired during the preparation of the EDA.
On the basis of information on ecosystems set out in the EDA , field assessments were carried
out on different sites purportedly impacted along the Route, with particular focus on natural
associations. Work was based on maps of the associations, forest cover of the Route area, as
well as quantification of the alleged environmental impacts and their evaluation in the MIIA, and
the conclusions and recommendations given.
For the sampling study of macro -invertebrates, several vi sits were conducted in the project area
established in the EDA , during the periods of 8-10 August, 5-7 and 19-21 September, and 20
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%13!
453Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
October 2014. The collection of macro -invertebrates in the field was undertaken using the same
methods employed in the EDA, with the purpose of allowing an effective comparison between
the results obtained in 2013 and those obtained in the context of the present Follow-up Study.
Macro-invertebrates were selected as bio -indicators of the quality of the aquatic habitat.
The criteria used for the selection of the sampled sites, were:
a. Geographic location;
b. Land use;
c. Type of land cover;
d. Access, size and depth;
e. Type of current; and
f. Availability of substrata .
The analysed tracts were prioriti sed for the possible existence of environmenta l impacts due to
the construction works of Route 1856.
The collection method was based on that described by Ramirez (2010), namely a qualitative
method of direct collection in the field (see photograph 1), which uses a net of type D of 500 um
of net light to trap organisms and material from the body of water (see photograph 2). The
organisms and material are placed together in a white plastic tray to which water is added.
Separation is achieved using entomological pincers designed for this task, and the mac ro-
invertebrates are then conserved in sealed vials filled with 70% alcohol, and labelled with
information of each site, written in waterproof ink on scroll paper.
In order to standardi se the sampling process, a total of one hour was dedicated to each poi nt
under study (that is: one hour upstream from the Route and one hour downstream) . In the water
quality analysis of the aquatic ecosystem, the BMWP index was utili sed, adapted to Costa Rica,
with the sensibility scores in line with those specified in the Rules for the Evaluation and
Classification of the Bodies of Superficial Waters (MINAET -S, 2007).
This index assigns sensibility scores to macro -invertebrates found in a body of water, which are
used as bio -indicators, and most sensitive macro -invertebrates are given high scores while the
more tolerant ones are assigned a low score.
This index takes into account the presence or absence of different taxa, but not their relative
abundance. Finally, once the macro-invertebrates families have been scored, the scores are
added, the total score is compared with a series of categories in order to define where the total
fits, and the study site is assigned a value that ranges from excellent to very poor water quality.
The organisms collected are conserved , labelled, and taken to a laboratory where they are
identified u sing specialised optical equipment (stereoscope and micro -scope) inside petri
dishes, by reference to available taxonomic keys (Merritt et al. , 2008; Springer et al. , 2010;
Pacheco Chaves, 2010; Ocegue ra-Figueroa and Pacheco -Chaves, 2012, among other s). The
organisms are then separated into taxonomic groups, preserved in 70% alcohol in cotton -
topped vials, labelled and placed inside large glass containers with 70% alcohol and their
respective informative label.
The preserved collection, with labels, is deposited in the Aquatic Entomology Collection of the
Zoology Museum of the University of Costa Rica. The program ‘Past’ was used to calculate
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%14!
454 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
additional indexes for the analysis, including: Dominance, Jacquard Equity and Shannon -Wiever
Diversity (In).
Photo 1: Direct
collect of macro -
invertebrates in the
field.
Photo 2: Net used
for macro -
invertebrate
collection.
The structure and guidelines of the present Follow -up Study are based on the EDA, which in
turn is based on the Technical Guide for the EDA , established by the National Environmental
Technical Secretariat (SETENA) of MINAE, based on Resolution No. 2572 -2009 SETENA of 2
November 2009.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%15!
455Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
2.5 Duration of Follow-up Study
The Follow -up Study was conducted from July to November 2014 . This work included
incorporation of new bibliographical data and 6 field trips to the project area. The present report
was completed in December 2014.
2.6 Geographical Scope of Follow-up Study
Results of the Follow-up Study are limited to the section of the Route that starts at Marker 2, in
the vicinity of Tiricias de Cutris de San Carlos, and runs to Delta Costa Rica, at the bifurcation of
the Colorado and San Juan Rivers.
As was the case with the formulation of the EDA in 2013, it was not possible to enlarge the
study area due to the Nicaraguan Government ’s refusal to allow scientists in the study team to
enter the San Juan River. For this reason, it was not possible to sample the San Juan River or
the waters in the mouths of the rivers and channels, which would have provided valuable
information for analysis of the environmental conditions of the River.
2.7 Criticisms by Nicaragua
A number of experts commissioned by the Gove rnment of Nicaragua presented observations,
mostly criticisms, on the work conducted by the TSC in relation to the EDA. The TSC wishes to
state the following general observations in response to those criticisms.
The EDA is an environmental assessment instrument regulated by the laws of the Republic of
Costa Rica. As such, the TSC undertook to fulfil those requirements. While the TSC’s evaluation
of impacts has taken place on Costa Rican territory, at the request of the Government of Costa
Rica, the TSC tri ed to incorporate an element of the potential transboundary effect of the
construction of the Route. However, as noted above, the Nicaraguan authorities did not permit
measurements or assessments be carried out by the technical personnel of the TSC.
Furthermore, most criticisms directed at the work of TSC concerned the size of the areas
sampled and methodology, yet, as stated before, the TSC carried out all assessments fulfilling
the requirements of Costa Rican law. In this respect, just with respect to th is second report, we
have put together a team of professionals that, together, carried out field work spanning 5
months, and hundreds of hours were spent assessing the environmental conditions of the road
on site.
The TSC has carried out an objective and comprehensive environmental assessment, yet,
some criticism was made by individuals that spent little time on the San Juan River, or no time
at all, and clearly without any knowledge of the requirements set forth by Costa Rica in its
legislation regarding EDA.
The TSC stands fully by its findings set out in the 2013 EDA. This Follow -Up Study shows the
consistency and strength of those findings, and confirm that the methods and assessments
made by the TSC reflect objectively and truthfully the conditions of the border road.
!
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%1!
456 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
3 GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PROJECT
3.1 Geographic Location
Route 1856 is located in the northern territory of Costa Rica, in the provinces of Alajuela and
Heredia. The area that corresponds to the study area is located between the following points:
Start: Border landmark 2 (Marker 2), 1215724 North and 526412 East.
End: Site known as Delta 7 or Delta Costa Rica, between coordinates 1190664 North
and 460768 East (See map 1).
The design of the Route is contained in four topographical sheets at a scale of 1:50,000 by the
National Geographic Institute (IGN), which are labe lled from northwest to southeast from Marker
2 to Delta Costa Rica as follows: Pocosol 3348-IV, Infiernito 3348-III, Cutris 3348-II and Trinidad
3448-III.
3.2 Political and Administrative Location
Relevant internal boundaries within Costa Rica, at the provincial, county and district levels, were
identified for the purpose of coordination, decision -making, and environmental technical follow -
up, as follows:
Alajuela (Province 02): San Carlos County and Pocosol, Cutris and Pital districts
Heredia (Province 04): Sarapiquí County and the Cureña, Puerto Viejo and Llanura del
Gaspar districts.
3.3 Area of the Follow-up Study and Impacted Areas
It was determined that the study area for the Fo llow-up Study w ould correspond exactly to the
area assessed in the 2013 EDA. This area includes an important segment of tropical evergreen
broad-leaf forest and swampy broad -leaf forest (World Bank and CCAD 2001; Vreugdenhill et
al. 2002), with different degrees of human intervention evident, as well as different agriculture
and livestock systems in place, in the Northern Caribbean watershed of Costa Rica. These
ecosystems are characterised by perhumid forests , with dense tree cover, epiphytes and palm
trees, and which have an average annual rainfall between 1500 and 3500 mm (Hartshorne
2002; Chassot et al. 2006a). The territorial framework of the study is determined by the
conceptual reference known as the Water and Peace Biosphere Reserve (Moreno and Mul ler
2007) and the Biological Corridor San Juan -La Selva (Chassot et al. 2006a).
The study area covers part of the San Carlos and Sarapiquí counties, both of them
demonstrating the largest extension of natural land cover on the northern Caribbean territory of
Costa Rica. Such areas constitute a mosaic of lands in a natural state , some of which show
signs of human intervention, and other areas of anthropic use that act as buffer zones for areas
in a natural state (Chassot, 2010).
The terrestrial buffer zone includes landscaped areas that defend the protected wild lands from
threats originating outside the protected areas and also include human communities that cause
some types of direct impact on protected wild lands (Groom et al, 1999, Vilhena et al., 2004).
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%1!
457Annex 14
458 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
Due to the physical and biological characteristics of the region of Route 1856, the ecological
analyses contain terrestrial as well as aquatic components. Taking into account the influe nce of
the road works conducted during the construction of the Route, as well as the national
legislation on the matter, the Project Area (AP) has been identified as encompassing 50 metres
inland of the Route.
On the other hand, the Direct Influence Area ( DIA) has been defined as the first 1000 metr es
inland from the right margin of the San Juan River (see Map 1).
As it was determined in the initial EDA, the Indirect Influence Areas (AII) of the Follow -up Study
has no uniform extension but is defined by the physical and biological conditions as estimated
by each professional member of the team, and, where possible, the conditions of San Juan
River were assessed, subject to the access limitations mentioned above.
!
Tropical Science Center
! 2014 !
Page%19!
459Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
4 The 2013 EDA
4.1 Description of activities assessed in EDA
The Route 1856 project consisted of the construction of a gravel road starting at the site known
as San Jerónimo de Los Chiles and continuing to the site called Delta 7 (Delta Costa Rica). The
road is 159.7 km. in length, with approximately 63. 6% (101.5 km.) of the Route ’s extension
made up of pre -existing roads and connections that have been used for over 30 years. The
remaining 35.9% (57.4 km.) are new roads that were built to connect the existing pathways.
The EDA conducted in 2013 analy sed that section of the Route that runs parallel to the San
Juan River, which represents 108.2 km. of the total Route.
The main purpose of the Route was the consolidation of a new terrestrial pathway that would
communicate all settlements located between Marker 2 and Delta Costa Rica. This project took
advantage primarily of the network of existing roads that run parallel to the San Juan River and
built a smaller percentage of new, short road sections required to provide continuity to the
network.
The improvement of existing roads and the construction of new connecting pathways that
allowed the network to be consolidated represented the development of several secondary
actions. Land clearing and cleaning, establishment of retention slopes, placement of drains a nd
water conduits, and laying the Route’s base and rolling surface were the main works executed.
Table 4 -1 shows the main and secondary components conducted during the construction of
Route 1856, which were identified and analyzed in the EDA 2013.
Table 4-1 :Activities conducted during the Project´s construction stage.
o
N Activity Description
1 Clearing and cleaning of new sites At specific sites along the right of way of the Route.
In sections of the right of way where topography and the
2 Land movement, retention slopes slope did not permit normal traffic. This was done with the
and land fills use of heavy machinery (backhoes, heavy trucks,
excavators, etc.)
Installation of systems to control the speed of superficial
3 Erosion control measures
runoff and sediment control structures.
Installation of drainage systems Drainage systems and temporal bridges were placed on
4 and temporal bridges most rivers and ducts along the Route
5 Road filling, base layer and rolling Commonly needed on any road to permit the transit of
surface vehicles.
!
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%20!
460 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
As described in the EDA, the following were the environmental components identified as
associated with the activities conducted during the construction of Route1856:
1. Clearing and cleaning of land on sites of road design: this activity is related to the
elimination of forest or plant cover along some sections of the Route where no roads
were present.
2. Soil movements, building of retention slopes and fills: this activity could generate
instability of slopes in some sites where the degree of slope is high. Likewise with the
generation of increased surface runoff, placing of sediments close to bodies of water and
the impact on the scenery in some sections of the Route.
3. Installation of drainage systems and tempora ry bridges: this activity could be associated
to the affectation of aquatic ecosystems on isolated, specific points and the modification
of natural drainage systems in the area.
4. Placement of landfills, sub -surface layers and rolling surface: this activity is associated
with the possible laying of sediments in some bodies of water close to the Route.
4.2 Environmental impacts identified in the 2013 EDA
The following is a review of the environmental impacts initially identified in the 2013 EDA. These
were organised according to the environmental factor s affected.
4.2.1 Terrestrial flora and fauna
a. Logging in the Route´s path and adjacent areas
According to the evaluation of the plant cover along the length of the Route, the EDA had
estimated that 14,9 hectares of secondary forest and 68,3 hectares of altered primary forest
were cut down to clear the land where the design of the road was outlined; these correspond to
4,2% and 19,5% respectively of the area affected by the road design.
In addition, some 2,3 hectares of natural wetland systems had been altered. It was then
determined that the Route was constructed mostly in open areas without forest cover (74%). In
cases where trees were cut down, this occurred in areas where there were n o open areas
through which the path of the Route could pass.
b. Partial sedimentation of wetland edges near Route 1856
During field visits in 2013, it was observed that the majority of wetlands along the Route had not
been affected by sedimentation, since mos t of them were located on plains or flat terrain where
no significant soil movements occurred, with the exception of filling done on the road surface.
However, in two wetland sites that were located next to a hilly terrain, some sediment had been
accumulating leading to a slight obstruction of sites near to the path of the natural drainage
system of these wetlands. Even though no loss of tree or palm vegetation was observed it was
possible that this loss was affecting ecosystems near the Route, with some a lteration or natural
substitution of native vegetation.
Besides, the lacustrine wetland Remolinito Grande was affected by the filling of the Route,
although alteration of this site had been occurring for years prior to the Route construction;
previous alterations included the substitution of aquatic vegetation with pasture and the building
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%21!
461Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
of a drainage system to allow the wetland to be used for cattle grazing. Specific, one-off impacts
were located in the section between the mouths of the San Carlos and Sa rapiqui rivers.
c. Elimination of trees and shrubs on river banks due to flooding
In the section between Border Marker 2 and the Infiernito River there were some sites with
small streams that during rainy season in 2013 showed an accumulation of water, formin g small
reservoirs on the riparian vegetation. This was a consequence of the collapse of culverts or
drainage tubes that were initially placed, causing the flooding of ecosystems an area estimated
at 100 to 200 square metr es per site. This flooding led to the loss of vegetation according to
what was observed in 2013.
d. Landslides and slope erosion that affected the forest edge along the Route
At the site of land cuts adjacent to the Route, and where there was forest vegetation on the
margins of the cut, lamin ar erosion of the ground of such cuts was observed, which generally
caused the small trees (also two large trees were observed) to be uprooted due to the
displacement of soil in their radicular system , which caused them to fall onto the Route.
In similar way, but to a lesser extent, landslides were observed to have occurred at several sites
with steep slopes on the side of the Route, carrying with them the edges of the adjacent forest,
including some small and large trees that had fallen and obstructed the Route. Field
observations in 2013 determined that this was accentuated by the surface runoff which took
place above the slopes.
This phenomena generally occurr ed at the sites with steeper slopes, which were also often
covered by forest, causing damage to t he vegetation on slopes that run down past the Route.
This impact was located at specific points mostly between the sector close to the Infiernito River
and the sector known as Chorreras. This alteration occurred after the opening of the Route and
could may reoccur as it generally does in these topographic settings and with soil types that are
susceptible to erosion.
e. Alteration of the wetland ecosystem (due to drainage and landfills)
This corresponded to alterations caused to wetlands by drainage and constr uction of artificial
landfills in small areas along the path of the Route. This impact was very specific, located at
certain very limited points along the Route.
In the case of Yolillo palm patches, the ecosystem had presented a loss of 0 .7 hectares due t o
drainage, burning or the construction of artificial landfills. As indicated in the 2013 EDA, the
“Yolillal” is difficult to recover through reforestation and the only alternative was natural
regeneration. In terms of landscape, the impact was minimal and localised.
f. Impact on structural connectivity
Loss of structural connectivity had been identified as a result of the elimination of forest cover in
forests along some sections of the Route.
The identification of connectivity routes and important connectivi ty areas along the landscape of
the study area demonstrated that these are not related to the Route, despite the fact that the
Route is located in the area of greatest forest cover in the study area. Given the reduced
extension of natural ecosystems impact ed (83.2 hectares), it was determined that the Route had
not generated a significant impact on the structural connectivity of the landscape studied.
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%2!
462 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
4.2.2 Aquatic flora and fauna
g. Potential alteration of the aquatic habitat
Possible alterations of the aquatic hab itat were identified as a consequence of the drainage
system and the laying of cement structures where gutters and drains were located. This could
have affected some of the aquatic organisms by homogenization of the substratum at a local
level in sites whe re the Route cuts across the bodies of water, affecting the re -colonization of
the aquatic ecosystem by macro -invertebrates given that these organisms prefer heterogeneous
substrata (Williams and Felmate 1992).
h. Potential alteration of the micro -habitats an d substrata of the aquatic macro -
invertebrates due to filling of interstices with sediments
Some sedimentary material in the water and the decrease in the contribution of vegetal matter
to the aquatic means, along with decrease in shade, could have caused the filling in of cavities
and modification of the substratum where aquatic macro -invertebrates normally live.
i. Potential alteration of taxonomic abundance and richness
Similarly to the previous impact, taxonomic richness could have been diminished by sedim ents
in the water, a decrease in vegetal matter in the aquatic environment, and a decrease in shade.
j. Potential alteration of water quality due to turbidity
The contribution of sediments on the stream of water could have affected the water quality due
to the turbidity in some rivers as a consequence of the construction works of the Route.
4.2.3 Landscape
k. Landscape Alteration due to construction works
The exposed surfaces of slopes and road cuts at some specific sites along the tracing of the
Route, contrasted wi th the forest, pastures and dominant farming field landscapes. These
visible points were located mainly along Marker 2 and the vicinity of the mouth of the San Carlos
River.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF ROUTE 1856 IN 2014
5.1 Update of environmental impacts according to 2014 field observations
The following is an update of the impacts identified and described in the 2013 EDA. This update
considers the current conditions of Route 1856 assessed during the months of August to
November 2014.
It was further supplemen ted with observations and field surveys made by the team that
conducted this Follow-Up Study, as well as lab analyses and bibliographic revision.
! Tropical Science Center
2014!
Page%23!
463Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
5.2 Environmental impacts updated to observed conditions in 2014
5.2.1 Terrestrial flora and fauna
a. Logging in the Route’s path and adjacent areas
Logging was performed only for clearing a path for some sections of Route 1856. The cutting of
more trees has not been necessary. This situation was verified during field visits in 2014, during
which no extensions of the existing path of the Route or further tree cutting was identified.
Many of these areas where tree cutting was necessary exhibit a successful natural recovery
process and are also included in the reforestation program implemented by CODEFORSA,
which has planted more than 50,000 trees in an area of over 51 h a.
b. Partial sedimentation of wetlands edges near Route 1856 !
The impact was not observed during the current Follow-up S tudy due to the works for the
improvement in natural conditions of drainages that were partially affected by the Route.
Specifically, the lacustrine wetland Remolinito Grande located in the sector between Boca San
Carlos and Boca Sarapiqui exhibited a natural , undisturbed condition.
c. Removal of trees and shrubs located on river banks due to flooding
The action that caused this impact was corrected in full, notably by improving the natural
conditions of drains in the area. Adequate placement of culverts and heads have prevented the
formation of reservoirs that could affect surrounding riparian vegetation .
d. Landslides and slope erosion affecting the forest edge along the road !
Slope stabilization works developed in the last 10 months by CONAVI have been notably
effective as unstable slopes are not observed. In addition, the reforestation works by
CODEFORSA through the planting of trees and vetiver grass that favour soil consolidation have
been effective and noticeable along Route 1856. The improvement in the physical conditions of
slopes is evidence of the success of the works implemented, which also help avoid falling trees
on its banks. Another factor influencing the improved condition is the channelling of surface
runoff water, which promotes proper rainwater drain and its uptake in systems that prevent
sediment flow into streams and rivers nearby.
e. Alteration of the wetland ecosystem (due to drainage and landfills) !
The 2013 EDA identified a loss of approximately 0.7 ha of yolillal wetland due to drainage and
construction of artificial landfills in small areas along the Route. This impact was identified at
specific locations and not generalized. During field visits in 2014, no further alteration of such
areas was identified. Although the affected area remains the same in extension, drains were
improved to allow yolillal areas to return to its original con dition by natural regeneration.
f. Impact of structural connectivity
As described in the 2013 EDA , landscape connectivity routes and important connectivity areas
are not linked to the Route project. The extension of natural ecosystem s altered as a
consequence of the construction of the Route is considered reduced at the landscape level
(83.2 ha), for which reason the impact on structural connectivity is not a significant impact.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%24!
464 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
5.2.2 Aquatic flora and fauna
g. Potential alteration of the aquatic habitat
As for 2013, t here is a possibility of some alteration as a consequence of the drainage systems
etc. Significant improvements in the existing culverts were observed such as re -adequacy of
drainages and placement of sediment traps. Such improvements could have a positive impact
on the aquatic habitat and biodiversity and so reducing the possibility of the affected conditions
to occur.
h. Potential alteration of the micro -habitats and substrata of the aquatic macro -
invertebrates due to filling of interstices with sediments !
The conditions observed in 2014 were very similar to those in 2013 . Mitigation works conducted
to avoid sediment flow into streams and rivers and recovery of forest cover have been
significant and successful.
i. Potential alteration of taxonomic abundance and richness!
Current conditions remain very similar to those identified in 2013. However, the mitigation works
focused on preventing sediment input to the streams have been successful, which could be
expected to improve taxa abundance and richness conditions.
j. Potential alteration of water quality due to turbidity
Improvements in the conditions of slopes and infrastructure related to sediment containment are
excellent. Most slopes are being protected with geo -textiles and reforestation techniques that
have bee n successful, which directly effects the reduction of sediment contribution to water
bodies.
5.2.3 Landscape
k. Landscape affected by the works
The current conditions remain similar to those identified in 2013. However, the mitigation work
focused on the recovery o f vegetation cover has been significant and successful by
CODEFORSA. For obvious reasons, the reforestation process will require at least 4 or 5 years.
5.3 Description of Environmental Characteristics
5.3.1 Terrestrial Environment
The area adjacent to the San Juan R iver, on its right margin, has been a territory known for its
intermittent migratory and colonization processes. Until 1950, the dominant land use in the
current Route area was subsistence agriculture or domestic use. Weak agricultural production
was meant local inhabitants also relied on fishing and hunting. Poor soil quality have frustrated
attempts to develop land productivity. The few successful agricultural products require the use
of large quantities of fertili sers (general chemical fertili sers) that have proven to pose a high risk
for the health of the workers who apply them, consequently such agriculture has proven to be a
less than profitable alternative (Chassot and Monge, 2002).
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%25!
465Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
Currently, the main productive activities in the area are cattle -raising and pineapple production,
both of them extensively practi sed. The latter creates erosion problems due to the production
method. Other activities are the growing of basic grains, tubers, palm and citrus. During the last
two decades, large cattle farms h ave begun to change into extensive monoculture plantations of
exotic species (mainly Melina and Teca trees).
All activities and events mentioned previously have occurred within the National Wildlife Refuge
Border Corridor through the years. Families livin g within the area for over 40 years have
worked the land according to their proprietary rights (Chassot et al. 2006)
During the Follow -up Study surveys of the area were carried out , and more fauna has been
observed. However, this could be due to the season during which the visits were conducted. In
order to assess the state of wildlife populations, it is necessary to conduct more extensive
monitoring of the region.
There has been significant progress in the reforestation program along Route 1856. Areas
clearly in the process of regeneration were identified. The following are the updated versions of
ecosystem maps provided in the 2013 EDA (see Map 2 through Map 7). Reforestation areas
have been delimited on these maps, mainly areas where more than 50,000 trees native to the
area have been planted. These efforts cover a total area of 51 ha.
!
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%26!
466Annex 14
467Annex 14
468Annex 14
469Annex 14
470Annex 14
471Annex 14
472 Annex 14
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study!
Route!1856!Project!–!EDA!Ecological!Component!
!
!
5.3.2 Aquatic Environment
5.3.2.1 Sampling Sites
In addition to the sampling of macro -invertebrates in vari ous bodies of water in the area of the
Route, the area was visually surveyed by foot and in vehicle along the length of the Route with a
particular focus on bodies of water.
The sampling sites correspond to those where the EDA 2013 was performed. The sampl ing in
those sites was repeated in order to conduct a comparison of results obtained in 2013 with
those of 2014.
In total, 10 bodies of water that are traversed by Route 1856 were sampled (see Map 8) both
downstream from the Route (above, direct influence site) as well as upstream (below, “white”
site, without direct influence), This allowed analysis of any potential effect of the construction
works of the project on the aquatic ecosystem. The characteristic s of the sample sites at the
moment of sampling are described in Table 5.1.
!
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%33!
473Annex 14
474Annex 14
475Annex 14
476 Annex 14
%
37
ves,
Page%
with flooded with flooded
Observations
PressuebTcreearngrr,ontduleo.acesodtul.orre on PresubmTrearngBsrroetedunae.acesodtul.orre on
Sun
Exposure
100% exposure Larsgpeaceospen
y
Substrate
Mud, cla Mud
Speed
Moderate Slow
Width/Depth
A: 2P,5:0,5 m A: 3Pm: 0,5 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 10,9-893395°Nm, snm 10,9-900376°Nm, snm
% Tropical Science Center
% %
%
up%EDA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Photographs
%roject
1856
%
Route
Location Above Below
:escription of Sampling Sites and Points along Route 1856 (2014).
-
5 1
Site
% Table %
477Annex 14
%
38
Page%
s. pasture onoded
Observations
PressueTransparent water coloruen,dpsdeadstt.ruereess.on PressuebTcreearnrrh,ontdleoe.ceodl.ord
Sun
Exposure
Large clearings 100% Exposed
Substrate
Clay Clay
Speed
Moderate Moderate
Width/Depth
A: 30:m>1 m A: 2P5:m>1 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 10,9-546269°Nm, snm 10,9-548460°Nm, snm
% Tropical Science Center
% %
up%EDA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Photographs
%roject
1856
%
Route
Location Above Below
2
Site Caño
Trinidad
% %
478 Annex 14
%
39
Page%
Observations oded pastures.
ouded.
PressueTcreearnsihoteh.anuvadetbeesor,dtc.holsoidr es, PressuebTcreearsihoteh.aonvadetbeesodr,tchpoalssoitdruerse,s.
Sun
Exposure
100% Exposed 100% Exposed
Substrate
Clay and mud RoSutnodneedarnodckc,lay
Speed
Fast Moderate Fast Moderate
Width/Depth A: 1P,5:0,25 m A: 2Pm: 0,25 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 84,34488°O, 84,34493°O,
10,9-481332°Nm, snm 10,9-483301°Nm, snm
Tropical Science Center
%
% %
up%and%Monitoring%Study
–DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Project Photographs
%
%856
Route
Above Below
Location
3
Site
% %
479Annex 14
%
40
Page%
Observations
PressuebTcreearnsorrhs.auvbapdeotaeestshr,dtuc.soriedloser.s,Prewsaertn.so.eoiiurrsulnnnds.thonboth
Sun
Exposure
Shwadinedowsith Shwadinedowsith
Substrate
Mud Rosutndneeudsd,,rocclakys,,
Speed -tagnant
Moderate Slow Slow
Width/Depth
A: 3Pm: 0,5 m A: 3Pm: 0,5 m
°O,
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 10,9-329236°Nm, snm 10,9-329343°Nm, snm
% Tropical Science Center
% %
up%EDA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Photographs
%roject
1856
%
Route
Location Above Below
4
Site
% %
480 Annex 14
%
41
Page%
Observations
PretrssnukcaotfsFrdr,sabdyce.hsbs,e,osthasniddes. PressueTcreearngrrdndt.v.leotceeotdsiol.onar nodn both
Sun
Exposure
Shwadinedowsith 100% exposed
nd mud
Substrate
Stone and mud Rosutnodneeds raocks,
Speed
Fast Moderate Fast
Width/Depth A: 2Pm: 0,15m A: 1Pm: 0,15 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 84,29953°O, 84,29939°O,
10,9-133351°Nm, snm 10,9-135289°Nm, snm
Tropical Science Center
%
% %
up%and%Monitoring%Study
–DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Project Photographs
%
%856
Route
Above Below
Location
5
Site
% %
481Annex 14
%
42
Page%
of leaves and
Observations
PressuebCceleerasrF,srus.aeltrovnsfaeutocsdwne,easdbt.e.orthctrunks,ScesubmergedsSo.senpsktryuadg. th on both
ith
Sun
Exposure
Shadendowsw Shwadinedwsith
Substrate
Rosutnodneeds raoncdksm,ud Rosutnodneeds raoncdksm,ud
Speed
Fast Fast
Width/Depth
A: 1P,5:0,20 m A: 1Pm: 0,15 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 10,8-914147°Nm, snm 10,8-923282°Nm, snm
% Tropical Science Center
% %
up%EDA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Photographs
%roject
1856
%
Route
Location Above Below
6
Site
% %
482 Annex 14
%
43
Page%
leaves,
Observations
Presubbraenrcgheeds.trssapnadrentcoeths.sides. PresubmTrearsepdronbt.reaeCdstleaoipdrnuaecddssoetbludour.ressh.es on
Sun
Exposure
Shwadinedowsith Large clearings
Substrate
Rosutnodneeds raoncdksm,ud Rosutnodneeds raoncdksm,ud
Speed
Fast Fast
Width/Depth A: 1Pm: 0,10 m A: 1Pm: 0,20 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 84,27746°O, 84,,27780°O,
10,8-917515°Nm, snm 10,8-923330 msnm
Tropical Science Center
%
% %
up%and%Monitoring%Study
–DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Project Photographs
%
%856
Route
Above Below
Location
7
Site
% %
483Annex 14
%
44
Page%
n both sides,
Observations
PressuebTcueerrssotheStlfersluoo.anovndeyes.d, pastures. PressueTcueerrsshoteStlfersluoo.anonvndeybes.od,thpassitduerse,s.
Sun
Exposure
100% Exposed 100% Exposed
Substrate
Mud Mud
Speed
Slow Slow
Width/Depth A: 15:m> 1 m A: 10:m> 1 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 84,22561°O, 84,22531°O,
10,8-712310°Nm, snm 10,8-713365°Nm, snm
Tropical Science Center
%
% %
up%and%Monitoring%Study
–DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Project Photographs
%
%856
Route
Above Below
Location
8
Site
% %
484 Annex 14
%
45
Page%
Observations
PrebsenuceTeorsaissrLsrelseneasdbt,e.orthcosliodres PressuebTcueerrssoteStlfersluoo.anonvndeybes.od,thpassitduerse,s.
Sun
Exposure
Shwadinedowsith Shw adinedwsith
Substrate
Mud Mud
Speed
Fast Moderate Slow
Width/Depth A: 4Pm: 0,5 m A: 3Pm: > 1 m
°N,
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 84,22599°O, 84,22574°O,
10,8-029391 msnm 10,8-026297°Nm, snm
Tropical Science Center
%
% %
up%and%Monitoring%Study
–DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Project Photographs
%
%856
Route
Above Below
Location
9
Site
% %
485Annex 14
%
46
Page%
leaves,
Observations
ture on both sides,
PresubmTuerrbgFonodsetssatruedrseedso.nTbreoeths PressueTcueerrssoth,toeStlfersluo.anovndeyes.d, pastures.
Sun
Exposure
Large clearings Shwadinedwsith
Substrate
Mud Mud
Speed
Moderate Slow Moderate Slow
Width/Depth A: 20:m> 1 m A: 25:m> 1 m
%
2014
Coordinates/Altitude 83,91811°O, 83,91824°O,
10,7-077246°Nm, snm 10,7-085436 msnm
Tropical Science Center
%
% %
up%and%Monitoring%Study
–DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%
Project Photographs
%
%856
Route
Above Below
Location
10
Site
Río Marías
% % %
486 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
In 2014, macro-invertebrates sampling in the field resulted in a total of 751 individuals collected,
distributed among 17 orders, 48 families, and at least 80 taxa (see Annex 9 -1). Sampling of
2013, on the other hand, offered greater abundance with 957 individuals, distributed among 21
orders, 58 families, but with 73 taxa, a lesser number than found in 2014 (see Annex 9 -4).
When observing abundance among the sampling sites, there seems to be a tendency for
greater abundance and richness of taxa in the sites above Route 1856, with 7 sites that present
greater abundance as well as greater richness in the point above as compared to the point
below (see Map 8). The 2013 sampling showed a more balanced tenden cy with 5 sites that
presented greater abundance in the point above the Route, and 5 sites that present greater
abundance in the site below the Route; in the case of richness of taxa in the same year, there
were 6 sites with greater richness in the point a bove, and 4 sites with greater richness at the
point below. Such changes have occurred at the micro level, and are a temporary response to
changes in the environment. We do not consider them as a pointer towards long term significant
impacts. (see Graphs 1, 2, 3, and 4).
Graph 1: Abundance of Macro-Invertebrates at Sampling Sites along Route 1856 (2014).
%
Cantidad de individuos = number of individuals Abajo = Below, downstream
Sitios de muestreo = sampling sites Arriba = Above, upstream
%
%
%
%
Tropical Science Center
% 2014 %
Page%47%
487Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Graph 2: Abundance of Macro-Invertebrates at Sampling Sites along Route 1856 (2013).
%
Cantidad de individuos = number of individuals Abajo = Below, downstream
Sitios de muestreo = sampling sites Arriba = Above, upstream
Sitio = Site
Graph 3: Richness of Macro-Invertebrates at Sampling Sites along Route 1856 (2014).
%
Cantidad de taxa = number of taxa Abajo = Below, downstream
Sitios de muestreo = sampling sites Arriba = Above, upstream
%
% Tropical Science Center
2014 %
Page%48 %
488 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Graph 4: Richness of Macro-Invertebrates at Sampling Sites along Route 1856 (2013).
%
Riqueza de taxa = Richness of taxa Abajo = Below, downstream
Sitios de muestreo = sampling sites Arriba = Above, upstream
Sitio = Site
A general view of the results of the Shannon diversity index for the 2014 sampling does not offer
a very clear trend, with 4 sites showing greater diversity values at the downstream site and 6
sites presenting greater diversity at the upstream site. Regarding the dominance index, it was
found to be greater at the upstream point in 5 of the sampled sites, and greater at the
downstream site of the Route in 5 sampled sites; and the equity index was greater for the sites
below the Route at 7 of the sampled sites, a nd greater at upstream sites in 3 of the sampled
sites (see Annex 9-2).
In 2013 the diversity index was greater for the upstream points in 5 sites, and smaller in 5 sites,
while the dominance index was greater for the points upstream at 5 sites and less in the other 5
sites; and finally the equity index was greater for the points upstream at 7 sites and 2 were
equal, and one was smaller (see Annex 9 -2).
These indexes generally do not present a clear tendency but are divided between both points of
the sample d sites (upstream and downstream), for both sampling dates (2013 -14), with the
exception of the equity index, which seems to show a tendency towards greater equity at the
downstream points for both sampling years.
For the present sampling, the quality of w ater according to the BMWP -CR index led to
classifications of very poor to regular quality, with the majority of sites obtaining very poor to
poor quality. Regarding the effect of Route 1856 on the aquatic habitat, it has been possible to
observe that in 7 of 10 sampled sites, the quality was lower at points with direct influence
(downstream) in comparison with points at which no direct influence is expected (upstream), or
“white” sites (sites 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10), with a difference of one category between po ints, and in
sites 6 and 9 in which the quality differed in 2 categories of the index.
Tropical Science Center
% 2014%
Page%49%
489Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Sites 4, 5 and 7 presented the same water quality, both at the upstream and the downstream
site. Of these 7 sampling sites, 3 are found in the so -called “critical section” from Infiernito River
to the mouth of the San Carlos River, and 3 are in the section from Marker 2 to Infiernito River.
From a comparison of the results of the BMWP -CR index of the present year, with those
obtained in 2013, it is possible to observe tha t the difference in the quality of water at the
sampling sites was more evident in the current year, since in 2013 there were 4 sites that
presented lower quality at the downstream point (with influence) in comparison to the upstream
point (without influence) in comparison to 7 sites in 2014 (see Annex 9 -2).
Despite the fact that a tendency was found towards obtaining a lesser quality of water at the
sites with direct influence on the Route, only in 2 of the sampled sites was there a difference of
2 categor ies in the index, while the remainder of the sites that differed between up and
downstream of the Route only did so in one category, and no extreme difference of two
categories was observed in the BMWP -CR in any of the sampled site s.
Considering the compar ison of results of the BMWP CR index, the differences in the condition
of water quality remain very similar between 2013 and 2014.
In general terms, after visual inspection of Route 1856 during the field visits in 2014, the
conditions of the bodies of wat er traversed by the Route look very similar to those observed in
2013. Most of the length of the Route 1856 lies on flat terrain, with gravel roads and bridges in
good condition, and there does not appear to be major threats to the aquatic habitats. Where
minor changes have occurred, these may relate to the temporary impact as a result of mitigation
works that are being carried out in the so called “critical section”. The “critical section” is a
section of the road that could not be finished due to suspensi on of the road works in 2012. The
term “critical” describes those areas where Costa Rica has concentrated most of the mitigation
works.
Outside this area, m ost bodies of water that are intersected by Route 1856 seem to not have a
significant impact as a re sult of the works related to it, at least at a visual level since most of the
Route stretches over flat terrain with not much slope, in agricultural lands where no
deforestation is evident and where sedimentation processes do not seem evident as a result o f
the construction of the Route.
This is different in the section that runs from Infiernito River to Boca San Carlos, where
sedimentation processes seem to be active in some of the slopes associated with the bodies of
water that traverse the Route.
Endemic Species with Limited or At -risk Populations
No species of macro -invertebrates were detected that could be considered threatened in any
way according to the Regulations of the Wildlife Conservation Law (MINAE, 2005), CITES
Appendix or the red list of the IUCN. Nevertheless, it is necessary to point out that in the case of
aquatic macro-invertebrate studies, these are done mostly at a taxonomic leve l of class, due to
the fact that for most of them identification at the level of species can only be done with flying
adults (mostly terrestrial). For practical purposes, there is no information with respect to the
distribution and state of conservation of the different macro -invertebrate aquatic species in the
country.
Consequently, information on the state of populations is insufficient, nor are they found in the
lists of threatened species, with the exception of some of the dragonfly genera (i.e. Odontata
order, except those of the Agriogomphus genera), river lobster (i.e. Palaemonidae family), and
beetles (i.e. Dystiscus genera) that were found in the present Follow-up Study and which have
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%5%
490 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
species in the IUCN red list, but the majority of sweet water macro -invertebrates have not been
evaluated yet with respect to their conservation status.
Even though some of t hese genera were found, it was not possible to identify the species to
which they belong, either because they were ninfae or larvae (immature states) or due to
taxonomic keys at the level of species for these groups in the Tropic, and due to the fact that
identification at the level of speciae in macro -invertebrates requires a very high degree of
taxonomic specialization. It is possible that some belong to some of these species.
Some of the aquatic macro -invertebrate genera found in this study could be cons idered
uncommon or of restricted distribution (data based on material from the Aquatic Entomology
Collection of the Zoology Museum of the University of Costa Rica) among these: Dystiscus,
Gyretes, Callibaetis, Moribaetis, Caenis, Cabecar, Terpides, Ranatra , Martarega, Notonecta,
Enallagma, Agriogomphus, Elga, Macrothemis, Micrathyria, Neocordulia, Heteragrion,
Thaumatometra, Perissolestes, Centromacronema, Helobdella cf. triserialis, Helobdella
elongata and Placobdella ringuleti. Also, in 2013 some taxa wer e found that could be
considered uncommon or of restricted distribution (Annex 9 -4).
%
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%51%
491Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
6 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts and Corrective
Measures
6.1 Methodology
Starting with an analysis conducted on the potential impacts identified in the 2013 EDA, this
Follow-up Study evaluated each of the same impacts, in order to determine the environmental
changes that had occurred after one year. In order for the changes to be comparable, the
assessed impacts are the same, as were the procedures which were applied.
Starting with this analysis and in accordance with the method applied, the Environmental Impact
Evaluation was done for each one of the factors identified.
Each one of the participating professionals, offered technical criteria as a function of an
expected impact, based on the guidelines offered by the Conceptual Guide for the Formulation
of Environmental Impact Studies ( “OCE”) that the National Environmental Technical Secretariat
(“SETENA”) has recommended since 1998 and the modifications presented in Executi ve
Decree No 32967 of May 4, 2006: Manual of Technical Instruments for Environmental Impact
(“EIS Manual ”), Part IV, Annex 2, Instructions Manual for the Evaluation of Environmental
Impacts.
Conceptual definitions were used to facilitate an understanding o f the Matrix of Importance of
Environmental Impacts (MIIA) , which summari ses the analysis of expected or potential
environmental impact of the project on the environment. The definitions relied upon are set out
below, as follows:
a. Impacted Environmental Fac tor: included under this denomination are factors or
elements of the environment (biological component) that can be affected by the
development of the project, or one of its activities. Elements which have been chosen for
purposes of the environmental eval uation are those considered to be potentially related
to the activities developed by the Project.
b. Impacting Action: at a specific level, actions, activities or project components are
established that exert an impacting relationship over one or more of the environmental
factors presented in the previous point. The impacting action may be associated with the
constructive phase or the operative phase of the Project.
c. Impact: indicates the expected effect on each of the impact possibilities identified by the
team professionals, if the expected impact is water contamination, then the cause of this
impact is defined, along with the source of the contamination and the phase of the
project in which the impact potentially occurs.
d. Evaluation of impact: corresponds to t he qualitative scoring of the environmental impact,
with the value based on the criteria presented in the Leopold Matrix (modified) and
which, in Costa Rica have become tropicalized through the application of the MIIA of
SETENA and made official by Executi ve Decree No. 32966-MINAE (Manual of Technical
Instruments for the Environmental Impact Process (EIS Manual) - Part IV).
According to what is established in Decree No. 32967, the importance of an impact or effect of a
given action on an environmental factor is represented by a number obtained through the
proposed model, as a function of the value assigned to the previously considered symbols.
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%52%
492 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
I = ± [IN + 2 EX + MO + PE + PV + SI + AC + EF + PR + MC]
The importance of the impact takes on values between 13 and 100, according to the expected
potential impact for each element or factor and presents intermediate values (between 40 and
60) when one of the following conditions is present:
¥ Total intensity and minimal affectation of the remaining symbols
¥ Very high, or high, intensity, and high, or very high, affectation of the remaining symbols
¥ High intensity, unrecoverable effect, and very high affectation of some of the remaining
symbols
¥ Medium or low intensity, unrecoverable effect and very high affectation of at le ast two of
the remaining symbols.
Therefore, the importance of impacts is given by the following values:
¥ Importance of less than 25 means irrelevant impacts
¥ Importance between 25 and 50 means moderate impacts
¥ Importance between 50 and 75 indicates severe impacts
¥ Importance greater than 75 indicates critical impacts
In those boxes that correspond to the more important impacts, or that happen in critical places
or moments, and which are impossible to correct, which will lead to the larger scores in the
importance chart, then the Alert or Red Banners are superimposed, to call attention to the effect
and search for alternatives in the productive processes of the activity, work or project, so as to
eliminate the cause or change it for another of less harmful effe cts.
6.2 Assessment of Identified Environmental Impacts and Updating of
Environmental Control Measures
6.2.1 Control Measures for Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
a. Partial Cutting of Forest in Path of the Route and Neighbouring Areas
Sources of Impact/ Risk
Due to the cle aring of vegetation on the path of Route 1856, it was necessary to remove some
of the trees in some sections in the path of the Route, specifically in places where no roads
existed previously.
The number of trees removed was determined by the specific needs in each section and the
existing vegetation. This was the case because in most of the Route, at least 74% of the
Route’s path occurred in open areas that had no vegetation cover. For this reason, in most of
the length of the Route 1856, it was not necess ary to cut down trees. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to establish medium and long term environmental measures to prevent deforestation
along the Route.
Impact Assessment
Since tree cutting was performed only at the beginning of the construction of Route 1856, this
impact is assessed as Negative, with: Medium Intensity (-2), Spot extension ( -1), time
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%53%
493Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Immediate (-4), persistence Permanent (-4), reversibility Permanent (-4) No Synergistic (-1),
Simple Accumulation (-1), Direct effect ( -4), intervals Continuous (-4) and Partial and
Mitigating recoverability (-4); for a total of -34, which is rated as Moderate.
Environmental Measures Applied
Even though prior to the formulation of the 2013 EDA , CODEFORSA and MINAE had
implemented a mitigation plan to reduce the i mpact of deforestation, it was evident that species
used for reforestation were not very diverse.
It was noted that in new reforestation sites the tree species being planted are increasingly more
diverse, although the need to increase diversity remains, an d rare species are not being used.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. To strengthen the present reforestation plan with planting of trees at sites where no
additional road cuts are necessary, use of rare native species to reforest areas, also
threatened, endemic species, and avoid planting exotic species, or those not present in
the area. It is also advisable to mix species in a proportion approximating 50% of
species once common but now decimated such as Manú, Cocobolo and Jícaro. The
other 50% may include species that are commonly used in reforestation efforts
throughout the area. Prioritization is advised of sites with undulating, or strongly
undulating slopes and in the protected zone of the San Juan River, or in other rivers and
streams of the Route.
2. To allow the natural regeneration of secondary vegetation in places where it grows
aggressively, avoiding cutting to replace it, or using pioneering tree species that provide
shade cover to support species that do not tolerate sun, or that grow better under the
shade in its early stages, such as Manú, Pinillo, or Almendro de Montaña. In sites with
very sharp slopes, it is suggested that secondary vegetation be allow to establish itself,
where possible. Given that the total forest cover lost extends over appro ximately 83 ha,
it is suggested that a similar size area be allowed to recover naturally with natural
secondary vegetation, in lands next to the path of the Route, giving priority to the more
hilly areas along San Juan river, as a way to compensate the nat ive eco-system, since
common reforestation efforts do not propitiate ecosystems similar to those required, to
maintain native bio -diversity. With the purpose of verifying the existence of tree species
under threat of extinction within the right -of-way of the Route, it is suggested that a tree
inventory be established of these species along the Route.
3. Establish a protection and maintenance plan for the trees identified along the Route.
4. Periodic monitoring should be conducted along the Route to avoid the pres ence of
squatters.
5. To promote the identification of different sections and ecosystems along the Route that
might have touristic potential.
6. It is recommended that once abundant but presently scarce forest species be used
along the Route, especially those t hat have been decimated by over -exploitation, but
these should be mixed with others such that reforestation resembles to some degree the
present natural ecosystems.
7. Furthermore it is suggested that responsible government institutions exert a greater
control on the natural forest cover along the Route.
% Tropical Science Center
2014 %
Page%54%
494 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
b. Partial Sedimentation of Wetland Borders along Route 1856
Source of Impact/ Risk
Soil movements, slope construction and land fills generated instability of some of the hillside
slopes at some points where the slope gradient is strong, as well as the increase in the surface
runoff, the sedimentation of some wetland borders nearby and the affectation of some sectors of
the Route.
This impact corresponds with a specific, one -off impact of the Route, where, at some nearby
points small amounts of sediment accumulate.
In the 2013 EDA , two wetland sites were identified lying next to hillside terrain with
sedimentation that had accumulated which led to slight filling of sites close to the drainage
channels of these wetlands.
Presently, neither site has been subjected to corrective measures, nor have road maintenance
activities taken place partly because there is no access by vehicles to that section of the road
because of the absence of gravel. On the other hand, it was observed that the process of
sedimentation of these wetlands, which was taking place last year, due to erosion of the road
cuts, tends to be stabilizing, so that there is no increase in the affected area, and, better yet, the
area filled last year is now b eing covered naturally by herbaceous vegetation.
Impact Assessment
This impact has only been identified in specific points along the Route 1856, where sediment
accumulations are little. For this reason, the impact was assessed as Negative, with: Low
Intensity (-1), Partial extension (-1), time Immediate (-4), persistence Temporal (-2), Temporal
reversibility (-2) No Synergistic (-1), Simple Accumulation (-1), Indirect effect (-1), Periodic
intervals (-2) and Partial and Mitigating recoverability (-4); for a total of -22, which is rated as
Irrelevant.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Accumulated sedimentation material should be cleared to allow water to travel down
natural drainage gutters. When the road cuts into a wetland, as is the case of Remolinito
Grande Lake, the obstruction of free flowing waters must be avoided, so that by the use
of gutters or other means, the water that usually flows into the wetland can freely
circulate on both sides of the road.
2. Improvements in the fills and drainage structure s should be undertaken, in order to avoid
risk of sediment entering into bodies of water.
3. Continue with works for the protection of the surface of slopes through the placement of
geo-textiles, improvement of slant of the slope and drains.
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%55%
495Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
c. Loss of Trees and Bushes located on river banks due to Flooding
Source of Impact/ Risk
During 2013 it was determined that in the section between Marker 2 and Infiernito River there
were some sites with small riverbeds that accumulated waters forming a kind of dam over the
forest vegetation on the banks, leading to decay of the flooded vegetation.
Presently maintenance work is being carried out on the Route and this anomaly is being
corrected (as recommended in the EDA), through the placement of the proper gutters,
improving drainage and placing roadside curbs.
In the same sense, it was noted that with the corrective works, the waters are flowing normally,
so that the artificial pools have been drained which had resulted from the stoppage of creeks
along the path of the Route, as was recommended (see Photo 3)
Photo 3: Improvement of
drainage conditions in
flooded areas
Since this problem could appear at any point, if inadequately prepared bridges or drains
collapse, this aspect should continue to be monitored to avoid a repetition of the problem and to
correct it immediately should it recur.
Impact Assessment
Improvements in the areas where this impact was identified have been satisfactory. Drainages
have been improved and returned to its natural conditions, exhibiting natural run off. For this
reason, this impact was assessed as Negative, with: Low Intensity (-1), Punctual extension (-
1), time Short term (-2), persistence Temporary (-2), Temporary reversibility (-2) No
Tropical Science Center
% 2014 %
Page%56%
496 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Synergistic (-1), Simple Accumulation (-1), Indirect effect (-1), Periodical intervals (-2) and
Immediate recoverability (-2); for a total of -18, which is rated as Irrelevant.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. To favour good drainage in the sites mentioned through the placement of an adequate
drainage s ystem or by lowering the level of drains to avoid the accumulation of water
and the affectation of the Route itself. Once the excess waters have been drained at the
sites, it is suggested that the area be allowed to recover naturally through the secondary
regeneration of the local vegetation.
d. Landslides and Slope Erosion Affecting the Forest Borders of the Route
Sources of Impact/ Risk
Due to the road cuts along the path of the Route, forest vegetation alongside the cuts is
subjected to sheet erosion of th e soil, which generally causes small trees to fall on the road due
to loss of the radicular system through soil removal.
Impact Assessment
Improvements in the stability and protection as well as the implementation of reforestation and
grass planting activi ties on slopes have prevented tree s falling as a consequence of eroding
terrain. For these reason, the impact was assessed as Negative, with: Low Intensity (-1), Low
extension (-1), time Mid Term (-2), persistence Temporary (-2), Temporary reversibility (-2) No
Synergistic (-1), Accumulative (-4), Indirect effect (-1), Periodical intervals (-2) and Partial
and Mitigating recoverability (-4); for a total of -24, which is rated as Irrelevant.
Environmental Measures Taken
During recent months actions have bee n taken to protect existing slopes on the Route, as well
as the improvement of drainage systems on the same, to avoid the occurrence of landslides.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Continue to carry out work to protect the surface of slopes through the placement of geo -
textiles, improving the angle of the slopes and placing drainage systems.
2. To evaluate the technical possibility of modifying the path of Route 1856 at the site of
Infiernillo, to use local roads built with less slant, tracing a deviation of some kilometres
to the south, where some settlements and open areas are found and topographical
conditions are more favourable to the presence of the road.
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%57%
497Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
e. Affect on the Wetland Ecosystem (due to Drainage, Fills and Fire Clearing)
Sources of Impact/Risk
Due to the placement of drainage, landfills, road base and rolling surface for the Route. This
corresponds with the affect on the ecosystem at some points along the path of the Route, due to
the contribution of sediments and the draining of some wetla nds next to them.
On the other hand, the loss of “yolillal” was observed due to fire clearing at several points along
the Route 1856. This was favo ured by the presence of a summer season that was dryer than
normal. Even though this affect covers a small ar ea, it is taken into account given the very small
presence of this type of ecosystem in the study area.
Impact Assessment
The loss of small “yolillal” areas, as well as the impact on some specific points with wetland
ecosystems along the Route, have made t his impact to be assessed as Negative, with: Low
Intensity (-1), Punctual extension ( -1), time Immediate (-4), persistence Temporary (-2),
Temporary reversibility (-2) No Synergistic (-1), Simple Accumulation (-1), Direct effect (-4),
Continous intervals (-4) and Partial y Mitigating recoverability (-4); for a total of -28, which is
rated as Moderate.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Conduct improvements in the drainage structures and fills to avoid their affect (this is
already ongoing)
2. Allow the natural recuperation of the ecosystems
3. Establish a monitoring plan along the Route with the purpose of verifying the recovery of
wetlands and avoid the cutting down of “Yolillal” and other tree species associated with
wetlands by the local inhabitants.
4. Implement vigilance and control by the state agency SINAC, to prevent deforestation
activities and alteration of natural ecosystems along the Route, since presently this
control is very sporadic.
f. Impact on Structural Connectivity
Sources of Impact/Risk
Due to the clearing of land and arboreal cover at some sites along the path of the Route, it was
necessary to eliminate some trees along specific sections within the right of way, in areas were
no roads existed.
This loss of vegetation cover at some specific sites could generate an alteration of the structural
connectivity as a result of the removal of trees.
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%58%
498 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Impact Assessment
According to the analysis, the status of structural connectivity along the Route was assessed as
Negative, with: Low Intensity (-1), Punctual extension ( -1), time Long term (-1), persistence
Temporary (-2), Temporary reversibility (-2) No Synergistic (-1), Simple Accumulation (-1),
Indirect effect ( -1), Irregular, random and discontinuous intervals (-1) and Partial and
Mitigating recoverability (-4); for a total of -18, which is rated as Irrelevant.
Environmental Measures Executed
In recent months a reforestation plan has been developing by CODEFORSA with more than
50,000 planted along both sides of the Route as a mitigation measure proposed b y MINAE. This
plan is resulting in a good growth process and proper tree maintenance , which has involved
local communities in the planting and protection process.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Continue reforestation activities with native species of t he area.
2. Promote the natural regeneration and ecological restoration to improve the connectivity
among populations, species and communities.
3. Establish a monitoring plan along the path of the Route with the purpose of establishing
the recovery of connectivi ty.
6.2.2 Aquatic Flora and Fauna
g. Potential Affect to the Aquatic Habitat
Sources of Impact/Risk
The construction of drainage works and the covering of some riverbeds with cement where
some bridges are located, at different points in the path of the Route. This impact was identified
in very few points.
Impact Assessment
Given that there is some sediment delivery from specific points along the Route, this impact was
assessed as Negative, with: Low Intensity (-1), Punctual extension (-1), time Immediate (-4),
persistence Permanent (-4), Temporary reversibility (-2), Moderate Synergy (-2),
Accumulative (-4), Direct effect (-4), Continuous intervals (-4) and Midterm recoverability (-
2); for a total of -31, which is rated as Moderate.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Consolidate the civil engineering works along the Route, at these sites (this is already
ongoing).
2. Avoid placing cement structures on riverbeds under drains and bridges.
3. Carry out a monitoring plan of the aquatic habitat conditions in riverbeds under drai ns
and bridges.
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%59%
499Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
h. Potential Affect to the Micro -habitats and Substrata of Aquatic Macro -
Invertebrates due to the Filling of Interstices by Sediment
Sources of Impact/Risk
Movements of soil, formation of slopes and landfills generated instability in slopes a long some
sites where the slant is strong, with an increase in surface runoff and the contribution of
sediments in some nearby bodies of water, in some sections of the Route.
The previous conditions create filling by sediments of the rock cavities and mod ify temporally
the substrata where aquatic macro -invertebrates normally reside.
Impact Assessment
Because the sediment delivery is minimum and environmental measures are being developed in
order to mitigate the impact, this is assessed as Negative, with: Low Intensity (-1), Punctual
extension ( -2), time Midterm (-2), persistence Temporary (-2), Temporary reversibility (-2)
Moderate Synergy (-2), Accumulative(-4), Indirect effect ( -1), Irregular, random and
discontinuous intervals (-1) and Midterm recoverability (-2); for a total of -24, which is rated
as Irrelevant.
Environmental Measures Taken
During recent months, a reforestation plan has been developed with the planting of thousands
of trees along both sides of the Route, as a mitigation measure proposed by the Ministry of the
Environment (MINAET). This plan is showing progress in terms of an adequate growth process
and maintenance of trees which involves local communities.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Consolidate civil works to stabilize the slopes and improve drainage systems as soon as
possible, especially with unstable slopes, to avoid contributing sediment to the aquatic
environment.
2. Continue reforestation activities with native species of the area.
3. Promote natural regeneration and the ecological restoration of the riverbeds.
4. Establish a monitoring plan along the path of the Route with the purpose of verifying the
status of riverbed substrata.
i. Potential Affect to Taxonomic Abundance and Richness
Sources of Impact/Risk
This is generated by the con tribution of sediments to the water, the decrease of contribution of
vegetal material to the aquatic medium, and the decrease of shade that cause an affect to the
abundance of species in the bodies of water.
% Tropical Science Center
2014 %
Page%60%
500 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Impact Assessment
Improvements in the current c onditions of this impact and mitigating environmental measures
being implemented such as reduction in sediment delivery from slopes, this impact is assessed
as Negative, with: Medium Intensity (-2), Partial extension ( -2), time Immediate (-4),
persistence Temporary (-2), Temporary reversibility (-2) Moderate Synergy (-2),
Accumulative (-4), Indirect effect (-1), Continuous intervals (-4) and Midterm recoverability (-
2); for a total of -30, which is rated as Moderate.
Environmental Measures Implemented
During recent months, a reforestation plan has been developed with the planting of thousands
of trees along both sides of the Route, as a mitigation measure proposed by the Ministry of the
Environment (MINAET). This plan is showing progress in terms of an ade quate growth process
and maintenance of trees which involves local communities.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Consolidate civil works to stabilize the slopes and improve drainage systems as soon as
possible, especially with unstable slopes, to avoid c ontributing sediment to the aquatic
environment (this is ongoing).
2. Continue reforestation activities with native species of the area.
3. Promote natural regeneration and the ecological restoration of the river banks.
4. Establish a monitoring plan along the path of the Route with the purpose of verifying the
status of species.
j. Potential Affect on the Quality of Water due to Turbidity
Sources of Impact/ Risk
Soil movements, slope formation and landfills generated an increase in surface runoff and
contributed sediments to some bodies of water close to some sections of the Route.
This corresponds with the impact on some ecosystems along points of the path of the Route
due to the contribution of sediments to the nearby bodies of water.
Impact Assessment
The decrease in the sediment delivery due to improvements in slope stability, as well as hillside
protection through tree and grass planting activities, make this impact to be assessed as
Negative, with: Very high Intensity (-4), Partial extension ( -2), time Immediate (-4),
persistence Fleeting (-1), Fleeting reversibility (-1) Moderate Synergy (-2), Simple
Accumulation (-1), Direct effect (-4), Periodical intervals (-2) and Midterm recoverability (-2);
for a total of -33, which is rated as Moderate.
% Tropical Science Center
2014 %
Page%6%
501Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Environmental Measures Implemented
During recent months, a reforestation plan has been developed with the planting of thousands
of trees along both sides of the Route, as a mitigation measure proposed by the Ministry of the
Environment (MINAE). This plan is showing progres s in terms of an adequate growth process
and maintenance of trees which involves local communities.
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Consolidate civil works to stabilize the slopes as soon as possible, especially with
unstable slopes, to avoid contributi ng sediment to the aquatic environment (this is
ongoing).
2. Continue reforestation activities with native species of the area.
3. Promote natural regeneration and the ecological restoration of the river banks.
4. Establish a monitoring plan along the path of the R oute with the purpose of verifying the
status of riverbed substrata.
6.2.3 Landscape
k. Landscape Affect in Some Sections of the Route due to Construction Works
Sources of Impact/Risk
Due to the clearing of vegetation and forest cover at some sites along the Route, it was
necessary to eliminate some trees along the right -of-way, specifically in sections where no
roads existed.
Despite the fact that the Route is located mostly (54%) in a region that contains roads and the
terrain has minimal sloping conditions, at so me specific points, the exposed surface of slopes
and road cuts is observable, mainly between Marker 2 and close to the mouth of the San Carlos
river.
Impact Assessment
Given that the reforestation activities along the Route have been successful with more tan
50.000 trees planted, exhibiting fast growing and low mortality conditions, this impact is
assessed as Negative, with: Low Intensity (-1), Spot extension ( -1), time Immediate (-4),
persistence Temporary (-2), Temporary reversibility (-2) No Synergistic (-1), Accumulative (-
4), Direct effect ( -4), Irregular, random and discontinuous intervals (-1) and Midterm
recoverability (-2); for a total of -25, which is rated as Irrelevant.
Environmental Measures Implemented
During recent months, a reforestation pla n has been developed with the planting of thousands
of trees along both sides of the Route, as a mitigation measure proposed by the Ministry of the
Environment (MINAE). This plan is showing progress in terms of an adequate growth process
and maintenance of trees which involves local communities.
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%62%
502 Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Environmental Measures to be Taken
1. Continue to reforest in front of all road cuts visible from the right margin of the San Juan
River, using several species per site, planting them in rows that are parallel to the r oad
cut, starting along the River edge or the area next to the slope and upwards, according
to the specific circumstances, using low species with broad canopy in the lower part of
the terrain, such as “Sotacaballo” or “Balsam” (low density planting is appr opriate to
keep a broad canopy), followed by trees of a medium size, such as “Guabillo” or “Balsa”
and other species of high profile, such as “Cebo“, “Botarrama“, “Roble Corral“, in such
manner that the density of the trees leads to the desired end of crea ting foliage from a
few metres off the ground to 30 metr es high.
2. Continue to stimulate the growth of grasses on the surface of slopes. Along the Route it
was observed that native and naturalized species of graminae such as “Sainillo”
(Axonopus sp) and “Rotana” (Ischaemun indicum ) are covering efficiently a good part of
the area that has low altitude road cuts, avoiding rainfall directly on the slopes.
3. Promote the identification of landscapes and ecosystems along different sections of the
Route as touristic attractions.
Table 6-1 corresponds to the Matrix of Importance of Environmental Impacts ( “MIIA”) defined
with the criteria established by the Technical Instruments Manual for the Environmental Impact
Evaluation Process (EIA Manual) -Part IV (SETENA 2004). T aking into account the importance
of each, according to their characteristics, environmental aspects and effects they generate.
It should be noted that such a matrix shows the evaluation of 2014 based on the follow -up and
monitoring conducted for this rep ort. Furthermore, Annex 7 -5 contains a comparative table of
the evaluated conditions for the 2013 EDA, incorporating the results of the present analysis for
the Follow-up and Monitoring study.
It further should be noted that the findings and assessments pr esented in this table considers
exclusively the territory of Costa Rica, and, as stated in EDA 2013, impacts are local in
character, meaning that there are no evidence of transboundary impact outside their localized
scope.
%
% Tropical Science Center
2014 %
Page%63%
503Annex 14
%
64
%
Page%
Value
Moderate Irrelevant Irrelevant IrrelevaModerate IrreleModerate Irrelevant
% %
I -4 -2 -8 -4 -8 -8 -1 -4
2014
MC 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2
4 2 2 2 4 1 4 1
PR
–DA%Ecological%Component
% EF 4 1 1 1 4 1 4 1
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study
stics 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 4
%roject AC
%856 SI 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Route RV
PE 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2
Impact Characteri
MO 4 4 2 2 4 1 4 2
%
EX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
2014
IN 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
- - - - - - - - -
+/ Tropical Science Center
-
way
of etland
-
ment
Impact
tial sedimentation of w invertebrates due to filling of
t the forested edges of the Route. -
Matrix of Importance of Environmental Impact (MIIA) of Project Route 1856 in Costa Rican Territory.ifinlatttrosfohfaqscrtoiic
Factor
Matrix of the Importance of Environmental Impact (MIIA) for the Project Route 1856, in Costa Rica (2014).
: Environmental TeFrrlstaanlnad Aqunaticaluoara
-
6
1 2
No.
% Table %
504 Annex 14
%
65
%
Page%
erate
Moderate Mod Irrelevant
% %
-0 -3 -5 -87
2 2 2
4 2 1
EDA%Ecological%Component
%
1 4 4
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study
Project 4 1 4
%
2 2 1
%856
2 1 2
Route
2 1 2
4 4 4
%
2 2 1
2014
2 4 1
- - - Tropical Science Center
Environmental Impacts Residuals
i. Paoentialdotsneiiseeitctusiooityfictcsualityyofn due to
Total
Landscape
3
% %
505Annex 14
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study%
Route%1856%Project%–%EDA%Ecological%Component%
%
%
Taking into account the results of values established in Table 6 -1, the following resul ts were
obtained:
1. In the evaluation of the 2013 EDA , 8 irrelevant impacts were identified and 3 of
moderate level. The updating of values identified 6 irrelevant impacts and 5 of moderate
level.
2. With respect to impacts that shifted from irrelevant to moder ate, the increase occurs
within a maximum range of 10 units.
3. The total sum of total importance increases by 12 units .
4. All impacts show a low or medium intensity level on the environment.
5. All impacts have a uniform value, within the range of -18 and -34, which indicates there
is homogeneity in the low incidence of impacts along the Route.
Even though it was found that the identified environmental impacts are of a localized nature, i t
was also considered necessary to evaluate if the conditions identified prev iously had produced
any impact at all on the territory of Nicaragua, where a similar analysis might have been
conducted regarding each one of the activities that might generate a potential impact to
determine if these could affect the San Juan River.
As stated at the beginning of this Report, it was not possible to conduct such analysis due to
the fact that the Government of Nicaragua did not allow the scientific team conducting this study
to enter the San Juan River to sample the bodies of water as they entered the River. For this
reason, like the 2013 EDA, this Follow-up Study could not verify the existence of environmental
impacts in the San Juan River by following an exact, scientific methodology. However, it can be
said that the assessment of impact s on Costa Rican territory does not suggest the existence of
significant impacts on Nicaraguan territory.
6.3 Environmental Action Plan- Environmental Adaptation Plan (EAP)
As was the case with the 2013 EDA, the present Environmental Adaptation Plan (“EAP”)
summarises all aspects developed in previous chapters for each of its thematic components and
for this purpose it is presented as a Summary Table for ease of reference . The EAP seeks to
build on the environmental progress made in 2014 in the design of Route 1856.
In Table 6-2 the updated Adaptation Plan for Route 1856 is presented.
The entity responsible for the execution of environmental measures is the National Roadways
Council ( “CONAVI”) in cooperation with the MINAE and other governmental institutions
assigned to the construction and supervision of the Route 1856 project.%
% Tropical Science Center
2014%
Page%66%
506 Annex 14
%
67
%
Page%
% %
- -
CONAVI MINAE CONAVI MINAE
Respfor Execution
be
%DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study Feedback
%roject Interpretation and
%856 A reestcaoblleisIghNieaAdteETrewopiftohrthtsetoretshueltslbyp.elicationfarw A reesgtcialliNoieaaIiTehpdafoestjrhuaetsessdoturwpailplplbpyelicationi,ellluiattnshrneeedsstonefoeaw
Route
the short
Sampling
Location and Frequency of AloEnvgerthye6pmaothntohfst.he Route. At ideetnlaottesdh.denigpgasurtpaeatncpesofcoteeiedorkslntw
up and phic
-
Indicators
Environmentalce
QupalnatnitFtyeodoareflheeoenuFsptotouaerlltltyohswooff thehpsaitghns Phroetgowigsorsoepvfpeetoafiteteihondenc.yoof fthweorks.
-
-f
)
wetlands.
EAP
ong the path of the %
Environmental Goals orks to avoid 2014
Gueaxrisntaite(5tatrsanonovtftvitiyiuoohtoteaeunteflntertecoofvsecreynic Stacrlteaanpsinreogdciaemnsesdnoocfetinotnoesndtrium
-p Study
the
Tropical Science Center
Follow
Route 1856 Project
ral secondary forest
Environmental Adaptation Plan (
n where it grows naturally
the buffer zone of the San Juan
e road.
-ay of the Route, it is suggested that a
-ompensatory Measure of
se required, in order to maintain native
Corrective , allowing through the use of culverts or similar meanss with the objective
mic, or in danger of extinction, and not using any exotic
ls accumulated due to sedimentation to allow the free flow
t sites with very slanted hillsides it is suggested that
Strreonatghspescimieusprecsoeutnhldtelyiandrceeluacdi.meItasidaatrhenaucitoemcsoowbnioltyhlopslatarnnodtnegJdícuinanrdroonrsvineryhienesgtoastthliooepnre5ps0l,a%hoñfor the water that enters the body of water to circulate freely down bothreetehae,flaoswiisngthweactaesrse
-ay and adjacent
-f
Environmental Impact
Patrhtiearloricagudhtstting of forests in Paw rtietllaosnuedtdeiem1de8gn5et6sataiodnjaocfetnhteto
way
-
-f
Environmental Adaptation Plan.
: ight
- Aspect
6
Environmental
% Table CleoafraisnnafgenthtdheseecRlcerotaiounnteinsg Easrtlhopmeoavnedmleanntdsf,ills %
507Annex 14
%
68
%
Page%
% %
- - -
CONAVI MINAE CONAVI MINAE CONAVI MINAE
Resfor Execution
.
%DA%Ecological%Component
%
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study Feedback es, these will be
%roject Interpretation and
will be defined. A eresgtcailleeieabdttiepdaitoehsjrfastddhii,lllleiuelplpdlbyp.elicaAtiolleoiaballIiopdiaftoehsrfatshiilulleulbtrsee dtoefaA eresgtcailleoiabAallIiopdiaftoehsfatssddhii,ullinelplpdlbypelicationsdtoefeonfarw
%856
Route
water
the civil works
Sampling process of
Location and Frequency of At athceciiatneluTgtidohhaaslpgoatbpehttrhreeopeoteivfe,idlinwtohsriteteidoheuhentdi8ndnm5pgcetulnoeen,fmfiodegrrdoekaussintefaao,ngridenthstehloepsehsortte, in a shortsodtsersm
Indicators
Performance
Environmental Reipmopcrtrooondiunreiecaaonnofddrks.aw Renpuom artltboepenrnlodepdwe.osrksm Photregwisotrrseopvpfeeorafioteeirontdkhncs.ey.ofofthtehe
%
)
EAP
.
sedimentation in %
Environmental Goals 2014
Avtooidfnlotahoteudrstirnpsoaes.sesoodnsafuutlpotoeoeofnf.ogdrrtahienapgaeth ofoltindhGgeeusosgaflfsroiltntohhspaeetrsVetgheetaRIioopuanrtceecvsiganaoannrrtueiogdecscctttelldorks toanstdniocsionf.fgcivailnw
-p Study
Tropical Science Center
Follow
Route 1856 Project
Environmental Adaptation Plan (
system, or lowering the level of
compensatory Measure
-
-extiles, improvement of slope angles and drainage -extiles, improvement of slope angles and drainage
Corrective
on.
of avoidCinogtnhtaeisnffaettosh.necnPflaegonstdehsfneo.trvaotedhfgeeaeqnptuaraaotitdteeecdqtruioaaninteaogfdesrauoieitshg.ehcnivtthiolefwgoerkos for the ctaiaokvndf sApthrectefhfseeeEcnosnttftderorarooerotianfestgtittohlraptehlvsndtofiluloltsceai,nlwionitrhhdae ocfuvtteinrigfydinogwn
ll)
Environmental Impact
Losloscraoivtfeeftldrroesooedasnhkses,sdouf e tobauam Lansldoseplseosthuaatent daffeercotstiohne foofrest Affoefctdtahrtaeioinnwaeogtfelathanenddsecl(aodnsudyefsitteom
-ase
Aspect
Environmental
% Pladcreaeieangpteorosafyrmidesgaensd Eafrothrmmaotivoenmoefnstlsopaensd Sopillareenaodnvfte,,oosrfolnsu,rface ofiS %
508 Annex 14
%
69
%
Page%
% % VI
- - - -
CONAVI MINAE CONA MINAE CONAVI MINAE CONAVI MINAE
Respfor Execution
to the
%DA%Ecological%Component
% for application
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study Feedback
%roject Interpretation and
A eresgtcaiosbltlabdttieapdaitoehsjrfasddii,ltdoefieplcallelaatbalnlIopdiaftoehsfatssddhii,ullinelplpdlAbyp.ellleeoabAallIiopdiaftoehsjfatssddhii,luinelpldlby.eA eresgtcaiolleoiabAallIiTnnrbeewecopdiaftohsrtehtseotforefatshiuleultrse to apply
%856
Route roving
involving
Sampling
Location and Frequency of AlonEgvtehreyp6am thoonfththse. Route. AlonEgvtehreyp6am thoonfththse. Route. At hsaitevpbhTehoehefnderteushiedrresoekygtsemf.e,enproiddovguinetegAs,bhTehoehefnderteushidersolekgesspsfvielnvpitnegdhiuiebvteledlidel.pabw
e
Indicators
Performance
Environmental QupalnatnitFtyeodotrh.ehe.stfrlnytsoitouooftrefintgheplan.regwisotrrkyocmanioeteirnodkthcn.sye.ooffththereegocmanioeterinodktNhcns.yeeeticnlyatfehse.ofuortklrntsesit.eorreomVpfeeowderroi.tfffirheorks.nietinothcnyeoofftw
%
)
EAP
ctivity among
%
Environmental Goals 2014
Stathrtaoatdifferent systems along theent Impcroonsvdtiaonnstboienfdrtsihv.eer and AvboeiddcsosendruetchntietoantRiowonourotkefsr.iveAvboeiddcsosendruetchntietoantRiowonourotkefsr.iver
-p Study
Tropical Science Center
Follow
Route 1856 Project
Environmental Adaptation Plan (
contribution of sediments to
compensatory Measure
-
plan along the Route path, with the purpose of
Corrective
y among populations, species and communities.
lidate civil works to stabilize slopes as soon as possible, specially
ContinueProthmeocteonthneectiavstiouttafrbavlleisrrehifgyaeinnmgeortloocgcntanatniespvetraoiotntrtooyerol,eunplncrotcdciruudoksevrees.eedaiioverifying the state of substrata of the riverbeds that were monitored inimentation of aquatictftaubtriaaonlnkreasgcoetifvnietireastiuosninagndspeeccoielosgnicaatlivreestototrhaetioanreoaf.banks
-
on of the
habitats and substrata
-
Environmental Impact
Affceocntanteiocntivoitfy structural Poteaquatic habitat Pom teincotrifoailnaavqiefeenssaocwdfruiottlinegnot f Pottaexnroticinaholnmedisecscarebausnedainnce and
-
Aspect ion clearing
Environmental
-ay of the Route
% Veagnedstaectcoletfioannsingofinthseormigeht Pladcreaeineangpteorosafyrysstobemrmidesgaensd Easrtlhofprmoaavnteidomnleanntdsf,ill Sosillomcpoleeirnmegnaottsfio,vne,ge%ation
509Annex 14
%
70
%
Page%
ts bridges is still
% %
- - and i
CONAVI MINAE CONAVI MINAE
Respfor Execution
%DA%Ecological%Component or application
%
Follow%up%and%Monitoring%Study Feedback
%roject Interpretation anded and new
mejuassdeadlines for applicationderbelleeoabAallIiTopdaiftoehsfastsddhii,ullllelplpdlbyp.elicationtdoefeonafrwienpaiIn cmaesjuaessdfasddii,lllliuinlpldlby.esdsdtoefenfaw
%856
Route
Sampling Route.
Location anddrasilnoaspgheeosrstaytleosrtritdohsguabnhnTehdoaehefnderteushresoekygteief.e,lenreroigddovguinetegs,ainndaiAloEnvgerthye6pmaothntohfst.he Route.
signs
Indicators
Performance
Environmental NupmlabneRtrees.fuotlrntseiPhotographicerreomVpfeeowderrohcnlyetfehseo.furotklrntessi.teoosrfintNupmlabnetrees.furtnseirtitnehhgrnoegelihcinteohuptaet.h ofhprP
%
)
EAP he Route
%
Environmental Goals 2014
recent months. Likewise, another factor that interferes with quantification is that the design of the final path of the Route
Avboeiddcsosendruetcntitoantiownorokfsr.iver ImpbreoaRvuoyteaea.lnoattunlorgoanfltghvsetechgepeenaRtitcahotiuootfnet.hreecovery
-p Study
Tropical Science Center
Follow covering
Route 1856 Project
w meters high,
Environmental Adaptation Plan (
f the cuts, starting at the
ogical restoration of banks
compensatory Measure
-
Corrective
anopy) , followed by medium profile trees such as Guabillo
lish a monitoring plan along the path of the Route, with the purpose
along w Easof verifying the state of the substrata of the riverbeds monitored in thistcdnsogotitoteioiefuoptnnh,sntoliatptftoahtlgoaebdnaheenletooratoes0fvhuttrssvetgptilicnicenouttaoitavefole(ietncssutiosodflanoigcsspureoaamsbnm.)sdienaerarvceeeodssyuscthems along the
water due to
Environmental Impact
Poqteunatliiatsylecetanttiaotnionof the Lanthdescwaopreksaffectation due to
Aspect
ng of vegetation
Environmental e: information on the cost of measures is omitted due to the fact that some of the measures have already been implemented in
% Sosillomcpoleeirnmegnaottsfio,vne,getation Sosillomcpoleeirmenattsio,n, Noitn process of a % djudication by th %e Government of Costa Rica.
510 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General Conclusions
1. The Route 1856 project consists of the construction of a gravel road starting at
the site of San Jerónimo de los Chiles, all the way to the locality known as
Delta 7 (better known as Delta Costa Rica). Route 1856 has a total length of
159.7 km. An extension of 63.6% of the route (101.5 km) is made up of roads
and access byways that have existed in the area for over 30 year s. The
remaining 35.9% (57.4 km) comprises new roads that were established in order
to join the existing ones. However, the present Follow-up Study includes the
follow-up and monitoring of the Route only in the section that runs parallel to
the San Juan River, namely a section that is 108.2 km of the total length of the
Route.
2. For the construction of Route 1856, as is common in these types of projects, it
was necessary to execute several important secondary tasks. Among them
were the clearing of the terra in, the construction of slopes, the placement of
gutters and drains, as well as the laying of a sub -base and rolling surface for
the road. However, it must be noted that initial works on this project were
carried out as a matter of emergency.
3. Considering the emergency nature of the preliminary works, and where and
when circumstances permit, t he environmental aspects of these activities are:
a. Clearing of vegetation and removal of waste at some sites along the Route.
This is associated with the elimination of vegetation along some sections of
the Route where no roads were previously in existence.
b. Land movements, slope formation and landfill. This could generate
instability of slopes at some sites where the slope gradient is strong, as well
as generation of inc reased surface runoff, contribution of sediments to
some bodies of water close to the Route and the affectation of the
landscape in some sections of the Route.
c. Installation of some drainage systems and temporary bridges. This factor
could be associated with the punctual affectation of aquatic ecosystems and
the modification of natural drainage systems in the area.
d. Placement of landfills, sub -base and rolling surface for the road. This
activity, if not properly mitigated and controlled, could be associated w ith
the potential contribution of sediment to some bodies of water close to the
Route.
7.1.1 Terrestrial Biology
1. The study area contains two life zones: a very humid pre -montane forest in
basal transition and a very humid tropical forest. The very humid tropical forest
is the most representative life zone in the northern part of Costa Rica, adding
up to more than 61% of the lowlands of the region of Sarapiquí and San Carlos.
It is the life zone that is the main habitat that connects the Atlantic watershed of
southern Nicaragua to the Central Volcanic Mountain Range of Costa Rica.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%71!
511Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
2. In the project area several ecosystems or ecological associations were
identified, among them: forest associations (primary, secondary and cropped
forests), wetland systems, riparian syst ems and palm tree associations (Yollilal:
Raphia taedigera).
3. In recent years and due to the growth of the agricultural frontier, many of the
primary forest ecosystems in the border area have been altered to become
secondary forests. Even so, these forests present a very high floristic diversity.
4. With respect to wetland systems, the area has an important number of rivers,
creeks, channels and lakes that have a vegetation that is typical of lacustrine
and palustrine wetlands.
5. Based on aerial photography taken before and after the construction of Route
1856, it was determined that the project area covered a total of 10,475.2 ha, but
the project only partially altered or had an impact on 4,921.3 ha, equivalent to
47% of the area.
6. The assessment of the vegetation cover along the length of the project
indicates that, for the purposes of land clearing along the path of the Route,
14.9 ha of secondary forest were cut down and 68.3 ha of primary forests were
disturbed, which corresponds to 4.2% and 19.5% respectively, of the area that
was altered by the path of the Route.
7. Similarly, some 2.3 ha of land that was not forest but natural wetland
ecosystems was disturbed. It was determined by field observations that the
road was built mostly in areas without forest cover (7 4%). In cases where
forests were cut down, no open areas were available to allow tracing the road
design through open terrain.
Specific Observations
The operation of most sections of the path of Route 1856 has offered and opportunity for
regional migratio n processes to occur, which could favour larger land use changes.
Currently, such phenomenon is evidenced by the construction of at least 4 huts with small
subsistence orchards.
One year after the EDA, a few new settlements along the Route were observed,; this
situation requires strengthening adequate control and surveillance processes in areas
such as the Border Corridor Wildlife Refuge. Such measures would prevent uncontrolled
demographic growth due to the opening of new access roads in the area.
The construction of Route 1856 required the felling of trees in in the path of the Route
only, thereby partially affecting the forest cover. It was observed that in the case of
wetlands and palm trees that were affected during road construction, they are sh owing
significant recovery, due to the good recovery rate that characterizes the ecosystems of
the area.
The lists of species of fauna remain the same given that over a one -year period it is
difficult to observe significant changes in populations or in the presence of species. It is
necessary to establish long term monitoring to permit estimates or changes in these
species.
It is clear that important works to improve the road infrastructure in some sections have
been carried out. The natural conditions in t he area have been adversely affected in some
sections of Route 1856, particularly in terrains with strong slopes, where work on the
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%72!
512 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Route has not been finished. These sections are presently subject to mitigation works and
impacts are likely to be of short duration.
With respect to the impact in the formation of lakes due to stoppage of creeks along the
Route, it was possible to observe work being done on the western side of the Route and
the problem has been corrected in this section.
New forest plantations were identified along the Route, over an area of some 51 ha and
representing more than 50 ,000 native trees planted. Certain degree of mix between
species is observed in the reforested areas, in accordance to what was recommended in
2013. However, refores tation efforts could be improved by using rare and threatened tree
species.
It was a recommendation in the 2013 EDA to reforest the area with native species as well
as grass planting on slopes. In 2014 field visits, significant improvements have been
observed including thriving reforestation areas and plots. It is important to continue with
the environmental and ecological connectivity restoration efforts, including the
aforementioned reforestation with native tree species.
Reforestation activities have not yet been implemented at some specific sites in order to
mitigate the visual impact of works undertaken there . However, it is worth noting that
reforestation efforts in general along the Route demonstrate a good growth process, as
well as good survival rate and, in general terms, there is good maintenance of these. The
suggestion of Nicaragua’s expert that most replanted trees have died is simply incorrect.
In the section of the Boca San Carlos and Infiernito River, a similar situation was observed
to that of the previous year, where no regular vehicular transit is possible. Some of the
road cuts have tended to stabili se and are being covered by native vegetation.
In November 2014, CONAVI (together with CODEFORSA) made a significant intervention
in this part of Infiernito-Boca San Carlos and Chorreras, developing a series of stabilisation
activities on slopes as well as erosion control , thereby improving the environmental quality
of the area (see Photo 4 to Photo 13). Specific activities undertaken in this section include
the following:
Drains on land cut s: These drains are being built on top of the cutting area and their
function is to prevent runoff water flowing through the soil and cutting transversely, rather
than being directed down the slope towar d an area with sufficient vegetation cover to
absorb the water flow.
Cross drains on the road : These are deviations from runoff from the road surface , to
avoid the water running freely and forming small grooves, and thereby to prevent soil loss.
Sediment traps: These consist of a craft trap which is placed over the drain in order to
filter out sediment downstream whilst reducing the speed of runoff. So far, 263 sediment
traps have been built.
Large sediments collector: These have the same function as the small sediment traps
but cover larger areas of exposed soil, and protect soil loss.
Sediment trap with drawer: This type of trap is placed at the end of all drains that have
been built either on top of land cuts or on the terraces . The constructed drawer varies in
size depending on the location of the drain and the available space; however, measures of
the drawers are 1 metr e long, 75 cm wide, 50 cm deep. So far, 148 sediment traps with
drawers have been built.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%73!
513Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Covering of areas without vegetation: In order to reduce and further avoid the loss of
soil from laminar and pluvial run off, covering of all exposed soil areas has been carried
out. To date , 4,140 m² of slopes have been covered with saran, 910 strains of vetiver
grass and 783 sotacaballo trees have b een planted.
Planting of native trees : Planting trees as a compensatory measure has been
implemented in several places along Route 1856 from Delta Costa Rica to the sector
Pocosol river in Los Chiles northern border. This activity was conducted in open areas
dedicated to livestock where owners have given part of the production areas to implement
this activity.
Photo 3 : Sedimentation mitigation
measures in section Infiernito river -
Boca San Carlos.
Photo 4 : Sedimentation mitigation
measures in section Infiernito river -
Boca San Carlos.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%74!
514 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Photo 5 : Sedimentation mitigation
measures in section Infiernito river -
Boca San Carlos.
Photo 6: Slope contention in section
Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos.
Photo 7: Slope contention in section
Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%75 !
515Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Photo 8: Slope contention in section
Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos.
Photo 9: Slope contention in section
Infiernito river-Boca San Carlos.
Photo 10: Sotacaballo trees planted
on saran -covered slopes in
Chorreras sector
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%76 !
516 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Photo 11 : Sedimentation mitigation
measures in the Chorreras sector.
Photo 12: Sedimentation mitigation
measures in the Chorreras sector.
!
In the same section between Boca San Carlos and Infiernito River, which is t he section of
the Route with the most forest cover, it was noted once again how important it is for
wildlife. There are no human settlements in this area, which has very colourful wildlife such
as Scarlet Macaws , observed in large numbers , Great Green Maca ws in lesser numbers,
monkeys, badgers, an eagle and tapir hoof prints.
In the section of Caño El Jardín, there is an area of forest close to Route 1856 that is
being cleared under the canopy level and there is a small palm oil plantation of 2 ha in
extension in an area where agriculture production has been absent.
From Boca San Carlos towards the west, there are alluvial plains along the path of the
Route, which have poor drainage and local settlers claim these are prone to occasional
flooding, and at som e points they showed researchers where the waters of the San Juan
River rise to an estimated height of some two metr es above the level of the Route.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%77!
517Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
The situation of some wetlands that had been affected the previous year has now
stabilised with some grass y vegetation covering landfill areas, but at some points there
continues to be sediment entering, although in lesser proportion that before, suggesting
that the growth of grasses on the slopes and road cuts is diminishing the process of
erosion.
The sectio n of the Route between Remolinito and Tambor continues to be open to
vehicular traffic , even during the rainy months, but the presence of settlers and homes
along the sector is noticeable, probably due to the fact that electricity is provided along this
section.
7.1.2 Aquatic Biology
1. In order to assess the effect of the construction of the Route on aquatic
ecosystems that traverse the road and empty in to the San Juan river, ten lotic
bodies of water were selected (creeks, channels and rivers), the stru cture of their
biotic communities was characterized and the quality of the water was evaluated by
estimating the BMWP -CR (MINAE -S, 2007) index, using the aquatic macro -
invertebrates group as indicator species.
2. In each of the bodies of water, two sampling points were selected: one upstream
(without direct influence) where the road intersects the body of water, and the other
downstream (with direct influence), for a total of 20 sampling points.
3. In general, the aquatic community of the majori ty of sites sampled had very low
diversity and richness of taxa. This result is probably due to three reasons: the
current, the turbidity- sedimentation ratio, and the type of substrate.
4. With the values of abundance and richness of taxa obtained for the control sites
(above the Route) and the sites with influence (below the Route), in half of cases it
is possible to say that bio -indicators did not offer an evident response that would
indicate an impact on the community of macro -invertebrates, since the values were
very variable.
5. This result could be attributed to the following two factors: (1) degradation in the
quality of the habitat as a consequence of some of the activities conducted during
the construction of the Route, such as the mov ement of earth and the cutting of
river bank vegetation, and (2) the sedimentation processes that take place in rivers,
due to slopes and areas of unstable fills that suffer erosion due to rain. Where
degradation was found to exist, it was also concluded t hat this was localized and of
a temporary nature.
6. An aquatic environment, once altered, is subject to periods of re -colonizing that
may vary from a few days to weeks or months, depending on the nature and reach
of the disturbance. The response of b io-indicators to the effects of the construction
of the Route on the aquatic ecosystems could be imperceptible in some of the
sampled sites possibly because the aquatic communities have already recovered.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%7!
518 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
7. The field sampling was performed approxima tely one year and a half after the
works o n Route 1856 were conducted and it is likely that during this period the
communities were able to stabili se. It is also important to consider that these
bodies of water are in low lying areas which receive large qu antities of sediment
throughout the year coming from the watershed, so that it is expected that aquatic
fauna is adapted to high levels of sediments in the water.
8. Therefore, the quantity of sediment contributed by Route 1856 is not sufficient to
cause a significant impact on the bio -indicators studied at the sampling sites.
9. The presence of groups which are sensitive to aquatic habitat alterations is a good
sign, since these indicators often disappear when there is a strong alteration of the
aquatic habitat, especially if the effect is persistent since it does not permit for
sensitive taxa to re-colonize the bodies of water. The finding of sensitive families in
practically all the sampling sites, both upstream and downstream, can be
interpreted as a positive sign of recovery and of the lack of any serious impact by
the road works on the environmental conditions of the points under study. Only two
sites did not have macro -invertebrates considered sensitive.
10. It should also be noted that the sampling for bio -indicators was performed in bodies
of water that flow into the San Juan River. The impacts detected caused by the
works on Route 1856 to the bodies of water, such as the modification of substrata
and sedimentation, are local effects.
11. The impacts, such as they are, should not transfer to the San Juan River since this
river is of a superior order, with a stream volume much larger than those of the
bodies of water in the study. The section of the San Juan River that runs paralle l to
the Route is located in the lower part of the watershed where the quantities of
sediment are naturally high, so that any impacts of the Route construction on the
organisms that inhabit the San Juan river would be expected to be minimal and
very diffuse, given the volume of water that this river carries as a receptor body.
12. In order to be able to evaluate with any greater certainty if the Route works led to a
level of sedimentation that could affect the aquatic fauna of the San Juan River and
the tributary rivers in the area under study, it would be necessary, first, to
determine and validate the thresholds of sedimentation that could affect the
species found in these rivers, since there is no information on aquatic organisms in
the study area.
13. It would thus be necessary to determine and validate the thresholds of mortality
and morbidity for the species found in these rivers as well as the tolerance levels
for sedimentation, since there is no information for aquatic organisms in the stud y
area. In order to determine these values it would be necessary to conduct periodic
analyses on a long term basis that evaluate the tolerance capacity of fish and
macro-invertebrates to different quantities of sediments to be able to determine at
what poi nt aquatic organisms begin to die off or their relative abundance and
richness is diminished.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%7!
519Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Specific Observations
1. In 2014 there seems to be a tendency towards greater abundance and taxonomic
richness at the points upstream of the Route, compared to poin ts downstream.
Since it is the downstream points that receive a direct influence from the project, it
could be that the Route works might be causing a decrease at the downstream
points. This tendency was not evident in 2013.
2. In both years, the diversity an d dominance indexes do not seem to present a clear
trend while the equity index seems to show higher values at the sites downstream
of the Route. This could suggest a greater heterogeneity, meaning that the quantity
of macro-invertebrates is distributed mo re evenly among the different taxa.
3. In the case of the BMWP -CR index, in 2014 a decrease was noted in the quality of
water at the downstream sites in comparison to the upstream sites at 7 of the 10
sampled sites, as opposed to 4 sites in 2013. Even so, the re has not been a
decrease of more than 2 categories of the index in any of the sampled years. It is
likely that the change in micro -habitats in the bodies of water, resulting from the
works on the Route, could be the cause of the localised decrease in the quality of
water, especially due to sedimentation processes.
4. Upon visual inspection of the Route 1856, it was possible to determine that most of
the Route does not present a great threat to aquatic environments, since most of
the Route lies along flat ter rain, where no deforestation occurred and no unstable
slopes are evident, except for the section between Infiernito river - Boca San
Carlos, which exhibits active sedimentation processes. However, CONAVI is
intensively developing slope and sediment cont ainment works.
5. It was not possible to find threatened species in the CITES lists, or the red list of
the IUCN and the Wildlife Conservation Law, although most of the macro -
invertebrates collected were not identifiable at the taxonomic level of species, given
their immature state (larvae and nymphae), and the absence of taxonomic keys for
many of these at the level of species, in the Tropic. But in the present Follow-Up
Study, at least 23 taxa were found that could be considered uncommon or of
restricted distribution.
6. The effect of the works of the Route that should be addressed carefully is the
liberation of sediment. In this regard, mitigation measures during the construction
phase of the Route must be maintained to control the process, such measures
include engineering control techniques and mitigation of sedimentation, such as
sediment traps, unstable slopes stabili sation, among others.
7.1.3 Tourism
1. The area under study does not offer, nor has it ever been a touristic
development area. To date, the touristic offe r in the section Marker 2 to Delta
Costa Rica, does not have any type of touristic facility on the Costa Rican side
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%80!
520 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
of the River. The only available site is Delta Cabins, with facilities mostly for
national visitors. Towards the extremes of the river, infr astructural conditions
and facilities improve, concentrating in San Carlos, which is the capital of the
province of Rio San Juan and at the Caribbean town of San Juan del Norte.
2. The River, particularly along the study area, only provides transportation
services from point to point. This is a very limited tourism offer involving 3.54%
of the national tourism offer (PNDTS 2011 -2020). The San Juan River is among
the poorest provinces in Nicaragua and therefore has a minimal offer in terms
of tourism services.
3. The city of San Carlos is the tourism distribution centr e for San Juan River (El
Castillo, Sábalo, Islas de Solentiname) but it does not offer visitors the touristic
base necessary to satisfy all needs. Visitation in this section does not reach
beyond an e stimated 10,000 visitors per year, a number that is too low to be
considered competitive and consolidated.
4. Some lodgings that have adequate infrastructure, of a medium level, well
integrated to the environment, are developing tourism services oriented
towards international tourists with an eco -touristic perspective: bird watching,
visits to protected areas, specialized trail hiking, fishing, etc. However, some
are not able to consolidate a visitation level that allows them to break even, so
that they often have to offer seasonal services.
5. Touristic services and products concentrate in the observation of nature, walks,
boat tours and fishing, mainly. The same take place in areas neighbo uring
Sábalo, El Castillo, and Biological Preserve Indio Maiz, and not in the area of
the area from Marker 2 to Delta Costa Rica.
6. Even though sports fishing is widely offered in the San Carlos region, and
neighbouring areas such as El Castillo and Sábalo, no commercial fishing or
tourism in the River is documented within the st udy area. Fishing activities
along the area from Marker 2, to Delta Costa Rica, comprise sporadic
subsistence fishing.
7. The potential for tourism in the area could serve as a justification to attract
international tourists, however, infrastructural conditi ons, access roads,
services and products available, quality of touristic offer, weak image and
incipient information and commercial services are not sufficiently satisfactory to
attract larger numbers than at present.
8. The previously mentioned factors, in a ddition to the unstable and unsafe image
generated for the area by continuous border disputes between Costa Rica and
Nicaragua, do not favo ur private investment efforts that could strengthen the
region.
9. Nevertheless, Nicaragua in its PNDTS 2011 -2020 points strongly to the region
of the province of Rio San Juan as one of the priority destinations to strengthen
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%8!
521Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
and promote nature tourism. Presently, no significant changes have been
identified regarding the number of tourists in the area. Any visual impacts of the
Route are confined to short stretches.
10. Visitation in the area of San Carlos, Nicaragua, could increase slightly due to
the opening of the new road that links this locality with Managua, which has
decreased travel time to 4.5 hours. However, this acces s points to national
tourism and backpackers.
11. Aquatic tourism is conducted mainly with the use of public service boats which
run at pre -established schedules and at very low cost. Otherwise the cost of
private boats for long stretches is very high and not common.
12. The touristic profile for those visiting the San Juan region is mainly one of a
backpacker willing to pay little and expect very basic services.
13. There continues to persist the need to make additional payment for the use of
the San Juan River on t he part of Costa Rica vessels and they must report
travel to authorities in San Carlos. This in addition to the less -than-friendly
treatment to tourists, which, along with the hostile atmosphere, does not create
a sense of safety and trust to promote organ ized visitation outside of Costa
Rica.
14. The effect of the construction of the Route does not have a direct impact on the
touristic movements of recent years.
7.1.4 Ecological Connectivity
1. Analysis of the structure of the landscape in the area makes evident a num ber
of weaknesses in the biodiversity and ecosystems conservation goals for the
Atlantic Watershed of Costa Rica. This is a dynamic and heterogeneous
landscape, characteristics which can have an impact on processes such as
ecological succession, adaptation , maintenance of diversity of species, stability
of communities, competence, interaction among predators and prey,
parasitism, epidemics and other stochastic events.
2. Identification of connectivity routes and the important connectivity areas in the
landscape of the area under study shows that these are not related to the
pathway of the Route, despite the fact that this access route is located in the
area of greatest forest cover in the area of the study. Likewise, it is possible to
say that Route 1856, becau se of the reduced extension of natural ecosystems
affected, has not generated a significant impact on the connectivity structure of
the landscape under study.
7.1.5 Impacts Identified
Based on the assessment of the activities conducted by the Route project, a s eries of
activities have been identified, as follows:
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%82!
522 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
¥ Cutting of trees in the right -of-way and contiguous areas.
¥ Partial sedimentation along the borders of wetlands neighbo uring the Route.
¥ Loss of trees and bushy vegetation located on the banks of streams, due to
flooding.
¥ Landslides and erosion of slopes affecting the forested areas alongside the Route.
¥ Affect to the wetland ecosystem (due to drainage, landfill and burning) .
¥ Affect to structural connectivity.
¥ Potential and localised affect to aquatic habitat.
¥ Potential and localised affect to micro-habitats and substrata of aquatic macro -
invertebrates due to filling of interstitial spaces with sediment.
¥ Potential localised decrease in taxonomic abundance and richness.
¥ Landscape affect due to the road works.
Furthermore, in lands near the section of Remolinito Grande de Sarapiquí, an area of 0.5
ha showed signs of burning of the wetland ecosystem, probably during the abnormally dry
summer. This procedure is applied by the settlers to change the natural use of pastures to
raise cattle.
Taking into account the results of the evaluations of the MIIA (see table 4 -3), the following
results were identified:
1. In the evaluation conducted by the 2013 EDA, 8 irrelevant impacts were identified
and 3 of a moderate level. I n the updating of the evaluation of impacts, 6 irrelevant
impacts were defined, and 5 of the moderate level.
2. For those impacts that changed from irrelevant to moderate, the increase takes
place within a maximum range of 10 units.
3. The sum of the total impor tance of impacts increases 12 units.
4. All impacts show a low to medium degree of intensity on the environment of Costa
Rica.
All impacts have a uniform value between the range of -18 and -34, which indicates
homogeneity in the low incidence of impacts along the Route.
7.2 Recommendations
Once the environmental conditions previously identified have been analy sed, a series of
recommendations are formulated that have been presented previously in this study, but
which are presented below in summary, accompanied by t he suggestion of a number of
activities to be executed as part of the prevention and mitigation measures in the area of
the path of Route 1856.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%83!
523Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
1. To strengthen the existing reforestation plan with the planting of trees at other sites
where it is not necessar y to cover road cuts, and to reforest with scarce native
species, threatened or endemic, or in danger of extinction and not using exotic
species, nor those not present in the area. It is recommended that species be
mixed, simulating the arboreal diversity of the forests and that the proportion of
species be approximately 50% of species that used to be common but which have
been decimated such as “Manu”, “Cocobolo” or “Jicaro”. The other 50% could
include species that are commonly planted by reforestation pr ograms in the area.
Sites with undulating and very undulating slopes should be prioritized within the
protection area of the San Juan River, and other streams and rivers in the Route
area.
2. Allow the natural regeneration of secondary vegetation where it eme rges
aggressively, avoiding cutting it down to plant other vegetation, or otherwise use
pioneering species of trees as shade to favo ur the growth of species that do not
tolerate the sun or grow better under shade, such as “Manu”, “Pinillo” or “Almendro
de Montaña”. At sites with strong slopes, it is suggested that the natural secondary
vegetation be allowed to recover, if possible. Since the total of forest cover lost was
quantified at 83 ha, it is suggested that an area of similar size be allowed to
recover naturally with secondary growth, in terrain next to the Route, giving priority
to the most hilly terrain close to the San Juan River, as a way to compensate the
native system, since common reforestation efforts do not propitiate ecosystems
similar to tho se required to maintain native biodiversity. With the purpose of
verifying the existence of tree species that are threatened by extinction within the
Route´s right-of-way, it is recommended that a forestry inventory be established of
species found along the Route.
3. Establishment of an integrated land use plan with the region.
4. Establishment of a protection and maintenance plan of the trees identified as being
threatened by extinction or under seasonal protection .
5. Identification of different sections and ecosy stems along the Route as tourism
incentives.
6. To clean accumulated sedimentation materials to allow the free flow of water along
natural drainage systems.
7. Where the Route approaches a wetland, as is the case of Laguna Remolinito
Grande, obstruction of the f ree flow of waters should be avoided by the use of
gutters or similar means, for the water that usually flows into the wetland to
circulate freely on both sides of the way.
8. Perform improvements in the drainage structures and landfills with the purpose of
avoiding any impact to local wetlands.
9. Continue remediation works aimed at the protection of slopes through the use of
geo-textiles, improvement of the angle of slant and use of drainage systems .
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%8!
524 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
10. Ensure the adequate drainage of waters at these sites, throug h the placement of
an adequate system of gutters, or lowering the level of the drains to avoid
accumulation of water affecting the Route itself. Once the excess water is drained,
it is suggested that the area be allowed to recover naturally through the sec ondary
regeneration of local vegetation.
11. Establish a monitoring plan along the path of the Route with the purpose of
verifying the recovery of the wetlands and preventing the cutting down of
vegetation by local inhabitants, as well as avoiding the presence of squatters along
the Route.
12. Establish a monitoring plan along the path of the Route in order to verify any
required maintenance to be carried out on the Route .
13. Avoid cementing of river and streambeds under drains and bridges.
14. Conduct a monitoring plan o f the conditions of aquatic habitats in riverbeds under
drainage systems and bridges, in order to monitor the state of the substrata of the
riverbeds monitored in this study, and take any necessary action.
15. Consolidate the road works in order to stabili se s lopes as soon as possible,
especially unstable slopes, to avoid the possibility of contributing sediment to the
aquatic environment.
16. Promote natural regeneration and ecological restoration along riverbanks.
17. Consolidate vegetation cover as a means to prevent the poor historical practices in
the land use prior to the construction of the Route reoccurring, particularly along
the bank of the San Juan River, thereby ensuring respect for the margin in the
future.
18. Even though the reforestation work carried out by CODEFORSA uses species
native to the area, it is recommended that fast growing species be kept in mind to
act as buffers of visual impacts in the short term. This process of reforestation
should also include species that can cover vertical spaces to serve as integral
visual barriers from the first 60 centimetr es upwards.
19. It is of basic importance that the effort at amelioration of the area be an integral
process that includes local community participation, and for this purpose it would
be advisable to devel op environmental education, civic education,
entrepreneurship, and self -development programs. The purpose is not just
reforestation, but also that in this area more than others, a commitment be made
evident, and the vision of a country that struggles for i ts sustainability, and, thus, for
an integrated and visionary work.
20. Improvement of the presence and conditions of safety in the area for inhabitants
and tourists alike.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%85!
525Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asamblea Legislativa. 1996. Ley Forestal. Decreto 7575. La Gaceta No 7 2. San José,
Costa Rica.
Alabaster, J.S. & R. Lloyd. 1980. Water quality criteria for Freshwater fish. London:
Butterworths.
Astorga, A., J.A. Fernández, G. Barboza, L. Campos, J.Obando, A. Aguilar& L.G. Obando.
1991. Cuencas sedimentarias de Costa Rica: e volución geodinámica y potencial de
hidrocarburos. Revista Geológicade América Central 13: 25 -59.
Astorga, A. 1992. Descubrimiento de corteza oceánica mesozoica en el norte de Costa
Rica y el sur de Nicaragua. Revista Geológicade América Central 14: 109 -112.
Astorga, A. 1997, El puente -istmo de América Central y la evolución de la Placa Caribe
(con énfasis en el Mesozoico). Profil 12: 1 -202.
Barquero, R., W. Rojas, R. Mora -Amador& A. Vargas. 2013. Informe anual de sismos
sentidos y actividad volcánica 2012. San José, Costa Rica: Red Sismológica Nacional.
Universidad de Costa Rica – Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.
Bergoeing, J.P., L.G. Brenes, R. Protti, R. Arce, L.G.Artavia, D. Salas, M. Carrillo.
1997. Atlas geomorfológico del Caribe de Costa Rica. Escala 1:350000. San José, Costa
Rica: Escuela de Geografí a, Universidad de Costa Rica.
Bergoeing, J.P., L.G. Brenes, R. Protti, R. Arce, L.G. Artavia, D.Salas& M. Carrillo.
2010. Atlas geomorfológico del Caribe de Costa Rica. Escala 1:1000000. San José, Costa
Rica: Escuela de Geografía, Universidad de Costa Rica .
Bolaños, R.& V. Watson. 1993. Mapa Ecológico de Costa Rica. Escala 1:200.000. San
José, Costa Rica: Centro Científico Tropical.
Bravo, J.& L. Ocampo. 1993. Humedales de Costa Rica. Heredia, Costa Rica: Universidad
Nacional / UICN.
Bussing, W. 1976. Geographic distribution of the San Juan Ichthyofauna of Central
America with Remarks on its origin and Ecology. In T. B. Thorson (ed). Investigations of
the ichthyofauna of Nicaraguan Lakes. Universidad de Nebraska-Lincoln, 157–175.
Bruton, M.N. 1985. The effects of suspensoids on fish. Hydrobiologia 125: 221–241.
Bussing, W. 1998. Peces de las aguas continentales de Costa Rica. San José, Costa
Rica: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
Bussing, W. 2002. Peces de las aguas continentales de Costa Rica. San José, Costa
Rica:Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
Carrillo, E., G. Wong & J. Sáenz. 2002. Mamíferos de Costa Rica. Heredia, Costa
Rica:Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%86!
526 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Centro Científ ico Tropical. 1996. Inventario de vegetación en el Proyecto MineroCerro
Crucitas. Placer Dome de Costa Rica S.A.
Centro Científico Tropical. 2008. Ficha informativa Humedales de Ramsar. Refugio
Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Maquenque. San José, Costa R ica: Centro Científico
Tropical.
Connolly, N. & R. Pearson. 2007. The effect of fine sedimentation on tropical stream
macroinvertebrate assemblages: a comparison using flow -through artificial stream
channels and recirculating mesocosms. Hydrobiologia 592:423–438.
Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano. 2012. El Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano: una
plataforma para el Desarrollo Sostenible regional. Managua, Nicaragua: Proyecto para la
Consolidación del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano.
COSEFORMA. 1992. Mapa de cobertura forestal en la Zona Norte. San José, Costa Rica:
COSEFORMA.
Chassot, O., G. Monge, G. Powell, S. Palminteri, P. Wright, M. Boza, J. Calvo & C. Padilla.
2001. Corredor Biológico San Juan -La Selva para proteger la lapa verde. Ambientico 95:
13-15.
Chassot, O. & G. Monge. 2002. Corredor Biológico San Juan -La Selva. Ficha técnica. San
José, Costa Rica: Centro Científico Tropical.
Chassot, O., G. Monge, A. Ruiz & L. Valerio. 2005. Ficha técnica binacional del Corredor
Biológico El Castillo -San Juan -La Selva, Nicaragua -Costa Rica. Managua, Nicaragua:
SICA / CCAD / CBM (Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano, Serie técnica 17).
Chassot, O., A. Mata & G. Monge (Eds.). 2006. Evaluación Ambiental del Refugio
Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Maquenque. San Pedro, Cos ta Rica: Centro Científico
Tropical.
Chassot, O & G. Monge (Eds.). 2006. Plan de Manejo del Refugio Nacional de Vida
Silvestre Mixto Maquenque, 2006 -2010. Ciudad Quesada, Costa Rica: MINAE -SINAC-
ACAHN / Centro Científico Tropical.
Chow, N. F. (s.f). Comportamiento del fitoplancton en los ríos tributarios del Río San Juan.
Recuperado junio de 2013, de http://www.bvsde.org.ni/Web_textos/CIRA/Cira0005/09.pdf
Doppelt, B., M. Scurlock, C. Frissell & J. Karr. 1993. Entering the watershed: a new
approach to save Americas’ river ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Downes, B.J., P.S. Lake, A. Glaister & N.R. Bond. 2006. Effects of sand sedimentation on
the macroinvertebrate fauna of lowland streams: are the effects consistent? Freshwater
Biology 51:144–160.
Elizondo, L.H. 1997. Estudios de cambio climático en Costa Rica, "Componente:
vulnerabilidad de los bosques ante el cambio climático". Especies de fauna vulnerables.
San José, Costa Rica: MINAE / Instituto Meteorológico Nacional (Informe técnico No 5).
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%8!
527Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Espinoza, M. 2008. Sondeo ecológico de las comunidades de peces tropicales en un área
de explotación minera en Costa Rica. Revista de Biología Tropical 56 (4): 1971 -1990.
Flores, E. 1992. Dipteryx panamensis, Árboles y Semillas del Neotrópico. Trees and
Seeds from the Neotropics 1(1): 1 -22.
Gazel, E., Alvarado, G., Obando, J., Alafaro, A., 2005. Geología y evolución magmática
del arco de Sarapiquí, Costa Rica. Revista Geológicade América Central 32: 13 -31.
Groom, M., D.B. Jensen, R.L. Knight, S. Gatewood, L. Mill s, D. Boyd Heger, L.S. Mills, &
M.E. Soulé. 1999. Buffer zones: benefits and dangers of compatible stewardship. In Soulé,
M.E.& J. Terborgh (eds.). Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional
reserve networks. Washington, DC: Island Press, 171-197.
Hartshorn, G. 2002. Biogeografía de los bosques neotropicales. In Guariguata, M.& G.
Kattan (comp.). Ecología y conservación de bosques neotropicales. Cartago, Costa Rica:
Libro Universitario Regional, 59 -81.
Hedrick, L. 2008. Evaluation of the i mpacts of highway construction on sediment and
benthic macroinvertebrates in Appalachian Stream. Ph.D. thesis, Davis College of
Agriculture, Forestry and Consumer Sciences at West Virginia University. West Virginia,
USA.
Holdridge, L. 1987. Ecología basada en zonas de vida. San José, Costa Rica:Centro
Científico Tropical.
Holdridge, L., L. Poveda, & Q. Jiménez. 1997. Árboles de Costa Rica. San José, Costa
da
Rica: Centro Científico Tropical, (2 ed. actualizada).
INBIO. 2013. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversid ad. Recuperado junio de 2013, de
http://darnis.inbio.ac.cr/ubisen/FMPro? -DB=UBIPUB.fp3&-lay=WebAll&-error=norec.html&
-Format=detail.html&-Op=eq&id=3971&-Find
IUCN, 2013. IUCN Global Species Programme Red List Unit. Recuperado junio de 2013,
de http://www.iucnredlist.org/search
Janzen, D. (ed.). 1983. Costa Rican Natural History.Chicago & London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Jiménez, Q. 1993. Árboles maderables en peligro de extinción en Costa Rica. San José,
Costa Rica: Instituto Nacional de Biodivers idad, (2 daed. revisada y ampliada).
Jiménez, Q. 1997. Estudios de cambio climático en Costa Rica, "Componente:
vulnerabilidad de los bosques ante el cambio climático". Especies de flora amenazadas o
en peligro de extinción. San José, Costa Rica: MINAE / I nstituto Meteorológico Nacional
(Informe técnico No 6).
Kaller, M.D. & K.J. Hartman. 2004. Evidence of a threshold level of Þne sediment
accumulation for altering benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 518: 95 –
104.
Tropical Science Center
! 2014 !
Page%8!
528 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Lara, R. 2006. Morfometría y biología reproductiva de Macrobrachium carcinus
(Decapoda, Palaemonidae), Río San Carlos – Río San Juan, Costa Rica – Nicaragua.
Tesis de licenciatura, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.
Laurance, S. G. W. 2004. Landscape connectivity and b iological corridors. In Schroth, G.,
G. da Fonseca, C. Harvey, C. Gascon, H. L. Vasconcelos & A. M. N. Izac (eds.).
Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island
Press, 50-63.
Leenders, T. 2001. A Guide to Amphi bians and Reptiles of Costa Rica. Miami: Zona
Tropical.
Mc Dade, L., K. Bawa, H. Hespenheide & G. Hartshorn. 1994. La Selva: Ecology and
Natural History of a Neotropical Rain Forest. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Madriz, B. 2004. Relación de de pendencia directa para la alimentación y anidación de la
lapa verde (Ara ambigua) y el almendro (Dipteryx panamensis) en la zona norte de Costa
Rica. San José, Costa Rica: SINAC, FONAFIFO.
Mata, R. 1991. Los Ordenes de suelos de Costa Rica. Taller de Ero sión, Memoria.
Heredia, Costa Rica: MADE, UNA.
Mata, A. & F. Quevedo. 2005. Diccionario didáctico de ecología. San José, Costa Rica:
Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
MARENA. 2001. Vedas nacionales indefinidas, Nicaragua. Resolución ministerial 00 7-99.
Managua, Nicaragua: MARENA, Proyecto Manejo Sostenible del Municipio El Castillo, Río
San Juan / DANIDA, afiche.
Melton, B. 2009. In-stream gravel mining impacts and environmental degradation feedback
associated with gravel mining on the Rio Tigre of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica, and the
proposed ADI Jimenez Gravel Mining Concession. Austin, Texas: Melton Engineering
Services.
Mena, Y. & G. Zamora. 1998. Parques nacionales y otras áreas silvestres protegidas de
Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: MINAE -SINAC.
Monge, G., O. Chassot, R. Lopez & H. Chaves. 2002. Justificación biológica para la
creación del propuesto Parque Nacional Maquenque . San José, Costa Rica: Centro
Científico Tropical.
Monge, G., O. Chassot, G. Powell, S. Palminteri, U. Aleman & P. W right. 2003. Ecología
de la lapa verde (Ara ambigua) en Costa Rica.Zeledonia 7(2): 4-12.
Monge, G. & O. Chassot. 2005. Corredor Biológico San Juan -La Selva: trayectoria local,
nacional, binacional, regional e internacional. In Rojas, L. & M. Chavarría (Eds .).
Corredores biológicos de Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Corredor Biológico
Mesoamericano.
Moreno, T. & E. Müller. 2007. Formulario de Propuesta. Reserva de Biosfera Agua y Paz,
Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Universidad para la Cooperación Intern acional.
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%89!
529Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Mol, J. & P.E. Ouboter. 2003. Downstream Effects of Erosion from Small -Scale Gold
Mining on the Instream Habitat and Fish Community of a Small Neotropical Rainforest
Stream. Conservation Biology 18:201 –214.
MINAE. 2005. Reglamento a ley de conserv ación de la vida silvestre. Decreto 32633. La
Gaceta No. 180. San José, Costa Rica: MINAE.
Packer, D.B., K. Griffin & K.E. Mc Glynn. 2005. A review of the effects of in - and near-
stream gravel extraction on anadromous fishes and their habitats, with recomm endations
for avoidance, minimization and mitigation, NMFS -F/SPO-70.
Peterjohn, W. T. & D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed:
observations on the role of riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466 -1475.
Powell, P., P. Wright, U. Al eman, C. Guidon, S. Palminteri & R. Bjork. 1999. Resultados y
recomendaciones para la conservación de la lapa verde (Ara ambigua) en Costa Rica.
San José, Costa Rica: Centro Científico Tropical.
Pringle C. 2006. Hydrologic connectivity: a neglected dimensi ón of conservation biology. In
Crooks, K. R. & M. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity conservation. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 233 -254.
Proyecto Río San Juan -Amigos de la Tierra. 2000. Plan de Manejo del Refugio Nacional
de Vida Silvestre Corredor Biológico Fronterizo.Versión final sin publicar.
Quesada, F. & Q. Jiménez. 1997. Árboles de la Península de Osa. Heredia, Costa Rica:
Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad.
Quesada,M.R. 1997. Struktur und Dynamik eines tropischen Feuchtwaldes nach
Holznutzung in Costa Rica. Dokt. Diss. Forstwiss. Fachbereicht, Universität Göttingen,
Deutschland..
Rabeni, C., K. Doisy & L. Zweig. 2005. Stream invertebrate community functional
responses to deposited sediment. Aquatic Sciences 67: 395 -402.
Reid, F. 1997. A Fi eld Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rojas, R. 2002. Estudio de base para la evaluación del impacto ambiental de un proyecto
de minería de oro en Cerro Crucitas. Descripción de la ictiofauna. Ap éndice 7.1. Estudio
de impacto ambiental. Proyecto Minero Crucitas. Tomo IV. Apéndices 6.4 -8.5. San José,
Costa Rica: Industrias Infinito, DEPPAT, Jacques Whitford Environments Limited.
Ryan, P.A. 1991: Environmental effects of sediment on New Zealand streams: a review.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 25:207 -221.
Salas, M. 2008. Aplicación de los lineamientos de la Convención Ramsar en la
conservación de los humedales del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Maquenque.
San Ramón, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.
Salvatierra, T., R. Varela & L. Moreno. 2013. Macroinvertebrados acuáticos como
indicadores biológicos de calidad. In T. Salvatierra (ed). Contribución al establecimiento
Tropical Science Center
!
2014 !
Page%9!
530 Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
de la línea de base ambiental del río San Juan de Nicaragua - 2012. Managua, Nicaragua:
Centro para la Investigación en Recursos Acuáticos de Nicaragua, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de Nicaragua, 138 - 157.
Sánchez-Vindas, P. & L. Poveda. 1987. Claves dendrológicas para la identificación de los
principales árboles y palmas de la zona norte y atlántica de Costa Rica. San José, Costa
Rica: Overseas Development Administration.
Savage, J.M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. A Herpetofauna between
two continents, between two seas. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Springer, M. 2008. Biomonitoreo de la fauna de macroinvertebrados acuáticos en los
cuerpos de agua en el área de la explotación minera Crucitas, San Carlos, Costa Rica.
San José, Costa Rica: Laboratorio de Biomonitoreo Acuáti co, AquaBioLab, S.A.
Stiles, G., A. Skutch & D. Gardner. 1989. Guía de aves de Costa Rica. Heredia, Costa
Rica: Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad.
Stotz, D., J. Fitzpatrick, T. Parker & D. Moskovits. 1996. Neotropical Birds. Ecology and
Conservation. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Talley, D.M., G.R. Huxel& M. Holyoak. 2006. Connectivity at the land -water interface. In
Crooks, K.R. & M. Sanjayan (eds.). Connectivity conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 97-129.
Tournon, J. & Bellon H., 2009. The southern Central America puzzle: cronology and
structure. A review. Revista Geológica de América Central 32: 13 -31.
UICN-Mesoamérica. 1999. Humedales de Mesoamérica, Sitios Ramsar de Centroamérica
y México. San José, Costa Rica: Unión Mundial para la Naturaleza.
Vilhena, F., B. Finegan, S. Velásquez& B.C. França. 2004. Parámetros para la
delimitación y manejo adaptativo de zonas de amortiguamiento en parques nacionales del
Cerrado, Brasil. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente 41:16 -24.
Villate, R., L. Canet, O.Chassot & G. Monge. 2008. El Corredor Biológico San Juan -La
Selva: una estrategia exitosa de conservación. The Nature Conservancy, Centro Científico
Tropical, CATIE.
Vreugdenhill, D., J. Meerman, A. Meyrat, L.D. Gómez& D.J. Graham . 2002. Map of the
ecosystems of Central America: final report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wagenhoff, A., C. Townsend & C. Mattgaei. 2012. Macroinvertebrate responses along
broad stressor gradients of deposited fine sediments and dissolved nutrients: a st ream
mesocosm experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 892 –902.
Wood, P.J. & P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic
environment. Environmental Management 21:203–217
World Bank, Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarro llo (CCAD). 2001.
Ecosystems of Central America (ArcView regional map files at 1:250,000). Washington,
DC: World Bank, Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo (CCAD), World
Tropical Science Center
!
2014!
Page%9!
531Annex 14
Follow up and Monitoring Study
Route 1856 Project – EDA Ecological Component!
!
!
Institute for Conservation and Environment (WICE), Centro Agronómico Tro pical de
Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE).
Zamora, N., Q. Jiménez & L. Poveda. 2000. Árboles de Costa Rica. Vol. II. Santo
Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica: Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Centro Científico
Tropical, Conservación Internacional.
! Tropical Science Center
2014 !
Page%92!
532 Annex 14
& ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 93
! &ps
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page%
Site&10Dwn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
&
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 !
Ups
! &
Site&9 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
udy Dwn
& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 1 ! ! 3 !
&
Site&8 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 2 1 1 1 2 1
&
1 ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! !
Ups
Si&7 & ! !
! 1 ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
EDA Ecological Component Dwn
– & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Follow up and Monitoring St * least common taxa orUpsth limited distribution 1
!
Site&6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 !
Dwn
! !
1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!ps
Site&5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Route 1856 Project Dwn 1 ! 1 2 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 2 !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7 !
Ups
! !
Site&4&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 !
eam (Ups) from the Route. ( 2014
-nvertebrates collected at the stu!y sit!s alon! Route!1856, !uan Ra!ael ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 1 2 ! 5 !
!
Site&3&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tropical Science Center
Dwn 6
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 !
Ups
Site&2&&& ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 1 !
Dwn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 1 1 13
!
Site1&&& ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 3 !
Dwn
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
October, 2014. Downstgroup(Dwn) y Upstr
- Genus&/
!
gen.!indet.gin edne.gen.!indet.tisHceutse!PealmnGisycrertues*.!Hinyddte.cnagen.!indet.c.irtgen.!indet.en.!iCera.etopogoninaypomiChironominae.!indet.
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
Family
/&group ! ! ! ! ! ! !
: Taxa richness and individual abundance of aquatic macroopidaeytisEclimdai!deae Gyrin Lidane Nicoht!raieaeScirtidaeStapehylinidaCerafam.!indet.ntioa peogoChireono!mida
- ! !
9 ! !
ANNEXES optera
Order /&group
! 9 AnexxMora in the country, taken as reference material deposited in the Zoology Museum, UCR. ! ! ! ! ! Collem Dbipotlar!a ! ! !
533Annex 14
& !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 94
! Ups
& ! Page%
Site&10 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 1 1 1 1
&
! Site&9 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
udy Dwn
&
! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups
Site&8 & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 2
&wn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 3 33 2
te&7 &
Si ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
EDA Ecological Component Dwn
– & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Follow up and Monitoring St ! ! ! ! ! ! 63 1 4 1 ! 1 ! ! 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! 3 ! 2
!ps
Site&6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 4 ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 2 ! ! 2 ! ! !
Ups 12
! !
Route 1856 Project Site&5 1 ! 1 ! ! ! 41 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! !
Dwn
! ! !
Ups ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
Site&4&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 1
! 2014
3 5 ! ! ! 1 1 ! ! ! 7 ! ! ! ! 5 4 ! ! ! 2 ! !
Ups 10
! ! ! ! !
Site&3&& 5 1 1 ! ! ! 15 ! 13 ! 7 ! ! ! ! 5 17 ! ! ! 20 ! ! Tropical Science Center
Dwn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! 2 ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 4 1 ! ! 1 ! !
!
Site&2&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 2
!
1 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! 2
Ups
Site1&&& ! ! !
! 2 ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
group ! elobaetidiu
Genus&/
OrthToacnlaydpTanytarsinioepChuelelegxsenSimulium.exatA omma erica BbaaeetotdsaelslCamstis*FallceonMorgen.!indet.ss* Cabecar* EpiphradestT orhicyprhFarrodessgen.!indet.
!
! ! ! ! !
Family/&group cidae ! !
! ! ! Culi ! ! ! Simuliidaeulid BaaeetidaBeaetid!ae ! ! ! ! ! CaenidaLepa toehy!phid ! ! Lepd toapeh!lebii !
! !
Order /&group
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ephteem raeErpohpterae!rop ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
534 Annex 14
& !
! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 95
! Ups
& ! Page%
Site&10 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 1 3 2 1
&
! Site&9 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
udy Dwn
& !
! ! ! 2 1 ! ! ! ! 12 ! ! 5 2 ! 3 ! ! ! 1 !
Ups
Site&8 & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! 1 ! ! ! 1 !
&wn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 5 1
te&7 &
Si ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! 3 ! ! ! ! !
EDA Ecological Component Dwn
– & ! ! ! !
Follow up and Monitoring St ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 1 2 1 ! ! ! !
!ps
Site&6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 2 ! ! ! ! !
!
! 2 ! 1 ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 11
!
Route 1856 ProjectSite&5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
!
Ups ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
Site&4&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 1 1
! 2014
! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! 5 ! 1 ! 1
Ups 17 11
!
Site&3&& 5 ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! 5 ! ! ! ! Tropical Science Center
Dwn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! 3 ! 2 ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! 8 ! ! 1 4 ! ! !
!
Site&2&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 2 1 1 1
!
! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups
Site1&&& ! ! !
! 2 ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
group itoides* !
Genus&/
ThraU ullmdeersBelostomagen.!inPota umniodbenMesoveliaseso Avmeb lRriyadnatMartarega*gneenc.!M tianidrRhagoveliaCorydalus HetaeriA nragia Enallgaegnm .!ie*d.eAgriogomphus*
! ! !
! ! !
Famil/&group ! tonectida ! !
! ! Belodsateomatirrid!ae! Meseoveliida! NaucNoerp iNo eee! ! Velii!dae ! CorydalidaeoapeteCro ygedindaaegrioni ! ! Gomphidae
!
!
Order/&group
! ! ! Hemip!tera ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MegaaloptOedronat!a ! ! ! ! ! !
535Annex 14
& !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 96
! Ups
& Page%
Site&10 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 2 5
&
! Site&9 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
udy Dwn
&
! ! ! ! ! 2 ! 1 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups
Site&8 & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
&wn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups
te&7 &
Si ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! !
EDA Ecological Component Dwn
– & ! ! ! ! !
Follow up and Monitoring St ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! 11 ! ! 9 ! 1 ! ! !
!ps
Site&6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! 3 ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! 1 2 2 ! 1 1 ! 1 ! ! ! !
Ups 11
!
Route 1856 ProjectSite&5 1 1 ! 1 ! 2 ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! ! !
Dwn
!
Ups ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
Site&4&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 1
! 2014
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 1
Ups
!
Site&3&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 ! ! 2 ! Tropical Science Center
Dwn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! ! 1 ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
Site&2&&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 1
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1
Ups
Site1&&&! !
! ! ! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
group ! !
Genus&/
Epigo gemnp.!Brachymesia*cEhlmgao*grhno.gMacrothemis*rNatehoycroHeteragrion** umatoneurassolestes*eurHelicopsychem trao!m*acroneomneicm rChimarran.!indet. gen.!indet..
! ! ! !
! ! !
Family/&group ! ! !
! ! Libellulidae ! ! ! ! ! Megioanpioddaaegr PerilPeestrildHelidcaoepH syycdhroi psychi ! Phild oapeotaminarfiaid ma.e!ind Pehty.sidae
!
! !
mat !
!
Order /&group
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PlecopTtreicrhaop!tera ! ! ! ! TriclTardoidrmabeidsifsoomphora !
536 Annex 14
& ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8 7 97
! &ps
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page%
Site&1Dwn ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! 4 3
&
! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! !
Ups 23 12
! &
Site&9 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 2 UCR.
udy Dwn
& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 41 14
&
Site&8 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 !
Dwn 1 1 1 11
& !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 47 8
Ups
Si&7 & ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 17 7
EDA Ecological Componentwn
– & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Follow up and Monitoring StUps 118 20
!
Site&6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9
Dwn 15
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2 62 20
!ps
Site&5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Route 1856 Project! Dwn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 67 17
!
! 1 ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! 5
Ups 12
! ! !
Site&4&&& ! 1 ! 1 5 ! ! ! 17 8
Dwn 2014
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 86 22
! !
Site&3&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tropical Science Center
Dwn 113 15
! ! !
! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! 35 18
Ups
Site&2&&& ! ! !
! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! 16 9
Dwn
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ups 29 12
!
Site1&&& ! ! 1 1 ! ! ! ! ! !
Dwn 20 12
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
group
Genus&/
gen.!inHelo trbiserlei!ilf.eglaactr*bgdueele!ti*geetn..!indetMacrobgreanc.h!iin udmet.nl!doifv!idualsaxa
! !
! !
Family !
/&group ! ! ! ! !
PlanorbGlosdsaipehonii ! Thiaridafaem.!indet.alaeemPosneid hauositdhaeelp !
!
!
! !
Order /&group ) Least common taxa or with limited distribution in the country, taken as reference material deposited in the Zoology Museum,
! !asomophR ohrayenlclihd! d ! Neolo tasesniiggaochaeDtecapo!da ! ! ! ( !
537Annex 14
!
98
Page%
-014.
the score
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! *! ! ! !
& & ! !
& 2,550,110,84 ! ! ! Ups24 Poo1r,9006,1506,9373936Poo1r,770,230,85
& ! !
Ups75 Regular 84 Reg2 u,a3r0,140,78 !
! ! ! ! ! Site&&0 ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Site&5& ! ! ! ! !
! 1,690,400,58 ! Dwn 13 VerPyo ! o1r,040,3705,944644 Poor 1,580,360,64
Dwn 62 Regular 63 Reg1 u,a5r0,250,69
! ! ! ! & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
1,230,390,77 ! ! ! ! Ups44 Poo2r,280,120,9237 Poo2r,010,200,84
! & & ! ! &
Ups10 Very!poor 27 Poo1r,*8!00,190,92 !
! ! ! ! Site&9
Site&4&&& !
1,730,230,83 & ! ! ! *! ! ! !
& ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! Dwn 10 Ver0 y!6o90or01,0020 Poo2r,020,170,84
Dwn 8 Very!poor 50 Poo2r,490,110,86
! ! ! ! ! & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
& ! ! ! & ! !
& ! 2,650,090,86 ! Ups46 Poo2r,410,130,8748 Poor 2,420,110,94
Ups66 Regular 72 Reg2 u,a5r0,070,88 Site&8 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Site&3&& ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! or !
! ! Dwn 33 Po 2,400,100,965 5 Poor 2,490,100,94
Dwn 41 Poor 2,460,100,89 55 Poo2r,140 ,21 0,70
! ! ! ! ! ! !
& ! ! ! ! ! & ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!DA!Ecological!Component & 2,590,100,90 & ! ! 2014
! Ups43 Poor ! ! ! 44 Poo2r,400,100,96 Ups24 Poo1r,120,510,5466 Regular490,110,90
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study ! !
Site&2&&& ! 1,930,200,88 ! ! ! Site&7
!roject ! ! & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Tropical Science Center
Dwn 28 Poor 62 Reg2 u,a9r0,080,92 ! !
1856 ! ! ! ! Dwn 26 Poo1r,680,220,8675 Regular620,080,97
! & ! !
& ! 1,940,240,78 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Route Ups44 Poor! 76 Reg2 u,a9r0,080,90 & & ! !
Site&1&&& ! ! ! ! ! Ups80 Reg1u,l8ar0,310,6145 Poo2r,360,110,95
! ! ! ! ! !
2,390,100,96 Site&& ! ! ! ! *! ! ! !
Dwn 34 Poor 48 Poo2r,210,140,89 ! !
Dwn 35 Poo2r,080,140,9534 Poo1r,930,170,93
& & & & &
CR & CR & & &
I & & I & & & & & & &
Index IR & IR &
Index & &
CR indexes, Shannon´s diversity, Dominance and Jacquard´s Equity for sampling sites in Route 1856. 2013
- BMWPQuaDliitvye DrosmtyinuBitycWuPaDliitvDrositinuaityce
& &
&
& & & &
& & 2014 2013
& 2014 2013
: Table with BWMP
- * obtained (Annex 3).undervalued in the 2013 report as red (very poor), being the correct category orange (poor) according to
9
! Anexx !
538 Annex 14
!
- 99
Page%
Blue Blue GreenYellow Red
COLOR Orange
!
-20
! ! -00 6- -5
BMWP’ >120 101 61 36 16 <15
-R index, in accordance with Regulation No. 33903 MINAE
!
!DA!Ecological!Component 2014
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study
!roject Tropical Science Center
!856
Route
Quality Level
ity according to the sum obtained in the BMWP
e level
Excellenooqdnsltvlgywlarersa,trlyertlys,ertroaoiyiryptorlrttdtromlluonpolluted
: Table showing water qual
-
9
! Ane(La Gaceta, Sept. 2007). ! ! !
539Annex 14
!
! 1 1 100
Ups
Site 10 1 Page%
Dwn
1
! ! Ups
Site 9 8
Dwn
1 1 1
Ups
Site 8
1 1 3
Dwn
!DA!Ecological!ComponUps 1
!
Follow!up!and!MonitorSite 7udy
1 1
!roject Dwn
!856 Ups
Site 6
Route 856. Dwn
Ups
Site 5
Dwn 1 2 1 1 1
!
Ups 2014
-nvertebrates collected in study sites along Route 1856, Juan Rafael Mora
Site 4 2 2
Dwn
Tropical Science Center
1
Ups
Site 3
Dwn
Ups
Site 2 1
Dwn
1 1
Ups
Site1 2 8
Dwn
August, 2013. Downstream (Dwn) y Upstream (Ups) from the Route 1 *
-
:Taxa richness and individual abundance of aquatic macro
- anoselaphus
9
DerVvaaeluss. deyoeepureMacilelrpcslloeensdit.niciticsr*AnchytaGrseunsdee. . dee. . Indet.
Dytiscidae Elmidae HydrophLiiiaichidsaeepntiaeacStycliietaphylinmapeyidray*idae
! AnPexorras Road C,oulyptera !
540 Annex 14
!
! 2 101
Ups
Site 10 1 2 Page%
Dwn
1 2 1 3 1
! ! Ups
Site 9 1 1 2 1
Dwn
1
Ups
Site 8
2 1 1 1
Dwn
!DA!EcologicaUpsomponent 1 1 1
!
Follow!up!anSite 7toring!Study
1 1
!roject Dwn
!856 Ups1 1
Site 6
Route Dwn 1
Ups 1 1 2 2
Site 5
Dwn 32 2
!
Ups 2014
Site 4 1 1
Dwn 13
Tropical Science Center
2 1 4 5 1 3 1 1
Ups 10 10
Site 3 2 1 1 1 1 1
Dwn 13 49
2 1
Ups
Site 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Dwn
4 1 2 1 1
Ups
Site1 9 1
Dwn
Taxon
dae pobaetis
ElmoparnusBezPziraobezhiorhoanyanGyers.edeetate.Indetdesopullxesn. dit.ulium AmeAricaCCtseFisceon
CeratopogoCnhidiraoenomidae Tipulidae Culici Simuliidae Baetidae
! Diptera Ephemeroptera !
541Annex 14
!
! 102
Ups
Site 10 1 1 Page%
Dwn
1 1
! ! Ups
Site 9 1
Dwn
2 4 1 1 1
Ups
Site 8
2 1 4
Dwn
!DA!EcologicaUpsomponent 1 1
!
Follow!up!anSite 7toring!Study
3 1
!roject Dwn
!856 Ups 2 3 2
Site 6
Route Dwn 2
Ups 17 22 1 3 4 1 9 1
Site 5
Dwn 15 1 2
!
3 1 1
Ups 2014
Site 4 9 1 1 2 1
Dwn
Tropical Science Center
6 1 7 5
Ups 13
Site 3 2 3 3 1 1
Dwn 11
2 1 1 1
Ups
Site 2 6 1 2
Dwn
4 5 7 1 1 7 1
Ups
Site1 2 6 3
Dwn
nervis
Taxon
nis
Cae FarrToeTsius*m*erMidaecscertucia*pLohiopytupernsise*loto. IdrtPhoPmoeamolbatesTaobaleersmateraetra withei*
CaenidaLeptophlebiidae HeptageLeipaeyphidae BelostomatGiareridae
! Hemiptera unidenbetgrothi* !
542 Annex 14
!
! 6 16 1 103
Ups
Site 107 25 27 1 1 Page%
Dwn
9 2
! ! Ups
Site 9 7 1 6 34 1 2
Dwn
1 1
Ups
Site 8
1 2 1
Dwn
!DA!EcologicUpsComponent 4 4
!
Follow!up!anSite 7toring!Study
2
!roject Dwn
!856 Ups 2 3
Site 6
Route Dwn 4 1
Ups 1 1 1 2 1
Site 5
Dwn 1 3 2
!
3 1 1
Ups 2014
Site 4 3 1 2 5 5 1 1 2
Dwn
Tropical Science Center
3 3
Ups 19
Site 3
Dwn 14
1 6 1
Ups
Site 2 1 1 7 2
Dwn
1 3 1 4
Ups
Site1 1 1 3 2 2
Dwn
*
Taxon bia
ectidae
Gen. Ideetn.agoHydroeataatr*artaen.Indet.oveloriviveli*etaerAacantgiagrHneteraronnenr.adeatl.aemnema
CorixidaHeydroetrpidNotone Veliidae CalopteryognagrionideageapotorinrdeaatystPidlhoridae *
! Odonata !
543Annex 14
!
! 104
Ups
Site 10 2 Page%
Dwn
1
! ! Ups
Site 9
Dwn
1 3
Ups
Site 8
1
Dwn
!DA!EcologicaUpsomponent 2 8 2
!
Follow!up!aSite 7itoring!Study
1 1 1 2 1
!roject Dwn
!856 Ups 1 5 1
Site 6
Route Dwn 1 1
Ups 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3
Site 5
Dwn 1 1
!
Ups 2014
Site 4
Dwn
Tropical Science Center
1 2 1
Ups
Site 3 2 7 2
Dwn
2
Ups
Site 2 1
Dwn
1 1 4
Ups
Site1
Dwn
Taxon
psychidae
Gen. Indgtogioophpog*omnhIuse*itheonpdae.coGuelina.*Indet. PraelicopsLyeoaecrnieriN*aetopcythes
Gomphidae LibellulidaeCordudae . Indet.GlossooeliidaeydropsychidaeLeptoceridaPolycentropodidae
! Trichoptera !
544 Annex 14
!
! 1 105
Ups
Page%
Site 10 1
Dwn
Ups
! !
Site 9
Dwn
Ups 2
Site 8
Dwn 1 1
3 1 1
–DA!EcologicaUpsomponent
!
Follow!up!anSite 7toring!Study 2
Project Dwn
!
2 2
!856 Ups
Route Site 6 1 2
Dwn
Ups
Site 5 6
Dwn !
1
Ups 2014
Site 4 5
Dwn
Tropical Science Center
5 2 1
Ups
Site 3
2
Dwn
Ups 3 1
Site 2
Dwn 6 1
Ups
Site1 2
Dwn
Taxon
CernotinPah*ylloicus Anacroneaorydalus Gen. Indet. Gen. Indet. Gen. Indet. Gen. IndGeet.n. Indet. Haementeria
CalamoceraPteridae CorydalidaePyralidae Blaberidae Fam. Indet.HaplotNiaideidae Glossiphoniidae
! PlecopteraMegalopterLaepidopterDictyopteraTrombidiforHaplotaxida Rhynchobdellida !
545Annex 14
!
! 1 106
Ups
Page%
Site 10 1
Dwn
Ups
! !
Site 9
Dwn
Ups
Site 8
Dwn
1 2
–DA!EcologicUpsComponent
!
Follow!up!anSite 7toring!Study 2 1
Project Dwn
!
!856 Ups
Route Site 6
Dwn
1
Ups
Site 5 1
Dwn !
Ups 2014
Site 4
Dwn
Tropical Science Center
12 2 3
Ups
Site 3
1 1
Dwn
Ups 1
Site 2
Dwn 1
Ups 1
Site1
Dwn
Taxon
Gen. Indet. Genommatophoran. IndGeet.n. IndGeet.n. Indet. Gen. Indet. Gen. aehnindet.robrG
Planariidae AmpullariidaLeymidhayesielanorbidaeHydrobiidaeThiaridaePalaemoPnsdaeothelphusidae
! FamT.rIiet.ida ArchitaenioBsssa NeotaeniogS osrseoconcDecapoda Isopoda !
546 Annex 14
!
! 1 30 9 107
Ups
Page%
SiteDwn 71 11
Ups 23 11
! !
Site 9
Dwn 65 10
Ups 21 13
Site 8
Dwn 24 15
EDA!Ecological!Component 34 16
! Ups
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study
Site 7 21 14
!roject Dwn
!856 25 12
Ups
Site 6
Route 13 8
Dwn
Ups 82 25
Site 5
Dwn 73 17
!
6
Ups 11 2014
Site 4
Dwn 58 17
Tropical Science Center
1
Ups 12626
Site 3 19
Dwn 119
23 13
Ups
Site 2 43 20
Dwn
Ups 53 22
Site1
42 12
Dwn
Taxon
Indet. Taxa Richness
Gen. Indet. Gen. Indet.individuals
Fam. Fam. Indet.
! Ostracoda ! ! !
547Annex 14
!
!
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
! % 108
'
2014
' Moderate Irrelevant Irrelevant Irrelevant Moderate IrrelevanModerate Irrelevant Moderate Moderate Irrelevant
Page%
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Assessment
%
'
! ! %013
Moderate! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant!IrrelevanItr!relevaIrnrte!levant! Moderate! Irrelevant! Moderate! Irrelevant!
% '
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
F4 F2 F8 F4 F8 F8 F1 F4 F0 F3 F5 F87
2014
I
'
% ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
#4! #5! #8! #4! #4! #8! #4! #9! #0! #4! #5! 275'
2013 F
' 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2
MC ' '
EDA!Ecological!Component 4!/! 4!/! 2!/! 4!/! 4!/! 4!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/!
–
! '
' ' 4 2 2 2 4 1 4 1 4 2 1 '
Follow!up!and!Monitoring!Study PR ' '
4!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 1!/! 1!/! 2!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/!
!roject !
' 4 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 4 4
EF ' '
1856 4!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 4!/! 1!/! 4!/! 1!/! 1!/! 4!/! 4!!/!
!
' ' 1 1 1 ! 1 1 4 4 4 1 4
AC ' '
Route 1!/! 4!/! 1!/! 4!/!4 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 4!/! 4!/! 4!/! 4!/!
up and Monitoring Study.
-
' ' 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 '
SI ' '
1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 2!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/!
Impact'Characteristic ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
' ' 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 '
RV ' '
4!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
' ' 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 '
PE 4!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/!
2014
' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ' ! ! !
' 4 4 2 2 4 1 4 3 3 4 4 '
MO 4!/! 4!/! 2!/! 2!/! 4!/! 1!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 2!/! 4!/!
' ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ' ! ! !
' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 ' Tropical Science Center
EX 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 2!/! 1!/!
' 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1
IN ' '
2!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 1!/! 2!/! 4!/! 1!/! 4!/! 1!/!
F ' # # # # # # # # # # # '
+/
Matrix'of'Importance'of'the'Environmental'Impact'(MIIA)'for'the'Route'1856'project'in'COSTA'RICA'territory ! -abitats
the Matrix of Importance of Environmental Impact fr-ay and and 2014. invertebrates
-f -
'
! '
Impact
Cutting down forests in right Affectation of the wetland ecosystem (due Environmental Impact Residual Value
a. surroundinb. PaalorntigalRsoeudticem.1eEa8nlli5otma6nti.ignoanritviooefnrbwdoa.efnLtttlhkaraesenn,eddfdsosubrlaieeodnst.aaedocalicucrtneroseredonpattaorisakcitdyueoenfttswoactoenr structionitikstatthsysaxctocaioanpnuoesmoaefifdcftehbceytaqstuieoadnliimonenrctdncdetoutiunsnfretugsaaiabe)lqtlsodcuatoiramffanfitelitenlcaicnneith.ogtcaafttPiiboavaooifbiqntttayuueintonantfdettiitacarhsnljem
'
Total
! !
: Comparative table of scores in Environmental'Factor'
- TerFreasutnriaal Flora and Aquatic Flora and Fauna Landscape
9
' ! ! ! ! Data in bold refer to the evaluation of the same impacts assessment in this Follow
No. 1 2 3
!
!
! Anexx Note: !
548
Volume III - Annexes 4-14